Oh, the phases of language

Quote:
"Whether texting conventions are supported by organized spelling reformists or not, can they possibly solve the difficulty of spelling our troublesome language? David Crystal, the author of “Txtng: The Gr8 Db8,” told me in an e-mail message that “there’s nothing in texting to suggest spelling reform,” noting that texting relies heavily on abbreviations, which he sees as creative stylings, not systematic improvements. He added that there is very little that is new about most of the abbreviations and lexical shortenings that make texting so maddening to so many. In fact, he said, with the exception of a few recent coinages like LOL, “virtually all the commonly used ones can be found in English a century ago.” For example, bn (been), btwn (between) and wd (would) can all be found in a 1942 dictionary of abbreviations" (Ammon Shea).


Reaction:
My opinion about the “new” way of language is just a phase. There had always been abbreviations and there will continue to be abbreviations. I agree with what David Crystal “there’s nothing in texting to suggest spelling reform,” meaning that texting will not hurt the way a child spells; it is only a way of being creative. Due to the fact that texting is so popular now will increase the ROFL’s, OMG’s etc…but with technology advancing texting might become something of the past or the craze for it will die down. If there were abbreviations dating back to 1942 it didn’t hurt the literacy rates then so I doubt it will hurt it now. Laziness will hurt the language not texting.







I found this picture (comic) and thought it fit. And who knows this just might be how the Spelling Bees are in future (:

 Resources:
Ammon Shea, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/magazine/24FOB-onlanguage-t.html.
http://www.cartoonshock.com/