Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

xm.bundun · Sep 22, 2003, 03:24 am

is it me, or has our generation (me being 18) gotten so consumed by instant messaging that we honestly could not type a coherent essay without 'autocorrect' on mircosoft word? i admit, i sometimse use shorthand in an attempt to save time, but many people i know write entire sentences without using a single actual word. it's disgusting. a pet peeve of mine is when people write your when they mean you're. i cannot STAND that. the worst part of it is, they do not know they're making a mistake. it drives me crazy.

your thoughts?

xm.bretton · Sep 22, 2003, 03:26 am

i dno

wut u talkin bout

man.

It can be extremely annoying, I agree. I have to fight to prevent myself from being sucked in with the utter stupidity of the masses and their instant messaging.

xm.bundun · Sep 22, 2003, 03:28 am

4 sher man. lke ttly i LUV tawkn in supr kool n stuf

Fallen Angel · Sep 22, 2003, 06:32 am

I know whay you mean, unfortunately its a reflection of modern day society's impatience and sorry to say probably slackness and inability to trouble with much detail.
I go out of my way to promote lanquage as it should be said and written, this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage.
George Orwells book 1984, is recomended as it provides a pretty good insight into terms such as newspeak, which is what we are being directed to.
If you can't express something properly then you can't identify it to others.
Maybe George got the date wrong, 2004 would be a lot closer to his sad but brilliant novel.

Dislogic · Sep 22, 2003, 01:53 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@09-22-2003 06:32 AM
I know whay you mean, unfortunately its a reflection of modern day society's impatience and sorry to say probably slackness and inability to trouble with much detail.
I go out of my way to promote lanquage as it should be said and written, this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage.
George Orwells book 1984, is recomended as it provides a pretty good insight into terms such as newspeak, which is what we are being directed to.
If you can't express something properly then you can't identify it to others.
Maybe George got the date wrong, 2004 would be a lot closer to his sad but brilliant novel.

I completly disagree witht the statement "this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage." How do you think speech has evolved to even present day? If you took a look about how people spoke a few centuries ago it would be so much stricter then the way we speak now. Its the same thing now... the evolution goes on and there is nothing wrong with it. Dialects are constantly changing and I dont see anything wrong with it. Its just how the world works and besides whats so wrong with it? Cant you understand it? I can see if their grahmmar is off but thats a different issue, But new words and slang terms will always form and will eventually make up our language as common words. The same thing is present in other languages as well.

although I do agree with the "u,b,ttyl,lol,etc..." being annoying, but those are just abreviations.

xm.bretton · Sep 22, 2003, 02:53 pm

the problem isnt that our speech is evolving, the problem is that its the uneducated teens that are manipulating it.

find better ways to communicate, and we can base our evolution on that. but we are losing coherency, what point is our language if it takes forever just to figure out a single sentence.

Dislogic · Sep 22, 2003, 05:35 pm

How are we losing coherency? I dont think anything that ive seen online has been incoherent. Plan and simple abreviations are all i see. By the time we are old everyone will be talking like that... or maybe not. But i dont see how because they are uneducated it makes any difference. There are plenty of Intelligent people who use such internet abbreviations and many even carry them into their common conversations.

I will admit however it does seem pretty annoying. Thats just the way things are and they will only get worse from here...

G. Adams · Sep 22, 2003, 08:27 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dislogic+09-22-2003 01:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dislogic @ 09-22-2003 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Fallen Angel@09-22-2003 06:32 AM
I know whay you mean, unfortunately its a reflection of modern day society's impatience and sorry to say probably slackness and inability to trouble with much detail.
I go out of my way to promote lanquage as it should be said and written, this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage.
George Orwells book 1984, is recomended as it provides a pretty good insight into terms such as newspeak, which is what we are being directed to.
If you can't express something properly then you can't identify it to others.
Maybe George got the date wrong, 2004 would be a lot closer to his sad but brilliant novel.

I completly disagree witht the statement "this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage." How do you think speech has evolved to even present day? If you took a look about how people spoke a few centuries ago it would be so much stricter then the way we speak now. Its the same thing now... the evolution goes on and there is nothing wrong with it. Dialects are constantly changing and I dont see anything wrong with it. Its just how the world works and besides whats so wrong with it? Cant you understand it? I can see if their grahmmar is off but thats a different issue, But new words and slang terms will always form and will eventually make up our language as common words. The same thing is present in other languages as well.

although I do agree with the "u,b,ttyl,lol,etc..." being annoying, but those are just abreviations. [/b][/quote]
Anyone who had to read Chaucer can tell you it wasn't strict in the slightest.

Fallen Angel · Sep 22, 2003, 09:35 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dislogic+09-22-2003 01:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dislogic @ 09-22-2003 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Fallen Angel@09-22-2003 06:32 AM
I know whay you mean, unfortunately its a reflection of modern day society's impatience and sorry to say probably slackness and inability to trouble with much detail.
I go out of my way to promote lanquage as it should be said and written, this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage.
George Orwells book 1984, is recomended as it provides a pretty good insight into terms such as newspeak, which is what we are being directed to.
If you can't express something properly then you can't identify it to others.
Maybe George got the date wrong, 2004 would be a lot closer to his sad but brilliant novel.

I completly disagree witht the statement "this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage." How do you think speech has evolved to even present day? If you took a look about how people spoke a few centuries ago it would be so much stricter then the way we speak now. Its the same thing now... the evolution goes on and there is nothing wrong with it. Dialects are constantly changing and I dont see anything wrong with it. Its just how the world works and besides whats so wrong with it? Cant you understand it? I can see if their grahmmar is off but thats a different issue, But new words and slang terms will always form and will eventually make up our language as common words. The same thing is present in other languages as well.

although I do agree with the "u,b,ttyl,lol,etc..." being annoying, but those are just abreviations. [/b][/quote]
It is garbage, I would call the newspeak we are using now a huge backward step in just about every way except for speed of message, everything has to be faster now, or people will get their undies in a knot and suffer 'rage' a behaviour most people should have grown out of by the age of two.
De- evolution would be abetter word for the crap people are sending to each other now.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 22, 2003, 10:12 pm

While normally I would agree, the current situation allows an oppertunity. If we allow it to get loose enough that a multi lingual pidgin develops and becomes worldly common, it could bring cultures to better understand each other. Unlikely but conceivable...

Fallen Angel · Sep 22, 2003, 10:15 pm

Its just another abhorrent tool being used to further the blanding of our society.

Cathy · Sep 22, 2003, 10:37 pm

I find instant messaging shorthand infuriating. It's difficult to read and I'm not knowledgeable on all of the abbreviations. I think it's fine for mobile phone text messaging, but if I see that kind of shorthand on a forum post, I won't bother reading it.

I am aware that my grammar is not perfect, but at least I always make an effort to spell things correctly and take the time to construct a sentence.

Geoff332 · Sep 22, 2003, 11:00 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@09-22-2003 10:15 PM
Its just another abhorrent tool being used to further the blanding of our society.

By whom is this tool being used?

Fallen Angel · Sep 22, 2003, 11:20 pm

I can't tell you really.

Geoff332 · Sep 22, 2003, 11:50 pm

Curiously, Orwell's main objection was to people who used language imprecisely or with stale imagery. Probably his best essay on political language, Politics and the English Language spends a lot of time analysing the way language is used poorly. He comes up with some wonderful lines, like "This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing." Using a tool implies intentional use. Without knowing who is using it, the statement is probably well described as imprecise.

Far be it from me to say what Orwell meant by Newsspeak, but my reading of 1984 and his non-fiction work such as this essay always lead me to believe he was referring to something quite different. Newsspeak was the deliberate usurption of language as a tool for political oppression -- achieved by attributing rhetorical meanings to phrases making them slogans: "War is peace" and so on. This is quite different from a new 'language' (really a new syntax and diction) from new media of communication.

Orwell did actually favour the development of new words. He claimed that "it would be quite feasible to invent a vocabulary, perhaps amounting to several thousands of words, which would deal with parts of our experience now practically unmeanable to language" -- basically, our language was not suitable for describing our experience. I have no doubt that most of the things emerging from texting are not that useful, however, the idea that new media will lead to the requirement of new words and new ways of communicating is hardly an difficult one to defend.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 23, 2003, 10:43 am

Methinks online chat abbreviations are just shorthand technical prose that don't affect the human language because they're relegated to the medium they're born on. I don't think I've ever heard, or will ever hear, someone actually say "lol" in real life. And if they do, I'll punch 'em.

Geoff332 · Sep 23, 2003, 05:07 pm

So, language didn't change with the invention of the printing press? The development of writing? Radio?

xm.bretton · Sep 23, 2003, 08:36 pm

k... I dont think he was only refering to abbreviations.

more so the shortening of words.

"so wut u up 2. n e thin nu?"

Section 8 · Sep 24, 2003, 12:39 am

I only use abbreviations when talking with my friends who also know what the symbols mean. I really don't see the problem with using it in private discussions, where both parties know what the abbreviations mean. I could see how it would get frustrating if someone used it and I had know idea what it meant.

Have Fun
Shalom

Geoff332 · Sep 24, 2003, 01:02 am

Shouldn't that be "I do not think"

Language is, and always has been a fluid thing. The media of communication effects langauge. and that is perfectly normal.

Sep 22, 2003, 03:24 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
xm.bundun Sedimentary Rock Location: behind you...RUN! Posts: 14	is it me, or has our generation (me being 18) gotten so consumed by instant messaging that we honestly could not type a coherent essay without 'autocorrect' on mircosoft word? i admit, i sometimse use shorthand in an attempt to save time, but many people i know write entire sentences without using a single actual word. it's disgusting. a pet peeve of mine is when people write your when they mean you're. i cannot STAND that. the worst part of it is, they do not know they're making a mistake. it drives me crazy. your thoughts? kthxbai -bundun

Sep 22, 2003, 03:26 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	i dno wut u talkin bout man. It can be extremely annoying, I agree. I have to fight to prevent myself from being sucked in with the utter stupidity of the masses and their instant messaging. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Sep 22, 2003, 03:28 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
xm.bundun Sedimentary Rock Location: behind you...RUN! Posts: 14	4 sher man. lke ttly i LUV tawkn in supr kool n stuf kthxbai -bundun

Sep 22, 2003, 02:53 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	the problem isnt that our speech is evolving, the problem is that its the uneducated teens that are manipulating it. find better ways to communicate, and we can base our evolution on that. but we are losing coherency, what point is our language if it takes forever just to figure out a single sentence. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Sep 22, 2003, 05:35 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Dislogic Molten Ash Location: USA Posts: 115	How are we losing coherency? I dont think anything that ive seen online has been incoherent. Plan and simple abreviations are all i see. By the time we are old everyone will be talking like that... or maybe not. But i dont see how because they are uneducated it makes any difference. There are plenty of Intelligent people who use such internet abbreviations and many even carry them into their common conversations. I will admit however it does seem pretty annoying. Thats just the way things are and they will only get worse from here... <span style='color:gray'><span style='font-family:Geneva'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;line-height:100%'>Kerry/Edwards 2004: He can't make up his mind, but at least he has one.</span></span></span>

Sep 22, 2003, 06:32 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	I know whay you mean, unfortunately its a reflection of modern day society's impatience and sorry to say probably slackness and inability to trouble with much detail. I go out of my way to promote lanquage as it should be said and written, this modern way of communicating is absolute garbage. George Orwells book 1984, is recomended as it provides a pretty good insight into terms such as newspeak, which is what we are being directed to. If you can't express something properly then you can't identify it to others. Maybe George got the date wrong, 2004 would be a lot closer to his sad but brilliant novel.

Sep 22, 2003, 10:12 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	While normally I would agree, the current situation allows an oppertunity. If we allow it to get loose enough that a multi lingual pidgin develops and becomes worldly common, it could bring cultures to better understand each other. Unlikely but conceivable...

Sep 22, 2003, 10:15 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Its just another abhorrent tool being used to further the blanding of our society.

Sep 22, 2003, 10:37 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Cathy Sedimentary Rock Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 20	I find instant messaging shorthand infuriating. It's difficult to read and I'm not knowledgeable on all of the abbreviations. I think it's fine for mobile phone text messaging, but if I see that kind of shorthand on a forum post, I won't bother reading it. I am aware that my grammar is not perfect, but at least I always make an effort to spell things correctly and take the time to construct a sentence.

Sep 22, 2003, 11:20 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	I can't tell you really.

Sep 22, 2003, 11:50 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Curiously, Orwell's main objection was to people who used language imprecisely or with stale imagery. Probably his best essay on political language, Politics and the English Language spends a lot of time analysing the way language is used poorly. He comes up with some wonderful lines, like "This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing." Using a tool implies intentional use. Without knowing who is using it, the statement is probably well described as imprecise. Far be it from me to say what Orwell meant by Newsspeak, but my reading of 1984 and his non-fiction work such as this essay always lead me to believe he was referring to something quite different. Newsspeak was the deliberate usurption of language as a tool for political oppression -- achieved by attributing rhetorical meanings to phrases making them slogans: "War is peace" and so on. This is quite different from a new 'language' (really a new syntax and diction) from new media of communication. Orwell did actually favour the development of new words. He claimed that "it would be quite feasible to invent a vocabulary, perhaps amounting to several thousands of words, which would deal with parts of our experience now practically unmeanable to language" -- basically, our language was not suitable for describing our experience. I have no doubt that most of the things emerging from texting are not that useful, however, the idea that new media will lead to the requirement of new words and new ways of communicating is hardly an difficult one to defend.

Sep 23, 2003, 10:43 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Methinks online chat abbreviations are just shorthand technical prose that don't affect the human language because they're relegated to the medium they're born on. I don't think I've ever heard, or will ever hear, someone actually say "lol" in real life. And if they do, I'll punch 'em. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 23, 2003, 05:07 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	So, language didn't change with the invention of the printing press? The development of writing? Radio?

Sep 23, 2003, 08:36 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	k... I dont think he was only refering to abbreviations. more so the shortening of words. "so wut u up 2. n e thin nu?" xm.bretton xhalation.com

Sep 24, 2003, 12:39 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	I only use abbreviations when talking with my friends who also know what the symbols mean. I really don't see the problem with using it in private discussions, where both parties know what the abbreviations mean. I could see how it would get frustrating if someone used it and I had know idea what it meant. Have Fun Shalom

Sep 24, 2003, 01:02 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Shouldn't that be "I do not think" Language is, and always has been a fluid thing. The media of communication effects langauge. and that is perfectly normal.