Wriging

I think lolcats is more of something that makes fun of the usage of internet lingo, computerjoe. Lolcats is not meant to be taken in anyway seriously.

I usually use proper grammar and spelling, but sometimes I use internet lingo as a joke. I admit I use terms like "lol" online every now and then, but that doesn't mean I'm a complete idiot.

I think internet lingo should only stay on the internet. Teachers should not allow kids to use it in class.

I am going to be honest - I hate how the english language is being degraded by "online speak".

I am going to be honest, too — I'm annoyed by how many people are claiming that "online speak" or "txt speak" is degrading the English language.

Can people making this claim back it up with any evidence?

Rich, back before any of this shit was invented, the Internet got people to reading. Why invent an alternate language of shorthand exclusive to the Internet and text message?

Rich, back before any of this shit was invented, the Internet got people to reading.

As far as I'm aware, people on the internet are still reading — it's pretty hard to use it without doing so. I seem to be missing your point.

And for the record, this shit was not "invented," in the same way English wasn't invented. It was developed. Language isn't a robot that washes your pants, it's a constantly evolving animal (for lack of a better comparison). Robots are invented, animals are evolved.

Why invent an alternate language of shorthand exclusive to the Internet and text message?

Communicate faster; eliminate spelling concerns (in that you're spelling mostly phonetically, not badly); save space in a medium that used to have a fairly unforgiving character limit. Those are three reasons, there are many more.

What you have completely failed to do is answer my initial question and back it up with any evidence.

To all who claim the web encourages the devolution of language — provide evidence, or stop making a claim you can't back up. (If this were 4chan, I believe I'd say "PROOF OR GTFO.")

Teachers should not allow kids to use it in class.

I disagree. Here are my overgeneralized statements to explain why.

Teachers (especially high school English teachers) have the incredibly difficult job of imparting specific knowledge to a group of people that aren't particularly interested in learning it.

Students (especially high school students) tend think that English (school) is irrelevant to their everyday lives. Teacher's have always tried to relate their subject to current culture because it's a proven rumor that students learn better if they think it matters to them.

So if a teacher can use internet speak to create some relevancy between Shakespeare, prepositional phrases and the real world, then everyone should step back and let them do the job they are so woefully underpaid for.

Whether you're a fan of internet speak or not (or somewhere in the middle like me) it is a huge cultural trend that people (kids & adults) are using everywhere an electronic input device exists. Why wouldn't that trickle into the educational system as something to explore?

It would actually be a interesting assignment to have a class write an entire essay on a everyday subject in internet speak. The activities and discussions that might stem from that could make a pretty robust lesson plan. If I sell that idea I'll send royalties.

I don't think it would be acceptable to talk about internet speak without communicating the settings in which it is appropriate, but I'm surprised at the number of responses that suggest that any teacher that would even consider using internet speak in a classroom setting should be stoned.

it is a huge cultural trend

So what... Ebonics is a social/ethnic language that is a bastardized form of English... doesn't mean it's a language that needs emphasis in a grade school classroom.

We have a hard enough time these days trying to teach ACTUAL information to these kids without people coming in a further fracturing lesson plans to crap because one segment is into fad X. Teach the basics, teach people how to function in society and leave all the bullshit to elective college courses.

This is wildly off topic now.

RightOn, no one is suggesting we teach children what you have incorrectly labeled a fad. Merely that it is allowed in the classroom, should that be the pupil's preference. The same way a child can choose between cursive and printed writing (usually).

It's not going to have any impact whatsoever on the child's learning ability. Someone who writes "rly" is as capable of learning American history as someone who writes "really," provided they're as capable of reading it as they are of writing it.

And hey, you're not a teacher, how on earth could you claim to know what children do and don't need to know, and what the best way to teach it is? If I received a letter from a perturbed parent that didn't like my teaching style, I'd tell them to take their child to a different school, thank you very much sir, and kindly fuck off.

It's easy to claim that allowing a child to write in shorthand is going to fuck up their education and turn them into some sort of uncivilised, slack-jawed oaf, but until some cold hard proof is presented, the slighted, know-better-than-thou attitude is completely out of place, and, in fact, does not make you look good.

And as an addendum, I presume you take a similarly upright stance against regular short hand too? Students have been taking notes in shorthand for decades, and at least 2 or 3 people in today's generation can manage a whole day without dribbling all over themselves, so it doesn't seem to have done too much bad to society. How on earth is allowing "online speak" any different?

Ok guys, I have read every single post and here is my diagnosis.....

On the subject on whether txt spk should be taught in school, if we look at the world as a whole, then yes, we should be encouraging better communication, by whatever sub language that evolves. It is the content of what they have to say that is the most important thing.

So as an underlying global notion, we should be open to this.

HOWEVER it is not a School's responsibility to enforce this. A School prepares children for the real world. The key word here is DISCIPLINE. A kid is disciplined to match the requirements of the real world. In doing so, will prosper with their careers and generally lead better lives.

Until it is universally accepted to use words such as lol and l8r, as written words, then they should not be allowed in written assignments in Schools. To allow these words as abbreviations is fine, but then where would you draw the line? Common spelling mistakes such as definAtely would become accepted. Does this mean the correctly spelt 'definitely', would co-exist?, or will it become obsolete?

The answer is to look at it in context. We should be taught to understand the evolution of language, but we should also know where and when it is appropriate to use it, as regards to the real world, as this fundamentally effects our real life.

My first post on 9 rules so "Hi everyone".

The thing that stands out most for me is the development of the children, not the argument over the deconstruction of a language.

How stifling must it be for a child who only feels able to start penning their ideas using an abbreviated form of language to have that creativity and effort devalued by having it corrected as soon as it hits the page. Let them use as much of it as they want, get the content out and work on the presentation later.

How many great ideas have been hastily scribbled on beer mats and napkins?

I admit that text speak annoys me and I wouldn't read a book written using it, but that's mine to own. I have a choice.

There is a lot of discussion here in the UK regarding our youth feeling disconnected and I wonder just how much of that comes down to the way we communicate and engage with them. If they want to write a play in text rather than hang out on street corners then go for it.

I also feel that if you want someone to trust you enough to allow you to help them develop you have to start by accepting them. Once you have that trust then you can work on change, for example using a different form of expression.

Language is power, you only have to look at the legal profession to know that. (It would be difficult to charge so much if everybody understood what they were writing about). Empower the children and then work on bridging the gap.

As my 70yr old Dublin uncle would say "It's an awful lot easier to catch flies with honey than it is with vinegar".

I can't stand "chat speak" or "leet speak" or whatever. If I do use these "variations" of the English language, then I make fun of them. In most cases I use them when talking because it seems more appropriate to use incorrect grammar when speaking to people with my mouth (and people do that a lot).

Of course, the use of these "words" are to make fun of what it has become.

I find it sad that it is impossible to understand most of my friends because they can't write in proper English even when they're supposed to. It has degraded their writing even in a school setting. Then again, there are some stupid things engraved into the English language that do not seem completely correct either.

I like to think of it this way... if I could say "mamamamamamamamama" to my friend and that mean "I'm tired" and "I'm hungry" then "LOL" is completely alright. BUT it doesn't, so I just ignore people who cannot think like a human being (and that's true, because you should be able to express the same thoughts from your head onto paper).