About 1000 years ago, the English language was completely incomparable to what it is today. Grammar did not exist and certain symbols were used to represent what we call today the “alphabet.” Back then, it would have been preposterous to propose changing “ae,” which equates to the modern day “a,” to a simple “a.” The mere notion of adjusting something that functions so well would have been viewed with contempt and scoffed at. Yet, fast-forward one thousand years into the future, and here we are, equipped with a vastly different alphabet and vocabulary that resembles nothing like it did in the past. In fact, many agree that this change was actually beneficial for the English language. This is a clear example of how change was helpful for the English language and how people should embrace change. However, despite this apparent fact, we are still cynical of the impending changes that English is currently confronting. Educators are concerned about the relentless stream of sentence fragments, abbreviations and emoticons. Scholars fear of the decline in spelling, word choice, and writing complexity. All in all, they are advocating one axiom: that the grammar of English right now is impeccable and anything else is inappropriate and degrading. What makes the current type of grammar legitimate while this new form, called “textism,” is erroneous? Is it the fact that the current one is “just right” or the fact that it is because many people adhere to this current form of grammar? Humans, in nature, are naïve and capricious creatures. They all tend to follow the herd as they are under the illusion that the majority are always right. The same could be said of the situation right now. People should learn to embrace this change as it will be efficacious like it was in the past. In addition, it will also help to upgrade our language and usher in a new era, teaching many the values of sentence structure and being concise. Therefore, I believe we should welcome this change of abbreviation and computer language as it will help English and teach many adolescents and adults alike the values of English such as succinctness and syntax.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
r U "behind the grind?"
English has always been a perplexing language and will probably remain the same for coming decades due to a lack of consensus and basic understanding. What people do not comprehend is English’s dominant quality - the gift to evolve and adapt, similar to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In my opinion, the English language is ever-changing and instead of trying to keep it static, we, as humans, should ignore the innate scepticism in ourselves and learn to accept the inherent changes of the English language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, extremely diverse vocabulary you've got there ;D
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I must say that your post is very persuading in helping people change their opinions on textism. I also find it very interesting how you incorporated Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection with the theory of texting language - it is an unusual yet powerful simile. I agree that we should embrace the change like you mentioned, but I know for a fact that it will be hard. For example, a thousand years ago, "a" was known as "ae". Although the English language did change, I believe the language changed so slowly that even scholars themselves did not notice it in the past - at least there is an "a" in "ae". However, I believe that textism is receiving so much criticism worldwide due to the fact that it is such a drastic, sudden change from the English alphabet we know today. For example, "@" does not seem like a symbol associated with "a" in anyway, but in text language, people know that "@" represents an "a".
To summarize the above, I agree with you that the English language will undoubtedly evolve within the next thousand years (although nobody knows if the change will resemble textism); and as human beings, we should all embrace and adapt to the change.