How Jeff Bezos Pwned Publishing

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

Then obviously words do not exist.

Either that or we can't trust the dictionaries anymore. I guess it's only a word if bhartman36 says it's a word. Or, maybe it's his girlfriend that is the ultimate authority on what is or is not a word. Must be hard to have that much responsibility in the world.

[hogleg]

look! My wang is bigger!

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

If you understand that, then suriprise! It's communication! The bottom line is that a select few define prescriptive grammar, and the unwashed masses describe descriptive grammar. It's irrelevant who is better educated if you both understand when someone is giving you the finger. Language is a means to an end; if you understand the idea it doesn't matter if I signed it to you, wrote it in the snow with urine, or carved it on a stick and hit you with it...you have the end result.

OMFG UR AN ID10T!!! may seem moronic, but if you get it, it has achieved what a good language is meant to do, and that is convey an idea.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by hogleg

look! My wang is bigger!

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

If you understand that, then suriprise! It's communication!

And if I don't? Shall I look it up in a dictionary?

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Either that or we can't trust the dictionaries anymore. I guess it's only a word if bhartman36 says it's a word. Or, maybe it's his girlfriend that is the ultimate authority on what is or is not a word. Must be hard to have that much responsibility in the world.

Dictionaries have abdicated the responsibility to define proper usage, at least in the US. They now just document usage without regard to proper.

Dale

[NormHart]

Content deleted

(While the title of this thread is one thing, the sense of the discussion is another. Does this post thereby become since it does not address the evolved main topic of the thread or not? )

Edit: Well that answers that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Dictionaries have abdicated the responsibility to define proper usage, at least in the US. They now just document usage without regard to proper.

Dale

But real-world usage is what is "proper". The role of most dictionaries is to document how language is used, not to act as an "arbitor" of how it "should" be used.

[sirbruce]

How else do you think modern English evolved from old/middle/early modern English? They didn't all hold a council and decide on new spellings; the usage of words changed and the language followed suit.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But real-world usage is what is "proper". The role of most dictionaries is to document how language is used, not to act as an "arbitor" of how it "should" be used.

Yes and no. Alot of people make mistakes too... for example, confusing sit and set, lay and lie, well and good, etc.

BOb

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

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.

If the "texting" spellings actually were restricted to texting, you would be correct. When such spellings make their way into written communication (e.g., undergrad papers), that is not the case. That's my whole point: The acceptance of texting spellings within texting contexts is irrelevant. It's when it expands into written usage that it affects intelligibility.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

Then obviously words do not exist.

You're assuming that everything in the dictionary is meant to be a "word". That's a false assumption. There are numerous examples in dictionaries that are not words, but simple interjections ("ooh", "ugh", "gosh", etc.)

In the specific case of "d'oh", the only reason it's even in Webster's is because of The Simpsons, the expression having been popularized there.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But real-world usage is what is "proper". The role of most dictionaries is to document how language is used, not to act as an "arbitor" of how it "should" be used.

That's actually a reference controversy that's been around for some time. There are different schools of thought as to whether or not a dictionary should be didactic. In Webster's own day, dictionaries were always didactic. They existed to tell you how to use the language, not just what words meant. That's why Webster published his 1828 dictionary: both to formalize the American English language and to differentiate usage from British English. There would be little point in going through this exercise absent the desire to be instructive, rather than just to document common usage (which was a hopeless mixture at the time Webster compiled his dictionary).

Having said that, no dictionary is exhaustive. The fact that something is or isn't in the dictionary isn't what makes it a word (in English or any other language).

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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

I don't know when it was first adopted, but Webster's has it down to 1929. So it's been around for a while.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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.

Being able to use the English language for work and knowing something about it are not necessarily the same thing. Plenty of people who use computers for their work have no idea how their computers actually work outside of the software packages they run. I assume you're competent at your job by virtue of the fact that you still have it, but that by itself isn't terribly meaningful.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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

Interesting.

Doing a brief Google search, I noted 2,340,000 of 449,000,000 sites using the word "thru", which works out to .4%. Looking for PDF or DOC government files, I noted 7,170 with "thru", as opposed to 214,000 overall. That's 3% (which is certainly better than .4%, obviously), but paling in comparison to those which used "through" (117,000, or 54%).

Assuming that the "thru" spelling in the documents isn't an error, it would appear you are correct, although if I had to submit a government document for publication, and wanted to be on safe ground, I would certainly use "through", since that looks to be much more common (and therefore, understandable) to the target audience.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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

You assume (wrongly) that she teaches a) me, and b) English. Neither one of these assumptions is true. She simply reads and writes English properly. In fact, she and I have frequent disagreements, precisely because I'm more hostile to proper English than I am to common usage English, in most cases. What would be considered "proper" English grammar is frequently much less articulate sounding than "common usage" English, (e.g., "It's me", rather than "It's I"). I can understand why you thought she teaches English, though. I should've been more explicit, I suppose.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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??

Summa cum laude in English (undergrad), and a Masters in Library Science. I don't actually remember my GPA there.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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

Not at all. I wasn't very proud of my SATs. My math score actually brought me down. If I remember right, my SAT was 1260 or so. Not great, but good enough for a scholarship.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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

That, I'd rather not get into, for obvious reasons. My only point was that the literacy level is going down generally. Some of her students write well. Others, as I said, are basically incapable of writing a decent sentence. Regardless of admissions standards, the fact that students graduate from any high school and any undergraduate program with these writing deficiencies is the problem.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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.

I'm very happy for you...I suppose. The point isn't the prestige of the university, though. Rather, the point is that such students would graduate from an undergraduate program at all.

At any rate, with such an extensive education, and with a job that involves communication, I would think you would recognize that it is not an evolution of the language when students can't tell the difference between formal and informal language after having graduated from high school and undergraduate studies (regardless of whether they went to Yale University or a clown college). Part of writing is understanding your audience and tailoring your language to them. The fact that students are increasingly unable to do this is, I submit, a sign of increasing illiteracy.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

SOS .... not a word, and seldom spelled "S.O.S." anymore.

True enough. So why did you bring it up? As I said originally, it's not a word, so it didn't really have a place in the conversation.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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.

Actually, I don't have any issue with "IOU". Is there some reason I should?

My point is not to say that all shorthand, initialisms, acronyms, etc., are bad and contribute to illiteracy, in and of themselves. My point is that texting, in particular, contributes to illiteracy, because it takes words and destroys their meanings (particularly for homonyms). It doesn't matter what the spacing is (cul8r or c u l8r, for example). The point is that if you write "c", you not only destroy spelling of the word, but by destroying the spelling, you destroy the meaning of the word. It would be no different than spelling "you're" as "your", or, as is done in texting now, "yur" (which destroys both meanings). Another example: "cya". That can either mean "see ya" or "cover your ass". "IOU" and "SOS" are benign because they have specific, explicit meanings. Texting, partially because it's purely phonetic, does not.

The whole point to spelling being important is that different spellings can represent different words. Language becomes a huge tangle if we discard rules of spelling and just spell everything phonetically, which is what texting attempts to do.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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

I did not enter this thread to offend anyone, obviously, but since you went out of your way to personally antagonize me, I see no reason to be silent about it.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I don't know when it was first adopted, but Webster's has it down to 1929. So it's been around for a while.



Being able to use the English language for work and knowing something about it are not necessarily the same thing. Plenty of people who use computers for their work have no idea how their computers actually work outside of the software packages they run. I assume you're competent at your job by virtue of the fact that you still have it, but that by itself isn't terribly meaningful.

Gee, well, let's see .... self employed and I just received a little over $69,000 from my last client who was extremely satisfied with my work. I happen to be one of those people who not only knows how to use a computer, but also how to build one. I am also one of those people who makes a living knowing the English language and how to use it, properly.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Interesting.

Doing a brief Google search, I noted 2,340,000 of 449,000,000 sites using the word "thru", which works out to .4%. Looking for PDF or DOC government files, I noted 7,170 with "thru", as opposed to 214,000 overall. That's 3% (which is certainly better than .4%, obviously), but paling in comparison to those which used "through" (117,000, or 54%).

Assuming that the "thru" spelling in the documents isn't an error, it would appear you are correct, although if I had to submit a government document for publication, and wanted to be on safe ground, I would certainly use "through", since that looks to be much more common (and therefore, understandable) to the target audience.

You would also have to be willing to do a thorough search of the government documents of all 50 states. There are a number of them that use "thru" quite extensively. I know because I do a lot of research into both state and federal filings of all types. Generally at $500 an hour.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

You assume (wrongly) that she teaches a) me, and b) English. Neither one of these assumptions is true. She simply reads and writes English properly. In fact, she and I have frequent disagreements, precisely because I'm more hostile to proper English than I am to common usage English, in most cases. What would be considered "proper" English grammar is frequently much less articulate sounding than "common usage" English, (e.g., "It's me", rather than "It's I"). I can understand why you thought she teaches English, though. I should've been more explicit, I suppose.

Yes, much more explicit. Your post made it sound as if she taught English at a graduate level. In which case, I really have no reason to be the slightest bit impressed with her credentials, since I only have them second hand from you. My mother, on the other hand, actually did teach English at the university level. In fact, she began university studies when she was all of 15, and was on the faculty of the university by the time she was 19. She got tired of being the youngest person in the class and also being the teacher.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Summa cum laude in English (undergrad), and a Masters in Library Science. I don't actually remember my GPA there.

Oh, my ..... Library Science. I guess that counts as being an expert on the English language in some alternative universe. You don't remember your GPA? Do you remember where you went to school??

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Not at all. I wasn't very proud of my SATs. My math score actually brought me down. If I remember right, my SAT was 1260 or so. Not great, but good enough for a scholarship.

I don't remember my SAT score. I do remember that there was an article in the San Diego Union about it at the time. There were a few of us in the County that scored in the 99th percentile on both the Verbal and Math sections of the test. I was one of those. I found the article among my mother's effects when she died ... along with my IQ test scores (didn't make me run out and join Mensa, since I'm not fond of the group, but it was shockingly high).

I was also the recipient of an honors award in both English and Mathematics at my high school. Doesn't mean all that much, but they were nice awards to receive.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

That, I'd rather not get into, for obvious reasons. My only point was that the literacy level is going down generally. Some of her students write well. Others, as I said, are basically incapable of writing a decent sentence. Regardless of admissions standards, the fact that students graduate from any high school and any undergraduate program with these writing deficiencies is the problem.

Yep, I'll bet they are very obvious reasons. And, if that was your only point, then you didn't make it well. Your post came off as more of a tirade against anyone who uses any abbreviations or words or phrases of which you personally do not approve. Further, that those who do so are illiterate. As one of those people, I find your assumption to be as offensive as it gets.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I'm very happy for you...I suppose. The point isn't the prestige of the university, though. Rather, the point is that such students would graduate from an undergraduate program at all.

Well, as one of "such students," (although I have been out of the last graduate program for close to 20 years now) who feels just fine reading "words" such as "pwned" and "cul8tr," again, I take offense at your suggestion that we are somehow incapable of graduating from an institution of higher learning.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

At any rate, with such an extensive education, and with a job that involves communication, I would think you would recognize that it is not an evolution of the language when students can't tell the difference between formal and informal language after having graduated from high school and undergraduate studies (regardless of whether they went to Yale University or a clown college). Part of writing is understanding your audience and tailoring your language to them. The fact that students are increasingly unable to do this is, I submit, a sign of increasing illiteracy.

And, that's where you go completely off track. If a part of writing is understanding your audience, and your audience is using words such as "pwned" ... then a good writer doesn't pitch a fit when they see the words used by that audience. MR is not (I repeat NOT) a series of formal thesis papers written by a bunch of pseudo intellectuals. It is an informal place where people are encouraged to express their opinions. As such, it is not your place to start coming down on people because they choose to use informal language, including slang, LOLCat speak, or any other language they decide to use.

Now, if your point is that the students at your girlfriend's university are unable to use formal English when necessary in the pursuit of their education, then I suggest that school consider examining their admissions standards.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

True enough. So why did you bring it up? As I said originally, it's not a word, so it didn't really have a place in the conversation.

I brought it up because you seem to have some sort of problem with people using shorthand expressions. It appears to be a very large problem as a matter of fact. There are a number of shorthand expressions, which are not words, that are in common usage in the English language. They are growing in number every day. They have been around for well over a century, some of them have been around for several centuries. One of them is SOS. Another one is CUL8TR. Yet another is PWNED Neither is a word. Both are shorthand expressions. One you don't seem to have a problem with. The other two you seem to be certain are only used by illiterates.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Actually, I don't have any issue with "IOU". Is there some reason I should?

Well, yes. It is no worse than PWNED. No more or less a shorthand expression. It's just been in use longer.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

My point is not to say that all shorthand, initialisms, acronyms, etc., are bad and contribute to illiteracy, in and of themselves. My point is that texting, in particular, contributes to illiteracy, because it takes words and destroys their meanings (particularly for homonyms). It doesn't matter what the spacing is (cul8r or c u l8r, for example). The point is that if you write "c", you not only destroy spelling of the word, but by destroying the spelling, you destroy the meaning of the word. It would be no different than spelling "you're" as "your", or, as is done in texting now, "yur" (which destroys both meanings). Another example: "cya". That can either mean "see ya" or "cover your ass". "IOU" and "SOS" are benign because they have specific, explicit meanings. Texting, partially because it's purely phonetic, does not.

The whole point to spelling being important is that different spellings can represent different words. Language becomes a huge tangle if we discard rules of spelling and just spell everything phonetically, which is what texting attempts to do.

And even spelling changes over time. Hell, it even changes between the UK and the USA.

Spelling evolves as the language changes. You're the expert. Go read Pepys' Diary and try telling me that spelling hasn't changed.

I appreciate that you, personally, don't like the fact that the language is changing, and that it is possible that it may become more phonetic and even more abbreviated over time. However, that's just tough. It's going to happen no matter how much you bitch and moan about it, and no matter how many people you insult by calling them illiterate or lazy.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I did not enter this thread to offend anyone, obviously, but since you went out of your way to personally antagonize me, I see no reason to be silent about it.

It's not obvious at all. You post that those of us who use certain words or abbreviations in texting or in informal writing at sites such as this are illiterate and lazy. How in the hell is that supposed to be "obvious" that you were not trying to be offensive?

Could you actually try harder to be offensive?? That must be amazing. And by that, I mean harder than stating that my mother's skills in English clearly didn't get to me by osmosis. That wasn't intended to be offensive?? How about where you said that you clearly had more knowledge of the English language or of languages in general? Not supposed to be offensive??

Gee and gosh .... what exactly do you consider offensive?? Because, if you need lessons, you have come to the right place. I can take any of the nasty and offensive things you have to say, and give them back to you in spades.

Oh, and for the record, my mother WAS one of my teachers at the undergraduate level, and a damned good one at that. Although, she was not one of my teachers at the graduate level. She taught me evenings during the period I was taking university courses while still a 10th and 11th grader, before I left to do work-study in Europe (when I was all of 17).

A final PS of sorts. Destroy the meaning of the words? It's called context, Mr. Library Science. There are many words that, but for context, have any number of meanings. If CUL8TR, in context, conveys the meaning of "see you later" then no words have been destroyed, and their meanings remain unaltered.

Much as good old "IOU" conveys the meaning of "I owe you." Is the word "you" destroyed by the use of "U" to signify it? Remember, this is one of those shorthands with which you have no problem. It's been in use a long time, even in formal writing. So, I disagree with you on even that small point.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Gee, well, let's see .... self employed and I just received a little over $69,000 from my last client who was extremely satisfied with my work. I happen to be one of those people who not only knows how to use a computer, but also how to build one. I am also one of those people who makes a living knowing the English language and how to use it, properly.

I'm very happy for you. As I said before, I assume you're competent at your job, considering the fact that you're still employed at it.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

You would also have to be willing to do a thorough search of the government documents of all 50 states. There are a number of them that use "thru" quite extensively. I know because I do a lot of research into both state and federal filings of all types. Generally at $500 an hour.

Fair enough. I didn't make an exhaustive search of it, obviously. Had I intended to do so, I probably would've accessed some government databases. (I used to work as a searcher, but I have since switched fields.)

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Yes, much more explicit. Your post made it sound as if she taught English at a graduate level. In which case, I really have no reason to be the slightest bit impressed with her credentials, since I only have them second hand from you.

If I told you her credentials, it probably wouldn't mean anything to you, anyway (other than the fact that she's a postdoc in her chosen field, I suppose). I'm still having trouble seeing what that has to do with anything. What I said in my original statement was that she had graduate students that couldn't write. On that basis, it would make no difference where she had gotten her degree from, or what classes she taught.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

My mother, on the other hand, actually did teach English at the university level. In fact, she began university studies when she was all of 15, and was on the faculty of the university by the time she was 19. She got tired of being the youngest person in the class and also being the teacher.

That's nice. And that's relevent because...? I assume your mother taught classes well before texting came to the forefront, and certainly before undergraduates were texting. If that's not true, then I suppose her experiences in that realm are relevant.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Oh, my ..... Library Science. I guess that counts as being an expert on the English language in some alternative universe.

Okay, seriously... Do you actually think before you type, or does it all just sort of come to you as a revelation? Do you even know what skills are required for library science at a graduate level? Let me give you a little hint: I didn't mention anything about sciences in my background, did I? Do you think that was possibly intentional on my part, then?

As it happens, I have a decent amount of computer knowledge (on the software side), which certainly helped in grad school, but it was mainly the strength of my language skills that got me in the door (as I had little on my school record that would suggest computer skills, and most computer work was instead on my resume).

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

You don't remember your GPA? Do you remember where you went to school??

As a matter of fact, I do, yes. I went to Rutgers, in Piscataway. Ranked #5 in the country for Library Science, at the time, if it actually matters.

I don't remember my GPA at the time because it actually didn't matter to me. What mattered to me was graduating and getting a job. I imagine it was probably 3.7 or so. The only class I really struggled with was the stats class.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I don't remember my SAT score. I do remember that there was an article in the San Diego Union about it at the time. There were a few of us in the County that scored in the 99th percentile on both the Verbal and Math sections of the test. I was one of those. I found the article among my mother's effects when she died ... along with my IQ test scores (didn't make me run out and join Mensa, since I'm not fond of the group, but it was shockingly high).

Very nice for you. It sounds like your mother was understandably proud.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I was also the recipient of an honors award in both English and Mathematics at my high school. Doesn't mean all that much, but they were nice awards to receive.

Again, very nice for you.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Yep, I'll bet they are very obvious reasons. And, if that was your only point, then you didn't make it well. Your post came off as more of a tirade against anyone who uses any abbreviations or words or phrases of which you personally do not approve. Further, that those who do so are illiterate. As one of those people, I find your assumption to be as offensive as it gets.

I don't think you read what I wrote carefully enough. In my original post, I specifically said:

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I'm not a fan of leetspeak, or of texting leaking into the English lexicon. Having said that, I can't deny that pwned is a word, simply on that basis alone. Written and spoken words are only symbolic. As long as two or more people agree on what a particular set of written or spoken symbols mean, it's a word, in a literal sense. Its presence or absense in a dictionary ("Who's dictionary?" is also an interesting question) is immaterial. Shakespeare made up words all the time, and you don't hear people complaining about that, do ya?

My "tirade", as you call it, was directed at texting language outside of the context of text messaging:

Originally Posted by bhartman36

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of people texting phonetically. When you text phonetically, you're not making up a new word. You're just being lazy with your spelling. ("C u l8r." is not a collection of words, let alone a sentence.) If you're using an already-existing word in the English (or any other) language, you have to use conventional English rules to spell that word as it's properly spelled. It's not even so much that I object to people using that stuff amongst themselves. What I more resent is them not keeping their language in context, and allowing it to spew all over conventional speech, where it makes no sense and doesn't belong. (There are certain things that teke longer to type in text "language" than in English.)

I believe these statements are clear.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Well, as one of "such students," (although I have been out of the last graduate program for close to 20 years now) who feels just fine reading "words" such as "pwned" and "cul8tr," again, I take offense at your suggestion that we are somehow incapable of graduating from an institution of higher learning.

1) If you've been out of your last graduate program for 20 years, I assume you know better than to use texting speech out of the appropriate context (i.e., text messaging). If this is not the case, then whether you take offense to me calling you out on it is irrelevant.

2) I never said anything about reading the words. I was speaking of writing them. That's not a small difference. Understanding texting isn't a negative reflection on one's intelligence. Not knowing the difference between proper written English and texting is. (And in case you were wondering, common usage and proper English aren't directly related. There are many words in common usage that never become proper English. An easy example of this is any number of obscenities. They may be common, but they would not be mistaken for proper English.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, that's where you go completely off track. If a part of writing is understanding your audience, and your audience is using words such as "pwned" ... then a good writer doesn't pitch a fit when they see the words used by that audience. MR is not (I repeat NOT) a series of formal thesis papers written by a bunch of pseudo intellectuals. It is an informal place where people are encouraged to express their opinions. As such, it is not your place to start coming down on people because they choose to use informal language, including slang, LOLCat speak, or any other language they decide to use.

I did not disparage the use of "pwned" in MR. In fact, if you'll go back and read what I wrote, I defended it:

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Having said that, I can't deny that pwned is a word, simply on that basis alone. Written and spoken words are only symbolic. As long as two or more people agree on what a particular set of written or spoken symbols mean, it's a word, in a literal sense. Its presence or absense in a dictionary ("Who's dictionary?" is also an interesting question) is immaterial. Shakespeare made up words all the time, and you don't hear people complaining about that, do ya?

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Now, if your point is that the students at your girlfriend's university are unable to use formal English when necessary in the pursuit of their education, then I suggest that school consider examining their admissions standards.

That's precisely why I declined to mention where she teaches. The Internet is a small place. I would prefer that people not know what she thought of the admissions standards there.

[QUOTE=RickyMaveety;434370]
I brought it up because you seem to have some sort of problem with people using shorthand expressions. It appears to be a very large problem as a matter of fact. There are a number of shorthand expressions, which are not words, that are in common usage in the English language. They are growing in number every day. They have been around for well over a century, some of them have been around for several centuries. One of them is SOS. Another one is CUL8TR. Yet another is PWNED Neither is a word. Both are shorthand expressions. One you don't seem to have a problem with. The other two you seem to be certain are only used by illiterates.[QUOTE=RickyMaveety;434370]

I don't believe I ever said they are only used by illiterates. What I said was that texting is contributing to illiteracy. I'm not so stringent as to think that anyone texting on a standard phone keypad in texting language is an illiterate. Sometimes it is just a matter of convenience, after all.

As I said before, I see it as contributing to illiteracy when it leaks into general usage. (I'm reminded at this point of the commercials that Cingular was running for a while, where the family actually speaks that way out loud.) I don't consider MR to be "general usage", for the simple reason that people on an ebook forum would probably be expected to have a certain familiarity with Internet jargon. The kind of spelling represented by texting, as others have already mentioned, far predates texting. My personal exposure to it goes back to the 1980's, with CompuServe's CB Simulator (and I'm relatively certain it wasn't new then). It was certainly a less extensive utilization of abbreviations, etc., but it did exist (BRB, CYA, TTYL, etc.).

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Well, yes. It is no worse than PWNED. No more or less a shorthand expression. It's just been in use longer.

Again, look back. I didn't say I had a problem with pwned, in particular. I especially didn't say I had a problem with such a word used in this forum.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And even spelling changes over time. Hell, it even changes between the UK and the USA.

ABsolutely true. Where did I say spelling didn't change? Spelling certainly changes. What's that got to do with anything? There are any number of differences between British and American English, in terms of spelling.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Spelling evolves as the language changes. You're the expert. Go read Pepys' Diary and try telling me that spelling hasn't changed.

Chaucer is possibly an even better example, but I don't think that has anything to do with what we're discussing. For one thing, regardless of how a language changes, there are still standards for spelling and grammar associated with the language. If you write "wyfe" when you're writing for a modern audience in English, you've misspelled the word. Similarly, when you write "cya", when you mean "see you", you've misspelled the phrase, because the rules of English as they currently stand don't allow for that spelling. You might be a visionary, but in the meantime, you're still incorrect.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I appreciate that you, personally, don't like the fact that the language is changing, and that it is possible that it may become more phonetic and even more abbreviated over time. However, that's just tough. It's going to happen no matter how much you bitch and moan about it, and no matter how many people you insult by calling them illiterate or lazy.

It's actually questionable whether any of the changes we've been talking about will stick in the language, given the fact that they are somewhat technology-based. I expect terms like LOL to last, because it actually expresses something somewhat awkward to write out (as emoticons do, sometimes). Those terms coined strictly to deal with cramped keyboards, or limited bandwidth, could certainly die out. It really depends on how much of a backlash there is, at this point. Now that the necessity of that shorthand is almost gone, there is less of a purpose for that kind of thing. Hopefully, the amount of time that the texting shorthand stayed in use was short enough that it doesn't do lasting damage.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

It's not obvious at all. You post that those of us who use certain words or abbreviations in texting or in informal writing at sites such as this are illiterate and lazy. How in the hell is that supposed to be "obvious" that you were not trying to be offensive?

If you had read exactly what I wrote, from the first post onward, you would have seen that I don't have an issue with such language on MR, or in other Internet contexts.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Could you actually try harder to be offensive?? That must be amazing. And by that, I mean harder than stating that my mother's skills in English clearly didn't get to me by osmosis. That wasn't intended to be offensive?? How about where you said that you clearly had more knowledge of the English language or of languages in general? Not supposed to be offensive??

I stated that I did not enter the thread to be offensive. When I was attacked, though, I responded in kind. You'll probably notice that I did not respond in that way to anyone else here. That's not a coincidence.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Oh, and for the record, my mother WAS one of my teachers at the undergraduate level, and a damned good one at that. Although, she was not one of my teachers at the graduate level. She taught me evenings during the period I was taking university courses while still a 10th and 11th grader, before I left to do work-study in Europe.

I am frankly surprised that you feel the need to expound so much on your education. If you'll read what I originally wrote, you'll see that I was not disparaging to anyone's use of the word "pwned" on this forum. I was making a statement about the use of texting "language" in general usage, out of laziness and general illiteracy, and noting that it was contributing to illiteracy when students mistake it for actual English. As I said in the beginning, I don't consider MR to be a bastion of correct speech in any sense of the term.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

You're assuming that everything in the dictionary is meant to be a "word". That's a false assumption. There are numerous examples in dictionaries that are not words, but simple interjections ("ooh", "ugh", "gosh", etc.)

In the specific case of "d'oh", the only reason it's even in Webster's is because of The Simpsons, the expression having been popularized there.

Interjection.
1. A sudden, short utterance; an ejaculation.
2. (Abbr. interj. or int.)

1. The part of speech that usually expresses emotion and is capable of standing alone.
2. Any of the words belonging to this part of speech, such as Ugh! or Wow!