<!--quoteo(post=1748041:date=Jan 19 2010, 04:57 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Jan 19 2010, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748041"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You forgot the corollary, where language will cater to the lowest common denominator. It's not efficiency or pragmatism... it's just that a majority of speakers are becoming too stupid or lazy to speak properly. Try using 'lol' or 'brb' in a job interview that isn't at a fast food chain, and see how open the hiring manager is to the argument about its efficiency, as compared to simply giving the job to someone who doesn't spell like a bulimic food fight after alphabet soup.
We cut corners in our use of the language because it's easier, and people are generally lazy. Trying to defend it as an evolution of language is more insulting than simply to accept the fact that we are becoming far less eloquent on the whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah well, what you're talking about isn't too far removed from the "buzzwords" so common in my line of work (software engineering, computer science, computer engineering, etc). Everything has been done before, and has related technologies that could be used to explain the idea you're trying to convey, but that doesn't stop "systems engineers" from manufacturing entirely new terms that are perfectly acceptable in interviews (and actually expected to be used, in many cases) from being created.
Besides. brb and lol are popular acronyms, not actual words.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited January 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1748041:date=Jan 19 2010, 08:57 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Jan 19 2010, 08:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748041"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You forgot the corollary, where language will cater to the lowest common denominator. It's not efficiency or pragmatism... it's just that a majority of speakers are becoming too stupid or lazy to speak properly. Try using 'lol' or 'brb' in a job interview that isn't at a fast food chain, and see how open the hiring manager is to the argument about its efficiency, as compared to simply giving the job to someone who doesn't spell like a bulimic food fight after alphabet soup.
We cut corners in our use of the language because it's easier, and people are generally lazy. Trying to defend it as an evolution of language is more insulting than simply to accept the fact that we are becoming far less eloquent on the whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"lol" or "brb" is nothing to do with this discussion, it's about the "verbification" of nouns. "I expected a phone call from someone but they texted me instead" is perfectly acceptable English now, by most definitions of the language.
There's nothing wrong with laziness in language, it has produced a lot of what is perfectly acceptable in modern English. Take contractions as an example. Formal written English should not contain any contractions, but they are perfectly acceptable as written and spoken English. Nobody bats an eyelid at someone who says "can't" or "let's" but not too long ago those language puritans considered such behavior to be base, lazy and against the grain of social evolution.
In reality, the English language is a documented snapshot of the spoken language. Some people would prefer it was the other way around.
So you get words like 'Skyhook' which used to be 'sky hook' and 'wheelbarrow', which used to be 'wheeled barrow'. It wasn't some academic sitting down thinking "if I put wheeled and barrow together I can make a new word and save people time", it was in fact, the common man speaking as he heard it until the new word fell into common parlance and later got added to the dictionary.
This has now happened to texted, just as it did to phoned, typed and dialed in recent generations. It's how English works. I'm not defending people who honestly think that Phone should be spelt as 'fone', even though I can see their argument ( which is why I am a defender of the much more sensible US spelling system), but if you have a problem with texted becoming standard English then go learn how to speak Frisian.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748229:date=Jan 20 2010, 03:13 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Jan 20 2010, 03:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748229"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->( which is why I am a defender of the much more sensible US spelling system)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1748229:date=Jan 20 2010, 03:13 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Jan 20 2010, 03:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748229"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's nothing wrong with laziness in language, it has produced a lot of what is perfectly acceptable in modern English. Take contractions as an example. Formal written English should not contain any contractions, but they are perfectly acceptable as written and spoken English. Nobody bats an eyelid at someone who says "can't" or "let's" but not too long ago those language puritans considered such behavior to be base, lazy and against the grain of social evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did my English A-Level in 2004? And contractions were not allowed. I hear now, they are. It's dumbing language down, it's dumbing kids down. Especially when they find out that the contraction of "you are" is actually you're and not your.
<!--quoteo(post=1748314:date=Jan 20 2010, 09:02 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jan 20 2010, 09:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748314"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hell I finished a <i>Psychology</i> degree last year and contractions in essays would lose you marks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How's that working out for you?
TekdudeJoin Date: 2003-04-13Member: 15455Members, Constellation, Forum staff
<!--quoteo(post=1748308:date=Jan 20 2010, 07:19 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 20 2010, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I did my English A-Level in 2004? And contractions were not allowed. I hear now, they are. It's dumbing language down, it's dumbing kids down. Especially when they find out that the contraction of "you are" is actually you're and not your.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoah WHOAH Whoah... whoah... Since when is it not ur?
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748315:date=Jan 21 2010, 01:17 AM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Xyth @ Jan 21 2010, 01:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How's that working out for you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'm unemployed and increasingly poor, so about that well. I wasn't trying to show off about having a degree, I'm just saying that even in psychology contractions are frowned on when writing something "official".
TekdudeJoin Date: 2003-04-13Member: 15455Members, Constellation, Forum staff
<!--quoteo(post=1748317:date=Jan 20 2010, 08:25 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jan 20 2010, 08:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748317"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well I'm unemployed and increasingly poor, so about that well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
X_Stickman! Apparently, you should move to Baltimore because according to some report, <a href="http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2010/01/18/daily23.html?surround=lfn" target="_blank">we're the #3 city in the US for job seeking success!</a> If you want, I can put you up in my apartment for a while until you get on your feet.
<!--quoteo(post=1748319:date=Jan 21 2010, 01:36 AM:name=Tekdude)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tekdude @ Jan 21 2010, 01:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748319"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->X_Stickman! Apparently, you should move to Baltimore because according to some report, <a href="http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2010/01/18/daily23.html?surround=lfn" target="_blank">we're the #3 city in the US for job seeking success!</a> If you want, I can put you up in my apartment for a while until you get on your feet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will remember that Tekdude. When you said you couldn't put me up because your employer would frown on a foreigner. *glares*
Although yes, I believe in something official such as a document of importance you shouldn't use contractions. General "speak" such as forums, conversation posting, dialect etc. is pretty much what I'd call acceptable.
TekdudeJoin Date: 2003-04-13Member: 15455Members, Constellation, Forum staff
<!--quoteo(post=1748320:date=Jan 20 2010, 08:59 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 20 2010, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748320"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will remember that Tekdude. When you said you couldn't put me up because your employer would frown on a foreigner. *glares*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you have yet to earn your degree. The United States only wants to pilfer from the rest of the world's college educated population.
<!--quoteo(post=1748308:date=Jan 21 2010, 01:19 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 21 2010, 01:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I did my English A-Level in 2004? And contractions were not allowed. I hear now, they are. It's dumbing language down, it's dumbing kids down. Especially when they find out that the contraction of "you are" is actually you're and not your.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How does that dumb 'em down? Doesn't figuring out the correct contraction mean they just got smarter?
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748308:date=Jan 20 2010, 08:19 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 20 2010, 08:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I did my English A-Level in 2004? And contractions were not allowed. I hear now, they are. It's dumbing language down, it's dumbing kids down. Especially when they find out that the contraction of "you are" is actually you're and not your.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Contractions aren't all that bad. Hell, the proper use of contractions actually requires people to THINK more, as we create more homophones, which are a great way to screw over the computer generation (those of us that grew up with a spellchecker). So what if the A-Level allows them to use you're, they are still going to get points off if they use your instead.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748393:date=Jan 21 2010, 09:09 AM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jan 21 2010, 09:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748393"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why, but people getting using you're and your incorrectly annoy me to no end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know why, but not proof reading you're posts annoys me to no end.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1748397:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:19 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 21 2010, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why, but not proof reading you're posts annoys me to no end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> hehe, you did catch that did you ;) To the others that got it - good job.
Comments
We cut corners in our use of the language because it's easier, and people are generally lazy. Trying to defend it as an evolution of language is more insulting than simply to accept the fact that we are becoming far less eloquent on the whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah well, what you're talking about isn't too far removed from the "buzzwords" so common in my line of work (software engineering, computer science, computer engineering, etc). Everything has been done before, and has related technologies that could be used to explain the idea you're trying to convey, but that doesn't stop "systems engineers" from manufacturing entirely new terms that are perfectly acceptable in interviews (and actually expected to be used, in many cases) from being created.
Besides. brb and lol are popular acronyms, not actual words.
We cut corners in our use of the language because it's easier, and people are generally lazy. Trying to defend it as an evolution of language is more insulting than simply to accept the fact that we are becoming far less eloquent on the whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"lol" or "brb" is nothing to do with this discussion, it's about the "verbification" of nouns. "I expected a phone call from someone but they texted me instead" is perfectly acceptable English now, by most definitions of the language.
There's nothing wrong with laziness in language, it has produced a lot of what is perfectly acceptable in modern English. Take contractions as an example. Formal written English should not contain any contractions, but they are perfectly acceptable as written and spoken English. Nobody bats an eyelid at someone who says "can't" or "let's" but not too long ago those language puritans considered such behavior to be base, lazy and against the grain of social evolution.
In reality, the English language is a documented snapshot of the spoken language. Some people would prefer it was the other way around.
So you get words like 'Skyhook' which used to be 'sky hook' and 'wheelbarrow', which used to be 'wheeled barrow'. It wasn't some academic sitting down thinking "if I put wheeled and barrow together I can make a new word and save people time", it was in fact, the common man speaking as he heard it until the new word fell into common parlance and later got added to the dictionary.
This has now happened to texted, just as it did to phoned, typed and dialed in recent generations. It's how English works. I'm not defending people who honestly think that Phone should be spelt as 'fone', even though I can see their argument ( which is why I am a defender of the much more sensible US spelling system), but if you have a problem with texted becoming standard English then go learn how to speak Frisian.
Heathen.
I did my English A-Level in 2004? And contractions were not allowed. I hear now, they are. It's dumbing language down, it's dumbing kids down. Especially when they find out that the contraction of "you are" is actually you're and not your.
How's that working out for you?
Whoah WHOAH Whoah... whoah... Since when is it not ur?
Well I'm unemployed and increasingly poor, so about that well. I wasn't trying to show off about having a degree, I'm just saying that even in psychology contractions are frowned on when writing something "official".
X_Stickman! Apparently, you should move to Baltimore because according to some report, <a href="http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2010/01/18/daily23.html?surround=lfn" target="_blank">we're the #3 city in the US for job seeking success!</a> If you want, I can put you up in my apartment for a while until you get on your feet.
I will remember that Tekdude. When you said you couldn't put me up because your employer would frown on a foreigner. *glares*
Although yes, I believe in something official such as a document of importance you shouldn't use contractions. General "speak" such as forums, conversation posting, dialect etc. is pretty much what I'd call acceptable.
But you have yet to earn your degree. The United States only wants to pilfer from the rest of the world's college educated population.
How does that dumb 'em down? Doesn't figuring out the correct contraction mean they just got smarter?
Manifest Destiny. Stay out of the way.
Contractions aren't all that bad. Hell, the proper use of contractions actually requires people to THINK more, as we create more homophones, which are a great way to screw over the computer generation (those of us that grew up with a spellchecker). So what if the A-Level allows them to use you're, they are still going to get points off if they use your instead.
I don't know why, but not proof reading you're posts annoys me to no end.
It's dumbing down the language man ;)
also, Thansal I think you should get use your medigun on me more now often tbfh \o\o\\\\o\\\\\\\o\\\\o\o\o\o\\\\\ (whoosh.)
hehe, you did catch that did you ;)
To the others that got it - good job.