|
|
| 7331 is not xt-tlk |
| Yes |
|
44% |
[ 11 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 12 ] |
| I can't decide |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:45 am
Don't classify 7331 [Leet] as txt-tlk. 7331 is basically a substitution of alphabets and/or numbers with symbols. I doesn't break rules of grammer in most cases [You can't count capitalisation, it's not possible in 7331. Neither can you count using 'ph' in place of 'f' as a misspelling]. It's just like a dialect of english in the computer world, while txt-tlk is just the work of a lazy slouch who can't type out his words. People who type in 7331, aren't lazy. In some cases it's more difficult than typing in normal english.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:45 am
Actually. I have seen in many cases where leet is an account of laziness. Sure it is different from text talk but they both slaughter English one in the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:50 am
It is a code. Codes are codes. Good grammar is good grammar. Not a lot of explanation of this subject should be required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:24 am
Isn't it meant to be 1337? Well, it is not what I would class as txttlk, but it isn't exactly good English and/or correct grammar. You don't find people talking ini 1337 5P34K in real life do you? I have to agree with what Niccea Majeare said. Regardless of whether it is txttlk or not, it's just as bad, if not worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:02 am
 Personally, I classify 1337 as txt tlk.
It's annoying to read.
Sadly, I can read almost all of it.
>.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:52 pm
I think whoever wants to type in 1337, must be really bored.
They must have a very puzzling mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:58 am
Wasn't it 1337?
Anyways, theres actually a history behind leet speak. Not a good one, but it still has one. Computer hackers were being found, through search engines, like Google. To talk on the internet, without people being able to find them, they needed their own language. They chose leet, because who in the right mind would sit on a search engine typing in numbers? Hackers still speak leet to eachother, like a secret code. It just became popular..unfortunatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:38 am
The history is interesting.
I think it was that American comic... MegaTokyo that made it popular. (I never really read it before.)
I don't classify it as 'txt talk', but I honestly think that it shouldn't be used. Nowadays, especially on gaia, people use it to look cute, and I hate it. I roleplay, and more and more threads, especially the literate ones, use 1337 5P34K in the titles.
It's ruining grammar and isn't something that should be integrated into everyday speech. As everyone else has agreed, it's a code. I wouldn't suddenly insert '110001101' just because I decided I wanted to put binary in my sentences. If it had a context, yes, but the way people use it nowadays is almost identical to 'txt talk'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:43 pm
I think it's 1337. Well anyways, you don't qualify it as txt talk. But anyways that isn't a proper way to spell out words. So technically doesn't qualify as good grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:13 am
I can't read it smoothly and quickly like I can normal English. Thus, it is despised. It's a cipher derivative of English, sure... but then again, so is txt-tlk. They aren't the same, but they're very similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:11 pm
In instances where leet is randomly added to words for no apparent reason or not for use as code, I consider it "txt-talk". Otherwise, leet is code and is tolerable. Quote: 1337 eye/l/ (0[ wink 3 ph0l2/l/l. Leet in code form. Leet in "txt-talk" form. Leet in its code form is much harder and takes longer. It cannot be associated with laziness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:26 pm
Text-talk 1337 is easy to read, as opposed to real 1337, which is near impossible for me to read. I actually need to sit down and think about it. I buzz right over text-talk 1337 like it's regular English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:23 pm
Mushed In instances where leet is randomly added to words for no apparent reason or not for use as code, I consider it "txt-talk". Otherwise, leet is code and is tolerable. Quote: 1337 eye/l/ (0[ wink 3 ph0l2/l/l. Leet in code form. Leet in "txt-talk" form. Leet in its code form is much harder and takes longer. It cannot be associated with laziness.  Flying high above the clouds...· -
I was just about to say this myself. Thank you for saving my fingers. whee
And people, L337 and 1337 are the same thing. There is no set character limit when typing in 1337.
Here, inform thyselves.
"Hey, I want to be smarter!"- · ...Since 1988
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:46 am
X_Simply-Perfect_X Isn't it meant to be 1337? Well, it is not what I would class as txttlk, but it isn't exactly good English and/or correct grammar. You don't find people talking ini 1337 5P34K in real life do you? I have to agree with what Niccea Majeare said. Regardless of whether it is txttlk or not, it's just as bad, if not worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
