First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Our English Language
114162 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 6/1/10

orangeflute wrote:



I suppose that you are entitled to the right to making yourself look more and more asinine by honouring me with that incomprehensability that is your responce to my posts, and, to that, I have no objections. But, my eyes are wearied by various attempts at dechiphering of your pappycock and, seeing as you can't be bothered with proper orthography or grammar, I will respond to you once you demonstrate a basic command of our language.


Okay for once I will, I do hope you'll excuse the errors in my sentences. Did you honestly believe that I lacked the ability to speak properly in my native language? That everyone that uses shorthand is an idiot? That just shows how narrow minded you are, not to mention the ineptitude of one who cannot grasp the replacement of simple words like "you" and "to" with "u" and "2". Yet you have the audacity to call me asinine? I'll put this in simple terms: "the ability to write in a langauge shows little in the actual intelligence of the person in question." This facade you've been putting on with your grammar hasn't for one minute changed my view that you're still "an obnoxious know-it-all who can't get with times."

I'll end this post with a piece of advice: "Either adapt to today's language in all ways or get left in the dust, because it will only get worse later."
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/2/10 , edited 6/2/10

uhohimdead wrote:


orangeflute wrote:



I suppose that you are entitled to the right to making yourself look more and more asinine by honouring me with that incomprehensability that is your responce to my posts, and, to that, I have no objections. But, my eyes are wearied by various attempts at dechiphering of your pappycock and, seeing as you can't be bothered with proper orthography or grammar, I will respond to you once you demonstrate a basic command of our language.


Okay for once I will, I do hope you'll excuse the errors in my sentences. Did you honestly believe that I lacked the ability to speak properly in my native language? That everyone that uses shorthand is an idiot? That just shows how narrow minded you are, not to mention the ineptitude of one who cannot grasp the replacement of simple words like "you" and "to" with "u" and "2". Yet you have the audacity to call me asinine? I'll put this in simple terms: "the ability to write in a langauge shows little in the actual intelligence of the person in question." This facade you've been putting on with your grammar hasn't for one minute changed my view that you're still "an obnoxious know-it-all who can't get with times."

I'll end this post with a piece of advice: "Either adapt to today's language in all ways or get left in the dust, because it will only get worse later."


And thank God you did, now I can finally understand what you are saying. These 'shorthands', so called by yourself, are deeply flawed failing in many respect. Your text speak, for example can't distinguish between homonyms:

r u goin 2?

This can either be interpreted as 'Are you going too?' and 'Are you going to?', two questions with different meanings. Also, the word 'cant', in this new text speak, can now be either interpreted as 'Can't' or 'Cant', two different words etymologically and lexiconally different. It is not at all faster, the speed used for to type hindered by moving the fingers to the number pad, to creating abbriviation that the mind is unused to, and so on and so forth.

But, you are right, evil and snobbish purist like myself(patronising poor intellectuals, such as yourself, by recomending a dictionary for the definition of simple words like 'illiterate'), who refuse to assimilate and adapt to the changing world, will die out, and this new shorthand will win out against proper orthography and proper grammar. Like those poor fools who refuse to learn the Pittman form of Shorthand- what, never heard of it? It was popular during the early Nineteenth century. Or those elitist Sots and Toffs who refuse to learn the language of the future, Esperanto- never heard of that either? I'll have you know that it was going to replace the all languages of Europe, with their illogical conjugations and illogical orthography.
81237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Bedford, England
Offline
Posted 6/2/10
Language is fluid thing that changes all the time. English wasn't the same 400 years ago when Sir William Shakespeare was around. We use language to convey our ideas to other people and if someone is reading something and can't understand it there is a problem. Language is down to the user, it's up to them how to write and speak, it’s for them to "butcher" as they please because it’s their ideas they are conveying. A lot of the time the problem is people don’t keep their audience in mind. Which is why people get frustrated with all the abbreviations.

I teach Literacy Skill to kids with learning difficulties, dyslexia that sort of thing. Many will never be able to spell properly, but doesn't really matter as long as we can understand what they write. The English language is very complex especially when it comes to spelling, it's no wonder people want to simplify it
.
The thing that make is so hard is you can have more than one letter representing one sound and there are many ways to spell the different sounds. Originally this was done to show where the word originated from.
I prefer to use English "correctly" so more people can understand my ideas, but I don't mind how other people write it's up to them. I will try my best to understand them.

One final thing to think about: Can word mean different things to different people? Is there a right or wrong meaning for a word?


114162 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 6/2/10 , edited 6/2/10

orangeflute wrote:


uhohimdead wrote:


orangeflute wrote:



I suppose that you are entitled to the right to making yourself look more and more asinine by honouring me with that incomprehensability that is your responce to my posts, and, to that, I have no objections. But, my eyes are wearied by various attempts at dechiphering of your pappycock and, seeing as you can't be bothered with proper orthography or grammar, I will respond to you once you demonstrate a basic command of our language.


Okay for once I will, I do hope you'll excuse the errors in my sentences. Did you honestly believe that I lacked the ability to speak properly in my native language? That everyone that uses shorthand is an idiot? That just shows how narrow minded you are, not to mention the ineptitude of one who cannot grasp the replacement of simple words like "you" and "to" with "u" and "2". Yet you have the audacity to call me asinine? I'll put this in simple terms: "the ability to write in a langauge shows little in the actual intelligence of the person in question." This facade you've been putting on with your grammar hasn't for one minute changed my view that you're still "an obnoxious know-it-all who can't get with times."

I'll end this post with a piece of advice: "Either adapt to today's language in all ways or get left in the dust, because it will only get worse later."


And thank God you did, now I can finally understand what you are saying. These 'shorthands', so called by yourself, are deeply flawed failing in many respect. Your text speak, for example can't distinguish between homonyms:

r u goin 2?

This can either be interpreted as 'Are you going too?' and 'Are you going to?', two questions with different meanings. Also, the word 'cant', in this new text speak, can now be either interpreted as 'Can't' or 'Cant', two different words etymologically and lexiconally different. It is not at all faster, the speed used for to type hindered by moving the fingers to the number pad, to creating abbriviation that the mind is unused to, and so on and so forth.

But, you are right, evil and snobbish purist like myself(patronising poor intellectuals, such as yourself, by recomending a dictionary for the definition of simple words like 'illiterate'), who refuse to assimilate and adapt to the changing world, will die out, and this new shorthand will win out against proper orthography and proper grammar. Like those poor fools who refuse to learn the Pittman form of Shorthand- what, never heard of it? It was popular during the early Nineteenth century. Or those elitist Sots and Toffs who refuse to learn the language of the future, Esperanto- never heard of that either? I'll have you know that it was going to replace the all languages of Europe, with their illogical conjugations and illogical orthography.


The same can be said if you talk to someone saying "are you going too?" the person on the receiving end can interpret it as either. It is the context of it being use that determines meaning, same applies to text langauge, and the word "cant." I recommended the dictionary because you didn't seem to know the meaning of "illiterate", simple as that. Yes, I have heard of Pitman shorthand as well as the toffs perhaps not on the same level as you, but only what I needed to know (sots was the only one I didn't know). Esperanto is a language I welcome but sadly I haven't heard much recently, of course I live in the US there's really no point for me learning it.

Once again your petty attempts to disparage me only shows that you've long since lost this argument. Honestly, you don't believe that I'm a "poor intellectual" no more than I think you're a "know-it-all" (I still think you're obnoxious though)

I believe it was Confucius who said: "He who throws the first punch admits to losing the argument."
15 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/2/10
Ehh.... I actually don't mind it much if the majority of the text is comprehensible, and that it takes a few more seconds to decode some other words.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/2/10

The same can be said if you talk to someone saying "are you going too?" the person on the receiving end can interpret it as either. It is the context of it being use that determines meaning, same applies to text langauge, and the word "cant." I recommended the dictionary because you didn't seem to know the meaning of "illiterate", simple as that. Yes, I have heard of Pitman shorthand as well as the toffs perhaps not on the same level as you, but only what I needed to know (sots was the only one I didn't know). Esperanto is a language I welcome but sadly I haven't heard much recently, of course I live in the US there's really no point for me learning it.


Not so! You will find that there is a difference in tone and meter when the two questions are spoken, and so the same cannot be said for spoken English.

And of Pitman and Esperanto, my points concerning them are as follows: that 1- they is a relitively unknown relic of the past and 2- were hailed as great innovations of language when they first came about. Of course, I highly doubt that you caught the sarcasm, being far more interested and perplexed by the lexicon of the sentence.


Once again your petty attempts to disparage me only shows that you've long since lost this argument. Honestly, you don't believe that I'm a "poor intellectual" no more than I think you're a "know-it-all" (I still think you're obnoxious though)

I believe it was Confucius who said: "He who throws the first punch admits to losing the argument."


Of course, you have yet to provide any arguments in favour of your so called 'shorthand', and its incomprehensibility, nor have you proved that it is indeed the future, but, if you want to win, then go forth, dear Ah Q, and claim your moral victory.
33 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/2/10
What worries me is that the kids growing up on abbreviated/IM/text language are going to be in for a rude awakening in college and in the work place. Case in point: a former student of mine (I was a teacher and one of my jobs right now is as an English tutor) is ranked in the top 2% of her class, but while she isn't overfamiliar with me in real life, her emails to me (probably through texting) carry that tone. She should know better.

On forums and other less formal places, I couldn't care less about someone's poor grammar. But you know what? With what little we have to evaluate each others' personalities and credibility, "butchering of the English language" in a post is going to affect how we react (or ignore) posts. We judge each other within seconds of scanning through or reading posts; if u right lik this, then I'm either going to skip right over what you have to say or only take it with a grain of salt.
243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Port Royal
Offline
Posted 6/2/10
I don't know.
"Pl0x."
^Dumbest shit ever.
2295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bin beside anfiel...
Offline
Posted 6/3/10
As long as it can be comprehended it's good 2 go
just dOnT tYpE LyK diZz
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/10 , edited 6/3/10

uhohimdead wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


uhohimdead wrote:


orangeflute wrote:



I suppose that you are entitled to the right to making yourself look more and more asinine by honouring me with that incomprehensability that is your responce to my posts, and, to that, I have no objections. But, my eyes are wearied by various attempts at dechiphering of your pappycock and, seeing as you can't be bothered with proper orthography or grammar, I will respond to you once you demonstrate a basic command of our language.


Okay for once I will, I do hope you'll excuse the errors in my sentences. Did you honestly believe that I lacked the ability to speak properly in my native language? That everyone that uses shorthand is an idiot? That just shows how narrow minded you are, not to mention the ineptitude of one who cannot grasp the replacement of simple words like "you" and "to" with "u" and "2". Yet you have the audacity to call me asinine? I'll put this in simple terms: "the ability to write in a langauge shows little in the actual intelligence of the person in question." This facade you've been putting on with your grammar hasn't for one minute changed my view that you're still "an obnoxious know-it-all who can't get with times."

I'll end this post with a piece of advice: "Either adapt to today's language in all ways or get left in the dust, because it will only get worse later."


And thank God you did, now I can finally understand what you are saying. These 'shorthands', so called by yourself, are deeply flawed failing in many respect. Your text speak, for example can't distinguish between homonyms:

r u goin 2?

This can either be interpreted as 'Are you going too?' and 'Are you going to?', two questions with different meanings. Also, the word 'cant', in this new text speak, can now be either interpreted as 'Can't' or 'Cant', two different words etymologically and lexiconally different. It is not at all faster, the speed used for to type hindered by moving the fingers to the number pad, to creating abbriviation that the mind is unused to, and so on and so forth.

But, you are right, evil and snobbish purist like myself(patronising poor intellectuals, such as yourself, by recomending a dictionary for the definition of simple words like 'illiterate'), who refuse to assimilate and adapt to the changing world, will die out, and this new shorthand will win out against proper orthography and proper grammar. Like those poor fools who refuse to learn the Pittman form of Shorthand- what, never heard of it? It was popular during the early Nineteenth century. Or those elitist Sots and Toffs who refuse to learn the language of the future, Esperanto- never heard of that either? I'll have you know that it was going to replace the all languages of Europe, with their illogical conjugations and illogical orthography.


The same can be said if you talk to someone saying "are you going too?" the person on the receiving end can interpret it as either. It is the context of it being use that determines meaning, same applies to text langauge, and the word "cant." I recommended the dictionary because you didn't seem to know the meaning of "illiterate", simple as that. Yes, I have heard of Pitman shorthand as well as the toffs perhaps not on the same level as you, but only what I needed to know (sots was the only one I didn't know). Esperanto is a language I welcome but sadly I haven't heard much recently, of course I live in the US there's really no point for me learning it.

Once again your petty attempts to disparage me only shows that you've long since lost this argument. Honestly, you don't believe that I'm a "poor intellectual" no more than I think you're a "know-it-all" (I still think you're obnoxious though)

I believe it was Confucius who said: "He who throws the first punch admits to losing the argument."


And Confucius created a system to enhance and perpetuate the imperial system of China to the point where progress is actively hindered by the inherent mechanism of the state. I highly doubt I would take any of his advices seriously. If you are wondering, look right below your post, and, lo and behold, there's my rebuttal.
2383 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/10
It's called being lazy, which represents our generation well.
Posted 6/3/10
This topic amuses me. I try to use "proper" English when I'm on the crunchyroll forums. But when I'm texting or IMing, I use a lot of abbreviations. There's nothing wrong with using abbreviations, it's easy, and it's not hard to understand. Although, I hate it when people start "TyPinG Lyk tHhizz" or "l1k3 th1$". Seriously. Why would you take the effort to do that?

Ok, so the other day my friend pointed out to my other friend that she speaks proper English, like she doesn't like using slangs and abbreviations. She told him that she likes speaking and writing this way because she likes speaking and writing it correctly and properly. He stated that the English that we use today has changed. Like how english had changed over the past hundreds of years. What was proper English then isn't considered as proper English today. He said that technically, since our never changing language is constantly growing with the use slangs and abbreviations, isn't the "non-proper" English that everyone use today is technically proper and correct? Our society has come to accept the English that we use today, even though our everyday English isn't necissarily "proper or correct". It's debatable. What he told her then left her speechless and confused, because he was right. Wow, after re-reading this again, it sounds kinda confusing... Well, it made sense when he said it.
4591 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / waiting for new R...
Offline
Posted 6/3/10
They are just too lazy to type the whole word. It's fine when they do it to communicate personally but in some situations they are just learning the language if they don't know it yet. Using proper English grammar is hard for a lot of people because they are just used to their own native languages. But right now people just don't take English seriously and they created a way to express it to something they find very interesting to read and good to look at.

It will be nice if a lot of people did take it seriously but they find proper grammar to be very boring so they want to make it more lively in their opinions.

But please a lot of people can't speak English or write proper English grammar nowadays.
2383 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/10
I knew of someone who wrote almost 100 percent slang, they're so dumb, they graduated too, I feel so ashamed.
33 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/3/10

choclate28 wrote:

This topic amuses me. I try to use "proper" English when I'm on the crunchyroll forums. But when I'm texting or IMing, I use a lot of abbreviations. There's nothing wrong with using abbreviations, it's easy, and it's not hard to understand. Although, I hate it when people start "TyPinG Lyk tHhizz" or "l1k3 th1$". Seriously. Why would you take the effort to do that?

Ok, so the other day my friend pointed out to my other friend that she speaks proper English, like she doesn't like using slangs and abbreviations. She told him that she likes speaking and writing this way because she likes speaking and writing it correctly and properly. He stated that the English that we use today has changed. Like how english had changed over the past hundreds of years. What was proper English then isn't considered as proper English today. He said that technically, since our never changing language is constantly growing with the use slangs and abbreviations, isn't the "non-proper" English that everyone use today is technically proper and correct? Our society has come to accept the English that we use today, even though our everyday English isn't necissarily "proper or correct". It's debatable. What he told her then left her speechless and confused, because he was right. Wow, after re-reading this again, it sounds kinda confusing... Well, it made sense when he said it.


Hmmm...well, language changes, and it changes rapidly. In fact, we can date ancient texts just by analyzing words that were used in a writing that weren't used 50 years later. Today, it doesn't even take a generation to see our language evolve. But largely, the evolution has to do with the words we choose to use; new words enter our language and others leave. However, rules of grammar, mechanics and sentence structure remain largely the same or evolve more slowly.

I don't think any crunchyroll user would complain about this post's language or yours, even though there are dozens of English faux paus between them. In the end, I think people are annoyed not only by poor English usage, but also by poor typing, lack of proofreading and unorganized writing. It becomes frustrating for readers, who waste their time (a precious commodity to many of us) reading poorly written posts. It also annoys those of us who see a youth in America who care little about their studies.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.