text speak or txt spk?

 Language, literature and text have always been a keen interest of mine.

So when BBC journalist John Humphrys began criticising the ever growing use of text speak (or txt spk) he sparked an interesting debate.

Humphrys stated that textese was ruining our language."They are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped." Many followers claimed that it encouraged a laziness in people. Must we sacrifice good grammar and punctuation merely to send speedier texts?

But surely one must be able to spell to successfully read and write txt spk? The linguist and author of "txt spk: the gr8 db8" David Crystal maintains that there is no link between textese and a deterioration in the english language. And only 10% of text messages are abbreviated. Crystal even states that adults are far more likely to use textese than children (take that grumpy old people!)

And what of emoticons? Humphrys outright condemns them as an irritation.

Come on.

Didn't the Ancient Egyptians use hieroglyphics as their form of written text? Aren't road signs our contemporary counterpart to these? Symbology has been a part of human culture for thousands of years. Don't knock the smiley.

Isn't it the meaning of the words that is important?

2 B r nt 2 B, th@ iz d ?
Wthr tis nbler in d mnd 2
 sffr
D slings n :::----> of mst
outrajuss frtUn.
Or 2 take arms gainst a C of
trblz
Nd bI opposing end eM: 2 die,
2 zzz no mre; nd bI a zzz 2 sA
We end
D <3 ache, d 1000
natrl shkz
Th@ flsh iz Ar 2? Tiz a
CnsUmAtion
Dvoutly 2 B wishd.

Just because you change the way the text is written out doesn't change the emotional impact of Hamlets lamentation on suicide.

Or does it?