New world of Internet Expression. Oh, and Halo.

[Vandiablo]

I've never used Interlingus in RL.

But maybe this happened to other people here...

One day at work, without thinking, I referred to the 3rd floor of our building as "level three". This was from my then-obsession with playing Diablo and "talking" about it with my brothers and on the Diablo Strategy Forum.

That was back when my forefinger would automatically do a clicking motion when I walked. :)

-V

[[wcip]Angel]

Angel,Jun 6 2003, 11:54 AM] If any of my students ever used 3317-speak or other Internet-lingo in an essay or a presentation, I'd slap them silly, and dangle them out the window.

I pity and hate those who use Internet-lingo, be it on the Internet, or in "real life."

Language is dynamic, not static. I don't think that stance is healthy for an English teacher.

My most favourite lesson I ever had in english was in final year secondary education where my English teacher (Head of dept. very 'proper') started swearing at us and using slang to make a point. :P

With a static look at language we have "this is how to spell" and "this is correct grammar"
With a dynamic look at language we can see how we got to this state, and why certain words are appropriate in various situations etc.

Perhaps your English students would learn more about language by studying evolution

I've studied Old English from before the Norman Conquest. I've studied Chaucerian Middle English and Shakespearian Early Modern English. I am aware of how and why languages change. :P

But this is college level. I will be teaching 16-18-year old students who need to learn that 1337-speak and Internet-lingo have no place in an academic essay. Colloquialisms such as "don't" and "won't" aren't allowed in these academic essays. If I were to tolerate "sux" (for "sucks") I'd be fired on the spot, I'm sure of it.

One of my jobs will be to prepare these students for college life. I can't do that by allowing them to write however they choose as the professors at colleges across the country will not tolerate that kind of "linguistic behaviour."
;)

[Moldran]

Like whyBish has said, language is not static (and has never been). The only languages that are static are the ones that are not really in use anymore (like Latin). And even those might undergo small changes.
From a linguist´s point of view, it is not surprising at all that things like the internet or SMS influence our spoken and written language. Things that gain importance for everyday life also start to influence language after some time. It has always been that way. Nothing really unusual about it.

Moldran

[WarBlade]

Angel,Jun 6 2003, 11:49 PM] But this is college level. I will be teaching 16-18-year old students who need to learn that 1337-speak and Internet-lingo have no place in an academic essay. Colloquialisms such as "don't" and "won't" isn't allowed in these academic essays. If I were to tolerate "sux" (for "sucks") I'd be fired on the spot, I'm sure of it.

So would you be fired for substituting "isn't" in place of "aren't" or "are not" when the context is clear that you are dealing with a plural? :unsure:

[[wcip]Angel]

Nitpicking/Tolerated

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Everyday sayings are adopted into our vocabulary. "Cool" is a holdover from the Jazz age, decades ago. It's been adopted by every "youth" movement since that time and made their own. To see it used in a novel, romance or any other bulk publication is commonplace. The same may occur with various internet lingo phrases. However, while a paperback might contain such a widely accepted phrase as "cool" into its pages... you will NOT find it in any thesis, essay or facsimile thereof. At least, not if you hope for a passing grade. It reminds me of the old saying: "Ain't ain't a word because it ain't in the dictionary". Well, "ain't" IS in the dictionary, now... but I DARE you to put it into a submitted essay. :lol:

The difference is that "sayings" and "text messages" are NOT the same animal. It is far different to adopt a text shortcut into publication than to adopt a spoken phrase. Spoken phrases are adopted with an accepted form of spelling and sentence placement. Text messages are stand alone and bastardized versions of previously accepted phrases that already have themselves established; the text messages are simply screwed up versions of the accepted ones, written by dull-normals that can't spell or are too lazy to type. <_<

"LOL" does not have a pronunciation key, listing of pluralism, listing of verb/adjective/noun forms or anything resembling an etymology... as it is NOT a linguistic form. The closest it could approach would be a definition that reveals it as "a text shortcut for "Laughing out loud"; a reference call to approximate a humorous response similar to a play script."

Language isn't static; I've heard that one SEVERAL times before on the Lounge. Usually it's used to defend one of these wankers that can't spell or type better than a chimpanzee... and to argue that spelling and grammar aren't really THAT important. As I've replied before on that topic: Believe as you will, I'll be there to order my hamburger at Macdonald's from you, in your fancy uniform. And you, full of pomp and dignity at having defended your right to type and talk like a moron, can draw yourself up proudly and say: "Wud U Lyk Fryz wid dat?" :blink:

[[wcip]Angel]

There are static languages.. dead languages are static. Like Latin. Latin is static because it is no longer used.

But I agree with everything else you said ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

There are static languages.. dead languages are static. Like Latin. Latin is static because it is no longer used.

Not really. The Latin of Cicero and Caesar (first century BCE) and that of Aquinas (13th century CE) and of Newton (18th century CE) are all very different. If one wants to read the Principia in the original, a knowledge of the Commentaries is almost useless.

So, Latin is static just as Chaucer and Shakespeare and Dickens are static. It is dynamic just as any language is dynamic. That the dynamism of Latin is now slow is undeniable, but it is not non-existent. All the taxonomic inventions are adding on an almost daily basis to the Latin language. I doubt that Cicero, Caesar, Aquinas, or Newton would know what "Australopithecus africanus" means (although Scipio the Elder (and probably the Younger, too) could probably make a good guess at the "africanus" part :) )

--Pete

[Archon_Wing]

T_T O_O >< lol omg rofl wtf

Well, I suppose a lot of people just use those expressions because they saw some d00d doing this. Many don't even know what they mean. However, I find it very hard to believe that people would do this in real life. If someone turned in an essay in l33t speak they should be beaten with a trout.

When i first saw those symobls, I was quite dazzled. Now, I find it funny. I sometimes use it in a mockingly way. :)

Perhaps this language is an evolution of our current language due to the advances in technology (laziness). Then of course, I hope not.

I used "owned" in real life once. God help us. Also, I tried reading out said interent expressions out loud. Didn't really work.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Many of those expressions predate d00ds by a fair bit. Some were common on irc and in newsgroups as far back as I remember. Typically those that are abbreviations (LOL, AFAIK, IMO, IMHO, IIRC, BRB, AFK and a few dozen others) are those that date back to before the September That Never Ended. Like any abbreviation, they were not meant to replace the words for the concepts that they convey. Just as "Dr." does not replace "doctor", etc.

The leetspeak crappola came from the local bulletin boards, many of which were hangouts for kids who thought they were cool because their folks bought them a Trash 80 or an Apple ][. When they got Internet access, they brought their stupidity with them, lowering the average intelligence on the net by at least 30 IQ points.

Unfortunately, stupidity is easier to mimic than intelligence (look at any stand up comic), so the leet d00ds have gotten a greater following than have those trying to stem the barbarian (original meaning) horde. People, like water, usually seek the lowest level.

Oh, and BTW, when a Shakespeare "misuses" the word "marriage" to give it a new meaning, that is language evolution. When some d00d repeats the word "like" until it has no meaning left, that is language devolution. Language changes. It started with grunts, it seems to be returning, like art and music, to its roots.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Meant to include this in the above post, but forgot.

I once heard a story about an Irish lady who went to visit a new neighbor. For those that don't know, hospitality is a *big* tradition amongst the Irish. After the visit, the lady was talking to a friend and said, "Yon's a queer hungry house. I sat there for an hour and they never once asked if I had a mouth to me."

Now, that is an example of a beautiful "misuse" of English. No wonder Joyce and Shaw did so well, with that in their blood.

--Pete

[wakim]

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."

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . if this was parody or not. Either way, good job :)

BTW:

radar: radio detection and ranging.
laser: light amplification by the stimulated emission of radiation.
scuba: self contained underwater breathing apparatus.
or the cat in cat-scan: computer aided tomography.

Now excuse me for a moment while I check :)
OK, according to m-w online:

radar: radio detecting and ranging. (close)
laser: light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. (off by an article. I like mine better :) )
scuba: self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. (OK, they hyphen makes sense).
or the cat in cat-scan: computerized axial tomography (and three others. However, on this one I claim superior knowledge since I was intimately involved with CAT scanning of aerospace components for a while. The machine was no longer "axial", using a sheet of x-rays rather than an approximate point source. Thus the "a" in CAT shifted meanings and was eventually dropped. By the people who know, they're called CT scans now. Of course, that ruins the joke about the cat scan and the lab test :) )

Also, " unwitting tautologies as "ten A.M. in the morning" or "the third century A.D." I get the "morning" bit, but since there was a third century BCE, why is "the third century A.D." a tautology?

"...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."

I like that quote. It is a fine description of the distinction of connotation and denotation. And goes far in explaining why people who try to use a thesaurus to look erudite usually end up looking foolish instead.

--Pete

[wakim]

Oops, I'm chagrined. Allow me to retract "the thrid century A.D." as an example of tautology and instead simply use it as an example of an incongruity engendered by abbreviation. Spelled out it yields "the third century in the year of our Lord", and since a century can not take place within a single year is incongruent (or is it better described as oxymoronic?). Just a punctilio served up to illustrate information loss. One can't substitute C.E. (common era) for A.D. and create the same error.

[Kryn]

Sometimes I wish I could speak with that poetic eloquency that I've heard and read in old novels, such as The Importance Of Being Earnest. I realize that may not be a great example, but it's the only thing I can think of.

I think it's great how words were twisted and overall just used in incredible ways that escape language today. I'm ashamed I can't describe it any better for lack of good examples, but hopefully everyone understands what I mean.

[Occhidiangela]

When folks use a thesaurus and don't then double check the dictionary, you can get some pretty weird phrases. I found that out in high school, and boy, do I ever wish more people had learned that lesson.

As to sonar, radar's underwater cousin, it's

SOund NAvigation Ranging

Which, when you see how it's uses have evolved, appears a bit of a misnomer, unless one remembers that its use as a depth meter, to avoid hitting the various rocks and shoals in coastal waters, was a more widely used feature of sound in water than detection of moving objects underwater, such as submarines and later schools of fish.

What''s in a name? What's in a word? A rose by any other name still has thorns.