Monday, June 14, 2010

To Tweet or Not to Tweet

Is it even a question? Everyone likes to "tweet" on Twitter, but the New York Times refuses to "tweet." Or at least, they refuse to use the word. I will admit, the word "tweet" is cute but I'm not really sure of its usage. I don't understand why it is "tweeting" and not "twittering" for example. But maybe it is just a linguistic preference of sorts, like "spat" as a past-tense version of "spit." (Instead of "spitted").

But the Times likes to be archaic and old fashioned in its language usage. The editors consider "tweet" or be slang or coloquial language apparantly, not suitable for their elitist readers. Instead, they use heavy, loaded down phrases, such as "posted on Twitter" or "wrote a message."

If we must be more verbose, what is the point? More concise language, using good word choices, makes reading easier for all of us. We don't need all that wordy jargon and extra syllables. Come on now, we don't even take the time to cook at home anymore, much less actually read the newspaper.

1 comment:

  1. Hullo you,

    You must be bonkers! :->

    Twitter has a place maybe - but take the place of real conversation, real discussion, real expression? I don't think so. You're having a laugh here I think.

    After all, you have a blog.

    Language should be verbose at times, playful at times, concise at times, poetic and beautiful at times. It should do what we need it to do, however we need to do it.

    To try and shoehorn it into a tweet - which makes you a tweeter as opposed to a twit, which is why they didn't go with the other option - is crazy, nuts, bonkers, mad etc.

    My views are posted here if you want to read...


    ps - you should try cooking sometime. It's what your kitchens


Any questions, comments or concerns? Share them here.