I think we all hate at lest one of the following: lol lolz lmao lmfao rofl omg omfg wtf ftw ftl gtfo stfu pwn n00b pr0n pwned pwnt teh oh noes omgwtfbbq wth 1337 roflmao roflmfao roflmmfao I won' say which one I hate, because if I say "I hate rofl", then half the people who post in this thread will put ROFL! and think "I'm annoying threadstarter 8)"
I like em. They exist for a purpose. To abbreviate, and it works wellmmogoon
Don't tell me you're one of those people who think "lol" and "u r 2 kind" is a "re-invention of the English language". I hate people who think like that. Not that I'm implying you're one of them.
[QUOTE="mmogoon"]I like em. They exist for a purpose. To abbreviate, and it works wellnyoroism
Don't tell me you're one of those people who think "lol" and "u r 2 kind" is a "re-invention of the English language". I hate people who think like that. Not that I'm implying you're one of them. Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks English is a language pffft
At least one of the variations of rofl, I mean they really have no reason to exist. Many of these are functional and shorter, and quite important because outside of them we only have emoticons to convey what we mean, whereas lol or lmao does it better than any text could. Some functions such as 'tbh' I use frequently, and some are assimilated out of standardised acronyms (for instance 'tba').
Though some cases of shortening are sheer lazyness, others serve a function that is simply lost when written out in long hand.
And some...are just there for the sake of sarcasm, they are so ridiculous the are reserved for that very reason.
I have no problem with them until people start using them in every day conversation. If I told a particularly hysterical joke in the real world, and someone said "ROFL" I would probably punch them in the face.
[QUOTE="mmogoon"]I like em. They exist for a purpose. To abbreviate, and it works wellnyoroism
Don't tell me you're one of those people who think "lol" and "u r 2 kind" is a "re-invention of the English language". I hate people who think like that. Not that I'm implying you're one of them. I hate people who think there is a standard of English that is set. If it were then they wouldn't bother releasing new dictionaries each year. It's worth pointing out that these really aren't words in and of themselves though, they are function acronyms.
English might well have a standard to upkeep, but keep in mind that it's forever dynamic, all we can do is control the pace of change, we can't stop it from changing.
Log in to comment