Page 1 of 1

Why did LOL infiltrate the language?

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:32 pm
by Slava
A short article on changes to English from the Beeb:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12893416

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:17 am
by sluggo
Good story.

I agree that some sort of emotive tool helps in textual relationships, but "LOL" overdoes it, and "LMAO" even more so. The subtler "<g>" or an emoticon like :-) is more proportional for the actual intent most of the time.

As even the apologist in the article notes, "'Lol' means 'yes, I understand that was funny, but I'm not really laughing'."
-- OK ...then why would you claim you are?

And elsewhere down the page:
"For example, if I had my bike stolen, my friend might reply 'LOL'. It helps overcome an awkward moment."

-- it does? :shock:

Inventing new words or code is fine with me; just don't claim you're doing something that is not what you're doing.

My favorite bugaboo in internet speak is the abbreviation "u" for "you". Looks like you're either a three-year-old just learning to talk, or else addressing a Burmese man.

<g>

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:21 am
by Slava
sluggo wrote:My favorite bugaboo in internet-speak is the abbreviation "u" for "you". Looks like you're either a three-year-old just learning to talk, or Siamese.

<g>
I think mine may well be ur for your. As ur is a valid word in the first place, I tend to read it correctly.

I don't get the emoticon, though. A new one to me. Is it a big wide grin?

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:55 am
by Perry Lassiter
I sometimes use the abbreviations u r to save time and for ease, especially in texting and on iphone. It also saves space when limited to 140 characters in texting or on Twitter. For a good while in emails I drove peoplee nuts by using y instead of u, which made more sense to me as an abbreviation.