»
Main Forums
»
English Workshop
»
Modern English
| English Workshop |
|
Modern English |
|
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US 
|
I get a lot of email, both directly for Passions and also for those poets who choose not to display their email address on the main site. The following, recieved just moments ago, falls into the latter category, but is not at all unusual. quote: I've often been a little irritated, and more than a little concerned, that the Internet seemed to be encouraging "short-hand" English. I don't like substitutions like "u" for "you" or "ur" for "your," but at least I could understand the rationale. ICQ and chat rooms are "instant" communication mediums and potentially take place far more quickly than our typing speed allows. Or at least that's what I thought was happening. But "iz" isn't any quicker than "is," and "guud" no faster than "good." If the intention isn't to increase typing speed, why is our language being so consistently mangled? Is it just to be "cool?" Does it serve to hide poor grammar and spelling (hey, I MEANT to do that!)? Or is it a natural evolution from the short-hand English of "u" and "ur," perhaps a portent of where our language will be in twenty years? Wassup? |
||
| © Copyright 2000 Ron Carnell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I hope it is just a passing fad and the 'coolness'of it will fade with the user's maturity, and by that time, hopefully, he/she will still remember how to use 'correct' English! Well, I can dream, can't I?  Really, I know how annoying it can be. I don't even read things when this is done. It just turns me off completely as soon as I see it. The occassional misspelling, I can handle, but not the above type of misuses.Denise |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Wats hap Ron is theat sam peeple preefar to try to tyyype as theyy speek Philip (don't panic Jim it's not really me ..lol) |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
It grates like squeaky chalk on a chalkboard.... Yeeeeouch.... I'm sooo tired of kids saying to me... "Well - Language changes over time, yanno...  " |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I'm also afraid...if no one teaches these kids that this is not correct, what will the future be like? I don't like to see it in poetry and I don't think we should let it go....we have to say something...it's ok if you do it in a chatroom environment (I don't like it there either!)...but not in your writing...I have a great deal of sympathy for teachers today.... |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Hmm... What about this: English is supposedly the hardest language to learn. Perhaps this trend might indeed portend the future of our written language, as phoeneticaly it would make more sense, (especially to younger people who haven't been tainted by our warped rules of language!) (But I admit it grates the heck out o' m'nerves as well! GRRRRR) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I thought that e-mail was pretty funny actually. Language does change and spellings will change (I don't think it will be in twenty years -- maybe 200 years -- and it can't be controlled by any one individual.) but when people try to hide behind 'the language changes' argument, they seem more interested in protecting their superficial self-esteem and believe that their indentity and their 'idiolect' are one in the same. Even worse, they seem to want celebrate ignorance under the veil of artistic creativity. Yes, language and identity are intertwined but language is also a tool to communicate. Society has determined certain guidelines for what is proper communication in proper contexts -- if you want to succeed in society, you must follow these guidelines, more or less. Can you write like this? Sure, if you want to. Do you want a job? Do you want a passing grade in this class? How do you want to be seen by other people? Sorry, but I see this as just another manifestation of "I can do what I want" or "You can't tell me what to do" posturing so prevalent these days. If I want to build a house, I learn the rules of carpentry, I practice the rules of carpentry or chances are it won't be a very functional house. The rules of carpentry may change over time but that's not going to help me get my house built. Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Geez, I guessed I should have used a more original metaphor than the one Ron already used to describe this forum. Oooooops!  Brad |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
My goodness - now this just OFFENDS me - lol. My face screws up into a tight little wince...and I say 'urrrghhhhhhh'. I think that what seems to have started out as convenience cum laziness has now emerged into a language that is culturally idiomatic (got that Jim?? I said the 'I' word...). Because there is a definite net-culture, and for some of those who strongly identify with it, I suppose forming a language around it adds to its appeal; it becomes something special - 'I speak net speak' etc. Culture is always exclusive - to belong to a culture marks you as something special. What better way, for those inclined, to honour their 'speciality' through the evolution of an exclusive language? (And over my dead body will this become the language of the future...) K |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
so, we're all going to hell in a handbasket, huh? and here i thought one of the great virtues of the english language was its astonishing capacity for change, its suppleness and adaptibility. the email quoted by ron above is incredibly expressive, much more so, in my opinion, than saying "Hi, how are you? I read your poem on Netpoet, and I think it's great. Although it is sad and depressing, it is emotionally good." How flat this seems by comparison! one of the really interesting things about the internet revolution is, i think, this unprecedented explosion of informal communication via the written word. that a new style of writing would develop under these new circumstances is not surprising. very, very few people use 'correct' english in ordinary, everyday spoken conversation, even if the grammar is perfect (we don't, when speaking, enunciate every consonant and quite often slur words together, even william safire does this), and i don't see anything wrong with mimicking the conversational tone of actual speech in the vernacular in this kind of writing and setting. i don't know that the written language has ever been called to service quite like it is being used now with the internet; it has the immediacy of speech which letters and notes simply don't have. authors, of course, have used "dialect" for years to give their characters a true "voice" to good effect; just try to imagine a book like "the grapes of wrath" with ma joad speaking the king's english. what's wrong with making an informal email communication (not to mention chat room writing) sound like the writer is actually there, talking to the recipient? if written (as well as spoken) language doesn't change to reflect new circumstances, new uses, new attitudes, it becomes stagnant and, ultimately, unexpressive. can you imagine, other than as a joke, an email that begins "My dear Sir," and closes with "I remain your most humble, obediant servant, [signature]"? yet this was the standard, "correct" practice in letter writing between strangers for years. well, of course, everyone is afraid that this new style will seep into all kinds of writing in all settings. who knows. it is, indeed, shocking to see the errors in spelling and grammar in so many of the posts here at the site even when it is clear the writer is not trying to mimic the spoken word (and even when they are, you have to wonder whether someone who writes "iz sad and depressed and all...but iz emotionally guud" is capable of articulating any kind of complex thought). but i see this as a different issue, an issue of knowing how and when to write in different styles. perhaps in the internet age we need an entirely new approach to teaching english. but anyway, if the language is, indeed, changing, i say: great! the english language has changed a lot since chaucer's time, and i, for one, think this is an exciting time to be a writer. i would hate to lose, in the pursuit of "purity" or "propriety", an expressive, colorful sentence like "hey wassup, i read ur poem and i think iz da bomb," especially in this relatively new kind of informal communication known as email. just my opinion, of course, lol. jenni |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Lady K, i would probably agree with you if i could understand just what the heck all that was about .... talk english won't ya!  SP jenni, here's a new language for ya ...LOL Cambric expectorate zygoma sinapism bullace corrode glomerule semicircle at mattock nombril astern folicolous shortcake ...... just kiddin' .... I actually agree with everything you said ..lol(you see i'm not entirely stupid .. i learn fast).... see ya! Philip |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
jenni said quote: Few of us, Jenni, would argue that "formal" English, which does pursue purity and especially propriety, is preferable to a more informal style. I don't think purity or propriety is the issue. I think the issue is communication, and that's something we should all pursue vigorously. Yes, dialect is a tool writers have utilized for centuries. And your example is an excellent one. But for every writer who has used it successfully there are a dozen published examples (and a thousand unpublished) where it was done poorly and hurt the work. Dialect is arguably the most difficult to use tool in our arsenal. But even those with a natural ear for language, those who have used dialect well and wisely, have always used it sparingly. Steinbeck knew when it was appropriate and when it wasn't. Does language change? Yes, of course. Should language change? Jenni, I'm in complete agreement that language should be dynamic and exciting and, like you, expect the new proliferation of personal communication (the Internet) to push us in new directions. But I also think we, as writers, would do well do emulate the scientific community. While it's not perfect, scientists have developed a model for change that works pretty well. Information and research are freely exchanged, people are encouraged and funded, success can be richly rewarded - but every "discovery" faces the gauntlet of a serious and often severe peer review process. Scientists, in short, are constantly and vigorously fighting for new changes. And then they fight twice as hard to quell the changes, with the result being "good" science. Language can and will change. And I believe we should fight those changes every step of the way (while at the same time, of course, trying to introduce our own changes). The changes that are healthy will, in spite of our struggles, work their way into the language. We'll awaken one day to discover that contractions are good. We'll discover ain't in our dictionaries, with a warning not to use it. We might even discover that iz is guud and ur is da bomb. But I sincerely doubt it. Instead, I think we'll discover there is no "d" in "the," there has to be a "y" in "your," and pretentious effects rarely mimic human speech. Expressive? Sure. But so is profanity and exclamation points. And to remain expressive, they have to be used wisely and, damn it, sparingly!!!!!! |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
ron-- i agree, "the issue is communication." different settings or contexts, however, allow for different forms of communication. your original post presented a quote in a vacuum, and you and others seemed to take the quote as some evidence that the english language is in grave peril. in my original reply, i was merely trying to point out the context here, that it was an email communication you were quoting from. accordingly, i said "i don't see anything wrong with mimicking the conversational tone of actual speech in the vernacular in this kind of writing and setting." sure, the author of this email is no steinbeck; that is a given, lol. my point was only that perhaps the context should be considered here before the writing is pilloried as "bad" english. internet email communication just seems to lend itself at times to a very informal style of communication. i think it's also worth pointing out that you, ron, were not the intended recipient of the message; the sender was not trying to communicate to you. the sender sounds a lot like a teenager addressing another teen. (of course, i have no idea whether that is actually the case.) it is something of a stock joke that adults listening to teenagers converse can hardly understand a word of what's being said, lol. the teenagers, of course, do. that's communication for ya. the intentional misspellings here of your, is, the, and good, like the word "wassup" and the phrase "iz da bomb", are really a kind of written slang. again, i know nothing of the writer or the context here, but IF the writer was trying to make his message read like he was really present, talking totally informally to a reader in his peer group, i'd say he was probably pretty effective in getting his message across. if you look at it like slang, i think you can see the style of the message presents far less danger to the english language than i think you fear. twenty years from now this kind of thing may seem as old-fashioned and dated as "boss," "daddio," or "the bee's knees." these things come and go, always replaced by something else. i still think, though, that the use of slang, and a style that gives a written email the "voice" and tone of someone actually speaking, are fine ***in this context***, and that most people know when to use it and when not to. i don't write like that, even in email or chat writing, because that's not my slang, but i copiously use expressions, and forms such as "lol," in emails to friends that i would never in a million years use in a letter, or even an email, to a client at work. i don't think i'm unusual in that respect (although i am, i know, "unusual" in many respects, lol); i think we all do it. the message you quoted was not intended to be a model for all communications in every setting. i don't really see it as a question of whether this kind of thing will "work [its] way into the language" generally. if that is the issue that concerns you, then yes, i agree, things should be watched closely. but as i see it, the thing to do would be to rail against "ur" and "iz" in a different setting, not an email like the one presented here. [This message has been edited by jenni (edited 05-16-2000).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jenni, I don't think we're really in much (if any) disagreement. The only thing I would add is that while my quotation should, by itself, generate little concern, I would never have posted it for discussion had it, indeed, existed in a vacuum. I see it every day, though not often quite so blatantly. And not just in email or ICQ. I've seen it in these forums, too. I've actually had writers take the time to submit poetry to the main Passions site, yet not take the time to spell out "you" and "your." I'm not terribly concerned about slang or idioms. As you pointed out, those have always existed, always will exist, and seldom last more than a year or two. My concern, rather, revolves what I see as a trend towards lazy writing, something I think the immediacy of the Internet is wrongly promoting. Don't misunderstand - I think the web offers the greatest potential to encourage good writing since Gutenberg. I guess I'm only beginning to realize it also offers genuine dangers. Shoot, maybe I'm just disgruntled the writer didn't realize netpoets has to be plural... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
