True, but my point remains that Alan Moore makes the same mistake that most linguistically clever people make, when he speculates how language will evolve in the future - he sees it becoming MORE complex, rather than LESS. The further along a language gets, the more that syllables and hard consonants get DROPPED, whereas his vision of the future shows INCREASES in both categories. This is the same reason why most really smart futurist authors are really, REALLY terrible at anticipating future slang - even George Orwell, who came closer than most to nailing down the principle of this, by creating the ever-self-simplifying "newspeak," still used clunky terms like "telescreen" instead of "TV." Burgess tried to illustrate the future corruption of the English language by turning it into an Esperanto-esque blend of English and Russian, but as you yourself point out, that seems practically Shakespearean compared to OMGWTFBBQ.
Personally, I blame Noam Chomsky, for perpetuating the notion that language drives communication, rather than the other way around, because it's led to far too many smart people not being dumb enough to anticipate how utilitarian English will actually evolve.