Can't see many of the more vociferous self-appointed guardians of the language being happy with this.

http://www.theage.com.au/world...o-20100102-lmic.html

Does anybody know where there is a transcript of what David Crystal actually said?

You might just ask Professor Crystal. He has his email address listed on his website (link).

Good idea. I've emailed hm. It wold be interesting to find out how accurately the article reflects his conference speech.

Oh, dear, thr go spllng beez.

Of course, what Crystal addresses is something that Webster addressed in American English spelling. In the article, which originates in the UK, "spelt" is used; in the USA, it's "spelled." a bit retrograde for the US, since "spelt" is pronounced as it's spelt! However, "spelt" is also a type of grain, whereas "spelled" is not.

As for "thx" for "thanks," I'm not sure it'll catch on. "Thx" soulds like someone with a lisp saying, "sucks" to me. Somehow I don't see text talk replacing legalese any time soon.

We're going to dispel with orthography?

I was tempted to suggest "plagiography," but, alas, someone has already used the term to describe a backwards pantograph, which, as we all know, is either a device for duplicating knickers or a synonym for a spirometer.

Well that was quick. Professor Crystal has responded already. The gist of his reply is that it was a spontaneous after dinner speech, that it dealt primarily with ELT and only touched briefly on spelling, that while the "rhubarb" example is his, some of the others are not and that he personally doubts whether internet spellings will have any great long term effect on spelling.

He also pointed me to the original article in the Daily Telegraph which contains this sentence.

quote:

Prof Crystal, a pioneer of language theory who is now Honorary Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wales, Bangor, said that many traditional spellings beared no relation to meaning or pronunciation.

beared?

Let's see, to review my English: Today I bear; yesterday I bore; and many times I have borne.

I don't know if Professor Crystal actually said this or not, but I disagree with it if he did:

quote:

Professor Crystal said that before the internet, nobody could write something in print without an editor or a proofreader checking it.

If you think about it, email, chatting, IMs, and texting are all similar to letters, notes or postcards that we used write. No one edited them. Further, Blogs or facebooks, or some such, are similar to newsletters or other non-edited publications we used to write.

I think the point he is trying to make is that, before the internet, items written for mass public consumption - books, magazines, newspapers and the like - would usually be proofed before publication.

One thing that he also implied is another effect that computerisation has had on the accuracy of publications. Prior to the development of word-processors and their spelling and grammar check facilities, most written items would be proofed by a human being - indeed, my friend Stewart is a professional proof-reader. But as he can confirm, and as our own experience tells us, human proof-reading is no longer an invariable part of publishing; instead many authors now rely on computers to do their proofing.

Grammatical and other solecisms are now far more common than they used to be, even in quality publications (of which The Daily Telegraph is one). Thus "it's" instead of "its", "your" instead of "you're" and "who's" instead of "whose" frequently make it into print, simply because computerised systems will accept all of these spelling as correct and will not usually be able to check context. Having said which, even the least sophisticated computerised spell-checker should have picked up "beared", since it is difficult to conceive of any context in which it would make sense - even allowing for the fact that there are no English nouns that cannot be verbed

Apparently much of the article was an invention of the journalist, including those examples of email/text spellings which were not part of Professor Crystal's remarks.

thx

At my last two jobs, because of the distributed nature of my co-workers, we have all of us used IRC and IM to keep in touch. So a lot of txt abbreviations have crept into my normal written vocabulary. (Not that I would use them in formal writing or even emails, but in chatting I see nothing wrong with them. Examples: thx for 'thanks', yw for 'you're welcome', k for 'okay', ttyl for 'talk to you later' (though as some of my co-workers are Francophones, I use a+ for 'à plus tard' or ttyl).

It is interesting that in Rome, a whole slew of abbreviations were used in monumental inscriptions (I blogged about that [url=]here[/url].) And, in the Middle Ages monks devised all sorts of abbreviations as they copied out MSS by hand to save on time and paper. Some of these abbreviations trace back to Tironian notes (link), which was a kind of shorthand (tachygraphy) devised by a slave of Cicero's named Tiro. One of these Tironian notes, i.e., Tironian et has made it all the way into Unicode {U-204A, {⁊}).

[Fixed typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
As for "thx" for "thanks," I'm not sure it'll catch on. "Thx" soulds like someone with a lisp saying, "sucks" to me.

To be honest this sounds like a strange complaint, because of course no one says anything like "sucks" with a lisp instead of "thanks". We say /θæŋks/. Sometimes we write it "thx", which is just an abbreviation, and makes as much sense as spelling "mister" as "Mr" or "missus" as "Mrs" in my opinion.

By the way, I found this complaint about "thanks" in the OED:

quote:

1866 E. FITZGERALD More Lett. (1901) 82 Don't you dislike the way some People have of saying perpetually ‘Thanks!’ instead of ‘Thank you’?.. It is like cutting Acknowledgment as short as possible... Thanks [is] about one of the most hideous monosyllables, even in the English Language.

Thanks [is] about one of the most hideous monosyllables, even in the English Language.

LLOLFS.

[Fixed error of omission.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

I don't understand "LLOFS."

Goofy, if my complaint sounds strange, consider the source. It's no stranger than Toyota writing, "TRD" on the back end of their pickups. I don't know how you say it, but it's "turd" to me!

I don't understand "LLOFS."

Dagnabbit! I left out an important letter, L. I've fixed that error in the post.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
I don't understand "LLOFS."

Dagnabbit! I left out an important letter, L. I've fixed that error in the post.

I still don't know what the initialism means.

In passing I would remark that I have noticed that people often spend far more time explaining what their acronyms and initialisms mean then they would have spent in writing the phrase out in full.

I recall one posting on a travel site where a subscriber referred to his operating a "DMS". Although I have spent my working life in travel that was a bit of jargon that I didn't know so I wrote and asked what it meant and pointing out that Acronym Finder returned 141 meanings. Rather than simply translating it, the contributor lambasted me for not knowing what it was, telling me that I couldn't be much good at my job if I didn't know. His long and repeated refusals must have taken him ages to write whereas had he simply written the "DMS" meant, in his jargon "Destination Management System".

A destination management system is a system that consolidates and distributes a comprehensive range of tourism products through a variety of channels and platforms, generally catering for a specific region, and supporting the activities of a destination management organisation (DMO) within that region. Why didn't he just say so?

quote:

LLOLFS

I'm with Richard on this one. Acronym Finder gives no matches.

quote:

quote:
LLOLFS

I'm with Richard on this one. Acronym Finder gives no matches.

Lavish Loofahs On Labial Fun Sites.

quote:

It's no stranger than Toyota writing, "TRD" on the back end of their pickups. I don't know how you say it, but it's "turd" to me!

That reminds me of my roommate's first car. Her license plates came, and they read, "FK 18." She was really irritated at first, but she soon warmed up to it. Indeed, she never forgot it like most of us do and she received a lot of attention from because of those plates. In 4 years, when the state of Wisconsin sent her new and improved plates (Illinois is much cheaper and only gives you a sticker upon renewal), the state figured it all out and gave her a different, less controversial ( ) message. My roommate was not pleased!

quote:

It's no stranger than Toyota writing, "TRD" on the back end of their pickups.

They write "TOYOTA" in large letters on the back of all those I've seen. Any clues what it might stand for?

LLOLFS

I was sure I had expanded this acronym (yes, I can pronounce it, but I do use a few epenthetic schwas) once before, but here goes (hide your eyes ye who wish not to know what it means): Literally Laughing Out Loud, Figuratively Speaking.

Oy!!!

Here's a few TOYOTA acronyms I found, arnie:

Too Often Yankees Overprice This Auto
Torturous On Your Old Tired Ass
Take Only Your Ordure To America
Taking Our Yen Out - Thanks All
The One You Ought To Avoid
To Operate Your Own Terrific Automobil…
Too Often Yanks Overprice This Auto

There are a lot of "L" Internet acronyms here, but not z's. I'm just it wasn't LMTFA.