For Jay-D who, despite disliking my use, as an Englishman, of the word SMS rather than text message, is a Europhile at heart. Some linguists have suggested that the English language has suffered as a result of the email and SMS. Absolute poppycock. They just give a bunch of arseholes carte blanche to express themselves as lazily and haphazardly as they like.
“LOL” is not acceptable. Just use “haha”, it's more onomatopoeic. “Hows u?” – what the fuck? This is almost as bad as putting an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence. By putting emphasis on sentences in this way, you only serve to desensitise the reader to what you are saying. It shows a lack of creativity; an inability to say what you feel with words, relying, instead, on a pretty little piece of punctuation.
Here's an example: “no matter what country you are in... you cannot escape the dreaded ikea bag lol” I don't know this person but Jesus, not only does she use lol, she uses it to draw attention to what she perceives to be a funny joke – her joke. The Ikea bag she refers to is in a picture of a family at a beach. They probably took the Ikea bag because it is big and sturdy. Her comment is therefore redundant.
Another tool: “Man that is one cute kid!” – a comment left on a photo of a mother and daughter. This idiot obviously feels that to use a simple full stop at the end of the sentence wouldn't really do justice to his excitement.
Another spoon: “Yeh, that's what's cute ;)” – the use of the winking smiley here suggests that the writer is being ironic or clever, without providing any evidence whatsoever to suggest that that is the case.
I must stress that women are exempt from the last two sub-rules. Physically, ladies are shapely and beautiful; men are mechanical and bland. And so it makes sense for a woman to decorate her sentences with smileys and exclamation marks, in the same way that they wear pretty clothes and make up. Men, on the other hand, in basic terms, have to provide hard evidence (oops, pardon!) to prove their worth – we're not peacocks.
Posts
4 comments:
Greetings. May I first of all extend my most conciliatory commendations for your highly entertaining blog. It is, in every meaning of the word, an education, and is fast becoming my primary point of reference for the many moral dilemmas i find myself faced with. The title of the blog isn't bad either.
However on this latest entry I cannot help but disagree. I believe your outright rejection of the usage of the exclamation mark or any other nuance of the modern day 'txt' language to be based on a less than thorough logic. For when one looks to the birthplace of this language (the mobile phone) one realises that it was borne from the need for textual frugality. One single text message can only ever contain circa 150 characters. It therefore becomes a challenge to balance effectively the congruence between the emotional tone one wishes to convey and the limited text space which one has to do this. This challenge, given the complexity of human communication, is in many cases insurmountable.
Hence we had to adapt and create a language that, though being irritating i agree, is borne from necessity and not mere laziness..
There are more levels to my argument but, because I have to work, i shall leave it at this.
Cheers Stu for my first contestable return of serve. You've given me a sticky backhand, right in my baseline! (Inuendoes need an exclamation mark; I can't believe I missed that). You've pointed out some neglected issues on my part regarding the restrictions of the humble, yet useful text message. You have inspired me sir. I shall rethink my opinions and write a short piece on that little wonder of telecommunications right now.
Stu, I have to put up this comment from Daniel, I hope he doesn't mind; I just wanna spread the banter.
"I read. I agree with the Honorable Brother K-night on most issues. But
I would certainly make a case for the smiley face when having online
chat. Whether online chat is a positive development is dubious in
itself though.
Gays should probably be allowed to overuse punctuation too. But a real man should be able to get by with the understated authority conferred by the simple full stop.
Then again, like, an exclamation is totally acceptable when the point
being made is shocking or even of great importance. Like, Robert* is having a child!
Think you wotty? %)"
*Robert is a man Daniel and I know who, if he were to get one of his sperms to penetrate a lady's egg, would earn exclamation-mark status.
This is an excellent point with which I wholeheartedly concur. This discussion intrigues me as it can be viewed at many different levels, much like a well prepared wedding cake. I have one more point to add, one more factor to throw into the mix, on more variant of raisin to add the well prepared wedding cake; and it is this: If the very first communicative exchange you have with someone is via a written format then it is risky to litter your pros with carelessly chosen punctuation and a haphazard smattering of smiley faces, as you automatically come across as an overly enthusiastic twat. It is better to play it cool and ensure your tone is calm and sincere. This sets me up nicely for my final point on the matter: If you are acquainted with your correspondee on a face to face manner i.e. they have heard your voice and are familiar with your vocal intonations then it is safe to use an exclamation mark or whatever if it is in line with the way you yourself would have said it if you had been talking. For example, if one is in the habit of consistently declaring in a loud exuberant tone, “He’s a Champion!” then writing this in text format to another who knows this is how you would say it is ok.
Post a Comment