Talk:SMS language/Archive 1

Comments
It became common due to text messaging? This kind of typing has been common for years &mdash; it was commonplace when I first visited chat rooms in 1997 or so, and was undoubtedly popular before that. -Branddobbe 08:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * True enough. I have updated to reflect this. Guinness 16:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it originated way before chat rooms. It has been used at least as far back as the 70s and 80s by the deaf community using TTD and TTY devices to chat. Neil Weicher 01:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

IMO the telegraphists were probably the first to use them. JohnnyBatina 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think (if memory serves) that they did use some similar abbreviations. 74.108.127.36 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Anonymous


 * I don't know what article this belongs in. It could be Leet-speech, SMS language or telegraphese, but I was watching a Buster Keaton comedy short, 'Neighbors' and it begins with a girl passing him a note through a hole in a wall saying "I love you". Buster returns the note, having altered it to "I love you 2", this is from 1920. Hah. Maybe all these topics should be combined into one "compressed language" article. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

abbreviations
I think the abbreviations list is probably going to get a bit big, and also there seem to be a lot of initialisms added. I think this probably needs to be split into distinct initialisms (assuming there isn't another list of them somewhere in wikipedia), and abbreviations lists.

I agree: the list could be miles longer, and probably ought to be a bit mor thorough for general knowledge. It does seem there are a lot of common abbreviations & initialisms missing as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.212.27 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SMS
I suggest that the title of this article should be "SMS language", or something similar... since the word "texting" (as a verb) is itself slang. The "Texting language" title could be a redirect. Any thoughts? EuroSong talk 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objections in two weeks, I went ahead with it :) EuroSong talk 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a typo in the definition of the abbreviation cba 'Can't be assed'? What is assed

Also suggested additional abbreviation 'ftf' meaning 'face to face'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.224 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question
Was this language primarily influenced by internet chat (in chatrooms and in games) and internet messageboards, or did text messaging influence these? The article says very little about the relationship between SMS language and other similar forms of language. The language has also creeped into emails, which are treated like text messages by many. Rintrah 13:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What relevance is the link to Eats Shoots and Leaves? There are many books on grammar which denounce SMS language - why choose this one? Rintrah 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Example
A text message of Shane Warne would serve as a good example of this language! Rintrah 08:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Article length
This article is way, way too long; mostly because of the extroadinary length of the sms acronyms. Keep the most notable and relevant ones and move the rest to another article, like "List of SMS acronyms". People will be more pleased with the article if it is shorter. I have War and Peace in my bookcase so I don't seek out lengthy texts for the sake of it. Rintrah 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. A List of SMS acronyms article would be more suitable. Why have we got an Abbreviation section and then a More Abbreviations section? MortimerCat 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall fix it now. Rintrah 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The title 'List of SMS acronyms' has been altered because these are not acronyms. (Acronyms are initial-based words that can be spoken as words (e.g. NATO, radar).  Non-speakable words (e.g. LMAO, OMG) are examples of initialism.  See the acronym article for further clarification.) Mrstonky (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A new article List of SMS abbreviations has been created, but immediately tagged with a delete flag. Could anyone with an opinion join in the discussion there. MortimerCat 16:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Clean-up
I have cleaned up the article quite a lot and it looks considerably better than when I first encountered it. I would still like some assistance, though:
 * There are no references in the introduction.
 * There are no references in the txt devices and abbreviations sections (sources shouldn't be difficult to find.)
 * There should be ten or so examples in the Abbreviations section (they can be taken from the main article.)

If someone addresses these concerns, the article might attain Good Article status.
 * I am going to join up the cleaning up process of this article since I think this article is important. I think the abbreviations should talk about ways which SMS language were derived/made from Standard English, instead of giving a comprehenisve list of abbreviations, which should be done in another article such as list of SMS language or just text language.--Ingramhk (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some more cleaning that could be useful would be to merge some of the sections into other. For example, the "Efficiency and economy" section is only one sentence long. Surely, it can find a home under a different heading, or even be deleted completely since it reiterates the point that is repeated several times prior: that SMS language saves time. The "General effects on society" section is also very short, and does not seem to contribute much relevant information. The "Initialisations" section is another that could probably go; it is a single sentence, and just a definition of "initialisations". Instead, it might be more efficient to link to a definition of the word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleesiggy (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

More comments and questions
The intro to this article says: (but see below)


 * This type of languages does not obey or follow any standard English grammar; furthermore, the words used in this language can't be found in a dictionary.

Well, this sentence does not follow English grammar, but I question its validity. The article talks a lot about abbreviations, which presumably can't be found in a standard dictionary (although I suspect there are lots of on-line dictionaries, and probably printed ones as well, that do list many of the abbreviations). But nowhere does the article talk about deviations from standard *grammar*. (Things like substituting 'cuz' for 'because' are vocabulary, not grammar.)

So unless someone can come up with examples where the grammar is different, I suggest re-wording the above to say:
 * SMS language more or less follows the grammar of ordinary English, but substitutes shortened forms for many words and phrases.

(OK, I edited the original slightly, but was reluctant to remove all mention of grammar, because I just don't know the answer.)

Also, does anyone know about work on texting in other languages? I know it happens (e.g. in French), but I don't know anything about it. Mcswell 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also – the last table is unusable. Could someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.68.127.172 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'm adding to this article for a technical communications class. I was wondering if there is any section to cite articles/books/sources for further reading? I also added information about how text messaging and textisms have affected academic/formal writing in students. I feel like this is definitely an aspect that could be further developed if anyone wishes. I do think that some of the information in the article could be updated since a lot of information seems to come from the early 2000s. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cament1 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Rename?
I'm not sure what to move this to, but "SMS language" is a terrible name. Since many (including myself) oppose having separate articles for AOL speak and the other variants, I think this article should include those too. Internet slang is alright, but too broad in the sense that there's Leet and computer jargon and too narrow in the sense it only deals with Internet-based slang, excluding mobile phone texting. Since we have a limited amount of articles on these types of slang, I think grouping them by likeness, rather than the platform they're used on (mobile phones vs. Internet), is the most logical method. Not to mention, I have never heard of the phrase "SMS language" before. Currently, there's a lot of overlap between this article and Internet slang, because this article excludes the language's origin and current use on other platforms merely because of it's title.

So anyone know what to name this? Rocket000 08:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How about something along the likes of "Technology Shorthand". I prefer the use of the word "shorthand" to "slang", as it is a form of shorthand.Hengineer (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But is SMS language really the same thing as internet slang? SMS language specifically evolved due to there being limited space on a small mobile phone screen, and before predictive text was introduced, typing in words was very time-consuming. Therefore the practice of cutting out vowels, for example, came about. On the other hand, internet slang did not evolve due to lack of space - but has its own set of words. Like "brb", to mean "be right back", used in instant messaging. These internet abbreviations evolved not because of lack of space, but because of the frequency of commonly-typed messages. You don't see this on a mobile phone. Therefore I dispute the assertion that they're the same thing. EuroSong talk 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Separate Lists?
Some of these abbreviations do sound odd. Maybe we should separate them into popular and non-popular, cuz some of these I've never really heard of. :-\ --ZSoraz (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Especially "no becomes na" and "is becomes iz" make no sense. I am going to remove them. They are of the exact same length, not abbreviations. Bobber0001 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar article
I've started an article Textese without realizing there is already an article on the subject. I've to move the content to this article now, But SMS language is now known as textese, I've provided enough references in the article i created, any ideas?? Randhirreddy Randhir 01:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Name change
I think the article should be renamed as Textese, since its being referred with that name, and sounds much accurate. I've provided references to this articles going through them will give a fair view. Any Ideas Randhir 00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

GTFO merge into SMS Language
Not worth its own article, is it? Patchy1 Talk To Me! 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Profanity
Some person is using profanity on this site, some swears and some having to do with sex. I seriously recommend changing them, or this could get out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.196.53 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations
What the fuck is up with some of these abbreviations? "My Dick is hard 	MDIH or wacko"? What the fuck? Or "Kiss my teeth"? Most of these aren't even abbreviations, they're just the first letters of a few words put together, that's not an abbreviation. I shouldn't be surprised though, an article like this is probably maintained by the 12yr's speaking 'sms language'. Where are the wikinazi's when you need actually need them.. 110.32.132.111 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This ain't Urban Dictionary. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of Love
I don't think many people use this, I believe that this was a prank for people to think that this was a positive thing (IE: "My Mother recently died" "Lol" usually is a negative meaning). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexthegod5 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Abbreviation Section?
Giant list seems completely unnecessary. It's an article about it, not a vocab book. I don't see how it adds any value to the article, personally. Anyone else have an opinion? Torca (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Trim. Only the useful ones useful solely for the first-timer should be left.  kazu ( talk ) 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then. How about removing all but At the moment, Be right back, By the Way, Got to Go, I don't know, Just Kidding, Laugh out Loud, Talk to you later, What the fuck. Will delete the rest tonight, unless there are any others people think should/shouldn't stay. Torca (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG
I was redirected here for ZOMG, and the article doesn't explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.23.179 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Frequency of use is biased
"less than 20%", "just 10%". What about "approximatedly 20%", "close to 10%"? Also, why it matters the self analysis of a linguist? I would prefer, sample collections from different aged groups. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.234.195 (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Common abbreviations
The Common abbreviations section needs sourcing or removing. Who's to say what are common and what are uncommon abbreviations? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Different user >> You should add C/w as an abbrieviation for "Complied With" which is used in the Military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.90.227 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide view
I think the article need to make clear that it's dealing only with the 'English-derived' SMS language, as opposed to French-derived or others. We need to acknowledge that the language described here is not universal to everyone in the world who communicate using SMS. Probably by adding something like "In the English-speaking world..." in the header. Or by adding a section (briefly) describing other SMS languages. 125.166.192.196 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion?
What about FTW? ( the world, for the win.) I see it all the time. 24.179.27.28 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And where is FFS, ffs? :P --41.177.251.96 (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding new sections
Hi, I am a student editing this page for a course project. I have made some changes to the page in my sandbox and also added new sections. Can anyone help to look through it and tell me if it is okay to put it up? Thanks a lot! Emtan1 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Emtan, I am replying at your talk page, has your tutor sufficiently explained to you the basic editing rules of Wikipedia? Why this article in particular, is it your choice? There are literally thousands of other articles that could do with improvement.  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

scholarly cant
Scholars have long used op cit, ff, cf, cp, nb, without worrying about the effect of the Latin abbreviations on the quality of their Latin. But I remember English teachers frowning on etc.

See misc, inter alia.

More important is to know the difference between e.g. and i.e. and to respect that difference.

Excuse the nb ; I meant n.b., I mean N.b.

G. Robert Shiplett 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And your point would be?  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of Date?
It should be mentioned that with the phase out of the SMS protocol on smart phones, most of the examples provided aren't used so liberally anymore, and only the popular ones such as lol, atm, brb, cya, ttyl, and such are used with regularity. This is because messages are allowed to be longer and so the messages don't need to be condensed so much anymore. Biglulu (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also known as...
According to the article:
 * ...(also known as txt-speak, txtese, chatspeak, txt, txtspk, txtk, txto, texting language, txt lingo, SMSish, txtslang,or txt talk)...

Really? Are all of these real? Does the article really need all of them? I would reduce the list myself but actually I don't know, maybe there are a substantial amount of people that actually call it each of those things. (I have never heard it called any of them...) Radiodef (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

new
Hi. Since late-last year, whenever I'm talking to my friends, they are using new text languages which are not on the table but they're kind or similar there. Examples:
 * IDEK - I don't even know


 * OML / OFC - Oh My Lord / Oh F*** Christ


 * LMAO - Laughing My Ass Off


 * OTP - One True Pairing


 * OTW - On The Wa

Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Advertisement?
Under the first grid of SMS words, there is a paragraph saying "Vodacom also provides other lists of abbreviations and acronyms with their meanings in its website." I think this could be an advertisement for "Vodacom". Could we delete this? Arby36 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

ITAP
I took a picture. Not clear if this is text-speak only. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Neutrality
I have noticed a couple instances where the article is not completely neutral. Under "Pictograms and Logograms", the source cited (reference 14) is heavily biased. The piece of information itself that is included in the article here is not biased, but the man who wrote the article from which it came is very much against SMS language. He claims it is "drab shinktalk" right before giving the fact that is cited here. This makes me doubt its credibility, especially since the author of the article did not cite a single source aside from the book he was railing against. Another instance where bias seems to have seeped through is the last sentence in the first paragraph under "SMS Dictionaries". This sentence calls SMS language ungrammatical, which is not necessarily true since it is intelligible by speakers and possibly has its own unique grammar (it's just different from that of spoken language). This moves it into the realm of opinion or assertion of an original idea, both of which are not allowed on Wikipedia. In addition to all this, the assertion has no citation, as already noted. I would suggest perhaps removing this statement from the article altogether, unless studies can be found that SMS language has no grammatical rules that are followed. Bleesiggy (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Source unavailable: "The Impact of Short Message Service (SMS) Language on Language Proficiency of Learners and the SMS Dictionaries"
The link to the source is broken and irretrievable via Archive.org. Benjbrandall (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Bleesiggy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)