Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 34 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 2104 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Brits place blame on emojis for ruining English language

Lisa Miles
An article on the E&T Magazine website states that a study has found that most British adults believe the English language is in decline, with many believing that emojis should take some of the blame.


Personally, I think the English language constantly 'evolves' over time....


I remember the furore when texting became the norm and many people started using 'text speak' in their everyday communitication. However, over the past few years, with autocorrect and predictive text becoming much more sophisticated, it's actually much harder and more time consuming to type 'text speak' into your phone nowadays.


There will always be those that aren't able to spell as well as others, and emojis will always have an appropriate place in communication, but I don't think we need to worry too much about the decline of the English language...


Or do we? wink
  • 0

    Andrew F Wilson:



    ...but more often there will be a style-guide to over-rule a writer's preference


    Another point you don't want to get my wife started on - the amount of times recently she's been saying to clients "where's your style guide???" Or, even worse, finds a style guide written by someone who is keen on formats for web marketing, but doesn't understand grammar. As you can imagine she often ends up offering to write one for them!


    It seems like the days of style guides - even for publishers - are going. Not too bad when she's working on a single author book, as she ends up deciding her own rules if no-one else will, but a pain for journals, magazines and for those marketing materials that need consitency.


    Must admit I mised the MP / minister point, (I'm supposed to be doing other things than posting on forums smiley ) but I still liked that example.


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0
    Interesting thought from this - given, again, that engineers tend now to write their own reports that go to customers - how many of us work for companies that have a style guide for engineers? I've never seen one at any of my employers.


    Cheers, Andy
  • 0
    Andy,

    I've worked with company style guides, but they only provide advice on what font, colour, etc. to use, with occasionally reference to spelling (ise/ize) but never the use of apostrophes.

    I thought your second link was interesting (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55970/plurals-of-acronyms-letters-numbers-use-an-apostrophe-or-not) as shows an example of the saying 'the exception proves the rule' which has been completely misunderstood. That is to say, the extract from Webster's provides examples of where it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to indicate a plural, and these exceptions show that the general rule (not stated) is that you don't use an apostrophe to indicate a plural (i.e. these are the exceptions to the general rule), but the correspondent has read this and not appreciated that point.

    I would therefore agree with your pragmatic approach of only using an apostrophe where there is a risk of a misunderstanding and no chance of my wife seeing it.

    Alasdair

  • 0
    "I would therefore agree with your pragmatic approach of only using an apostrophe where there is a risk of a misunderstanding and no chance of my wife seeing it."


    Thank you, that has made my Friday. Classic.


    All the best


    David
  • 0
    George Bernard Shaw called them "uncouth bacilli"

    'cheeky'
  • 0
    Saw this in New Scientist last week and Tom Gauld has put it on his Twitter feed. It changes from week-to-week but I'll email Tom Gauld and see if it possible to post the cartoon here.


    It is classic!


    B/R, David

    https://twitter.com/tomgauld?lang=en




  • 0

    Alasdair Anderson:

    I agree with you both that the language is dynamic.However for centuries there was a brake put on the change by the continued use of Elizabethan/Jacobean English through the use of the King James Bible in churches and the study of Shakespeare in schools (both of which I am old enough to have experienced in church/school). However with the use of modern translations of the bible and the move away from studying Shakespeare, the language is evolving faster now than previously so the change is becoming noticeable within an individuals lifetime.

    If you really want to know how quickly language can change, try comparing English from the time of the Norman Conquest (e.g. the Domesday Book, about 1086 I think) to English from Chaucer such as the Canterbury Tales (about 1385) and they appear to be two different languages (and are considered as such, being Old English or Anglo Saxon for the former and Middle English for the latter), even though they are only three hundred years apart. As a comparison, go back three hundred years from today and you can read the language with little difficulty. Try Robinson Crusoe, published 299 years ago next week!


    Apologies - just checked and the Domesday book was Latin. Try Beowulf, published about 50 years earlier.....


    Alasdair




    Chaucer's Middle English was representative of English at the time in comparison to the highfalutin style of Shakespeare's plays which the common folk at the time would have had more difficulty comprehending than most kids of today. Shakespeare may well have pushed the pen but I don't believe he thought up the plays although he could have written the poems which are in a completely different style.


    English is a Germanic Romance hybrid language but before the Norman Conquest it was pure Germanic. Although English is officially a west Germanic language it is technically a north Germanic language as a result of Viking influence. It's closest living relative (factoring out dialects) is Norwegian.


    American English is actually closer to British English of the 18th century than modern British English is as a result of changes which took place in Britain during the early 19th century.  


  • 0
    While we're on the subject of Shakespeare, I didn't realise just how many everyday phrases can be attributed to his works! surprise


  • 0
    I didn't realise either Lisa,

     

    "A pint of Stella please mate". Falstaff (Henry IV, part 1: Act III, Scene iii).


    We owe the Bard much!


    Cheers


    David


     


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I like emojis. I think in an informal setting they can really enhance the message. They act as intensifiers and can remove ambiguity.


    I'm a bit torn on the matter of "correct" English. I find myself extremely annoyed by people who like, say "like", like every five words or something like that.


    I also utterly despise the misuse of "literally". If you are "literally dying for a cup of tea" then I admire the lengths you would go to for tea, but I doubt it'll come to that. And if you are "literally on fire" then I suggest contacting the emergency services instead of tweeting about it wink


    That said, it's demonstrably true that language has always evolved, so we should expect it to continue to do so. I suppose if you understood it then it's valid. Anyone who's ever read Hubert Selby Jr will sympathise - his grammar is horrible but his story telling is magnificent and you just find yourself not caring.

Community Rules & Guidelines