The September Thread wrote:I really enjoy the way Bill clothes his thoughtful commentary and occasionally elevated diction in textspeak. I see it as a kind of High Street/couture approach to language; there's a genius in the mixing. And some fairly august linguists even liken switching back and forth between textspeak and orthodox language to bilingualism. So in a way, by forcing us to toggle back and forth as readers, Bill is treating us to a more complicated experience with language.
However despite this apparent respect for language in the highest regard, Bill and others like him have encountered a high level of criticism. Those who see this language usage as an abomination can generally be seen as falling into two types. The first type is those who have a genetic predisposition forcing them to only be able to read sentences with proper punctuation. This is a very rare deformity and basically an anomaly. Therefore the focus should rely mainly on the second type: those with such a level of pretension that every utterance that comes out of their mouth must be bombastic in nature.
A recent study by Jerry B. Knowitall has provided those who consider this criticism to be unfair with additional ground for countering the skepticism regarding the value of the unique combination of thoughtful content and a form free from the constraints of grammar and spelling exhibited in the works of BillPackets and others. In the development of the Ur-Germanic language from which English and other continental languages evolved, a similar pattern of language use occurred, and Mr. Knowitall contends that the introduction of this pattern has helped spur the development of the English language as we know it today. Instead of seeing it as regressive (or worse, degenerate), we ought to embrace the wit and elegance that is packed in textspeak as a crucial step towards the future development of English.
Of course, despite the historical impetus behind the development of the English language that is well documented by Dr. Knowitall and others like him, we should not expect the current forces that are pushing the English language into a new epoch to be readily accepted among all members of society. Indeed, throughout history, the evolution and changing nature of English has been fought and derided by those in positions of authority, and in particular by those who possess a false sense of what the English language actually is e.g. an "unchanging, holistic pattern of communicative sounds". So, while it may seem that textspeak is the next logical direction for the English language, given the influence of technology on society, we should not be surprised that some will hold onto a 'traditional' sense of the English language and attempt to fight the inherent changing nature of the English language.