Were Orwell's Predictions Precise?
ROFL. WUUB2? LOL.
Can you understand this?
Languages as a whole have evolved over thousands of years, with there being an estimated 7,000 different languages spoken worldwide.
Over the past few years, the use of 'abbreviated speech' (using phrases such as ROFL) has risen rapidly. Normally associated as being used via the internet, abbreviated phrases such as 'LOL' are now even being incorporated throughout real life conversation.
Ultimately, there is only one word suitable for this so-called 'language'; lazy. As well as lazy, it encourages narrow-minded thinking, preventing 'creative' conversation in a sense. Nowadays, many youths use a simple LOL as a conversation filler, rather than attempt to think of a more unique thing to say. How much more effort does it take to say 'laugh out loud', or even think of another word to keep conversation flowing fluently? Surely it can't take that much more effort?
George Orwell, as you may know, came up with the concept of Newspeak within his fascinating dystopian novel 1984. If you've not read it, I highly recommend it. This language is the language Orwell believed would eventually be used throughout society. Likewise to abbreviated speech, Newspeak is seen to encourage narrow-minded thinking by reducing vocabulary such as synonyms to words like 'bad' and replacing them with 'ungood', eventually narrowing the natural train of creative thought.
Just imagine a world where to describe something, you'd have to use 'plusgood' rather than excellent, to convey your feelings towards it. How could certain literature be exceptional? How could conversation be interesting?
Could abbreviated speech be an advanced form of Newspeak? It encourages a lack of creative speech, likewise to Newspeak. Perhaps Orwell's predictions of the future language were more accurate than many fail to realise having read 1984...
IMAGE: Auntie P