<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The death of language</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thesheaf.com/2009/09/10/the-death-of-language/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thesheaf.com/2009/09/10/the-death-of-language/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:26:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Bachiu</title>
		<link>http://www.thesheaf.com/2009/09/10/the-death-of-language/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Bachiu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesheaf.com/?p=653#comment-92</guid>
		<description>What a wonderfully-written, cleverly-worded piece of rubbish!  (The back-handed compliments are sincerely meant)  While I would take the decline of the English language as a given, I would attribute this to neither the widespread use of an insidious &quot;shorthand&quot; language, nor a comment from a newspaper editor intended to add impact to newspaper articles.  I believe the root of the problem is the fact that the majority of people today do not read.  
The issue with this article, however, is that it does little to consider the audience.  Is this an appeal to people whose language has been sullied by the ravages of text messaging? lol (sic)  Or is it a self-serving complaint about how ignorant everyone else is, combined with a dose of self-satisfied display of sapiency with words.  It really seems more like grist for the mills of the opinions section than an article discussing the decline of writin-words.  What&#039;s next?  An article titled &quot;Hey you damn kids, get off my lawn!!  I mean language!!&quot;
But seriously, though, I agree with you that I would like to see people use the language with a modicum of respect, or at least skill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a wonderfully-written, cleverly-worded piece of rubbish!  (The back-handed compliments are sincerely meant)  While I would take the decline of the English language as a given, I would attribute this to neither the widespread use of an insidious &#8220;shorthand&#8221; language, nor a comment from a newspaper editor intended to add impact to newspaper articles.  I believe the root of the problem is the fact that the majority of people today do not read.<br />
The issue with this article, however, is that it does little to consider the audience.  Is this an appeal to people whose language has been sullied by the ravages of text messaging? lol (sic)  Or is it a self-serving complaint about how ignorant everyone else is, combined with a dose of self-satisfied display of sapiency with words.  It really seems more like grist for the mills of the opinions section than an article discussing the decline of writin-words.  What&#8217;s next?  An article titled &#8220;Hey you damn kids, get off my lawn!!  I mean language!!&#8221;<br />
But seriously, though, I agree with you that I would like to see people use the language with a modicum of respect, or at least skill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

