Chats and Instant Messangers are destroying our language.

[hunky]

I have been noticing that our kids now are writing the same way they write in the Internet, like using codes, etc.. And the worst is that they think it is the right way to write. They cannot see the difference anymore between the correct form and the virtual form.
It is a shame.

 

[MidnightPrism]

I have never been great at spelling and grammar. I don't think the internet has made it any worse.

 

[Andreus]

languages develope

when they do they tend to follow the innovations of the poor and the young

it has always been that way

 

[ahotjock71]

Just because everybody does it DOESN'T make it right! Or is that write? LOL

Why the hell did I spend 12 years learning to speak and write the english language PROPERLY just to have a bunch of kids come in & change it all?

 

[Andreus]

your english would be considered sloppy and incorrect just fifty years back

languages are alive

they evolve

 

[slobone]

I have been noticing that our kids now are writing the same way they write in the Internet, like using codes, etc.. And the worst is that they think it is the right way to write. They cannot see the difference anymore between the correct form and the virtual form.
It is a shame.

When you say "our kids now are writing," what kind of writing are you talking about? Not in school surely -- they couldn't get away with that for very long. And nobody writes letters anymore. So where else are these kids writing?

And I seriously doubt that they can't tell the difference between the correct and incorrect forms, unless of course they're really really dumb. Which some of them are, I suppose.

Anyway to be honest, it doesn't bother me very much. "Mistakes" are one way a language evolves. If you were to show Samuel Johnson, say, a perfectly correct sentence from an English or American newspaper of today, he would probably be appalled. Without stretching my brain too hard, I'm sure I could come up with a hundred words whose correct spelling today was incorrect in his time.

If, 200 years from now, "u" has become the standard spelling for "you," would that really b such a catastrophe?

 

[I_heart_Arima]

I have been noticing that our kids now are writing the same way they write in the Internet, like using codes, etc.. And the worst is that they think it is the right way to write. They cannot see the difference anymore between the correct form and the virtual form.
It is a shame.

I agree it is a shame, but aren't all school 'groups' bad for language with all the useless and idiotic slang they carry?

 

[ahotjock71]

Mistakes are one thing, but to dileberately take a language and skew it just because they think it is "cute" is wrong. Period.

I can understand it in instant messaging & text messages on the phone, but on message boards, blogs & written documents at least proper form & spelling should be given a second look. What happened to people proof reading what they post?

 

[douseiai]

^ quite true

 

[Andreus]

yeah

kill them all

 

[slobone]

Mistakes are one thing, but to dileberately take a language and skew it just because they think it is "cute" is wrong. Period.

We all skew language every day! Language is a tool to be used, not some sacred relic to be worshipped. You can use it 2 b cute, to explain how to do something, to express your innermost soul, or to win an election. Each of these calls for a different style of writing.

It would be as inappropriate for hip hop lyrics to be written in the style of William F. Buckley as it would be for a recipe to be written in iambic pentameter.

Considering the mental level of most teenagers, we should be glad they're using language at all, rather than just grunting at each other.

 

[springboksfan]

I'd rather they grunt. I'm not fluent in grunt. I wouldn't notice if they're destroying that language.

 

[gsdx]

The written English of today, especially on the internet, is done for the sake of expediency and space. There is no other reason for it.

It's not like removing the 'e' of 'olde'. It's an entirely new language. It is no longer English. It's an alphabet, and we already have one of those.

 

[slobone]

Instead, I tend to think that the lame level of language skills is sometimes a by-product of not having much to say.

If you have a great deal to communicate, even your short-hand and ciphers will become somewhat complex or elaborate after a while (until finally, you have a very complex language once again).

But if one doesn't have much to offer or doesn't know much, then one can reply
"mhawww" or "awesome" or "mo'cookies'mommy"
to just about everything.

Well, that's really the point, isn't it? If you can't think, you can't write. And vice versa, to some extent. If your writing is limited to what can be sent over a cell phone, you're never going to be able to handle anything very complex or deep. So these kids all need to learn standard English in school, and if teachers don't enforce, they're derelict in their duty.

But there have always been alternative dialects of English. We all use slang sometimes, right bro? In this regard, I don't find u-speak worse than any other dialect. In fact I think it's ingenious and kind of fun. (Not that I'm fluent in it -- I don't even have a cell phone.)

Some of the greatest writers in English have freely mixed the high and the low in their writing. Shakespeare and James Joyce, for instance. u know, like 2 b or not 2 b?

 

[UntoldHeart]

Its funny in a way, some british people I have spoken to have said Americans are destroying English.

Personaly some new words I don't mind, true if you got write a paper and put "w/o" instead of without... well you wont go far, and I hope you don't.

 

[slobone]

The written English of today, especially on the internet, is done for the sake of expediency and space. There is no other reason for it.

It's not like removing the 'e' of 'olde'. It's an entirely new language. It is no longer English. It's an alphabet, and we already have one of those.

Well first of all, in the days of "olde," nobody bothered much about standardized spelling. Even Shakespeare's name was spelled in at least a dozen different ways by him and his contemporaries.

It was only those dreary 18th-century pedants like Dr. Johnson who insisted that certain spellings were correct and others incorrect. So if we use alternative spellings today, we're just going back to a long tradition.

Secondly, no, it's not a new language, it's a new dialect. It's still English. You can understand it when you see it, right? And new dialects of English are popping up all the time, especially today with English being spoken all over the world. As long as these kids are made to learn standard English in school, the end of civilization as we know it can be postponed a little longer.

 

[Lube]

But if one doesn't have much to offer or doesn't know much, then one can reply
"mhawww" or "awesome" or "mo'cookies'mommy"
to just about everything.

Or, for example, using fuck as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, ....

 

[Lube]

Well first of all, in the days of "olde," nobody bothered much about standardized spelling. Even Shakespeare's name was spelled in at least a dozen different ways by him and his contemporaries.

It was only those dreary 18th-century pedants like Dr. Johnson who insisted that certain spellings were correct and others incorrect. So if we use alternative spellings today, we're just going back to a long tradition.

Secondly, no, it's not a new language, it's a new dialect. It's still English. You can understand it when you see it, right? And new dialects of English are popping up all the time, especially today with English being spoken all over the world. As long as these kids are made to learn standard English in school, the end of civilization as we know it can be postponed a little longer.

As someone who's learning a language that had its spelling "simplified", I must say the hard way is much more logical and easier to learn.

For example, if you know what dough is and you know what a nut is, you have (admittedly a very rough) idea of what a doughnut might be. But a donut? It's a completely different universe.

So if you know what you means and you happen to read an old text and see thou, you might be able to guess its meaning. But if all you've ever seen is u, then you're as lost as if the word was frankenstein.

Now I realize that complaining about it isn't going to change the situation, and all languages evolve, but some things should be called out for what they are--stupid.

 

[pausanias_usa]

I personally hate alphabetics -- RISC, SAT, DOD, etc.

Formally new words, especially in scholastic circles, were made using ancient Greek and Latin roots, but now that students rarely study those languages, we have gone toward abbreviation by alphabets, and if you go to the various fields you'll be overwhelmed by similar sequences that mean somethings different in each.

Yuck. The computer industry is the worst, followed by, sigh, academia.

 

[Zeremonie]

Well, that's really the point, isn't it? If you can't think, you can't write. And vice versa, to some extent. If your writing is limited to what can be sent over a cell phone, you're never going to be able to handle anything very complex or deep. So these kids all need to learn standard English in school, and if teachers don't enforce, they're derelict in their duty.

But there have always been alternative dialects of English. We all use slang sometimes, right bro? In this regard, I don't find u-speak worse than any other dialect. In fact I think it's ingenious and kind of fun. (Not that I'm fluent in it -- I don't even have a cell phone.)

Some of the greatest writers in English have freely mixed the high and the low in their writing. Shakespeare and James Joyce, for instance. u know, like 2 b or not 2 b?

Of course that writers had access to very sophisticated English, should they so choose to use it.

We do our youth a disservice by not teaching them a wide vocabulary and excellent tools for communication.

I think you are right in an important regard:

If you can't think, you can't write

I remember reading an article years ago on the decline of the liberal arts education (I believe I found the article in the Utne Reader) and the author's point was that when education becomes so narrowly focused on income some larger important aspect of society has been lost. the society that has lost its poets nears its ends. Today, even the kids who go to college are told that it is not good enough to get 'a good liberal arts education' rather, they often must be in programs that will only prepare them for a job ...

just a nonsensical rant as i write this post after a drink or two.