Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Annoying Chat Speak

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mattingly
    replied
    Might as well. I figured that the person digging up old threads could've replied within the few days given a chance to do so, but that forumer hasn't come around yet.

    Closing.

    Leave a comment:


  • AutographCollector
    replied
    Brad,
    this thread should be closed anyways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by Madviewer View Post
    i just read it OK, All I was trying to do was to get you to lighten-up , "why be so critical of people that might not be as smart as yourself." The LOL's & RUOK's help some of us. Read Ubiquitous's Post that I also replyed to. np though guess I got a li'll ticked at your Post. sorry,I came on here looking for baseball threads.
    I'm fine as far as being OK. I still don't know why you re-opened a thread that had been dormant for the past 19 months.

    I'm not trying to be critical, nor do I claim to be smarter than anyone else here. I'm just trying to get my question answered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Madviewer
    replied
    Originally posted by Mattingly View Post
    RUOK = Are you Okay?

    If so, then might I ask the reason for this thread being dug up after 19 months?
    i just read it OK, All I was trying to do was to get you to lighten-up , "why be so critical of people that might not be as smart as yourself." The LOL's & RUOK's help some of us. Read Ubiquitous's Post that I also replyed to. np though guess I got a li'll ticked at your Post. sorry,I came on here looking for baseball threads.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by Madviewer View Post
    RUOK Just had to sign on here to post that to you
    RUOK = Are you Okay?

    If so, then might I ask the reason for this thread being dug up after 19 months?

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by Madviewer View Post
    VGP Very good post sir,if more people thought like you it'd me a much better place.
    Are you here with the intentions of discussing baseball or are you just dropping in to snidely comment on a long, ongoing thread that really hadn't been discussed in over a year and a half?

    Leave a comment:


  • Madviewer
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    I find it odd that when people find other peoples behaviour or actions annoying they want them to change. To me its like an old man yelling at the sky because its raining.

    Once you go down the path of changing other peoples ways you expose to others changing your ways.

    I'm a strong live and let live person. If you're reading somebodies posts and you find them annoying or grating heres a hint on what to do. Stop reading the post! If you are getting nothing of value from a posters words then don't read their posts, getting them to write in perfect english is not going to change the value of their post, it's just going to take longer to read. Almost nothing has ever been gained by pointing out a flaw in somebodies grammar, spelling, or writing style.
    VGP Very good post sir,if more people thought like you it'd me a much better place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Madviewer
    replied
    Originally posted by Mattingly View Post
    Gashouse6, can you please post a link to the threads you've found these in?

    AG1, would you mind not attempting to irritate someone by using language that they're complaining about? You may find it funny, but I don't.

    Since this is a baseball forum, rather than some chat room, please use proper English, including full words with minimal abbreviation, especially of the "chat" variety.
    RUOK Just had to sign on here to post that to you

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Originally posted by VTSoxFan
    I just want to say that, as a fan of the beauty, versatility and above all the power of language, I find this conversation fascinating.

    Have either of you ever read The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way by Bill Bryson? I think you'd like it.
    I have not read it, but I will put in on my list.

    Leave a comment:


  • SoxSon
    replied
    Originally posted by VTSoxFan
    I just want to say that, as a fan of the beauty, versatility and above all the power of language, I find this conversation fascinating.

    Have either of you ever read The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way by Bill Bryson? I think you'd like it.

    I'm glad you've enjoyed the thread, Annie. When I saw that you had posted here, I felt certain that it must be an effort to get us back to baseball!

    I actually have read Bryson. He's quirky and anecdotal, and now that you've brought it up, the book does remind me a bit of this thread. I don't generally get to discuss my vocation here on BBF, so it's been a nice change of pace for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • VTSoxFan
    replied
    I just want to say that, as a fan of the beauty, versatility and above all the power of language, I find this conversation fascinating.

    Have either of you ever read The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way by Bill Bryson? I think you'd like it.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Originally posted by SoxSon
    I noticed that I've answered most of these questions already, but just to add a little something: It's always a traditionalist's perspective that catering to the ignorant is a factor in the evolution of language, and it's fine to feel that way. However, one must consider a population in its entirety when thinking linguistics; it should become apparent that a language never belongs to the elite few who generally claim ownership. It can never belong to a few, period. That's the basic nature of language.
    Right, that's what is really interesting about it. Those who devote themselves to language and profess themselves, or are considered, authorities (at least, relatively speaking) have the least control over how it develops. I believe that I stated earlier that the elitist perspective is rather meaningless and self-indulgent because language is a function-first medium and merely a means of communication. If esoteric rules obscure that function, they need to go because they do not serve to aid in language's primary purpose.

    Ironically, as one expands their understanding of language and the unique identity of words, they begin to search for the "perfect" way of phrasing something. One of two negative side effects frequently occur from that development. One pitfall is that the nuance that was carefully considered when choosing specific wording is completely lost on the reader and rendered moot. The other is that the writer's quest leads him down the road of obscurity resulting in pedantic composition that ends up alienating and minimizing his audience. The latter is why modern academia is so dry and unappealing to most students.

    Knowing the difference between "less" and "fewer" is something that some people may think makes us special or "smart." But, that just makes us the Harlem Globetrotters of language. The circus tricks entertain the crowd, but it's the baskets that win games. If all that funky dribbing doesn't help you get a better shot, what's the point? Without reminding ourselves that communication is at the center of it all, we are likely to indulge ourselves until we are the ones who become incomprehensible.

    To finally bring it all back to the original topic, and this is what I said in my first reply, the question about "chat speak," or any issue, is whether or not it poses an obstacle to comprehension. In this case, there is not much "saved" by using chat speak, so if it undermines effective communication at all, it's probably not worth using.
    Last edited by digglahhh; 05-05-2006, 12:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SoxSon
    replied
    Originally posted by digglahhh
    I only brought up the issue of acceptance because you were talking about us moving away from the acceptance of a certain rule.

    Who's moving away from it, and why?
    Oh, now I gotcha, I think. I was speaking societally. We're moving away from it because that's how language evolves. It really is out of our hands (by "our," I mean yours and mine).

    Originally posted by digglahhh
    Is there a case as to why it should be changed? Are those devoted to the study and use of language moving away from it? Do those people still believe in the rule, but are giving up hope that most will learn and use the rule and hence moving away from it themselves?
    That's a good question. I think the case (aside from the issue of language "shrinking" that I mentioned before, which is the single biggest reason for it to fade) for its changing can probably best be found in the fact that it didn't exist before. It's a peculiar addition to the English language.

    Those devoted to the study and use of language are either traditionalists firmly in the camp of changing nothing ever, or they are purposely moving away from it. I can't speak on one small rule with any authority, but my gut feeling is that the majority of linguists right now are moving away from it. Remember that belief in a rule of grammar is beholden to its usage (not something traditionalists like to hear), and that the acceptance and understanding of a rule of grammar by a population will ultimately decide its fate. Those who believe in a rule of grammar have no power over its usage once they're dead. I hope you follow my meaning.

    Originally posted by digglahhh
    Maybe no practical reason is needed for a shift in preferred variations of language and grammar, but then what is behind them? Is that move rooted sociologically, politically? If it is, there is a practical reason for somebody. Its just likely that that somebody is not in the language community.
    Catering to the ignorant is the best hypothesis I can posit.
    I noticed that I've answered most of these questions already, but just to add a little something: It's always a traditionalist's perspective that catering to the ignorant is a factor in the evolution of language, and it's fine to feel that way. However, one must consider a population in its entirety when thinking linguistics; it should become apparent that a language never belongs to the elite few who generally claim ownership. It can never belong to a few, period. That's the basic nature of language.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    I only brought up the issue of acceptance because you were talking about us moving away from the acceptance of a certain rule.

    Who's moving away from it, and why?

    Is there a case as to why it should be changed? Are those devoted to the study and use of language moving away from it? Do those people still believe in the rule, but are giving up hope that most will learn and use the rule and hence moving away from it themselves?

    Right and wrong is a poor choice of lexicon for what we are talking about, agreed.

    Maybe no practical reason is needed for a shift in preferred variations of language and grammar, but then what is behind them? Is that move rooted sociologically, politically? If it is, there is a practical reason for somebody. Its just likely that that somebody is not in the language community.

    This is not the case where something like this would be likely to occur. So why then would a move away from the rule occur? Catering to the ignorant is the best hypothesis I can posit.

    Leave a comment:


  • SoxSon
    replied
    Originally posted by digglahhh
    Ah, this is where we differ... Standards are arbitrary,questioning why we choose one as opposed to the other though, that's where intellectual freedom is born.
    That's what I'm saying, though. We need to question why we follow arbitrary standards. Since language is fluid, it's highly unintellectual, in my mind, to believe that a standard like -'s on a singular possessive noun ending with -s is the standard of "right," which is (I thought) what you suggested earlier in the "goodnight" example.

    Originally posted by digglahhh
    The spirit of my point is different though. There is a difference between rejection and ignorance. Every idiot who doesn't know that his sentence requires a semi-colon isn't James Joyce... "Accepting" a rule must be viewed in opposition to rejecting it, Not following the rule because you don't know it, doesn't have a place in this dichotomy.
    That's an entirely different discussion than the one we were having about possessive singular nouns. "Acceptance" or "rejection" of any rule of language can only be viewed as fair when done with understanding, of course. The spirit of my posts here has nothing to do with forgiving ignorance.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X