quite frankly i think you are a discredit
to your course and studies of Linguistics
to your course and studies of Linguistics
When you're an accredited accredited and a phD in the subject, I'll give that some weight. Until then, I'll go with what such a university and individual thought of my work, which was far from a discredit.
you fail to recognise the mosaic of the language we use daily ...
its constant changes according to time, place, conditions,
innovations, culture and technology ... as well as its use
as part of human genius and genus.
its constant changes according to time, place, conditions,
innovations, culture and technology ... as well as its use
as part of human genius and genus.
I don't fail to recognise any such mosaic. I deride it. To deride it, I have to first recognise it.
its to your laziness of perception not to recognise that
Refuted and ignored.
but i do understand your need to look for affirmation
by simply characterising Netspeak, or me as Bullshit,
while you ignore the obvious ... we've been down this road before
by simply characterising Netspeak, or me as Bullshit,
while you ignore the obvious ... we've been down this road before
Not really. To all of the above, actually.
and really ...
my original thoughts on the subject were pretty innocuous
to have deserved your kind response: but then maybe you just take
things and yourself a little too seriously 0.o
my original thoughts on the subject were pretty innocuous
to have deserved your kind response: but then maybe you just take
things and yourself a little too seriously 0.o
You're the one comparing "lol ur r 2 kewl" to putting a man on the moon. Which one of us needs to put things in perspective, do you think?
and again i sense your lacking comprehension and twisting my words ...
*thats not very linguistic of you*
*thats not very linguistic of you*
I comprehend you fine, I simply disagree with you. But, that is the single most common mistake on the internet, I find... that, or it's a particularly sad bit of dialectic which should be purged with fire and acid from the collective mind of the internet.
And, in point of fact, twisting words around is one of the best skills you can learn - but it's not a linguistic subject. Linguistics are the study of language and language theory, not learning how to use the same.
you see, i DIDNT say that "
YOU) said nothing about them being illiterate"
i merely ASKED if thats how you would sum netspeakers up,
as they are often characterized that way.
YOU) said nothing about them being illiterate"i merely ASKED if thats how you would sum netspeakers up,
as they are often characterized that way.
Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but, duh. What do you think I was responding to?
for some reason you seem awful offended, sensitive and arrogant
to some things i have to say, even when they arent directed at you heh
to some things i have to say, even when they arent directed at you heh
Naw. I simply object when people claim evolution of the English language, when, in fact, erosion is the case. English is my stock in trade. So, yes, you might say I have some personal attachment to the issue, but no, I am not personally offended.
but this is an open forum ... so do carry on as you wish
Darn tootin.
very simply however ... language changes, because language is not
bullshit, nor is it lazy
bullshit, nor is it lazy
I didn't say language was bullshit. I said a certain way of using the language was lazy. This is true. This is recognized fact in the linguistic community. Certain linguistic phenomenon are the result of, for lack of a more exact term, people being lazy.
Changes in language can be caused by people being lazy, true. More often, changes in language come through social, economic, or geographic forces, however.
as a student of Linguistics ...
you should be able to recognise why we spell
and speak the way we do today
you should be able to recognise why we spell
and speak the way we do today
Absolutely. Do you know why? Hint: It's the opposite of the position you are trying to make right now.
you should have beeen able to learn the etymologies
of words and chart their changes in meanings and usages
of words and chart their changes in meanings and usages
Yup. Mostly not relevent to the subject at hand, however.
you ought to know the differences among the major periods
of English ... old, middle, modern, and now, contemporary-techno
of English ... old, middle, modern, and now, contemporary-techno
Contemporary-techno is not a period of language. It is, at best, a dialect - something the linguistic community as a whole is not accepting of as yet, however it was the subject of my thesis. More specificly, it's a patois, or at best an argot, depending on how pretentious you want to be. It is catagoricly not, however, a new period of the english language.
therefore, you should also know how major English, American
and Foreign Authors, Poets, and Lyricists use the resources
of language, modernism and technology, and the USES of modernism
and technology to effect changes in language, whether it is netspeak,
hip hop, or gangsta, or 01110111 00101111 01100101
and Foreign Authors, Poets, and Lyricists use the resources
of language, modernism and technology, and the USES of modernism
and technology to effect changes in language, whether it is netspeak,
hip hop, or gangsta, or 01110111 00101111 01100101
This is, quite simply, nonsense. Because an author, poet, or song-writer uses something does not lend it legitimacy. While their usage may, and I stress may, help something become more accepted, they are not the defining element. Mass acceptance are. And I hate to tell you, but the world as a whole mocks your "new period of the english language".
if you did, then you wouldnt describe the differences among
todays American-English dialects, and cultrualisms as "bulshit or lazy"
todays American-English dialects, and cultrualisms as "bulshit or lazy"
Again, I describe the nonsense you try to pass off as logic as "bullshit", and only that. The use of the language has always only been classified as "lazy". If you're going to accuse me of not comprehending what you say, you might want to work on understanding what I say first.
you, as you claim, studied linguistics ...
Dur.
then one would think you would love the ideas of study,
the experiences of understanding and the insights,
into every nuance of every sentence and word you hear,
read or think, rather than JUST arbitrarily calling it all bullshit or lazy
the experiences of understanding and the insights,
into every nuance of every sentence and word you hear,
read or think, rather than JUST arbitrarily calling it all bullshit or lazy
Nonsense. That's akin to saying someone who studied to be a doctor would love seeing people die of cancer, because it's a chance to see how a disease works. I have a particular loathing for "netspeak" on a personal level exactly because I know what it is, and it's eroding something I love. Not all change is good. On a professional level, netspeak is fascinating - but it's not a new language, and it's not a remarkable achievement. It simply is.
language is always changing and is adapting to the needs of its users
Yes, but taken as a whole, not all adaptations are beneficial.
or didnt you know that?
The problem is I do know it - and I know the context behind the statement, too.
you might call some aspects of it bullshit and lazy,
but then you seem to have a personal ax to grind,
so its understandable, tho not very admirable.
but then you seem to have a personal ax to grind,
so its understandable, tho not very admirable.
See above.
you should know that if language hadnt changed, just even from
the dark ages of the 1950's, we wouldnt have modems, fax machines,
cable or tv, or even rock & roll ...
the dark ages of the 1950's, we wouldnt have modems, fax machines,
cable or tv, or even rock & roll ...
Not necessarily. Fundamentally, the language hasn't changed from the 1950s, truthfully. Some jargon has fallen out of use, others have rose to replace it, but the fundamentals of the language are still almost identical. And we already had both TV and rock and roll back then. Language more often changes as the result of external changes, not as a precursor to external changes.
and as long as we do, language and users are going to change,
even if you call some aspects of it bullshit and lazy
even if you call some aspects of it bullshit and lazy
See above.
there may even be some truth to what you say ... but ONLY to some of it ...
but certainly not in the context, nor to the extent you express here
but certainly not in the context, nor to the extent you express here
You're welcome to your opinion, but you aren't going to convince me until you cite something beyond impassioned self-interest.
i just wonder, were there people like you around
who called Shakespeare bullshit and lazy, who were more used to
the languages of Chaucer or Beowulf? ...
who called Shakespeare bullshit and lazy, who were more used to
the languages of Chaucer or Beowulf? ...
Trust me. In five hundred years, the contents of an AOL chatroom are not going to be great literature, any more than the gutter-speak of Shakespeare's days is now. I have no problem with change, I have a problem with erosion.
you should know the answer to that one *g*
more than anyone here, Mr Linguistic, (or Mz), it is because of
new technologies, new products and NEW EXPERIENCES, that require
new terms, a newer means to express them, to understand them
more quickly and effeciently.
more than anyone here, Mr Linguistic, (or Mz), it is because of
new technologies, new products and NEW EXPERIENCES, that require
new terms, a newer means to express them, to understand them
more quickly and effeciently.
None of which has jack-all to do with the topic at hand, however.
old bullshit and old laziness stifles new experiments and new progress
Great, I'm the linguistic equivilant of a luddite. Or not. I'm not stifling anyone, I'm just calling it as I see it.
technology and the internet more than ever before
has brought together more people, more languages and more cultures
it has also brought new terminologies, in order to refer
to them and to understand them better.
has brought together more people, more languages and more cultures
it has also brought new terminologies, in order to refer
to them and to understand them better.
Repeating, none of which has jack-all to do with the topic at hand, however. If anything, the subject we are discussing makes the language less suited for what you're talking about here. The essense of such a meeting of minds is inter-comprehensibility.
in addition to new technologies, and more world cultures
coming together in mass communication, you should also know
from your amazing achievement in taking Linguistic Courses,
that many of changes in language start with teens and young adults.
coming together in mass communication, you should also know
from your amazing achievement in taking Linguistic Courses,
that many of changes in language start with teens and young adults.
Hence why school is so important, so as to teach them the rules of language.
as teens and different cultures interact over the internet,
language evolves, and grows, (depending on ones point of view),
to form, and to include, new words, new meanings and derivations,
new phrases and construction, from one culture to another ...
from one generation to the other, different from the older generation
language evolves, and grows, (depending on ones point of view),
to form, and to include, new words, new meanings and derivations,
new phrases and construction, from one culture to another ...
from one generation to the other, different from the older generation
Again, not what we are talking about. Do you even know what we are talking about, at this point?
OR DINZT ZU NO DAT?
See, "Or didn't you know that?" is so much clearer. Do you think one of these peoples from a different culture... lets say, a person from China, who has only a sketchy grasp of the english language at best, is going to grok what you just said? No? Then you've failed at all your high and mighty posturing of making a global language.
yea yea ... netspeak can be annoying and confusing ... LOL
and of course some phrases dont last long, but others do stick ...
like "thats hot" ... as some forms of "NETSPEAK" will sitck too ... DUH!
and of course some phrases dont last long, but others do stick ...
like "thats hot" ... as some forms of "NETSPEAK" will sitck too ... DUH!
Too soon to tell, but I suspect you're right - however, that isn't automaticly a good thing.
if anything, its your archaic opinion and attitude on the subject
that sounds like un-Linguistical bullshit and laziness to me.
that sounds like un-Linguistical bullshit and laziness to me.
Oh yes, because "learn the proper way to do (thing a), learn why we do (thing a) the way we do, then make sure to do (thing a) the right way" is so much lazier than "Do whatever the fuck I feel like".
hey "BUUUUT" w/e ... its only a game
(ish dat ^ netspeak?)
(ish dat ^ netspeak?)
No. That's not netspeak.
