Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Internet can be a peculiar medium—it has spawned its own thriving culture. New words are generated, existing words recreated. One such word is “literacy”. No longer does it simply mean the ability to read and write; it now carries with it the implication of virtual perfection. "Literacy" in this context implies a use of a valid grammar—or, rather, a scholastic, prescriptive¹ grammar. This is, of course, not without irony: those who most ardently support this strict formalism are often oblivious of all the subtleties and nuances of the grammar they proclaim to cherish and follow so dearly.

Modern grammarians are abandoning the idea of prescriptive grammar, instead favoring a descriptive² grammar; they realize that the rules of language are, at heart, a mimetic emergence of conversation. In other words, the rules do not create the language; the language creates the rules. Language is an evolutionary entity. If you look at the history of the English language, you will find its grammar has already been diminished. In Old English, there still existed a complete system of inflection³. We preserve some of that today, but only in pronouns and, to some degree, "irregular" verbs. This trend is present in all languages. Greek has lost much of its complexity, using a stress accent instead of a pitch accent, losing several inflections, κ.τ.λ.

In the distant past, few people were literate because of the complexity of language. Written language existed largely through inscriptions into stone—therefore, much thought had to be put into what was to be written; making a slight error would be an incredible waste, as the inscriber would have to begin anew. Then we acquired paper, and language eventually molded itself around this new medium. It simplified to ease the process of writing the much longer passages possible. The simplification of language has paralleled the development of writing systems.

The trend of any system is toward chaos, yet, in the case of language, the chaos is efficiency. We have found (and are always finding more and more) that we do not need all of that grammatical bloat to accomplish the purpose of language: the transmission of ideas. Netspeak is simply the natural progression thence; it is the adaptation of written language to the communication methods we have today, for optimal speed and accuracy.

Some may argue that with the increase of efficiency we lose the latent beauty of language. It is ironic, then, that among the most beautiful forms of literature is poetry—a form which tends to bend or break the rules of language. And why did these people break grammatical rules? Simple—they could not express themselves as they needed by “correct” means. This aside, the reason people tend to view English as beautiful is because they fear the changes they see occurring in the language. They abhor this change, as humans always have. They cling to their quite antiquated language, and disdain the newly developing, superior system of communication.

Netspeak is a glimpse of the future. It is both an inevitable and a positive change. It is not of any assistance to strive for grammatical perfection; this is a hindrance to linguistic development. Rather, one should cherish this new and thriving writing system, and contribute to it positively.


1. A prescriptive grammar is one in which the rules are set for a language, and the language is developed around those rules. Compare to 2.
2. A descriptive grammar is one in which the language develops independently of the rules; the rules are mere observations of the trends within the language.
3. See http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/courses/handouts/magic.pdf as an example.

Try using your beloved language and read the rest of the essay.

I'm not calling for a rapid change. I'm calling for an acceptance of the fact that change is inevitable.

It's hardly a sign of lack of education. I see very well educated people using Netspeak (to some degree or another) all the time. The methods of expression may seem limited in current Netspeak, but this is because it has not been around long enough. Truly, do you feel your possible modes of expression are limited because we only have a few words for love, whilst Sanskrit bears in excess of 20? No.

Also, I said it is a glimpse. The next iteration of written English is not Netspeak, but it will be something not terribly unlike it.

I did not say grammar is useless; I said prescriptive grammar is. Grammars naturally arise from language.

And, slowly, the grammars of informality will seep over into more formal settings.

I think the biggest issue people take with my claims is that they seem to think I am implying they are happening now -- which to some respect they are, but as with biological evolution, these changes are VERY slow to occur.