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. 

Holocaust's Ironic Fallacies

Greed dominates our world. It is a part of who we are as a species, and it tends to expose its crude face in times of moral crisis such as wars. During the Holocaust people fought for their lives. It was a time where not many other things were as important or mattered as much. The only question in the table was survival. Through the book, the reader can notice how resourceful Vladek was and how that led to his eventual freedom and survival from the great fallacy the Holocaust was, and all of it's ironies.

German guards, gestapo, or kapos in charge of monitoring the Jews were open to negotiation. They were greedy and selfish, but mostly their actions were ironic. Some prisoner gave them cheese, and they got no beatings; someone else gave them alcohol and they protected them. Rather than protecting Jewish prisoners because of the fact that they were humans too, Nazi's just used them as tools to get what they wanted. The Jewish weren't even acknowledged as inferior people. Nazi's saw them as trash, and not even that was unworthy enough for them. Sometimes they were nice to them, but why be that way if the Jewish aren't even human? I remember reading that Adolf Hitler once said that"the Jewish are undoubtedly a race, but they are not human." Do you think this sounds as redundant as it does to me? It couldn't be more fallacious than it is already. Here Hitler uses the wrong ending fallacy. You're probably known to the common basic idea that the parts make up the whole, right? Then, logically the different human races make up the human species. Consequently, Hitler's quote makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying, "H20 is undoubtedly a chemical, but it is not water." Its simply is illogical. How is a race not human, if the human species is made out of different races? Maybe, what Hitler meant to say, was that the Jewish were a species, but not human. However, he did not, and now he's is long dead to correct himself. 

Yiddish: Jewish language, written
with hebrew letters. 

Furthermore, how ironic is it that Hitler didn't acknowledge Jews as humans, but many German Nazis experimented in them to see how the human body functioned. I learned long ago that the Nazis were one of the responsible groups of people to help science, and psychology develop a lot. It is If Jewish people aren't human, then why waste time experimenting in them if they're a complete and different species. Why would humans (Germans, right?), experiment in other races that have nothing to do with them. Its nonsense. The Germans must have experimented in other as worthy Germans if they wanted some insight regarding humans.

The Holocaust was a complete fallacy, and people were ignorant enough to believe in everything Hitler said about Jewish people, and other groups. World War Two was a fight between people who made use of common sense, and those who didn't. It was a time were human intelligence was put to action, and irony just overflowed the time period.  Really how fallacious was it? 

God, Humans and the Olympics

Why do humans believe in a God? Many have asked this question before, and many will keep doing so for eternity. People search to find a deep and profound meaning behind human's faith and hope in a God. The answer is simple though. Humans are always trying to find and answer to things they don't know. That is one of the main reasons science exists as people want to give everything an explanation. Furthermore, a long time ago when science and technology weren't as developed as they are nowadays, people searched to find something that would give our life a reason and a meaning.

This phenomenon can be expressed in different ways, and it only depends in each individuals way to searching happiness. Some people give their life a meaning like being happy, being great entrepreneurs, economists, presidents or even athletes. I use God as an allegory to what is going on today with the olympics because I believe olympic athletes goal in life is to succeed and be the best. Probably, searching the universal truth in a God doesn't compare much to being a gold medalist, but the ideas are rather similar. The author of this article was an Olympic athlete herself, but she didn't feel the same ambition and passion for being best, or maybe she doesn't now as she did once before. People have to comprehend the human nature is very eccentric and complicated. Even men don't understand their own race very well. For instance, humans are greedy and have a compulsive need to know everything. The same thing happens to ambition. People want to be greedy and show off their talent. but they wont stop until they are the very best. It really shouldn't be that shocking.

Nonetheless, in what species do you think The Hunger Games were based on? Cats? No. The book might be fictional and it's events might be as well, but is very possible for something like that to occur. Even if it did happen, I wouldn't be surprised.  I believe this is a work of fiction that conveys the truth behind the human race and the potential of evil it carries. Had humans had never been so cruel and evil throughout history and events such as World War Two would have happened, there wouldn't be stories about such level of gruesome human actions. Nevertheless, many people tend to portray people as incapable of hurting flies when they don't realize the potential of cruelty they carry. This is the reality,and people shouldn't try to hide it or paint it with pretty colors.  Nevertheless, the olympics are a business and have always been. I beg to question: what is not a business nowadays? People profit around the world by about everything. Do you think blogger.com isn't making profits regarding our innocent AP Language blogs?

Our world rotates around money and the economy, greed and ambition, cruelty and "inhumanity" so people shouldn't act as surprised when they learn about the crude reality of humans. The olympics is a way people profit from the achievements of others, just like the FIFA World Cup is an economic investment too. People must accept humans are a truly peculiar species because hiding reality and the truth leads nowhere. I agree with what the author of the article says, but there is no need to make it so dramatic because for a long time this has been human's reality. The Hunger Games are really cruel, but they aren't that cruel in comparison to what men are capable of, and there is where I disagree with the author because she is comparing something already crude to something just a tad obscurer.