You knew this was going to happen, right? Hopefully, it won't mean I come back in a few years with three more posts that grossly disappoint everyone.
The reason for yet another grammar article was - you guessed it - another embarrassing gaff on my part. As before, I believe it illustrates another interesting point in modern grammar; the effect technology is having on grammar and the language and the gradual shift towards fulfilling George Orwell's prediction of Newspeak.
In Grammar Wars, I looked at how the priorities of grammar can change in different genres or platforms. Then, in Grammar Wars II, I discussed the traps and issues involved in editing and proofreading your own work. This time, I'm looking at those times where proofreading and editing don't even come into play.
Putting the Twit in Twitter
You may be astounded to know that I received third prize in Smithereens Blog's recent 'Putting the Wit in Twitter' competition. Sadly, the additional publicity caused me great embarrassment as a basic grammatical gaff was held up for every other online writer to see and chuckle. In a nutshell, the task was to produce something original and witty, within the 140 character limit of Twitter. (**cough** follow me...)
There was a Twitter from Nantucket
Who's tweets could never quite cut it
He'd try to be brief
Causing some grief
But ran out of letters.Oh F"
I've previously admitted to my Achilles heel with the possessive form of it. Of course, it is not the only irregular possessive, with 'who' also coming in for special mention. Bang - there it is. Instead of using the correct possessive construction 'whose', I made the common schoolboy mistake.
Daniel defended my mistake admirably on his blog, assuring his loyal readers that such a mistake could only be a typo and not an illustration of ignorance, and this much is true. But does that excuse typos? Are typos just as damaging to a piece of writing than basic grammatical errors and is there really a distinction between them?
Really, there is no excuse either way. A writer proofreads and edits to catch such mistakes. We all make them - not a single writer can work without making mistakes and typos that have to be caught in the proofreading stage. But what if proofreading and editing isn't part of the process?
Technology versus Grammar
My daughter sends me phone text messages. A lot. Being sixteen, SMS is her preferred form of communication, it seems, and as a result I am frequently presented with short messages that bear little relation to Standard English.
Whereas we may bemoan the destruction of the language through text messaging, online we commit many of the same sins every day, even if they are only unintended typos. Twitter is a fantastic example of an environment where grammar takes a back seat to brevity and the normal checks and balances don't apply.
Twitter, SMS, instant messaging, even to a certain extent blog comments and forum posts, all are ephemeral and instantaneous forms of writing. The idea is transmitted to the world in seconds as we use the fewest number of characters to create the message and hit enter before there has been any chance to review and correct. These messages are not written to serve the language but for more basic reasons.
"Pick up milk on way home." "Kimota is having cheese toasties for lunch." "Wow, your post is really rad." Hemingway they'll never be, but this form of writing is not intended to last the ages. They're not even intended to last the lunch break. They last no longer than it takes the recipient to process and forget. Messaging is an instantaneous event from thought to publication, skipping entirely the steps of composition, drafting, proofreading and editing that slowed the communication of ideas so much for our ancestors dealing with pen and paper.
When typing a message into Twitter, I find myself conditioned to bash keys and hit submit in a quick, single thought. Rarely do I stare and craft a tweet, with my mouse hovering impatiently over the submit button.
Orwell's Newspeak Prediction Fulfilled?
The new technologies are side-stepping our internal editors, encouraging us to 'publish and be damned' as quickly and with as few characters as possible. This has led to the development of new sub-languages, based around convenient abbreviations. Lol, rofl, bbs, and the irritating habit of dropping vowels to shorten words have become so common place that it would not surprise me if over time we don't see the development of an entirely new form of communication, with a different grammar. Just as Pidgin English was developed by traders and merchants to cross the language barriers in centuries past, a compromise borne out of necessity, Newspeak (as Orwell would call it) seeks to adapt the language to fit our new technological world.
Maybe Orwell was closer in his predictions than some would think. Newspeak, suggested in 1984, involved the systematic eradication and reduction of words to simplify the language into the most basic and simplistic of forms. Although the new language and grammatical shifts brought on by modern technology are unlikely to result in words being banned, there is certainly a strong possibility that Newspeak could become the new Pidgin, enabling more convenient communication with less reliance on grammar and conforming to the tendencies displayed in online language.
What do you think? Double-plus good or double-plus not good?
