SUMMARY: In the essay "2b or Not 2b", David Crystal gives his opinion on texting. David first starts off by stating John Humphry's argument towards texters. Which is, "vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours 800 years ago. They are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped." What John Humphry's argument basically states is that he doesn't like texting he believes it destroys our language. David Crystal disagrees with John Humphry's argument and states his own opinion. David says, "Texting is the latest manifestation of the human ability to be linguistically creative and to adapt to suit the demands and diverse settings. " David believes that texting is no disaster pending. Throughout the essay David list statics on how texting rocketed. He also adds research findings that show that texting improves literacy skills. David believes texting in a small way is language in evolution.
RESPONSE: I agree with David Crystal, I believe texting is no harm to us humans we just can't over use it. We have to learn and respect when to use texting. Texting isn't a disaster to our language, us humans are the ones who decide what to use in our daily works of life. For example, if you were to write an essay you wouldn't want to write it as if you were texting. That wouldn't look professional and you wouldn't be taken seriously. We have to learn when it's right to use, " BRB, LOL, TTYL, and ILY." Texting doesn't harm our language it evolves within time and makes each new generation use different words. Texting is a brilliant way to miscommunicate how you feel, and misinterpret what other people mean.
