Response To John Humphrys

Dear Mr. John Humphreys, I respect you with all means, you have voiced your opinion on testing by creating the article ‘Why I ha txt megs: How testing is wrecking our language’ and like you have said what you think, I must express my opinion too. Firstly, the way you have conveyed your emotion towards the Oxford English Dictionary seems immature, your words: ‘I yield to no man in my love for one’ is overly hyperbolic, also: ‘They are as close to my heart as they are to my desk because they are so much more than a useful tool’ – Your obsessive passion towards dictionaries is unnecessary.

Furthermore, you describe cooking through a dictionary as ‘A small voyage Of discovery however, Mr. Humphreys, considering how you said looking through a dictionary is like a ‘voyage’ may I ask why you would metaphorically connect looking through a dictionary to find a word like a sailor that is on a long Voyage’ to find gold or treasure? I am sure, looking up the words on the Internet or on your phone would spare you the time of looking through many pages and sections of the alphabet to find the word you want. Also, what’s wrong in searching up a word on Google rather than looking it up in the dictionary?

It gives you as such of a ‘voyage’ either way because in the end you will eventually get the word you have been searching for. As matter factotum have also stated that ‘It’s rare to open a dictionary without being diverted somewhere else’ I am not living in the clinch of criticism but I must contradict this because what you have said can not only apply for a physical dictionary but however, if you were to search up a word on the internet, you would also get ‘distracted’ and would end up knowing more or finding out more words than you intended to. Mr. Humphreys, may also say that you fill your article with more than needed examples of sarcasm.

For example, when you are commenting on ‘Spell- check’ in brackets you have written ‘(sorry: spellchecker)’ – here you are illustrating how you’re being forced to drop the use of hyphens. You say you’re sorry but clearly you do not mean it, if you would have meant it then you would have spelt the word without the hyphen to begin with. You may think the way you are being sarcastic may seem humorous but by doing this you are only showing your pettiness. The use of hyphens is to make the word seem easier to read, but really it is easier to read when the hyphen is not used, so as was saying; the ODD was right to drop the hyphen.

Going onto how you said in the sentence: ‘is it the relentless onward march of the testers, the SMS (Short Message Service) vandals who are doing to our language what Genesis Khan did to his neighbors eight hundred years ago’ Firstly, you are advocating that testers are ‘vandals’ and they are doing what Genesis Khan did, in testers defense, I’m sorry but what you have said is incredibly immature. How could you connect two completely different subjects like that? What Genesis Khan did was filled with physical violence and murder; it is a historical subject that can only be remembered as something disgraceful.

And as of testing ruining the language like Genesis Khan did? That is completely hypocritical. You also say that ‘they are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped. ‘ Secondly, you have used three words that get worse each time. ‘Pillaging, savaging, raping’ the word rape can certainly not be used while describing testing. There is no sexual harassment nor is there any violence in how text speech is evolving speech has changed over time and you cannot simply criticism people who text to have wrecked the language, because the language itself is changing.

It has changed from BC to the Roman times, to the 1 800, to when the 21st century has come and it is continuously changing and will continue changing as the generations grow. By 20 years time the language we speak now will have evolved into something new. John Micrometer said that he would like to go into the future and bring the way they speak, text, and type back to what time we are at now, and to see if we would understand any of the words. He also said that, ‘testing is like speaking, only through your fingers’ – ‘we text the way we speak. ‘ People, children and adults of all ages know the difference between formal language ND text speech.

You would not speak the way you would write a novel, or you would not speak the way you would write an essay. Following on, people text but when they start writing formally, they change the way their words are. People have also said that testing is improving children’s reading level because they are practicing writing, reading and speech while they text. Testing does not wreck the English language because some people whom text, even text with full sentences. They don’t use the terms ‘Lol’ or ‘BRB’ – they may once In a while but looking into it, ‘101’ is a marker of empathy; it no longer has the proper meaning ‘laugh out loud.

Mr. Humphreys, as you are sarcastically criticizing testers like this, have you ever come to the thought that your own children, you yourself and the people around you will have cell phones, touch phones, other mumbling devices that they would use to text each other with. You yourself may even have a mobile device and you may even text, and if you do, your whole article on why you ‘ha txt megs’ is completely hypocritical, and you yourself will be known as a hypocrite. You should not be comparing text speech to writing because they are TTY. 0 completely different things, testing is a whole new language in itself – it is evolving it’s own grammar and conventions -? Like Mr. John Micrometer said: ‘In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But testing and instant messaging do – and a revolution has begun. It involves the brute mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, testing is actually a new king of talking’ continuously during the years; and history, there will always be men criticizing language and how it is changing.

But really, nobody can change how the language is evolving because it is appending automatically as new generations come. Most letters end with ‘as to conclude’ or ‘in conclusion’ as the ending, but I will not conclude what am trying to say. Am only going to state that your argument is invalid, the way your article has been structured is like you have no more points to back up your arguments, so you keep changing the subject to a new completely abnormal way of criticism towards testers.

The over exaggeration in your work is childlike and the use of so much sarcasm is witty, the emotion you are trying to convey is obvious but Mr. Humphreys, that is all o can say because nothing in the world can stop the way the human language is going to evolve, and the way you’re tying to attack testers will not change the way people text, nor will it change the way people write or even stop people from testing.

Also, I’m going to say a final thing about your piece. Towards the end, you have put a rhyme that goes ‘Mary had a mobile. She tested day and night. But when it came to her exams. She’d forgotten how to write. ‘ This is incredibly arrogant of you to put this in your article, and how it states that she had forgotten how to write is completely inadequate because she will not forget owe to write. It is not physically possible for her to forget how to write.

Oh and, the use of sarcasm, again, the way you said to the editor of the ODD I will simply say: For many years you’ve been GAR. Don’t spoil it now. TTS. ‘ I personally find it amusing at how you can say this and think that every person who reads your article will know what ‘ODD’ stands for.