Celeste - Oh, you mean like "l33tsp3@k"? My "day job" team uses IM for much of our daily communication, and one that constantly grates my nerves is "yt?" ( "Are you there?" ). Not sure why. But I would make you crazy, because I use l8r frequently. Along with such colloquialisms as "wuzzup?" and "np" and "thx" etc. IM is a much less formal forum than, say, forums. Lots of these sorts of mangled expressions started a long time ago in IRC, when IM and text wasn't even a pipe dream.
My goodness, this is quite a thread so far - I'm a little dizzy.
I always click on the icon to show the dots b/t words (after I'm finished writing) because it shows double spacing that your eyes might miss when proofing.
I might add that there is concern among the experts about young people's increasing inability to write in complete words and sentences. What do u think about that?
A study I was reading showed little correlation between the use of 'textese' and the grammatical performance of the people in question when writing more formal documents; it was done at the college level, however. People with excellent grammar in their English reports were equally likely to use such shortcuts when texting as those with poor grammar. On the other hand, grammar scores have been dropping for some time (incrementally, it's true). I think it's important to remember that correlation and causation are not synonymous, something the press isn't very good at remembering.
On the other hand, studies seem to indicate that spell check has had a very real impact on spelling 'in the wild' (somewhere without spell check). I know most of my coworkers are college educated and can't spell at all.
Today's college students weren't completely immersed in text-messaging throughout their adolescence, so they're OK. It's the 5th-10th graders that are being discussed and who will struggle (if they're not already), imho ; )
Ed - that was funny, although I suspect you didn't intend it that way. I think there will always be those of us that care about language structure, and then everyone else. The ratios may change, though!
It seems to me that it's easy to forget that our linguistic habits of today would be perceived as hopelessly lazy and brief by scholars of a hundred years ago. When you read 18th and 19th century prose it sounds hopelessly intricate, dense, and florid, but they really taught people to write that way. Now we teach people that the best adjective is one avoided. Languages (English more so than many others ) live and breath and mutate and evolve. But just as the advent of mass media began to slow linguistic change and level regional accents ( Ever wonder why everyone on TV sounds like they're from the MidWest unless they're playing a character? ) I think the internet will cause similar leveling of the textual playing field. Change for the machines, man, it's change for the machines.
Well..... the master's level course I took in grammar in college (trust me, there were times I was wondering myself why in the world I was taking this class, but it fulfilled my course requirements and was at a convenient time...) constantly reminded all ofus grammar is a living breathing entity.
I don't know how many papers I wrote about the evolution of grammar, from the middle ages to now. It is fascinating, just as vocabulary is incessantly changing. I suppose we should all be glad, since if it never changed writing would be easy!
I wrote an entire paper on the use of "their" for third person singular possession in an attempt at sexual equality (shouldn't be gender equality, since only language has gender, people have a sex... yes another annoying grammatical rule on its way out.).
BTW grouchy, I love in your post about texting killing grammar, you end with "What do u think about that?" lol
I do think about my grandparents' generation. If you read a letter from that time period, even though fewer people went to university, letters were interesting, well-written, and informative. (And people had neat handwriting, too!)
Of course no one should write like they're a Charles Dickens character, but university students should have a basic knowledge of how to compose a paper. I've proofread PhD work that has been so appalling it made me question how the author had gotten the degree in the first place.
This is the Age of Information. If you don't know how to DO something or SAY something or CITE something, our friend Google is only a click away. Writing a paper should be easier, in theory, because of this.
It is possible that the average quality of writing is just a symptom of the general degredation of quality in general . . . or is that too cynical?
"It is possible that the average quality of writing is just a symptom of the general degredation of quality in general . . . or is that too cynical?"
Mmm... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Quality of people? Or quality of discourse? IQ's are going up (on average), but I think concern for academic learning of any sort has been reduced to a dollars-and-sense equation around future prospects. No longer do we, as a society, respect education. We denigrate anyone who suggests that intelligence might be a real advantage in life - "IQ is just a number and doesn't mean anything" we say, our media says, and parents tell children. Yet IQ is still the single highest 'marker' for self-reported success, and there are other significant correlations. The higher the IQ of the marriage, the less likely is divorce, and the higher a person's IQ is, the less likely that person is to be arrested. And politicians and businesspersons tend to cluster around IQs of 120.
Being a believer in small conspiracies and conspiracies of convenience (but not Conspiracies, if you see what I mean), I think it's become part of our national discourse to discourage rational thought... but that's just me.
The irony here is that my rant about respecting education comes from someone who never 'got around' to college.
I'm betting Ed means quality in general - manners, people, products, service etc... They are all lacking - but then again, I'm in southern California where road rage, rudeness, and "it's all about me" are accepted norms.
Quality. Quality in manufactured goods. Food quality. Air quality, service quality, quality of education, and yes, quality of discourse.
As for education - most people go to university to get a job, which was not the original intention of the system of higher education, which also emphasized the development of personal character. Once someone actually told me, "Ed, you're hear for an *education,*" I actually started realizing it was true, and then it became valuable and not an exercise in futility (I knew I wasn't there for the career). Degrees don't mean so much in the U.S. when I'm sure anyone of us can name several individuals in the spotlight who have supposedly gotten high-quality educations and yet act like . . . well, like they do. Zero development of personal character.
I think really, it's about self-education, and actually wanting to learn and gather information. To actually grow through knowledge. You can sit in a lecture hall and do it, or you can read books, or you can travel, or you can attend local classes. Some people would rather flip on the TV (which *can* be a tool for education) and pooh-pooh ideas that are too big/too scary/too complicated to comprehend.
I'm betting Ed means quality in general - manners, people, products, service etc... They are all lacking - but then again, I'm in southern California where road rage, rudeness, and "it's all about me" are accepted norms.
You wouldn't believe how many advanced degrees my brother and sister have combined between the two of them. My mom calls the three of us her:
Doctor, lawyer, and "Princess Moonbeam" (that would be me - as in free spirit)
My brother has no common sense despite his decades in academia and PhD. My sister - well, she's a bonafide genius with a photographic memory and is truly amazing. (sorry JA) It took her a while to figure out what she wanted to be when she grew up, so she went back to law school at age 30 or so. As for me, I stopped after two years of college and have no regrets.
Ed - Wow, yeah, I get what you're saying. Don't you think, though, that quality still exists, it just doesn't hold the same place, the same status, that it once did? I always feel like it's still there, just waiting to be thrust back into the spotlight where people realize that it's less expensive (not "cheaper") to purchase one quality chair for $150 rather than five crappy ones for $45.
Discourse has certainly suffered over the past half-century, but I think that's a symptom of American culture. Our business schools teach that if you're not trying to build a monopoly, you're not trying - gone are the days when a craftsman could be satisfied to make a decent living producing a quality product. Our politics has become so polarized because everyone is a special interest. I would rather see a multi-party government that required the forging of alliances and coalition governments, honestly; two parties fracture the voters too deeply.
Lots of these sorts of mangled expressions started a long time ago in IRC, when IM and text wasn't even a pipe dream. 