http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/11/11/nz.text.ap/index.html

I don't often complain about these new language regulations which seem to be getting more and more allowing all the time, but this is getting completely ridiculous.

My initial reaction was that this was ridiculous. But the I got to thinking (a rare occasion for me):

Is this really just another step in the evolution of the English language? After all, just look at the differences between U.K. English and U.S. English (cheques vs. checks, colour vs. color, etc.) – U.S. English tends to be more phonetically-based. So is there really a problem using “txt” instead of “text”? There’s an issue when the focus is on the actual English language (when text-speak isn’t allowed, according to the article), but where the emphasis is on comprehension and problem-solving, I’m not sure I have an issue with it.

Geezer-like attitudes aside. :p

Makes me ashamed to live in New Zealand...

What Nataraja said. :geezer: What a nightmare.

As long as the exams involving spelling, grammar and punctuation marking don't follow suit I really don't have an issue with it. Don't most students have their own form of shorthand which they write notes in anyway? I know I do. It's only a small step to extending a widely recognised shorthand into exam usage.

If the schools aren't going to teach kids to write properly, then who is?

I'm sick of having kids come and work with me who can't write a simple report properly. It's not my job to translate their gibberish into something that is suitable to put in front of the Board of Directors, or to external Analysts.

I think Splunge has a pretty good point. If speakers of Old and Middle English looked at Modern English, they'd probably throw a fit. I'm hardly inclined to think it's the future of the English, but there's no doubt it's going to evolve -- and evolution doesn't mean better or worse, just change -- over time.

So you could write: "Teh l33t crusaders roxorzed teh n00b muslms 111!oneone lol." in school? kewl!

There's a difference between "evolving" and "gibberish".

Well said, HB.

There will always be a so-called "language" that only a few people can readily decifer (generally associated with youth). But in the broader context, there are small steps ("evolution") and big steps ("revolution"). There's a big difference between l33t and "words" like "txt".

Good grief... are there lots of crazy mushrooms growing in NZ? Seems like the language authorities there are certainly in no short supply.

The authority's deputy chief executive for qualifications, Bali Haque, said students should aim to make their answers as clear as possible.Exactly. Not only is that crap technically a mistake, but it also makes the message not understandable to the reader (i.e. the teacher marking it). As a teacher, I would also find it disrespectful.

I agree in the sense that English is an ever-changing, evolving language and that it has made considerable advancements over the last few centuries or so, but I do believe that there is a such thing as going too far. Isn't the purpose of such "exams" and the required four years of English classes (in Washington, at any rate), to IMPROVE (gasp) our language capabilities? Rather than encouraging an INFERIOR use of language, why not continue along the tried-and-true path of improving the language of students? That would be the logical thing to do, because "text speak," while we all may have been guilty of it at some point in our lives, is inferior in every way to modern English, in that it is not universally understandable and is unspecific in its cases and/or spelling, among other things (proper nouns become simply nouns, etc, leading to some confusion). In short, there is a time and a place to use improper grammer. Exams are not included on this list. And yes, I know my screen-name is text speak. :D

As a teacher, I would also find it disrespectful. Exactly. Which is also why it is unacceptable in the sort of business documents we produce each day. Which is why kids need to be taught how to write properly.

Nice first post, BlckDeth.

there is a time and a place to use improper grammer.But isn’t that what it’s all about? Proper vs. improper evolves with time. Just like the spelling of “grammer” (your spelling) vs. “grammar” (the so-called “proper” spelling).

Language evolves, but using text based shorthand in official documents is not evolution, it is acclererated genetic mutation. So if we don't want that sort of language in official documents like business reports and newspapers, then kids should be taught to write "correctly" and be tested on that ability in exams.

Proper vs. improper evolves with time.Nicely put. Official documents (including exams) should have proper spelling and grammar. If this text-speak becomes the officially recognized standard, I guess they've won and they can use it on exams and we'll be going "I remember a time when txt was spelled with a 'e'".

I'm not saying all text speak will become the standard, but considering many kids use it and they will grow up one day and become the worlds leaders, is it really that unthinkable that words like that get into the mainstream way of writing?

And when that day comes, I vote that 'cya' becomes an officially recognized word :1eye:

"Just like the spelling of “grammer” (your spelling) vs. “grammar” (the so-called “proper” spelling)."

You're exactly right Splunge, but you've solidified my point in being so. By correcting my spelling mistake, you also emphasized that this isn't the place for incorrect spelling/grammar. And you are correct in saying that proper vs. improper (note the shorthand in 'verses'), evolves with time, we shouldn't be taking such drastic actions in a misconstrued attempt to butcher our own language. Anyone who's read Shakespeare could tell you that his language was cumbersome, and his work mirrors the expressions of the time. English today is far more flexible and far LESS onerous to use in everyday speech than it was 200 years ago, and I believe that we're better off because of it. However, that change was brought on by decades and decades of improvement through progressive literature. For while text-speak may be less cumbersome than the accepted English of today, it lacks the flexibility, variety, and strong specifics that've made our language what it is today. Perhaps if we gave it 200 years to pan out, text-speak could turn out to be beneficial, but who has that kind of time? Rash decisions rarely stand the test of time, and I have a feeling that this is destined to be one of those cases.

Thanks for proving my point.

The fact that you don’t know the correct spelling of “grammar” is not much different than knowing the difference between “asked” and “aksd” (pronounced “axed”). But I still know what you’re saying.

The point being is this - the ability to communicate is what’s most important.

I agree completely: communication is essential for a constructive society to exist. But as for the "grammer/grammar"-- it wasn't so much me not knowing the correct spelling as it was me being too lazy to read over my post after I had written it, and then noticing my mistakes after you pointed one of them out and kicking myself in the head over it (don't you hate that?). ;)

Well you could use the edit option :D

Though if you have good 'ol 56K it takes some time...

They are allowing that in Scotland also. Still it could be worse - ebonics.

How is that different, Cuchulainn? Netspeak and Ebonics are both dialects - why is one of more or less detrimental value to the overall language than the other?

My older son is now in first grade, and there is significant focus on writing. The students are encouraged to express their thoughts and tell their stories, and at this stage grammar and spelling and punctuation aren't allowed to get in the way of expression. The teacher promises that those things will come soon, but right now there are more important verbal skills to cover. If the kids want to say, "I rod my bik to the gardin on the rit sid of the rod," that's OK for now. They'll get all those myriad arbitrary spelling rules later.

Funny, though, how closely Net-speak resembles kid-speak.

Couldn't "txt" also mean taxed (sounds like taxt, no?) as well as text since they both sound basically the same, with very slightly phonetic variation?

Also, with something like BlckDeth's name, it could also mean Block Death, like you were killed by a block, a block death. In my opinon (clearly, since I am writing this), I find that text speak is too open to interpretation on what the "abbreviations" mean. While it has a lot of flexibility, it doesn't have much precision, which can be very important when you are trying to get a point, or points, across in a paper/post/whatever.

Rally, I can understand netspeak, its just English spelt differently (and a few new terms), but ebonics makes no sense to me at all. When I watch some tv programmes, I have to get my partner to translate.

Funny, though, how closely Net-speak resembles kid-speak. But not surprising. They write as they speak, or at least how the word sounds like. In English, rit sounds the same as right, rigt, rite and even rait.

Allowing txt-spk in schools is a sorry solution to prevent people failing exams due to not knowing their own language.

@Colthrun:

In English, rit sounds the same as right, rigt, rite and even rait.Well, there are many dialects for sure. I still shudder when I think someone could get rait, rit and right the same. It's three completely different sounds to me. In fact, right and rite would sound differently if I were talking particularly slowly or clearly. "The right of way," and, "the rite of passage," just seem to sound different. Slightly, but still. Or maybe it's just the word stress.

Allowing txt-spk in schools is a sorry solution to prevent people failing exams due to not knowing their own language.Yeah. What a great way to put it.

@BlckDeth:

Rather than encouraging an INFERIOR use of language, why not continue along the tried-and-true path of improving the language of students?Because everyone is about rights nowadays. Rights, minorities, diversity, you get the point? The effect is that if you correct a student, you violate his rights of expression. :rolleyes: In my view, students' most basic right is that to true knowledge and proper skills being taught. I'm very careful with my students when I have any (particularly because I'm not an officially trained teacher, so my tutoring methods are a collection of experience gathered when I was taught; by contrast, most properly trained teachers' English is quite deficient), but they still don't have any absolute right to good grades, a happy teacher, whatever else. They have the right to be taught something new, something better. Preferably the best there can be.

@Harbs:

Exactly. Which is also why it is unacceptable in the sort of business documents we produce each day. Which is why kids need to be taught how to write properly.Exactly. I tend to be offended by correspondence looking like someone hadn't even put it through Word, let alone a spell-checker, before sending. I shudder to think about the messages I'm going to get from all those plentiful management/marketing grads when I start practising as a lawyer. Fortunately, lawyers themselves tend to maintain a level of language that astonishes me (in a pleasant way).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not offended by someone's being kind and nice and just unable to figure out the tricky grammar of spelling. ;) By far not. And I prefer the person to keep writing like that rather than stop writing at all. But I don't like the crap talk. It looks like they don't care how much effort it's going to cost when you read it and try to figure it out. Not bothering to use question marks is a prime example.

Since you like trivia, our foreign minister used to be known as Mrs Comma. That's what her subordinates called her when she was vice minister. She put missing commas in red when filling them in and probably sending back.

@Rally:

My older son is now in first grade, and there is significant focus on writing. The students are encouraged to express their thoughts and tell their stories, and at this stage grammar and spelling and punctuation aren't allowed to get in the way of expression.I'm a big fan of laying some solid foundations in the "workshop" area before throwing kids on big waters. Spoken language is different: you can have people talk and talk and talk and just correct them on the fly or when they have finished. But writing... I believe in communication more than in expression. Granted, you can't communicate without expressing yourself somehow, but expression for it's own sake is vain.

If we move back to Harbs's context, for example, I clearly won't be interested in Clerk X's personal liberation from the boundaries of strict grammar and spelling rules or his other juicy pecularities. I want a clear and understandable message. If I get a stream of consciousness with neither commas nor question marks, but some unclear grammar and spelling instead, I will have no qualms quoting the whole and asking, "Rephrase, please."

[ November 13, 2006, 15:26: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Good points, chevalier.

My big problem with any of the excuses that people come up with for why we don't want to pressure the poor kids into learning too much at once is that, how come teachers managed to teach me all about grammar, as well as everything else?

I haven't been scarred for life by being taught grammar and spelling, and for losing marks for getting it wrong. More to the point, I would simply not be capable of doing my current job without having strong written language skills. Added to that, I get really cheesed off that I now need to be an English grammar teacher as well, to all the kids who come out of university with no ability to write coherent English.

We are doing our children an enormous disservice by not insisting that basid (and I mean basic) skills such as grammar and arithmetic are not taught to them at an early age.

The "proper" language is the language spoken by the users of said language. Dictionaries and grammar books are supposed to be descriptive of the language and possibly pointers about the most common usage of the language not really rules to tell you how to use the language.

Dis iz wel siknin man ow cn u use txt tlk in a xam? wel bd man dun no ow dey low dat.

Where is Falstaff when you need him?

All I can say is God Help the teachers trying to mark that garbage!

Txt speak is not evolution whichever way we look at it, it's bastardisation to the worst degree. I refuse to use that kind of language when I text or type on-line, leave alone in any other context.

I'm with everyone who thumbs down the dumbing down.

That is why I like these Boards so much. By and large, the people here use reasonably good grammar, which shows respect for the other readers. Like Viking, I never use shorthand, even when texting. In fact, I don't understand why people even use that shorthand because, when I tried it, it was much harder work than typing normally and took twice as long.

I'm a big fan of laying some solid foundations in the "workshop" area before throwing kids on big waters. Spoken language is different: you can have people talk and talk and talk and just correct them on the fly or when they have finished. But writing... I believe in communication more than in expression. Granted, you can't communicate without expressing yourself somehow, but expression for it's own sake is vain.It's an iterative process, Chev. The kids are being encouraged to express themselves freely to plant that seed, then, when it has sprouted, they'll bring up their grammar skills to match. The next step will be to expand upon the expression, then the grammar - back and forth, in steps that become closer and closer together until they're happening in parallel.

The single most important thing any child should take away from school is a love of learning. If you don't give that fragile thing a chance to get established, it will smother under all the rules and facts.

Good God. I'm never going to understand the younger generation ever, if this comes into common use. I simply cannot understand text messaging at all. My little brother uses it at times when he e-mails me, and my most common reply to him is: Uhhh....Ummmm...What? He then usually re-sends it with the words written out. I totally don't understand the use of numbers in text messaging. How is a number suppose to represent a letter? WTF? (yes, sarcasm intented with "WTF")

Well since English is pretty much the global language now, I guess it's the one that's gonna be bastardised at some point.

@joacqin:

The "proper" language is the language spoken by the users of said language. Dictionaries and grammar books are supposed to be descriptive of the language and possibly pointers about the most common usage of the language not really rules to tell you how to use the language.And one of the purposes of descriptive linguistics is to help people keep it standard and understandable.

@Rally: Well, hammering things into kids' heads right off the bat doesn't give all of them a great love of learning and there are some flaws in traditional education (there's a reason why I'm so lazy, for example). But sometimes all the expression gets in the way of things coming into kids' heads rather than out. Well, you'll see if your kids have the same command of English as you did when you were their age. Let me know when you know this because I'm curious. ;)

@Harbs: Since you mention maths... Even the maths-physics (middle education profile) kids can't calculate here. They know the formulae and all and tend to be able to work out tasks. But they need calculators for stuff I do in my head because I can't be arsed to mash the buttons. And they won't write it out on paper, no. Actually, some teachers already have it.

@ a soubriquet:

That's exactly my point. When you drop the rules and punctuations in the English language, you're bound to experience some confusion due to the lack of precision that you incur. This is what astounds me to the point of incredulity; why any sane examener would want to remove the rules of English in such a way that removes precision and understanding in an effort to IMPROVE precision and understanding is beyond me. If the two factors cancel each other out, why bother to set up the equasion in the first place?

This is what astounds me to the point of incredulity; why any sane examener would want to remove the rules of English in such a way that removes precision and understanding in an effort to IMPROVE precision and understanding is beyond me.It is not, as you put, an effort to improve precision and understanding, but rather an effort to improve creativity. Which also doesn't work out, because the most articulate words wouldn't have easily distinguished text-speak.

I believe my response to this bit of news can be accurately summed up as follows:

BWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!! LMFAO@J00 NZ!!!! :D

Personally I see evolution as something changing for the better. Text speak is not evolution of the language.

@Cap'n CJ: Yep...text speak is the grammatical equivalent of tying up women and burning them alive at the stake (sp??)...

It is not, as you put, an effort to improve precision and understanding, but rather an effort to improve creativity. Which also doesn't work out, because the most articulate words wouldn't have easily distinguished text-speak Since when did the issue become about creativity? Text-speak doesn't have anything to do with creativity in the negative sense-- if anything, it improves it IMO (ex. finding ways to spell the same word differently, etc). I belive this debate is centered primarily on how text-speak should NOT be used in exams (ok, so MOST of us think this), because of its negative effect upon the complex and articulate aspects of our language. Creativity is not an issue here.

Personally I see evolution as something changing for the better. Text speak is not evolution of the language. Then I really wonder whether you think Darwinian evolution is considered "better" by any means, since that sort of evolution is a matter of adaptation to certain pressures.

Speaking of which, I am wondering if text-speak is a sort of adaptation to a world where communication (esp. on the internet, but I guess also on cell phones now) has to be quick and there's not a way to communicate ideas efficiently, e.g. if you have to text message someone in the span of a message. Hence, words and messages get abbreviated -- "television" becomes "TV", "of course" becomes 'def", etc.

Of course, this also implies that you shouldn't use text-speak in other scenarios, where you have more time and less urgency and can therefore communicate ideas with, I suppose, greater nuance. But whether text-speak the same complexity and nuance, of, say, ebonics or the Queen's English is debatable. (For that matter, I believe it has been argued that ebonics is just as complex and internally consistent as the Queen's English -- it's quirk of how we're able to create and absorb language as children, it eeems.)

I have always wondered why people feel the need to write "u" instead of "you" etc. It isn't easier to type, it isn't faster - all it does is confuse the receiving end and show that you can't apprehend a language and use it properly. It is like writing English with German grammar - you would have to decipher what is written.

But as other people said, it is okay for personal notes. And it is also okay if you use it while writing an assignment or essay, as long as you take the time to change it to proper English.

But if students begin using this as an excuse not to learn English, then that is where I see the real problem.

But if this becomes acceptable on an international basis, I will begin talking like a Smurf.

I smurfed with this Smurf, while smurfing the smurf in the smurf.

And for proper conduct, here is a translation: I talked with this guy, while frying the bacon in the kitchen.

Grammar is the structure of the English language. If we take it away, we will have nothing more then a string of nonsence syllables.
@ Tassadar: English is Global, but I think French is spoken as a main language in more countries

Actually, French is far down the list, with English well over it.

Here is a rough list. (http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html)

Am I the only young person who can't make any sense from the majority of text speak? When I get messages from my younger sisters, I can barely understand them. It's like monkey gibberish...

I have always wondered why people feel the need to write "u" instead of "you" etc. It isn't easier to type, it isn't faster - all it does is confuse the receiving end and show that you can't apprehend a language and use it properly. It is like writing English with German grammar - you would have to decipher what is written. Yeah. It also makes me wonder what's the deal with people putting "u" in normal sentences. That people communicate like that saddens me, but the way some will make effort specifically to make their language more bizarre to the reader's eye is close to pissing me off. Not trying to be understood is already rude, but trying not to be understood is just awful.

Or imagine someone wants you to spend at least a couple of minutes thinking about game advice, but he can't give you the time needed to place a couple of full stops or question marks. What kind of message does it send? "My time is too precious to be wasted on making my request for ten times more of your time understandable?" Or maybe, "I want you to help me, a complete stranger, but I can't be arsed to make myself understood?"

Sometimes I wonder, however, if some people don't actually have an easier time understanding a message completely devoid of punctuation, including capital letters and full stops, than they have with normal language.

I still don't see how using text gibberish when texting is faster. I think it is miles faster to use proper words, because they are already in the cellphone's dictionary so require far less key strokes than having to painstakingly manually type in fake words that the phone (quite rightly) does not understand.

Well, I can see how u rather than you will be simpler and faster (it's just the last letter of the word), especially seeing as it's easy to understand (the letter is pronounced the same as the word). It's some of the other examples that get messed up, like putting in a ph instead of an f; for example, phear. There is no way that could possibly be quicker to type, and it only hurts understanding. And then there's ph34r, where the 3 is supposed to be a backwards E and the 4 is supposed to look like a capital A. How is that ANY sort of convenient? But moreover, it doesn't look anything like the original word it's supposed to represent, even sounding it out.

To get back on the original topic -- I think you're not so much talking about text-speak as you are l33t speak.

The way I keep seeing it, text-speak is just very abbreviated written text. Going on that, I don't have a lot of problem with a lot of abbreviations I see a lot in my/classmates'/professors' notes, e.g. v. = very; sth. = something; smn. = someone; three dots = therefore.

For the sake of brevity, convenience, and urgency -- I just don't see a problem with it. I think I would rather have someone communicating to me what movie he wants to see with "lets go c MI3" instead of being late to the movies because he spent two minutes typing out his message.

Disclaimer -- I don't text message people a lot, so there might be something with the technology that I've just missed.

Text speak or leet speak or whatever seems to me more like a written sociolect than a step in the evolution ladder of language. You might as well allow the use of every other slang that's indecipherable to others - in fact you should, if you're going to allow this one.

There's a time and a place for everything. Schoolwork should focus on understandability.

And one of the purposes of descriptive linguistics is to help people keep it standard and understandable.Descriptive linguistics describes how it is. Prescriptive linguistics prescribes how it should be.

Descriptive linguistics describes how it is. Prescriptive linguistics prescribes how it should be.Correct/incorrent belongs to "should be", but standard/non-standard belongs to "is", as it is easily verifiable with one's senses. In other words, to judge if someone's language is correct, you must compare it with how it should be, but to judge if it's standard or not, you need to compare his language with other people's. And that's exactly what descriptive linguistics is about.

I took shorthand in high school as a thought towards making it easier to take notes (my handwriting is universally acclaimed as the rebirth of hieroglyphics and, although I am a lawyer, many people mistake me for a doctor based on my handwriting). With that intro aside, isn't this text speak really nothing more than modern shorthand? If teachers are willing to accept it then fine, but no teacher I ever had would have accepted shorthand in lieu of longhand with the exception of certain elements that have made it into universally accepted English prose (i.e., vs. e.g., etc., things like that).

So the question is really whether this type of shorthand has become mainstream enough to be accepted at the level it is being offered. The fact that it is being accepted in some situations just lends credence to the argument that it is hitting the mainstream. Thus, it could very well be the future of English prose, as much as the idea is wholly repugnant to me.

Abbreviations and acronyms are one thing. L33t/text speak is another. I don't have a problem shortening every word in a sentence with a period in the middle or skipping vowels. But quasi-phonetic "R u my 8er?" kind of talk is just a barbaric approach to the written language.

Your "barbaric approach to the written language" could just as easily be someone else's modern shorthand.

It's silly to take the evolution of something as important as the style of language to the level of "text-speak" used by a bunch of kids using cell phones. The Modern Language Association (or MLA) is the agency that oversees the style, punctuation and documentation of sources for most scholarly documemnts in many schools and universities. And I have used the Chicago Manual of Style on occasion, or when its use was requested by a professor.

Writing is a craft and a discipline; the action of writing requires careful thought, not only to the words, but how they interact with each other in a sentence, paragraph, or essay. Even the creative act of writing a novel, or short story requires careful attention to the flow of words and language in all its array and diverse parts.

Writers shape, give contour and texture in differing modes of structure to their work in much the same way that sculptors work with stone, or musicians work with scales. Would you ask a musician to write music without the knowledge or proper use of scales?

Language is more than just communication or expression, for it also provides meaning. But to understand what is "meant" by language, one has to have a grasp of basics upon which we can all agree, so that meaning can be communicated with clarlity and precision. Otherwise, as HB points out, it's all just "gibberish," which is the exact opposite of language.

http://www.mla.org/style

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html

Correct/incorrent belongs to "should be", but standard/non-standard belongs to "is", as it is easily verifiable with one's senses. In other words, to judge if someone's language is correct, you must compare it with how it should be, but to judge if it's standard or not, you need to compare his language with other people's. And that's exactly what descriptive linguistics is about.Simply determining what is standard and what's a certain dialect or sociolect or even idiolect is descriptive. If you're attaching value to one over the other, if you're making standard a goal, for instance, that's prescriptive.

If there are people who understand it, it's not gibberish. It's just that schools need to use the kind of language that everybody can understand.

Simply determining what is standard and what's a certain dialect or sociolect or even idiolect is descriptive. If you're attaching value to one over the other, if you're making standard a goal, for instance, that's prescriptive.Descriptive linguistics is not an art for its own sake and it's natural that the results of surveys and comparisons will be used to facilitate communication.

If there are people who understand it, it's not gibberish. It's just that schools need to use the kind of language that everybody can understand.Everyone understands, "I have never went to school," or, "I don't need no education." Is it not gibberish, though? :p

Descriptive linguistics is not an art for its own sakeIt's about research. Seeking information about how languages have developed, how they work etc. If you use that information for determining correctness or how one "should" speak, it's a different matter.
Everyone understands, "I have never went to school," or, "I don't need no education." Is it not gibberish, though?Actually, no, it's not. "Gabba gabba hey hey" would be gibberish.