Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
This post is not for those who like light and easy fare. Just to let you know.
I've observed a discussion here on the use of "fs" and how, in that use, you might either right "an fs" or "a fs" depending on how you internally hear "fs." In my discussion of that phenomenon I noted that a person may let "fs" (heard as 'eff-ess') and thus would say "an eff-ess" -- a grammatically correct construction. On the other hand, "fs" may serve as a metonym and in the internal recitation the person may expand it and say, to themselves, "fellowship," in which case the construction "a fs" would be internally grammatically correct. These kinds of grammatical arguments are, thus, part of the continual evolution of language and are interesting because in many cases there is no "right" answer.
Another example of this phenomena is the use of "wtf." If you take these letters as a metonyms representing the words, and you internally expand the abbreviation to the actual words, the user of the letters has, in effect, written the words out for you. Since most forums and chat rooms that include under-aged participants do not allow the "f-word" it is probably not a good idea to use the abbreviation. However -- it may be that the "wtf" has also become a word of it's own. Many abbreviations eventually come to represent the idea the initial phrase they represent meant directly. In other words, just as "fs" may go directly in you mind to the concept of fellowship, guild, alliance, etc..., so to "wtf" may go directly to the sense of mild irritant also represented by the words for which the abbreviation has stood and still stands in some minds.
Now all of this is simply an introduction to a subject of language use by forum posters and chat users.
As noted, language is constantly changing -- but changing at different rates for different people. As noted, some see what are essentially metonyms and expand them internally to the whole, while to others the metonym is the concept itself and no need for expansion is necessary. This might lead to problems for anyone who cares about the people to whom he or she is speaking or writing.
First, the minor problem is that of grammar. As noted, sometimes the expansion or lack thereof causes grammatical tension. The reader may be jarred by "an fs" or "a fs" exactly because he or she is not or is expanding "fs" to its form. Treating it as either a direct noun or a metonym changes the grammar. But this is minor.
Second, a more important problem is represented by "wtf." I assume you all know for what it functions as a metonym. You can expand the letters and hear, if you wish, the words for which they stand. Those words are neither "bad," nor "good," but just sounds that represent in society two things.
The first is a sign of frustration, irritation, disbelief and the like. A bit of anger perhaps, even. The "f-word," in particular, is used for a wide range of things, and is a verb, noun, pronoun, adjective, and adverb as well. In fact, it has become a general purpose word you throw in whenever you wish to emphasize something or maximize the impact of something.
The second is that the word s generally considered an "adult" word and like many other words, a child using it would be unusual and even subject to correction. This is why it is not allowed in forums and chat when there is a good expectation of young people being present. It is also why it is not used in formal speech. All of which brings up the use of adult language.
Most of us want to be effective communicators. We wish for those reading our words to understand the nuances of what we think and feel and most of the time (thought not all as politicians know) it pays to be clear. Kenneth Burke discusses this in one of favorite books, "The Rhetoric of Motive" and notes that you persuade a person in so far as you get him or her to see you as allied with them. To do that -- Burke uses the term 'identify' with them -- you speak like them, dress like them, and in general mirror their attitudes and style. This is Aristotle's "ethos" form of persuasion, a form he called "the most powerful" kind of rhetoric. (He also said it should not be relied upon because it was like warping a ruler and then relying on it's measurements. Nevertheless, Aristotle's condemnation aside, it is effective. Which means, in short, you adopt your language for your audience. Any person having lived more than a few years understands this. Even children alter their language in different situations. It's part of human nature.
But of course, the problem for a person in a forum or open chat area is that you don't always know you audience. You know their online persona, of course, but that's only what they aim for you to know. Whatever "ideal self" they wish to present -- or attempt to present. And there are few ways to predict who will show up or how old they might be. Or how they might judge you by the language you use. In other words, the audience is hazy at best and opaque most of the time. How do you persuade (by persuade I don't mean a forma argument, but the three possible goals of communication: attend, affirm, and act), if you can't be sure you are identifying with your audience? Fortunately, there are a set of practices you can use to bridge most gaps and overcome much resistance to getting people to attend to your message.
First, you need to stick to the common tongue. Think about it. Which do you think is more likely to offend? -- a paragraph with adult language when such language is not needed, or the same paragraph without the adult words? Most people may not be offended by the the adult language, but only most. A far less number of people will be offended because you "don't use the 'f-word'" for instance. In my experience I've never heard a person chastised for not using adult language outside, perhaps, writing a script for an R-rated show. There is a reason we have "standard" and "formal business" language and it's because to use the more colloquial style is to risk offending a small number of people needlessly. Notice I said, "needlessly" since there may be rare occasions where you need to "offend" to get you point across.
Second, you need to realize that the use of adult language should be reserved for when you need the "weight" of such language. If you use the 'f-word' all the time, where are you going to go when you really want to get people's attention. I know several people who NEVER use adult language and more's the pitty. They won't go where they may need to go to get people to PAY ATTENTION! But I know a far, far, greater number of people who have no place to go when they really need to get people to pay attention because the use of such language does not set the communication apart from all their other verbal utterances. For such language to be effective it must be rare -- the more rare, the more effective.
Third, you should probably lessen the use of adult language so that you force your own mind to be more precise. Using adult language is acceptable and okay in some circumstances, as I've noted, but if you, as I've noted, try to reserve it for when it's really needed, you stretch your mind and your language skills so that your communication becomes more varied and nuanced. And that means you begin to actually look more intelligent than you do if you speech is peppered with adult language.
Fourth, lessening your use of adult language is probably a good thing because, unfortunately, the use of such language has clouded the meaning of the words themselves. Of course they are usually not there to give meaning but to express emotion, aren't they? Sadly though, what emotion they are expressing and how strong that emotion is becomes more clouded and hazy the more the words are used. Saying "wtf" when somebody says something that humors you, and then using the same "wtf" when they back-stab you, if you use the phrase often, means that the meaning moves to a mean -- an "average" in force to those who know you. So, over time, you erase the extremes of emotion it can represent and when you, again, need to express the intensity of your anger, you have no place to go.
Now of course, you may think this whole "anti-adult-language" (as some may perceive it) thing to be a bit prudish. But remember, no where do I say it is wrong. "Prudish" means 'immoral." I say no such thing. I say it's not wise to use such language or it's representations too often. I say most people -- especially young people -- use such language too much (perhaps equating it's use with being older?) and would be better served to cut back or not use it except rarely. Wisdom is the thing, not morality, in this little message on the evolution of language and it's dangers.
AJ
I've observed a discussion here on the use of "fs" and how, in that use, you might either right "an fs" or "a fs" depending on how you internally hear "fs." In my discussion of that phenomenon I noted that a person may let "fs" (heard as 'eff-ess') and thus would say "an eff-ess" -- a grammatically correct construction. On the other hand, "fs" may serve as a metonym and in the internal recitation the person may expand it and say, to themselves, "fellowship," in which case the construction "a fs" would be internally grammatically correct. These kinds of grammatical arguments are, thus, part of the continual evolution of language and are interesting because in many cases there is no "right" answer.
Another example of this phenomena is the use of "wtf." If you take these letters as a metonyms representing the words, and you internally expand the abbreviation to the actual words, the user of the letters has, in effect, written the words out for you. Since most forums and chat rooms that include under-aged participants do not allow the "f-word" it is probably not a good idea to use the abbreviation. However -- it may be that the "wtf" has also become a word of it's own. Many abbreviations eventually come to represent the idea the initial phrase they represent meant directly. In other words, just as "fs" may go directly in you mind to the concept of fellowship, guild, alliance, etc..., so to "wtf" may go directly to the sense of mild irritant also represented by the words for which the abbreviation has stood and still stands in some minds.
Now all of this is simply an introduction to a subject of language use by forum posters and chat users.
As noted, language is constantly changing -- but changing at different rates for different people. As noted, some see what are essentially metonyms and expand them internally to the whole, while to others the metonym is the concept itself and no need for expansion is necessary. This might lead to problems for anyone who cares about the people to whom he or she is speaking or writing.
First, the minor problem is that of grammar. As noted, sometimes the expansion or lack thereof causes grammatical tension. The reader may be jarred by "an fs" or "a fs" exactly because he or she is not or is expanding "fs" to its form. Treating it as either a direct noun or a metonym changes the grammar. But this is minor.
Second, a more important problem is represented by "wtf." I assume you all know for what it functions as a metonym. You can expand the letters and hear, if you wish, the words for which they stand. Those words are neither "bad," nor "good," but just sounds that represent in society two things.
The first is a sign of frustration, irritation, disbelief and the like. A bit of anger perhaps, even. The "f-word," in particular, is used for a wide range of things, and is a verb, noun, pronoun, adjective, and adverb as well. In fact, it has become a general purpose word you throw in whenever you wish to emphasize something or maximize the impact of something.
The second is that the word s generally considered an "adult" word and like many other words, a child using it would be unusual and even subject to correction. This is why it is not allowed in forums and chat when there is a good expectation of young people being present. It is also why it is not used in formal speech. All of which brings up the use of adult language.
Most of us want to be effective communicators. We wish for those reading our words to understand the nuances of what we think and feel and most of the time (thought not all as politicians know) it pays to be clear. Kenneth Burke discusses this in one of favorite books, "The Rhetoric of Motive" and notes that you persuade a person in so far as you get him or her to see you as allied with them. To do that -- Burke uses the term 'identify' with them -- you speak like them, dress like them, and in general mirror their attitudes and style. This is Aristotle's "ethos" form of persuasion, a form he called "the most powerful" kind of rhetoric. (He also said it should not be relied upon because it was like warping a ruler and then relying on it's measurements. Nevertheless, Aristotle's condemnation aside, it is effective. Which means, in short, you adopt your language for your audience. Any person having lived more than a few years understands this. Even children alter their language in different situations. It's part of human nature.
But of course, the problem for a person in a forum or open chat area is that you don't always know you audience. You know their online persona, of course, but that's only what they aim for you to know. Whatever "ideal self" they wish to present -- or attempt to present. And there are few ways to predict who will show up or how old they might be. Or how they might judge you by the language you use. In other words, the audience is hazy at best and opaque most of the time. How do you persuade (by persuade I don't mean a forma argument, but the three possible goals of communication: attend, affirm, and act), if you can't be sure you are identifying with your audience? Fortunately, there are a set of practices you can use to bridge most gaps and overcome much resistance to getting people to attend to your message.
First, you need to stick to the common tongue. Think about it. Which do you think is more likely to offend? -- a paragraph with adult language when such language is not needed, or the same paragraph without the adult words? Most people may not be offended by the the adult language, but only most. A far less number of people will be offended because you "don't use the 'f-word'" for instance. In my experience I've never heard a person chastised for not using adult language outside, perhaps, writing a script for an R-rated show. There is a reason we have "standard" and "formal business" language and it's because to use the more colloquial style is to risk offending a small number of people needlessly. Notice I said, "needlessly" since there may be rare occasions where you need to "offend" to get you point across.
Second, you need to realize that the use of adult language should be reserved for when you need the "weight" of such language. If you use the 'f-word' all the time, where are you going to go when you really want to get people's attention. I know several people who NEVER use adult language and more's the pitty. They won't go where they may need to go to get people to PAY ATTENTION! But I know a far, far, greater number of people who have no place to go when they really need to get people to pay attention because the use of such language does not set the communication apart from all their other verbal utterances. For such language to be effective it must be rare -- the more rare, the more effective.
Third, you should probably lessen the use of adult language so that you force your own mind to be more precise. Using adult language is acceptable and okay in some circumstances, as I've noted, but if you, as I've noted, try to reserve it for when it's really needed, you stretch your mind and your language skills so that your communication becomes more varied and nuanced. And that means you begin to actually look more intelligent than you do if you speech is peppered with adult language.
Fourth, lessening your use of adult language is probably a good thing because, unfortunately, the use of such language has clouded the meaning of the words themselves. Of course they are usually not there to give meaning but to express emotion, aren't they? Sadly though, what emotion they are expressing and how strong that emotion is becomes more clouded and hazy the more the words are used. Saying "wtf" when somebody says something that humors you, and then using the same "wtf" when they back-stab you, if you use the phrase often, means that the meaning moves to a mean -- an "average" in force to those who know you. So, over time, you erase the extremes of emotion it can represent and when you, again, need to express the intensity of your anger, you have no place to go.
Now of course, you may think this whole "anti-adult-language" (as some may perceive it) thing to be a bit prudish. But remember, no where do I say it is wrong. "Prudish" means 'immoral." I say no such thing. I say it's not wise to use such language or it's representations too often. I say most people -- especially young people -- use such language too much (perhaps equating it's use with being older?) and would be better served to cut back or not use it except rarely. Wisdom is the thing, not morality, in this little message on the evolution of language and it's dangers.
AJ