Just over 8 years ago, an established journalist by the name on John Humphrys wrote an article of how technology was ‘pillaging our punctuation and raping our vocabulary’. Coincidentally the article was named ‘I h8 txt msgs’ something I thoroughly disagree with.

Before I begin, I completely understand John Humphrys’ optimism and relish at the opportunity to use a OED to further expand my academically naive mind with advance and unfamiliar words and meanings. I also agree that any infringement made on this dearest creation would be immoral. However I do believe that lanuage is more important than the OED and that this creation needs time to blossom and evolve into the requirements of each generation, something that John Humphrys should be more open to.

Humphrys describes SMS texters actions of today, as what ‘Genghis Khan did to his neighbours…’. By this emotive noun phrase we can see that what Humphrys is doing is extremely arrogant as he is firstly belittling the acts that Genghis Khan did and he is overreacting to SMS. Secondly, he is scaring his readers, the Daily Mail (who are typically right-wing) into being as pedantic as he is. Could this show that Humphrys is very controlling and is unable or ironically ‘scared’ of change?

I also think that Humphrys’ ignorance is shown through his discussion about ’emojis’. Emoticons have been rapidly increasing in demand and popularity; their uses expanding. From softening criticism to laughing at a joke, emoticons have given technology a more personal feel and it has been scientifically proven that the same parts of the brain activate when they see a face emoticon and a face in real life. Thus when Humphrys talks about his incapability to write ‘a colon, dash and bracket without automatically turning it into a picture of a smiling face’ is being truly moronic as there is no logical reason for this sequence of characters even before the emoticon. Therefore showing that Humphrys is being very discriminatory and bitter, even to an evolution of language that has not interfered with his own.

I feel that maybe I am being a little too over critical of John. He is simply a writer with an alternative view to mine but I believe that the way in which his article is written is ignorant and jealous as he is ‘betrayed’ by his ‘lifelong affair with the OED is at risk’. This is the main reason for my response letter.

Now before I concluded I would like to offer a somewhat unconventional ideology to Humphrys, which he probably won’t listen to but so be it; language is a tool that is, and should be, shaped to the demands of each generation and speaker of the language. To be demanding that different generations use your perfect version of English is foolish and pointless. I don’t suppose you ,John Humphrys, speak the same dialect as those in Shakespearean times? Beyond all, language is a device used for pleasure, communication and expression between people. Forever evolving and changing and why should it be? Just like my grand-father (sorry: grandfather) always said ‘if it ain’t broken, why fix it?’ (sideways smiley face).