Kids are already dumbed down becuase of how we talk and text. My teachers always used to say that the biggest thing they hate about grading essays or reports is becuase kids used slang and texting language in their papers. Why oh why is it now in the dictionary, or did you add a bad english in the back? Its one thing to type it on here or on a cellphone, but in the dictionary. I am losing faith in humans I swear, between ain't in this, I think its time for a new dictionary distributor.
Come on Webster
- Thread starter KJbushway
- Start date
Websters also want to sell dictionaries, even though we all already have dictionaries. And we can just as easily google for a word, and not bother buying a new dictionary.
So they have to keep adding new words and retiring archaic words to keep themselves in the public eye. Adding leetspeak makes their product more attractive for the younger generations.
So they have to keep adding new words and retiring archaic words to keep themselves in the public eye. Adding leetspeak makes their product more attractive for the younger generations.
Languages change and evolve over time. "Gay" meant happy once, remember? So it's only reasonable to expect that as new terms enter the common vernacular, they're going to start appearing in the dictionary.
Take, for example, contractions. It's generally agreed that they're not something to be used in formal writing, but they're used informally all the time. Does that make them illegitimate? Nope. It's a similar situation with netspeak.
Take, for example, contractions. It's generally agreed that they're not something to be used in formal writing, but they're used informally all the time. Does that make them illegitimate? Nope. It's a similar situation with netspeak.
Dictionaries are meant to be useful as references for established, accepted, and/or sufficiently common usage, so that people can use them in practice as tools to understand the meaning of written text. The more complete dictionaries characterize their entries, for example as "slang", "informal", "incorrect", or "vulgar", in accordance with established standards. For example, "irregardless" is "not really a word", so to speak, but it generally has a dictionary entry, which I would expect to classify the word as something like "incorrect". You can use your imagination for what an acid test of a "vulgar" entry should be. Hint: rhymes with "suck".
If a dictionary refuses even to list a word in common usage at all, it ceases to be useful, and really ceases to deserve the name "dictionary".
If a dictionary refuses even to list a word in common usage at all, it ceases to be useful, and really ceases to deserve the name "dictionary".
^And the difference between 'won't' and 'will not' was people who were too lazy to say two words when one would do.
Language is a fluid and evolving thing. A lot of people scoff at the changes as wrong or unintellectual. However, the fact is that many of our language rules are arbitrary. So long as there is internal consistency and language accurately conveys the message intended, then it is doing what it should be.
Language is a fluid and evolving thing. A lot of people scoff at the changes as wrong or unintellectual. However, the fact is that many of our language rules are arbitrary. So long as there is internal consistency and language accurately conveys the message intended, then it is doing what it should be.
Many other acronyms are in the dictionary (such as CEO, radar, laser, scuba, AIDS) so why not LOL, OMG etc now that this acronyms are in common usage.
The solution to children using them when they shouldn't must be solved by teaching children correct usage of such acronyms not by excluding certain acronyms from the dictionary.
The solution to children using them when they shouldn't must be solved by teaching children correct usage of such acronyms not by excluding certain acronyms from the dictionary.
Thanks to SMS messaging and Twitter, "OMG" has a raison d'être, due to the message size limit of 140 characters. So, it's not "laziness". Not anymore, even if it really ever was exactly that.
Languages evolve naturally and it has nothing to do with intelligence or laziness. This is an entertaining and informative read: Educate yourself.
I thought you were talking about the kid and the TV show 
Yeah, I can only imagine how the language kids use these days must be hard on language teachers.
Yeah, I can only imagine how the language kids use these days must be hard on language teachers.
I thought you were talking about the kid and the TV show
I teach reading and writing to children in the Bronx. As one would imagine, I come across a lot that is not Standard English. It used to be primarily AAVE, but recently there has been an influx of other unique language variations related to the number of children for whom English is a second language. There is a pretty simple solution to the issue: code-switching. Children need to learn when certain language is appropriate and when it is not. Now, the fact that language is situation-appropriate has nothing to do with the inherent value of the language. AAVE, for example, is, in many ways, more efficient than is Standard English, it has a consistant grammar, etc, and so is by all measures of language, just as "good" as Standard English; in our society, however, Standard English is considered appropriate in business and academia, so that's what my students need to learn in school.
As long as teachers make it clear that text speak and other forms of slang are inappropriate in certain kinds of writing, and ensure that their students are exposed to Standard English, then there shouldn't be a problem.
A
Amaris
Guest
The dictionary teaches us to speech gooder. I mean, LOL, to speak gooder. LULZ.
Actually, language is rarely constant. The basic principles follow a level of sameness, but the words themselves evolve over time. As long as we can clearly understand one another, I don't see it as much of an issue.
I thought you were talking about the kid and the TV show
I teach reading and writing to children in the Bronx. As one would imagine, I come across a lot that is not Standard English. It used to be primarily AAVE, but recently there has been an influx of other unique language variations related to the number of children for whom English is a second language. There is a pretty simple solution to the issue: code-switching. Children need to learn when certain language is appropriate and when it is not. Now, the fact that language is situation-appropriate has nothing to do with the inherent value of the language. AAVE, for example, is, in many ways, more efficient than is Standard English, it has a consistant grammar, etc, and so is by all measures of language, just as "good" as Standard English; in our society, however, Standard English is considered appropriate in business and academia, so that's what my students need to learn in school.
As long as teachers make it clear that text speak and other forms of slang are inappropriate in certain kinds of writing, and ensure that their students are exposed to Standard English, then there shouldn't be a problem.
Very interesting, Quark. I do admire teachers that have to go through all that, so you have my utmost respect. I'd certainly hope nobody ever hands in an assignement or an essay using text speak or leetspeak, though I wouldn't doubt that there are those that do try it. Consequently, English was always my favourite class, and I'd always do well in it. I always try to be accurate, though sometimes I'll use something without realizing it's wrong. I've never been able to get on the text speak bandwagon though. My mind just can't wrap itself around it.
Yeah, otherwise I'd have to look it up on urban dictionary if I didn't know what something meant.
EDIT: A little historical perspective. By 1 AD written Latin wasn't close to what was actually spoken by most people. Only the very rich spoke traditional Latin and they started speaking Greek. There's a famous example of someone who wanted to appeal to the common people. He called himself Clodius. We know that his name was Claudius. It was an indication that AU had become O. The problem is random references like this and graffiti is all we have for what Latin was spoken for the last few centuries of the Empire. However, it's extremely important to know this since Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian, and others (including the Church Latin or Ecclesiastical Latin) came from this speech of the common people.
I guess I don't really have a point. Language changes over time. It's nice to have a record of it.
Similar threads
