Text-Etiquette, Am I Asking 4 2 Much?

April 16, 2008     Posted in Wired

Texting image


By CC Staff

This weekend I met a guy. He is cute, funny, and 6’1″ – we exchanged numbers, and things were looking good.

Then at the end of the night as I was falling asleep, my phone chirped to inform me of a new text, from my new guy, “Great 2 meet u.”

Damn. And he had so much potential.

I know, I know, it is a sweet thing to say, but my problem is not with what he said, its how. I am the first to admit that I being extremely judgmental, but as an English major and someone who thoroughly enjoys words, I really hate to see them butchered.

Yeah, I’ve had people rationalize this texting style as faster, easier, whatever, but to substitute a single letter or a number for a word completely peeves me. Every time I see ‘4‘ in place of the word ‘for‘ or ‘c‘ instead of ‘see‘ or ‘2morrow‘ where there should be a ‘tomorrow‘ I cringe, I think of a junior high student, IQ points are lost, and a person suddenly seems extremely lazy- is it really that much harder to just type the extra two or three letters?? (The answer is no.)

Since my love life has been a little MIA lately, and aside from his bad text – etiquette I really thought he was a great guy I am not going to write him off (get it, write him off… since he doesn’t spell words right?) for lazy spelling. I’ll give him a shot, but I am just wondering, exactly how long do I have to wait before I can ask him to please expel the extra effort and use complete words?

21 Comments on "Text-Etiquette, Am I Asking 4 2 Much?"

  1. Mina says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 200810:53 am 

    ". . . its how."

    No, actually, "it's" how.

    ". . . is it really that much harder to just type the extra two or three letters??"

    Is it really that much harder to use one question mark as opposed to two?

    Not to be mean or make fun of you, I'm sure.

  2. TT says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 200811:21 am 

    Good to know the grammar police are here.

    …geeze.

  3. Meagan - Mizzou says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 200812:23 pm 

    Why were you chewing out TT? I don't think I understand. TT was replying to Mina's post. At least, well, that is how I read it.

    I agree with you C. Ryder in that I feel bad too when I make mistakes, but I didn't understand your post.

    I guess I'm just looking for some clarification.

  4. TT says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 200812:39 pm 

    yo girl, I was defending you!! I hate when people correct my grammar. Who gives a shit about where the ' goes in it's???

  5. C. Ryder - Universit says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20081:38 pm 

    I wasn't chewing out TT! Not in the least!

    I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I was disagreeing with TT's conclusions about texting and grammar. Seriously, that's all. Please see my first comment – I disagree with the CONTENT, i.e. how TT argues about texting . . .

    Again, I wasn't chewing out TT. I was complimenting her article, while DISAGREEING with it – capiche?

    I'll clarify:

    1) I was defending TT and saying "lay off on her grammar . . ."

    2) I was PRAISING TT's discussion about texting

    3) Although I was PRAISINT TT for her piece, I was DISAGREEING

    4) I detailed my reasons fro DISAGREEING, while APPLAUDING TT's texting article

    5) I delved into the significance of LANGUAGE, how it is, in my humble opinion, a LIVING, BREATHING, GROWING, EVER-CHANGING 'Thing'

    All the while

    6) NOT denigrating TT's own view

  6. Lily says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20083:22 pm 

    I understand where you're coming from, C. Ryder, but I think the misunderstanding comes from the name you picked. TT is just a commenter, while Rory wrote the article.

  7. C. Ryder - University of Kansas says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20085:00 pm 

    TT,

    You have some typos in this piece. So what? I mean, I was a little embarrassed when I noticed that some of my posts on here were fraught with errors, but it’s a BLOG people!Yes, a BLOG! Give her a break. She’s not writing this for an English class, and even so, there might be a few errors here and there. It happens – that doesn’t mean she’s a bad writer.

    Obviously, TT cares about language, so let’s not go all “Grammar-Gestapo” on her. Let’s talk about content – that’s what matters.

    So, TT, I hesitate to say this, as a part of me TOTALLY agrees with you, and despite the minuscule errors, it’s well stated. But, I think I’m gonna have to disagree with you, at least in part.

    Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE good language. I LOVE Faulkner, I LOVE reading in two other languages, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE good words, good prose, great writers, etc. I’m with you there. I’m kind of an elitist too (not as bad as my sister, C. Rhyder). Admittedly, a year ago, I would’ve made a similar argument. If you’d posted this last year, and I had stumbled across it, I would said, “yes! yes! yes! TT is SO right!” I would’ve written a comment, praising your observations.

    I can’t do that now. Sorry. Language CHANGES. (I’m sure you’d agree and I don’t mean to condescend – not at all). I suppose you can ascribe negative things to the way 4 is no used in lieu of “for,” and bemoan the loss of other things as a result. I dunno. Maybe you’re right, and maybe we’re watching the decline of articulate, well-crafted stuff (I guess we’re both culpable too, as we’re bloggin, right?). But I’m still of the opinion that writers, and good writers, will always exist. Call me an optimist (my sister is now a self-declared ‘pessimistic optimist, but she’s older than I am, so I ain’t there yet), but I don’t really believe that this kinda stuff is an indication of the erosion of language. Again, like I said, language is always in flux. For example, language can be used as a means of resistance (like when “colonized” use it as a weapon against the colonizers). Language undulates, and is always growing, changing, shedding off things. Yet, and quite paradoxically, language retains a form of historicism (luckily we have etymologists, who are the priestly guardians of languages) . . .

    You dig, TT?

    To the others who might post – please be kind. I don’t know about TT, but when I make errors, I feel bad. I do. But once this shit is posted, we can’t edit. So be kind! Thanks!

  8. giz says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20084:01 pm 

    that's the sole reason I hate and do not partake in any form of texting.

    Every time I text message, I feel like I am killing a brain cell.

  9. C. Ryder - Universit says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20084:37 pm 

    Lil,

    Whoa. Oopsy – thanks for clarifying. I'm an idiot . . .

  10. C. Ryder - Universit says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20084:38 pm 

    Rory,

    If it matters, the comments to "TT" were for you. My sincerest apologies to everyone who was confused my response. :(

    Seriously, I feel SO bad . . .

  11. Claire says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20085:46 pm 

    I HAVE to agree with you Rory. I love the English language, and text messaging and instant messaging has been eating away at it. It makes me very sad, actually.

    I despise text messaging so much that I've blocked it from my phone. I don't like it for a number of reasons. First, I'd rather people pick up the phone and call me. If that's too difficult, it's probably not that important. Second, I don't want to pay for it. And the third is because of the distraction it causes. I guess I'm one of those people that sit in class and get my money's worth and not worry about what I'm doing that evening until I'm not in class.

  12. Christine says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20085:47 pm 

    It doesn't bother me so much when a few of my friends use 'c' or 'u' when they text since they have to use T9 which can be a bitch.

    It does bother me, however, when my sister who has an LG enV doesn't bother to use whole words and such. What's the point of the full qwerty keyboard if you don't utilize it?! This I will never understand.

  13. lauren says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20088:11 pm 

    in his defense.. when texting it's really easy to go over 1 page, and then its kind of embarassing that you're texting instead of talking on the phone. so you have to go back and edit and use the cool texting lingo to shorten it up to a one page text. that's the only exception i could see to using improper grammar

  14. Andie says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20088:26 pm 

    I find it a total turnoff when this guy I'm seeing messages me (text, Facebook, MSN…) with shortened words that are even misspelled! It seriously irritates me to no end. i hope u understand n dun judge me u c, but i dun no y u cant juss use real words rite? Drives me insane!!! Of course I'll never tell him because I don't want to come off as snobby and I don't want to make him feel stupid.

    Although I have to agree with my heart dropping the first time I got a text from him and thinking exactly what you said, that he HAD potential, hahaha, I guess it's just one of those things I'll have to accept about him.. it's too little to really exert so much energy to care.

  15. lily says:
    Wed, 16th Apr 20089:32 pm 

    i think it's just knid of fashion! just like the online dating now are becoming kinda main stream!! _Millionaireloves.com_ as my friends told me,is the most highlighted one theses day@!! it's just go with the flow thing!

  16. zoe says:
    Thu, 17th Apr 20082:51 am 

    well i agree that its really irritating if someone uses bad grammar when it matters, but at the same time using 2 for to/too or 4 for for in a text is just a way to save time and characters as lauren said. it costs more to send a 2 page text instead of a 1 page one! give the guy a break i think youre being MASSIVELY obsessive! if you think he's a great guy then how can the use of a u for you change your mind on that? seems pretty dumb to me. who cares? is this honestly what you spend your time obsessing over? and normally i would agree that picking up on tiny errors in these blog postings is harsh and pointless but when youre on a tirade about people not using words correctly i think it makes you look pretty unintelligent to use them incorrectly yourself!!!

    sorry for the harshness, but i genuinely think all this is stupid.

  17. Meagan - Mizzou says:
    Thu, 17th Apr 20086:11 am 

    Sorry C. Ryder, but thank you Lily for clearing that up. That is exactly where my confusion was stemming from.

    But I agree with this article. It has already been said that texting is breaking down our communication skills because people aren't taking the time to hang out or call and instead text.

    I always try to make my language come off as pristine as possible, but that doesn't always happen. I was taught that the way you practice something is the way you will perform it. Well, if I practice my typing the way I want to use it in papers and e-mails, then I will use it that way when the time comes. Does that even make sense? Probably not…

    I recently just added the 300-texts a month to my phone, but I only use it during the day when I don't want to waste my minutes and at night when I feel like it may be too late to call.

    I guess I just don't understand the complete universal appeal of texting.

  18. C. Ryder - Universit says:
    Thu, 17th Apr 20089:31 am 

    Meagan,

    No need to apologize! I was the IDIOT and responded to the wrong person . . .

  19. Tamika says:
    Sun, 20th Apr 200812:51 pm 

    I agree with you 100%, Rory. People of many ages are beginning to believe that this type of thing is acceptable on many levels and this madness must end!

  20. Amused says:
    Mon, 5th May 20086:12 pm 

    This should give you a chuckle: http://www.coedmagazine.com/tech/7680#respond

  21. Sandra says:
    Wed, 9th Dec 20091:51 pm 

    Regarding receiving phone calls and texts at inappropriate times, hey–just turn your phone OFF or on SILENT. And there is the ALARM only setting. It's your phone, you control it–not the texter or caller.

Tell us what you're thinking...