haha, i love it, mattface.

schiek, no problem. i'll buy you drinks next time i'm in dc.

you're not annoying, just naive.

in what way am i naive, might i ask? just curious.

People who toss around racial slurs tend not to be.

cheers.

well, i think that you're (not just you, but the OP and many others, too) *expressed* view of language on this thread (and maybe what follows is redundant) lacks acknowledgement of the actual *use* of language, especially on the internet. parole rather than langue, if you will. internet "writing" is not a reflection of a formal "code" of language (langue). it's language in situ (parole), which then might be used to construct new "codes." that's the way language works. i see the forums like this one as contexts for "speech" rather than "writing," but that's just me. why "argue" that people "suck" and that they should go back to school for "using" the "incorrect" form of "you're"? are you joking?

anyway, as much as you migh disdain it, AOL speak is a condenses example of language change. "codes" were created from the iterative "use" of language. AAVE is another example. you should check out some of william labov's or lesley milroy's work on language change and use.

k...

Slow on the uptake but here's my beef.

can not - has the option to choose not to
cannot - unable to
can't - cannot as a contraction

Example: You can't/cannot spell slaughter without laughter

i actually agree with you for the most part. i was largely being overly inflammatory in my above commentaries. that's just what i do. in any case, however, the particular areas that trouble me are those where a person's choice of words, in writing, misrepresents the meaning that they want to convey. there seems to be a difference between the use of things like different verb forms and metaphorical redefinition of terms (like in aave or any spoken language) and plain and simple mistakes like using possessives in place of contractions, and so forth. there is really no way that such things do anything other than obfuscate intention and meaning. to a large degree, i hate being normative about language use (where does one cross the boundary between prescribing grammar, and proscribing certain things as indecent?), but i cannot help but be annoyed when people don't write what they mean. language certainly changes and evolves, but to a large degree, it needs to be codified and standardized (even if not formally) in order for there to be communication beyond the level of that seen in pidgin languages and the like.

anyone who has ever heard me speak at any length can attest to the fact that i use strange expressions and have notable idiosyncrasies in my speech. i am all about that.

thanks for intentionally making the mistake of "you're" instead of "your." you win.

I'd like to thank my parents, God and Ayn Rand.

thanks for the thoughtful response. i agree with most of what you say, too.

just wanted to address this point, though. i take much internet "writing" to be a form of "speech," in that "writing" on the net has been opened up to many people who don't "write" in other media. therefore, i don't think it's useful to criticize "intent to write," for the most part, on the net because of the (in my view, beneficial) similarities between verbal speech and internet speech. imagine a person who cannot read or write "using" the sound grouping /brAk/ in an utterance. what do they "mean" by that sound grouping? break or brake? well, you'd have to know the context of the use, for one. but even then, they don't "mean" either one, because to them there is no orthographic correspondance between /brAk/ and, well, anything. it's an example that i think is relevant when thinking about the "rules" of internet "speaking," as you can't assume that people "mean" something by what they say/write. there might not be a difference to them either way.

of course i might just be pulling this out of my ass, but...

Yo, where the **** is Noam Chomsky at!!?? Get that guy on a fixed gear and into this socio-linguistic **** going down right here!!

nah, let's get steven pinker instead...

this is my favorite thread going right now. not to mention, i'm also learning a thing or two from those geekier than i.

i think that, perhaps, the disagreement (if there is one) between us is on this point. or, rather, my reason for getting "bent out of shape" about incorrect usage is that i still tend to consider (or, maybe, prefer) message boards and other written internet communication to be more on the side of writing than speech. even if semi-realtime, the person writing has enough of an abstraction from the other person to be able to construct her statements more precisely and attentive to the grammatical rules and semantic particularities than if she were talking face-to-face. it is notable that AIM chat and such are where you see the most reduction and change -- i'm thinking "u" for "you," an increased use of abbreviations and initialisms, etc. if i had to make a hierarchy of internet communication it would have office e-mail at the top (most formal. most like writing), and AIM banter at the bottom. message boards like this fall somewhere in between, and it is purely a judgment call (or a matter of the particular climate on whatever forum) as to what standard of writing should be maintained.

just a corollary point: i definitely concede that this is one way that people learn to recognize sounds, especially homophones, as having different meanings. writing still uses context to determine meaning (obviously, as in the case of homographs), but it has the extra tool of spelling and particular grammatical structures (think the subjunctive mood... more in latin languages than english, but yeah) to solidify and make the intended meaning less ambiguous. your example, indeed, imagines that we have someone who cannot read or write. this message board does not assume that. i think everyone here has the equivalent of an elementary or junior high education. anyhow, good chat. my friends don't like to chat about linguistics and such.

i agree with shants there. in person, i have a lot more idiosyncracies in speech and a definite trace of a midwestern upbringing in the way i talk as well as the way i construct some of my sentences. while my gripes with a lot of grammar mistakes is merely aesthetic, i do agree that the internet isn't the same as simply talking. i have the option of reviewing what i write before i put it up. sometimes i don't, and there's an egregious error out there on the internet. typos and all--this (plus that annoying AIM talk, omg!) shouldn't constitute a different grammatical context or whatnot. it's not quite the same as the use of a language changing over time as it's prone to do (and as is the basis for most linguistic studies). i don't think of internet writing as a form of speech because of the semi-real time, reviewable nature of much of what is put on the internet, not to mention that it differs so drastically in its nature from speech in that this system of writing consists so much of errors which would not be detected in face to face speech. it's writing, and perhaps much less formal than, say, a research paper, but it's writing nonetheless.

I, uh.

I can't read or write.

It's not grammar, but emoticons/smilies make me want to puncture my eyes with safety pins.

i don't really take this too seriously. i often type the way i talk, which is pretty informal. but i want to be able to understand what's being said, and yes, some little things that aren't absolutely essential to understanding, because we all know what the poster meant anyway (*deep breath*) do bug the hell out of me.

but i think it's interesting...while my interest as an english major has less to do with caring about grammar and more to do with caring about literature and all the good things that go along with that, i still enjoy discussion such as this for education. i don't take it too seriously, though...to me it's more important that the language be pleasing and enlightening than rigidly correct. however, that's the intent of many english rules anyway, so the two things do tie together.

Um, what does all this have to do with single speed or fixed gear bikes?

(Runs and hides)

I feel that typing the way one talks is fine. Sometimes I shift into (both written and spoken) intentionially provincial or Yoda-esque styles. The intentionality, however, is generally pretty obvious.

I think we all agree, however, that the misuse of homonyms is never excusable.

for the homonymphobes on the board:

http://www.cooper.com/alan/homonym_list.html

Too many liberal arts majors in here!

/\ as if that wasn't already evidenced by the number of emo blogs linked in sigs