Text Messaging Changes No Spelling Habits
Morning TV news programs are, even in time of war, full of light and simple stories made far too long by reporters with too little intellectual curiosity for their own good. A recent example was a five minute piece done on a nationally broadcast morning show about text messaging and the threat it poses to the ability of American youth to spell correctly. It was a waste because text messaging poses no threat; most Americans can't spell anyway.
Text messaging is the 21st century's version of passing notes. Rather than send data by voice, one can waste cell phone minutes with a typed message. The trend has been to type in a shorthand that economizes on characters. Thus, "Are you all right?" becomes "R U OK?" The argument presented on TV by a woman who should have found a better whipping boy essentially said that this shorthand will interfere with the ability of teenagers (the biggest users of "txt msg") to spell because improper forms will be practiced.
Perhaps, this is so, but since when does the spelling of the English language deserve being defended? When "tough" and "oomph" both end with the same sound as "staff," serious reform is needed anyway. A "plough" is the same as a "plow" if one's geography changes. No one can satifactorily explain why the first person nominative pronoun is capitalized while in the accusative it is not ("I" and "me" for those whose grammar lies some decades back). Standard spellings did not exist until a couple of centuries ago, and to any reasoned thinker, they were not standardized enough.
Frankly, txt msg might spark a well-needed change in the way written English gets presented. Reading will be easier to teach, children won't have to spend literally months learning phonics, spell-check will be a thing of the past (or by-passed -- same sound, different letters). At least, that is the opinion here at the Kensington Reevyoo.