News Txting duzn't hurt grammar

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/08/02/texting_doesnt_hurt_grammar/

 

I don't care what that study says. My spelling has got worse since my txt speak on CS:S and IM. But it's my own problem, just means I have to install MS Word to check my spelling when it is important.

 

Supposedly so, but I'm not sure it improves it either. I know plenty of people who can write in txt spk who have terrible grammar, and a poor handle on the English language. Online geekery have gone so far beyond txtspk type rubbish that we're back in territory where good use of English isn't just encouraged it's required and admired. This is much better for the language then txt spk ever will be.

Idiots have always talked like idiots I guess.

 

That just about sums it up. I'll use the odd txt-type abbreviation, but I can't stand actually reading sentences wholly written in the stuff. Probably why I absolutely never send text messages on my phone... takes too long to type anything readable, and I'd rather have a thirty-second call and get the whole message, and a response, across.

 

My language suffers from chat rooms
translation
mI gr4m3r suxors fr0m usn L337 SP33|{

 

I have excellent communications skills but send a couple thousand text messages a month.

It's not bad, but my parents think so.

 

"Grammar is spelt with an "a", not an "e". LOL. Just kiddin'.

 

a study of 71 Teens held by a Canadian University (must be into the disintegration of American English anyway).
Too small a sample to be significant at all.
Not news - not a proper study.

 

71 is indeed a small study but I think given the quantity of information that must have had to have been gathered over the period I assume it must have been gathered over, it's imo just within the realms of acceptable. It certainly degrades the findings significantly then if they'd been of 710 people, but given the subject matter I'd still find it a usefull study myself.

 

how much money do you think they wasted with this study

 

71 people is too small - the time scale isn't mentioned.
I'm sorry Canadian/US english grammar isn't all that either.
The study is bunk as far as I'm concerned

 

I'm 16 and text a fair amount. I used to text in text speak, but I normally use the predictive text function as I find it quicker to type. I only use text speak to shorten the message if it gets too long to fit into 1 message.

 

Why do you say that Canadian/US grammar "isn't all that?" How do you feel about the Australian dialect of the English language?

-monkey

 

Well, North Americans have brutalised the language a fair bit, so, he's fairly just in saying it imo.

 

How is their "brutalisation" any different from the way that it has moved on over here at the same time? They're just two forks of the language, and I can think of many people here who have much more "brutalised" grammar than most Americans.

 

Yes but American grammar has been mixed in with german grammar. So you have grammar that is in some ways quite different from English.

edit:where did your av go btw? I hate mods not having an av, I miss them and say naughty things

 

Apart from relatively recent dumbing down examples, America started with an earlier version of UK "standard" English than Australia, so some of the difference is us moving on, them being rural hicks and still using 17th Century words and phrases. Though God knows how they arrived at "I could care less", it's not even logical.

But when you consider the major influx of fresh well-spoken British emigrants to Oz from 1948-1975, the Strines really managed to set the speed record for buggering the English language up.

 

Ive never thought texting (1337 speak, or whatever) has caused a decline in grammar and such, but when every key press matters, and on a phone it can take up to 4 presses to get 1 letter, it does make a difference

People can still spell, and use grammar, just when it comes to saving a lot of time, people generally will

 

As I'm from good-ol'-Germany I don't really care for brutalisation of the English language. And afaik (aaah! txt speech! ) british English is closer to the 'original' English than american English even though sometimes it's harder to understand you from that island over there.
But the worst brutalisation of any language I know is German... damn, I'm 22 and I don't understand more than 50% of what like 15 year old kids talk about. Listening to them is more fun than listening to the ghetto'est ghetto dialect in the USA. Every rapper overseas might learn a lot about ghetto slang from these kids.
And look at World of Warcraft: There's like at least 1.5 million people in Germany playing it and I don't think it does actually turn you into a stupid person from one moment to another but yeah it does change the way you talk. It's like every game that's played a lot: It gets it's own language... look at CS, Diablo or Everquest. But that's not the bad thing out there... it's the stupidity of the youth that scares me most.

Am I really 22? I sound like an old man...

Didn't you forget something?

 

I don't want to assume any particular meaning on his part, but I was wondering why he thinks that North Americans have such a different grammar than Britons. While we may have quite a few differences in vocabulary and spelling, the grammar (or the basic set of rules that define the use of the language) is fairly close. True, there are some differences, but certainly not enough to say that we have butchered the language.

If you want to be pendantic when talking about the differences between the various dialects, you have to make the distinction between American, Canadian, British, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Australian English (not to mention the many other countries that have their own dialect - India, for example). Also, take into consideration the many differences within the specific regions (Northern US English sounds much different than Southern US English). Even different parts of England use slightly different vocabulary, and each comes with it's own vernacular and colloquial variations.

Of course, all the debate in the world doesn't take into consideration the fact that there is no official body to oversee English grammar. The differences, whether big or small, are largely due to geographical and sociological influences, and each region's English is just as valid as the others'.

The point that I'm coming to is that language evolves. The English we know today is different from the proper English 100 years ago. Phrases become outdated, words become archaic, and grammar shifts to accomodate. Language exists, after all, to communicate. As we move into an increasingly digital existence, it makes sense that more and more people may adopt "text speak," as it helps them communicate better in a particular situation.

Hopefully that made sense. I cobbled that together during some downtime here at work and it may not flow as well as intended.

-monkey