Lord, what fools these mortals be.

Admittedly, I’ve always been arbitrary about which modifications to the English language I think are acceptable.  Deep down, I know that language is organic, and I should derive joy from its wondrous plasticity; I’ll let the colloq. folks party with the King’s English in most circumstances, but I keep in mind that they snuck in the back door without a formal invite.  We’ll dance and we’ll drink, but I certainly won’t invite them to any of my Scrabulous games.

Recently, I was reading an article by David Crystal, a natively Irish academic who’s been publishing in the field of linguistics since the ’60s (and is still at it).  He explains in his 2008 article, “Texting,” how “TextSpeak” has become widely prevalant, spilling over from SMS messaging into blogs and various other forms of online communication– then ends on the frilly conclusion that “b4″ and “roflmao” are manifestations of a second, functional (and delightfully creative!) language in “young people” that is “[unlikely] to have an effect on language as a whole.”

Hank Moody disagrees.

Hank Moody is a little moody, though.

Using social media sites and enjoying the charm of technologies that restrict the number of characters you can employ in a single communication (text messaging, 160; Twitter, 140) in our hyper-connected world is something like owning a car and moving to Massachusetts; if you want to survive, you’re going to have to break some rules.  Throw in an “&,” “w/” or a “re:” — an “lol” by all means, and a “b4″ only in dire situations.

A lot of people seem not to recognize this, but, the trick here is versatility.  Get a bigger linguistic closet.  If you must, you can own that fugly too-short “b4″ without tossing out your classic little black dress of a “before.”  God knows the latter is a better choice for most occasions.

Once you’ve established your bilingualism, it’s okay to have some fun with it for the sake of wits and giggles (but someone ought to tell Mr. Crystal that kids should grow up first on the OED, not the SMS).  For example, the majority of LOLcat enthusiasts comment on posts in LOLSpeak, for which the site now provides a definitive guide.  And I think that’s a-okay, probably a bit excessive, but non-irksomely festive nonetheless.

When not working within the confines of 140-160 characters, or impressing at parties with “foreign” utterances (alongside tongue-in-cheek awareness of their silliness), I suppose there are other implications for the evolution of language when we opt for less traditional linguistic forms.  One of the pat “quick texts” on my cell phone is, “Whacha doing?”.  While I understand that, “What are you doing?” can seem a little demanding, “What’s up?” or “What are you up to?” might have sufficed, alternatively, for tone, content, and orthographic correctness.  Instead, tens of thousands of Verizon customers are propagating the quick text of a word that doesn’t exist, needn’t, and probably shouldn’t.

And I’m thinking that this is what Mr. Moody, and many other staunch traditionalists, object to.

It’s difficult to say what the full-scale implications of technology will “seriously” be for language (Dr. Crystal vs. Hank Moody on “the point of no return”) but it seems silly to think that some kind of evolution isn’t already well underway.  Personally, I stand somewhere in the middle of the great pendulum swing– but maybe a little Moody, afterall.

Language evolves quickly in cyberspace; I embrace bilingualism because it’s a functional adaption, but I still prefer classic little black dresses and the OED.