[subego]

Seriously... why the quotes?

[turtle777]

Don't "bother"

-t

[ghporter]

Apparently, many people feel that placing quotation marks around something emphasizes it, like italics or underlines. All it does for me is to point out that whomever wrote that statement, he or she isn't an English major.

[Cold Warrior]

Making proper signage seems like one of the few uses for an English degree.

[Eug]

The “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Apparently, many people feel that placing quotation marks around something emphasizes it, like italics or underlines. All it does for me is to point out that whomever wrote that statement, he or she isn't an English major.

Hmmm... something tells me I would have realized this sooner if quotes were even "remotely" for that.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

whomever wrote that statement, he or she isn't an English major.

I don't mean to poke fun (I admire Glenn), but given the context of the sentence. . .

[ghporter]

...and I'm caught! I am not an English major, but at least "I" don't emphasize text with quotes...

[Waragainstsleep]

I think I'm missing something here. Where does this "Do not eat" in quotes come from?

[reader50]

Agreed. I even checked subego's post for the image URL that wasn't loading. But there wasn't one.

[subego]

Ask, and you shall "receive".

[design219]

You know, if it doesn't say "poison" on the package, I say it is fair game. I know I've got some around here somewhere. I'll report back in a bit.

[subego]

My dog ate one once and my ex flipped out.

"OMG! OMG! She just ate POISON!"

I'm like, where does it say that?

[Waragainstsleep]

Maybe it just sucks up all your stomach acid. That could be weird.

[Patrick]

It's only silicon dioxide, so I suppose it would be as harmless as eating dry sand… BUT… if it's laced with a moisture indicator, that can make it toxic. I don't see why manufacturers of these packets would use anything besides pure silica gel in them, since these things are just meant to be thrown away by consumers, but who knows - they could use some kind of preservative. It's probably better not to get in the habit of eating desiccants, anyway.

[moonmonkey]

Its not dangerous, we tested it in China - it takes a lot to even cause a stomach ache.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Patrick 

It's probably better not to get in the habit of eating desiccants, anyway.

God damn fascist.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

Its not dangerous, we tested it in China - it takes a lot to even cause a stomach ache.

"Really?"

[moonmonkey]

Yes the population is numerous, a few people going missing is rarely noticed.

[reader50]

Improved warning label:

SILICA GEL
DESICCANT

Do Not Eat
"May cause dry mouth"
Throw Far Away

[ghporter]

Yeah, reader50's label is much better.

I think it is a given that the English language is changing, and unfortunately it seems to be changing in a negative way-at least for those of us who have at least tried to use the language in formal communication. According to Dictionary.com, even basic conventions like capitalizing the personal pronoun I are evaporating, due mostly to text-speak. And here's a problem with all of this: introducing new conventions (which is the same as systematically ignoring old conventions) randomly and at will makes it harder to communicate. I think that is bad for everyone.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Improved warning label:

This needs to read:

Throw "far" away

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Yeah, reader50's label is much better.

I think it is a given that the English language is changing, and unfortunately it seems to be changing in a negative way-at least for those of us who have at least tried to use the language in formal communication. According to Dictionary.com, even basic conventions like capitalizing the personal pronoun I are evaporating, due mostly to text-speak. And here's a problem with all of this: introducing new conventions (which is the same as systematically ignoring old conventions) randomly and at will makes it harder to communicate. I think that is bad for everyone.

Your example of not capitalizing the "I" strikes me as the opposite of random. Isn't it usually done for a specific and precise reason?

[64stang06]

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

Your example of not capitalizing the "I" strikes me as the opposite of random. Isn't it usually done for a specific and precise reason?

Only if you consider ignoring capitalization in texting to be a "specific and precise reason".

[subego]

The purpose isn't to ignore capitalization, the purpose is to increase speed.

[ghporter]

...and thus random.

[subego]

Not within the medium in which it's taking root.

[ghporter]

But it is not staying within that medium. I see typed text filled with text-speak so-called spelling as part of non-text message text all the time. Here on our boards, example. The point is that, rather than showing up in a limited context (such as amateur radio operators using "Q-codes" among ham groups), this shows up anywhere information is typed. It started with texting, but now it is virtually everywhere, at least so it seems to me.

[subego]

Heh... Q-codes... perfect example.

These were originally typed in morse.

Then they became spoken post-Marconi

Then they became typed again when they were co-opted by the computer set.

The non-computer set picked it up once computers became less dorky.

It gathered momentum with texting.

Now it's so ubiquitous people will actually verbalize the Q-code, saying something like "OMG, so random!"

[ghporter]

Sort of, but not really. Q-codes abbreviate things, condensing large chunks of information into two Morse characters. The abbreviations you mention, such as "OMG!" and "LOL!" may condense exhortations or interjections, but the content of the message is left in (badly spelled) pseudo-English. The difference is that of systematic and thoroughly constrained symbols (Q-codes) versus completely un-systematic, completely unconstrained symbols (LOLs, etc.). At least "Lolspeak" is systematic, and if used consistently it is well constrained. But "text-speak" with "r u gon out 2nite?" and "i was hr b4 them" is far too loose to call systematic or constrained - it lacks enough structure to be dependable as a form of communication, and users give up precision and thus risk (even dare!) failure of communication. Misunderstanding this form of writing is more common than not, but I guess it indicates something that this stuff is used for even shorter messages than tweets. Not really too much to talk about, right?