# Chat language and the evolution of language



## TimeHP

Hi all.
I was wondering why we can't use _thnks_, but we can use _hi, mod, kinda, ain't_?
Is this a selective rule? 

Ciao


----------



## Saoul

Credo che 

Hi 
Kinda
ain't

facciano parte della lingua inglese, in registri differenti, ma pur sempre lingua.

Tks, thnks, lol, rofl, e quant'altro credo che debbano essere eliminati in quanto acronimi di espressioni da "chat" o contrazioni di parole complete che possono generare confusione.

Visto che si sta cercando di imparare la lingua è giusto sapere che esiste ain't e a quale registro appartiene.
Ma per quanto ne so, parlando o scrivendo in Inglese non useremo mai lol.

Ti immagini la scena.

Time HP al bar fa una battuta incredibile, divertentissima!
Saoul: LOL! Time HP eh eh eh Rofl!

Mi prenderesti per pazzo, o no?


----------



## TimeHP

Sì, Saoul. 
Per me è abbastanza chiaro quello che dici. 
A un certo punto della storia dell'Inglese _hello_ è diventato _hi_
(Ma non mi risulta che _moderator_ sia entrato nei dizionari con la forma abbreviata _mod..._)
Il linguaggio parlato è entrato nei libri di scuola (nei dialoghi, non negli schemi grammaticali...) e si è in qualche modo leggitimato.
Tuttavia adesso siamo in una nuova fase.
Nei dialoghi chat e nei messaggi vengono usate parole come thnks, wot, ecc. 
Non mi fraintendete. Anch'io considero impersonale il linguaggio dei messaggini telefonici (che peraltro trovo comodissimo se devo mandare un sms).   
Tuttavia quello che sta succedendo adesso non può essere accantonato come 'qualcosa che genera confusione' (anche_ ain't_ e _kinda_ per qualcuno non sono così chiari) e nemmeno possiamo dire sono abbreviazioni usate solo in certi contesti, perchè questi contesti sono vastissimi, internazionali e frequentissimi.
Quello che chiedevo è: quando un certo tipo di linguaggio entra a far parte della lingua?
Ciao.


----------



## Saoul

Avevo lasciato volutamente fuori il termine mod che secondo me è una concessione che in questo forum viene fatta... dato che in realtà è un termine mutuato proprio da quel linguaggio da chat, che viene, diciamo, considerato non facente parte della Lingua con la L maiuscola.

Per quanto riguarda gli altri esempi, come ain't, hi, kinda fanno parte trasversalmente della lingua, nel senso che sono utilizzati, o meglio riconosciuti da una gamma di persone eterogenee. 

Il termine chat o da sms è settoriale, e fa parte di quel tipo di linguaggio tecnico (medico, computeristico, fisico, o quant'altro) che è compreso solo da chi fa parte di quel settore. Possiamo parlare tanto del fatto che quel particolare settore è oggi vastissimo, ma dobbiamo tenere a mente che comunque di un settore si tratta, e che quindi esclude una fetta ancora più grande di persone. 
Ingenerare confusione, poca chiarezza, in un ambito come questo, vale a dire un ambito in cui stranieri cercano di imparare una lingua che non è la loro, rischia di essere controproducente a mio avviso. 
Quando questi termini entreranno a far parte della lingua... che dire? La lingua è qualcosa di mutevole, che si adatta ai tempi, e quindi può benissimo essere che un giorno succeda, ma credo che succederà esattamente come per altre terminologie tecniche, settoriali... rimarranno vocaboli tecnico settoriali. Per un settore ampio, ma pur sempre elitario.
Forse è un thread più da Cultural Discussion, non trovi?


----------



## ElaineG

Sorry for writing in English (no coffee) very early.

Chatspeak abbreviations are strictly forbidden as you know. I don't see people posting much with "ain't" but I would warn anyone who did (unless it were clear that they were joking) that they should know that that is not standard English. Same goes for "kinda". After all, the rule calls for "standard" language forms. However, as Saoul said, these are not chatspeak, but very informal spoken English.

As for "mod", it is part of the vocabulary of these forums (see also forero/a, PM, etc.). I think every community develops a "gergo" that suits its needs and that is what has happened here. Mod has become fairly well known across the forum universe. I prefer to sign myself Moderator or Moderatrice, but I don't beat people who prefer "mod." 

You could certainly argue that chatspeak has "entered the language." However, it is not in keeping with the serious tone of these forums:



> The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.


 
The idea (I believe) is to distinguish this Internet environment from many out there, and to try to stay off the slippery slope of shorthand communication and sloppiness. After all, there are plenty of places to practice writing incorrectly!

I invite you to contact me if you see people abusing words like "ain't" and "kinda" (and the dreaded wanna, gonna, etc.). I believe in self-expression -- but to point.  
P.S. This thread really belongs in Comments and Suggestions, as it concerns forum policy as a whole.


----------



## TimeHP

> Forse è un thread più da Cultural Discussion, non trovi?


 
Grazie per le risposte, Saoul.
Ci ho riflettuto prima di spedire in questo forum. Può essere una discussione culturale, ma, da linguista, a me interessa l'aspetto che riguarda la lingua. 
Da anni studio l'Inglese e ho imparato che è mutevole e i suoi  cambiamenti sono rapidi.
Sino a ieri imparavamo che il futuro delle prime perone singolari era formato con _shall. _Oggi le grammatiche parlano di _will _per tutte le persone.



> Il termine chat o da sms è settoriale, e fa parte di quel tipo di linguaggio tecnico (medico, computeristico, fisico, o quant'altro) che è compreso solo da chi fa parte di quel settore


 
Ormai è in uso persino nella pubblicità, che vedono e leggono tutti.
E credo comunque che i termini medici, computeristici, ecc. siano ammessi, no?  
Per non parlare degli sms...
Chi è che non manda messaggi, oggi?

Ripeto, la mia non è una domanda polemica e non mi interessa la discussione da un punto di vista culturale.
Sto cercando di capire, _linguisticamente parlando,_ se il linguaggio degli sms non sia ormai entrato a far parte della lingua. 
Che ci piaccia o meno.
Ciao


----------



## Saoul

Allora ti confermo, quello che dicevo prima, secondo me no. 
Non sento persone per strada che usano chatspeak, o linguaggio da sms.
Mi rifaccio all'esempio che ho fatto prima di noi due al bar, ed io che tiro fuori qualche acronimo da chat. Sarebbe assolutamente strano. Proprio perchè non lo fa nessuno.
A questo punto ti chiedo quali siano le parole "chat" che invece vengono utilizzate, al di fuori della chat. O quali parole da sms che vengono utilizzate anche non in un sms. 
Credo che non stia succedendo, e che al di là di qualche pubblicità che vuole utilizzare claim accattivanti, la realtà sia che nella lingua parlata anche dai giovanissimi, non vengano utilizzati termini chat, o sms.
Che ne pensi?


----------



## TimeHP

Ok. ElaineG. 
Allora lasciamo da parte le regole del forum e valutiamo la domanda solo per ciò che riguarda la comunità delle persone che usa l'Inglese nel mondo...
Non voglio dare nessun suggerimento.
Mi interessa solo l'aspetto linguistico, la trasformazione della lingua. 
Tu comunque sei ok sia come mod che come moderatrice 
Ciao


----------



## TimeHP

Sì, Saoul. Forse la lingua vera, quella a cui si dovrà far riferimento in futuro, sarà soprattutto la lingua parlata.
Strano, visto che in passato era la lingua scritta quella da cui prelevare le regole...

Grazie e ciao


----------



## ElaineG

Ah Time, you are far too nimble for me at this hour of the morning.  I think this has become a Cultural Discussion now -- as the topic of linguistic evolution would be beyond IE and doesn't have much sense as a Comment and Suggestion (as you wish to leave behind the forum rules for the moment).

Moving again....


----------



## TimeHP

> as you wish to leave behind the forum rules for the moment



Yes, but only for a while..
Rules may be changed if a brilliant discussion proves they're outdated.  
Ciao


----------



## Saoul

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Sì, Saoul. Forse la lingua vera, quella a cui si dovrà far riferimento in futuro, sarà soprattutto la lingua parlata.
> Strano, visto che in passato era la lingua scritta quella da cui prelevare le regole...
> 
> Grazie e ciao


 
Things change... per fortuna aggiungerei. 
Credo che questa sia la direzione che sta prendendo la comunicazione... 
Certo è che il discorso diventa ancora più rigido se continuiamo a prendere ad esempio la lingua scritta, in termini di testi, romanzi, giornali ecc...
Lì il linguaggio chat, non credo entrerà mai, se non in analisi inerenti al linguaggio chat, ma mai come veicolo di concetti.


----------



## TimeHP

> Lì il linguaggio chat, non credo entrerà mai, se non in analisi inerenti al linguaggio chat, ma mai come veicolo di concetti.


 
Però, anche se limitatamente, il linguaggio delle mails e degli sms ormai è già entrato in un certo tipo di letteratura contemporanea.
Mi viene anche da pensare al fatto che la lingua è qualcosa che si forma soprattutto nella nostra mente, è un codice che usiamo per comunicare.
E che in Europa gli sms spediti mensilmente nel 2003 (ma adesso il numero è cresciuto) sono stati più di 15 miliardi...Un bel pò di comunicazione!
Certo si può obiettare che per comunicare non si usa solo la lingua...



> Non sento persone per strada che usano chatspeak, o linguaggio da sms.


 
Esiste una lingua parlata ed esiste la scrittura delle parole.
Io dico _what,_ ma potrei pensare e scrivere sia _what_ che _wot..._
Se _whom_ è diventato _who_, non è escluso che in futuro _what_ non diventi _wot..._

Ciao e grazie per le pazienti risposte...


----------



## maxiogee

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Hi all.
> I was wondering why we can't use _thnks_, but we can use _hi, mod, kinda, ain't_?
> Is this a selective rule?
> 
> Ciao



Maybe because I saw *thnks* and wondered if you meant thanks or thinks.  

Also, what is not allowed is not allowed for a reason. The words such as ain't, hi, kinda etc are all standard and acceptable forms which can be encountered in almost any written material and so can be encountered (and therefore can need to be discussed) by any student of English. Text-speak is not yet standardised, is open to debate and can depend on pronunciation ne1.


----------



## TimeHP

> Also, what is not allowed is not allowed for a reason. The words such as ain't, hi, kinda etc are all standard and acceptable forms which can be encountered in almost any written material and so can be encountered (and therefore can need to be discussed) by any student of English. Text-speak is not yet standardised, is open to debate and can depend on pronunciation ne1.


 
You all gave very clear and sensitive answers. Anyway I'm not convinced... 
Some years ago the words you mention weren't considered acceptable forms and even nowadays some people wouldn't consider them acceptable.



> Maybe because I saw *thnks* and wondered if you meant thanks or thinks.


 
Well, when I see _you _I always wonder if it's singular or plural...

ElaineG wrote:


> You could certainly argue that chatspeak has "entered the language." However, it is not in keeping with the serious tone of these forums:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.


 
Why _wot/thnks/dunno_ menace the cordial tone?

Jesse Sheidlower, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, says text messaging is going through the natural progression of language...
(link: www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-02-14-messaging-linguists_x.htm')

I'm happy that the forum is trying to protect a good style of the languages. But I'm trying to understand if you consider chat languages as a part of contemporary English or not.

Ciao


----------



## ElaineG

> Why _wot/thnks/dunno_ menace the cordial tone?


 
Of course not, but the "serious and academic" quality, yes.


----------



## ireney

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Jesse Sheidlower, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, says text messaging is going through the natural progression of language...
> (link: www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-02-14-messaging-linguists_x.htm')


 

Hmmm

Somehow  I cannot think that the following (imaginary) dialogue can be said to be the natural progress of language.

"neway I'm off 4 nxt hr. U?"
"me 2"
"k c u"
"u 2"


----------



## Jana337

Time, concordo con te - la lingua si sviluppa e bisogna essere aggiornati. Perciò le nostre regole non vietano le discussioni sul linguaggio chat. Ciascuno può aprire un thread dedicato a questo fenomeno popolare. Si possono aprire anche thread sul gergo giovanile, gergo criminale ed altri. 

Comunque coloro che imparano dovrebbero prima di tutto orientarsi sulla padronanza della lingua standard che sarà utile a loro per degli esami ed anche nell'ambiente lavorativo. Inoltre è la lingua standard che permette la partecipazione di persona qualsiasi. Molti di noi si sentirebbero esclusi se ci fossero discussioni come questa:


> hey people, i hav a gurl only issue, so if ur a guy plz leave
> thank u, well i jus brokeup w/ mi boyfrend and this guy i really like asked me out and if i say yes i'm afraid mi x-boifrend will hurt me or worse hurt the guy hoo asked me out, wat should i do?????


 Non me la sono inventata (perché questa lingua straniera non la parlo proprio), invece l'ho copiata dal nostro cestino. Io riesco a leggerla però devo metterci molto tempo. Può darsi che qualcuno farebbe fatica a capire di che cosa si tratta.

Essendo i membri di un forum di lingue molti foreri soffrono vedendo un tale linguaggio. Sono sicura che alcuni se ne andrebbero se prevalesse uno stile così e se le discussioni diventassero superficiali (eh sì, lo so che usare le abbreviazioni chat non equivale ad essere superficiali, comunque con una certa probabilità...). Vogliamo rimanere un forum con un sapore academico. Quindi crediamo che sia giusto contenere il chatspeak nei thread ben precisi su cui non deve cliccare chi non vuole.



Jana


----------



## TimeHP

♫ _Please, don't let me be misunderstood... _♫

É sicuramente colpa mia, se non riesco a spiegarmi. Ci riprovo.
1. Mi fa piacere piace che nel forum ci siano regole che difendano un uso della 
    lingua stilisticamente e grammaticalmente corretto...
2. Faccio parte di quella categoria di persone che non ama gli scempi linguistici
   (soffro persino un poco quando al telegiornale sento usare l'indicativo al posto 
   del congiuntivo o magari sento dire senzazione...) 
Ma: 
1. Le lingue si evolvono e l'Inglese ha un'evoluzione più rapida di tutte le altre.
2. Vocaboli considerati in passato inadeguati a un uso corretto della lingua Inglese,
    oggi sono nel vocabolario di tutti.
 
Detto questo, pensate che il linguaggio dei messaggi telefonici, che coinvolge una gran fetta di popolazione, soprattutto i giovani - cioè coloro che parleranno e scriveranno  l'Inglese di domani - sia da considerare facente parte della lingua oppure no?
Non chiedo di sapere se siete pro o contro. La cosa purtroppo è irrivelante rispetto all'evoluzione della lingua. 
Sul dizionario Italiano Inglese Hazon Garzanti
- la lettera _U _è indicata come _ fam. spec. amer. → you._
_- dunno come contr. di I don't know, non so_
_ 
 




Molti di noi si sentirebbero esclusi se ci fossero discussioni come questa:

Quote:
hey people, i hav a gurl only issue, so if ur a guy plz leave
thank u, well i jus brokeup w/ mi boyfrend and this guy i really like asked me out and if i say yes i'm afraid mi x-boifrend will hurt me or worse hurt the guy hoo asked me out, wat should i do?????


Click to expand...

 
Certo.
E fortunatamente credo che a nessuno verrebbe in mente di esprimersi così in un forum di lingue. 

Comunque adesso mi sento sola e incompresa...perciò forse aprirò una discussione sui dolci che si cucinano nel mondo 

Bye

_


----------



## ElaineG

> _Comunque adesso mi sento sola e incompresa_


 
But Time, you're dealing with a bunch of curmudgeonly language lovers. We're not objective. Chatspeak hurts me - because I worship the complexity, the diversity and the subtlety of language. 

I'm sure it does represent the evolution of our language. It's crisp, efficient, and simple. No battling for the survival of the congiuntivo/subjunctive there -- all conjugation becomes superfluous. What is more time saving and conducive to universal communication than that?

Look how many young people first join WRF genuinely not knowing that chatspeak shortcuts aren't standard English. They, not my old cranky self, are the future of our language. The areas in which it is unacceptable will grow smaller, as businesses recognize and adopt the convenience of shorthand, and the formal business memo or letter is increasingly replaced by an electronic message from a cellphone or Blackberry. The rules will catch up with the usage.

So yes, the language is evolving. But as with music, TV, and most everything else I've encountered since my 30th birthday, I'm not happy about the direction it's headed in 

jmo, 

c u l8r, GF!


----------



## cuchuflete

To those who would promote chatspeak as having become standard...be patient. Without a doubt, some of it will eventually become part of the standard language. It hasn't been around long enough for that claim to be made.

The majority of the world's people do not yet have computer access. Thus to claim that u r a qt is part of the standard lexicon is premature. 

These forums are frequented by many beginning students. They need to learn standard forms, in order to distinguish between these, and the totally valid non-standard forms.
Colloquial street talk is fine, in its place on the street. Formal academic language would be silly, and potentially useless, in many informal settings. 

Chatspeak is permitted here as a topic, but is specifically excluded from discussions. The reasons are obvious. When languages evolve to include roflmao and its equivalents in other languages, those terms will become acceptable here.

The computer owners who want to propagate such terms are more than welcome to use them in appropriate settings. The iconoclasts of WR who don't accept conventional wisdom _(sic)
_have yet to be convinced that chatspeak is standard.


----------



## TimeHP

_ Ma non siete contenti di vedere _
_come la lingua si trasforma,_
_muta e si adegua a contesti diversi, _
_e poi di nuovo si attorciglia, _
_entra negli interstizi ed esplode, _
_per descrivere gli universi? _
_Cosa c'è di più bello per chi ama le parole_
_di poter saltellare sulla punta di un verbo,_
_prender un aggettivo a braccetto _
_e con lui far capriole..._
_Scrivere una filastrocca per un bambino_
_facendo strani versi da pinguino,_
_mandare un messaggio di parole monche_
_sapendo che il destinatario non si confonde._
_E inventare nuovi suoni _
_per parlar di sentimenti,_
_giocare con l'alfabeto,_
_rimare ai quattro venti..._
_La lingua è tutto, _
_il bello e il brutto,_
_scegli dal piatto il pezzo _
_che ti da piacere,_
_ciò che non ami _
_puoi sempre tacere...  _

 
Ciao


----------



## Jana337

Ti capisco! 

Jana


----------



## ElaineG

TimeHP said:
			
		

> _ Ma non siete contenti di vedere _
> _come la lingua si trasforma,_
> _muta e si adegua a contesti diversi, _
> _e poi di nuovo si attorciglia, _
> _entra negli interstizi ed esplode, _
> _per descrivere gli universi? _
> _Cosa c'è di più bello per chi ama le parole_
> _di poter saltellare sulla punta di un verbo,_
> _prender un aggettivo a braccetto _
> _e con lui far capriole..._
> _Scrivere una filastrocca per un bambino_
> _facendo strani versi da pinguino,_
> _mandare un messaggio di parole monche_
> _sapendo che il destinatario non si confonde._
> _E inventare nuovi suoni _
> _per parlar di sentimenti,_
> _giocare con l'alfabeto,_
> _rimare ai quattro venti..._
> _La lingua è tutto, _
> _il bello e il brutto,_
> _scegli dal piatto il pezzo _
> _che ti da piacere,_
> _ciò che non ami _
> _puoi sempre tacere... _
> 
> 
> Ciao


 
Brava!  Ora dovresti tradurrla in Chatspeak.


----------



## cuchuflete

No Panda, perche mi sono dimenticato de quasi tutto il chatspeak, ed il poema è bello.


----------



## Juri

Beg pardon, what means"kinda"?


----------



## Jana337

Juri said:
			
		

> Excuse me, what does "kinda" means?


 Kind of. This abbreviation is sorta common. 

Jana


----------



## lsp

Mike can do whatever he wants, that’s for sure. And I don't want to debate all that much. But I read all the opinions and wanted mine here for the record.

I don’t care if the future of language is different than today's language, or if I like the difference(s). Change is the way of the world, you can’t prevent it, and most times – with enough distance – we laugh at those who once tried. I’m just glad not to be wearing a corset.

Let’s stick to language, and ignore the rest of the myriad examples of the benefits of change. When I grew up my brothers and I were not allowed to split an infinitive. And you “curmudgeonly language lovers” probably remember the commercial, “Winston tastes good like AS a cigarette should.” Who here - anywhere - would correct that today? (Ironic trivia, the ads also had a tag line: “Me and my Winstons.” That’s technically incorrect, too).

This whole thread sounds like it’s borrowed from the sixties and could be about long hair, torn blue jeans, loud and dangerous rock & roll taking our young people down a bad path (She loves you *yeah yeah yeah* and all that subversive shit – changing language usage caused conflicts even then)! And I sound a little 1964 myself, because honestly, “I don’t know what pornography_ too much chat_ is but I know it when I see it.” I think it’s too strict the way it is, and I also don’t want to see Cuchu’s example all over the place (u r a qt), either. 

Italians adopted sms earlier and more enthusiastically by virtue of having infinitely more advanced cellphones and services. They are also even more accustomed to acronyms than we (ACOTRAL, ONU, and so on). So they might be even more frustrated than Americans in the forum who feel the time has come for a little wiggle room in the rules. It's interesting to me to see that this exchange of ideas started over in I-E.

For us at WR to rigidly forbid a developing communication phenomenon seems as silly as scientists arguing to replace teaching evolution altogether in favor of intelligent design theory.

Even more fundamentally, I don’t agree with what’s been lumped into the category “chatspeak.” Acronyms have been around forever, NATO, OPEC, and so on. On the secretary’s pads in my dad’s office there was a check box for ‘w.c.b.” back when I still had my baby teeth. FYI has been around forever. Today, in this thread we talk about “sms” and it’s so clearly understood that it went unnoticed entirely, no one called out that it is the very thing itself we say few understand or accept.

Unfortunately I have to use a sentence of Elaine’s for a position she did not mean for it to defend: “I think every community develops a "gergo" that suits its needs and that is what has happened here. Mod has become fairly well known across the forum universe.” You could substitute Mod with LOL, BRB, and thx, _IMHO _.

And when you say, “you're dealing with a bunch of curmudgeonly language lovers” I say that’s not necessarily accurate on the whole, it just feels that way somehow . 

So, once again, as it bears repetition, I’m not asking, or complaining, or organizing, or criticizing. But that’s how I feel. Thanks for following to the end.


----------



## blue-eyes

Hello everyone,
Personally I'm delighted that Chatspeak doesn't appear in this forum. I also participate in another forum, where I often have to read 3 times what people have written, just to understand what they're actually saying.

The quick, easy way of writing in chats and sms is causing young people to not be able to distinguish between the correct and the incorrect, as they become increasingly more accustomed to it. Not a good sign....

saludos@todos


----------



## nycphotography

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Yes, but only for a while..
> Rules may be changed if a brilliant discussion proves they're outdated.
> Ciao


 
*Perhaps.  But the odds of convincing a pedant that his rules are irrelevant....  let's just say you're better off investing in powerball (lottery) tickets.*


----------



## Residente Calle 13

How did it even become to be called "chat*speak*" ? Nobody *speaks* it; it's written! Is there a Morse-code speak? A short-hand speak? Funny thing is that in my High School some students took classes in short-hand. That was a considered a good skill to have. Now when kids do it it's bad. Jajajaja. You can't freakin' win!


----------



## TimeHP

> How did it even become to be called "chat*speak*" ? Nobody *speaks* it; it's written!


 
The way you write is a code anyway.
You say a word and you can write it in two, three different ways.
Or the opposite:
You write in 2-3 different ways a word, but it's just one word...

Ciao


----------



## AmoL'italiano

May I say... Thank you LSP. That was inspirational.

"The times they are a changin'" ~_Bob Dylan_

I found il gergo in that quote to be ironic. :-D

A language is a living breathing thing... would you rather that we all did this?

"I beg thine sympathy in my current state of confusion, O People of the Forum, but it dost seem that I am unnable to find the correct translation of a certain word that passed mine eyes naught but fourscore and seven hours ago. I request thy help in this matter, and await your response."

Because I'd be glad to do it if it was in the rules... it is quite fun. Makes me feel British... :-D haha.

Dylan


----------



## cuchuflete

The shorthand analogy was totally illogical.  Shorthand was an efficient, abbreviated way of quickly recording words, that were to be transcribed into standard speech.  It was not for general, widespread communication.    Why wasn't it used for general communication?  Because lots of people didn't understand the symbols.  Just like chatspeak.


----------



## TimeHP

> Because lots of people didn't understand the symbols. Just like chatspeak.


 
I think that new generations know the symbols very well. 
And lots of people have a very poor vocabulary and don't know lots of words...
I don't ask you if you like them. 
The point is: chatspeak, sms abbreviations, acronyms and slang are a part of the language or not? 
I think the answer is yes. They are in the dictionnary and we are using them more and more.
We also use a lot of:
wow! - mhm... - gulp - eh? - gee - ouch - ahi
And they are allowed...
So are you prejudiced only against chatspeak? 
Mhm...this not politically correct!  
Ciao


----------



## cuchuflete

That's quite a collection of disparate stuff.





			
				TimeHP said:
			
		

> I think that new generations know the symbols very well.  Sure, you elitist.  People who have the devices, in some countries.
> I guess you don't want to communicate with poor people, of new or old generations.  Jargon does tend to be exclusionary.
> 
> 
> And lots of people have a very poor vocabulary and don't know lots of words... What this has to do with chatspeak and its use is beyond me. I guess I need to have it told in very simple words. [The previous two sentences were limited to
> one syllable words, except for chatspeak and simple.  Were those words too dificult for anyone who can write sms?]
> I don't ask you if you like them.  Who or what is 'them'?
> Whether someone likes speakers or their terms has nothing to do with this converstation. It's a silly diversion. I'm sure that there are chat acronyms or abbreviations or words for not relevant.
> The point is: chatspeak, sms abbreviations, acronyms and slang are a part of the language or not?  They are obviously a part of a subset of the language, just as formal legal writing is. They are not yet as mainstream as you would like to believe. Many of them will be, before long.
> I think the answer is yes. They are in the dictionnary and we are using them more and more. There are lots of words in the dictionary that are used by subsets of any population. So what? Many four and five syllable words are in 'the dictionary'. Should we conclude from this that they should be used for sms? Of course not. They don't make sense in that environment. Roflmao doesn't make sense in this one.
> We also use a lot of:
> wow! - mhm... - gulp - eh? - gee - ouch - ahi
> And they are allowed...
> So are you prejudiced only against chatspeak? That's such a load of nonesense I offer it back to you: Are you prejudiced only against standard language? Do you want to exclude those who don't belong to your club?
> Mhm...this not politically correct!  So what! Politically correct talk and writing is generally dishonest, cowardly, and indirect. You said what you thought in plain words. Bravo!
> Ciao


Ciao


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm not prejudiced against chatspeak in chatrooms, or sms abbreviations and jargon for sms usage.  I'm not against baseball jargon for talking with fellow baseball fans about baseball.

Trying to claim that because sms/chatspeak is growing in use makes it equivalent, today, to standard language is false and illogical.  I'm against false and illogical thinking, writing and speech. 

How's that for politically kerrect?


----------



## TimeHP

Hi.


> Sure, you elitist. People who have the devices, in some countries.
> I guess you don't want to communicate with poor people, of new or old generations. Jargon does tend to be exclusionary.


 
As you probably know sociolinguistics consider slang and new idiolects as 'language of groups with low status'. They also say that these terms are often particular to a subculture (their words, not mine. I don't consider 'sub' any class and any culture) 
------------



> Whether someone likes speakers or their terms has nothing to do with this converstation. It's a silly diversion


 
No, this is what I kept on saying. Please read the prevoius messages...
_1.Non voglio dare nessun suggerimento.
  Mi interessa solo l'aspetto linguistico, la trasformazione della lingua._
_2.Detto questo, pensate che il linguaggio dei messaggi telefonici, che coinvolge una gran fetta di popolazione, soprattutto i giovani - cioè coloro che parleranno e scriveranno l'Inglese di domani - sia da considerare facente parte della lingua oppure no?
Non chiedo di sapere se siete pro o contro. La cosa purtroppo è irrivelante rispetto all'evoluzione della lingua_
-------------------------



> That's such a load of nonesense I offer it back to you: Are you prejudiced only against standard language? Do you want to exclude those who don't belong to your club


 
I was joking, of course. Anyway it's not me who tries to exclude someone.
I use standard language. But I think that chatspeak is very funny and when I read the acrobatic language in the sms of young people, I think they are very clever. 
And yes, I like a correct standard language, but I also like dialects, jargon, slang and chatspeak, if they are used in the right context. 
Ciao


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola,

Seems we coincide on a few points.  Also, if you have read, not even very carefully, my prior posts in this thread, it will be obvious that I expect much of sms and chatspeak forms to become part of standard language before long.



			
				TimeHP said:
			
		

> Hi.
> 
> 
> As you probably know sociolinguistics [Sorry, but I avoid sociolinguistics like a plague.  It attributes all sorts of intentions to language that speakers seem no to mean.  It may have merit, but I don't trust it as consistently verifiable science.  It does offer some interesting suppositions, some of which may prove to be correct.  More below.] consider slang and new idiolects as 'language of groups with low status'. That's a real dooozey!  So, the people with computer and sms access are low status, are they?  What does that make those who cannot afford the devices?   They also say that these terms are often particular to a subculture (their words, not mine. I don't consider 'sub' any class and any culture) Much jargon is invented by and used by sub-cultures, sometimes because it's efficient, and sometimes because it is not easily comprehended by those from outside the sub-culture.
> Whether by intent or not, it is often exclusionary.
> ------------
> 
> 
> No, this is what I kept on saying. Please read the prevoius messages...
> _1.Non voglio dare nessun suggerimento.
> Mi interessa solo l'aspetto linguistico, la trasformazione della lingua._
> _2.Detto questo, pensate che il linguaggio dei messaggi telefonici, che coinvolge una gran fetta di popolazione, soprattutto i giovani - *cioè coloro che parleranno e scriveranno l'Inglese di domani *- sia da considerare facente parte della lingua oppure no?  Di domani si, di oggi no.
> Non chiedo di sapere se siete pro o contro. La cosa purtroppo è irrivelante rispetto all'evoluzione della lingua_
> -------------------------
> 
> 
> I was joking, of course. Anyway it's not me who tries to exclude someone.
> I use standard language. But I think that chatspeak is very funny and when I read the acrobatic language in the sms of young people, I think they are very clever.
> And yes, I like a correct standard language, *but I also like dialects, jargon, slang and chatspeak, if they are used in the right context.  We agree again.*
> Ciao


----------



## AmoL'italiano

Cuchu said:

"I think the answer is yes. They are in the dictionnary and we are using them more and more. There are lots of words in the dictionary that are used by subsets of any population. So what? Many four and five syllable words are in 'the dictionary'. Should we conclude from this that they should be used for sms? Of course not. They don't make sense in that environment. Roflmao doesn't make sense in this one."

Just because something may not "make sense" in an environment to SOME people, does not mean that it should be RESTRICTED. 

If this forum is for language, it should include all things language- mainstream or no. Someone in this thread used the word pedant. I'm 13 and I don't think I have EVER heard pedantic used in a sentence in my daily life. Does that mean Mike should make a rule that says, "No big or complicated words allowed.... it might confuse people." No he shouldn't! If someone doesn't know what something means, they ask... and they learn. Telling people to speak a certain way online does not HELP people with a new language and culture, it hurts them. It gives a misnomer to a certain culture, saying people write a certain way online- when they don't! Now, by chatspeak I mean most acronyms and some other things... but I do agree that "u r a qt" is a bit much, because you don't see that a lot. You do see: lol, IMO, IMHO, rofl, roflmao, ttyl, c u later, brb, etc. 

So it should be allowed, no?

Just like, technically, I'm allowed to speak using words like circumloquacious, harridan, equipoise, rebarbative, pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, and lethologica. 

So:

I once met a circumloquacious harridan who had an exquisite equipoise of rebarbative politics and hangovers on Sundays. Sadly, she was diagnosed with pneuomoulultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis... though I seem to be experiencing lethologica as to what body part that attacks.... So tragic....

:-D

Dylan


----------



## maxiogee

AmoL'italiano said:
			
		

> Telling people to speak a certain way online



No-one is telling anyone how to speak online. There is a restriction - on this forum only - put there by the site owner, a publisher of dictionaries, to facilitate those who are learning English.
We see enough queries arise from the explanation of what word X means, which leads to a new thread asking what was meant in the explanation of X by the use of the word Y.
We can deal with this. It's what we, all volunteers who care about langauges and wish to share knowledge with others, are drawn back to this site repeatedly by, the ever fascinating knowledge which we find here. 
If the everyday 'business' of this site were to be slowed or clogged by queries from learners as to what I meant by SDGFCPuiegf or other non-standard usage, it might well drive people away. To 'require' me to plough through stuff like that is beyond the needs, or power, of any site which has a code of conduct.
I'm sorry if you feel inconvenienced by the ban on SMS-style communication, but we must all think of others now and again.
I have never felt aggrieved by the ban and yet I contribute to a wee site dealing with apronyms and acronyms and enjoy the expansion of new concepts.


----------



## AmoL'italiano

You think that widely used acronyms would slow down the site?

You already deal with every other word in the universe! 
There are an estimated one million words in the english language! That's not including scientific words, which would double, triple, even quadruple that figure. 
I'd estimate that there's less than 60 widely used acronyms online. Are you saying that it would slow down this site to deal with 60 more words? When you're already dealing with a million English words and just as many in every other language on here? 60 words per language added... no one would notice the difference.

If anyone would like to protest this ban by using some of the half-million words in the english language that we really never hear... please do. I think that just might cause three or four times as many threads as chatspeak will ever cause. I call upon your expeditious acquiescence to this hortatory request! Use your best fustian to bombard the martinets of these forums. Show them that change is good. :-D

Dylan


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The shorthand analogy was totally illogical.  Shorthand was an efficient, abbreviated way of quickly recording words...



Jajajaja. And SMS code is what? Inefficient? Not abbreviated?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Take a look at this message: 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=897004&postcount=9


How many foreros understand what vB is? It's a code word that people in the know use. That's what chat language is. Not everybody understands because it because it's restricted just like vB. I'm not in the loop. But that's okay. I don't run this site so I don't have to be in the loop.


P.S. I'm a programmer (Visual Basic) but I have no idea what that abbreviation stands for.


----------



## cuchuflete

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Jajajaja. And SMS code is what? Inefficient? Not abbreviated?


Why didn't you quote the second half of the remarks?  Because they shoot big holes in your illogical analogy.   Nice debate trick, but highly unconvincing.   

Since you try to take my words out of context, and thus twist the meaning, I'll repeat:

Shorthand was used to quickly record spoken words, for a single purpose: transcribing them into standard written language. Shorthand was never intended to be a mass or standard communications mechanism.  It was a step towards providing transcripts.  It was not jargon.  It was never intended to become part of standard speech or of standard writing.  It didn't.


----------



## cuchuflete

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Jajajaja. And SMS code is what? Inefficient? Not abbreviated?





			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Just like chatspeak.



Out of context debate is not enlightening.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Why didn't you quote the second half of the remarks?  Because they shoot big holes in your illogical analogy.   Nice debate trick, but highly unconvincing.
> 
> Since you try to take my words out of context, and thus twist the meaning, I'll repeat:
> 
> Shorthand was used to quickly record spoken words, for a single purpose: transcribing them into standard written language. Shorthand was never intended to be a mass or standard communications mechanism.  It was a step towards providing transcripts.  It was not jargon.  It was never intended to become part of standard speech or of standard writing.  It didn't.



Neither chat language or whatever you want to call it nor shorthand was invented yesterday. The concept is as old written language itself. What's hieroglyphics if not stuffing words into one picture? Have you read through Roman inscrpitions? They did that shit all the time. It's almost all abbreviated. 

Even on the cross according to the Gospel they scribbled "INRI" instead of *IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM*. Why? For the same reason kids are doing it on Instant Messenger and cell phones today. Sometimes it makes sense to abbreviate. That's why we have always had it. We all do shorthand of some kind when we write numbers or type www...blah blah blah.

The first problem with chatcode is that you don't understand it. The second problem with it is that kids are doing it and if kids are doing it it must be wrong like their music, their hair, their clothes, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. 

The problem in this forum is that most of us don't understand what the hell the abbreviations are so I don't care if you delete posts that are written in that form. But it's nothing new under the sun, my friend.

You can say it's different but it's not. It's basically not writting the whole damn thing out. So what? What's so different about it, pray tell?


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> How did it even become to be called "chat*speak*" ? Nobody *speaks* it; it's written! Is there a Morse-code speak? A short-hand speak? Funny thing is that in my High School some students took classes in short-hand. That was a considered a good skill to have. Now when kids do it it's bad. Jajajaja. You can't freakin' win!


Probably by analogy with "newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984.

Going right back to the original question of 





> I was wondering why we can't use _thnks_, but we can use _hi, mod, kinda, ain't_?


 
I would say that not all of those are chatspeak. I think of chatspeak as orthographical variants from the accepted spelling with the aim of reducing key-strokes. So "thnks" counts because its aim is to represent the word "thanks" closely enough that in context it will be understood. "kinda" counts too since it represents exactly the sound of "kind of" in fluent speech but cuts out two strokes, the space and the f. However, mod, hi and ain't are not chatspeak. They are words in their own right, with various degrees of acceptance into the standard language - and interestingly all quite different from each other. 

"Mod", I think, counts as argot, jargon specific to a context, but perfectly clear within that context. I know it is short for "moderator" but it is equivalent in the same way Tim is equivalent for Timothy. I suppose the distinction I am drawing there between "mod" and "thnks" is that "thnks" aims to represent an existing spoken word in a shorter graphical way, and "mod" is a short form for another word, both in spoken and written language. 

"Hi" is different again - just a colloquial variant for "hello", in no way chatspeak - although I suppose such words will be favoured because they are shorter than "hello", say. 

"Ain't" is different again - it represents a (spoken) dialectic form of "isn't it" etc. It's not meant to represent anything other that itself.

I doubt that true chatspeak of the form "thnks 2 u" will ever become standard, and acceptable on serious forums such as this, unless we have a spelling reform which allow them.

We might be a serious forum but not to the extent of requiring only high-register language, so I can't see a problem with using the familiar "hi". Similarly "ain't", if used by someone who would genuinely use that as part of their dialect, wouldn't pose me a problem either (although even people who would say it often naturally avoid writing it because of prejudice against such forms). I like the forum specific words such as "mod" and "forero". Sure it might be a little confusing for a while for a "newbie" (is that another one?) but quite clear in the context after a bit of reflexion, I'd say.

Edit - thinking about it - the area I see overlap is between potential chatspeak and the local references. All communities start to evolve their own terms, and acronyms for things they mention often. Dictionaries often speak of BE and AE for British and American English respectively, and we've adopted that "dictionary jargon" (jargon = chatspeak here?) in these forums. A specific example would be "WR dictionaries" where we don't write out "word reference" because it is long, and a common thing to write here, and in the context its clear. I suppose you could call WR "chatspeak" but we allow it because it is one of a very small number of terms specific to these forums and to language study.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

I think the difference is that we almost all understand "thru", "hi", and "mod" (to a much lesser extent) and many of us, especially those among us who count, *don't *understand what "c u l8r" means. I don't buy the "we write to learn to write well" argument.

But I don't care about the rule and if I had to choose, I favor not allowing chat language. But anybody who censors find themselves with gray areas which reveal how stupid censorship really is. This censorship is no exception to that rule. 

Oh well!


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I think the difference is that we almost all understand "thru", "hi", and "mod" (to a much lesser extent) and many of us, especially those among us who count, *don't *understand what "c u l8r" means. I don't buy the "we write to learn to write well" argument.


Sorry, the difference between what?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> Sorry, the difference between what?



The difference between "hi, timpeac" and "cya, tp".


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> The difference between "hi, timpeac" and "cya, tp".


Sorry, again, in terms of what? It doesn't make sense to say "the difference between "hi", "timpeac" and "cya" period". Do you mean the difference that makes one chatspeak and the other not? The difference that makes one allowed on WR () and another not (as was the original question) or the difference that makes one able to be described as a "word" and another not, or....what?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> Sorry, again, in terms of what? It doesn't make sense to say "the difference between "hi", "timpeac" and "cya" period". Do you mean the difference that makes one chatspeak and the other not? The difference that makes one allowed on WR () and another not (as was the original question) or the difference that makes one able to be described as a "word" and another not, or....what?


Firstly, I don't care that it's not allowed on WR. I don't understand most SMS stuff and I find it hard to read anyway. But you are having trouble with what I have written and I don't think it has anything to do with what some people call "chatspeak" (but is never spoken). So there will always be trouble understanding messages no matter how they are written.

BUT

No message will get sanctionned on this site for "hi" or "etc." or "et al." etc. But if you wrote "C U soon" it might get sanctionned. *"C"* is short for "see" and *"U"* is short for "you". "Etc." and "et al." are short for words that aren't even in part of a living language. So in that sense, it's silly to pick on some and not others. However, all censorship involves a bit of sillyness. That's why we have eighteen year-olds dying in Iraq who can't buy a drink if at a bar if they were here. You censor something and you end up with stupid shit like that.

But on the other hand, drunk kids get themselves and other people in tons of trouble so...

And plus, I'm old enough to drink and too old for the army so who cares?


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Firstly, I don't care that it's not allowed on WR. I don't understand most SMS stuff and I find it hard to read anyway. But you are having trouble with what I have written and I don't think it has anything to do with what some people call "chatspeak" (but is never spoken). So there will always be trouble understanding messages no matter how they are written.
> 
> BUT
> 
> No message here will get sanctionned on this site for "hi" or "etc." or "et al." etc. But if you wrote "C U soon" it might get sanctionned. *"C"* is short for "see" and *"U"* is short for "you". "Etc." and "et al." are short for words that aren't even in part of a living language. So in that sense, it's silly to pick on some and not others. However, all censorship involves a bit of sillyness. That's why we have eighteen year-olds can die in Iraq but can't buy a drink at a bar. You censor something and you end up with stupid shit like that.
> 
> But on the other hand, drunk kids get themselves and other people in tons of trouble so...
> 
> And plus, I'm old enough to drink and too old for the army so who cares?


 
You're right - your first paragraph there is quite impenetrable to me so I will move on to the second -

I _think_ you are answering your own question of "why do some short forms become acceptable in the written form and others not". So - pausing only to point out briefly to those reading who think we are still talking about the original question of why some forms are acceptable on WR and others not that a rule of thumb is probably if it is a generally accepted spelling in a dictionary other than some local words such as "mod" and "WR" - then I would agree that it is pretty arbitrary, yes. All spelling systems are in some way imperfect in that they attempt to represent the spoken language and in doing so writing can only ever be partially successful.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> You're right - your first paragraph there is quite impenetrable to me so I will move on to the second -
> 
> I _think_ you are answering your own question of "why do some short forms become acceptable in the written form and others not". So - pausing only to point out briefly to those reading who think we are still talking about the original question of why some forms are acceptable on WR and others not that a rule of thumb is probably if it is a generally accepted spelling in a dictionary other than some local words such as "mod" and "WR" - then I would agree that it is pretty arbitrary, yes. All spelling systems are in some way imperfect in that they attempt to represent the spoken language and in doing so writing can only ever be partially successful.



I agree with that and WR policy. And I also think that the policy is enforced judiciously. Nobody gets banned for sticking an unorthodox abbreviation here and there but it's not allowed to go on to the point that most people feel left out.


----------



## cuchuflete

What a barrage of unrelated verbiage.  You said this (quoted in full.)

" How did it even become to be called "chat*speak*" ? Nobody *speaks* it; it's written! Is there a Morse-code speak? A short-hand speak? Funny thing is that in my High School some students took classes in short-hand. That was a considered a good skill to have. Now when kids do it it's bad. Jajajaja. You can't freakin' win!"

I don't care why it was called chatspeak.  That would be an interesting etymological digression for the English forum, or here, if it were pertinent.  It's not.  

Kids studied short-hand to get fairly badly paid jobs transcribing spoken words.  It was a good skill to have for those without more desireable skills.  It had nothing to do with general communication among any significant portion of the populace.   It was not analogous in its intended use to chatspeak or sms abbreviations, which are used in conversation.  Short-hand was not used in conversation.

You have said "Now when kids do it it's bad. Jajajaja. You can't freakin' win!"
  I didn't say it was bad.  I don't think it's bad.  You set up a strawman and knocked it down.

You may win, but not with terrible analogies that don't hold water, because the underlying premises of the two kinds of efficient, abbreviated writing you are comparing are totally distinct.   Lousy logic wrapped in passionate words is still lousy logic.   






  		 __________________





			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Neither chat language or whatever you want to call it nor shorthand was invented yesterday. I agree with you.  This is rather obvious. Abbreviations have been used for a long time, some for written communication, some for verbal communication, and some for facilitating transcriptions.  They all do the same thing, but not always for the same intended end.  The concept is as old written language itself. What's hieroglyphics if not stuffing words into one picture? Have you read through Roman inscrpitions? They did that shit all the time. It's almost all abbreviated.
> 
> Even on the cross according to the Gospel they scribbled "INRI" instead of *IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM*. Why? For the same reason kids are doing it on Instant Messenger and cell phones today. Sometimes it makes sense to abbreviate. That's why we have always had it. We all do shorthand of some kind when we write numbers or type We agree that shorthand is used all the time.   Another shorthand I've read for decades --while playing an instrument-- is called musical notation.  It's very compact and efficient for its intended purpose.  It tells me where to place each of the nine fingers used to play the instrument, and what to do with my tongue.
> Millions of people understand it.   Should we therefore accept it here when we discuss pronunciation?   It would work very efficiently for those who know it. www...blah blah blah.
> 
> The first problem with chatcode is that you don't understand it. I wonder who the "you" is and how you come to be such an expert in what your fellow forum members know. The second problem with it is that kids are doing it and if kids are doing it it must be wrong like their music, their hair, their clothes, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. I like my kids'clothes, I share their music with them (and they like my music too...Miles playing _Bitches Brew must be timeless!_,
> their jargon is fascinating and fun.
> 
> The problem in this forum is that most of us don't understand what the hell the abbreviations are so I don't care if you delete posts that are written in that form. But it's nothing new under the sun, my friend.
> 
> You can say it's different but it's not. It's basically not writting the whole damn thing out. So what? What's so different about it, pray tell?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

I will answer one question and be done with this:
*
"You" *are the people who moderate this site. How are you supposed to moderate a site when you can't read what is being written?

I don't care about the rule. In fact, I prefer it to having no rule at all. I just thought it was *stupid *to call something that is never _spoken _chat*speak*. I also thought that in a forum like this that the meaning of words was somehow relevant or important.


REMOVED TEXT


----------



## AmoL'italiano

I tried to not be so passionate in my argument, if you would please read it. I bring up a point about how "chatspeak" is a form of culture, a form of written communication, and a way of showing one's personality. 
And as people have brought up- acronyms go WAY back.... Romans used them all the time- completely acceptable. New words, new ways of saying things should be accepted here of all places. This is a place that celebrates culture and words- so why not celebrate new ways of saying them? 
Every single thing that we say was invented at some point.
The word OK was invented in the late 1830's around the time when the U.S. was amused by funny misspellings. The intials for "orl kerrekt" became OK and may or may not have been popularized by the 1840 election for Van Buren (who was nicknamed "Old Kinderhook" and had supporters named the  "OK Club."
Supposedly the word "posh" was originally an acronym for "Port Out, Starboard Home." The "cooler" and more affluent riders on ships to our from India would write "POSH" on their bookings- the acronym refers to the more expensive cabins.
The word "loo" is a shortened form of "Waterloo," which was inscribed in many British outhouses in the early 1900's.
The word "quiz" was made entirely randomly. Some guy in Ireland spray-painted the word "quiz" on a bunch of buildings and left people to wonder what the hell it meant. Well.... now I hear that word every week, "Class, we'll have a quiz next week on chatspeak and it's cultural importance." :-D (Haha, I should note that the word "quiz" didn't have the unforunate definition it did today until recently... it went through about three other definitions before landing on one that would scare students everywhere!)
And a.m., and p.m. from ante/post meridiem- Latin for "before/after midday."

A languages second purpose- the second reason why language was invented- was to communicate. It is silly to censor language, it is silly to ban forms of a language, and it is silly to build a hypocratical forum about language while excluding the use of chatspeak.
I can understand capitalizing letters, I can understand correct grammar to a certain degree- but not letting us slip in a few "lol"'s is just "kinda" ridiculous. When you learn a language, you should know how they communicate online, because online communication is getting bigger and bigger every day. And it would just be mean to bar us scholars of a language from the same ease in online communication that natives have.

Dylan


----------



## ireney

Some Random thoughts:


The minute one begins going "lollolololololol" when he hears a joke I'll be all for including it in the not-to-be-edited words in a forum dedicated to helping people learn foreign languages.

This from a person that, if we take into account how many times I type (mostly on MSN) lol instead of "that was funny" when not even REALLY laughing out loud is definitely overusing it.

The same goes for others such as "sth" (there is a site in which I am certain I have typed 'sth' much more often that 'something').

And I have never in my life heard anyone saying "Be Ar Be" meaning he/she will be back in a bit.

On the contrary I have heard 'OK'. And I am sure that if 'sth' becomes as widely accepted as 'etc' and a foreign student can look it up in his/her dictionary when he/she encounters it on this site, it will be allowed.

For me communication was the first reason a language was invented. After we went past the "Yg wants food" stage, we strived to convey our thoughts as accurately as possible. That meant that new words were either invented or adopted from other languages. Usually they were big words.

The fact that many are not used often by most people saddens me . I like precision. Of course simple language has its charms and different language patterns are best for expressing different ideas and for using in deifferent situations. That’s what a rich language is about.

I am still unconvinced that using chatspeak (lol, lmao, rotfl, c u, wot, neway, sth etc) represents a culture. What are the characteristics of this culture? Since I use chatspeak quite a lot (out of sheer boredom when typing) I am part of this culture too.

A locked topic in which all common chatspeak is explained away and in which the moderators could add new ones when they become standardised is another issue. I haven't really thought about it though.

Last but not least: A very useful-to-know form/aspect of a language is swear-words. I guess my mother didn’t use soap to wash my mouth as much as she needed to and now I swear in both English and Greek more often than I should. Frankly, there are times that I find that only a swear-word can accurately describe my feelings (“Sugar! I missed the last train” just doesn’t work for me). Should we include them too so as to make this site all –comprehensive ?


----------



## TimeHP

> Going right back to the original question of Quote:
> I was wondering why we can't use _thnks_, but we can use _hi, mod, kinda, ain't_?


 
Thank you, Timpeac. Actually there are two questions, now, the original one and its child... 



> Allora lasciamo da parte le regole del forum e valutiamo la domanda solo per ciò che riguarda la comunità delle persone che usa l'Inglese nel mondo...


-------------- 
I'd like to add that when I was a student (no cell and no computer...)
my friends and I wrote: 
x _(per = for)_
xché _(perchè = because/why)_
x favore _(per favore = please)_
q.lcuno _(qualcuno = someone)_
q.lcosa _(qualcosa = something)_
_q.lchevolta (qualche volta = sometimes)_
_+ (più = more, plus)_
- _(meno = less, minus)_
and many others...

Of course we didn't use the abbreviated style in our class tests. Only when we wrote letters, messages, diaries, etc.
We could perfectly change our style according to the needs.
This hasn't ruined our written language. I'd say it was a good gymnastics for our minds... 

An intelligent person adapts his/her language to the people whom he/she is addressing to.
If I want to be understood from my 5 years niece, I won't tell her words like _symmetrical, plethora, neolithic._ 
Kids are very intelligent and they know that if they are addressing to _'a bunch of curmudgeonly language lovers' _they have to use a standard language and risk a 'u' or a 'wot' now and then.

Anyway my niece is very clever and when she doesn't know a word she asks: 'what does it mean?'. 
Not so difficut to say, if we wouldn't understand a word... 
And isn't this one of the aims of languages fora? 

We all want to preserve the beauty of our languages, but I think that 
looking down and banning new ways of communicating is not the best way to do it.

Ciao


----------



## maxiogee

AmoL'italiano said:
			
		

> I tried to not be so passionate in my argument,



Why are you so aggrieved, AmoL'italiano?
This is one rule on one forum - among an unknown number of world-wide sites.
This is one small rule.
The reasons for it have been explained.
Can you not accept that those who run a site may impose whatever rules they like.
I'm not asking you to leave, I welcome anyone and everyone who is interested in language (in my case, particularly the English language) to ask (and respond to) questions here. All questions illuminate me. All answers inform me, if they are styled so to do. I (and others with less mastery of English) should not have to seek explanations of an explanation.

Why do you feel the need to encourage others to protest the rules they have agreed to. We have a saying here in Ireland…
_If you don't like the boots, don't join the army._

You've not been conscripted, you're a volunteer like the rest of us.


----------



## TimeHP

> Why do you feel the need to encourage others to protest the rules they have agreed to. We have a saying here in Ireland…
> _If you don't like the boots, don't join the army._


 
Fortunately this is not the army, but a forum, a place where people should politely talk about language and culture.
Or should we discuss only if we all agree? 

I was surprised when I read that you are 13, AmoL'italiano. You're brilliant. 

Ciao


----------



## ireney

> Of course we didn't use the abbreviated style in our class tests. Only when we wrote letters, messages, diaries, etc.


 
Why not? You could always argue that abbreviations were used from the Roman times, that many abreviations are used even in academic texts and that, since people either understood what you wrote or could ask then it was ok  
I'm sure you had at least one teacher liberal enough to accept those arguments.  




> We could perfectly change our style according to the needs.
> This hasn't ruined our written language. I'd say it was a good gymnastics for our minds...


 
The best gymnastic I had today was when a friend of mine and I decided to write in _really_ bad English. Understanding each other was an ordeal. 



> Anyway my niece is very clever and when she doesn't know a word she asks: 'what does it mean?'.
> Not so difficut to say, if we wouldn't understand a word...
> And isn't this one of the aims of languages fora?


 
How do you explain things to her? Using standardised words and expressions or not?

Ta leme (Greek equivalent for Ti Ti El)


----------



## lsp

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> You may win...


This should be no different that any of the other threads on linguistics. Unfortunately this happens too often when the status quo is the topic (I won't even say "is questioned." *Cuchu*, why use the word "win"? We went from "Mi interessa solo l'aspetto linguistico, la trasformazione della lingua," to a scored debate that has to end in a winner and a loser? 

Lastly, *ireney*, BRB is thirteen characters with spaces on a keyboard, and Be right back" is 3 syllables spoken. Why would someone ever need/want to say Bee Ar Bee? I didn't get that point at all. And swear words are permitted here when this symbol is used:  Search the worst words you can think of, and you'll see them used in these forums with greater impunity than "thx."  Hmm.

p.s. *AmoLI*, loved your point about big words, Sure you're only 13?!


----------



## maxiogee

Read back, lsp. 
(and see PM I sent you.)


----------



## cuchuflete

lsp said:
			
		

> *Cuchu*, why use the word "win"?


For a very simple reason, that would be obvious if you had read the thread:  I was replying to this specific remark:



> Jajajaja. You can't freakin' win!"


----------



## lsp

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> For a very simple reason, that would be obvious if you had read the thread:  I was replying to this specific remark:
> 
> ​


If that is what you were replying to, then I understand your statement in a new light, of course.


----------



## cuchuflete

lsp said:
			
		

> If that is what you were replying to, then I understand your statement in a new light, of course.



I quoted that remark, not once, but twice, in the very same post in which I rebutted it.  Sorry if that wasn't clear enough a reference.  

While in a clarifying mode, I am more than a little amused at the unsubstantiated remark which implies that moderators cannot understand the abbreviations used in chatrooms.  This remark was made by someone who has no way of knowing whether or not moderators frequent, read, or otherwise participate in chat boards.   In short, its an assertion free of such annoying encombrances as facts or evidence.  

Such are the risks of the limited freedom of speech permitted here.  People can post accusations and assertions without being able to back them up.   

On the topic of forum censorship, which was also decried:
We absolutely and proudly do censor these forums.  Most of you have therefore been spared having to read hundreds or thousands of obscene posts, spam, and commercial and promotional messages.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I quoted that remark, not once, but twice, in the very same post in which I rebutted it.  Sorry if that wasn't clear enough a reference.
> 
> While in a clarifying mode, I am more than a little amused at the unsubstantiated remark which implies that moderators cannot understand the abbreviations used in chatrooms.  This remark was made by someone who has no way of knowing whether or not moderators frequent, read, or otherwise participate in chat boards.   In short, its an assertion free of such annoying encombrances as facts or evidence.
> 
> Such are the risks of the limited freedom of speech permitted here.  People can post accusations and assertions without being able to back them up.
> 
> On the topic of forum censorship, which was also decried:
> We absolutely and proudly do censor these forums.  Most of you have therefore been spared having to read hundreds or thousands of obscene posts, spam, and commercial and promotional messages.


Yes. People in this forum can say what they think without having to provide documentation after ever single assertion they make. I think that's a good thing (no need for proof there!). I also appreciate the filtering of spam and even the removal of my own post when fall off-topic.

Censorship is necessary. It's made up of rules which are very much like dress-codes, age-limits, and spelling rules. There will always be examples of inconsistencies and what seems like arbitrariness but that's in the nature of censorship. It can be silly sometimes but I think we need it. 

(No need for proof in those last statements either.)


----------



## cuchuflete

> Censorship is necessary. It's made up of rules which are very much like dress-codes, age-limits, and spelling rules. There will always be examples of inconsistencies and what seems like arbitrariness but that's in the nature of censorship. It can be silly sometimes but I think we need it.



Rules can be useful or silly, and are generally some of each.
Imagine driving on a highway with lots of cars driven by 9 year olds.  Suppose we insisted that everyone who wanted to attend a Stones concert had to wear a bowtie.  I have escaped the spelling police for many years, but foreros are always happy, it seems, to point out this uncorrected defect of mine.  Luckily the penalty is limited to minor public reprimands.  

There is an alternative to the obviously arbitrary nature of rules: anarchy.  I find that notion very attractive when I don't like the rules.  I take comfort in its absence when I agree with them.  Most of all, like so many fellow humans, I want to set the rules.  That's not a bad desire, so long as I am much constrained in my ability to get what I wish for.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There is an alternative to the obviously arbitrary nature of rules: anarchy.  I find that notion very attractive when I don't like the rules.  I take comfort in its absence when I agree with them.  Most of all, like so many fellow humans, I want to set the rules.  That's not a bad desire, so long as I am much constrained in my ability to get what I wish for.



Well, there is a middle road: just rely on foreros to use common sense and common decency. That's not really anarchy since many unwritten rules exist and are followed. You see them in sports all the time:

In soccer, if a player on your team gets injured you kick the ball out of play. Even though the opposite team can take possesion of the ball they will invariably return the ball to the team who had the injured player.

However, logistically, I don't think that would work here. Keep censoring.


----------



## Bonjules

Now, after reading all this, I still don't know what sms is. Or qt(cutie?; man, that would be so 70's), for that matter. It wouldn't have anything to do with ham radio, would it?
Will someone enlighten me, please; I feel so left out.
saludos


----------



## AmoL'italiano

lsp said:
			
		

> p.s. *AmoLI*, loved your point about big words, Sure you're only 13?!


 
Haha, last time I checked! 

And guys... what's with these serious analogies we have here? Cuchu is comparing chatspeak censorship to the driving age?? I'm sorry but that just isn't right. Let me explain this... in big words (I'm still prtotesting aren't I?)

We are in a forum. Admonishing someone for disseminating the use of neologisms is quite ridiculous. I know that the pedants here will disagree, but neolgisms are part of a language! As stated earlier, every word that you can name was once a neologism! And as TimeHP brought up- it can be fun! Yes, indeed- the abhorred and dreaded "chatspeak" can actually be conducive to enjoyment for myriads of foreros. Perhaps this will assuage your disapproval of neologisms:
You don't have to use them.

Again.

You- yes... you!- do NOT have to use them.

In real life, there is no real barrier or boundary as to the language of the common impoverished impecunious soul that stands on the street corner. So when you come to the United States and hear the dialectal and "non-standard" english there- you're obviously going to have to deal with it without help from WR. When you talk online to a friend, you may be able to search the forums for a glossary of chat terms- but you will not have been able to practice and hone your skills. 

It's really quite silly that we are having this discussion. I feel like we are aggrandizing this issue to more than it ought to be. Chatspeak censorship ought to be simply removed from the rule book to abate further "accusations" and angry posts from the wrathful foreros. There's no harm to be done. Read my previous posts- I beg of you to counter attack them. I wonder why no one has chosen to rebuttle to MY posts... *gasps* could it be.... well... could it be that you have nothing to say? I'm shocked! When in doubt, simply type

BRB

go away and think up something, and come back. We'll be waiting- after all, you did tell us you would Be Right Back. 

Well, I'm off- I'm quite voracious, and I'm prepared to eat a voluptious feast, become filled with rapture, and then memorize the spelling of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch- which is a village in Wales. (Did not make that up! haha)

A Presto!
Dylan

P.S. (Am I allowed to use P.S.? Or is that not standard english...) With the exception of the spelling for the village in Wales- I did not use a thesaraus or Dictionary.com for the ENTIRE post! *cheers*

P.P.S. (Oooooh I did a post post script! I'm naughty...) Making the Town in Wales seem like a two letter word, we have the 192 character town in Thailand: *Krungthepmahanakornamornratanakosinmahintarayutthayamahadilokphop
nopparatrajathaniburiromudomrajaniwesmahasatharn
amornphimarnavatarnsathitsakkattiyavisanukamprasit.*
** 
*OY!*
**


----------



## cuchuflete

Well, we have a thread about the linguistic aspects of chatboards etc, and I get nailed twice, not by anyone debating linguistics, not by a proposition to write in a certain way, but by
people who haven't *read* carefully.  Reading, I've been told, is the other side of the writing equation.  Maybe an advocate of anything goes writing feels entitled to take liberties with reading as well:



> Cuchu is *comparing chatspeak censorship to the driving age?*? I'm sorry but that just isn't right.


I agree it's not right.  Further, I didn't do it.   For heavens sake, if you want to debate what was said, and in reference to which prior statements, have at it.  But don't give a cursory glance to a post, misunderstand it because you were in a hurry to make your own point, and then present your broken, senseless interpretation as if it were fact.

Is there an sms abbreviation for a conclusion drawn in absence of fact?  How about that former neologism, 'bs'?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

AmoL'italiano said:
			
		

> Haha, last time I checked!
> 
> And guys... what's with these serious analogies we have here? Cuchu is comparing chatspeak censorship to the driving age??


Cuchu mentionned that only because I brought it up.

Please indulge me, at the end of this post you will see it's relevant.

In Utah you can drive at sixteen but can't buy cigarettes. At 18 you can decide to join the army and die for your country but you can't by cigarettes. At 19 you can buy smokes but you can't buy a beer until you're 21.

It's also the rule that a cop can't stop you for not having your seatbelt if you "appear" past 18, I think. ??? Doesn't matter what age, I think that's so hard to judge. That's why you need to show ID for that other stuff.

All of these limits, it can be argued, are kind of arbitrary:

How can you be old enough to drive but not join the army?
How can you be old enough to join the army but not drink or smoke?
How can you be old enough to smoke but not drink?

It's silly but necessary. Like Cuchu said, we don't want nine year olds driving, smoking, drinking, or in the army. So we draw the line somewhere 
and it's not perfect but better than nothing.
*
That's what WR does. *It's says "ok" is okay but don't write "sthg" ("something"). Alot of the points made here against banning chat language show how goofy the rules can get. But the alternative is having many messages that many people don't understand and what's the point of that?  I mean, you have to filter something. So you pick a line. You set a limit and sometimes it's goofy. But it's not the end of the world.

P.S. It's also true that many people, like me, are spelling impaired and probably should look at orthodox spellings as much as possible.


----------



## AmoL'italiano

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Cuchu mentioned that only because I brought it up.


 
So sorry, but regardless of who brought it up- it's still quite ridiculous that the comparison was made, no? My point still stands.

Haha, I find it funny that both sides are saying that the argument itself is ridiculous, and we should just _________. One side says, "Eh, just take off the rule, it's easy." The other, "Just leave it how it is, it's easy." We're both stubborn in our opinions, but agreed in the triviality of this argument. Eh- tis fun, no? Arguing brings learning, inevitably!

Ciao.
Dylan


----------



## Bienvenidos

I spent an hour today staring at my computer screen, trying to decipher what the forero's question was. In the end, I was irritated, and the forero received nothing more than a, "Please don't write in Chatspeak" comment. I wish I could have helped more, but the chatspeak limited me from doing so. Hooray for WR for banning chatspeak; I don't understand it, and I don't care to understand it. When I use IM, I type everything out, with proper punctuation and capitals. Why? I don't know, it's just me. 

Anyway, as for chatspeak sinking into language, I think it would be a disgrace to the English dialect if words like "lol" became universally acknowledged. It's useless. Let go of the chatspeak. It won't hurt; I promise. Everyone is capable of typing out a word or two. 

*Bien*


----------



## Residente Calle 13

AmoL'italiano said:
			
		

> So sorry, but regardless of who brought it up- it's still quite ridiculous that the comparison was made, no? My point still stands.
> 
> Ciao.
> Dylan



I don't believe the analogy was bad. All systems of rules allow and ban things that seem to be very silly or that some people don't agree with. It's a part of every rule system. Whenever you have a set of rules, you will have idiotic results but it's even more idiotic to have no rules at all unless you can count on people policing themselves.

You can't allow people to write however they feel like so you ban some words. Some of the words you allow are worse then some you ban but you have to ban _some_. Show me a set of rules that is completely consistent.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Bienvenidos said:
			
		

> I spent an hour today staring at my computer screen, trying to decipher what the forero's question was. In the end, I was irritated, and the forero received nothing more than a, "Please don't write in Chatspeak" comment. I wish I could have helped more, but the chatspeak limited me from doing so. Hooray for WR for banning chatspeak; I don't understand it, and I don't care to understand it. When I use IM, I type everything out, with proper punctuation and capitals. Why? I don't know, it's just me.
> 
> Anyway, as for chatspeak sinking into language, I think it would be a disgrace to the English dialect if words like "lol" became universally acknowledged. It's useless. Let go of the chatspeak. It won't hurt; I promise. Everyone is capable of typing out a word or two.
> 
> *Bien*



I don't bother reading them. I think it's rude.


----------



## cuchuflete

What's ridiculous is that you still haven't read with comprehension.  Residente told you directly that my comment referred to his comments, which were about the abritrariness of rules.  I did not make any comment or comparison of driving age and any form of speech.  Your point still wobbles aimlessly.





			
				AmoL'italiano said:
			
		

> So sorry, but regardless of who brought it up- it's still quite ridiculous that the comparison was made, no? My point still stands.


----------



## AmoL'italiano

Residente-

:-D In theory the Torah is consistent because there is usually no reason given behind a law- simply, "because God says so." So technically, if God says it's bad- it's bad. If God says it's ok, then it's ok! He had all his bases covered...

Anyway, I agree that no rules are bad, but lifting perhaps? Maybe just asking to keep the chatspeak to a lower level, but allow a certain amount just as there is a limited number of smilies? I don't know... 

Dylan


----------



## lsp

Bienvenidos said:
			
		

> Everyone is capable of typing out a word or two.
> 
> *Bien*


Maybe so, but I'm curious what word or two you should have typed in place of that smiley emoticon, which was born and gained widespread acceptance in the same milieu as acronyms like LOL?


----------



## cuchuflete

As an aide to those who cannot or will not read the thread before commenting, I encourage you to go back to page one, and subsequent pages, where you will find me saying that I think chatspeak is a valid form of written expression, that I believe some of it will become part of standard English before long.

Since Residente, who has some considerable expertise on spelling and writing as a symbolic means of recording speech, is active in this thread, I offer a question.  What's the likelihood that chat board and/or SMS terms such as 'lol' will reverse course, and find a spoken form, other than their original unabbreviated one?  It has happened with other abbreviations, such as PDQ, which is now spoken as a term/phrase/whatever.  Will the language of current, technologically-impaired small screens create new spoken words?


----------



## AmoL'italiano

Cuchu? You mock my incompetance and insult me... yet you have also not read my argument? My reference to your driving age analogy was a mere sentence amidst the true meat of my argument. I wonder why you find small, insignificant mistakes in my argument and then label the ENTIRE argument as meaningless. 

And apparently you did not read this... so I shall make it bigger-

*DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU!*

Respectfully yours
Dylan


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Since Residente, who has some considerable expertise on spelling and writing as a symbolic means of recording speech, is active in this thread, I offer a question.  What's the likelihood that chat board and/or SMS terms such as 'lol' will reverse course, and find a spoken form, other than their original unabbreviated one?  It has happened with other abbreviations, such as PDQ, which is now spoken as a term/phrase/whatever.  Will the language of current, technologically-impaired small screens create new spoken words?



I don't quite follow your last question but the only answer I can come up with is off-topic if you look at the first post, I think, but not if you look at the title of the thread. I don't see how "LOL" will find a spoken form. Do you mean if people will start saying things like:

"I went to the store and, *el-oh-el*, stepped on some dog poo." ?

I'm sure that technical abbreviations will create new words. I'm sure SMS language will too if it hasn't already. But this is nothing different than the French saying "le metro" or the Spanish saying "el cine." Words get abbreaviated and new words do too. The theory is that the ones most used get abbreviated and when they stop being used so much the get long again. Aparently, "cinemá" is becoming more common now, instead of "ciné", in French because of VCRs and DVDs: less and less people watch movies at a movie theatre. That's what French linguist Henriette Walter says.

I think in both languages people say "PC" and "CD." Didn't Renzo Arbore sing a song that went something like "Vengo dopo el TG"? TG = telegiornale. Nothing new. Well, it was new when the RAI transmitted it's first news cast!

I'm not a big fan of SMS language but my boss likes to say "K" for *okay *alot. That extra syllable is just too much for him. I wonder if it's related. In anycase, I think SMS language will give us some new words but it's hard to say which ones will stick. Anybody who watches old movies knows that words don't live forever.


----------



## cuchuflete

AmoL'italiano,

1- I didn't mock your incompetence. I pointed out that you hadn't read carefully, that you had drawn a false conclusion from a cursory review of a comment, and posted that conclusion, attributing to me words and meanings I had not given. I don't like being misquoted for the sake of someone else's argument. That ok with you? If you are so thin-skinned as to take factual rebuttal as personal insult, you will continue to find insult where disagreement was given. 

2- I have read your argument.

3- When you put words in my mouth, and come to an erroneous conclusion and attribute it to me, you call that insignificant. I see it otherwise. 

4- Not only did I *not *label your entire argument meaningless, I did *not *label it at all! I made no reference to anything you have written except the glaring error you made in inferring that my statement about driving compared driving to chat language. 

5- I would have others read carefully, argue honestly, with fact to support their assertions of 'what is', and opinions clearly labeled as opinions. 

Please reserve your large type outbursts for corrections to my statements when they are in error. It happens that I make mistakes with some frequency. A careful reader will have no trouble finding them, and pointing them out. A sloppy reader will have to invent the ones I have yet to make.







			
				AmoL'italiano said:
			
		

> Cuchu? You mock my incompetance and insult me... yet you have also not read my argument? My reference to your driving age analogy was a mere sentence amidst the true meat of my argument. I wonder why you find small, insignificant mistakes in my argument and then label the ENTIRE argument as meaningless.
> 
> And apparently you did not read this... so I shall make it bigger-
> 
> *DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU!*
> 
> Respectfully yours
> Dylan


----------



## GenJen54

I see no need for the histrionics.  

You came here upon your own volition (one would assume).

In choosing to participate, you registered and in so doing, agreed to abide by the rules. Period.  Full stop. End of story.

The rules do not allow chat speak.

To me, there are really two choices:

Stay here and abide by the rules which the site administrator HAS A RIGHT to set. 

Go to the countless trillion other websites/chat forums, and yes, even "language" forums, and let us pedants enjoy our chat-free environment.

When I start speaking in "chat," perhaps I'll reconsider. 

Until then, I'll happily abide by the rules as set forth by the site administrator. Lack of chat is what makes WR so different, and pleasing.


----------



## TimeHP

> I see no need for the histrionics.
> You came here upon your own volition (one would assume).
> In choosing to participate, you registered and in so doing, agreed to abide by the rules. Period. Full stop. End of story.
> The rules do not allow chat speak.
> To me, there are really two choices:
> Stay here and abide by the rules which the site administrator HAS A RIGHT to set.
> Go to the countless trillion other websites/chat forums, and yes, even "language" forums, and let us pedants enjoy our chat-free environment.
> When I start speaking in "chat," perhaps I'll reconsider.
> Until then, I'll happily abide by the rules as set forth by the site administrator. Lack of chat is what makes WR so different, and pleasing



Really? But we are not asking to change the rules, are we? We are talking about our point of views about chat and the evolution of the language.

About rules: 


> The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.


It seems you forgot something about the tone (cordial and helpful) and about the atmosphere (collaborative). 
_Full stop? End of the story?_
Is this a democratic forum or what?
(On the other end, there are 35 pages of jokes when it is allowed to write 
ma'am, whoa, Jesusx, and so on...)

I'm not interested in being argumentative.
We all agree that students should learn to write in a good style and speak clearly, we want they acquire a good, wide vocabulary and could use language and words in the right way. Everyone should learn to write and speak in a correct, standard language. So easy to say! 
I've told many times that I try to be correct and clear, I like the beauty of words and language. 
But social changes and language changes are ineluctable.
And we are ingenuous people if we think we can stop changes: the proof is that you say you developed a 'gergo' in this forum. You can call it 'gergo', but it's a 'change', anyway.

David Crystal wrote in a recent book about the English language that_ 'we seem to be leaving an era where the rules of Standard language, as selected and defined by prescriptive grammarians, totally conditioned our sense of acceptable usage, so that all other usages and varieties were considered to be inferior or corrupt, and excluded from serious consideration...' _


Ciao


----------



## Agnès E.

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Is this a democratic forum or what?


 
Errr... no, it isn't. 

The rules are not decided by voting members, they are written by our administrator, who is not elected by the people (or am I missing something?), but who decides what is good and what is wrong for the place that he has created and to which we are all invited.


----------



## TimeHP

> The rules are not decided by voting members, they are written by our administrator, who is not elected by the people (or am I missing something?), but who decides what is good and what is wrong for the place that he has created and to which we are all invited.


 
Yes, but my question wasn't referred to the rules of the forum that I'm respecting.
I asked about the post of a 'mod':
Full stop. End of the story
Are we allowed to talk about a linguistic thread or not?

Ciao


----------



## lsp

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I see no need for the histrionics.
> 
> You came here upon your own volition (one would assume).
> 
> In choosing to participate, you registered and in so doing, agreed to abide by the rules. Period.  Full stop. End of story.
> 
> The rules do not allow chat speak.
> 
> To me, there are really two choices:
> 
> Stay here and abide by the rules which the site administrator HAS A RIGHT to set.
> 
> Go to the countless trillion other websites/chat forums, and yes, even "language" forums, and let us pedants enjoy our chat-free environment.
> 
> When I start speaking in "chat," perhaps I'll reconsider.
> 
> Until then, I'll happily abide by the rules as set forth by the site administrator. Lack of chat is what makes WR so different, and pleasing.


We are allowed to _discuss_ and even to _question _the forum, though, aren't we? I've made and read comments and suggestions before, some of which caused Mike to say "Good Idea" and presto-magico, the forum changed. Sometimes slightly, occasionally significantly. _Everyone_ participating here is abiding by the rules, so the "Love it or leave it ('to us pedants who enjoy a chat-free environment')" seems a little high-handed. This is a linguistic discussion, not a lobby, or a call to arms.


----------



## GenJen54

TimeHP said:
			
		

> We all agree that students should learn to write in a good style and speak clearly, we want they acquire a good, wide vocabulary and could use language and words in the right way. Everyone should learn to write and speak in a correct, standard language.


I agree.  I also agree that "chat" is neither *good style, *nor *clear*, nor does it promote a *wide vocabulary*, nor teaches people to use language and words in *the right way.  *It is also not *standard.*



> But social changes and language changes are ineluctable.


 I also agree. But this does not mean that changes have to occur everywhere. Think of your workplace. If your workplace prohibited chatspeak in emails because it was deemed unprofessional would you be throwing the same argument? Does your workplace not have the right to tell you how to conduct business on their behalf? It seems to me they do.



			
				TimeHP said:
			
		

> I asked about the post of a 'mod':


 First and foremost, I was acting as a Forera. Read my title. It says "Forer@ and mod," not mod only. You might also wish to review the rules, in particular Number 49. It says: _Moderators are also forum members. Unless they say otherwise, or it is clear from context, their posts are made as members.  _No where in that post did I indicate I was acting as a moderator. Those that peruse the CD forums with regularity know very well when that mod hat is on. It's quite obvious. 



			
				lsp said:
			
		

> We are allowed to _discuss_ and even to _question _the forum, though, aren't we?


 Absolutely, and no where in my post did I indicate otherwise.  

What I did indicate is that one of the reasons this place attracts such quality individuals is because it is left chat-free. The site administrator, who created the site, who pays for the technology, who operates the dictionaries and for whom this is his primary business chooses to have this a chat-free environment. That is his right. Forer@s know that coming in (assuming they read the rules). 

Businesses are sending their professionals - especially fresh-out-of-college hires - back to school to teach them the basics of writing. The writing, grammar and spelling of the average college graduate is atrocious compared to a few generations ago. Experts are blaming much of this on what is deemed the "degradation" of language which is influenced by things such as chat, gaming, TV, etc. (There is a thread on this I need to find).

As Word Reference was set up to be an "educational" environment, then how could "chat," which is one of the causes of this degradation, be helpful or instructive? In short, it is not.


----------



## maxiogee

a) Is this thread going anywhere?
b) A long time ago a post asked what SMS stands for - short messaging service (the text-messaging system on mobile telephones)
c) What has democracy got to do with this?
d) I read a few posts ago that I wouldn't be forced to write in chat-speak. 
....That's nice.
....Now, who do I apply to to be forced not to have to read it, and still remain on the forum?


----------



## TimeHP

> You might also wish to review the rules, in particular Number 49. It says: _Moderators are also forum members. Unless they say otherwise, or it is clear from context, their posts are made as members._


 
Why should I? 
Why are you insinuating that I'd like to review the rules?  
Sono davvero stufa, really sick of this.
Ok, you are a mod and a forum member. 
Anyway I think you have no right to call 'histrionics' other forum members and use such a tone.
It's really more important to be able to avoid intolerance than worrying so much about a perfect standard English...

Ciao


----------



## TimeHP

> c) What has democracy got to do with this?


 
Come on, maxiogee...
I'm sure you perfectly know what democracy has got to do with the 
freedom of expressing your opinion about the evolution of the language in a forum.


Ciao


----------



## maxiogee

No, I don't. Please enlighten me.

This site is hosted for us by someone who has made no pretence of allowing us a say in the running of it.
I don't see a need for there to be a democracy about this site.
What next? … You're going to demand a vote on moderators?


----------



## TimeHP

Maxiogee, last Thursday in your post in English only (thread: _as well as)_
you wrote:



> LOL, I love this place!


 
Ahi, ahi, ahi! Ti ho beccato!  (I caught you...)
Ciao

Ps. Solo per sdrammatizzare...
     Only trying to be less dramatic in our discussions...


----------

