OMG! FYI, the OED is like all TMI. Can we still be BFF? LOL.

Why is it dumbing down? I'd think it would be the exact opposite. Simplers, leaner and faster therefore way more efficient.

Although I do see it as lazy use of language. The contractions used in modern "txt spk" Ca be seen as a further diversification of the etymology of the language. Caused by the need to communicate in a rapid manner.

Although I am sure that this is not a recent occurrence.

I am certain that Julius Ceasars daughter's use of Visgoth or Saxon used to drive him as mad as your daughters use of OMG.

I am sure that the Normans got really annoyed that people insisted on speaking that new fangled language mix of French and German, with some strange Danish in there, every time they waked into the pub!!

Hell even 19th Century homosexuals had their own language, those crazy fops and dandies!!

all in all, it;s probably for the best. It gets them used to writing gibberish so they can more easily program software, the likes of which power this forum!!

At the risk of offending some of the more prominent ATS members chiming in on this, can I just say:

What's the big freaking deal?!

It's lazy huh? Where was the big outcry when acronyms like FYI and ASAP made their way into our vernacular? Both of these predate the internet generation by far, and both of them are used in spoken language as well as written. I personally use them all the time, and I correct people on spelling and grammar and general language use all the time.

Look, I know there are issues with the internet generation and literacy, but I think there's absolutely zero point getting all upset about this particular article - anyone who's referring to the Oxford English Dictionary most likely has at least a reasonable grasp of the English language.

Personally, I don't think it's impossible that an advanced race would see this as an evolution of the English language in terms of efficiency. I'm a big spelling and grammar nazi and an advocate of proper use of the English language, but if you can communicate the exact same message in less characters, then why wouldn't you!

reply to post by PsykoOps


efficient?
When I see my girl texting to her friends, it looks like alien language to me
and then I see how all these friends understand the text without a problem, it's just ridiculous, like they have learned another language that I don't speak.

she texted me once "cv?"
took me two weeks to figure out it means "ça va?"
that's not efficient to me

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
What do you expect from an era where people waste a perfectly good working cell phone to send text messages to other perfectly good working phones?

Lets see, dial a number and talk to someone, or wear out my thumbs sending a text message while driving and possibly causing an accident?

Hey, maybe a few decades from now speech will be obsolete, and everything will be text?

OMG!

Because texting is cheaper and is an alternative when someone cannot make/take the call.

reply to post by Crakeur


One of my best friends is a writer and English major, and she says things like you just did. Like civilization is coming to an end, how awful it is, etc. But in all honesty, this has been going on forever. Language is a living thing, and it has been changing all along. Its perfectly natural and in fact desirable for language to morph and change along with the information it is intended to convey between us, and the methods we use to deliver it.

It will be ok. I promise.

reply to post by Crakeur


I concur with you Sir, wholeheartedly!!

reply to post by TheStev


Exactly. Just compare modern english to the really old stuff and you see how we've evolved the language so far. If the messanger and receiver both understand the meaning I don't see any problem. Omg is one of those that most annoy people. If you logically analyze this we should ignore the really annoying manner in which it is used. Before omg there was "oh my good", "oh my goodness" "dear lord" etc.

reply to post by GypsK


That's the point G. YOU are not meant to understand

Did you never learn pig latin, or write in codes.

OF even try to learn elven. Its the same sort of thing!!

I guess the danger comes in when it becomes the norm. Example, there have been some cases of students writing English exam essays completely in txt spk, and then wondering why they failed! Informal social use is fine, but when they do not know the difference, or when to use which. That is when it is dangerous.

I was just complaining about this to my room mates this morning ! Now, I will say that I use some of these a lot, but I do not think they should be added to the dictionary at all. If I am texting or whatnot, I'll toss them in once in awhile, if I am in a hurry and don't really mind other people using them. Having said that, if I get an email, and see it riddled with this, I am very annoyed, ESPECIALLY a business related email, that's almost as bad as sending a work email in comic sans!

Although, I am still irritated that "ain't" was added to the dictionary, I cringe like no other whenever I hear someone say that, and living in Arkansas, I hear it A LOT. Amongst other "colorful" butcheries of the English language IE: " I am going to sale this tv", " I need to plug up my laptop",etc.

**grumble, piss and moan**


Just my 2c, now I have to go and get those damn kids off my lawn!

Originally posted by GypsK
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

efficient?
When I see my girl texting to her friends, it looks like alien language to me
and then I see how all these friends understand the text without a problem, it's just ridiculous, like they have learned another language that I don't speak.

she texted me once "cv?"
took me two weeks to figure out it means "ça va?"
that's not efficient to me

I'd say writing 'cv?' was much more efficient than writing 'ça va?' Just look at it. 'cv?' has three characters and no spaces. ''ça va?' has 5 characters and one space and that first c-like thing is something I don't even recognize. Efficiency isn't really measured by your inability to understand it. Now that you have learned this meaning next time she txt's you 'cv?' it will be very efficient for her to write and for you to understand.

Writing CV is certainly more efficient that writing curriculum vitae.

Even if you can spell it right first time, (without spell checker!!!)

first, let me say that the reason we don't allow text "words" here is because there are far too many people, myself included, who haven't a clue what any of it means. Remember, we are looking for intelligent conversations here and, since we don't charge by the word, we aren't looking for you to dumb it down.

second, and more important, text "words" are not words. yes, lol, omg and the rest are commonly used acronyms but, seriously, to use them when speaking?

let me give you an example, which actually happened.

I was on the phone with a client. she's a rather well known artist. someone you'd expect to respect the spoken word. I said something and she said "lol"

that's right she said the freakin letters.

I said "no you're not"

she said "what?"

I said "you aren't laughing out loud. I'm on the phone with you and I didn't hear you laughing, why would you say you were when you aren't."

she got some what annoyed by me but the truth is, she wasn't laughing out loud so why say something as juvenile and ridiculous as lol?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Its perfectly natural and in fact desirable for language to morph and change along with the information it is intended to convey between us, and the methods we use to deliver it.

I am not so sure about that, while I agree our language is morphing not only with the cyber age, but also the ever increasing slang versions of real words, however the method that we are using to deliver it is taking away from one's ability to be personable.

Text, I think it is safe to say, is the primary means of conveying communication between individuals. Emails, Social Networking, Blogs, Forums, Chat Rooms, Dating Sites...etc etc. The problem with text in my opinion is that it is all in the readers perception of the text. There are instances where it is quite easy to interpret an individuals emotion within the text they have written. This is obviously why emoticons/smileys were created to help one deliver the emotion and expression intended within the text. Most often times it's not so easy, and it happens on this site all the time, needless arguments are started because the text was not perceived as intended by the writer.

I truly feel that the aforementioned is slowly destroying the "social fabric" as we know it. Sad in it's own right

Originally posted by PsykoOps

I'd say writing 'cv?' was much more efficient than writing 'ça va?' Just look at it. 'cv?' has three characters and no spaces. ''ça va?' has 5 characters and one space and that first c-like thing is something I don't even recognize. Efficiency isn't really measured by your inability to understand it. Now that you have learned this meaning next time she txt's you 'cv?' it will be very efficient for her to write and for you to understand.

I get your point
though 'cv' to me will always mean ' curriculum vitae', as I learned it and never ça va, lol

btw, the ç is a character used in the french language

reply to post by PsykoOps


Sounds like the justification used for 'newspeak' in 1984.

I'm just saying...

reply to post by Crakeur


That's an example of the anonymity of the internet creeping into real life. It makes everyone feel they are really funny because everyone is always lol'ing. LOL (I am not laughing, but it was funny!

However you are indeed now wrong.

OMG and LOL are included in the Oxford dictionary and therefore by the rules of scrabble they are permissible!!!

reply to post by JakiusFogg


haha you beat me to it!
but I had to look up the spelling

reply to post by GypsK


me 2 lol pmsl!

reply to post by Crakeur


So she said lol. That means she found what you said amusing. Instead of saying "I find that funny/amusing" she did the more efficient thing. That's how it works.