A couple of things:
Back when we first joined Facebook, we noticed an idiosyncrasy in the way people responded to comments: The '@' sign (which for some reason turned into a link after we typed it just now--something else for someone to explain). Thus, if the Solipsist posts something as his status, and other people comment on his status, the Solipsist, if he wishes to reply to one of these comments, is supposed to put @ followed by the name of the person he is responding to (e.g., "@FOS: We liked your comment"). Indeed, the Solipsist has adopted this signal for responding to blog comments.
Our question: Whence came this particular convention? If one wishes to abbreviate "to," why not just type the Twitter-approved '2'? Maybe that was the intention, the '@' resting just above the '2' in shift-land; perhaps Commenter Zero's finger just slipped, and we're all just perpetuating a typo. Alternatively, though, why not just direct one's comments to the appropriate party without any signaling device (e.g., "FOS: We liked your comment.")? Anyone who can shed light on the derivation of this convention will be amply rewarded.
Speaking of Facebook, which phrasing sounds correct to you?
(A) "I have a Facebook account."
(B) "I'm on Facebook."
(C) "I have a Facebook."
If you're of the Solipsist's generation, you probably said 'A' and 'B' are correct, and 'C' is not. "Facebook" being a proper--and non-countable--noun, one should not use the indefinite article in front of it. Indeed, when we found this construction in a student's writing, we whipped out the old red pen and wrote in the word "account." When, however, we saw this construction is several pieces of student writing, we became curious. We conducted extensive research--specifically, we talked to a 20-year-old--to get the dirt on "what the kids are saying these days," and we discovered that, in fact, "I have a Facebook" is perfectly acceptable. Indeed, if you say "I have a Facebook account." it apparently marks you as an old fogey, member of Facebook 1.0, and you will be snickered at. "I'm on Facebook," however, is still moderately OK.
So the next time you talk about your Facebook status and don't get mocked by a punk, you're welcome. Just another service brought to you by the Solipsist.
Would that be the same as saying I have a Honda (...car...)?
ReplyDeleteFirst, to Edward: NO< DAMMIT! "Facebook" is the TOTALITY (if you will). You HAVE, a Facebook ACCOUNT! (Page, Book, etc. are synonyms/euphemisms). BUT, it will, of course, become the usage. We are a simple folk here in America. We simply cannot resist Dumbing Down wherever possible whether, or not, there's any need. Hence the reason that Solipsist, in his continued pursuit of teaching people to think, is like someone trying to teach candlemaking. It's kinda cute and has, we all suppose, some quaint value. But, really, who's gonna use that "mind" thing a few years down the road? President Palin? I doubt it!
ReplyDelete@Edward: We apologize for Anonymous. He's right, but the crotchetiness is just uncalled for.
ReplyDeleteI called for it, actually. But it was out
ReplyDeleteI have a FB account is pretty fogey.
ReplyDelete@HPH: What do the Germans say?
ReplyDeleteHey there Sol. As your token technologist pal, I feel obliged to clarify about the whole "@" thing. I think the convention derives from non-threaded blog posts that enumerate replies. So, if commenter #3 wants to reply to commenter #1, typing "@1" is just easier to read in the serial comments.
ReplyDeleteBtw, typing this reply at a Panera Bread on your iPod keyboard sucks! Why do these friggin mobile devices punish the touch typist. Thumbs cramping...
FOS is the second person to explain the "@" thing by referencing "non-threaded posts." Now, should we admit that we have no clear idea of what those are?
ReplyDelete