The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Is modern technology corrupting language? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
Bob1Dog
View Profile
Inner circle
Wife: It's me or this houseful of
1159 Posts

Profile of Bob1Dog
I'm not a texter and I only communicate online with a computer, laptop or desktop. So call me a dinosaur. But those who text on other devices use all kinds of shortcuts in writing, rendering language somewhat of a joke in a literal sense, at least in my opinion.

So, do you have any thoughts on where "text speak" will take us?

The following caused me to start this thread:

In the world of hi-tech gadgetry, more and more
people who send text messages and emails have long forgotten the art
of capital letters.

For those of you who fall into this category, please take note of
the following statement:

"Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack
off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse."

Is everybody clear on that?
What if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it's all about? Smile

My neighbor rang my doorbell at 2:30 a.m. this morning, can you believe that, 2:30 a.m.!? Lucky for him I was still up playing my drums.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27134 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Language is what connects us by signs, symbols, gestures, sounds ...

shorthand/argot/jargon/code have their uses.

those who care to write well and legibly will do so.

those who craft will continue their toil/travails for the muses.

Excedrin!
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Bob1Dog
View Profile
Inner circle
Wife: It's me or this houseful of
1159 Posts

Profile of Bob1Dog
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 21:00, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

those who care to write well and legibly will do so.




But isn't that more literacy than language? And how does the impact of "text speak" affect future literacy? Will text speak become the new literacy?

Perhaps I should have put literacy in the subject matter rather than language.
What if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it's all about? Smile

My neighbor rang my doorbell at 2:30 a.m. this morning, can you believe that, 2:30 a.m.!? Lucky for him I was still up playing my drums.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27134 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
IMHO unless one needs to be compact or to convey layers of meaning...it's about how much the writer wishes to give the reader.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Bob1Dog
View Profile
Inner circle
Wife: It's me or this houseful of
1159 Posts

Profile of Bob1Dog
How about the reader being capable of understanding the writing?
What if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it's all about? Smile

My neighbor rang my doorbell at 2:30 a.m. this morning, can you believe that, 2:30 a.m.!? Lucky for him I was still up playing my drums.
Michael Baker
View Profile
Eternal Order
Near a river in the Midwest
11159 Posts

Profile of Michael Baker
Perhaps a side bar here, but one of the funniest things I witnessed were two women (not young teenagers) exiting a store into the great outdoors where the temperature was about a hundred degrees. One of them said "O M G!"

I thought about this... OMG is a shorthand acronym for use when texting. Using an acronym makes sense because it speeds the process. But in this instance, OMG was simply substituting three one-syllable letters for three ONE-SYLLABLE WORDS. It saved absolutely no time whatsoever.

I concluded that to her, saving time was less important than acting cool, even at the risk of sounding like an idiot.
~michael baker
The Magic Company
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
As far as the OP goes...Yes.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
"Corrupting" is the wrong word. Language changes over time. It always has, and it always will. Some of that recent change is surely due to technology. But... what else is new?

I once read a great article tracking this phenomenon over a long time... certainly the last 100 years, but perhaps a few other points further back. Unfortunately, I can't find it any more. But some things I remember were a handful of words that were considered utterly profane or rude. They were all common in today's usage. (I wish I could remember the whole list, but a few of them include: using "gift" or "interview" as a verb; or to say someone is pregnant.)

Over the past 20 or 30 years, technology has provided a huge increase in informal written communication... texts, email, forum posts, etc. If those communications are judged by formal standards, then they absolutely fail. But that's the wrong metric, I think. The right standard is whether the writer gets his intended meaning across to the reader(s). When the communication is largely one-directional (like if you're writing a book), or if the communication channel is slow compared to the time it takes to write a message (like exchanging letters in the 19th century), then it makes sense spend some extra time and make sure the message is crystal clear, complete with strict adherence to grammar, etc.

But in many situations, the communication channel is instantaneous, the communication is interactive, and it doesn't take long to write a message. Moreover, these communications often take place in a pretty specific context, which helps resolve ambiguities. If in this setting my message is unclear or insolubly ambiguous, then a reader can just let me know.

That said, it bugs the crap out of me when people use "2" for to or too, "u" for you, or the like. To me, it's the equivalent of showing up with an "I'm with stupid" t-shirt that features an arrow pointing upwards. I know, I know, it saves keystrokes. Just like not showering or buttoning one's pants saves time before going out: the investment in a little extra time is well worth not looking like a half-wit. Just my opinion though -- and probably, a minority one.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 01:54, MobilityBundle wrote:
"Corrupting" is the wrong word. Language changes over time. It always has, and it always will. Some of that recent change is surely due to technology. But... what else is new?

I once read a great article tracking this phenomenon over a long time... certainly the last 100 years, but perhaps a few other points further back. Unfortunately, I can't find it any more. But some things I remember were a handful of words that were considered utterly profane or rude. They were all common in today's usage. (I wish I could remember the whole list, but a few of them include: using "gift" or "interview" as a verb; or to say someone is pregnant.)

Over the past 20 or 30 years, technology has provided a huge increase in informal written communication... texts, email, forum posts, etc. If those communications are judged by formal standards, then they absolutely fail. But that's the wrong metric, I think. The right standard is whether the writer gets his intended meaning across to the reader(s). When the communication is largely one-directional (like if you're writing a book), or if the communication channel is slow compared to the time it takes to write a message (like exchanging letters in the 19th century), then it makes sense spend some extra time and make sure the message is crystal clear, complete with strict adherence to grammar, etc.

But in many situations, the communication channel is instantaneous, the communication is interactive, and it doesn't take long to write a message. Moreover, these communications often take place in a pretty specific context, which helps resolve ambiguities. If in this setting my message is unclear or insolubly ambiguous, then a reader can just let me know.

That said, it bugs the crap out of me when people use "2" for to or too, "u" for you, or the like. To me, it's the equivalent of showing up with an "I'm with stupid" t-shirt that features an arrow pointing upwards. I know, I know, it saves keystrokes. Just like not showering or buttoning one's pants saves time before going out: the investment in a little extra time is well worth not looking like a half-wit. Just my opinion though -- and probably, a minority one.


If it makes you feel better, I think yours is the majority opinion. But if the right metric is simply whether one gets the meaning across, then would you have no problem if your son says things like "Me and Jimmy went to the store"? Surely that's a sentence that would be understood by anyone. If its part of a written homework assignment, would the teacher be wrong to "correct" it - using the wrong metric?

Yes, language evolves. But when that evolution is as a result of ignorance, "corrupting" isn't a bad word.

But I do think mine is more of a minority opinion than yours.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
To the OP, no.

People will always speak or write informally in whatever is the 'norm' of the day.

So long as the formal institutions are protected, it should be ok. Smile

Even if you're a dinosaur, you'd be a cool T-rex Bob! Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16224 Posts

Profile of tommy
The word tree is not the tree so what is a word if not corrupt?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
We've had lots of shorthand for many of the technologies that preceded the web. Telegrams and morse code all developed their shorthands. SOS is an example of the LOL of its time.
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 02:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 01:54, MobilityBundle wrote:
...

Over the past 20 or 30 years, technology has provided a huge increase in informal written communication... texts, email, forum posts, etc. If those communications are judged by formal standards, then they absolutely fail. But that's the wrong metric, I think. The right standard is whether the writer gets his intended meaning across to the reader(s).
...


If it makes you feel better, I think yours is the majority opinion. But if the right metric is simply whether one gets the meaning across, then would you have no problem if your son says things like "Me and Jimmy went to the store"? Surely that's a sentence that would be understood by anyone. If its part of a written homework assignment, would the teacher be wrong to "correct" it - using the wrong metric?


It's a good question. My attitudes towards the way my son (... my as-yet hypothetical son, to be sure) communicated would be based on his ability to succeed in life, I think.

Unless something changes in the near future, maximizing one's chance of succeeding in life requires being able to write well. That includes mastery of grammar and all that other painful stuff one learns in school. If I thought me son really didn't know some basic rule of grammar, I'd do my best to make sure he did.

But at the same time, I stand by my original statement: that not all communication should be held to the same standard. I wouldn't correct his colloquial speech, unless I thought it was negatively affecting his ability to write formally. If he's talking or texting with friends, I wouldn't necessarily freak out about colloquialisms, as long as he was at least getting good grades in his English classes.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
When my daughter was a couple months old my wife and I understood every sound, signal, utterance, tone that came out of her mouth without any language at all.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I wonder how a corporate planner would react to an emailed booking confirmation that is typed as follow:

"Greetz!

thank you 4 booking my show can't wait 2 per4m 4 ur group"
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 12:04, mastermindreader wrote:
I wonder how a corporate planner would react to an emailed booking confirmation that is typed as follow:

"Greetz!

thank you 4 booking my show can't wait 2 per4m 4 ur group"

"I'm so glad we were able to get Criss Angel to perform at our event! I hope he lives up to his reputation!"
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 06:40, tommy wrote:
The word tree is not the tree so what is a word if not corrupt?

But the word "word" IS a word! Does that make it non-corrupt?
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
OK Bob
So you just proved the need for words. LOL
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 08:15, MobilityBundle wrote:
But at the same time, I stand by my original statement: that not all communication should be held to the same standard. I wouldn't correct his colloquial speech, unless I thought it was negatively affecting his ability to write formally. If he's talking or texting with friends, I wouldn't necessarily freak out about colloquialisms, as long as he was at least getting good grades in his English classes.


Its a relevant distinction; however, I believe that more and more people dont know the difference,
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 12:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-19 08:15, MobilityBundle wrote:
But at the same time, I stand by my original statement: that not all communication should be held to the same standard. I wouldn't correct his colloquial speech, unless I thought it was negatively affecting his ability to write formally. If he's talking or texting with friends, I wouldn't necessarily freak out about colloquialisms, as long as he was at least getting good grades in his English classes.


Its a relevant distinction; however, I believe that more and more people dont know the difference,

Ah, I have no idea about that. If I had to guess (... which is really all I'm able to do), I'd be it's not the case, and the appearance to the contrary is due to selection bias. More specifically, I mean this:

Before all these new communication channels (texting, emailing, IMing, writing in newsgroups or online forums, etc.) gained popularity, relatively few people were doing a lot of writing. Sure, there were newspaper reports, lawyers, and middle managers creating TPS reports. But with the exception of professional writing, I don't think there was much writing going on at all. The upshot is that in those bygone offline days, there were very few opportunities for a person to display their grammatical shortcomings.

Now, obviously, that's not the case.

I wonder if the appearance of declining standards isn't so much that standards are actually declining, but rather more people (further down the curve) are contributing to the overall impression.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Is modern technology corrupting language? (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.5 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL