# Are we old fashioned?



## Olly Buckle (Feb 20, 2012)

Researching for my recent newsletter article on dialogue I was struck by an aspect of grammar text books. They differentiated between prescriptive and descriptive grammars, one says “This is how it should be done, when it is done this other way it is wrong”, the other says “This is how it is in fact done, this is another way it is done” and provides an analysis of what is taking place. 

This becomes most obvious in a comparison of written and oral grammar, they are very largely two different animals. Take the example of the double negative, it is widely used in speech despite being proscribed by prescriptive grammar as wrong, yet how can it be wrong when both parties agree the meaning and share a full understanding. The prescriptive grammars describe the two negatives as combining to provide a positive. “He ain’t no fool”, however is perceived by neither speaker nor listener as meaning “He is not no fool, therefore he must be some fool”, rather the doubling of the negative is seen as a means of providing emphasis, we all know the speaker means the person he is speaking of is not only not a fool, but actually rather smart. 

Working on this basis the more modern grammars go further and include not only sections devoted to the grammar of speech, but also sections discussing the grammatical effects of electronic communication, that we refer to as ‘leet speak’ and discourage on the forum. 

This led me to consider whether we’re wrong to do so, if it is a valid and understood form of communication used worldwide by many millions of people it seemed we are taking the nineteenth century, prescriptive, route in discouraging it, it is, after all, a continuation of the old fashioned rebus that we all learned and admired in school, such as.

YYUR
YYUB
ICUR
YY4Me

Or

ABCD goldfish
MNO goldfish
OSAR goldfish
CDBDI’s
OSAR goldfish

Now I see that short listed for the Sunday Times EFG Private Bank Short Story Award is a tale titled “Two Bad Thumbs” by Will Cohu, which describes a seedy affair in a series of text messages.

H& it 2 Will, no XQQ’s, time we caught up M8 or what?


----------



## felix (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm not against it in principle, but I don't understand 'leet speak' and so it's no different from complaining about somebody speaking Spanish on an English speaking forum such as this. It's not bad, just unnecessary, and impedes my understanding; it's much more efficient for both parties to use well known constructs such as words, in the, yes, old fashioned manner. Just my 2 cents, IMHO, lol. xxx


----------



## squidtender (Feb 20, 2012)

In regards to writing, I don't have a problem with any of it, in fact, I've used it in my books and stories plenty of times. I encourage any writer to write in "typical" dialogue, because giving a 16 year old girl, or a 50 year old truck driver in a story, the linguistic skills of an English professor just doesn't make sense, regardless of how correct it is. The only pitfall that I see in using the "leet speak" or things of that nature, is that it could date your work as quickly as a spice girls reference.


----------



## felix (Feb 20, 2012)

squidtender said:


> In regards to writing, I don't have a problem with any of it, in fact, I've used it in my books and stories plenty of times. I encourage any writer to write in "typical" dialogue, because giving a 16 year old girl, or a 50 year old truck driver in a story, the linguistic skills of an English professor just doesn't make sense, regardless of how correct it is. The only pitfall that I see in using the "leet speak" or things of that nature, is that it could date your work as quickly as a spice girls reference.



With respect to writing, I do think that it's an issue that it's assumed by some that the 'typical' young person will ever use 'leet speak'.


----------



## dale (Feb 20, 2012)

god, please no. the entire world seems to becoming technologically superficial and shallow. do we really have to bastardize literature
in the name of "keeping up" with the machines and gadgets we use, also?


----------



## felix (Feb 20, 2012)

Why would using a new language bastardise literature or make its content more shallow? By that logic all modern literature or any written in the last millennia would be shallow and bastardised in comparison to the works of Homer.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 21, 2012)

dale said:


> god, please no. the entire world seems to becoming technologically superficial and shallow. do we really have to bastardize literature
> in the name of "keeping up" with the machines and gadgets we use, also?


Not to keep up with the gadgets, but with the language of the real people who use them. You decry the 'superficial' and 'shallow' of the modern age, yet take the name of God in vain and write it without a capital letter in a way that would have brought condemnation down on your head a few hundred years ago. The world changes, you don't have to go back to Ancient Greek to see the difference in writing, vocabulary, sentence length, grammatical structure, all these and more have changed in the last century, that is since my father was about four, two or three generations. We are a writing forum, not a historical literature forum, I am not saying we all have to adapt all the time, merely that we should accept change where and when it occurs.



> The only pitfall that I see in using the "leet speak" or things of that nature, is that it could date your work as quickly as a spice girls reference.


This, on the other hand, seems a very valid point, however, some writing is transient by it's very nature, 'Use when appropriate' is a good maxim in any writing.


----------



## dale (Feb 21, 2012)

Olly Buckle said:


> Not to keep up with the gadgets, but with the language of the real people who use them. You decry the 'superficial' and 'shallow' of the modern age, yet take the name of God in vain and write it without a capital letter in a way that would have brought condemnation down on your head a few hundred years ago. The world changes, you don't have to go back to Ancient Greek to see the difference in writing, vocabulary, sentence length, grammatical structure, all these and more have changed in the last century, that is since my father was about four, two or three generations. We are a writing forum, not a historical literature forum, I am not saying we all have to adapt all the time, merely that we should accept change where and when it occurs.
> .


it's not about "sentence structure" in language. with leet, it's more about a dehumanization of the english language. i suppose you could get away
with writing a 1st person character driven narrative in leet, if you were clever enough. but using numbers for letters is basically an antithesis of art.
people have been conditioned to interpret numbers from the left side of the brain. the side reserved for logic, non-fiction, mathematics, etc. to write
fiction in this style would render a conception of the "technical" within the mind. 
or...maybe i am simply old-fashioned. i live in a world where people spread human feces on canvass and submerge crucifixes in urine and call it "art".
so i guess in this world, diminishing the artistic integrity of written language won't mean too much. but i'll personally never see it as anything other
than the soulless garbage i associate with what has been labeled "modern art".


----------



## felix (Feb 21, 2012)

dale said:


> it's not about "sentence structure" in language. with leet, it's more about a dehumanization of the english language. i suppose you could get away
> with writing a 1st person character driven narrative in leet, if you were clever enough. but using numbers for letters is basically an antithesis of art.
> people have been conditioned to interpret numbers from the left side of the brain. the side reserved for logic, non-fiction, mathematics, etc. to write
> fiction in this style would render a conception of the "technical" within the mind.
> ...



I can't relate to this viewpoint. 

It seems that you've arbitrarily taken 'art' created at a certain point in time and deemed it worthy of being called art, subsequently making all other attempts which deviate from that unworthy. 

Numbers being the antithesis of art is most definitely ridiculous; mathematics is an art in itself, and is deeply imbedded in aestheticism, architecture, nature and works of myriad artists. (Just off the top of my head: The Golden Ratio)

Language is something utilised by human beings, a tool; its written form is merely an expression, or projection, of it. It is not the language itself. It is not for any one person to deem any form of language lesser than any other, as there is no standard by which to compare any. And setting a standard as you have done with the 'English' language is ridiculous, as the English language itself is rendered almost unrecognisable every century, and naturally changes to suit the needs of the society of the time.


----------



## dale (Feb 21, 2012)

felix said:


> I can't relate to this viewpoint.
> 
> It seems that you've arbitrarily taken 'art' created at a certain point in time and deemed it worthy of being called art, subsequently making all other attempts which deviate from that unworthy.
> 
> ...


it has little to do with "time". there is still decent writing and decent art created today. but from a physiological viewpoint, mathematics is not "art".
 at least not from the "left-brain/right-brain" standard. the only way it does have to do with "time", is that technology has become a distraction to the point where human feeling and emotion has become somewhat diminished over time. life and death are seen more as numerical statistics, in today's world.
 i mean....this is my opinion. doesn't make it necessarily "right", i suppose. but i'm not going to suffer through a narrative written in "leet" anymore than i'd suffer through a narrative written in "american ebonics". both are signs of their times, sure. but that sure as hell doesn't render it inspiring or artistic, except possibly in dialogue.


----------



## felix (Feb 21, 2012)

The point is that when you deem something 'decent', that doesn't actually mean anything. It isn't for you to say. Art is art, period. Any individual opinion of it is meaningless. 

And yes of course mathematics is an art, for it's with mathematics that reality is constructed, it's numbers and axioms which lie beneath everything. The fact that Philosophy doesn't deem is so, again, means nothing, as it's not for Philosophers to say what is or isn't worthy of being artistically orientated. And the idea that technology dims human emotion is unfounded nonsense; it's merely an advancement of our ability to manipulate the world and entertain each other. An extension of our ability to exchange ideas and information. 

I feel very much as though you've fallen afoul of thinking anything written in Old English (or perhaps that more recently written) is somehow more intrinsically artistic, which makes no sense whatsoever. Art is merely an expression of oneself, and the language with which is it written is largely irrelevant, excluding translation difficulties.


----------



## dale (Feb 21, 2012)

felix said:


> The point is that when you deem something 'decent', that doesn't actually mean anything. It isn't for you to say. Art is art, period. Any individual opinion of it is meaningless.
> 
> And yes of course mathematics is an art, for it's with mathematics that reality is constructed, it's numbers and axioms which lie beneath everything. The fact that Philosophy doesn't deem is so, again, means nothing, as it's not for Philosophers to say what is or isn't worthy of being artistically orientated. And the idea that technology dims human emotion is unfounded nonsense; it's merely an advancement of our ability to manipulate the world and entertain each other. An extension of our ability to exchange ideas and information.
> 
> I feel very much as though you've fallen afoul of thinking anything written in Old English (or perhaps that more recently written) is somehow more intrinsically artistic, which makes no sense whatsoever. Art is merely an expression of oneself, and the language with which is it written is largely irrelevant, excluding translation difficulties.



no. it's not a matter of "old english" vs. "modern english". and there has to be a standard of what's considered decency. 
"leet" is a technologically driven fad. it's a written language based on laziness. and laziness is hardly inspiring in relation
to creativity.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 21, 2012)

'Leet speak' is a method of communication which sacrifices precision and clarity for the sake of expediency.  It is adequate for its purpose, but, ultimately, limited.  It conveys no power, or beauty -- try writing the Gettysburg Address in leet speak.  You might as well try to convey a powerful message in Pig Latin.


----------



## felix (Feb 21, 2012)

dale said:


> no. it's not a matter of "old english" vs. "modern english". and there has to be a standard of what's considered decency.
> "leet" is a technologically driven fad. it's a written language based on laziness. and laziness is hardly inspiring in relation
> to creativity.



The English language is riddled with contractions, which you could argue are incredibly lazy. 

The 'ye' of Old English was a mistranslation of a Norse Thorn which stood for 'th' to save time. 

We are creatures of gluttony and laziness, and always have been.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 21, 2012)

I think authors must be given the freedom to compose as much in their accustomed mode of expression as they feel the need and I can see no logical objection to this form's use in a work of literature--fiction or poetry--where some may find it artistically evocative and some surely will not. It would be my hope that our present policy here does not preclude it's usage in this manner, similar to the way cursing is handled, especially as a characterising element. The appreciation is surely an individual matter, perhaps appropiate to mention in a critique, if you are one who makes those. It could easily, though not nesessarily, be presented in a fashion which would be incomprehensible to me personally and I see this as a major objection for a more general usage and a definite reason for a policy of prudent discouragement outside of compositions. Comprehensibility is also of course another consideration in terms of audience if that's a concern. I really don't understand the concept of literary material becoming dated, unless it posesses none of the requisite generic-human-insight that makes it art in the first place. Given that, and a modicum of continued comprehensibility, wouldn't being datable seem usually to be an asset?


----------



## squidtender (Feb 21, 2012)

First of all, greetings ppsage, from one Oregonian to another The problem that I see with literary work becoming "dated", isn't so much in the writing style or even the majority of the language, so much as the use of "fad" terms. How many readers today would get the term carpetbagger? How about asking a teenager what a dot matrix printer is? Or the novel you publish today might have a reference to a character talking into his blackberry, and in 20 years no one would know what you were talking about. These words or phrases are in no way wrong, or bad, or any such nonsense, they just might not be able to be understood 5, 10, even 15 years from now.  On a side note; Olly, great thread. This forum sometimes is a breath of fresh air, especially when working in such an intellectual blackhole like I do. Cheers!


----------



## felix (Feb 21, 2012)

The dating language argument is a good one, but many Classics are riddled with dated slang terms. 

A random example being a 'forty' used in The Grapes of Wrath, referring to a forty acre stretch of land owned by farmers (I use this only because it's a favourite of mine). People can deal with it, I think, and it doesn't impede understanding, as the meaning of words such as these can be deduced via context for the vast majority of the time.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 21, 2012)

Hi squid. Many people read Wodehouse with great enthusiasm, without a clue previous to the reading what a plus-four might possibly be. Many will learn from the reading, many will not care beyond a vague but sufficient notion. Some people (I've heard) do not care for Wodehouse. But it's essential to his writing, he would not have been able to bring his characters to life without using such terms. I would expect any educated adult citizen of the U. S. to have enough context for the term carpetbagger for it to be useful in some literature and probably many, many international English readers as well. Both precise definition and flavor are important when art is made of words and literature without flavor fails, mostly.

Edit; oops Felix snuck in first, while I composed.


----------



## felix (Feb 21, 2012)

ppsage said:


> Edit; oops Felix snuck in first, while I composed.



*Insert evil laugh and cape twirl here*

But I agree wholly.


----------



## squidtender (Feb 21, 2012)

Both great points. Squid bows to your vast literary knowledge


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 21, 2012)

> it's more about a dehumanization of the english language.


This strikes me as slightly oxymoronic, this is language as it is used by real humans, not as decreed ‘correct’ by text books.


> Language is something utilised by human beings, a tool; its written form is merely an expression, or projection, of it. It is not the language itself. It is not for any one person to deem any form of language lesser than any other, as there is no standard by which to compare any


.
The written form of the language differs considerably from the spoken form in many aspects. The form used for electronic communication in places such as this differs yet again, we have a dialogue going on here which is unique in the history of language, there is no shared physical reality, as there normally is in a conversation, so the possibilities of expression through tone, inflexion etc. are not available and we are part of a much larger group, any of whom may join any aspect of the conversation at any time, as, being in the form it is it remains available. In a real life gathering of this many people there would be many fragmented conversations occurring which would render each other inaccessible. New needs bring new forms to life, or to use the old phrase, ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’.


> And setting a standard as you have done with the 'English' language is ridiculous, as the English language itself is rendered almost unrecognisable every century, and naturally changes to suit the needs of the society of the time.


The temporal division is not the only one, Estuary English is not the same as Received Pronunciation, England does not speak using the same vocabulary or grammar as the West Indies, Australia, The United States or Wales and Scotland, neither do any of these match, yet they are all recognisably English and serve a common function in that they allow people to communicate with each other in ways that are communally understood within their user groups, if language fulfils that function it is serving it’s purpose.  


> human feeling and emotion has become somewhat diminished over time. life and death are seen more as numerical statistics, in today's world.


This I find highly contentious, I particularly call to mind an account of two seventeenth century sea captains criticising one of their fellows for being in love with his wife. In a world with little medical knowledge or skill women died frequently, one in three in childbirth alone, and he was seen as simply setting himself up for grief. Consider that a sixteen year old living inLondon would probably have witnessed a number of public executions, some of relatives, then tell me he had more ‘feelings’ than we do. No he didn’t, when life was that hard one had to be hard oneself to survive it.


> 'Leet speak' is a method of communication which sacrifices precision and clarity for the sake of expediency.


I fail to see how UR is less precise than ‘You are’ or ‘A camera connected to the computer network known as the world wide web’ is clearer than ‘A webcam’. This is only the case if the participants are previously unaware of the expressions. 


> I see this as a major objection for a more general usage and a definite reason for a policy of prudent discouragement outside of compositions.


This is not unreasonable, without comprehension any dialogue rapidly becomes a pointless monologue, however this is not confined to any one form of the language, all should be used appropriately, discovering how to do so is one of the functions of the forum.


> On a side note; Olly, great thread.


Thank you for the compliment, however, credit where it is due. It is the contributors who make or break a thread, thank you everybody for joining in and applying your minds to this.


----------



## Notquitexena (Feb 27, 2012)

ppsage said:


> I think authors must be given the freedom to compose as much in their accustomed mode of expression as they feel the need and I can see no logical objection to this form's use in a work of literature--fiction or poetry--where some may find it artistically evocative and some surely will not. It would be my hope that our present policy here does not preclude it's usage in this manner, similar to the way cursing is handled, especially as a characterising element. The appreciation is surely an individual matter, perhaps appropiate to mention in a critique, if you are one who makes those. It could easily, though not nesessarily, be presented in a fashion which would be incomprehensible to me personally and I see this as a major objection for a more general usage and a definite reason for a policy of prudent discouragement outside of compositions. Comprehensibility is also of course another consideration in terms of audience if that's a concern. I really don't understand the concept of literary material becoming dated, unless it posesses none of the requisite generic-human-insight that makes it art in the first place. Given that, and a modicum of continued comprehensibility, wouldn't being datable seem usually to be an asset?



I agree with your comments except for the last. There is nothing more jarring to me than reading a SciFi story set in "the future" in which the characters engage in activities that obviously come from the past (e.g., everyone smoking cigarettes, or casually sharing LSD highs, or the women all being weak and relegated to boring activities).


----------



## ppsage (Feb 27, 2012)

Notquitexena said:


> I agree with your comments except for the last. There is nothing more jarring to me than reading a SciFi story set in "the future" in which the characters engage in activities that obviously come from the past (e.g., everyone smoking cigarettes, or casually sharing LSD highs, or the women all being weak and relegated to boring activities).



I would submit that the jarring works probably do not possess the requisite insight to make them art in the first place. _Stranger in a Strange Land_ pretty much blows now, as far as I can see, but _A Scanner Darkly _just gets better. Despite both having titles based on scripture.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 27, 2012)

> Stranger in a Strange Land pretty much blows now, as far as I can see,


I am not quite sure if 'blows' is a positive or negative comment in this context. I first read it as positive, but the subsequent comment on the other book made me question it. It was one of the books I gave my daughter for her eighteenth birthday a couple of years back, and she seemed to still find relevance in it, though she was probably more taken by 'On the Road' and 'Catch 22'.

Spotting which activities will become dated is not easy when you are submerged in a culture, Woody Allen's 'Sleeper' is brilliant in that way, having everyone in the future smoking and eating red meat for their health.

The comments earlier keep coming back to me, i know little of the left/right sides of the brain theories, but it strikes me that 'This model 10/6d' would automatically read 'Ten shillings and sixpence to me, Mad Hatter or no, the translation is automatic. Then there is that the use of '7' for 'and' was common in Old English, as we use &. It simply does not seem true that an active mind has any problem adjusting. Similarly acronyms like Nato or Unicef have been part of the language most of my life, the way acronyms are used in 'netspeak' and 'texting' merely seems a logical extension.


----------

