I was in a chat room talking to people from foriegn countries (or so they say) and they were typing exactly like they pronounce a word (example: British man saying "ows it goin tonight,gov,nah".what I want to know is....do foriegn people REALLY type that way or are these guys phonies?
Chat room accents
To some extent, there would be some matching between what is typed and what is said in real conversation. Sometimes there would be maybe more of an exaggeration in accent. I'm sure there are also users out there that pretend that they are something that they're not.
I use phrases online that would peculiar to my country.
I use phrases online that would peculiar to my country.
I occasionally use colloquial spellings and grammar in my writing that probably indicate my accent and dialect. What throws me off (and probably others) is that I tend to READ other people's posts in my own accent, so when they throw out some phrase or spelling that totally doesn't fit, it can be quite jarring and amusing.
Generally, when chatting I use a completely different style orthographically from when I'm doing more formal writing, such as in a form, as I'm trying to actually represent the spoken language as close as reasonably possible while still maintaining understandability to individuals primarily acquainted with the standard orthography. However, I am not as much concerned with faithfully representing the actually pronunciation as I am with faithfully representing the grammar and morphology, including cliticization, of the informally spoken language which I'm used to.
Hence I normally directly represent the incorporation of cliticized forms into host words, rather than just leaving such to be assumed, such as the incorporation of formal "to" into quasi-modal verbs, the use of cliticized accusative/dative personal pronouns and possessive determiners, the use perfect inflections on modal verbs, the extensive use of auxiliary verb clitics, the incorporation of formal "of" into preceding words as a clitic, and so on. Many of these conventions seem to be quite understandable to literate native English speakers, especially ones who natively speak NAE dialects, but unfortunately seem to often trip up non-native English speakers who are only truly acquainted with formal writing conventions.
Hence I normally directly represent the incorporation of cliticized forms into host words, rather than just leaving such to be assumed, such as the incorporation of formal "to" into quasi-modal verbs, the use of cliticized accusative/dative personal pronouns and possessive determiners, the use perfect inflections on modal verbs, the extensive use of auxiliary verb clitics, the incorporation of formal "of" into preceding words as a clitic, and so on. Many of these conventions seem to be quite understandable to literate native English speakers, especially ones who natively speak NAE dialects, but unfortunately seem to often trip up non-native English speakers who are only truly acquainted with formal writing conventions.
In chatting I eschew punctuation and most capitalization, as it kinda gets in the way and isn't usually necessary for comprehension. I don't usually use that different of spellings but I do use some forms that show up less often in my other writing. Sometimes I incorporate a few elements of my chatting style into informal forums like this (you'll notice a 'kinda' above ;) ). Some chatting forms which often show up in my typing:
--cuz (instead of 'cause or because)
--cliticizations (gonna, wanna, kinda)
--probly
--some use of conversational words (like, um)
--almost exclusive use of 'yeah' ('yes' is rare in normal speech and chatting reflects that fact) instead of 'yes'
--cuz (instead of 'cause or because)
--cliticizations (gonna, wanna, kinda)
--probly
--some use of conversational words (like, um)
--almost exclusive use of 'yeah' ('yes' is rare in normal speech and chatting reflects that fact) instead of 'yes'
I myself do use some modified spellings that do reflect pronunciation changes, such as "prolly" instead of "probably", and I do likewise tend to more strongly use "yeah" rather than "yes" (which in spoken usage here is a very strong affirmative which is primarily used for specifically answering questions or emphasis). On the other hand, as I do not generally try to change spellings based on pronunciation unless I am trying to emphasize a particularly different pronunciation from the formal pronunciation, I generally use "cause" instead of "cuz", as the spelling "cause" normally indicates the same pronunciation as "cuz". I do also include some types of conversational particles, the main one being "well", which I incidentally for some reason also use on the form here.
Notably, though, I do not use "yah" while chatting (except while speaking German, where I of course spell it "ja"), even though it is a significant feature of my dialect in informal speech. I solely use "yeah" in the place of weak usages of it and "yes" or "yep" in the place of strong usages of it. For the record, the difference between weak and strong usages of "yah" are primarily in enunciation and stress, where weak usages are weakly enunciated and unstressed like "yeah", whereas strong usages are dragged out and very strongly stressed, and the meanings and usage of each are equivalent to "yeah" and "yes" respectively.
Notably, though, I do not use "yah" while chatting (except while speaking German, where I of course spell it "ja"), even though it is a significant feature of my dialect in informal speech. I solely use "yeah" in the place of weak usages of it and "yes" or "yep" in the place of strong usages of it. For the record, the difference between weak and strong usages of "yah" are primarily in enunciation and stress, where weak usages are weakly enunciated and unstressed like "yeah", whereas strong usages are dragged out and very strongly stressed, and the meanings and usage of each are equivalent to "yeah" and "yes" respectively.
<<I myself do use some modified spellings that do reflect pronunciation changes, such as "prolly" instead of "probably">>
That's interesting--I don't have "prolly" even in my fastest informal speech so I don't use that in chatting, tho of course I've seen it. However, I will type "aight" sometimes, as I do say /aIt/ in some of my fastest informal speech.
<<and I do likewise tend to more strongly use "yeah" rather than "yes" (which in spoken usage here is a very strong affirmative which is primarily used for specifically answering questions or emphasis). On the other hand, as I do not generally try to change spellings based on pronunciation unless I am trying to emphasize a particularly different pronunciation from the formal pronunciation, I generally use "cause" instead of "cuz", as the spelling "cause" normally indicates the same pronunciation as "cuz".>>
"'cause" makes me think of the word "cause" /kAz/, so it doesn't look right to me. Since I say /kVz/ for "(be)cause" it's useful to have the "cuz" spelling.
<<I do also include some types of conversational particles, the main one being "well", which I incidentally for some reason also use on the form here.>>
Yeah that makes sense. I do that too.
Anyway, overall I change comparatively few spellings from their traditional standard forms, it's just I avoid punctuation and have my pet list of a few frequent words like "'cuz" which I always use when chatting.
That's interesting--I don't have "prolly" even in my fastest informal speech so I don't use that in chatting, tho of course I've seen it. However, I will type "aight" sometimes, as I do say /aIt/ in some of my fastest informal speech.
<<and I do likewise tend to more strongly use "yeah" rather than "yes" (which in spoken usage here is a very strong affirmative which is primarily used for specifically answering questions or emphasis). On the other hand, as I do not generally try to change spellings based on pronunciation unless I am trying to emphasize a particularly different pronunciation from the formal pronunciation, I generally use "cause" instead of "cuz", as the spelling "cause" normally indicates the same pronunciation as "cuz".>>
"'cause" makes me think of the word "cause" /kAz/, so it doesn't look right to me. Since I say /kVz/ for "(be)cause" it's useful to have the "cuz" spelling.
<<I do also include some types of conversational particles, the main one being "well", which I incidentally for some reason also use on the form here.>>
Yeah that makes sense. I do that too.
Anyway, overall I change comparatively few spellings from their traditional standard forms, it's just I avoid punctuation and have my pet list of a few frequent words like "'cuz" which I always use when chatting.
I meant "cause" in the context of what would be formally "because", which would be understood to be /k@z/ -> [k_hV:z], rather than the verb "cause", which for me is /kOz/ -> [k_hO:z]; it's already very common in the standard orthography to have two words with the same spelling which differ in pronunciation, with one being a verb and one being something else (usually a noun), so such in this case is not much of a deal for me anyways. But yeah, I myself do not change traditional standard forms a whole lot, except for marking cliticization and other morphological changes very aggressively, which of course does result in spelling changes but not spelling changes which mark pronunciation changes/differences alone.
Fred,
That's actually a chat room specific language, like a different language, in this case English.
It is true that foreigners migh have the tendancy to type how it's pronounced because either they don't know or because that's how they do it in their native language
That's actually a chat room specific language, like a different language, in this case English.
It is true that foreigners migh have the tendancy to type how it's pronounced because either they don't know or because that's how they do it in their native language
OK.just curious because ex: if a British guys knows that "how" is spelled HOW and pronounces it OW.,he most likely would type it HOW.a phony might want you to believe he's British by typing in that manner.(?)ok thanks.