Thread: Textspeak, poor grammar and a general grump.

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

Yes. A great many people in France would understand you if you spoke English. Many Europeans have an excellent grasp of the language since they are taught it from a very young age.

That is not my point however. My point was that languages evolve from other languages.

Yes, I appreciate they would if they were taught it, but not if they were not. I have probably spent a year in france on holidays, and if they don't know english and you don't know french, it comes down to the international sign language of pointing pretty quickly.

I was more objecting to the inference that language was not code, and that language was for everyone and a code was not. Language is code, and there are some languages in the world far less widely spoken and understood than 1337 speak, I imagine.

You know, one minor point--Shakespeare wrote nearly 500 years ago. Chaucer is getting up near 700. I would say that a reasonably literate person would sooner be able to read Chaucer than leetspeak. I would also say that means that language used centuries ago is more similar to commonly used English than language used by "the younguns."

Originally Posted by gregs656

Yes, I appreciate they would if they were taught it, but not if they were not. I have probably spent a year in france on holidays, and if they don't know english and you don't know french, it comes down to the international sign language of pointing pretty quickly.

I was more objecting to the inference that language was not code, and that language was for everyone and a code was not. Language is code, and there are some languages in the world far less widely spoken and understood than 1337 speak, I imagine.

Oh yes, there are languages with just a handful of living speakers, and it's a damn shame that they will soon be lost forever.

I don't think that the argument is that these minor languages are illegitimate. The argument is that they have no place in common discourse--they are minority varieties, like Pidgin in Papua New Guinea. They have their place, certainly--let the leeters have their place--but when you try to talk to people OUTSIDE your little group, you have to bend to the common tongue. Or else you get totally pwnZ0rD!!!

Originally Posted by JimR

You know, one minor point--Shakespeare wrote nearly 500 years ago. Chaucer is getting up near 700. I would say that a reasonably literate person would sooner be able to read Chaucer than leetspeak. I would also say that means that language used centuries ago is more similar to commonly used English than language used by "the younguns."

You bring up a very interesting point (to me, at least), and that is this; The difference between Chaucers English and that of Wm. Shakspeare is much greater than the difference between our English and that of two hundred years ago (James Fenimore Cooper or Nathanial Hawthorne come to mind). It seems that the rate of change in the English language has slowed quite a bit over the last half millenium. Or maybe it's just my impression (hell, I'm no linguist).

Originally Posted by joesixpack

You bring up a very interesting point (to me, at least), and that is this; The difference between Chaucers English and that of Wm. Shakspeare is much greater than the difference between our English and that of two hundred years ago (James Fenimore Cooper or Nathanial Hawthorne come to mind). It seems that the rate of change in the English language has slowed quite a bit over the last half millenium. Or maybe it's just my impression (hell, I'm no linguist).

Well, what you get with Chaucer is that he's coming right off a time of GREAT linguistic shift. The Norman invasion had sort of laid a mask of French over Anglo-Saxon/Old English...The royal ruling class were French speaking, the peasant population (a much larger number, of course) were still speaking the old Germanic language, and the two were all intertwined. Unfortunately, Anglo Saxon writing is pretty sparse between 1066 and roughly 1200; as the literate upper classes were French speaking, no one was writing in English, so we don't know what's going on with the language. What we do know is that before the Normans, the "native" English people spoke Anglo-Saxon, and once the Normans assimilated to their new kingdom, everyone spoke English. We started with pure Germanic tongue (Anglo-Saxon/Danish), minced it with French, and got Something We Can Read.

Chaucer was at the tail end of this great mixup, so between Shakespeare and Chaucer we have a kind of cooling down period...the momentum was settling down, and more and more people were becoming literate, so the language kind of solidified into something more like what we know. After Shakespeare, this was well settled so the change slowed down quite a bit.

Originally Posted by gregs656

I was more objecting to the inference that language was not code, and that language was for everyone and a code was not. Language is code, and there are some languages in the world far less widely spoken and understood than 1337 speak, I imagine.

I concede that language is a 'code' in one sense perhaps. However...

Originally Posted by gregs656

I have probably spent a year in france on holidays, and if they don't know english and you don't know french, it comes down to the international sign language of pointing pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by JimR

The argument is that they have no place in common discourse... They have their place, certainly but when you try to talk to people OUTSIDE your little group, you have to bend to the common tongue

Jim has got it right here. The reason you start using 'pointing pretty' as a language in France is because the french person may well understand that. If they didnt speak English and you dont speak French but you DO know Swahili, you are unlikely to try speaking to them in Swahili are you? Its a case of time and place. Unless of course you know Monsieur French guy knows Swahili, but now you are just being pedantic...

This has opened up a whole new thought for me. Ever been in a shop run by someone who speaks a language foreign to you and you get that feeling they are talking about you with a fellow speaker of said foreign language? Just a random thought. That bugs me too.

Yes, in a nutshell Jim has it. Time and place. I said from the start that textspeak has its place on mobile phones and some chat windows- I use it in such places myself. I would never think of writing it in an essay or formal letter. Would you ever write to a solicitor 'If U fink I woz @ the pub n dat I woz neva. I woz wiv my m8tz.'

PS. The emoticon is still named 'Agrue'

Originally Posted by JimR

Well, what you get with Chaucer is that he's coming right off a time of GREAT linguistic shift.

This makes me wonder whether we're embarking upon a similar period of increased linguistic shift? The internet is often said to have had as big an effect on communicating, writing and knowledge transfer as Gutenberg's press. And it is almost ubiquitously accessible. If you combine this fact with the burgeoning txt/leet/internet forms of writing, perhaps we will yet see a big change in written English in the next 50 years?

It would be interesting to know if there is any research out there which looks at the rate of change in the English language, and comparing it to recent changes in the language.

Perhaps that's why it seems to be frustrating many people today -- maybe there's a correlation between rate of change of language and grumpiness of population about language use!

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

This has opened up a whole new thought for me. Ever been in a shop run by someone who speaks a language foreign to you and you get that feeling they are talking about you with a fellow speaker of said foreign language? Just a random thought. That bugs me too.

I would say that is about body language. Perhaps that is the universal language. I haven't spent much time in the east, but I can't say I have ever looked at a person and not been able to draw something from their body language. So from my limited experience it's not a western/eastern thing. Interesting.

I'll be interested to see what happens with written English, it is entirely possible that the teaching of it will change.

This subject came to mind.. I was just reviewing a new post on my company intranet, and came accross the following sentence:

"this mistake doesn’t become obvious until the wrong people gets hold of the information."

Originally Posted by bbshriver

This subject came to mind.. I was just reviewing a new post on my company intranet, and came accross the following sentence:

"this mistake doesn’t become obvious until the wrong people gets hold of the information."

You work with some bright people don't you?

I think the above offense was due to improper translation from Swedish into English. Our parent company is Swedish, and that article seems to have originated in Sweden. Still, one would expect relatively proper grammar.