The point I'm trying to make is that it is a phase; hardly anyone above a certain age ever spells like that.
Thing is, it may be fun and cool and whatnot for a while, but in the end everyone finds it too difficult. When the 1337ness (sic!) factor goes away (and it does go away rather quickly), it starts to get boring and immature.
For instance, I'd wager that none of the girls I'd IM'd with when I was 16 uses that kind of language any more (and, contrary to the popular perception of female gender being more conservative in language use, many girls of my age at that time used language that would put most ]-[4><><0RZ to shame).
do not think that net-speak will become a widely used language, simply because it seems too informal to be used in any serious context. That is all.
Well, there you have it.
Current net-speak was not entirely made up from scratch anyway; I'm not a native English speaker, but I'd wager that the numbers-for-letters and numbers-for-parts-of-words substitutions were already known in the English language.
I have studied exactly that phenomenon once, albeit in respect to Croatian and Slovenian. Slovenian has about the same kind of numbers-for-parts-of-words substitutions as English does, while Croatian, genetically, geographically and culturally much closer to Slovenian, does not.
I have concluded that the major factor was the relation of phonology and spelling; Croatian spelling is much more phonological in its nature, hence dicouraging this kind of wordplay. (Croatian language is much too pompous in some other areas as well, in my opinion, bu that's not the issue now.)
And I have noted - mainly from experience - that people (children) like to experiment with language quite a lot, especially until certain age (it usually stops somewhere at the end of puberty); then they continue using the more-or-less standard idiom. I believe that this toying with language is a valuable part of language learning process, so I definitely would not prohibit my future students from doing so, as long as they proved they knew wat they were toying with and how.
The much-quoted Latin examples are: Ibis redibis numquam in bello perribis.
and Reginam occidere nolite timere bonum est.
And I agree with you, although I myself belong to the younger generations (well, maybe not... I'm 23, but I have already started saying things like 'in my day...';) ). However, as a linguist, I am very interested in whatever is going to come out of it.
For instance, there was the 1337 phase in Internet communication; from where I stand, it certainly seems to be in decline. However, many people predicted the inevitable catastrophical decline in literacy that just didn't happen; the Internet started using common English instead.
Of course, certain sub-cultural elements were developed; a form of slang naturally exists - but that doesn't change the fact that we do not, in fact, communicate in 1337 crypto-code, but in normal English sentences. We do understand the code, which is evident in so many would-be jokes in the frosty piss area (mostly modded down, I'm sad to note), but do note - we joke about it. We don't use it regularly.
These youngsters of yours will learn to appreciate the art of more precise use of language in time... if no sooner, than at the point they get a slap in a face from a girl they wanted to kiss, just because of a carelessly worded pick-up line.
I'd been scrolling down to this post until I saw my first love...
It was as old as me when I first got it (made in 1982, or so it said on the box), and I spent many sleepless mornings learning BASIC on that thing... I used to wake up at 4 a.m. and type little programs while my parents slept...
Later, I sold it to a guy that was (is?) planning to open a computer museum... however, a big part of his collection was dumped by the owner of the warehouse he kept it in... My Atarti 800XL went with it.
My respect for the dead (providing that I actually find one in a Christian tomb) will be shown in the fact that I will try to find out about him and his long-forgotten god will make some kind of a note about it.
The only kind of respect you (or at least, I) can pay to any dead is remembrance. Everything else is just prejudice, taboo and show.
I mean, you defeat your argument in the very second sentence, and I quote: "You are an archaeologist (...)" If an archaeologist found an intact grave, he will bloody well look what's inside; he had probably been waiting his entire life for that opportunity.
While it is true that the strong Whorf's hypothesis is trivial to refute, anyone speaking several languages can intuitively know the weaker form is true. One of my colleagues, when I mailed him the link to this topic, said 'Well, we all knew it was true somewhere deep down.'
This is why I've always thought Whorf's hypothesis to be trivial.
I was so excited to read this title because only a few weeks ago I tried to explain to certain people in my linguistic class why it's so blazingly obvious... I failed and gave up.
So at first I thought ah-ha! I was right! It's finally proven! - only to realize that the research only dealt with the visual.
OK, so it is great and everything, but it doesn't deal with concepts and abstractions; only with concrete objects. I'd like to do research (and I might, when I finish my studies) on how language makes us susceptible to certain types of lies.
BTW there is an area where the Americans have a very exhaustive vocabulary - psychoanalysis.
It seems to be so deeply ingrained in your culture that every Oprah- or Jerry Springer-viewing housewife knows about assertiveness, denial etc. - some of which cannot even be adequately translated into my native Croatian.
My grandfather's sister is Slovenian (OK, so is my grandfather, but that's beside the point now).
Her mother was Croatian and a maths teacher.
That is why she learned addition and substraction in Croatian.
However, from reasons I've forgotten (WW2?), she spent her second year of schooling in France, so she learned multiplication/division in French.
So now she mainly speaks her native Slovenian (more or less native; she's bilingual for all practical purposes), but adds up numbers in Croatian and multiplies them in French.
I know that although I'm quite proficient in English (and a number of other languages), I'll never learn maths in another language. I can comprehend maths in another language, but even when I'm reading a text in English, number processing is done on an almost-above-linguistic level - and the linguistic part is in Croatian.
Any non-Croatian number processing I have to do consciously.
So when Mitnick says it is easier to hack OSS software, people say "duh"
When Microsoft says "making our stuff open source will make it easier to find vulnerabilities", people say "Stop FUDing, Microsoft"
I dont see how can you beleive it when Mitnick says it and how you can refute it when Allchin says the same thing.
Now, now...
Alhough you've been refuted before this post, I just can't resist...
When anyone - Mitnick or my grandmother, I don't care - tells me it's easier to 'hack' OSS, yes, I'll say 'duh'. It's a trivial truth.
When Microsoft says that making their stuff OpenSource will make it easier to find vulnerabilities, I say 'so what's wrong about that?' and fail to mention FUD even once.
I cannot imagine the twisted logic that would make anyone claim that this is MS FUD - it's a trivial truth. Again.
The only problem is that Microsoft would be really embarrassed with the discovery of the plethora of bugs and 'features' Windows is packed with. That, and they'd lose profit (probably not market share, mind you).
I'd wager any company would just love a host of programmers that would check and fix their product for free and I can't see Microsoft as any different; the irony is that they can't afford it. They'd lose too much.
So it's not MS FUD, it's just plain old misdirection.
Both Microsoft's statements and yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Modeling the governement on Catholic principles...
You must be so proud.
Oh, certainly.
The point I'm trying to make is that it is a phase; hardly anyone above a certain age ever spells like that.
Thing is, it may be fun and cool and whatnot for a while, but in the end everyone finds it too difficult. When the 1337ness (sic!) factor goes away (and it does go away rather quickly), it starts to get boring and immature.
For instance, I'd wager that none of the girls I'd IM'd with when I was 16 uses that kind of language any more (and, contrary to the popular perception of female gender being more conservative in language use, many girls of my age at that time used language that would put most ]-[4><><0RZ to shame).
Well, there you have it.
Current net-speak was not entirely made up from scratch anyway; I'm not a native English speaker, but I'd wager that the numbers-for-letters and numbers-for-parts-of-words substitutions were already known in the English language.
I have studied exactly that phenomenon once, albeit in respect to Croatian and Slovenian. Slovenian has about the same kind of numbers-for-parts-of-words substitutions as English does, while Croatian, genetically, geographically and culturally much closer to Slovenian, does not.
I have concluded that the major factor was the relation of phonology and spelling; Croatian spelling is much more phonological in its nature, hence dicouraging this kind of wordplay. (Croatian language is much too pompous in some other areas as well, in my opinion, bu that's not the issue now.)
And I have noted - mainly from experience - that people (children) like to experiment with language quite a lot, especially until certain age (it usually stops somewhere at the end of puberty); then they continue using the more-or-less standard idiom. I believe that this toying with language is a valuable part of language learning process, so I definitely would not prohibit my future students from doing so, as long as they proved they knew wat they were toying with and how.
Ah, yes... the #1 pick-up line of all times:
Say, does this rag smell like clorophorm to you?
The much-quoted Latin examples are:
Ibis redibis numquam in bello perribis.
and
Reginam occidere nolite timere bonum est.
And I agree with you, although I myself belong to the younger generations (well, maybe not... I'm 23, but I have already started saying things like 'in my day...' ;) ). However, as a linguist, I am very interested in whatever is going to come out of it.
For instance, there was the 1337 phase in Internet communication; from where I stand, it certainly seems to be in decline. However, many people predicted the inevitable catastrophical decline in literacy that just didn't happen; the Internet started using common English instead.
Of course, certain sub-cultural elements were developed; a form of slang naturally exists - but that doesn't change the fact that we do not, in fact, communicate in 1337 crypto-code, but in normal English sentences. We do understand the code, which is evident in so many would-be jokes in the frosty piss area (mostly modded down, I'm sad to note), but do note - we joke about it. We don't use it regularly.
These youngsters of yours will learn to appreciate the art of more precise use of language in time... if no sooner, than at the point they get a slap in a face from a girl they wanted to kiss, just because of a carelessly worded pick-up line.
Wheee!
I'd been scrolling down to this post until I saw my first love...
It was as old as me when I first got it (made in 1982, or so it said on the box), and I spent many sleepless mornings learning BASIC on that thing... I used to wake up at 4 a.m. and type little programs while my parents slept...
Later, I sold it to a guy that was (is?) planning to open a computer museum... however, a big part of his collection was dumped by the owner of the warehouse he kept it in... My Atarti 800XL went with it.
I open the tomb and see what's inside.
My respect for the dead (providing that I actually find one in a Christian tomb) will be shown in the fact that I will try to find out about him and his long-forgotten god will make some kind of a note about it.
The only kind of respect you (or at least, I) can pay to any dead is remembrance. Everything else is just prejudice, taboo and show.
I mean, you defeat your argument in the very second sentence, and I quote: "You are an archaeologist (...)"
If an archaeologist found an intact grave, he will bloody well look what's inside; he had probably been waiting his entire life for that opportunity.
Sheesh.
Freedom Mail?
Is that yet another American translation of French Mail?
Although I don't have the foggiest what exactly is French Mail supposed to be...
Newton or no Newton, I feel this is great.
Palm is - at least from where I'm standing - being pushed out from the market.
This is therefore probably good for both Palm and Apple... it's just that I probably won't be able to afford one of those.
*sigh*
I know of several substances that will kill any living organism.
I'd wager they'd solve the AIDS problem... and most other problems plaguing humankind.
Botuline, cyanide, ricin...
Now, now...
I don't feel Mozilla is any smaller a project than Internet Explorer...
While it is true that the strong Whorf's hypothesis is trivial to refute, anyone speaking several languages can intuitively know the weaker form is true. One of my colleagues, when I mailed him the link to this topic, said 'Well, we all knew it was true somewhere deep down.'
Why not?
Is WinME some kind of an unknown & unsung hero?
Maybe an important turning point in the development of operating systems?
Or is it something like the Holocaust, something we should remember so that it doesn't happen again?
Ummm... OK, no need to answer that.
Stanislaw Lem, "Peace on Earth".
A nice SF about a man whose brain hemispheres apparently fight each other.
This is why I've always thought Whorf's hypothesis to be trivial.
I was so excited to read this title because only a few weeks ago I tried to explain to certain people in my linguistic class why it's so blazingly obvious... I failed and gave up.
So at first I thought ah-ha! I was right! It's finally proven! - only to realize that the research only dealt with the visual.
OK, so it is great and everything, but it doesn't deal with concepts and abstractions; only with concrete objects. I'd like to do research (and I might, when I finish my studies) on how language makes us susceptible to certain types of lies.
BTW there is an area where the Americans have a very exhaustive vocabulary - psychoanalysis.
It seems to be so deeply ingrained in your culture that every Oprah- or Jerry Springer-viewing housewife knows about assertiveness, denial etc. - some of which cannot even be adequately translated into my native Croatian.
My grandfather's sister is Slovenian (OK, so is my grandfather, but that's beside the point now).
Her mother was Croatian and a maths teacher.
That is why she learned addition and substraction in Croatian.
However, from reasons I've forgotten (WW2?), she spent her second year of schooling in France, so she learned multiplication/division in French.
So now she mainly speaks her native Slovenian (more or less native; she's bilingual for all practical purposes), but adds up numbers in Croatian and multiplies them in French.
I know that although I'm quite proficient in English (and a number of other languages), I'll never learn maths in another language. I can comprehend maths in another language, but even when I'm reading a text in English, number processing is done on an almost-above-linguistic level - and the linguistic part is in Croatian.
Any non-Croatian number processing I have to do consciously.
OTOH, it is not that difficult to give a lot when you have a great lot more.
It is good that he does that, but that's about it.
You're right.
They shouldn't have gone with Ubuntu in the first place.
Gentoo would have been a much better choice. Goontoo actually sounds cool.
Sure. Stop using.
See? Even simpler.
Well, whatever happens, when 'trusted computing' takes off, I will most certainly not trust it.
Now, now...
Alhough you've been refuted before this post, I just can't resist...
When anyone - Mitnick or my grandmother, I don't care - tells me it's easier to 'hack' OSS, yes, I'll say 'duh'. It's a trivial truth.
When Microsoft says that making their stuff OpenSource will make it easier to find vulnerabilities, I say 'so what's wrong about that?' and fail to mention FUD even once.
I cannot imagine the twisted logic that would make anyone claim that this is MS FUD - it's a trivial truth. Again.
The only problem is that Microsoft would be really embarrassed with the discovery of the plethora of bugs and 'features' Windows is packed with. That, and they'd lose profit (probably not market share, mind you).
I'd wager any company would just love a host of programmers that would check and fix their product for free and I can't see Microsoft as any different; the irony is that they can't afford it. They'd lose too much.
So it's not MS FUD, it's just plain old misdirection.
Both Microsoft's statements and yours.
Wait...
Are you saying I can prevent a virus from getting on antivirus programs' lists?
I'm sorry to say, but it takes less.
It takes less than is necessary to download a firewall and an anti-virus program, which was something I had to do recently. Unimaginable fun.
Ballmer wants to kill Google, Gates defends its actions...
Why don't they make up their collective mind?
I, for one, would be rather worried if it were me MS was defending.
And then they could also show the information those companies have gathered...
OK, so it's quite a bit... better make it searchable...