Careful that in your misuse of the multifarious tool that English is you do not succeed in blunting her, through negligence, indolence, or malice, such that she can no longer be employed for useful endeavor and hence join her deceased brethern of the appellation "static" and "dead."
Writing shines when it exists concomitant with contemplative thought. Adapting written language for instantaneous communication indubitaby distorts its shape and shears its edges as the square peg is rammed into the round hole. Verbal experssion and written experssion do not serve a common master.
Written language cannot reproduce the inflection of the voice; the dynamic contrasts of a speaker's volume, the sonorous timbre of the sound, the changes in pitch, all of which serve to connote meaning irreproducible with black on white (and which a yellow-filled circle with two eyes and a mouth only exist to mock as crude simulacra: to call attention to what was, for the writer, ineffable). Adapting such internet birthed jargon as "lol" and "omfg" into speech causes a degradation of meaning resulting from translation - from verbal expression to written and then again from written to verbal. Would one gain a communicative edge by attempting to speak such idiosyncratic written internet expressions as "omfg!!!!?!?!?!?!" as "oh em eff gee exclamation point exclamation point exclamation point exclamation point question mark exclamation point...?" Recognizing the ubiety of disparate entities is important. Punctuation exists in aural form as vocal inflection, as a symbol in written; never is it spoken, except to be spoken of.
Consider the drive for brevity in abbreviation of long titles and phrases. We have such things as the C.I.A., the F.B.I, the U.S.A., the U.K., A.D., B.C., A.M., P.M., etc. This has reached such pandemic proportion that most organizations now strive to designate themselves in acronymic form; hence N.O.W., N.O.R.M.L., O.P.E.C., P.E.T.A., and so forth. The advantange of shortening a long phrase into a few letters saves time when writing, but that gain is negligible when speaking an abbreviation's accented letters unless it is acronymic. The loss of information in such acronyms is amazing. Anyone know what the acronymic radar, laser, and scuba stand for? or the cat in cat-scan? Convention was once that written abbreviation was always spoken in full, as evinced by Mr., Mrs., Dr., or even "The year of our Lord" for anno domini. As the meaning is lost from these expressions it becomes common for people to speak such unwitting tautologies as "ten A.M. in the morning" or "the third century A.D."
Such slang is indefensible in the written medium and, quite frankly, in the verbal. It sacrifices depth of expression and meaning for mere brevity - although perhaps the soul of wit not everything is best served up as amusement - and demeans both the writer/speaker and the readerstener by subverting the ostensible purpose of language. If neologisms are unavoidable then let them serve to enrich, not debase and obfuscate.
By contrast, one does not expect an extempore speaker to compose something like The Illiad in the time it would take to recite it. Hexameters are pleasing as a device of literature but exist not in normal speech and appear contrived if inserted into it. Verbal and written: Different mediums, different purposes, different masters, different goals.
Perhaps soon people will be responding to spoken jokes by saying, "loll" or "lowl" rather than by actually laughing... out loud. I can see the advantage of this: one could simultaneously communicate wry amusement and an expression of one's own illusory smug hipness.
Languages evolve; they also devolve. The fate of English is ultimately decided by you - its speakers and writers. Please don't destroy it without first knowing what it is you are losing.
Jorge Borges (Argentine poet, short-story writer, and philosophical essayist) on English:
"...I have done most of my reading in English. I find English a far finer language than Spanish.... Firstly, English is both a Germanic and a Latin language, those two registers. For any idea you take, you have two words. Those words do not mean exactly the same. For example, if I say 'regal,' it's not exactly the same thing as saying 'kingly.' Or if I say 'fraternal,' it's not saying the same as 'brotherly'... 'ghost' is a fine dark Saxon word, while 'spirit' is a light Latin word."
"And then there is another reason. The reason is that I think that of all languages, English is the most physical of all languages. You can, for example, say 'He loomed over.' " [italics original]
"... in English you can do almost anything with verbs and prepositions. For example, to 'laugh off,' to 'dream away....' To 'live down' something, to 'live up to' something."
When asked if he wrote in English or Spanish, Borges replied, "No, I respect English too much. I write it in Spanish."
Writing shines when it exists concomitant with contemplative thought. Adapting written language for instantaneous communication indubitaby distorts its shape and shears its edges as the square peg is rammed into the round hole. Verbal experssion and written experssion do not serve a common master.
Written language cannot reproduce the inflection of the voice; the dynamic contrasts of a speaker's volume, the sonorous timbre of the sound, the changes in pitch, all of which serve to connote meaning irreproducible with black on white (and which a yellow-filled circle with two eyes and a mouth only exist to mock as crude simulacra: to call attention to what was, for the writer, ineffable). Adapting such internet birthed jargon as "lol" and "omfg" into speech causes a degradation of meaning resulting from translation - from verbal expression to written and then again from written to verbal. Would one gain a communicative edge by attempting to speak such idiosyncratic written internet expressions as "omfg!!!!?!?!?!?!" as "oh em eff gee exclamation point exclamation point exclamation point exclamation point question mark exclamation point...?" Recognizing the ubiety of disparate entities is important. Punctuation exists in aural form as vocal inflection, as a symbol in written; never is it spoken, except to be spoken of.
Consider the drive for brevity in abbreviation of long titles and phrases. We have such things as the C.I.A., the F.B.I, the U.S.A., the U.K., A.D., B.C., A.M., P.M., etc. This has reached such pandemic proportion that most organizations now strive to designate themselves in acronymic form; hence N.O.W., N.O.R.M.L., O.P.E.C., P.E.T.A., and so forth. The advantange of shortening a long phrase into a few letters saves time when writing, but that gain is negligible when speaking an abbreviation's accented letters unless it is acronymic. The loss of information in such acronyms is amazing. Anyone know what the acronymic radar, laser, and scuba stand for? or the cat in cat-scan? Convention was once that written abbreviation was always spoken in full, as evinced by Mr., Mrs., Dr., or even "The year of our Lord" for anno domini. As the meaning is lost from these expressions it becomes common for people to speak such unwitting tautologies as "ten A.M. in the morning" or "the third century A.D."
Such slang is indefensible in the written medium and, quite frankly, in the verbal. It sacrifices depth of expression and meaning for mere brevity - although perhaps the soul of wit not everything is best served up as amusement - and demeans both the writer/speaker and the readerstener by subverting the ostensible purpose of language. If neologisms are unavoidable then let them serve to enrich, not debase and obfuscate.
By contrast, one does not expect an extempore speaker to compose something like The Illiad in the time it would take to recite it. Hexameters are pleasing as a device of literature but exist not in normal speech and appear contrived if inserted into it. Verbal and written: Different mediums, different purposes, different masters, different goals.
Perhaps soon people will be responding to spoken jokes by saying, "loll" or "lowl" rather than by actually laughing... out loud. I can see the advantage of this: one could simultaneously communicate wry amusement and an expression of one's own illusory smug hipness.
Languages evolve; they also devolve. The fate of English is ultimately decided by you - its speakers and writers. Please don't destroy it without first knowing what it is you are losing.
Jorge Borges (Argentine poet, short-story writer, and philosophical essayist) on English:
"...I have done most of my reading in English. I find English a far finer language than Spanish.... Firstly, English is both a Germanic and a Latin language, those two registers. For any idea you take, you have two words. Those words do not mean exactly the same. For example, if I say 'regal,' it's not exactly the same thing as saying 'kingly.' Or if I say 'fraternal,' it's not saying the same as 'brotherly'... 'ghost' is a fine dark Saxon word, while 'spirit' is a light Latin word."
"And then there is another reason. The reason is that I think that of all languages, English is the most physical of all languages. You can, for example, say 'He loomed over.' " [italics original]
"... in English you can do almost anything with verbs and prepositions. For example, to 'laugh off,' to 'dream away....' To 'live down' something, to 'live up to' something."
When asked if he wrote in English or Spanish, Borges replied, "No, I respect English too much. I write it in Spanish."