Em Ahh Amm Eeeh...

I have always noticed how people  tend to use the ellipsis a lot during texting.  However, I never gave it much importance because I thought that though people tend to write like that while texting, they don't when writing a formal text, or paper. After reading this article from Slate I liked the theory that the ellipsis mimics the same pauses we tend to make while talking. After reading other articles about modern messaging I noticed that the ellipsis isn't the only thing that is currently being abused of, and that mimics spoken language. Nevertheless, they aren't as exploited in other kinds of writing. 

After recalling countless texting conversations with a friend of mine, I realized he uses the ellipsis a lot. I had previously noticed that he is the kind of person that vacillates throughout a conversation. Rather than expressing his idea fluently, he tends to make some (or many) pauses and say "emm" or "eeh" very frequently. Likewise, I have noticed he is a constant abuser of the ellipsis.as I now make the connection that he unconsiouly used the ellipsis as a replacement for the pauses he uses when he talks. On the other hand, I really don't abuse of the ellipsis a lot; rarely I employ them in my texting. Nonetheless, he made me realize that I abuse of the enter button. Instead of using periods, or the ellipsis I divide my texts or ideas by sending different texts. Rather than texting "hey, what are you doing? do you want yo go eat something? tell me...bye." 

I text: "Hey

What are you doing?

do you want to go eat something?

tell me!

bye"

It seems annoying right? I don't exactly do it to that level, but I do send many messages dividing my phrases. I know that even though we both have weird texting patterns, I am certain we won't write like that when writing a book report at collage. Moreover, I read Cristina's Angel blog, and I quite disagreed with her. Though she agrees with the fact that "people of  this time are writing as they would speak..." she doesn't agree with it, or acknowledge the fact that the ellipsis can be used to make a pause of ideas. There's a reason why they are also called suspension points. I know people nowadays are bewildered on how people text because the are channging the conventions and rules with what punctuation marks are used. 

Just because the ellipsis isn't used in the way its strictly meant to be used, it doesn't mean its meaning can't change to adapt. Texting is the next most familiar register of writing after familiar and informal. Simply  because it has never been used before, and is new and weird it, its no reason to not accept it as a new register. I don't agree with the ellipsis being used for everything or as a replacement of things like questions marks. But, if people don't over abuse them, or utilize them in formal writing pieces, I think there is no problem with it. 

@!nt nOboBy got time fo LANGUAGE

I believe it is deploring how present generations are approaching language and proper writing. In this article from Slate it explores the future that commas are facing, and the unfortunate reality that awaits us. People, but adolescents especially, are becoming lazier and swag has taken over control. There should be a limit to which language is permited to change. For instance, I agree with casual writing an texting, or bloggers, but I don't agree with those that take writing as a joke and underestimate its power.

Wait, what? There aren't going to be any more commas in the future? Hah, This is one of the most absurd things i've heard before. With technology language has been changing and new forms, words and ways of writing have been developing. It is okay to understand and accept how people are starting to write nowadays: very informally. However, there is a border where informality crosses and writing becomes pure barbaric slang and what has been known as proper english, crumbles down.  If deleting commas is the next step towards accepting change, in the future: "y'all be t@lk!nG l!ke tHiZ, c@uz @!nt nOboBy got time fo DAt" 

I believe people should acknowledge the fact that if a text isn't formal, it doesn't mean its wrong. Many people live from of profits made in their writing blogs, or social networking accounts. Language  is declining and going downhill towards a language where LOL is replaced by a comma, and where the "i" is replaced by an exclamation mark. Those prescriptivists who are easily irritated by the absence of an oxford comma, should

help stop this atrocity. We shouldn't let a old and prestigious language such as English decay into that state of embarrassment. What would Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald say about how teenagers are writing nowadays? Y'all. 

Color? or Colour?

Nothing ever stays the same. People change through time. Clothing twenty years ago isn't the same as it is nowadays.  Neither is music nor technology the same as they were before. Accordingly, language changes too; the difference is that people don't want to accept it. People have a perception that language nowadays is rough and blunt. American writers admire Shakespeare even though they don't understamd half of his texts without extensive analysis. Nowadays, we find the debate between people who believe language should be accepted to change and adjust, and stubborn people who don't dare to listen. 

After reading this debate from The New York Times about changes in language I realized there are terms for the two kinds of people that argue about change. I have always been a "descriptivist", which says I agree with the fact that language is constantly changing. I am a descriptivist because then words such as texting and chatting wouldn't exist or be printed in dictionaries. Those are rather old words, but I believe that in 10 years new worlds like facebooking or instagraming will make part of dictionaries like chatting and texting do today. "Prescriptivists", on the orher hand, are known as those who are stubborn and deem everything that is not strictly formal, as wrong. They focus more on how the language has to be used. It something isn't a rule it is wrong. Prescriptivist writers have to learn that even if they don't want language to loose its elegance and want it to be rightfully used, they have to learn that what's understood as correct is purely subjetive. A formal essay will be written with a different syntax, vocabulary and form today as compared to a text from the eighteen hundreds. Probably, if someone from that time would look at how I am writing this blog post, they would think its atrociously informal and unpoetic. What is considered correct is based solely on the time period and culture. Consecuently, if it did work lile that, utilizing the oxford comma could be understood as correct writing? 

I believe there should be a constant change in what is perceived as right or wrong. Maybe a formal text today, will be better comprehended than one written in 50 years. I agree that there should be "a set of standard conventions everyone needs for formal writing and speaking, because if not language will be destroyed in a mattrr or time. My argument is that language should be flexible and open to changes, because unlike german (who hasn't changed at all in 100 years) english must change and adapt, but not get to the point where it loses its elegance and conventions.