Lunar Threads

More and more "Leet Speak" is becoming about of all of our lives. We may not even realize it, I usually use "lol" and related "lol" forms to portray laughter, or to show that I found it funny. When I first came into chat rooms, back in 2000ish, there was no "leet speak" just very short hand (I.E. hey how r u? or A/S/L?) Now, kid's and teenager's languages have evolved further, incorperating "leet speak" and short hand together to create a new langauge designed to give english teachers heart attacks, older people headaches, and newer people a chance to talk in code.

Now, it's prooven that languages evolve, are created, and die. Isn't French a dying language? I'm constantly hearing that it is. Didn't there never used to be the letter "U" a hundred years ago in America? Instead it was "V" for both, correct? Didn't english used to be "Thy shalt be ridden of thou incompitance" and now it is "You shall be ridden of your incompitence."

So, what's the big deal of people freaking out and being tyranical over how someone talks? To me, it seems that English's written language is evolving naturally, much like it always has. But due to the incredible speed at which it can be written, it seems like the evolution is occuring at an incredible pace, compared to it taking decades before someone puts a new letter in the alphabit.

So let us discuss this. I am neutral, by the way. Well, actually, I hate some english rules and what-not, but I'm putting that aside for this discussion. It's time to educate our brains with our opinions and facts on this matter!

Hmm... may I ask what prompted this? Was there an article on this that you've read lately? Or is it just something you thought about? Either way is fine, but if it was prompted by an article, I'd love to read it.

Anyway... I agree that language does evolve, but I don't think it will evolve towards l337. I don't really see why it would. In many ways, it's harder to type out then normal language due to its replacement of letters for numbers. However, I think l337 will possibly exist more due to the use of text messaging in cell phones. However, normal English will still continue to exist due to the fact that there will still be instances where we type using a normal full-sized keyboard (and perhaps there will be touch screen keyboards standard in future cellphones).

There will also be times when it is unacceptable to speak in l337 for instance in the business world, so people will have to switch between the two. It will be more similar to changing diction in everyday life than to the creation of a new language. For example, where I grew up the words "y'all" and "ain't" are very common. I say both of these words occasionally when talking with friends and family (I very rarely say ain't though). When I'm talking to a professor or giving a presentation, I know to turn these words off.

This is just my interpretation. I guess only time will tell. If Lunar-Net still exists 2059 and my love of bacon hasn't killed me, we can talk about whether I was right.

leet just sucks. it's an eyesore. i see it as an idiotic attempt to stand out. i take a similar stance with ebonics.

Well, when I get bored enough my mind opens up, and out comes all kinds of questions, wisdoms, philosophies, quotes, etc etc etc. This just happened to be the one that popped out today, so yes, a random thought.

share the contents of your mind with us!

Maybe, I would love to make a thread with the quotes and philosophies that I have come up with, but I'm not sure if that is a very good idea on so many levels.

It's not the evolution of English, it's the eveolution of he we chose to communicate it. Computers (Instant Messaging, Forums) and Cellphones (Text messaging) are the new media for communicationg ideas, and people are reinventing a language to accomodate it.

Shorthand and smilies used to convey emotion I was always fine with, it was just whn people started to shorthand EVERYTHING that it got annoying. Reading some text messages from my friends actually make me call them in frustration asking them never to send me messages with nothing more than 5 acronyms in it, maybe 2 or 3 that I can understand.

It sucks, but every generation does it, they all invented new slang, there were always new ways of speaking as new fads became popular, I figure it will die out in about 10 or 15 years. I can't wait to see if proper and eloquent speech ever becomes popular again.

Ah, but DBD, what would you consider proper English, or eloquent even? It seems to me the only people who care about proper English is anal English teachers. I've honestly don't know anyone aside from said english teachers (who usually happen to be older) who uses "proper" English, yet they can convey communications just fine. However, give their writting to any of those previous said teachers, and they would likely fail.

Remember kids, there is no such thing as Grammer Nazis, on Grammer Tyrants. (In other words, no Nazi calling in here, I'm having a bit of a problem with that word right now, long story.)

phyco126 wrote: Remember kids, there is no such thing as Grammer Nazis, on Grammer Tyrants. (In other words, no Nazi calling in here, I'm having a bit of a problem with that word right now, long story.)

More proof that <a href=http://xkcd.com/326/>XKCD</a> has a comic for every occasion.

I would say that leet is a dialect rather than a language. Therefore, I would tend to agree with DBD. It's just an evolution of how we communicate, but based on technology, so it's basically shorthand. Well, at least that's my opinion.

phyco126 wrote:Ah, but DBD, what would you consider proper English, or eloquent even? It seems to me the only people who care about proper English is anal English teachers. I've honestly don't know anyone aside from said english teachers (who usually happen to be older) who uses "proper" English, yet they can convey communications just fine. However, give their writting to any of those previous said teachers, and they would likely fail.

Remember kids, there is no such thing as Grammer Nazis, on Grammer Tyrants. (In other words, no Nazi calling in here, I'm having a bit of a problem with that word right now, long story.)

The issue is not whether a language is proper or not, most of the time.

Rather, it is whether or not the language is clear for its purpose. Sometimes this means it must be vivid.

Now, in text messages and other media where a person needs a short blurt of generic information, abbreviated speech is fine.

In specific forms, there are acceptable abbreviated usages (Army? Police?) for people who can easily decipher the jargon.

But even if the specific jargon is there, a lab report, a financial forecast, a weather forecast, and a novel should all be readable by the desired audiences. I would insist that they have more to say than, "sup" and "were r u." And further, I have not seen systematic abbreviation of words much more complex than that.

I would insist that there is are formalized rules of speech that teachers, professors in English and editors abide by as a guide. Then there are easily understood variations that are often precedented and easily understood which they and most people require, for general clarity. Then there is the informal speech, which ranges from more lax proper speech to your l33t speak.

We do not remember the language of the seventeenth century for its common barspeech and bawdry, but for the language of Shakespeare and milton. The bawdry was there, but it was a submerged influence, generative but not determinant. (It gave ideas without shaping the path the language travelled.)

And as far as pure 1337 speech goes, I thought it was an alternate alphabet more than a motion toward a new language, and that any dialect is just born from some of its... permutations.

If you want to look at language in flux, look at the increasing regularization of past-tense verbs. It might have holped your post.

Holps? Do you mean helps? O_o

Anyway, so far these are all great posts and they give great points. Are there any who want to play devils advacate against those that are strict with English and think that leet and shorthand is an inevitable step towards evolution of English?

And since werefrog brought it up, and since I still have trouble with this...

Affect - Verb (dictionary.com unabridged, 2007)
1. to act on; produce an effect or change in:
2. to impress the mind or move the feelings of
3. of pain, disease, etc.) to attack or lay hold of
4. (noun) Psychology. feeling or emotion.

American Psychological Association (APA):
affect. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved October 14, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affect

Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
affect. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affect (accessed: October 14, 2007).

Modern Language Association (MLA):
"affect." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 14 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affect>.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect - Noun (Dictionary.com, 2007)
1. something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence
2. power to produce results; efficacy; force; validity; influence
3. a mental or emotional impression produced, as by a painting or a speech
4. meaning or sense; purpose or intention
5. the making of a desired impression
6. (Verb) to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen

American Psychological Association (APA):
effect. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved October 14, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect

Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
effect. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect (accessed: October 14, 2007).

Modern Language Association (MLA):
"effect." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 14 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect>.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, that still didn't help me =O

I suppose I'm in the camp that doesn't see this as where the language is evolving. The kind of shorthand used for text messaging seems unsuited to replace English as we know it in other situations as it's really more meant to convey short, simple messages. Trying to use it to write out paragraphs would simply impede communication. Language certainly does evolve over time, but I don't see it happening with this.

phyco126 wrote: Okay, that still didn't help me =O

Pretty much every time you'll use the word in everyday life "affect" is a verb and "effect" is a noun.

However, in some more technical uses affect is a noun. In psychology it's used in a way similar to emotion. There is some distinction between emotion and affect, but I don't really understand the difference (in psychology when talking about affect you only talk about whether a certain emotional response is appropriate.) I've also seen affect used in literature and media studies classes. When used by these disciplines, affect is pretty much synonymous with emotion.

"Effect" is a verb that means "to create" or "to bring about." The place where I saw this usage the most was my AP English class. The teacher always talked about how much she liked the word, so we would always work it into our papers.

If my explanation wasn't helpful, M-W.com has one that's pretty good.

phyco126 wrote:Holps? Do you mean helps? O_o

Actually, I used it wrong. I meant holp, not holped, which is a terrible, terrible thing that I did in haste. Holp is the past tense of help. It just isn't used anymore because it was regularized not too long ago into helped.

Are there any who want to play devils advacate against those that are strict with English and think that leet and shorthand is an inevitable step towards evolution of English?

I don't comprehend.

I'm asking if there are any who hate people who hate them because they use leet speak and short hand. You know, the people who come here and 9 times out of 10 get banned for bad mouthing people because those people bad mouthed their English (writting/typing.) I'm sure if they bad mouth back, then that may mean they support leet and shorthand, and embrace it as destiny.

So I would like to see their side of it.

phyco126 wrote:I'm asking if there are any who hate people who hate them because they use leet speak and short hand. You know, the people who come here and 9 times out of 10 get banned for bad mouthing people because those people bad mouthed their English (writting/typing.)

No one's been banned for that reason. KF

They haven't? You sure? O_o I could have sworn many people where banned because they where told to change their grammar/spelling and instead they argued and insulted you admins, resulting in them being banned for insulting members and admins.

Not that it happened, but I really thought it has happened several times since I've been here. =/

phyco126 wrote:They haven't? You sure? O_o I could have sworn many people where banned because they where told to change their grammar/spelling and instead they argued and insulted you admins, resulting in them being banned for insulting members and admins.

No, I've recorded all the reasons people have been banned. That's not one of them. No one's ever been banned only for insults. KF

Hmmm, well, I guess we can't all be right ^^;

Sorry about that then, I was obviously mistaken.