How Jeff Bezos Pwned Publishing

[sirbruce]

The introduction of new words or new spelling variations does not hurt "literacy" except for stodgy old squares. Logical grammar, size of vocabulary, and range of exposure to ideas are far more important.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm pretty sure that "thru" was, in fact, the result of one of the many attempts in the US to "rationalize" the spelling of the language, rather than being "slang". I can't find any references to that at present, but I'll try to find one.

No, Harry. It's not a "slang." I don't recall anyone ever saying it was. It is a shorthand misspelling that has come into common usage. Nothing more, and nothing less.

There are a number of them. Actually quite a few. Possibly ours are not as common in your country. Although, you may have some of your own. You'd just have to actually look for them.

[HarryT]

Many of the simplified spellings in the US came about through (thru? ) the efforts of the newspaper, the "Chicago Tribune", whose owner, Joseph Medill, was a prominent believer in "spelling reform" in the 1880s. I believe that "thru", "nite", "lite", and many others stem from this period. The "Tribune" only went back to using "traditional" spellings in 1975.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I'm talking about SOS. A better "spelling" of which would be ---...--- Just for your information, the "initialisms" involved in that code translation came well after it was created. And, it was created as such because pretty much any moron could remember it in code.

Actually, S is dot dot dot and O is dash dash dash. So SOS in morse code is ... --- ...

And, S O S is an abbreviation for save our souls. And since S is three dots "actually dit"... a single/short click, beep or flash depending on the signaling method. I don't think morse designed the code so that ... --- ... would mean help/mayday/sos on purpose.

(My brother is a ham operator so I know a bit about morse code.)

BOb

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Actually, S is dot dot dot and O is dash dash dash. So SOS in morse code is ... --- ...

And, S O S is an abbreviation for save our souls. And since S is three dots "actually dit"... a single/short click, beep or flash depending on the signaling method. I don't think morse designed the code so that ... --- ... would mean help/mayday/sos on purpose.

(My brother is a ham operator so I know a bit about morse code.)


BOb

You are correct about ...---...


Dead wrong about save our souls. Sorry, but SOS as a distress signal was created by the Germans. Not the English and not the Americans. Not by Morse, who only created the code not the distress signal.

Unless you want to argue that save our souls is German??

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Many of the simplified spellings in the US came about through (thru? ) the efforts of the newspaper, the "Chicago Tribune", whose owner, Joseph Medill, was a prominent believer in "spelling reform" in the 1880s. I believe that "thru", "nite", "lite", and many others stem from this period. The "Tribune" only went back to using "traditional" spellings in 1975.

Which doesn't make them slang, and doesn't mean the people who created or used them were either illiterate or lazy, does it?

That is what bhartman36 would have us believe. Although, I think his argument is full of holes. And, that includes his definition of "illiterate" ... which is a situational construct.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Dead wrong about save our souls. Sorry, but SOS as a distress signal was created by the Germans. Not the English and not the Americans. Not by Morse, who only created the code not the distress signal.

As I said, I know it was not morse who decided SOS was an emergency signal. But, further reading shows that you are correct the letters SOS are not significant. I found some interesting article here about it:

http://boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/060199tip6.htm

Although it doesn't mention Germans at all.

BOb


BTW: Is there a difference between being "wrong" and "dead wrong"?

[Xenophon]

@Pilotbob: "Is there a difference between being "wrong" and "dead wrong"? "

Sure. Dead wrong is even wronger than simply wrong.

(tortured usage above is quite deliberate)

Xenophon

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

OK .... here's one for you and it's a corker, because it doesn't really stand for anything. It's not an initialism, it's not a word, it's not anything more than a translation from code. A code originally created by Samuel Morse, although this particular code sequence was created by the Germans in 1905.

I'm talking about SOS. A better "spelling" of which would be ---...--- Just for your information, the "initialisms" involved in that code translation came well after it was created. And, it was created as such because pretty much any moron could remember it in code.

All of which, while vaguely interesting, has nothing to do with what I was saying (unless you're going to make the bizarre claim that S.O.S. is a "word" now).

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Texting spelling represents small keyboards and for some people a limited number of characters one can send without incurring additional fees. It has become part of the language out of habit. Most of the new words one finds start out as a habitual usage.

Texting spelling started out as a way to type on small keyboards of cell phones. It's now expanded beyond that, simply by virtue of the fact that people who do a lot of texting can have access to QWERTY keyboards on their phones. It continues on phones now partially because people are lazy, and partially because there are certain elements of the culture that have encouraged the belief that it is a language unto itself (which has the unfortunate side effect of letting lazy and/or illiterate people believe they are intelligent). And it has leaked on to undergraduate level papers because people that age are becoming less and less literate.

By "literate", as I said before, I don't mean lacking the actual ability to read. At an undergrad level, that kind of illiteracy would be extremely rare. Rather, I'm talking about the inability to write coherently. Writing coherently involves both being able to communicate your ideas and the ability to understand your audience and adjust your writing accordingly. The inability to do that is why texting spelling ends up on undergraduate papers.

And while we're on the subject, my girlfriend teaches graduate-level courses, so illiteracy (i.e., not being able to string words together coherently) at that level is more than a little alarming. And no, it's not just a matter of dangling participles (although those annoy her in formal writing, as well).

I apologize if actually being able to read and write properly offends you, of course.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Thru didn't used to be an "alternative spelling" it became so because people were either illiterate or lazy and didn't want to remember how to type the actual word. Really tough that you find that unfortunate.

1) I think you meant "Thru wasn't always" rather than "didn't used to be".
2) While the use of "thru" as a spelling goes back to at least the Chicago Tribune, spelling reform has nothing to do with why it's still in the language. It's in the language for more informal reasons (laziness and illiteracy). If it was simply a matter of spelling reform, "thru" would be acceptable in formal writing. It is not. That's why the Chicago Tribune no longer uses the "reformed" spellings.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

So, give us some more examples of what you clearly don't understand. I'm interested in hearing them, if only because I need a good chuckle. My mother was an English professr at the university level (before she gave it up to teach elsewhere), but she didn't have a huge stick up her ass. She had the good sense to teach me that English is a living language.

I obviously understand a lot more about the English language, and language in general, than you do. Apparently you weren't able to absorb your mother's knowledge by osmosis.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

If you can't evolve along with the language, it is you and your girlfriend who will become illiterate and unable to communicate. Let me guess, you two don't even allow your participles to dangle in everyday conversation.

Texting isn't a case of a language evolving. It's the language devolving -- making one's ideas less clear, rather than more clear. The only saving grace is that it's almost certain that texting spellings will die out, even in electronic communication, as technology evolves to the point where it's no longer much harder to spell actual words rather than texting spellings.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Texting isn't a case of a language evolving. It's the language devolving -- making one's ideas less clear, rather than more clear.

Less clear to you. They are perfectly clear enough to the people they are texting with, else they would not communicate in such a fashion.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

All of which, while vaguely interesting, has nothing to do with what I was saying (unless you're going to make the bizarre claim that S.O.S. is a "word" now).



Texting spelling started out as a way to type on small keyboards of cell phones. It's now expanded beyond that, simply by virtue of the fact that people who do a lot of texting can have access to QWERTY keyboards on their phones. It continues on phones now partially because people are lazy, and partially because there are certain elements of the culture that have encouraged the belief that it is a language unto itself (which has the unfortunate side effect of letting lazy and/or illiterate people believe they are intelligent). And it has leaked on to undergraduate level papers because people that age are becoming less and less literate.

By "literate", as I said before, I don't mean lacking the actual ability to read. At an undergrad level, that kind of illiteracy would be extremely rare. Rather, I'm talking about the inability to write coherently. Writing coherently involves both being able to communicate your ideas and the ability to understand your audience and adjust your writing accordingly. The inability to do that is why texting spelling ends up on undergraduate papers.

And while we're on the subject, my girlfriend teaches graduate-level courses, so illiteracy (i.e., not being able to string words together coherently) at that level is more than a little alarming. And no, it's not just a matter of dangling participles (although those annoy her in formal writing, as well).

I apologize if actually being able to read and write properly offends you, of course.



1) I think you meant "Thru wasn't always" rather than "didn't used to be".
2) While the use of "thru" as a spelling goes back to at least the Chicago Tribune, spelling reform has nothing to do with why it's still in the language. It's in the language for more informal reasons (laziness and illiteracy). If it was simply a matter of spelling reform, "thru" would be acceptable in formal writing. It is not. That's why the Chicago Tribune no longer uses the "reformed" spellings.





I obviously understand a lot more about the English language, and language in general, than you do. Apparently you weren't able to absorb your mother's knowledge by osmosis.



Texting isn't a case of a language evolving. It's the language devolving -- making one's ideas less clear, rather than more clear. The only saving grace is that it's almost certain that texting spellings will die out, even in electronic communication, as technology evolves to the point where it's no longer much harder to spell actual words rather than texting spellings.

Oh, and "qwerty" is now a word?? Wonder when that happened?

I seriously doubt that you understand more about the English language and language in general than I do. Considering that I make my living (and a very good living it is too) finding and making use of sloppy use of the English language by people like you.

No, I didn't absorb my knowledge by osmosis. I actually went to university and 8 years of three graduate schools, for each of which I graduated in the top 2% of my class.

Oh, and "thru" is acceptable use in government documents and several other forms of "formal writing."

Apparently you haven't learned anything much from your girlfriend, by osmosis or otherwise.

As for illiteracy, it's still only a situational construct, and whether the English language is evolving or de-evolving is only your opinion, to which I will be more likely to give some credence when I know exactly where all your advanced degrees lie. You must have scores of those, correct?? All summa cum laude?? Or at least cum laude??

No, let me guess .... C student?? How were your SATs?? You probably have them framed on your wall right?? No??

And, just out of curiosity ... at which university does your girlfriend teach? Must be a great place if the graduate students are illiterate.

Ah, but then, I only attended UCLA (undergraduate and graduate), USC (graduate), Loyola University (graduate) and Trinity College at Cambridge (graduate). Much less prestigious than your girlfriend's university, I'm sure.

SOS .... not a word, and seldom spelled "S.O.S." anymore. Then, neither is C U L8R. And, then there's IOU which has been in use for a long time. Not an initialism, not a word ... just a shorthand expression that people use all the time, even in formal writing, and without being termed illiterate by the likes of you.

No, I don't find your ability to read or write "properly" offensive. I just find you offensive.

[sirbruce]

For the record (I know you weren't asking me directly) my SATs were 710 Verbal and 650 Math (recentered; originally 650V 660M) and my ACT composite was 33/35 (but I "only" got a 29 on the English section).

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

As I said, I know it was not morse who decided SOS was an emergency signal. But, further reading shows that you are correct the letters SOS are not significant. I found some interesting article here about it:

http://boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/060199tip6.htm

Although it doesn't mention Germans at all.

BOb


BTW: Is there a difference between being "wrong" and "dead wrong"?

Originally Posted by Xenophon

@Pilotbob: "Is there a difference between being "wrong" and "dead wrong"? "

Sure. Dead wrong is even wronger than simply wrong.

(tortured usage above is quite deliberate)

Xenophon

Yes, "wrong" means one is incorrect. "Dead wrong" means that one is ever so totally and completely wrong.

Trust me, the SOS distress signal was first adopted by the German government in radio regulations effective April 1, 1905.

So !!

Oh, and you are aware that if someone simply tapped out ...---...---...---...---...---, enough people would probably get the hint that they were in distress, even if the code was not exactly correct.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

BTW: Is there a difference between being "wrong" and "dead wrong"?

I'll give you another example of "dead wrong." bhartman36 likes to think he knows more about languages generally than do I.

Now, if literacy is defined as being able to read and write above a 5th grade level, then I am only literate in two languages. However, if being able to communicate with others is your definition then my language skills expand quite a bit.

I lived with the Sami (herding reindeer), and can communicate in Saami. I lived and worked in Greece (working on the dig at Akrotiri), and can communicate in Greek. I lived and worked in Spain (at the Prado), and can communicate in Spanish (that's one of my above 5th grade skills languages). In fact, I wrote several papers (not published, but then not all college papers are) on books in Medieval Spanish. I lived in China, and I am told my Chinese used to be passable. I think it sucks now. I can communicate in French and German as well as Italian. I can also communicate in Navajo (I grew up with the Navajo).

So, I can hardly wait to hear about all of his language skills. He must be a phenomenal linguist.

Oh, and I misspoke. I was in the top 2% of my class in two of my graduate school pursuits. In the third, I was only in the top 5% (that's what I get for working full time while going to school). Quel dommage (or quel fromage as we love to say around here).

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

2) Something being in the dictionary doesn't make it a word. "D'oh" is in Webster's:

Then obviously words do not exist.