Language is ever evolving. People use text talk these days both online and over media and in real life.
I think in about 10 years people might look at you strangely if you don't use them.
On the other hand, excessive use of text talk and general bastardization of the English language irks me greatly, so, I tend to keep my use of those "words" and "phrases" to a minimum.
Language is ever evolving. People use text talk these days both online and over media and in real life.
I think in about 10 years people might look at you strangely if you don't use them.
On the other hand, excessive use of text talk and general bastardization of the English language irks me greatly, so, I tend to keep my use of those "words" and "phrases" to a minimum.
Don't you mean devolving? It's like I told someone else once. Latin (Very difficulty language,) became Proper English, became Lazy American English, became multiple dialects of Lazy American Language depending on region of America. Now, for the final bastardization of this current generation, text speak and ebonics has combined to become an abomination within itself. Based on the rapidly degenerating language we speak and the acceptance of it among the public. I estimate our language in the next few generations will be degraded back to the language of cavemen. You know...the grunts and growls of common animals. I'm glad I won't be alive to see it.
Don't you mean devolving? It's like I told someone else once. Latin (Very difficulty language,) became Proper English, became Lazy American English, became multiple dialects of Lazy American Language depending on region of America. Now, for the final bastardization of this current generation, text speak and ebonics has combined to become an abomination within itself. Based on the rapidly degenerating language we speak and the acceptance of it among the public. I estimate our language in the next few generations will be degraded back to the language of cavemen. You know...the grunts and growls of common animals. I'm glad I won't be alive to see it.
No, I don't.
Just because it's different, doesn't mean its bad. I just prefer to type out my words and speak "properly", what bothers me more than all the "new words" is the poor grammar people use. Even if someone is using all the right words, if their grammar is wrong they can easily be misunderstood.
I'd also like to point out that "lazy American" was a result of not us being lazy, but of all of the different languages and cultures we were exposed to during the heavy periods of immigration...America was called the "melting pot" for a reason. Both Englishes are actually slowly nearing the point where they can be called two entirely different languages, and there's nothing wrong with that. Though, I think the day that we will stop being able to understand each other will be a sad day.
I'd also like to point out, that Latin =/= English.
English part Latin, and partially a Romano-Germanic language.
You skipped a lot, between Latin and Modern English.
Last edited by monstahh`; 01-17-2011 at 06:28 PM..
No, I don't.
Just because it's different, doesn't mean its bad.
Doesn't mean it's good either, which evolving insinuates. In this case, however, degrading communication is bad. When schools start accepting ebonics as an actual language, as an alternative to English for the ones who are "incapable" of learning English, then that is bad. It promotes laziness and uneducated minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstahh`
I just prefer to type out my words and speak "properly", what bothers me more than all the "new words" is the poor grammar people use. Even if someone is using all the right words, if their grammar is wrong they can easily be misunderstood.
I work as a support technician over the phone. You know what irks me? The african american community that calls in who have apparently accepted this ridiculous ebonics crap and decide to talk to me with it. When I am expected to understand grunts, moans, and clicks, then that becomes a problem. I don't work for a sex shop or sex show. The only place those things belong for communication is during sex or hard laborious work. It should not be used when trying to have a proper conversation over a phone call where the only laborious work they are doing is holding a phone to their ear. And on top of all that...they get pissy with me when I ask them to repeat what they said since I failed to understand them the first time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstahh`
I'd also like to point out that "lazy American" was a result of not us being lazy, but of all of the different languages and cultures we were exposed to during the heavy periods of immigration...America was called the "melting pot" for a reason. Both Englishes are actually slowly nearing the point where they can be called two entirely different languages, and there's nothing wrong with that. Though, I think the day that we will stop being able to understand each other will be a sad day.
When Yellow becomes Yeller, and Pillow becomes Pillar. That also becomes a problem. I understand cultural differences and changes. However, pronouncing a word incorrectly simply because you don't want to enunciate the proper syllables is simply laziness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstahh`
I'd also like to point out, that Latin =/= English.
English part Latin, and partially a Romano-Germanic language.
You skipped a lot, between Latin and Modern English.
I'm well aware of that. I was giving a shorthand version covering a general history and deevolution of a once prominent language, not a full blown lesson on history of language and all the minor changes throughout the centuries that made it what it is.
Doesn't mean it's good either, which evolving insinuates. In this case, however, degrading communication is bad. When schools start accepting ebonics as an actual language, as an alternative to English for the ones who are "incapable" of learning English, then that is bad. It promotes laziness and uneducated minds.
Evolution in no way implies that it is good.
Quote:
de·volvedde·volv·ing
Definition of DEVOLVE
transitive verb
: to pass on (as responsibility, rights, or powers) from one person or entity to another <devolving to western Europe full responsibility for its own defense — Christopher Lane>
intransitive verb
1
a : to pass by transmission or succession <the estate devolved on a distant cousin> b : to fall or be passed usually as a responsibility or obligation <the responsibility for breadwinning has devolved increasingly upon women — Barbara Ehrenreich>
2
: to come by or as if by flowing down <his allegedly subversive campaigns…devolve from his belief in basic American rights — Frank Deford>
3
: to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution <where order devolves into chaos — Johns Hopkins Magazine>
Quote:
evo·lu·tion
noun \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Definition of EVOLUTION
1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Evolution can be good or bad. It is not inherently good, whereas "devolution" is implied to be bad as it is seen as a "step back." Evolution can benefit or hurt an animal or plant. Life with better adaptations will live longer and better. Whereas life with "bad" evolutionary changes will die off.
The same is for language. The more accessible a language is, the better it is. The more people who can use it to communicate, the more successful.
The whole point of language is to communicate between people.
This is all I have time to reply to, but I will come back to the rest probably tomorrow. I'm traveling today.
(1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
How are those defintions above that I listed, not a positive insinuation?
I praise literacy as much as the next English major, but if someone can communicate a message using a more simple means, isn't that efficiency? (As opposed to laziness, that is.)
I praise literacy as much as the next English major, but if someone can communicate a message using a more simple means, isn't that efficiency? (As opposed to laziness, that is.)
Again, even if we were to go back to cave man language. i.e. Grunts, growls, hoots, and clicks....which some people communicate with now already. How is that efficient? The reason why we quit using animal sounds was to be able to express the myriad of different feelings, expressions, objects, sounds, tastes, sights, etc. There are simply not enough grunts, growls, hoots, and clicks to cover all of those. How exactly would the written language exist if we spoke in grunts? Let me give it a try...
hmmm, not very understandable. Since grunts and growls, etc rely on tone in order to even convey half of what it means, its useless on paper, thus the written language would eventually cease to exist. I don't see very much efficiency happening with that.
@monstahh:
Funny how the Big Bang theory, survival of the fittest, and natural selection point to my selected defintions. Or are they not science based?
Last edited by eecummings; 01-17-2011 at 07:41 PM..
You're not communicating with your sarcastic grunts though. The message has to be understood by the sender as well as the receiver for communication to occur. If someone started speaking to me in Yiddish, yes, they'd be talking, but they wouldn't be communicating with me, because I wouldn't understand a single thing that person is saying. Same goes for sign language, or the hand signals used by baseball teams, or any other number of codes or languages I don't understand.
@Keyori: Then I ask you, how will both text speak and ebonics be beneficial at all to humans in the future? It's an insult to our intelligence as a species.
Funny how the Big Bang theory, survival of the fittest, and natural selection point to my selected defintions. Or are they not science based?
Your definitions are very simplistic and closed-minded. Science doesn't see things are "good" or "bad."
Evolution can be bad or good. Or even neutral. Like losing an extra finger or toe that was never being used anyway, and has no real impact on anything at all.
Devolution isn't "bad" evolution, it's "going backwards."
----------
I'd also like to point out, that for some people, slang and "ebonics" are the only way they know how to speak, because they were never taught anything else.
Like I said, the point of language is communication, and as long as it's doing it's job, I don't see what the big deal is. So some people opt to speak a different "dialect" of English than I do...so what? That doesn't make me any better than they are.
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by eecummings
When Yellow becomes Yeller, and Pillow becomes Pillar. That also becomes a problem. I understand cultural differences and changes. However, pronouncing a word incorrectly simply because you don't want to enunciate the proper syllables is simply laziness.
How do you know what proper pronunciation is?
English words were pronounced much differently a few hundred years ago, words that used to rhyme no longer rhyme. Ever read any old poetry that rhymes in all places but a line or two?
And you go..."Oh but it doesn't rhyme, why did they pronounce it wrong?" thing is, they didn't. 100 years ago that was the "right" way to pronounce "meadow" or whatever word it is.
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by eecummings
I'm well aware of that. I was giving a shorthand version covering a general history and deevolution of a once prominent language, not a full blown lesson on history of language and all the minor changes throughout the centuries that made it what it is.
Isn't shorthanding things the same thing as going TTYL instead of "I will talk to you later."?
And before you say "no it's not" YES IT IS...Why? Because they're both "being lazy."
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by eecummings
I work as a support technician over the phone. You know what irks me? The african american community that calls in who have apparently accepted this ridiculous ebonics crap and decide to talk to me with it. When I am expected to understand grunts, moans, and clicks, then that becomes a problem. I don't work for a sex shop or sex show. The only place those things belong for communication is during sex or hard laborious work. It should not be used when trying to have a proper conversation over a phone call where the only laborious work they are doing is holding a phone to their ear. And on top of all that...they get pissy with me when I ask them to repeat what they said since I failed to understand them the first time.
African-Americans aren't the only people who speak ebonics. :roll:
I'd also like to point out that especially for immigrants, certain words may be hard to pronounce, and that's not their fault.
I can't roll my r's, so speaking any language that wants me to roll my r's I'm constantly going to mispronounce things no matter what. So what gives me the right to be a bitch when someone pronounces "man" as "mon"? Even if they aren't immigrants, but that's ALL they heard growing up?
Last edited by monstahh`; 01-18-2011 at 07:15 AM..
Professor David Crystal, one of the world's leading linguistic experts, challenges the myth that new communication technologies are destroying language
It was wonderful, totally worth the watch. When I saw the time on it I was like fuuuuckkk no.
But it's definitely worth it.
He is very articulate and both explains the "myths" as well as the debunking.
I would be quite surprised if language was to suddenly become static and cease changing. As monstahh` identified, culture does not remain in a vacuum removed from the passage of time but rather exists in a constant state of flux. Furthermore it is an important point to note that the models proposed by nineteenth century evolutionists to explain the process of cultural change have long been disproved.
I can honestly say that text speak doesn't bother me; what does bother me is that I can't seem to have a decent conversation with anyone anymore. And perhaps that problem comes down to what was mentioned by David Crystal toward the end of the video: that there are some kinds of messages that are sensible to try to put into texts and some that aren't. If I want to have a meaningful conversation with a friend about something that's bothering me, I'm not going to try to send it to them in 160 characters. I'm gonna pick up the phone and call them, so we can have the conversation in the medium that's best suited to it.
Another really big point to be made is that, throughout history, there's been a significant difference in not only speaking styles, but rates of literacy between different socio-economic classes. These differences stem from everything from opportunity to learn, funding disparities, social pressures, etc.. There are places in which is literally socially unacceptable to speak well (or you'll at least be alienated for it) so it's not really fair to get down on people who don't speak the same way you do, even if it's not proper. They're just doing what they can to make their lives better. In the same way that if you're brought up in Mexico, you speak Spanish (primarily), if you're brought up in the projects, chances are you aren't going to spouting lines of magnificent prose every which way.
This does, however, bring up an interesting point (which I hadn't thought of until now): rap as a form of poetry, or the concept of slam poetry itself. I know the stuff on the radio isn't exactly inspired, but if you're willing to dig a little deeper than the Billboard Top 100, you're likely to find at least a few lines that hit you with their poignancy and eloquence. And if you follow slam poetry at all, you can hear/read some of the most heartfelt writing of the current generation, riddled with accents and slang, and completely lacking the decoration of the poetry of years past. But it is still undeniably poetry, holding all the same power, and the big names don't come from wealthy families.
In the same way I'm sure someone from the 80's would look at today's fashion, or food, or music and think that things have gone downhill (when really they've just become different), we can look at the "textisms" of today and think that language is degrading. I, however, happen to be of the believe that just because something is different, doesn't mean it's bad, and almost necessarily means that there's something to learn from it.
