I've always found it interesting what people consider 'chatspeak'. Marg doesn't use 'lol', and lists it as specifically chatspeak. For some people, 'omg' is fine, but the truncation of words such as 'u', 'r', and 'bcuz' are chatspeak. I have had people tell me that you are not actually into chatspeak territory until you start to t41k l1k3 7h1s. And there are yet deeper depths of chatspeak involving the formation of letters from |, / and \ that I cannot even begin to duplicate.
Then again, aren't contractions also a form of shorthand? Weren't secretaries taught a specific shorthand language last century, and the ability was a boon on their resume. And it has nothing to do with literariness or how profound the writing may be - large portions of the Diary of Anne Frank were written in secretarial shorthand, because it was the best way for her to practice what was, at the time, a valuable skill.
In a lot of jobs, the almighty wpm can be a distinct advantage, and people in the transcription business employ word expanding software. It is detrimental to their paycheck not to type in shorthand. Abbreviations are all over the English language so that we don't need to say "The American Medical Association recommends..."; we can simply say "The AMA". As long as they are commonly accepted and you know what they mean, why does it bother you?
Would it be the perversion of the English language? Because if you speak American English, you are speaking a perversion already. English itself is somewhat a perversion of German, or the great-great-great-great-great grandfather thereof. What is not from German is from Latin, and sometimes Greek. Language is perversion, a fluid thing adapted and changed to fit the lives from which it draws its use. I don't know about you, but I am a language person, and I have studied French and Spanish. I have picked up snippets of Portuguese, Polish, Italian, Latin... I am one of those people with an ear for language, who can determine the meaning of about half the German I hear despite never actually studying it.
Being exposed to all of these languages really drives home how limited English can be. We have 'you', and if you're feeling elaborate, 'you guys'. Spanish has usted y tu, French has tu et vous, German has du und sie. We are the odd ones out - and that's just a tiny example. How many words does Chinese have for 'love'? Or maybe it's Japanese I'm thinking of. Either way, why would you further limit an already limiting language by making it rigid and stoic? Why would you force it to be oblivious to the needs of those who speak it?
I think it boils down to the basic human mistrust of changes. Language is something we have had our entire lives, something we learned when we were still too small to remember. A baby's first words are as much a monument as her first steps, and we don't want to change that. I'm not necessarily advocating the rampant use of chatspeak, but it no longer makes me twitch like it once did. I don't like it by any means, but like any thing that I dislike, it seems prudent to take a step back, take a deep breath, and ask yourself: Why does it bother you?
