2 ms·
Ah, I see. You're saying that the shorthand exists only for brevity of input; when a tween types "lol ur rite," they first think of what they mean ("That's fun
by mcantor 16y ago
Ah, I see. You're saying that the shorthand exists only for brevity of input; when a tween types "lol ur rite," they first think of what they mean ("That's funny! You're right!"), and only then do they translate it into the corresponding shorthand so they can type it faster. That's a very good point. I'll have to ruminate on that for a while.
Edit: It's worth noting that something about it still feels horribly wrong to me, but I can't seem to find the right words to express it. So I will concede... for now! :-)
- scott_s 16y agoYes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps your reservation comes from the fact that now there is no translations, so you associate net-speak with what it is now: stilted communication optimized for brevity of input time and length.
- mcantor 16y agoI think my reservation may come more from what I'm saying in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1898053 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1898053 Even if a computer could translate netspeak to "Proper English," it would still be computer-translated "Proper English." The idea of allowing a computer to choose which words to use, or where punctuation should go, or anything like that, is unsettling to me. The translation model works for programming languages because compilers have no emotions, but any message that starts out in shorthand with the intention of being read by a human is intrinsically hamstrung. In fact, this can be true for programming languages, too! C is like short-hand; the compiler is what turns our netspeak (C) into "Proper English" (assembly/machine code). It usually works, but sometimes you just have to dip into assembly to really express what you mean.