I'm mean, and I know that we've all had this conversation before, but...
Posted by Tkitty96 on Nov 25, 2007 · Member since May 2006 · 1789 posts
When you make a post... to the right of the "Post" button, there is a "Preview" button. To the right of that, there is <gasp> a "Spell Check" button. Please, please, make an effort to click it! My inner English teacher begs you!
And, yes, I realize that typos happen, and we all goof up sometimes. But I am so tired of seeing "werid".
My smart part says "spell out the darn word" and my cool part says "just abbreviate".
Okay- ready for an elementary school slogan?
"Being Smart is COOL!
My smart part says "spell out the darn word" and my cool part says "just abbreviate".
Okay- ready for an elemntary school slogan?
"Being Smart is COOL!
Ok, Kbone, whenever you text me, I promise to spell out each and every word. I will also use proper grammar and punctuation. Actually, I do that 98% of the time anyway. I might overuse the term "lol" though. ;)
Ok, Kbone, whenever you text me, I promise to spell out each and every word. I will also use proper grammar and punctuation. Actually, I do that 98% of the time anyway. I might overuse the term "lol" though. ;)
I work with a guy that really overuses the LOL stuf. If I say something even mildly funny I get back something like OMG! ROFLMAO!
So far I've resisted the temptation to tell him to STFU.
STFU.
Thanks for reminding me, I use that one a lot too... also, WTF.
It's nice when you're in busy, people-populated places as an actual swear-word replacement when frustrated or angry.
oh - and if anyone thinks punctuation is a thing of old, check out the quick read 'eats, shoots & leaves.' the title is based on a panda's behavior - does a panda eat shoots and leaves or does a panda eat, shoots and leaves? punctuation makes all the difference in whether that panda is an herbivore or a murderer, my friends...
I love that book! :D Not trying to derail the topic anymore, but that is one of my favorites... Yes, I am a dork, and yes, I am a spelling & grammar stickler.
oh - and if anyone thinks punctuation is a thing of old, check out the quick read 'eats, shoots & leaves.' the title is based on a panda's behavior - does a panda eat shoots and leaves or does a panda eat, shoots and leaves? punctuation makes all the difference in whether that panda is an herbivore or a murderer, my friends...
I love that book! :D Not trying to derail the topic anymore, but that is one of my favorites... Yes, I am a dork, and yes, I am a spelling & grammar stickler.
hooray! there are many of us that are self-proclaimed nerds or dorks, loving on grammar, punctuation & spelling. we are not alone!!
and i'll second kbone once again - being smart is cool...i guess that means us dorky/nerdy types really are cool after all! :D
and thanks, meggs, for the support! clap clap and bow bow! ha!
STFU.
Thanks for reminding me, I use that one a lot too... also, WTF.
It's nice when you're in busy, people-populated places as an actual swear-word replacement when frustrated or angry.
Another old favorite of mine is RTFM.
aww, little2ant, i can't spell worth shit. i'll admit it. i'm sure part of it has to do with disability, but i don't generally use that as an excuse. the english language makes no sense for many words. honestly, why are so many words not spelled phonetically?
It would be, if you could speak Anglo Saxon. Shakespeare was known to rhyme "Laughter" with "water"--he spoke Estuary English, and they did rhyme.
i did read somewhere once that being a poor speller is a sign of having an eccentric personality. woot woot.
I work at being eccentric, I have since age 8, I enjoy it...and I can spell. ;DBasic skills aren't being taught enough at the gradeschool level. I remember the nightmare of "open classes" of the 70's. In grade school they told us "You'll learn grammar in highschool." In highschool it was "Oh well if you haven't learned that by now, forget it, we don't have time." So, for 12 years, we did "creative writing." I learned to spell because for many childhood yrs I refused to read anything written in the 20th century! Classics help, if you don't go farther back than the late 18th century.
Why? Because English grammar and spelling were not codified (set rules) until the late 18th-early 19th century. Therefore our Miss Austen still spells things like "ancle" and "sopha" because they were considered correct. And then there is the Misplaced Capitalisation of Important Words, although said Words might only be Important to the Author.
Am I the only one who's excited, from a linguistic point of view, by the evolution of online speech and the ways it's changing the language? Sure, language is always evolving, but here we have new media that are clearly hugely important in shaping that evolution -- in some ways we can identify, and in some ways we can as yet only guess about... I feel like I'm witnessing a really exciting linguistic event, like the Great Vowel Shift. I love seeing the new ways that people develop to express themselves, and seeing the syntax and semantics of our language shift before our eyes. I mean, I find linguistics fascinating anyway, but here we have new forces and new phenomena in that realm, substantively different from those that have shaped language since humans began using it. Anyway, I think it's really cool.
Am I the only one who's excited, from a linguistic point of view, by the evolution of online speech and the ways it's changing the language? Sure, language is always evolving, but here we have new media that are clearly hugely important in shaping that evolution -- in some ways we can identify, and in some ways we can as yet only guess about... I feel like I'm witnessing a really exciting linguistic event, like the Great Vowel Shift. I love seeing the new ways that people develop to express themselves, and seeing the syntax and semantics of our language shift before our eyes. I mean, I find linguistics fascinating anyway, but here we have new forces and new phenomena in that realm, substantively different from those that have shaped language since humans began using it. Anyway, I think it's really cool.
The fact that our language is evolving is not what distresses me. All living languages evolve through usage, that's why Latin is used for medical and legal terminology. Since it's a "dead" language its definitions are fixed. My problem is with people that are unwilling to take the time to spell correctly or structure their written communication properly. In many of these cases it appears to me that people just don't know how to spell or write and can't be bothered to learn. The fact that new words and phrases are being added to the language is often pretty cool. The fact that many people are too lazy to bother to use the language with any real degree of precision is not.
Am I the only one who's excited, from a linguistic point of view, by the evolution of online speech and the ways it's changing the language? Sure, language is always evolving, but here we have new media that are clearly hugely important in shaping that evolution -- in some ways we can identify, and in some ways we can as yet only guess about... I feel like I'm witnessing a really exciting linguistic event, like the Great Vowel Shift. I love seeing the new ways that people develop to express themselves, and seeing the syntax and semantics of our language shift before our eyes. I mean, I find linguistics fascinating anyway, but here we have new forces and new phenomena in that realm, substantively different from those that have shaped language since humans began using it. Anyway, I think it's really cool.
The fact that our language is evolving is not what distresses me. All living languages evolve through usage, that's why Latin is used for medical and legal terminology. Since it's a "dead" language its definitions are fixed. My problem is with people that are unwilling to take the time to spell correctly or structure their written communication properly. In many of these cases it appears to me that people just don't know how to spell or write and can't be bothered to learn. The fact that new words and phrases are being added to the language is often pretty cool. The fact that many people are too lazy to bother to use the language with any real degree of precision is not.
But if everyone "learned the rules" and spoke "correctly" (and I've never understood what that means), then the language wouldn't change. Sure, new words could be added, but that's all. The syntax could never change. Existing words could never change meaning, spelling or pronunciation. Punctuation could never change. Etc., etc. If the only evolution you'll allow is addition of new words, then it doesn't seem like you're much for evolution to me.
But if everyone "learned the rules" and spoke "correctly" (and I've never understood what that means), then the language wouldn't change. Sure, new words could be added, but that's all. The syntax could never change. Existing words could never change meaning, spelling or pronunciation. Punctuation could never change. Etc., etc. If the only evolution you'll allow is addition of new words, then it doesn't seem like you're much for evolution to me.
There's a difference between evolution and degradation. In my opinion the sloppy, lazy use of language that I see all around me qualifies as the latter.
STFU.
Thanks for reminding me, I use that one a lot too... also, WTF.
It's nice when you're in busy, people-populated places as an actual swear-word replacement when frustrated or angry.
Another old favorite of mine is RTFM.
I can't figure it out, I must know... I think I know what T and F are.... but what are R and M?
there's a difference between evolution and degradation. In my opinion the sloppy, lazy use of language that I see all around me qualifies as the latter.
What counts as evolution then, aside from the addition of new words or phrases? What would be an example? I have to confess I don't understand the distinction you're pointing at. And even if the evolution of language is driven by laziness -- so what? Laziness is bad, but it doesn't follow that all products of laziness are bad. In the past, when languages have changed, has this always or usually been a bad thing? Why ought we be worried about this?
The extent of my knowledge of language comes from an 18-hour lecture series, The Story of Human Language, by James McWhorter, that I listened to during my commute.
He says that "laziness" is how languages change and so not to get too worked up about it. He described how people like to talk with their tongue at the top of their mouth, but not enough to make too much of an effort.
For example, if you say "tasted," your tongue is already at the top of your mouth at the second "t" so it's easy to make the full "ed" sound. But if you were to say "worked," your tongue is at the bottom of your mouth at "k," so you just move the back of your tongue up to make the "d" sound - essentially "work'd." Not "work-ed."
If we walked around saying "I walk-ed before I work-ed" we'd be freaks. Everyone takes short cuts.
The extent of my knowledge of language comes from an 18-hour lecture series, The Story of Human Language, by James McWhorter, that I listened to during my commute.
He says that "laziness" is how languages change and so not to get too worked up about it. He described how people like to talk with their tongue at the top of their mouth, but not enough to make too much of an effort.
For example, if you say "tasted," your tongue is already at the top of your mouth at the second "t" so it's easy to make the full "ed" sound. But if you were to say "worked," your tongue is at the bottom of your mouth at "k," so you just move the back of your tongue up to make the "d" sound - essentially "work'd." Not "work-ed."
If we walked around saying "I walk-ed before I work-ed" we'd be freaks. Everyone takes short cuts.
Teehee, I laugh-ed at this. What a cute idea - if we all talk-ed like they must'a in Shakepeare's time (or at least his plays). :D
If you want some "fun", Google some of the 17th century British poets. Talk about forcing pronunciation to respect the metre and the rhyme! Some of the "classics" are pretty gosh-awful, actually. (Wordsworth springs immediately to mind, of course he's 19th century, but anyway). Wyatt and Sydney can be pretty laughter-provoking, especially when they're trying to be serious.
STFU.
Thanks for reminding me, I use that one a lot too... also, WTF.
It's nice when you're in busy, people-populated places as an actual swear-word replacement when frustrated or angry.
Another old favorite of mine is RTFM.
I can't figure it out, I must know... I think I know what T and F are.... but what are R and M?
Read The F---ing Manual
STFU.
Thanks for reminding me, I use that one a lot too... also, WTF.
It's nice when you're in busy, people-populated places as an actual swear-word replacement when frustrated or angry.
Another old favorite of mine is RTFM.
I can't figure it out, I must know... I think I know what T and F are.... but what are R and M?
Read The F---ing Manual
EDIT:
Why didn't my smiley show up??? :)
Nice. Thank you! :)
there's a difference between evolution and degradation. In my opinion the sloppy, lazy use of language that I see all around me qualifies as the latter.
What counts as evolution then, aside from the addition of new words or phrases? What would be an example? I have to confess I don't understand the distinction you're pointing at. And even if the evolution of language is driven by laziness -- so what? Laziness is bad, but it doesn't follow that all products of laziness are bad. In the past, when languages have changed, has this always or usually been a bad thing? Why ought we be worried about this?
Probably the most noticeable result of linguistic evolution would be the creation of new words as the need arises but there are many other aspects to it as well.
Sometimes multiple words may be joined into compounds. New contractions appear, you can usually spot them because they contain a comma to show you where letters from the original words were left out. Not that the lazy folks that inspired this discussion could be bothered to include them (commas) in their ham-fisted attempts at written communication.
New figures of speech arise out of a lot of different sources. There's a subject that's fun to look into. Many people hold the erroneous notion that figures of speech kind of water down language but in most cases the opposite is true. They often are used to create a more vivid linguistic picture than a straight literal statement. For example, if I say "I'm not very coordinated" you'll understand what I mean well enough but you won't get the vivid image in your mind that the simile "I'm as clumsy as a hog on ice" would give you. Or one might say "Tkitty is rumored to have smallish breasts" but they could really drive the point home by saying "her breasts are about as big as the small end of nothing whittled to a fine point". Figures like polysyndeton, polar merismos, hypocatastasis- these help to focus, refine and intensify language. They increase the efficacy of our means of communication. A good work on the subject of figures of speech that springs to mind is E.W. Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. I believe he examines, defines and explains something like 240 separate figures of speech in that particular work.
New idioms can develop in language pretty easily, springing out of iconic events or examples that inspire comparisons or grow to be accepted as paradigms of certain behaviors, actions, situations, et cetera.
So there are a few examples, as you requested, of types of linguistic evolution that don't spring out of laziness or ignorance.
Humboldt_honey made some interesting observations about speech centered evolution in post #125 of this thread. I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of the developments that arise through speaking the language eventually work their way into our written expression as well. This probably accounts for a reasonable percentage (though I seriously doubt a majority) of the "variations" we see in spelling in internet forums and other places where people tend to write rather casually.
I will concede your point that laziness on the part of speakers and writers can contribute to a degree to the evolution of language. However, I fail to see what benefit could spring out of using the wrong choice of like-sounding words (to, too, two, their, they're, there, your, you're) in written communication. Likewise, the omission of punctuation that can drastically change the meaning of words (for example- vs. ) is not something I foresee bearing great fruit in the advancement of human communication. Misspellings aren't likely to improve our language either.
I believe Tkitty's original post was lamenting these kinds of things and not colloquialisms and such. I've seen postings here that look like the writer just threw a handful of various punctuation symbols at the screen and let them fall where they may. Laziness may eventually contribute the odd improvement here and there but I do not think it is something that should be promoted or encouraged for the evolutionary benefits it may eventually bring. I think its a fair statement that the overall result of such laziness is more harm than good. I would liken it to purposefully releasing radiation and/or chemicals into the human population in the belief that the more mutations you cause in people the more likely you are to produce beneficial ones that will be retained and propagated through natural selection. You're likely to produce a lot of deadly tumors before you produce a bouncy third breast (in the back, of course- so we'll have something to hold onto while dancing). :)
Pages