Language Changes in the Modern World

[bumab]

Most of our discussions around here often include some sarcasm or ironic statements, and alas! Many are missed because of the text based system we use, and those emotions (amond others) are based on large part on the perception of body language, obviously absent in a online situation.

We try to alleviate the situation with those little smily faces we all see, to show anger, frustration, embarassement, or whatever. But obviously those fall short of expression the range of emotions available in face to face speach.

So the question- Do you think the advent of the internet, along with textual communication becoming more and more common online, will result in our written language changing in a noticable way? Will our language become more emotivally descriptive to pick up the slack of not having a visual link to the reader? Will our vocabulary improve?

[pgrmdave]

That would be interesting, and I think it would be possible. I know from personal experiance that textual information, especially with sarcasm, can be easily misinterpreted, and cause fights with friends. I have a difficult time discerning emotion over IM, and I try to use emoticons as often as applicable

[bumab]

Emoticons are useful, but still subject to misinterpritations. I think they will prove less effectual then good word choice, since words are so much more exacting. I wonder if our vocab will enlarge, or just become better utilized... Or maybe the emoticon library of the world will expand to include all possible permutations of emotions in an infinite library of smilies!!!

[Doktor Faust]

A short reply- if younger children are picking up on the interent slang lately, and by slang, I'm mostly pointing at abbreviations (i.e. "u", "u're" etc...) I can only see vocabulary deteriorating over time. Or maybe that's just me. Crazy... leet. *shrugs*

[rockytriton]

I think if everyone had a webcam, we wouldn't have these problems. Well, either that or people didn't take things too seriously on a message board.

[Turtle]

___The cry of academedicians(sp of every modern age; the youth are corrupting the language!
___I personally don't want to see any body language, faces, or any other such conditions of one to one communication. I exposit here explicityly because those things are absent.
___Language change is societal growth. get wit it bruh!

[gubba]

G'day Bumab et.al.,

If we're following the example of our elders we're probably already beginning to form some distinctive forms of written expression suitable to the Internet. If you have some time someday you may like to peruse some volumes of letters at your local library. The way our predecessers were able to, often quite artlessly, express their emotions in modes now basically lost to us may be informative. cheers gubba.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Doktor Faust

A short reply- if younger children are picking up on the interent slang lately, and by slang, I'm mostly pointing at abbreviations (i.e. "u", "u're" etc...) I can only see vocabulary deteriorating over time. Or maybe that's just me. Crazy... leet. *shrugs*

I think this is inevitable and also desirable. Language is an evolving structure and as such needs to adapt to the needs of people.

The short words like "u", "me 2", "y" etc are mostly due to the new technology that was SMS and mobile phones. It is probably not going to last, because the technology is evolving to make it easier to use shortcuts but transmit full text. Like my mobile phone, I can use "smart text" which lets me write full words with only a single press on each key (it will guess the words, and mostly gets them right).

[rockytriton]

Since I've been on the internet (since about '95), people have been using all of those shortcuts, but I think that since those mobile devices have come out, it's just been getting more and more usage. To me it's very annoying and a sign of laziness, just like using all caps for everything. I don't mind it in short bursts, but when people use it in large streams of text it can be annoying because it is not natural to read and it makes me stop slightly to comprehend it.

[UncleAl]

Why don't you begin by breaking language into its component primitive parts? Read some linguistics.

Vocabulary is fluid. It reflects the needs of its users. As an Engish speaker listening to two Chinese chemists jabbering abut organic chemistry, I am always mildy amused by how much "English" (technese, really) is in their conversation. Using acronyms as verbs is efficient: "We NMR'd the stuff" vs." we obtained a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum of the stuff." The five tastes are salt, sweet, bitter, sour, and umami. That's what happens when your goverment allows another government to better fund research.

Grammar is not fluid. The obscenity of Ebonics (and to a much lesser extent, French) is that it cannot say something unambiguously. Try to find the French equivalent of "tepid" or "lukewarm."

English is an extremely sophisticated language. Latin can be written in any word order without losing meaning. The standard German joke is that all books can be written in two volumes, the second one containing all the verbs. English has traded severe self-reference amidst words for a much simplified grammar (without gender!) wherein meaning is also dependent upon word order and punctuation. English is an extraordinarily terse way of saying things exactly - if you know what you are doing.

Don't screw it up.