u wul b lik ths!!!111lol
Sports teams will loose all their games.
[sub]That’s my pet peeve[/sub]
In other words, we’ll all be pwned!
:smack:
This is really more IMHO territory.
IMHO: much great incorporation of ebonics / hip-hop culture and references.
Simplification - use of many simple words instead of one more obscure word. (insufficient -> “not enough”. )
Dilution of language - words used less carefully. “literally” means “figuratively” :rolleyes:
oh yes, and I forgot to mention…
<mod>
Off to IMHO with you!
</mod>
That’s “All ya’ll.”.
The cop stops the car. He looks at the driver. “Ya’ll been drinkin’.”
He looks at the passengers in the back. “All y’all been drinkin’.”
Now that is is finally OK to boldly split infinitives, I’m hoping that grammarians will soon sign off on English having “disjunctive” pronouns like French does. In other words, just as in French one says “c’est moi” and not “C’est je”, it should be considered correct to say “it’s me” in English. Nobody says “It’s I” without feeling very forced. “Just you and me” or “us and them” will be judged correct, and “Just we and they” archaic or affected.
The use of “ain’t” should be legitimized as well. Heck, there ain’t no ambiguity with double negatives, neither.
On the downside, b4 i 4get, very soon u will c lots of writing lk ths, especially in advertising. Apparently a new generation of children have already begun handing in schoolwork to perplexed teachers full of AOL/text messaging shorthands like this with absolutely no idea why this is considered unacceptable. (I woNDer hoW e.e. cummings w0uld have liKeD iT?)
As for “other languages”, I have often wondered if the “one child” policy in Communist China might evfentually affect the rich vocabulary the Chinese language has in “ranking” family members by age and patrilineage/matrilineage. There are different appelations for every relation depending on whether the person is older or younger than you (or your “point of relation”), and on what side of the family the relation is. But with a “one child” policy, how long before a single term becomes used for “uncle” regardless of whether or not said uncle is older than your father?
American English will continue to absorb words from the languages spoken by immigrant groups. I’d expect to see some more words of Spanish origin enter mainstream usage; not like Spanglish where speakers drift back and forth between languages while speaking, bur more like how certain Yiddish words got absorbed in the early 20th century. The words paseomight be used by English speakers to describe a leisurely walk in a busy area; a concept that really can’t be described with a single English word. I think some Arabic might also be absorbed, but unfortunately they may be words that are related to war and aggression. I’m already seeing “jihad” is already being used to refer to a struggle, but not in the context of a holy war; "for instance “I’m on a jihad against the crabgrass on my lawn.”
I’ve been witnessing marketing-speak crossing over into everyday language, especially the word *solution *to describe … well, anything. I hope in 20 or 40 years, we won’t be calling lamps lighting solutions or pens writing solutions, but I’m already hearing regular people call computer monitors display solutions and keyboards input solutions.
There might be some more spelling simplification. Some words ending in “-ight” may be spelled with “-ite”, such as lite, brite, and rite. If this happens, it may still be several decades before fight, might and tight make the transition. Thru may become an acceptable spelling for what used to be through.
Special may evolve into a less-than-flattering term, thanks to its association with mental retardation. Kids in 2050 may jsnicker about Special K cereal just like they do with Ben Gay today.
A few more profanities may make the transition to respectability, or at least tolerance. Crap, fart and sucks were considered profane a couple of decades ago; now tney’re in the same league as hell and damn. I think asshole and shit will be the next to cross over.
I know this sort of thing gets some people’s panties in a twist, but “It’s me” has always been the grammatically correct form in English; “It’s I” is inherently ungrammatical in English and has always been, no matter what a few stick-up-their-ass types may claim. “It’s I” is based on a false equivalence with Latin, as in Latin the predicate of the copula was normally a nominative (and this wasn’t a matter of prescriptive grammar, either. It was the only usage in existence, and many of the modern Romance languages continue in the same vein, e.g. Spanish “Soy yo”. No native Spanish speaker would ever say “Soy mí”.)
English, not being Latin, does not have grammar identical to that of Latin. It has always been false to claim that “It is I” is a grammatical English sentence. Wish luck, the few misguided souls who still insist on “It is I” will give up eventually, but this will have no structural implication for English as “It is I” never entered normal English usage.
Well if’n y’all axe me this is a load of doubleplus badthink ungood twaddle.
Room 101 NOW! 
I forgot to mention–I wouldn’t be surprised if adverbs lose their distinctiveness. At least in the States, we often drop the -ly ending, as a thread pointed out a few weeks ago.
No you’re not. No, really, please, you’re not.
Doesn’t it just make you want to proactively interface with the scruff of the head-support mechanism of the person who said that, and leverage your digit/palm interface into fist-space, to facilitate a lateral tooth-removal solution?
Try reading Russell Hoban’s novel Riddley Walker, written entirely in Post-Apocalyptic English. Very well done but it makes for a tough - if rewarding - reading experience.
I’m hoping the same thing. It’s not very much, but still it’s slipping out there. In fact, not too long ago, at the supermarket, I overheard a woman talking about “meal solutions” with her male companion.
If I had to make one prediction, it would be that the spellings “rediculous” and “alterior” (rather than “ulterior”) will become standard. They’re already in common use on the Internet by people who don’t otherwise appear to be poor spellers, and I’m sure it won’t be long before they become universal. “Then” for “than” might be my third choice, but the ambiguity introduced by the new spelling is probably going to hold it at bay.
Maybe not. Consider the following:
“Could you e-mail me the link to a webpage where I can download an mp3 of that track you mentioned on your blog? I want it for my iPod; I might even burn it onto a CD for my mom.”
This is perfectly comprehensible to most people nowadays. Less than twenty years ago, it would have been gibberish.
I really, really, hope that English spelling remains the way it is. Traditional spelling is simply more beautiful than this newfangled text-message-Webster nonsense. It carries the history of the language, and helps an amateur linguist better understand the origins and sublteties of many words. Text-message spelling just looks retarded.
True – but it’s all vocabulary, not any kind of fundamental change in how the grammar works or anything.
No. The second person plural is already widely known. It’s “all y’all”.
Every Dad that has ever had to answer the question
Can tell language should be phonetic. Why not skool or skul instead of school? Nite instead of Knight and night?
Jim