160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
acousticcarnival
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:40 am UTC
Location: Flint Town, MI
Contact:

160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby acousticcarnival » Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:59 am UTC

The choice for so many cell phone providers to limit individual text messages to only 160 characters is odd.
Today's text messages are 16 bit. As opposed to the 32 and 64bit 2nd generations.
It's dumbing down the young humans (teenz) brains' capacity to think linguistically; thus, considering the intimate relationship between language and logic, creating 16 bit versions of ourselves.

We are mere qwarks in some giant silicon chip.

Though there's much to love in the 160 character limit. Choose your words wisely. Economically. It's a new form of poetry for some. It will be, at least, someday. Like a haiku; the rules are just as arbitrary.
Just Trying To Matter.

User avatar
liza
It's teatime somewhere
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 8:01 am UTC
Location: New Amsterdam

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby liza » Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:09 am UTC

acousticcarnival wrote:Like a haiku

You may have just solved
Your own problem with texting.
Compose in haiku!

Embrace the limits
And eschew stupidity
By making text art.

Cell phone text poems
Will make texters poets and
not chat/txtspk tools.

Culture is rescued.
Yay for haiku! No thanks to
Cell phone companies.
Felstaff wrote:
Okita wrote:"What are you up to?"

"Attempting to save the free world and preserve Democracy...without Liza"
But...But [that would] just be announcing you're definitely about to fail.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby phlip » Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:31 am UTC

acousticcarnival wrote:The choice for so many cell phone providers to limit individual text messages to only 160 characters is odd.

Well, to be fair, it's not the choice of the cell phone providers... it's a limitation built in to the SMS protocol. It's called a "Short Message" Service for a reason.
acousticcarnival wrote:Today's text messages are 16 bit.

Actually, 7. It's actually quite confusing.

[/pedantry]

On topic: I can't say I've ever been limited by the 160-char limit for SMSes... I think I've sent a grand total of 1, maybe 2, SMSes ever that had to be split. If I have more to say, I'll get pissed off at the typing-with-numbers thing long before I'll hit 160 chars. And all my SMSes always use proper English.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
acousticcarnival
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:40 am UTC
Location: Flint Town, MI
Contact:

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby acousticcarnival » Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:16 pm UTC

Liza, You have such
Proficiency for Haikus!
Quadruplets even!
Just Trying To Matter.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:35 pm UTC

phlip wrote:And all my SMSes always use proper English.

Yeah, I also can't bring myself to use chatspeak even though it would allow for more information per message.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

EstLladon
Beat you to the park. From RUSSIA.
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:23 am UTC

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby EstLladon » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:59 am UTC

In Russia when you write SMSs in cyrillic it is limited to 70 symbols. Brevity is sister of talent. And a lot of people write them with Latin letters, because either older phones that didn't support cyrillic or bigger message length. I find russian words written in latin letters ugly.
From Russia with math.

User avatar
Poochy
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 am UTC

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby Poochy » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:44 am UTC

acousticcarnival wrote:Today's text messages are 16 bit. As opposed to the 32 and 64bit 2nd generations.

I think 16-bit only applies in East Asian countries like Taiwan and Japan (which I believe don't use the SMS standard), because of how many characters there are in Chinese and Japanese. I count just over 100 characters supported by my cell phone's SMS text entry field (26 lowercase letters + 26 uppercase letters + 10 digits + 40 other characters + 1 space = 103 characters total), and only 7 bits are required to support up to 128 characters.

Anyways, I always text in plain English, and even then it's exceedingly rare for me to hit 160 characters. I still blame laziness for abbreviations, not the 160-character limit.
clintonius wrote:"You like that, RIAA? Yeah, the law burns, doesn't it?"
GENERATION 63,728,127: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and divide the generation number by 2 if it's even, or multiply it by 3 then add 1 if it's odd. Social experiment.

Baza210
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Ireland.

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby Baza210 » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:49 pm UTC

Hurrah for free texts to any network. I have hit 6 pages.
Here I'm allowed everything all of the time

User avatar
cooldude76
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 1:55 am UTC
Location: North Side of Chicago, Illinios, United States, North America, The Western Hemisphere, Earth,

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby cooldude76 » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:03 pm UTC

[Devil's advocate]
Isn't this (simpul-spelling-like) movement just a natural change in the way language work? Aren't American's (and appertain Russians...) just adapting to a new standard for communication? Spoken conversation is slowly falling out style, though I myself rarely text message and do most of my communication through talking. Text messaging is just the next step in the evolution of this language. Now, maybe it won't take, but you never know.
[/Devil's advocate]

Like I said before, I hate texting. Though it does add some interesting pieces to conversation. I find myself sending things that made sense in my head, because of my *spoken* inflections, but when it is written out there aren't any inflections, hence causing the problem. Also, a joking insult and a pissed off insult look the same, leading to confusion at times.


Anybody notice how we just took a noun (text) added -ing, and made it a verb ("I was texting her last night."). Funky.
"... And How are Things in the Hallway..."
-- A Clockwork Orange.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby goofy » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:24 pm UTC

Orthographic abbreviation is nothing new. As David Crystal says in his new book Txtng: The Gr8 Db8:

Text messages aren’t full of abbreviations - typically less than ten percent of the words use them.
These abbreviations aren't a new language - they’ve been around for decades.
They aren't just used by kids - adults of all ages and institutions are the leading texters these days.


This isn't the first time we've made text a verb. It was a verb in the 1600s.

Cherry Kiss
¡This cheese is burning me!
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:35 pm UTC

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby Cherry Kiss » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:08 pm UTC

phlip wrote:On topic: I can't say I've ever been limited by the 160-char limit for SMSes... I think I've sent a grand total of 1, maybe 2, SMSes ever that had to be split. If I have more to say, I'll get pissed off at the typing-with-numbers thing long before I'll hit 160 chars. And all my SMSes always use proper English.

personally. i find that the only time i ever get close to the 160 mark is when i am in an argument and i as well use proper english. I use t9 so it doesn't recognize short versions.
What they call love is a risk,
'Cause you will always get hit
Out of nowhere by some wave
And end up on your own.

User avatar
Bobber
contains Disodium Phosphate
Posts: 1357
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Holme, Denmark.
Contact:

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby Bobber » Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:52 pm UTC

I use the T9 predictive text thingy as well.
My messages (with my Danish language phone and Danish T91) are limited to 160 characters as well, and my phone can split them up so that it supports a total of one thousand characters split over seven messages.

I often hit around 500-700 characters when I am bored, and all of my texts are in proper Danish.

I find it interesting how languages other than English develop shorthand chat/textspeak.
It's so universal.

In Danish, we have a number of them, such as "d" for "det" (that/it), "r" for "er" (are/is) and "ik" for "ikke" (not).
We probably have a lot more, but I don't use them so I don't have much first-hand experience with them.
If anyone texts me (Oh well, we call them SMSs here and not texts) in textspeak, I will kindly ask them to use some Proper Fucking DanishTM before I snap their cellphone in half, or send it to the Will It Blend guys.

1-Danish has three additional letters (æ, ø and å) compared to English. This is why I deemed it relevant.
I don't twist the truth, I just make it complex.
mrbaggins wrote:There are two tools in life, duct tape and WD40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.

User avatar
djn
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 1:33 pm UTC
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby djn » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:59 pm UTC

What bobber said, with the marginal difference of me being Norwegian. The 160 character limit hasn't been an issue for some time; phones have been able to seamlessly split and rejoin messages for quite a while now. As for the typing itself, the T9 dictionary means that using a full word isn't much more work (less, in some cases) than spelling out the short forms used to be. The end result is that I very seldom see the stereotypical text speak used anymore ... or that could be because I'm getting old. Either way.

On the other hand - is anyone else annoyed at the 500 char limit on youtube comments? It makes it near impossible to say anything useful in just one message. The challenge of finding denser way to formulate a sentence and shorter synonyms of long words can admittedly be interesting in itself, but it's still inconvenient.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby Joeldi » Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:35 am UTC

goofy wrote:This isn't the first time we've made text a verb. It was a verb in the 1600s.


But "txt"?

I cringe at abbreviations, and in any text where I'm explaining something, rather than just saying "Hey meet me at..." or the like, I'll go over the limit. So two pages is fairly common for me. It's usually not a problem, as my provider, despite being terrible in every other respect, pretty much has the local mobile usership monopolised due to "Unlimited 1c texts to any other telstra mobile"

Spoilered for off topic:
Spoiler:
Their business model seems to utilise the following
A: Hey, [friends], I've just got Telstra's 1c text thing
B, C, D: Oh sweet I have that.
E, F: I don't
A, B, C, D: ... - - ... repeat
E, F: Nobody ever texts us :(
A, B, C ,D: I'm NOT going to pay 25cents to text you! Fuck. That. Shit.
E, F: We'll get Telstra then.
Telstra: We used to be the country's most respectable and decent Telephone company, but since privatisation, all we care about is profit, and driving the other providers out of business HAHAHAHAHAHAHA MONEY
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
Dibley
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
Location: Napa Valley, California
Contact:

Re: 160//Char. per/ txt_ msg. plz/

Postby Dibley » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

I hate that limit, and run up against it all the time, but I've found a solution for when I really don't want to split/abbreviate. On my phone (Verizon) picture messages have a 1000 character limit, and you don't actually have to put a picture in them.

I pretty much always use perfect English in my messages, and even go through the trouble to capitalize "I"s, apostrophize as necessary, and use two spaces after a sentence, though I'll relax that if I am just barely over the character limit. That said, I have no problem with text speak, and in fact people that get pedantic about it piss me off, because they usually have some flagrantly fallacious argument about how it is "dumbing down speech" and otherwise a Bad Thing, when it's really just an aesthetic matter.


Return to “Language/Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests