Spelling - phonetic or actual

[Freefaller]

The idea of 'regression' is laughable. The English language, and language in general, exists to serve a purpose. A communicative need. As the need varies, and the form of communication used is usually context dependent, different forms of language evolve according to different standards. Whilst there is still a need for Standard English it will remain, no matter how hard the text generation tries.

I'm all for evolution and improvement. And your point about language serving a purpose is quite correct. Ultimately if people can understand each other then there is no issue. So long as the language is evolving to improve the ease of use.

However I don't see the use of abbreviated, and badly spelt words and the generally decreasing standard of the english language as something to be praised or highlighted as "evolution". I understand that there are local dialects (there are all over the world - even within London itself for example) and that of course has an effect on the development of language. This is a good thing of course. However, bastardising a language owing to people becoming too lazy to use it properly and as result state that it's because the language is evolving, and that it should be accepted as such is frankly absolute tripe.

 

[Zip]

I tried reading that in my head in an Australian accent.

Nope, not possible

 

[Spuderoony]

I'm all for evolution and improvement. And your point about language serving a purpose is quite correct. Ultimately if people can understand each other then there is no issue. So long as the language is evolving to improve the ease of use.

However I don't see the use of abbreviated, and badly spelt words and the generally decreasing standard of the english language as something to be praised or highlighted as "evolution". I understand that there are local dialects (there are all over the world - even within London itself for example) and that of course has an effect on the development of language. This is a good thing of course. However, bastardising a language because people are becoming too lazy to use it properly and then as result state that it's because the language is evolving and that it should be accepted as such is frankly absolute tripe.

But people have held your view so, so many times throughout history and been shown to be wrong. If they'd been correct then English would have completely dissolved by now due to continued "decreasing standards". Why do you think you're special?

 

[Spuderoony]

Here's another point. You don't see it as 'evolution' because you are not part of the group which sees a need for this communicative need. That much you state yourself.

And, presumably, you don't speak basilectal Jamaican Creole. Or Singlish. Or any of the many other forms of English which have evolved around people like you to serve communicative needs (historically, trading ones, but that's a whole new topic...). Just because it does not directly involve you, you decry it as "bastardising" the language? If language stopped innovating, stopped provoking debate, and change was halted, then the English language would simply die a slow death as people struggled to express new thoughts and ideas with it. The world changes constantly, and languages that don't keep up with experience language death due to the very fact that they're born out of necessity and remain until they are no longer required.

 

[Freefaller]

But people have held your view so, so many times throughout history and been shown to be wrong. If they'd been correct then English would have completely dissolved by now due to continued "decreasing standards". Why do you think you're special?

I don't think I'm special (though my mother begs to differ). I just prefer listening to properly spoken english. I'm by no means perfect but bear in mind English is my second language, however I feel I've got a pretty good grasp of it. If people ignore it as you suggest, then we shall end up with numerous spellings for the same word - or "acceptable" alternatives. I think it's a shame. A lot of the languages I know (not necessarily fluently) do evolve, but the basics remain intact - the pure form of language is preserved. However it seems it is acceptable now in English language that spelling and grammar are placed as secondary in importance as opposed to getting your point across.

Maybe I'm a perfectionist? Maybe I'm an old fashioned git? I'm not saying I'm correct in my feelings, neither am I denying that you have a certain validity in your point - however I think my main point which I guess I have been putting forward badly is that we ought to preserve the English language as best we can without letting it deteriorate. Of course let it evolve, if the evolution brings with it added flexibility and improvement in communication - however without abandoning key points and roots that the language has been devlopped on.

Look at it like this: Picture a lovely Victorian mansion (beautiful isn't it?). It can be improved and added to (tastefully of course) and thus improving it (depending on how much of a heretic you are of course!). However, you don't want to remove the foundations, or mess about with the main structure as you risk destroying the whole mansion. Which in turn leaves you with chaos and a horrible mess and no more lovely mansion.

I'm not saying evolution is bad, but some "evolutionary traits" ought not be included in my opinion. Such as the casual acceptance of bad spelling, text speak, and lazy grammar.

We may be arguing the same case - well I'm doing somewhat a of a hash at it, but I hope you see my point.

 

[Jumpingmedic]

All words should be spelt phonetically... or vice versa; pronounced literally. It's against common sense to pick and mix, that's what they did in medieval times. Words that arn't pronouced phonetically are a legacy of the days when only some people could write, so whenever information was communicated verbally and then written down it ended up being spelt anyway the writer felt like spelling it.

That said I have no problem with l33t speak. People are free to speak as they want. If someone has a problem with it... then who cares.

 

[Freefaller]

That said I have no problem with l33t speak. People are free to speak as they want. If someone has a problem with it... then who cares.

I don't have a problem with it at all. It's fine. However don't expect me to take them as seriously as someone who expresses themselves properly. I can be a lazy person, but that doesn't stop me writing properly or trying to talk properly.

 

[Jumpingmedic]

I don't have a problem with it at all. It's fine. However don't expect me to take them as seriously as someone who expresses themselves properly. I can be a lazy person, but that doesn't stop me writing properly or trying to talk properly.

Y do u say they r n0t talk1ng pr0perly? Can u n0t und3rst4nd wh4t 1 am s4ying?

As far as I am concerned 1337 is a language. It has as much right to exist as American. I don't see why it should be taken more or less seriously than any other language, especially as it is still basically English. In 50 years 1337 may be so incomprehensible that there are classes in it at secondary school.

 

[Chasser]

I don't care how people spell, type or punctuate on the internet as long as it is understandable.

That's the problem. People get comfortable with poor punctuation and grammer on the internet, and that spills over into their written communications. Why should the internet be any different from the written word?

In my opinion, it is sheer laziness. In fact some of the so called text speak and abbreviations would probably take longer to type than a correctly constructed thread.

 

[Freefaller]

Maybe I'm just not a geek (or enough of one) but I don't think it would r0x0r to have "leet" speak accepted as a mode of communication... however if it means that people live their lives and can get on with their work and are happy, how can I disagree? :/ I'll be able to stay safely in the knowledge that I shan't ever have to deal with people like that - so by all means, let it continue - I might find more interesting people to talk to as a result

 

[sniffy]

I didn't quote you specifically because you didn't say those actual words.

No, you can't quote me specifically because that simply isn't what I said.

OvertoneBliss's point on the other hand is quite right. My use of slang is incorrect in the written word, you didn't point that out though. You faulted my spelling in my original post, which there was none.

I said I didn't like phonetic spelling. You then accused my spelling of being "child" like (you confirm what Lopez said; that being I spell poorly), which I then point out that isn't what I meant, nor that any spelling is actually incorrect in that section of quote (only my use of the word "done" which is a local dialect issue, which Overtone pointed out). You then say "You were talking about employing different spelling. In case you hadn't realised, that is a main component of post structure". Ok, let’s clarify on your term "post structure". A post is in essence, a bunch of sentences. Ok, so sentence structure?

Standard written English requires correct sentence structure and punctuation. To understand sentence structure and to recognize and fix problems correctly, you need to know the definitions of a phrase, an independent clause, a dependent clause, and a sentence.

http://homepages.uhwo.hawaii.edu/~writing/sentstructure.htm

I see no emphasis on spelling on any sites I visit. I'm not sure who to believe here, you or people who are experienced and qualified in their field of work. Hmm :/ I can see your point, but it doesn't apply to the term sentence structure.

I'm going to guess your term "post structure" doesn't mean that though?

Sorry I'm totally off-topic here and ruining the thread. E-mail Gilly?

 

[Spuderoony]

I don't think I'm special (though my mother begs to differ).

Haha

I just prefer listening to properly spoken english.

Woah, when did speaking come into it? Variant spelling, phonetic spellings, dialects and accents are all completely different things. If you muddle them that could be where you're experiencing problems.

I'm by no means perfect but bear in mind English is my second language, however I feel I've got a pretty good grasp of it.

You certainly have. My second language skills are (shamefully) negligible.

If people ignore it as you suggest, then we shall end up with numerous spellings for the same word - or "acceptable" alternatives. I think it's a shame.

They won't be the same, though. If they were absolutely identical then one would disappear as it would be redundant.

- Honour/Honor. Both the same word, but fulfil the function of being local to British and American English, respectively
- Skater/Sk8r. Both represent the same entity, yet one is Standard English and the other is used in text message. Because each function is independent to the other they survive alongside each other, currently.

A lot of the languages I know (not necessarily fluently) do evolve, but the basics remain intact - the pure form of language is preserved. However it seems it is acceptable now in English language that spelling and grammar are placed as secondary in importance as opposed to getting your point across.

Again, I'd say this is entirely context dependent. If you used regional English forms in a job application it would entirely inappropriate.

Maybe I'm a perfectionist? Maybe I'm an old fashioned git?

I like to think I'm the former, but I'm not quite sure. Seeing as I'm 20 in 6 days I'm certainly not the latter

All words should be spelt phonetically... or vice versa; pronounced literally. It's against common sense to pick and mix, that's what they did in medieval times. Words that arn't pronouced phonetically are a legacy of the days when only some people could write, so whenever information was communicated verbally and then written down it ended up being spelt anyway the writer felt like spelling it.

That said I have no problem with l33t speak. People are free to speak as they want. If someone has a problem with it... then who cares.

Many words are written how they USED to be pronounced. Then along came the Great Vowel Shift in the later 1300s, which continued for the next couple of hundred years, and changed how people spoke. Because local standards had existed since the time of Old English (and possibly before), they had already become fairly 'set'. National standards came about once Johnson wrote the first comprehensive dictionary, A Dictionary of the English Language. A couple had been written before (such as A Table Alphabetical) but they weren't anywhere near as comprehensive.


And I thought it was supposed to the holidays, hehe.

 

[Freefaller]

That's the problem. People get comfortable with poor punctuation and grammer on the internet, and that spills over into their written communications. Why should the internet be any different from the written word?

In my opinion, it is sheer laziness. In fact some of the so called text speak and abbreviations would probably take longer to type than a correctly constructed thread.

It's not laziness - it's evolution

 

[Chasser]

Y do u say they r n0t talk1ng pr0perly? Can u n0t und3rst4nd wh4t 1 am s4ying?

As far as I am concerned 1337 is a language. It has as much right to exist as American. I don't see why it should be taken more or less seriously than any other language, especially as it is still basically English. In 50 years 1337 may be so incomprehensible that there are classes in it at secondary school.

Utter tosh. How can it be considered a language? Also what is Amercian?

 

[Spuderoony]

Whether it could be considered could produce an interesting debate. Is it mutually intelligible to all English speakers? Or just those with sufficient enough grasp of technological terms to understand it?

It could certainly be called a dialect. Albeit a non-regionally specific one.

And he neglected to put 'English' after American, which I guess is just your pedantry.

 

[Freefaller]

Again, I'd say this is entirely context dependent. If you used regional English forms in a job application it would entirely inappropriate.

I accept your other points (though do not necessarily see eye-to-eye with them) however I can accept the arguments and certainly understand your point of view.

I picked the quote above to make a little point, basically that you accept that in certain circumstances there should be an effort for better structured and maybe a somewhat more "proper" use of English? Context is all well and good - but I think the point of the OP originally is that people are starting to use poor English no matter what context and not modifying their language appropriately. I believe this is what I meant by regression. Maybe that was too harsh a word, maybe plain laziness is the answer? What say you?

A good example was the email sent to Spie for a job application.

 

[Jumpingmedic]

Utter tosh. How can it be considered a language? Also what is Amercian?

It's a developing language, much like American. Various dialects and spellings in America differ from the true English versions. This is how languages form.

If you don't consider 1337 and American to be developing lanuages then I wonder what you'd have made of English as it slowly deviated from the original Germanic language?

 

[Spuderoony]

I accept your other points (though do not necessarily see eye-to-eye with them) however I can accept the arguments and certainly understand your point of view.

I picked the quote above to make a little point, basically that you accept that in certain circumstances there should be an effort for better structured and maybe a somewhat more "proper" use of English? Context is all well and good - but I think the point of the OP originally is that people are starting to use poor English no matter what context and not modifying their language appropriately. I believe this is what I meant by regression. Maybe that was too harsh a word, maybe plain laziness is the answer? What say you?

A good example was the email sent to Spie for a job application.

No, you misinterpret me, I think.

I don't necessarily think that "proper" (whatever that is - everyone could define it differently...) English should be used. I think the most appropriate form according to patterns of language use at the given time should be used. Currently, that would be Standard English.

 

[Chasser]

Or just those with sufficient enough grasp of technological terms to understand it?

And he neglected to put 'English' after American, which I guess is just your pedantry.

How does a 'grasp of technological terms' make text speak easier to understand?

 

[Spuderoony]

Because you know that it is used in reference to words like "h4xing", or whatever. You know what to look for.