From Anil Dash’s Cats Can Has Grammar:

But a few distinct categories have sprung up that have helped amplify and popularize the phenomenon.

  • I’M IN UR X Ying your Z. This construct, based on i’m in ur base, killin ur d00ds has morphed into a catch-all structure for annotating cat pictures.
  • Invisible Item. Variations on the seminal Invisible Bike, these are images of cats, usually in midair, with captions that prompt us to fill in imaginary objects or actions that complete the scene. There’s something brilliant to these images, speaking to our mind’s ability to intuitively extrapolate unseen details.
  • Kitty Pidgin. And finally, the newly dominant lolcats, of the family I Can Has Cheezeburger? These seem to be spawning nearly infinite variations, and have exploded in popularity since being named “lolcats” instead of the more general “image macro” or “cat macro”.

The rise of these new subspecies of lolcats are particularly interesting to me because “I can has cheezeburger?” has a fairly consistent grammar. I wasn’t sure this was true until I realized that it’s possible to get cat-speak wrong.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

What I find interesting is the conceptions of time and subject/object implied in Kitty Pidgin. Have we really been saying these things wrong all along? 🙂

Update: I should point out Twitter: The Evolution of Cat Blogging.