eurekalert.org — ?Instant messaging, or IM, is not just bad grammar or a bunch of mistakes,? says Dr. Pamela Takayoshi, Kent State University associate professor of English. ?IM is a separate language form from formal English and has a common set of language features and standards.?
May 2, 2008 View in Crawl 4
xnarrowsoulxMay 3, 2008
Seconded. People expect respect when they can't write a single discernible word... They didn't put us through years of English class for nothing, damnit. It's to the point that if you don't talk like you're texting on term papers they put you in Honors English in my school...
sniperzeroMay 3, 2008
How about some O RLY chocolate?<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/food_drink/O_RLY_Chocolate">http://digg.com/food_drink/O_RLY_Chocolate</a>
calmblueoceanMay 3, 2008
a language? sort of. it's a bunch of abbreviations (for English phrases), and a very limited means of communication... and it's completely mediated by limitations in current technology that are quickly vanishing.
lordenlilMay 3, 2008
You are confusing two different concepts. The first is a dialect, the second is a language. British English and American English are two different dialects of the same language, because there is "mutual intelligibility", meaning, when Americans hear British people speak, or vice versa, almost everything is understood. There is definitely gray area in terms of mutual intelligibility, like Ladino and Spanish or Yiddish and German, but for the most part mutual intelligibility is pretty clear. The romance languages all originated in Rome, hence the name. There was a time when they were just many different dialects of Latin, but eventually, those dialects changed so much that they lost their mutual intelligibility. Now we have many different languages in the same group, and we call them the romance languages. With regards to the current article- my point is that there is near complete mutual intelligibility between text message abbreviations and clippings to spoken English. Keep in mind that spelling has absolutely no bearing with regards to language/linguistics, its only the sound. That being said, there is no conceivable reason for someone to call internet shorthand a new language. Again, at best it's a new dialect.
kimcheefreak17May 3, 2008
Texting speak would be the devolution of the English language...
zaleucusJun 16, 2008
Actually I thought it was obvious that ebonics is not a language, just as obvious as texting.I do know that the Oakland (california) school district once voted that it was a language. They clearly have some educated language teachers.