Puzzled

[Prufrock]

Don't want to start a big grammar debate, but language evolves, if the majority of people start writing in textspeak then that will become the language

Not whilst I have breath in my body good sir.

you can try to fight it good sir, but i suggest you will be fighting a losing battle.language is about communication. textspeak is the only way some people can write, they are unable to write/spell correctly. if that happens the language must change. whether or not that is a shame is a different matter. whilst i can be lazy i dont want the english language to suddenly lose all its vowels so we spk nd wrt lk ds, the americans are bad enough at that, but as more and more kids grow up unable to spell, language WILL change.

[CrazyHorse]

Don't want to start a big grammar debate, but language evolves, if the majority of people start writing in textspeak then that will become the language

Not whilst I have breath in my body good sir.

you can try to fight it good sir, but i suggest you will be fighting a losing battle.language is about communication. textspeak is the only way some people can write, they are unable to write/spell correctly. if that happens the language must change. whether or not that is a shame is a different matter. whilst i can be lazy i dont want the english language to suddenly lose all its vowels so we spk nd wrt lk ds, the americans are bad enough at that, but as more and more kids grow up unable to spell, language WILL change.

Sorry but you're wrong.
The kids who grow up unable to spell will simply be unable to get a job.

[FD]

I will continue to fight the good fight.

Many men have died for nobler causes but I shall not give in.

[Lord Kangana]

Don't want to start a big grammar debate, but language evolves, if the majority of people start writing in textspeak then that will become the language

Not whilst I have breath in my body good sir.

you can try to fight it good sir, but i suggest you will be fighting a losing battle.language is about communication. textspeak is the only way some people can write, they are unable to write/spell correctly. if that happens the language must change. whether or not that is a shame is a different matter. whilst i can be lazy i dont want the english language to suddenly lose all its vowels so we spk nd wrt lk ds, the americans are bad enough at that, but as more and more kids grow up unable to spell, language WILL change.

Sorry but you're wrong.
The kids who grow up unable to spell will simply be unable to get a job.

Theres always McDonalds.

[FD]

Judging from our local one that's where they all are, that's for sure.

[Lord Kangana]

Judging from our local one that's where they all are, that's for sure.

On a VERY frightening note (for me anyway) I know of a very large and World-renowned hotel chain that now operate a colour coding system on all their kitchen products (including their food, BTW). All the Microwaves are also colour coded. This allows people with no English to operate in them. The same is true to a lesser and greater extent in much of the fast food industry(pre-programmed friers in McDonalds FFS?).

[TANGODANCER]

Prufrock: English is fast taking over as the number one world language. It's always been in the top three together with Spanish and Mandarin Chinese; now, with the immigration element, more people than ever are learning it. Why should such a powerful language with a long history of gradual movement to perfection be endangered because kids are too bone idle to learn? I respect your views and right to have them, but at nineteen you don't make policy. Thankfully, at my age there will be no change whatsoever in my own application of it and it's seen as much evolvement as it needs to see.

Have you considered the art of translation and the historical aspects of record keeping for posterity? It's always been an evolvement towards forwardness and clarity. If you views prove correct we'll go back to chiselling little picures on stone tablets one day. No disrespect, but you're way wrong. We're already regarded as one of the laziest nations in the world for only having one language. We need to improve that, not knock it backwards.

[Prufrock]

Prufrock: English is fast taking over as the number one world language. It's always been in the top three together with Spanish and Mandarin Chinese; now, with the immigration element, more people than ever are learning it. Why should such a powerful language with a long history of gradual movement to perfection be endangered because kids are too bone idle to learn? I respect your views and right to have them, but at nineteen you don't make policy. Thankfully, at my age there will be no change whatsoever in my own application of it and it's seen as much evolvement as it needs to see.

Have you considered the art of translation and the historical aspects of record keeping for posterity? It's always been an evolvement towards forwardness and clarity. If you views prove correct we'll go back to chiselling little picures on stone tablets one day. No disrespect, but you're way wrong. We're already regarded as one of the laziest nations in the world for only having one language. We need to improve that, not knock it backwards.

far too much given my degree is classics. as for laziness and and needing to improve that, i completely agree, nowhere have i said that i think that a move for english language towards this sort of text speak is a good thing. what i have said is i think it is inevitable. the education just isnt there, kids dont learn to spell anymore. as for whoever said they wont get jobs, of course they will, social security cant afford to pay benefits for all the people who will be illiterate in 20 years time, therefore definitions of literacy will change. i work in a shop that shall remain unnamed during the holidays, and some of the spelling and typos on internal memos and staff notices,written by MANAGEMENT, is appaling. one story i always tell is a message that somebody had written as a warning that two people from head office would be coming in.

the notice read, "Mr X and Mr Y will be coming in, and there members of head office". next to this somebody else had crossed out 'there', and written 'spazz- its their'.

as i said you cannot have a country that is massively illiterate, so as ever the government will change the boudaries of what is and what is not literacy. i reiterate i do NOT think this is a good thing for a country which as a whole is already massively ignorant linguistically, where we go abroad and talk in loud english and expect everyone to understand, coz we come 'ere on a f*cking plane, what you mean you dont do chips?!

this is no small company either, it is a big national high street chain.

[CrazyHorse]

Prufrock: English is fast taking over as the number one world language. It's always been in the top three together with Spanish and Mandarin Chinese; now, with the immigration element, more people than ever are learning it. Why should such a powerful language with a long history of gradual movement to perfection be endangered because kids are too bone idle to learn? I respect your views and right to have them, but at nineteen you don't make policy. Thankfully, at my age there will be no change whatsoever in my own application of it and it's seen as much evolvement as it needs to see.

Have you considered the art of translation and the historical aspects of record keeping for posterity? It's always been an evolvement towards forwardness and clarity. If you views prove correct we'll go back to chiselling little picures on stone tablets one day. No disrespect, but you're way wrong. We're already regarded as one of the laziest nations in the world for only having one language. We need to improve that, not knock it backwards.

far too much given my degree is classics. as for laziness and and needing to improve that, i completely agree, nowhere have i said that i think that a move for english language towards this sort of text speak is a good thing. what i have said is i think it is inevitable. the education just isnt there, kids dont learn to spell anymore. as for whoever said they wont get jobs, of course they will, social security cant afford to pay benefits for all the people who will be illiterate in 20 years time, therefore definitions of literacy will change. i work in a shop that shall remain unnamed during the holidays, and some of the spelling and typos on internal memos and staff notices,written by MANAGEMENT, is appaling. one story i always tell is a message that somebody had written as a warning that two people from head office would be coming in.

the notice read, "Mr X and Mr Y will be coming in, and there members of head office". next to this somebody else had crossed out 'there', and written 'spazz- its their'.

as i said you cannot have a country that is massively illiterate, so as ever the government will change the boudaries of what is and what is not literacy. i reiterate i do NOT think this is a good thing for a country which as a whole is already massively ignorant linguistically, where we go abroad and talk in loud english and expect everyone to understand, coz we come 'ere on a f*cking plane, what you mean you dont do chips?!

this is no small company either, it is a big national high street chain.

There's a world of difference between someone not knowing when to use their or there and the whole English language reverting to text speak within 20 years.

And since when has the level of education of managers of high street shops been indicative to the nation as a whole?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Prufrock: English is fast taking over as the number one world language. It's always been in the top three together with Spanish and Mandarin Chinese; now, with the immigration element, more people than ever are learning it. Why should such a powerful language with a long history of gradual movement to perfection be endangered because kids are too bone idle to learn? I respect your views and right to have them, but at nineteen you don't make policy. Thankfully, at my age there will be no change whatsoever in my own application of it and it's seen as much evolvement as it needs to see.

Have you considered the art of translation and the historical aspects of record keeping for posterity? It's always been an evolvement towards forwardness and clarity. If you views prove correct we'll go back to chiselling little picures on stone tablets one day. No disrespect, but you're way wrong. We're already regarded as one of the laziest nations in the world for only having one language. We need to improve that, not knock it backwards.

far too much given my degree is classics. as for laziness and and needing to improve that, i completely agree, nowhere have i said that i think that a move for english language towards this sort of text speak is a good thing. what i have said is i think it is inevitable. the education just isnt there, kids dont learn to spell anymore. as for whoever said they wont get jobs, of course they will, social security cant afford to pay benefits for all the people who will be illiterate in 20 years time, therefore definitions of literacy will change. i work in a shop that shall remain unnamed during the holidays, and some of the spelling and typos on internal memos and staff notices,written by MANAGEMENT, is appaling. one story i always tell is a message that somebody had written as a warning that two people from head office would be coming in.

the notice read, "Mr X and Mr Y will be coming in, and there members of head office". next to this somebody else had crossed out 'there', and written 'spazz- its their'.

as i said you cannot have a country that is massively illiterate, so as ever the government will change the boudaries of what is and what is not literacy. i reiterate i do NOT think this is a good thing for a country which as a whole is already massively ignorant linguistically, where we go abroad and talk in loud english and expect everyone to understand, coz we come 'ere on a f*cking plane, what you mean you dont do chips?!

this is no small company either, it is a big national high street chain.

There's a world of difference between someone not knowing when to use their or there and the whole English language reverting to text speak within 20 years.

And since when has the level of education of managers of high street shops been indicative to the nation as a whole?

I think the point was it should have been 'they're', CH.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You're a very disappointing descriptivist sort, for a classicist, Prufrock!

I actually think you're wrong for the reason Crazy Horse puts forward: a command of Standard English is, more than ever before, a qualification that separates the wheat from the chavs.

[Lord Kangana]

Prufrock: English is fast taking over as the number one world language. It's always been in the top three together with Spanish and Mandarin Chinese; now, with the immigration element, more people than ever are learning it. Why should such a powerful language with a long history of gradual movement to perfection be endangered because kids are too bone idle to learn? I respect your views and right to have them, but at nineteen you don't make policy. Thankfully, at my age there will be no change whatsoever in my own application of it and it's seen as much evolvement as it needs to see.

Have you considered the art of translation and the historical aspects of record keeping for posterity? It's always been an evolvement towards forwardness and clarity. If you views prove correct we'll go back to chiselling little picures on stone tablets one day. No disrespect, but you're way wrong. We're already regarded as one of the laziest nations in the world for only having one language. We need to improve that, not knock it backwards.

far too much given my degree is classics. as for laziness and and needing to improve that, i completely agree, nowhere have i said that i think that a move for english language towards this sort of text speak is a good thing. what i have said is i think it is inevitable. the education just isnt there, kids dont learn to spell anymore. as for whoever said they wont get jobs, of course they will, social security cant afford to pay benefits for all the people who will be illiterate in 20 years time, therefore definitions of literacy will change. i work in a shop that shall remain unnamed during the holidays, and some of the spelling and typos on internal memos and staff notices,written by MANAGEMENT, is appaling. one story i always tell is a message that somebody had written as a warning that two people from head office would be coming in.

the notice read, "Mr X and Mr Y will be coming in, and there members of head office". next to this somebody else had crossed out 'there', and written 'spazz- its their'.

as i said you cannot have a country that is massively illiterate, so as ever the government will change the boudaries of what is and what is not literacy. i reiterate i do NOT think this is a good thing for a country which as a whole is already massively ignorant linguistically, where we go abroad and talk in loud english and expect everyone to understand, coz we come 'ere on a f*cking plane, what you mean you dont do chips?!

this is no small company either, it is a big national high street chain.

There's a world of difference between someone not knowing when to use their or there and the whole English language reverting to text speak within 20 years.

And since when has the level of education of managers of high street shops been indicative to the nation as a whole?

I think the point was it should have been 'they're', CH.

So there

[Prufrock]

Prufrock: English is fast taking over as the number one world language. It's always been in the top three together with Spanish and Mandarin Chinese; now, with the immigration element, more people than ever are learning it. Why should such a powerful language with a long history of gradual movement to perfection be endangered because kids are too bone idle to learn? I respect your views and right to have them, but at nineteen you don't make policy. Thankfully, at my age there will be no change whatsoever in my own application of it and it's seen as much evolvement as it needs to see.

Have you considered the art of translation and the historical aspects of record keeping for posterity? It's always been an evolvement towards forwardness and clarity. If you views prove correct we'll go back to chiselling little picures on stone tablets one day. No disrespect, but you're way wrong. We're already regarded as one of the laziest nations in the world for only having one language. We need to improve that, not knock it backwards.

far too much given my degree is classics. as for laziness and and needing to improve that, i completely agree, nowhere have i said that i think that a move for english language towards this sort of text speak is a good thing. what i have said is i think it is inevitable. the education just isnt there, kids dont learn to spell anymore. as for whoever said they wont get jobs, of course they will, social security cant afford to pay benefits for all the people who will be illiterate in 20 years time, therefore definitions of literacy will change. i work in a shop that shall remain unnamed during the holidays, and some of the spelling and typos on internal memos and staff notices,written by MANAGEMENT, is appaling. one story i always tell is a message that somebody had written as a warning that two people from head office would be coming in.

the notice read, "Mr X and Mr Y will be coming in, and there members of head office". next to this somebody else had crossed out 'there', and written 'spazz- its their'.

as i said you cannot have a country that is massively illiterate, so as ever the government will change the boudaries of what is and what is not literacy. i reiterate i do NOT think this is a good thing for a country which as a whole is already massively ignorant linguistically, where we go abroad and talk in loud english and expect everyone to understand, coz we come 'ere on a f*cking plane, what you mean you dont do chips?!

this is no small company either, it is a big national high street chain.

There's a world of difference between someone not knowing when to use their or there and the whole English language reverting to text speak within 20 years.

And since when has the level of education of managers of high street shops been indicative to the nation as a whole?

again not my point, i dont think we will find books written completely in text speak, or at least i hope not, i only mentioned text speak since i think the more wide spread it becomes, the more it will lower literacy levels, and more and more phrases and mannerisms from text speak will become part of the language.

as for the bold bit, do you honestly think the kids in schools now as a whole throughout the country have better levels of spelling, and grammar? the people i work with are not unintelligent, just under taught literacy-wise. they still run a shop that makes massive profits, therefore they are still employable. the same think will happen with todays kids when they are older, the intelligent ones will still get jobs, they just wont be able to spell, therefore the english language will change. cause and effect.

[CrazyHorse]

Prufrock mate, your still wrong.
The English language goes through cycles of slang fashion which are the norm for a while then quickly forgotten about as the next batch of slang hits the population.
We don't use the same slang that the 60s popular culture used, just as in 30 years time they won't use todays slang.

In fact it's very narrow minded of you to suggest that your generation's slang - i.e. text speak - will dictate the state of our (and arguably the world's) language for the rest of time.

[CrazyHorse]

And another thing.....

Since when has it only been today's education system that has produced children that can't spell? Because I'm sure there have been those that can and those that can't since the first schools were set up.

[Lord Kangana]

Erm, just to pick you up on that point; did you know that the cockernee accent is an affectation that people from the capital started to adopt around 300 years ago? Originally they spoke with an accent similar to the drawl of the South-West or Norfolk, but it became fashionable to speak like a Barrer Boy, and hey presto! the language changed forever.

Just saying, like

[Prufrock]

Prufrock mate, your still wrong.
The English language goes through cycles of slang fashion which are the norm for a while then quickly forgotten about as the next batch of slang hits the population.
We don't use the same slang that the 60s popular culture used, just as in 30 years time they won't use todays slang.

In fact it's very narrow minded of you to suggest that your generation's slang - i.e. text speak - will dictate the state of our (and arguably the world's) language for the rest of time.

i may be wrong here, but i dont think there has been a generation that matches mine in the sense that most kids text more than they write, so that way of spelling becomes ingrained. also i think it is fair to say literacy levels are lower now than they ever have been. this will affect the language.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Incidentally, I too found the lower-case names disturbing, the other night. It's a technique that seems to be employed more and more these days in an attempt to appear modern. I'm sure I have seen it before on other teams' shirts (Barcelona, perhaps?).

As Prufrock no doubt knows, our ancestors in classical antiquity simply ran all their words together, entirely in what we would describe as 'upper case' lettering, without any spaces between them; they also made do without punctuation marks. Their inflected languages were rather better equipped than ours to cope with that state of affairs, however. Somebody mentioned German, which does indeed have a system of Großschreibung that is different to ours in several respects. Certainly, broadly speaking, they capitalise all common nouns. I'm not sure what the historical rationale for this rule is... it must be something to do with ease of reading. It certainly has the effect of making their nouns easier for foreigners to spot.

I'm glad nobody has tried a 'capital offence' joke yet, anyway.

[CrazyHorse]

Erm, just to pick you up on that point; did you know that the cockernee accent is an affectation that people from the capital started to adopt around 300 years ago? Originally they spoke with an accent similar to the drawl of the South-West or Norfolk, but it became fashionable to speak like a Barrer Boy, and hey presto! the language changed forever.

Just saying, like

Yet, in over 300 years the rest of the English speaking world still hasn't adopted it as their own? And even the cockerneeees don't write in London speak do they? Kind of backs up my point don't you think?

[Lord Kangana]

Erm, just to pick you up on that point; did you know that the cockernee accent is an affectation that people from the capital started to adopt around 300 years ago? Originally they spoke with an accent similar to the drawl of the South-West or Norfolk, but it became fashionable to speak like a Barrer Boy, and hey presto! the language changed forever.

Just saying, like

Yet, in over 300 years the rest of the English speaking world still hasn't adopted it as their own? And even the cockerneeees don't write in London speak do they? Kind of backs up my point don't you think?

As it happens a virtual hadrians wall has been thrown up around Bimingham and through Bristol to the South West, but if you want me to answer the point directly, then yes, its taking over other accents up to there, and the old carrot crunchers in the likes of Dorset and Norfolk are taking it on (as are Oxfordshire, wiltshire, Bucks, Berks...)