Nowadays most people text to communicate with each other, it’s more than a text. John Humphry, a British Journalist, wrote an article addressing the texting crisis, “ I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language”. He claims that texting is destructing the English language. David Crystal, a British linguistic, wrote an article to counter back of Humphrys’ claim, known as, “ 2b or not 2b”. He claims that texting isn’t as bad and may help us with literacy. David Crystal and John Humphry argue over abbreviations and the understandability of text messages.
Abbreviations are words shortened, but Humphry and Crystal debate over them taking over the language. Humphrys agrees with abbreviations dominating and taking over the language for good. He scared about the …show more content…
His essay shows, “ Even worse are the grotesque abbreviations” (pg. 8, line 92). His idea of literacy is having words completed. The phrase he listed is about how much he despises abbreviations. Crystal doesn’t believe in the untruthful words of Humphry. His take on this topic includes the fact, that abbreviations were known before texting became popular and people used way back then. His counter argument states, “ People have been initializing common phrases for ages. IOU is known from 1618” (pg. 20, lines 131-133). This quote gives the idea of abbreviations, initializing, known from a long time ago and already took over the language way back. Humphrys and Crystal give opinions and facts that are valid and show a change of the English Understandability of text messages are clear ways to absorb the message, but Humphry and Crystal have different ways of how texts are or are not very comprehensible. Humphrys’ idea of texting it to be a form of understandability. His take on text messages is made so it may be read in a way that people can comprehend it and be able to respond to a readable message. He wrote, “ Instead of aiding communication it can be a barrier. I