Is this the future of the English language?

Remove all ads!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/11/11/nz.text.ap/index.html

I don't often complain about these new language regulations which seem to be getting more and more allowing all the time, but this is getting completely ridiculous.

 

My initial reaction was that this was ridiculous. But the I got to thinking (a rare occasion for me):

Is this really just another step in the evolution of the English language? After all, just look at the differences between U.K. English and U.S. English (cheques vs. checks, colour vs. color, etc.) – U.S. English tends to be more phonetically-based. So is there really a problem using “txt” instead of “text”? There’s an issue when the focus is on the actual English language (when text-speak isn’t allowed, according to the article), but where the emphasis is on comprehension and problem-solving, I’m not sure I have an issue with it.

Geezer-like attitudes aside.

 

Makes me ashamed to live in New Zealand...

 

What Nataraja said. What a nightmare.

 

As long as the exams involving spelling, grammar and punctuation marking don't follow suit I really don't have an issue with it. Don't most students have their own form of shorthand which they write notes in anyway? I know I do. It's only a small step to extending a widely recognised shorthand into exam usage.

 

If the schools aren't going to teach kids to write properly, then who is?

I'm sick of having kids come and work with me who can't write a simple report properly. It's not my job to translate their gibberish into something that is suitable to put in front of the Board of Directors, or to external Analysts.

 

I think Splunge has a pretty good point. If speakers of Old and Middle English looked at Modern English, they'd probably throw a fit. I'm hardly inclined to think it's the future of the English, but there's no doubt it's going to evolve -- and evolution doesn't mean better or worse, just change -- over time.

 

So you could write: "Teh l33t crusaders roxorzed teh n00b muslms 111!oneone lol." in school? kewl!

 

There's a difference between "evolving" and "gibberish".

 

Well said, HB.

There will always be a so-called "language" that only a few people can readily decifer (generally associated with youth). But in the broader context, there are small steps ("evolution") and big steps ("revolution"). There's a big difference between l33t and "words" like "txt".

 

Exactly. Not only is that crap technically a mistake, but it also makes the message not understandable to the reader (i.e. the teacher marking it). As a teacher, I would also find it disrespectful.

 

I agree in the sense that English is an ever-changing, evolving language and that it has made considerable advancements over the last few centuries or so, but I do believe that there is a such thing as going too far. Isn't the purpose of such "exams" and the required four years of English classes (in Washington, at any rate), to IMPROVE (gasp) our language capabilities? Rather than encouraging an INFERIOR use of language, why not continue along the tried-and-true path of improving the language of students? That would be the logical thing to do, because "text speak," while we all may have been guilty of it at some point in our lives, is inferior in every way to modern English, in that it is not universally understandable and is unspecific in its cases and/or spelling, among other things (proper nouns become simply nouns, etc, leading to some confusion). In short, there is a time and a place to use improper grammer. Exams are not included on this list. And yes, I know my screen-name is text speak.

 

Exactly. Which is also why it is unacceptable in the sort of business documents we produce each day. Which is why kids need to be taught how to write properly.

Nice first post, BlckDeth.

 

But isn’t that what it’s all about? Proper vs. improper evolves with time. Just like the spelling of “grammer” (your spelling) vs. “grammar” (the so-called “proper” spelling).

 

Language evolves, but using text based shorthand in official documents is not evolution, it is acclererated genetic mutation. So if we don't want that sort of language in official documents like business reports and newspapers, then kids should be taught to write "correctly" and be tested on that ability in exams.

 

Nicely put. Official documents (including exams) should have proper spelling and grammar. If this text-speak becomes the officially recognized standard, I guess they've won and they can use it on exams and we'll be going "I remember a time when txt was spelled with a 'e'".

I'm not saying all text speak will become the standard, but considering many kids use it and they will grow up one day and become the worlds leaders, is it really that unthinkable that words like that get into the mainstream way of writing?

And when that day comes, I vote that 'cya' becomes an officially recognized word

 

"Just like the spelling of “grammer” (your spelling) vs. “grammar” (the so-called “proper” spelling)."

You're exactly right Splunge, but you've solidified my point in being so. By correcting my spelling mistake, you also emphasized that this isn't the place for incorrect spelling/grammar. And you are correct in saying that proper vs. improper (note the shorthand in 'verses'), evolves with time, we shouldn't be taking such drastic actions in a misconstrued attempt to butcher our own language. Anyone who's read Shakespeare could tell you that his language was cumbersome, and his work mirrors the expressions of the time. English today is far more flexible and far LESS onerous to use in everyday speech than it was 200 years ago, and I believe that we're better off because of it. However, that change was brought on by decades and decades of improvement through progressive literature. For while text-speak may be less cumbersome than the accepted English of today, it lacks the flexibility, variety, and strong specifics that've made our language what it is today. Perhaps if we gave it 200 years to pan out, text-speak could turn out to be beneficial, but who has that kind of time? Rash decisions rarely stand the test of time, and I have a feeling that this is destined to be one of those cases.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

The fact that you don’t know the correct spelling of “grammar” is not much different than knowing the difference between “asked” and “aksd” (pronounced “axed”). But I still know what you’re saying.

The point being is this - the ability to communicate is what’s most important.

 

I agree completely: communication is essential for a constructive society to exist. But as for the "grammer/grammar"-- it wasn't so much me not knowing the correct spelling as it was me being too lazy to read over my post after I had written it, and then noticing my mistakes after you pointed one of them out and kicking myself in the head over it (don't you hate that?).