|
Post by Gabriel-Ernest on Jun 28, 2008 14:22:09 GMT
I have noticed that some posters on this site occasionally employ the initial letters of words to indicate an often used phrase; and I understand that this is much more usual on other boards and has, in fact, become commonplace. The best known is probably lol. Each time I see this I immediately translate it to mean lot of laughs, even though, in the next second, I know that is incorrect. Does it mean “laugh out loud” (an instruction) or “laughed out loud” (what the person did)? Either way, whatever the sentence was that preceded it hardly every seems to justify it. It seems to be the modern equivalent of three exclamation marks.
Another example I have seen (as might be in the sentence): “Imnsho the use of an adjective . . . &c.”. This, to my mind, could be rendered as “I think the use of an adjective . . . &c.”. Clearer, I believe, and only two key strokes longer. I am assuming that the saving of key strokes is the ostensible reason for their use. However, not being au fait with these various initialisations I tend to ignore them. And do you know what? I haven’t found it makes any difference to my understanding or appreciation of the sentences involved. I would suggest that rather than being an answer to a problem (i.e. saving key strokes) they are merely a modern ostentation.
This is not a plea for them to be excised (I would not dream of censoring or limiting other people’s posts) but I would be interested on other people’s ‘take’ on the subject. Also the odd appearance of hy-phens in the middle of words that don’t require them.
G-E.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Jun 28, 2008 15:17:01 GMT
Indeed they are. But then, 'ostentations' in language have always been with us. These initialisms started off being abbreviations (lol - laughs out loud; imnsho - in my not-so-humble opinion), or short ways of putting someone down (rtfm - read the f**k**g manual); they're also a quite interesting addition to language, as many of them describe, as a brief aside, what the writer is feeling when s/he writes. They have, thus, become part of the ethos of electronic communication, along with emoticons (which fulfil a similar need to express the 'tone of voice' when writing). One might posit a similar transition for the sorts of words that RAF pilots used - wingco, gone for a burton, clobber, prang and so on; they started off as jargon - in-jokes, if you will - which typified a certain type of person, and leaked into the general parlance.
I have no problem with them, and they can be quite useful (and save key strokes) - albeit that they can lead to a certain formulaic way of communicating.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 28, 2008 17:24:34 GMT
I deprecate them on this site, although I use them myself on other sites and on msn.
Their purpose is as an aid to communication: here they fail that test as so many readers would not understand them.
To use them here would show a lack of understanding of, or consideration for, most members. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jun 28, 2008 17:25:14 GMT
Barry sums the point up very well. I use "lol" etc. as well as and etc. to communicate my "tone-of-voice" at the time of posting. I spend a large amount of time (as I work away from home and friends) communicating through MSN messenger, and forums (Google me, you'll find some disastrous spelling and grammar!). I have often had people take my message, or post, completely the wrong way. I have seen each of you do this with one another on this board! With a smile, or a "lol" the post is made friendlier. I hope this clears it up. I dunno G-E . You're such a big girl sometimes, lol. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 28, 2008 17:36:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 28, 2008 17:37:10 GMT
Barry sums the point up very well. I use "lol" etc. as well as and etc. to communicate my "tone-of-voice" at the time of posting. I spend a large amount of time (as I work away from home and friends) communicating through MSN messenger, and forums (Google me, you'll find some disastrous spelling and grammar!). I have often had people take my message, or post, completely the wrong way. I have seen each of you do this with one another on this board! With a smile, or a "lol" the post is made friendlier. I hope this clears it up. I dunno G-E . You're such a big girl sometimes, lol. ;D I think it is absolutely clear that these initialisms and emoticons have developed to give email and SMS the 'body language' they otherwise lack. It's bad enough being misunderstood on posts here but at work it can be disastrous. I see them as far more than mere ostentaion (although excessive or unnecessary use might be ostentatious, too).
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 28, 2008 17:40:15 GMT
Hy-phens in the middle of words is usually a sign that something has been cut-and-pasted from somewhere else. The hyphen was a line-break hyphen on the original, but when pasted elsewhere the different line-length makes it look odd.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 28, 2008 17:58:01 GMT
I find the initialisms in question a pain in the arse. They're entirely unnecessary, I don't understand most of them, and I wish they'd all die a painful death.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 28, 2008 18:13:15 GMT
I find the initialisms in question a pain in the arse. They're entirely unnecessary, I don't understand most of them, and I wish they'd all die a painful death. No "lol" in there, then, Twod?
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 28, 2008 19:09:19 GMT
I find the initialisms in question a pain in the arse. They're entirely unnecessary, I don't understand most of them, and I wish they'd all die a painful death. No "lol" in there, then, Twod? I'm afraid not; only a "pita".
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jun 28, 2008 19:15:32 GMT
>I'm afraid not; only a "pita".
I think we can all work that one out. ROFL
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 28, 2008 20:51:56 GMT
>I find the initialisms in question a pain in the arse. They're entirely unnecessary, I don't understand most of them, and I wish they'd all die a painful death.<
I'm with you, there.
(Or, IWY, there. For those that like the bloody daft things!)
They are far, far too open to misinterpretation.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 29, 2008 1:33:26 GMT
>I'm afraid not; only a "pita". I think we can all work that one out. ROFL There is a (probably apocryphal) story about a group company called PITA Ltd - it was only there for some kind of regulatory purpose and no one really wanted it, but it had to be there to make the structure work! Its name didn't apparently go down well with the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 29, 2008 2:15:11 GMT
I find the initialisms in question a pain in the arse. They're entirely unnecessary, I don't understand most of them, and I wish they'd all die a painful death. Agreed. And nice use of the serial comma, Twoddle!
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 29, 2008 8:19:57 GMT
I find the initialisms in question a pain in the arse. They're entirely unnecessary, I don't understand most of them, and I wish they'd all die a painful death. Agreed. And nice use of the serial comma, Twoddle! Thanks, Dave. I like to give it an outing from time to time, just to show I'm a free spirit.
|
|