"Textese" is Not Good and here's why...

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I've seen multiple threads decrying the use of "textese" or "txt spk" (retching noise), and I'm glad. On of the reasons I like the escapist is that the user base seems to have a level of respect for intelligence, and that kind of respect is a rare thing on the internet.

But then today I actually saw this thread (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.313258-Textese-seems-to-help-develop-english-skills-not-hinder) actually DEFENDING the use of text speak, quoting "scholarly" articles (that were not seemingly not peer-reviewed). These articles claim that the use of text speak shorthand, such as "plz," is actually helping people learn how to "manipulate phonetics," and, thus, text speak is not leading to a degeneration of language.

I'm not a researcher, nor am I a linguist or sociologist. But what I am is a teacher, and I'd like to offer up an anecdote:

(EDIT: Some people have criticized me for attempting to use a personal anecdote to "debunk" the articles. I'm attempting no such thing. I'm merely questioning the assertions of the articles and offering a personal opinion based on my personal experience. Please don't think that I'm trying to put my experience on the same level as those articles or any research articles. I'm just sharing my opinion based on my experience, nothing more.)

During my first year of teaching I taught secondary English. Of course, when you have class full of 16 and 17-year-old students, everyone is going to have a cell phone, and the majority of my students were fluent in "textese."

I, of course, had them write multiple essays and papers over the course of the year, and on more than one occasion, I saw the use of slang and shorthand WITHIN ACADEMIC WRITING. When I explained to the class why this was unacceptable, several students attempted to argue with me, asserting "Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?" They were actually trying to justify the use of slang/shorthand/textese in academic writing.

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

This line of thinking, this mindset, is definitely degenerative. Maybe not to the terminal point that some people believe, but it certainly isn't helping people learn reading and writing skills, as some people attempt to claim.

The simple fact is that textese is only used for simple words. It doesn't help the manipulation of phonetics because it only deals with words that a fucking 6 year old should be able to spell.

By all means, use textese while using a phone, it's quicker etc (I don't personally), but don't bring that shit into any other written medium.

Pretty soon, we'll all be speaking and writing some form of Newspeak. Though hopefully not for the reasons of thought suppression Orwell suggests, but it'll eventually happen. We've already started with adding things like "lol" and "omg" into the dictionary.

1984, here we come...

Edit - Seems I must explain myself to avoid further confusion...

When I said we'll be speaking some form of Newspeak, I generally meant some sort of "new speak", not speaking Newspeak itself. Yes, I know the point of Newspeak was to basically cut down the dictionary until it is impossible to say anything that contradicted what the Party in 1984 wanted you to say, as there were no more words. Do note that I did originally say "though hopefully not for the reasons ... Orwell suggests"

Should I have merely said something dumb like "we is getting a new language, and it is all betterer :-D"?

Fuck it, I thought these forums were full of a good crowd, but if you're gonna critique my 50 word, quickly written, not thought about much comment, I might just hang my forum shoes up now. I've been looking for a reason to for a while now.

Slaters, everyone.

In before sarcastic, all-"textese" comment.
The only places where I can tolerate chatspeak are where there is some reason to use it, such as an actual lack of time(in-game chat), or texting, where extra letters cost money. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever to use "textese".

and in my opinion it just makes people lazier with spelling. And gives me a headache trying to decipher it. But I agree with both of you it shouldnae be used outside of phones

Its an evolution of the English Language that was birthed on the internet, and is seeping into real life through phones and soon papers. It sucks, it is grammatically horrifying, but it is coming, and the only way we can keep the english language intact is to avoid its influences and keep communicating the way we do already.

Spelling tests need to be brought to the higher grades...

Although, I'd like a reworking of English spelling to change some word's spelling.

Silent "gh" in words like thorough, light, bought etc. is just for historical accuracy rather than usefulness in today's English, in my opinion.

I write ALL of my phone texts, and Facebook messages, with proper punctuation, spelling and syntax. It gets a little annoying when I'm writing out a message and I need to somehow cut out 2-4 words to keep it under the limit, but I think that helps keep it interesting, and helps my develop my writing skills.

But yeah, textese is rubbish. I refuse to type out laugh-out-loud in abbreviated form on principle.

Totally agree. Over time as this form of writing has become more popular I see more and more people who seem to have no clue how to use vowels. It's rather annoying and makes people look like morons.

remnant_phoenix:

When I explained to the class why this was unacceptable, several students attempted to argue with me, asserting "Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?" They were actually trying to justify the use of slang/shorthand/textese in academic writing.

And that argument doesn't even make sense. The whole reason language has regular rules and such is so you can understand what someone is trying to say! I've seen so many arguments arise on the internet because someone said something that was taken the wrong way, or even totally unintelligible because they neglected the use of proper English.

Adamd1990:
Pretty soon, we'll all be speaking and writing some form of Newspeak. Though hopefully not for the reasons of thought suppression Orwell suggests, but it'll eventually happen. We've already started with adding things like "lol" and "omg" into the dictionary.

1984, here we come...

Newspeak removes unwanted words. This is the exact opposite.

What kind of goddamn retard would write plz or rofl in an essay, holy shit. It doesn't do any good, but you can't really stop it.

I love how the escapist community continually talks about 'evidence' etc. and bashes on a whole raft of things.

But...
if you agree with the prevailing opinion on the site, anything goes.

Maybe I'm just being a bit of a dick, but I find it weird that the OP complains about the lack of citing peer reviewed evidence in one thread, and proceeds to argue the point with an anecdote.

Text speak has it's uses otherwise it wouldn't exist. Speed in response attempts to replicate real time conversation in a live text medium. How often (particularly in group IM chats) does the point you're writing become moot as the conversation has moved on while you type? There is also the factor that each group and generation love to come up with their own "language" to set them apart.

I speak, and write differently based on the situation. We all do. If you don't you'll have trouble living in the real world.

I really don't take advantage of text language bar urgent messages or character limit situations. However, I feel as though neither party is correct per say.

It is possible that text language could become so simple and easy to understand that it would be the best option for most situations. However as of right now text language is still more specialized which is partly due to the fact that most people are unfamiliar with it, but mostly due to the fact that it is quite limited by design.

Soviet Heavy:
Its an evolution of the English Language that was birthed on the internet, and is seeping into real life through phones and soon papers. It sucks, it is grammatically horrifying, but it is coming, and the only way we can keep the english language intact is to avoid its influences and keep communicating the way we do already.

The English language is not intact. It's an ever evolving bastard language. Text speak does my head in. But what also bothers me is when people rail against slang words being put in the dictionary because "it's not proper English". Proper English is a fleeting thing. It changes in less than a generation and always has. It annoys me that people don't seem to realise that writers like Shakespeare, Marlowe and their contemporaries weren't using fancy Shakespeare talk that students would struggle to understand. That's just what English looked like in the 1500/1600's.

thenumberthirteen:
Maybe I'm just being a bit of a dick, but I find it weird that the OP complains about the lack of citing peer reviewed evidence in one thread, and proceeds to argue the point with an anecdote.

Which is why I preceded the point by saying that I was not a researcher, sociologist, or linguist. While I was debunking the scholarly validity of the articles presented, I attempted to imply that I would not be approaching my argument from a scholarly perspective.

So even when I was employing proper grammar in attempt to communicate a complex opinion, there was something lost in translation. Imagine the communication breakdown if I wrote in text-speak.

And there are people who still insist that correct grammar isn't as important as literature nerds and grammar police claim?

-Dragmire-:
Spelling tests need to be brought to the higher grades...

Although, I'd like a reworking of English spelling to change some word's spelling.

Silent "gh" in words like thorough, light, bought etc. is just for historical accuracy rather than usefulness in today's English, in my opinion.

So.. what is this optimum level of fidelity to the English language that you want?
Also usefulness is a hard to say depending on what your view on the purpose of language is. Is it for the preservation of a culture? Or to be understood by as many as possible? Or maybe even for some, to communicate things as simply as possible.

I mean I dislike textspeak in pretty much any context other than texts mainly because it looks sloppy in my opinion. But is that enough of a reason to ban it? I think a more important thing is to keep in mind the intended recipient of a message and write accordingly. So an academic paper could be read by essentially anyone, so should be written in "classic" English as it were (possibly not the best word to use, but none better come to mind). But for private letter, a group message or even a forum post on small enough forums as long as you're aware of what kind of people are reading your message, you can write however you wish to communicate your ideas in the "best" way possible.

remnant_phoenix:

thenumberthirteen:
Maybe I'm just being a bit of a dick, but I find it weird that the OP complains about the lack of citing peer reviewed evidence in one thread, and proceeds to argue the point with an anecdote.

Which is why I preceded the point by saying that I was not a researcher, sociologist, or linguist. While I was debunking the scholarly validity of the articles presented, I attempted to imply that I would not be approaching my argument from a scholarly perspective.

So even when I was employing proper grammar in attempt to communicate a complex opinion, there was something lost in translation. Imagine the communication breakdown if I wrote in text-speak.

And there are people who still insist that correct grammar isn't as important as literature nerds and grammar police claim?

D#13 (yes that was completely intentional) never said he didn't see your justification for not citing any sources, just that it's funny you chose not too. Surely as an English teacher you should know that "In response to your point which you pulled out of your ass, I present my own point with a similar anal origin" is not a good way to debate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out fighting fire wit fire is a bad idea, same applies to fighting unfounded opinions with unfounded opinions.

Spot1990:

remnant_phoenix:

thenumberthirteen:
Maybe I'm just being a bit of a dick, but I find it weird that the OP complains about the lack of citing peer reviewed evidence in one thread, and proceeds to argue the point with an anecdote.

Which is why I preceded the point by saying that I was not a researcher, sociologist, or linguist. While I was debunking the scholarly validity of the articles presented, I attempted to imply that I would not be approaching my argument from a scholarly perspective.

So even when I was employing proper grammar in attempt to communicate a complex opinion, there was something lost in translation. Imagine the communication breakdown if I wrote in text-speak.

And there are people who still insist that correct grammar isn't as important as literature nerds and grammar police claim?

D#13 (yes that was completely intentional) never said he didn't see your justification for not citing any sources, just that it's funny you chose not too. Surely as an English teacher you should know that "In response to your point which you pulled out of your ass, I present my own point with a similar anal origin" is not a good way to debate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out fighting fire wit fire is a bad idea, same applies to fighting unfounded opinions with unfounded opinions.

I questioned the validity of the research that was presented.

I then stated that I was not in a position to argue from a scholarly perspective myself.

I then offered a personal anecdote related to the topic and drew a simple argument based on that personal experience. I understand that it's not well-founded argument since it is limited to my personal experience, but I had already established I wasn't attempting to create a well-founded scholarly argument, but rather, my own personal opinion on these matters.

Maybe I didn't communicate that point clearly enough, so I'll be as direct as I possibly can. When I said "I'm not a reasearcher, sociologist, or linguist," I was attempting to establish: "What I'm about to say is not founded in research; it is my personal opinion."

If you want to argue that my point is unfounded, bravo. You're regurgitating a point I attempted make in my original post and then expanded upon in my reply to thenumberthirteen. Am I not allowed to call out someone's research as unfounded and then follow up with my personal opinion on the subject, all the while maintaining that I'm not attempting to argue from a scholarly perspective? In formal debate this would not fly, but on a damned internet forum, why not?

Maybe try to get a good understanding of where someone is coming from, and/or lower your expectations, before you accuse that person of pulling things out of their ass.

remnant_phoenix:
Snip

It's like what I said in another thread where I was explaining why we all have to keep harping on people that make posts with horrible spelling and grammar, I remember a few years ago when some grade school teachers wanted to incorporate something called "Whole English" into the system.

Basically, "Whole English" is an insane teaching strategy that basically says, if children spell something wrong, but what they have spelled sounds the same by the letters' sounds, then what the children spelled is correct because if it sounds like the word they were trying to spell, people will understand what they meant.

If that was in place when I was in first grade, I would be spelling "of" as "uv", because under "Whole English" I would have been counted as being correct with my misspelling.

The problems we face are the throngs of crazies that defend people that misspell and murder grammar. They say, "It isn't right to attack them for the errors, because they are in a public forum and in such forums informal writing is acceptable."

Those people are wrong, because misspelling words and trashing grammar is not informal writing, it is just wrong writing. Informal writing is writing where the writer uses over familiarized terms and colloquialisms.
Of course those people also say that, "well, maybe the person didn't have the time to write everything out properly or the person was just too lazy to care and just wanted to get the idea across, believing that we would still understand him or her."

A great professor of mine once told me, "If you want to convey a message about something important or important you, write and communicate it properly or don't write or communicate it at all. The reason is that if people see that you don't care about taking an extra few seconds to write properly, they will believe you don't care about what you are saying and in turn they will ignore and not care about what you are saying."

Those words are definitely true for me, because if I'm reading a story somebody wrote and put on the internet, or a post somebody made on this site and that person didn't take the time to correct spelling and grammatical errors, I won't take that person seriously and 99% of the time I will just stop reading what he or she wrote.

Sonic Doctor:

remnant_phoenix:
Snip

It's like what I said in another thread where I was explaining why we all have to keep harping on people that make posts with horrible spelling and grammar, I remember a few years ago when some grade school teachers wanted to incorporate something called "Whole English" into the system.

Basically, "Whole English" is an insane teaching strategy that basically says, if children spell something wrong, but what they have spelled sounds the same by the letters' sounds, then what the children spelled is correct because if it sounds like the word they were trying to spell, people will understand what they meant.

If that was in place when I was in first grade, I would be spelling "of" as "uv", because under "Whole English" I would have been counted as being correct with my misspelling.

The problems we face are the throngs of crazies that defend people that misspell and murder grammar. They say, "It isn't right to attack them for the errors, because they are in a public forum and in such forums informal writing is acceptable."

Those people are wrong, because misspelling words and trashing grammar is not informal writing, it is just wrong writing. Informal writing is writing where the writer uses over familiarized terms and colloquialisms.
Of course those people also say that, "well, maybe the person didn't have the time to write everything out properly or the person was just too lazy to care and just wanted to get the idea across, believing that we would still understand him or her."

A great professor of mine once told me, "If you want to convey a message about something important or important you, write and communicate it properly or don't write or communicate it at all. The reason is that if people see that you don't care about taking an extra few seconds to write properly, they will believe you don't care about what you are saying and in turn they will ignore and not care about what you are saying."

Those words are definitely true for me, because if I'm reading a story somebody wrote and put on the internet, or a post somebody made on this site and that person didn't take the time to correct spelling and grammatical errors, I won't take that person seriously and 99% of the time I will just stop reading what he or she wrote.

I agree. Writing sloppily and expecting to be taken seriously is comparable to dressing sloppily and then being expected to be taken seriously in the workplace.

Sure, you can get away with that sort of thing if your someone like House, so good at what you do that it doesn't matter if you're unkempt (and I doubt that this sort of thing ever even happens in the real world). However, for most people, if you're going to be taken seriously at whatever job you work, you need a professional appearance that suits that job.

Likewise, if you want the idea that you are attempting to communicate taken seriously it needs to be presented properly.

This is all common sense to me, and I applaud your professor for emphasizing the importance of this concept.

I'm not going to argue that textese should become the language of scholarly writing. I never use it myself, even when I am texting. That said, I do imagine it could, much like short hand writing, have a legitimate place wherein it could have some advantages. Not only that, I suspect that as time goes by we will actually see some of these text words become integrated into the primary language, simply because they are used so frequently. The fact that it has no place in scholarly writing right now is not a complete argument, because it doesn't take into account the fact that languages change over time.

Adamd1990:
Pretty soon, we'll all be speaking and writing some form of Newspeak. Though hopefully not for the reasons of thought suppression Orwell suggests, but it'll eventually happen. We've already started with adding things like "lol" and "omg" into the dictionary.

1984, here we come...

See, I don't have a problem with LOL. And this is why:

Basically, it fulfills a purpose that no other term in the English language can (without sounding unnecessarily drawn out or awkward). Be careful where you tread on things like this--it is very easy to write off the development of a language as the degeneration of it. I mean, Shakespeare made up words left and right, and now nobody is the wiser.

Anyway, I think as long as we don't lower our standards and expectations for formal writing, "textese" will not mar the English language as much as some people think it will. What they should be worried about is the improper teaching and use of terms and grammar that people THINK are correct and formal, but are not. At least with textese, they know they are using the words incorrectly and informally.

Meanwhile, there are millions running around who actually think it's "supposed to of" rather than "supposed to have." And that is not the result of textese. It's the result of an inadequate knowledge of grammatical structure, and I think it's because people don't read as much. You learn little intricacies like that by seeing them in context. And the best way to see text written out on context is to read. Unfortunately, recreational reading isn't quite as common of a hobby anymore (since we now have so many other things to do instead). But that's a story for another day.

oh oh pick me. Tell your kids it is wrong because the reason the words exist the way they do is to relate the desired feeling or thought. I've seen multiple people put words like; thn(then/than/thin), red(read), absy(absolutely. Believe me I could add more, those were just in the last text I got from this girl.

The problem is. These words are wrong, the message being conveyed isn't the one they desired. I am intelligent enough to figure out that they are an idiot, and therefore I can fix all the mistakes they made in my head.

But its lazy and selfish of them to demand that I do more work then them because they won't use the language that we were both taught.

Kpt._Rob:
I'm not going to argue that textese should become the language of scholarly writing. I never use it myself, even when I am texting. That said, I do imagine it could, much like short hand writing, have a legitimate place wherein it could have some advantages. Not only that, I suspect that as time goes by we will actually see some of these text words become integrated into the primary language, simply because they are used so frequently. The fact that it has no place in scholarly writing right now is not a complete argument, because it doesn't take into account the fact that languages change over time.

Language changes over time, but there are current rules of writing in the academic/professional sectors that should be observed.

As the language changes, the current rules will change too.

So the argument is not incomplete. The language changes, and the rules will eventually folloow suit. Unless of course you're going to argue that the rules of writing established by the MLA, APA, or AP should not be followed, but then you'd be opening up a big can of worms.

Speaking as a Linguistics student, while textese is awful for spelling, it actually does improve one's communication in general. You have to be concise in what you say above and beyond chopping out vowels and consonants, because text messages and twitter updates limit how much you can say, and nobody reads long Facebook posts. Fundamentally, they're still using the same words ("wer r u goin" = "where are you going," a perfectly normal sentence) and same sentences by and large as everyone else.

Textese is only negatively impacting spelling from everything I've seen. The people who use shitty English would be using shitty English anyways, with or without text messages and the internet. It should not be accepted as a formal, academic, professional, etc method of communication, but it shouldn't be demonized as "the downfall of English" or "end end of literacy" or whatnot. It's just a different orthography for the same language.

remnant_phoenix:
It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

"It wasn't rape. She was asking for it wearing a short skirt"

The implied message at work.

Lilani:
Anyway, I think as long as we don't lower our standards and expectations for formal writing, "textese" will not mar the English language as much as some people think it will.

That's the issue, though. As this sort of communication becomes more and more common, especially among teenagers and young adults, there is a certain expectation that certain shorthand SHOULD be allowed in formal writing, as I showed in my anecdote.

I'm with you that some people are more alarmist about it than they should be, and I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I do think that "textese" does more harm than good for the development of writing skills.

Sounds more like stupid people being stupid. Anyone who argues that txtspk is acceptable in academic works needs beaten to death with a dictionary...

So should we all be speaking with a british accent and saying "aye verily" all the time? Language degradation is an ugly way of phrasing what is actually a non-issue. Language evolution. We speak the way we do today because of language degradation. I'll admit hearing someone say the letters instead of the words irritates me, but what this is is our language, like everything in life, moving forward, adapting to the new world. We're having a lot of this in every field as technology moves forward, finding ways to use it to help simplify our lives. And your students have a point. Words are a communicative tool, so long as the person understands what's being said it doesn't matter how it's being said. There's no mental degradation from this, no lack of understanding on what's being taught, what's been done in the past, what they're reading. It's simply how the language is moving forward.

A good argument would have been that in a career area being articulate and professional is necessity. Or simply tell your students it's a gramatic error and they'll lose marks.

remnant_phoenix:
*massive snip*

Preach on, my fellow lover of the English language. I couldn't agree with you more on the subject.

As others have said, it's fine when it's used in an actual text, and sometimes on things like Facebook, but if we don't reinforce the importance of proper spelling and grammar, then what's the point of even teaching English in the first place?

remnant_phoenix:

Spot1990:

remnant_phoenix:

Which is why I preceded the point by saying that I was not a researcher, sociologist, or linguist. While I was debunking the scholarly validity of the articles presented, I attempted to imply that I would not be approaching my argument from a scholarly perspective.

So even when I was employing proper grammar in attempt to communicate a complex opinion, there was something lost in translation. Imagine the communication breakdown if I wrote in text-speak.

And there are people who still insist that correct grammar isn't as important as literature nerds and grammar police claim?

D#13 (yes that was completely intentional) never said he didn't see your justification for not citing any sources, just that it's funny you chose not too. Surely as an English teacher you should know that "In response to your point which you pulled out of your ass, I present my own point with a similar anal origin" is not a good way to debate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out fighting fire wit fire is a bad idea, same applies to fighting unfounded opinions with unfounded opinions.

I questioned the validity of the research that was presented.

I then stated that I was not in a position to argue from a scholarly perspective myself.

I then offered a personal anecdote related to the topic and drew a simple argument based on that personal experience. I understand that it's not well-founded argument since it is limited to my personal experience, but I had already established I wasn't attempting to create a well-founded scholarly argument, but rather, my own personal opinion on these matters.

Maybe I didn't communicate that point clearly enough, so I'll be as direct as I possibly can. When I said "I'm not a reasearcher, sociologist, or linguist," I was attempting to establish: "What I'm about to say is not founded in research; it is my personal opinion."

If you want to argue that my point is unfounded, bravo. You're regurgitating a point I attempted make in my original post and then expanded upon in my reply to thenumberthirteen. Am I not allowed to call out someone's research as unfounded and then follow up with my personal opinion on the subject, all the while maintaining that I'm not attempting to argue from a scholarly perspective? In formal debate this would not fly, but on a damned internet forum, why not?

Maybe try to get a good understanding of where someone is coming from, and/or lower your expectations, before you accuse that person of pulling things out of their ass.

Well you're an English teacher which is where you're standards for correct grammar come from, maybe my being a journalism student gives me a similar view on citing sources and backing up claims. But you're right, this is just a forum discussion, not a formal debate. But maybe don't make absolute assertions, using words like definitely and certainly, and then get defensive when someone points out your argument is no more definite or certain than the one you're trying to debunk.

Can we please stop calling it Textese it is not a language can we not just call it Text Talk and stop treating it like a legitimate language?

OT: As long as it stays in internet games and mobile texts I have no problem with it but I think people just need a larger focus on grammar and spelling. I know it may seem pointless but unless said person is dyslexic have spelling and grammar be worth more marks in exams and this would warrant spending more time on those areas.

Text Talk or 1337 speak has no place in the academic world or even on internet forums where it is not needed. It is fine in small doses but trying reading a whole post in text talk and thankfully it is not done here or in the few places I've been. So once again if it stays where it belongs(where speed is necessary) society will not collapse.

I've not used "textese" (I hate that word by the way) since I was about fourteen. When I was fourteen, I was definitely and idiot*.

I've found that by sending text messages that are spelt correctly, grammatically satisfying and punctuated properly, most people now reply in the same way.

I'm no English student, I'm a numbers guy, so I'm not always perfect. However, it is absolutely lovely receiving messages that could at least get passing grades in an English exam, when looking at the very first texts from the same person would lead you to believe that their phone didn't allow any word more than five characters long.

Am I normal?
I'm aware that the above suggests that I'm definitely not.

*I wasn't academically stupid, I just thought that words like "random" and "lol" were perfectly acceptable to use. I'd never actually use "lol" in spoken conversation though.
If you do that - without irony - you don't deserve any respect ever.

Yes because colloquialisms are evil that's why we don't teach metaphors, idioms, and other nonsense phrases to students in schools.

I honestly don't give a crap if people use textspeek since its just a dialect or slang. The only thing kids need to learn to do is be able to interpret which types of speech and language is appropriate for which situation. You don't use textspeek to write an essay the same way you don't swear in front of your boss. Anyone who has a burning problem with the very notion of a dialect clearly has no idea how language and culture work or is too single-mindedly devoted to rules.

Well, the only point behind that text-message way of writing, is limiting the number of characters one has to write, and the writer being lazy.

Obviously there's no place for such things anywhere outside a context where a message has to be highly compact at the cost of readability.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked