View Full Version : Future of the English Language?
A friend of mine was complaining about the texting language used nowadays with it's abbreviations and I see it as just another evolution of the English language. With all of the styles of English from the way it is spoken in Scotland to NZ to Jamaica to all of it's written variations throughout history I personally see the future of written English easily moving towards the texting style as mainstream written English. Blogs & magazine articles first, followed by short stories and complete novels all written in the abbreviated texting style would be common in the next 15 years or so.
It seems like it would be a more time efficient way to complete the work and it would also take up that much less space. While I do believe scientific & medical journals, etc will still be written "longhand" to reduce any confusion, the texting style of writing will be mainstream within that 15 years.
My friend says, "No way!"
What do you think?
I think it's already started. A while back, I happened to catch a part of an old John Wayne movie. He's in a bar, and another bar patron strikes up a conversation with him, saying he owns the parcel of land next to John Wayne's. What struck me was the way he said it: "our lands are contiguous." Would you expect to hear the word contiguous - or any word like it - in any action movie today?
Personally it hurts my ears to hear people say stuff like "vacay" for vacation, but I admit, it's a losing battle. It's like we're too lazy to speak words of three or more syllables.
SteveinMN
11-30-12, 10:23pm
i think ur rite!!!!1!!!1
;)
pony mom
11-30-12, 10:40pm
It takes me longer to decipher anything written in texting language than regular English. This techno stuff is way above my head.
I'm tired of people saying "Walla!" Probably have no idea that it's wrong or what it means.
fidgiegirl
11-30-12, 10:51pm
What IS "walla?"
Originally posted by Fidgiegirl.
What IS "walla?"I'm guessing "walla", is the shoe-in for, voila.
I'm guessing "walla", is the shoe-in for, voila.
Yup! And for historial context...
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/29/omg-first-use-of-abbreviation-found-in-a-letter-to-winston-churchill/
Da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum.
Dhiana. I hope you're wrong Re: texting style of writing becoming mainstream in a little over a decade. I like to think, believe, that society, at least among a select following, will hold onto a strong conviction of proper-ness, related to the English language, thus preserving the very essence of how it should be used and spoken. I honestly believe there will always be a place for that.
pony mom
11-30-12, 11:52pm
I'm guessing "walla", is the shoe-in for, voila.
Right, but it's usually incorrectly pronounced as Walla.
Originally posted by Pony Mom.
Right, but it's usually incorrectly pronounced as Walla.Yes, and sometimes misspelled, viola, a musical instrument.
Entertaining link, Redfox!
Dhiana. I hope you're wrong Re: texting style of writing becoming mainstream in a little over a decade. I like to think, believe, that society, at least among a select following, will hold onto a strong conviction of proper-ness, related to the English language, thus preserving the very essence of how it should be used and spoken. I honestly believe there will always be a place for that.
I know there will always be purists who will maintain the older versions of English and certain books will become classic literature that will not use updated language the same as Shakespeare is studied in its unchanged form. But I really feel that not making an effort to learn some of the texting style of writing will create even larger generational gaps between old-fogeys and the young uns. My generation and older will feel ageism in the workplace as we get older for example.
I know there will always be purists who will maintain the older versions of English ....
Ic þæt ne undergiete. Is hēr ǣnig þe Englisce spricþ?
Ic þæt ne undergiete. Is hēr ǣnig þe Englisce spricþ? I don't understand either, everything evolves.
Originally posted by Bae.
Ic þæt ne undergiete. Is hēr ǣnig þe Englisce spricþ?Sure, we all do, albeit, maybe not as proper as we should. :)
A friend of mine was complaining about the texting language used nowadays with it's abbreviations and I see it as just another evolution of the English language. With all of the styles of English from the way it is spoken in Scotland to NZ to Jamaica to all of it's written variations throughout history I personally see the future of written English easily moving towards the texting style as mainstream written English. Blogs & magazine articles first, followed by short stories and complete novels all written in the abbreviated texting style would be common in the next 15 years or so.
It seems like it would be a more time efficient way to complete the work and it would also take up that much less space. While I do believe scientific & medical journals, etc will still be written "longhand" to reduce any confusion, the texting style of writing will be mainstream within that 15 years.
My friend says, "No way!"
What do you think?
We don't speak the same English as 50 years ago, a hundred years ago or two hundred years ago. It isn't stagnant. It's dynamic. We may not like it, but it changes.
Square Peg
12-2-12, 7:22pm
That may be Walla, but this is Walla Walla :)
http://www.wallawalla.org/
I think that hardcore textspeak is on its way out, thanks to autofill and autocorrect.
Miss Cellane
12-2-12, 8:30pm
Just a quick way to see how rapidly English changes--Shakespeare, the bane of many a high school student, died in 1616. The Pilgrims landed on the North American continent in 1620. Basically, they spoke the same language. Kids trying to read Shakespeare today complain that he wrote in "Old English." But the real Old English died out around 1066. Shakespeare and the Pilgrims were speaking Early Modern English. And 400 years later, most of us struggle to understand it. What we currently speak, Modern English, started about 1650. (At least, that's what we say now. Two hundred years from now, they may have different marking points.)
I don't understand either, everything evolves.
Exactly! At what moment in time is the language "proper"?
Isn't the common word "hello" a word that is attributed to the use of technology? Wasn't the use of "hello" dated to have begun with the telephone? The old joke goes: Why didn't Stanley say " Hello" to Dr. Livingston instead of "Dr. Livingston, I presume."? Because "Hello" didn't exist yet!
Just found this link to a timely interview with one of the original creators of SMS text messaging:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20555620
"Texting SMS pioneer Matti Makkonen 20 years on"
The interviewer asks, via text, of course: cn u txtspk?
Mr. Makkonen replies, via text, "No! My passion is to write correct language (Finnish), using all 160 characters."
:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.