Schools failing to teach English proper, like.

gigino

Too much time, money, effort is wasted on the dead and ugly and useless Irish language.

Oh, plus our teachers get too much holidays , + are paid too much.


I know teachers now swanning it around exotic hotspots, living it up in holiday homes etc.

In the UK teachers are paid half as much and do not get summer holidays until the end of July.

Seachmall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's only a good thing once subtlety and fluidity is not lost.

I think txtspeak is more about blunting the language that anything...while people might not know all the meanings, the meanings tend to very specific.

True, in terms of literature it's not exactly up to par with our current language but for daily communications (where speed is a priority) it beats it by a longshot imo. Perhaps it'll never become more than another shorthand used informally but I'd say it will be extremely common (it pretty much already is) as a standard communication (it essentially already is among teens and twenty-somethings). I think the current generations will be the only one's to have issue with it.

Dublin Writer wrote:

In which case let's ditch the language altogether and communicate via doodles.

I said it added context to, not replaced, written word.

flutterflye

Seachmall wrote: »

Disagree because you think it's less efficient? Less descriptive? Or you just don't like it?

An argument would be nice...

All of the above!

It is just so dumbed down.

Could you imagine reading a novel written in txt spk, lacking paragraphs, punctuation and grammar, but yet it has emoticons at the side?!

Instead of making use of the vast array of words at our disposal to describe anything our heart desires, you are suggesting that the use of emoticons would be more efficient and sufficient?

Seriously, get a grip!

biko

Denny M wrote: »

The people not getting the difference of "your" and "you're" or "their", "they're" and "there" always bugged me. I don't make a point of making fun of them or anything for it, it just annoys me.

I think public ridicule can be an effective tool for learning.

endabob1

Seachmall wrote: »

Disagree because you think it's less efficient? Less descriptive? Or you just don't like it?

An argument would be nice...

It's basically the lowest common denominator argument, never argue with a fool because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Seachmall

flutterflye wrote: »

All of the above!

It is just so dumbed down.

Could you imagine reading a novel written in txt spk, lacking paragraphs, punctuation and grammar, but yet it has emoticons at the side?!

Instead of making use of the vast array of words at our disposal to describe anything our heart desires, you are suggesting that the use of emoticons would be more efficient and sufficient?

Seriously, get a grip!

It is more efficient, that's not really debatable.
It is just as descriptive (it uses the same words albeit abbreviated versions) with the added factor of not being contextually ambiguous.

Those 2 things make it a better language for day-to-day use. Shorthand has been well known to be a better writing language for a long time (hence it's use for transcribing interveiws and court hearings), this is essentially the same thing but building on the English language (as oppose to creating new symbols) making it easier to learn and understand.

I'm guessing you don't like it because it's the norm amongst the "educated" not to like it. Not for rational reasons.

flutterflye

Seachmall wrote: »

It is more efficient, that's not really debatable.
It is just as descriptive (it uses the same words albeit abbreviated versions) with the added factor of not being contextually ambiguous.

Those 2 things make it a better language for day-to-day use. Shorthand has been well known to be a better writing language for a long time (hence it's use for transcribing interveiws and court hearings), this is essentially the same thing but building on the English language (as oppose to creating new symbols) making it easier to learn and understand.

I am not commenting on most of that, as it is just plain ridiculous.

But just wanted to say that using shorthand or text speak is an efficient tool to use for note taking, so long as you expand on it later when you need to use it.

It is not sufficient for decent communication on any level.

sock puppet

Seachmall wrote: »

It is more efficient, that's not really debatable.
It is just as descriptive (it uses the same words albeit abbreviated versions) with the added factor of not being contextually ambiguous.

How does spelling there, their and they're the same way remove ambiguity?

Bruthal

suitseir wrote: »

Mobile phone text messaging has a lot to do with it, and the shortening of phrases and sentences even on discussion boards!

Just a personal opinion or as one would see on discussion boards....IMO!

Id say your right, and dat dreaded text spelling.

Logical Fallacy

flutterflye wrote: »

It is not sufficient for decent communication on any level.

If not, then why is it becoming so prolific?

Normally when something is not good at it's specific task it tends to fall by the wayside.

robman60

Text speak and social networking has a lot to do with it. I'm a teenager and I feel compelled to write in text speak when communicating with peers, whatever the means of communication employed.

I swear, Junior Cert English should encourage proper speaking and proper written language. Surely this must be known before difficult texts can be understood?

As someone who just finished third year, I must say the standard of spoken language is terrible. If pupils were told that the use of the verb "to have" changes some of the irregular verbs (as in: I saw, I have seen) it would greatly improve spoken/written language.

Text speak has lowered the standard of written language too. The worst mistakes that can be regularly seen are:

1) Use of all lower case letters. Some people even use a small "i" when referring to the first person of the verb.

2) People spell "does" as "dose".


The Department needs to bring primary school education back to the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Things like Geography and History can be learned at a later date, and priority should be put on grasping the basic concepts of literacy in Primary School.

PseudoFamous

gigino wrote: »

Too much time, money, effort is wasted on the dead and ugly and useless Irish language.

I disagree, but due to you taking such a harsh stance on it, there's no point in me making points about it, as you'll simply ignore them.

gigino wrote: »

Oh, plus our teachers get too much holidays , + are paid too much.I know teachers now swanning it around exotic hotspots, living it up in holiday homes etc.

Teacher's holidays are dictated by how much time off students get. We were an agriculturally based economy right up to the 80s, so students were needed to help around the farm, etc.
Now, a reform is needed, so what do YOU suggest be done?

gigino wrote: »

In the UK teachers are paid half as much and do not get summer holidays until the end of July.

The lowest rung on the UK teaching ladder is half the wage of the highest rung of the Irish. Many teachers in London earn £60K., which is a considerable amount more than the highest wage in Ireland. Teaching holidays in England were not dictated by agriculture, as the UK has not been agriculturally based for more than a hundred years.

5starpool

Text speak is not more efficient.

It would take me 3 times as long to read a textspeak paragraph, as it would to read a correctly written paragraph.

Also, as evidenced by 'our friend' the negative equity bearing 'journalist' with the sensitive soul has shown, it's not only people entering journalism courses who haev a basic level of how to wriet, but also some of those who have been doing it for the last few years.

flutterflye

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If not, then why is it becoming so prolific?

Normally when something is not good at it's specific task it tends to fall by the wayside.

I'd take a guess and say that it is due to the ever increasing laziness of society in general, especially the boom generation.

maximoose

The main grammatical error I see on a daily basis is the apostrophe. Seems a lot of people in Ireland think that if a word is plural it needs an apostrophe before the s. I dont just mean the general public either, it's everywhere - billboards, newspapers, TV ads. Can't understand how these f*cking morons can get jobs in marketing, journalism etc with such poor basic grammar.

robman60

maximoose wrote: »

The main grammatical error I see on a daily basis is the apostrophe. Seems a lot of people in Ireland think that if a word is plural it needs an apostrophe before the s. I dont just mean the general public either, it's everywhere - billboards, newspapers, TV ads. Can't understand how these f*cking morons can get jobs in marketing, journalism etc with such poor basic grammar.

Very true. I was in a take-away a few days ago and there was a sign that said "Milk Shake's" I shed a tear.

flutterflye

maximoose wrote: »

The main grammatical error I see on a daily basis is the apostrophe. Seem's a lot of people in Ireland think that if a word is plural it need's an apostrophe before the s. I dont just mean the general public either, it's everywhere - billboard's, newspaper's, TV ad's. Can't understand how these f*cking moron's can get job's in marketing, journalism etc with such poor basic grammar.

fyp

emeraldstar

gigino wrote: »

In the UK teachers are paid half as much and do not get summer holidays until the end of July.

And are striking today.

bnt

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If not, then why is it becoming so prolific?

Normally when something is not good at it's specific task it tends to fall by the wayside.

So what you're saying is: unless you're going to use knowledge straight away, for a specific defined task, there's no reason to learn it? Remind me never to get in a car with you, if you're going to learn how to perform an emergency stop when you're heading for the side of a bus at 60mph. :eek:

You might argue that communication skills are not as "life-or-death" as driving skills, but so what? Driving is not just about getting from A to B: sometimes we like to take a car out on a track, throw it around and have some fun. If you take an advanced driving course, you don't know in advance which of those skills will be used on the track and which might be needed on the road: you learn them all.

The analogy with communication holds true: some of us think that advanced language and communication skills are worth learning for their own sake. You might never need to use half of what you learn in earnest, but you don't know which half! :cool:

Logical Fallacy

flutterflye wrote: »

I'd take a guess and say that it is due to the ever increasing laziness of society in general, especially the boom generation.

To be honest, while i am not a fan of textspk i have to say i think you are looking at it from a purely elitist point of view. You don't like it so the people who do it are lazy, this in turn makes you not lazy.

I think you are missing out on a few key issues.

One prime example would be the advancement of communication. When you are writing a letter it never really mattered how long or short the letter was, as the an extra sheet of paper would not cost more to post, however a limitation on the number of characters that constitute a SMS message would mean another charge to send more than that number...this kind of pricing of product was always going to lead to people cutting down on the number of characters used to fit more information into the communication for the same price.

I also dispute that idea that the proliferation is strictly down to increasing laziness in recent generations as similar methods would have been adopted when sending telegrams. Interesting neough though telegrams were charged per word, so people would often find longer 2 word combo's to say what they would instantly think of in short 3 world combos. So instead of "reply at once", people would say "reply immediately"... almost exactly the opposite of the current system but once again most driven by the price structure.

bnt wrote: »

So what you're saying is: unless you're going to use knowledge straight away, for a specific defined task, there's no reason to learn it? Remind me never to get in a car with you, if you're going to learn how to perform an emergency stop when you're heading for the side of a bus at 60mph. :eek:

You might argue that communication skills are not as "life-or-death" as driving skills, but so what? Driving is not just about getting from A to B: sometimes we like to take a car out on a track, throw it around and have some fun. If you take an advanced driving course, you don't know in advance which of those skills will be used on the track and which might be needed on the road: you learn them all.

The analogy with communication holds true: some of us think that advanced language and communication skills are worth learning for their own sake. You might never need to use half of what you learn in earnest, but you don't know which half! :cool:

Hmmm...I find it slightly weird that you feel the need to imply i am thinking a certain way about this subject. I don't like textspk myself and i do not use it in any form of communication. I am just taking issue with the idea that something that is not at all effective would become so commonplace. I think part of the reason for the rise of textspk is exactly that, it's effectiveness and efficiency to do what the people who use it want it to.

As a self confessed Autodidact i completely agree with you, advanced communication and language skills are definitely worth learning. I guess i just fall into the category of people who like to debate issues and go a bit deeper in my thinking and study of them than a simple dismissal because certain aspects of them do not appeal to me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

One prime example would be the advancement of communication. When you are writing a letter it never really mattered how long or short the letter was, as the an extra sheet of paper would not cost more to post.

Yeah it did... well, a long time ago

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah it did... well, a long time ago

Interesting! Any examples or info?

Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Interesting! Any examples or info?

Um... let's see...
google is throwing up a lot of different stuff but this'll do

http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/the-postal-service-in-18th-century-britain-letters-and-the-penny-post/

Bruthal

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

To be honest, while i am not a fan of textspk i have to say i think you are looking at it from a purely elitist point of view. You don't like it so the people who do it are lazy, this in turn makes you not lazy.

I think you are missing out on a few key issues.

One prime example would be the advancement of communication. When you are writing a letter it never really mattered how long or short the letter was, as the an extra sheet of paper would not cost more to post, however a limitation on the number of characters that constitute a SMS message would mean another charge to send more than that number...this kind of pricing of product was always going to lead to people cutting down on the number of characters used to fit more information into the communication for the same price.

I also dispute that idea that the proliferation is strictly down to increasing laziness in recent generations as similar methods would have been adopted when sending telegrams. Interesting neough though telegrams were charged per word, so people would often find longer 2 word combo's to say what they would instantly think of in short 3 world combos. So instead of "reply at once", people would say "reply immediately"... almost exactly the opposite of the current system but once again most driven by the price structure.

Free texting seems to eliminate that problem for most for the last fair few years though. Its down to keeping the texts shorter alright, but mainly to have to actually do less typing rather than saving money. I hate them myself. I sometimes have to read a text a few times to decipher it.

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

Um... let's see...
google is throwing up a lot of different stuff but this'll do

http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/the-postal-service-in-18th-century-britain-letters-and-the-penny-post/

Nice one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Seachmall

sock puppet wrote: »

How does spelling there, their and they're the same way remove ambiguity?

The same way it does in other shorthands, with context.

flutterflye wrote: »

But just wanted to say that using shorthand or text speak is an efficient tool to use for note taking, so long as you expand on it later when you need to use it.

It is not sufficient for decent communication on any level.

Not necessarily, some shorthand systems do remove words for efficiency but even then the context allows it to be read. Txtspk doesn't remove words (unless the writer chooses to).

5starpool wrote:

It would take me 3 times as long to read a textspeak paragraph, as it would to read a correctly written paragraph.

Only if you can't read/write it fluently. I'm pretty bad at txtspk (I never use it) but can read 1337 fluidly. If you're used to it you can read it.

robbie77730 wrote:

Its down to keeping the texts shorter alright, but mainly to have to actually do less typing rather than saving money

And because of small screens (less scrolling on mobile phones)

Logical Fallacy

robbie7730 wrote: »

Free texting seems to eliminate that problem for most for the last fair few years though. Its down to keeping the texts shorter alright, but mainly to have to actually do less typing rather than saving money. I hate them myself. I sometimes have to read a text a few times to decipher it.

When i first got a mobile SMS was free, myself and friends would send each other very long messages and have very extended conversations via the medium. I think i kind of got spoiled by that and still won't bow to text speak to shorten messages.

flutterflye

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

To be honest, while i am not a fan of textspk i have to say i think you are looking at it from a purely elitist point of view. You don't like it so the people who do it are lazy, this in turn makes you not lazy.

I think you are missing out on a few key issues.

One prime example would be the advancement of communication. When you are writing a letter it never really mattered how long or short the letter was, as the an extra sheet of paper would not cost more to post, however a limitation on the number of characters that constitute a SMS message would mean another charge to send more than that number...this kind of pricing of product was always going to lead to people cutting down on the number of characters used to fit more information into the communication for the same price.

I also dispute that idea that the proliferation is strictly down to increasing laziness in recent generations as similar methods would have been adopted when sending telegrams. Interesting neough though telegrams were charged per word, so people would often find longer 2 word combo's to say what they would instantly think of in short 3 world combos. So instead of "reply at once", people would say "reply immediately"... almost exactly the opposite of the current system but once again most driven by the price structure.

Riiiight.

Well I actually don't understand any of your points there.

If you had read my posts, you would have already seen that I am not viewing it from an elitist point of view.
I actually cannot for the life of me figure out why you would think that, or what it even has to do with anything.

I think that it is all a silly, dumbed down form of communication, that would be perfectly fine used solely in text messages, or note taking.

The reality though is that it has seeped over into everyday communications, including academic communications, and is fast becoming its own language.

This in itself would not be a bad thing, if it were of any substance.
However, it is all pure drivel.

Could you imagine reading 'War and Peace' in emoticons and txt spk?
Or going to school or college, and all of your text books written in this manner?

It takes the creativity, the symbolism, the analogies, the poetry, the degree of comprehension, the level of descriptions etc... out of communication.

Logical Fallacy

flutterflye wrote: »

Riiiight.

Well I actually don't understand any of your points there.

If you had read my posts, you would have already seen that I am not viewing it from an elitist point of view.
I actually cannot for the life of me figure out why you would think that, or what it even has to do with anything.

I think that it is all a silly, dumbed down form of communication, that would be perfectly fine used solely in text messages, or note taking.

The reality though is that it has seeped over into everyday communications, including academic communications, and is fast becoming its own language.

This in itself would not be a bad thing, if it were of any substance.
However, it is all pure drivel.

Could you imagine reading 'War and Peace' in emoticons and txt spk?
Or going to school or college, and all of your text books written in this manner?

It takes the creativity, the symbolism, the analogies, the poetry, the degree of comprehension, the level of descriptions etc... out of communication.

I don't disagree with you on any point, especially you last section...but basically what i am saying is that maybe the people who are using it, and the circumstances under which it is being used...such things are not in demand. They just want to get a quick burst of information across and thats it.

I have to say, i have yet to read a novel where it appears except maybe in irony, i have yet to read an academic paper where they used textspk in anyway. I'm not really seeing it's infiltration beyond text messaging and social media.

Bruthal

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

When i first got a mobile SMS was free, myself and friends would send each other very long messages and have very extended conversations via the medium. I think i kind of got spoiled by that and still won't bow to text speak to shorten messages.

I had one a while before any texts were free. It seems to have come about because of the huge amount of texting that started happening with free texts. Im never bothered by spelling and grammer being perfect, which is just as well with my level, but text spelling i hate. Imagine if it was allowed on this site.

I will have to get a text speak - english dictionary with some of them i get.

stevejr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see no compelling reason to be sympathetic toward these lazy students...:pac:

flutterflye

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have to say, i have yet to read a novel where it appears except maybe in irony, i have yet to read an academic paper where they used textspk in anyway. I'm not really seeing it's infiltration beyond text messaging and social media.

There are alot of teachers out there that will be able to give you a million examples of this.

I have spoken to many myself, and this is the main reason for my concern.
They detailed regular problems with essays and homework being handed up full of text speak, and poor general English skills.

the_syco

Biggins wrote: »

Sooner or later some kids will need a large dictionary to understand a basic dictionary!

Reminds me of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4SRQ42fj18

Bruthal

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I don't disagree with you on any point, especially you last section...but basically what i am saying is that maybe the people who are using it, and the circumstances under which it is being used...such things are not in demand. They just want to get a quick burst of information across and thats it.

Often though, its only saving them one or two characters in a short text. It just becomes a habit with them. And it was a method learned from other texts received. Trend followers or something.

Seachmall

flutterflye wrote: »

It takes the creativity, the symbolism, the analogies, the poetry, the degree of comprehension, the level of descriptions etc... out of communication.

Which is why the point was made earlier it wouldn't be any good for literature, no one is arguing that it would.

However for day-to-day communication it is fine, it does exactly what it needs to do and it does it better than the current method of writing (it's faster, and with two symbols can add context. It's also shorter for sites with character limits (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) and for devices with small screens).

Pherekydes

bnt wrote: »

You would expect that evolution would lead to improvements, but what we see is the opposite. When someone uses "where" instead of "were", that's not an improvement, it is just a mistake. Where there were two words, with two meanings, now there is just one word, and meaning has been lost.

Quiet!

mconigol

looksee wrote: »

You cannot communicate unless there is agreement on the meaning of words and the use of grammar. Two kiddies may be able to communicate with each other, but if they wish to communicate with anyone who does not know their personal language then they have problems.

It has become fashionable to use language as an expression of anarchy - we will speak/write anyway we wish and you can't do anything about it. In fact all that has happened is that an alternative language is evolving which it is 'cool' to use. Unfortunately it is not precise and does not permit communication on subjects other than personal relationships and interests.

The people who use it are forcing themselves into a subculture that is unable to communicate in the world of employment, education, even social and consumer rights. People who are capable of communicating in standard English but use 'cool' English on Facebook and Twitter are exacerbating the problem.

Boards is, thank goodness, making some effort to keep things literate. It would not be desirable to have grammar nazis picking on every detail so Spell Czechs is a great outlet for the grammatically picky

I don't agree that people consider it "cool" or feel that they are somehow using it as an expression of anarchy as you say. It is a means of communication that they find effective.

Look at English a couple of hundred years ago and it won't be anything like the way we speak now.

I think changes are happening now at an accelerated rate due to the widespread use of the internet and mobile communications where communication is less formal.

Before we had the internet or mobile phones (not so long ago!) I used to write letters and if I was to write the same letter now but as an email there is no way I would use the same language or formality now as I did then because it would sound ridiculous.

We're in a period of turmoil now and I reckon eventually there will be a common ground found. I'd have no problem envisaging that we are heading towards a global language in the future.

slum dog

endabob1 wrote: »

It's basically the lowest common denominator argument, never argue with a fool because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

did you come up with that one yourself or was it necessary for you to consult the wisdom website?

Logical Fallacy

flutterflye wrote: »

There are alot of teachers out there that will be able to give you a million examples of this.

I have spoken to many myself, and this is the main reason for my concern.
They detailed regular problems with essays and homework being handed up full of text speak, and poor general English skills.

That's crazy i have to say...maybe there will be an English, Irish and Text Speak option on the Leaving Cert in the future.:eek:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Seachmall

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But when these kids grow up they will be the ones marking exams and they will be more open towards txtspeak. Over time it will likely gain acceptance in formal environments and the language will adapt to it.

Right now it is a failing of the education system but evolution takes [perceived] mistakes and runs with them.

mconigol

Seachmall wrote: »

But when these kids grow up they will be the ones marking exams and they will be more open towards txtspeak. Over time it will likely gain acceptance in formal environments and formal English will adapt to it.

Exactly.

It doesn't really matter what we think. If it gains popular acceptance it will become the norm eventually no matter how much the traditionalists moan.

danslevent

I'm just after doing my Leaving Cert and English really is becoming a problem. The teacher that I had couldn't explain anything, she would just hand out sheets and we would spend the class in silence reading them. Many girls that would have got an A in the Junior Cert didn't even pass the mocks, doing better in Higher level French than English! One day the teacher attempted to have a grammar lesson but got muddled herself over where to put apostrophes. Once she wrote out notes on the blackboard straight from a book and when I asked her one of the words she wrote down she didn't know the meaning herself. Most of the people in our class had to pay for grinds and anyone who couldn't afford it were stuck with her inadequate, frustrating attempts at "teaching".

So yeah, as someone fresh from the system, unless you have your own interest in reading (which frankly, the majority don't) you aren't going to grasp grammar that well at all.

Seachmall

danslevent wrote: »

One day the teacher attempted to have a grammar lesson but got muddled herself over where to put apostrophes.

And we pay these people?!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I can't understand why mobile phones are getting the blame, because everyone my age grew up with mobile phones, yet only some use text-speak. I used to use it a bit when text messages were more expensive but now that there are free texts its obsolete, except among the lazy.

danslevent

Oh! And the title of this thread made me laugh, it is so true! EVERYONE, myself included, overuses the word like. A girl in my year that was from Tipperary finished about every third sentence with 'like'. I think it is one of the most irritating habits I have ever come across.

Seachmall

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

except among the lazy.

It's lazy in the same way driving a car is lazy. You could walk but it's the fastest way from A to B.

It's a faster way to text and requires less scrolling on small mobile screens. I don't see this as a bad thing. Kids using it in school is stupid, using it in texts is smart (although I don't use it out of habit [and some elitism]).

danslevent

Seachmall wrote: »

And we pay these people?!

I know, it is actually sickening. Sometimes in class I would just thunk of all the enthusiastic, young teachers that can't find work while that useless hag still mopes into work every day doing her job terribly but completely secure. It has struck me that teaching is the only profession where it is okay to be bad at your job, if you worked in an office with the same level of mistakes and incapability, you would surely be fired.