3 ms·

Language is fluid and constantly evolving. Literacy[0] shouldn't mean whether you follow some set of punctuation rules at all times, but whether you can infer t

by c7b 4y ago

Language is fluid and constantly evolving. Literacy[0] shouldn't mean whether you follow some set of punctuation rules at all times, but whether you can infer the meaning and intent of messages, and whether you can compose messages that allow recipients to do the same, both without much effort or discomfort on all sides. Acronyms and punctuation are just tools to this end. If others 'get' what you're trying to say and consider it appropriate language in different contexts relevant to your life (you want the ability to use different language in professional vs personal settings, to actually use established grammatical rules in formal settings,...), then I'd say you're literate. Using emojis, acronyms or writing things like 'Hey u coming?' in appropriate settings doesn't negate that imho. Acronyms are in fact extremely common in professional settings too, and emojis increasingly so, at least in my experience. Slightly provocative question, given what you've said ("without abbreviating anything"), would you actually spell out the acronym RSVP in a formal invitation? It's very common eg in Britain, it's definitely considered good form, and spelling it out would just cause confusion since it's actually a French term that most people probably wouldn't recognize (répondez, s'il vous plaît). What about i.e. (ita est)? E.g. (exemplum gratum, although some might argue it can also stand for example given)? You might say you just avoid those terms, which is possible, but I have a suspicion that you're just fooling yourself. Since you're on this site, I might also ask whether you always spell out the Domain Name System (DNS) and similar terms? If you did, you'd actually make your messages less understandable to most audiences, detracting from your literacy I'd argue. [0] My opinion here, I'm not a linguist, so if this clashes with established definitions of literacy, my apologies. Edit: I actually had a look, and of course you are fooling yourself. According to your comment history, you actually use abbreviations all the time, including ones that are unknown to me (ITAD company, SEE), making whatever point you were trying to make lost on me without research effort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35273712#35276691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35273712#35276691

jjulius 4y ago
I actually agree with you on the first point, I was leaning more towards functional literacy. In the sense that yes, we're literate because we can understand what someone means when they say, "sry my b", but I don't understand how OP can expect the widespread adoption of that style of communication to increase one's functionally literate understanding of, say, as mentioned elsewhere in this chain, a court order, a lease you sign with your landlord, or what is actually being said in a news article. That functional bit is, in point of fact, more of what the article is about. Edit: You took my comment too literally and missed the overall point. I didn't even intend to judge those who don't text like I do, hence my highlighting that it's not a conscious effort on my part. And, yes, I suppose that quite common acronyms are fine - I had hoped that it was obvious that I was referring to less common acronyms, but perhaps failed there (and still may be with this comment, c'est la vie). But thanks for kinda painting me like a grammar snob? Edit 2: Some other words for clarification, since I guess I'd better be extra careful...
- c7b 4y ago
  Yeah, it's probably a rather general phenomenon that skills transfer is (unfortunately) much less effective than one might hope. Just like practicing Sudoku solving doesn't do much to increase your overall cognitive abilities or problem solving skills (there are studies on that, didn't care to look them up now), one probably shouldn't expect too much carry-over from chat messages to other reading/writing tasks with different requirements.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by c7b 4y ago

jjulius 4y ago

I actually agree with you on the first point, I was leaning more towards functional literacy. In the sense that yes, we're literate because we can understand what someone means when they say, "sry my b", but I don't understand how OP can expect the widespread adoption of that style of communication to increase one's functionally literate understanding of, say, as mentioned elsewhere in this chain, a court order, a lease you sign with your landlord, or what is actually being said in a news article. That functional bit is, in point of fact, more of what the article is about. Edit: You took my comment too literally and missed the overall point. I didn't even intend to judge those who don't text like I do, hence my highlighting that it's not a conscious effort on my part. And, yes, I suppose that quite common acronyms are fine - I had hoped that it was obvious that I was referring to less common acronyms, but perhaps failed there (and still may be with this comment, c'est la vie). But thanks for kinda painting me like a grammar snob? Edit 2: Some other words for clarification, since I guess I'd better be extra careful...

c7b 4y ago
Yeah, it's probably a rather general phenomenon that skills transfer is (unfortunately) much less effective than one might hope. Just like practicing Sudoku solving doesn't do much to increase your overall cognitive abilities or problem solving skills (there are studies on that, didn't care to look them up now), one probably shouldn't expect too much carry-over from chat messages to other reading/writing tasks with different requirements.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]