Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Internet Chat and the Devolution of Language
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Nov 24, 2003, 2:01:55 PM11/24/03
to
In article <nta4svcif2m108pjp...@4ax.com>,
John O'Flaherty <quia...@yahoo.com> posted:
> On 24 Nov 2003 07:37:14 -0800,
> JamO...@hotmail.com (Jim O'Neill) wrote:
>
>> I'm researching a project on real-time written communication (AIM,
>> ICQ, etc.) and its effects on written language. Being a word lover myself,
>> I'm chagrined at the possibility that, with everyone on the Internet
>> learning to write the way they talk (and condensing writing further into
>> abbreviations and shorthand), the English language of general
>> use will gradually lose much of its variety, capacity for individual
>> expression, and ability to convey precise, specific concepts.
>>
>> I'm aware of linguists' arguments that language evolves no matter
>> what, and that the development of slang and the loss of certain
>> rules like the "John and I (vs. me) went to the store" rule are perfectly
>> legitimate and often make more sense than "standard" usage --
>> and for the most part I agree.... But when a generation is growing
>> up whose normal mode of written expression is:
>>
>> "omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was
>> like hey do u wanna hang out b4 the show? ur hot! and i wannted
>> to scream!"
>>
>> ...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution.
>>
>> I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to hell? Is it
>> inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?
> People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those can be play,
> and that seems to be what's going on in your example. Forms can
> change, and temporary ones develop, and those changes don't seem
> harmful to language in general. How could exercise of flexibility be
> harmful?
> I wonder if this kind of complaint happens because the complainer has
> a big investment in a certain kind of language use, and they feel it's
> devalued by lots of people going in other directions. Has it ever been
> shown that a language evolved to its permanent detriment ? I mean in
> the sense of impairing communication, not by some conservative
> esthetic standard.
John O'Flaherty <quia...@yahoo.com> posted:
> On 24 Nov 2003 07:37:14 -0800,
> JamO...@hotmail.com (Jim O'Neill) wrote:
>
>> I'm researching a project on real-time written communication (AIM,
>> ICQ, etc.) and its effects on written language. Being a word lover myself,
>> I'm chagrined at the possibility that, with everyone on the Internet
>> learning to write the way they talk (and condensing writing further into
>> abbreviations and shorthand), the English language of general
>> use will gradually lose much of its variety, capacity for individual
>> expression, and ability to convey precise, specific concepts.
>>
>> I'm aware of linguists' arguments that language evolves no matter
>> what, and that the development of slang and the loss of certain
>> rules like the "John and I (vs. me) went to the store" rule are perfectly
>> legitimate and often make more sense than "standard" usage --
>> and for the most part I agree.... But when a generation is growing
>> up whose normal mode of written expression is:
>>
>> "omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was
>> like hey do u wanna hang out b4 the show? ur hot! and i wannted
>> to scream!"
>>
>> ...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution.
>>
>> I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to hell? Is it
>> inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?
> People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those can be play,
> and that seems to be what's going on in your example. Forms can
> change, and temporary ones develop, and those changes don't seem
> harmful to language in general. How could exercise of flexibility be
> harmful?
> I wonder if this kind of complaint happens because the complainer has
> a big investment in a certain kind of language use, and they feel it's
> devalued by lots of people going in other directions. Has it ever been
> shown that a language evolved to its permanent detriment ? I mean in
> the sense of impairing communication, not by some conservative
> esthetic standard.
*---===== English is Munglish =====---*
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
0 new messages