Guest TooMuch2AM Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 ~rant mode on~ Now those of you who who have noticed the signature on the bottom of my postings will probably know what I'm going to say, but here goes... Why, oh why, oh WHY do people insist on using half baked contractions of words in postings? Okay, when texting it's valid as it saves characters, but when using a keyboard it just makes the poster look like an imbecile. And it's not just restricted to the internet. A friend of mine is a senior IT co-ordinator in a big East Midlands University and recently had to invite applications for a reasonably highly skilled job. Imagine his surprise when he received an application form filled out almost entirely in 'text language' ?. Needless to say, that one was filed under 'I' for 'Idiot'... Now I'm not naming any names, but I recently saw a post on here substituting the word 'back' for the contraction 'bk'. Here's the question - just HOW HARD is it to press two more keys on the keyboard? Please people, this kind of laziness is creating a new form of pidgin English that is beginning to infiltrate every aspect of modern life. So next time you're tempted to type 'cud' instead of 'could' please pause for a moment and think... 'in the time it's taken me to think this I could have typed that word correctly, and not looked like a complete halfwit'. ~rant mode off~ M
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 I partly agree but some people are just not very good at spelling, myself included. so to save face some people prefer to shorten words as it's easier to get them right. In my line of work I do not have any real writing to do, and I tend to forget the spelling of certain words over time. At the end of the day suggesting people who shorten words are a "halfwit" is insulting and far from accurate, as in my line of work if I was a halfwit I would have been killed a long time ago. I do try to spell the whole word and not shorten them but that's just me.
Guest TooMuch2AM Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 Hi there awarner, I appreciate that spelling can be a problem for everyone, and I'm certainly not trying to make light of anyone who suffers from disorders like dyslexia or ADD. But as I child I was always taught that if I couldn't spell a word, or didn't know its meaning I should refer to a dictionary. Something I still frequently do using sites like www.dictionary.com. to save face some people prefer to shorten words as it's easier to get them right. How on earth can shortening words to that extent be defined as 'getting them right'? A misspelled word is still misspelled if it's contracted. You can't possibly say that 'wud' is a correct English word? M PS - Very funny mashkhan, that made me chuckle!
Guest midnight Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 heheh, 90od th1n9 w3 4r3 n0+ 4lL h@x0r5 th3n all your bases are belong to us :wink:
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 But as I child I was always taught that if I couldn't spell a word, or didn't know its meaning I should refer to a dictionary. Something I still frequently do using sites like www.dictionary.com. I do use a dictionary (I had to when I wrote my first post :oops:) but I cannot use it all the time as everyone would beat me to posting replies :lol:
Guest spacemonkey Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 I find texting actually helps me spell right now that T9 has been invented. If you spell a word wrong chances are it won't match the t9 dictionary. And generally in an SMS it's quicker to type back T9 than to type bk in multipress mode. But then, this is England where the average youth (youf) on the street doesn't know the difference between a 'f' sound and a 'th' sound.
Guest flashfodder Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 Ok peeps, simple answer. All text messages are still limited to 160 characters. Even though a lot of phones now will accept and send a text message with more characters, the networks still charge per 160 characters. If you send a text that's got 161 characters in it. Your network will bill you for 2 text messages. Phones that can only receive 160 characters (And there are quite a few still around), will receive a text larger than this as 2 text messages. People didn't condense there words originally because they can't spell. They did it because they could only fit 160 chararacters on there message. Now they do it because it saves time. I will say though, give this 10 more years, and words like cld, wld, cos, sum1, tho. will probably be entering the normal english written language in a big way. I myself have already begun using 'short' words in my emails and stuff. Most notably for me is 'tho' The thing is, what started as necessity has now become the norm! In the past, what becomes the norm usually makes it into culture. In this case 'Short' words are now in the begginings of becoming part of the culture of written language. No one can stop it. If you have to blame someone, blame the Networks for limiting the characters to 160 back in 96/97 when they first started allowing text messages. Oh... I've just read that back and believe I may have just coined a new phrase. Very Sad... I know... :oops: But remember where you first heard the phrase 'Short Words' :lol:
Guest TooMuch2AM Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 Surely that should be 'Shrt Wds' Flashfodder? :lol:
Guest flashfodder Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 LOL! :lol: How true indeed! :oops:
Guest casper508 Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 I do agree with TooMuch2AM but from a slighty different perspective. This site is used by people from around the world and I can imagine some TRANSLATING it into their native language. With short words, one can imagine the hell they have to go thru. Cas
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 I have to agree as well :( SMS writing really annoys me, to the extent where i can't understand what some people on my MSN list are saying. Its not really nessacary with SMS either to be honest, i rarely hit the 160 chr limit, and if you are going way over then surely what you're saying is worth a phone call or an e-mail ;p Admissions: I use a few Usenet abbreviations; "AFAIK, BTW and TBH", and "cos" and "ur" on MSN, purely for speed though...I (occasionally ;p) take more time over forum posts than chat replies :lol: Thats my opinion on it... ;)
Guest madu Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 OK! I find it easy using things like u, u're, coz and sometimes abbreviating in such way: w/end, w/ (with) w/o (without) and BTW, AFAIK and similar. But I do agree that the following is crap: bk, sum, wud
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 The worst one ever: "n8" [Read: night] :/
Guest Richie M Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 The worst one ever: "n8" [Read: night]:/ How the hell does that say night? Must admit i'm really bad for using txt :oops: abreviations. "m8, cos, soz, 2moz, 2day" :lol: it's just easier and quicker.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now