This won’t surprise anyone
Posted on
I'm not a fan of 'txt speak'. I'd go as far as to say that I loathe it. I think it's lazy. I think it's incoherent. I think it's incomprehensible. And I despise having to translate it into English before I can make any sense of it. For those lucky enough not to have to deal with 'txt speak', it's basically an abbreviated way of writing that often means removing vowels from words longer than a few letters, and sometimes replacing whole words altogether with one or two letters (or even numbers) that, said out loud a certain way, could sound like the longer word they're replacing.
Those who write it must find it second nature. For me, writing a sentence—or, more commonly, typing one—is more instinct than it is conscious action. Providing I know the words I wish to write, muscle (or rather ligament) memory in my fingers does the rest. Writing whole words is a natural action for me. And I type fairly quickly without having to look at the keyboard (or even the screen), so it doesn't take me long to write even the longest of words.
If, however, I were asked to write something using 'txt speak', I'd struggle. Even writing 'txt' feels odd. I'm having to fight the natural urge of the second finger on my right hand to tap the E key. In fact, in writing this article just to this point, I've had to go back and 'correct' the word twice already to remove the vowel. Doing so felt dirty and went against every natural instinct I have.
So, to produce whole messages or emails using this heinous bastardisation of the language would take infinitely longer for me to do. How anyone else manages to do it is a mystery to me. And yet they do. As a Facebook user, I'm often confronted with flagrant examples of this type of writing. It never fails to make me cringe.
It's even crept into more professional environments. One of the directors where I (currently) work is notorious for doing it in emails all the time; responding via his BlackBerry to all emails, regardless of their length or detail, with short, nonsensical part-sentences that need translating before they're of any value. I don't know how much time writing like this actually saves him, but I know virtually everybody who receives his emails spends many times longer than they would with any other message trying to work out what it is he's trying to say. Some have even taking to just deleting his messages on arrival out of exasperation. While irritating, one could almost forgive the occasional use on internal emails, but unfortunately this particular individual doesn't always contain such writing to those within the company, and I couldn't help but chuckle upon seeing evidence that he's become something of an in-joke for some third parties too.
I should point out that I'm not entirely opposed to the use of abbreviations—even in 'txt speak' format—where they are absolutely necessary. Where there is a limit on the number of characters—such as in an SMS text message—then I would deem it acceptable if the message would otherwise exceed that limit. It's still not something I'd ever use myself, but I can understand it in those circumstances. But they're rare. It's unforgivable in any other circumstance—and that includes text messages that wouldn’t exceed the limit!
So... It potentially takes longer to write. It takes measurably longer for the recipient to make sense of. It's ugly. It's unprofessional. It's frustrating. And it makes people think less of the sender. So, what is the benefit? While I’ll never be a fan of 'txt speak' (no corrections that time!), I had hoped that I'd find something redeeming about it and the people that use it by the end of this article. In that sense, I feel disappointed and yet somehow strangely vindicated. I think that counts as ambivalence. That's new at least.