Chrift in thefe laft times comming to vs from the Father, is preferred aboue the Angels, both in Perfon and Office.The Epistle of Pavl the Apoftle to the Hebrewes
King James Version of the Bible 1611
Ah, English. I'd know you anywhere, in any sultry garb. By the way, despite first impressions, this is English as well:
- 4:15 mikeisgay23: r u gone?
- 4:15 Zuzubar: wut up?
- 4:15 malikjhall: they went of air?
- 4:16 ashaolivia: sump wrng wit d mic
- 4:16 musicman85: wat up
- 4:17 malikjhall: lol...wat hapened
- 4:17 mikeisgay24: why u kicked my homie mike :(
- 4:22 v5fox: do you speak english?
- 4:24 TwiT2-1: ellow
- 4:27 amalia101-1: go on mine
- 4:31 Zuzubar: this is extremely boring
- 4:31 Zuzubar: :/
- 4:34 dubby_425: why arent you talking??????????
- 4:39 dubby_425: dk
- 4:39 ashaolivia: were coming back hold on guys
- 4:50 danny1981: what it do
- 4:51 barxtch2312: nun yu
- 4:51 danny1981: can u see me
- 4:51 nylonlover: r u wear n sox
- 4:52 nylonlover: will u show ur sox
- 4:52 BIG_DICK: wat
- 4:55 THE_SITUATION: whats the situation here
I've been lurking around YouTube comment threads and video stream chat lines for a while now, watching dull conversation and an amazing flowering of newer English.
Here's simple example. I've seen "what" spelled:
whatAt first glance, these spellings appear to be interchangeable. It's not a case of "wat" being used to ask a question ("Wats up?") while "wut" is used as a pronoun or something ("... wut she was holding"). Nor does there seem to be a great deal of consistency by users. I mean, it's not like jazzkid231 always spells it "whut" while snkrfrkr332 spells it "wutt."
I say "at first glance" because I haven't studied and tracked this stuff enough to do more than guess.
I can say that not all these spellings are phonetically sensible. Nor are they all convenient to type or text. There's certainly no evidence of English becoming more logical, more stream-lined and simply spelled (spelt?).
And this is just in North America. One can only imagine the a-harmonic symphonies being created among those English-using youth of China and India.
All this hearkens back to those grim days when Shakespear (sic) spelled his name a dozen different ways, and King James' bible committee spent the bitter cold spring of 1609 agreeing on the spellings of 6000 words. The short Elizabethan century (c. 1560-1640), that golden era of English poetry, music and literature, was no place for earnest spelling reformers and dictionariests like Doctor John (1709 - 1784) or Noah the Webmiester (1758 - 1843). It was kindda fun, though. Er... assuming no one cut off your head or gave you the bubonic plague or something.
Well anyway, the point is some people enjoy the accuracy and symmetry of the gardens in Versailles, and others take walks in the woods. I enjoy a tanglewood sort of English. That doesn't suit everybody, I know. Whatcha gonna do?
I've been thinking about all this is from the point of view of literacy and questions like "literacy for what purpose?" and "whose literacy counts?"
Consider this: In all my lurking, I cannot recall a single instance of serious, sustained misunderstanding based on literacy difficulties. Here is a medium that is purely about reading and writing for communicating meaning, and these crazy spellers all seem able to talk to each other. What's going on here? Are they "appropriately literate" or wht?
but it make u think if your nto thinking more n yelling bout spelling
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.Mark Twain