atw: Re: Pronounseeashun

  • From: "Geoffrey" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:41:08 +1100

Christine, we've been truncating English words since time immemorial.
There's not much new in texters writing "U" instead of "you". We travel in a
bus these days, not an omnibus. We take kids out for a spin in a pram, not a
perambulator. We use "phone" more often than "telephone". And texters create
acronyms and initialisms, just as we have done for centuries. Just as "bus",
"pram" and "phone" have become accepted usage, there is no logical reason
why "U" could not come to be conventional usage in, say,  2112. 

 

 

Geoffrey Marnell

Principal Consultant

Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd 

P: 03 9596 3456

M: 0419 574 668

F: 03 9596 3625

W:  <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au

 

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2012 11:00 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Pronounseeashun

 

So Geoff, if your audience is almost completely people who text, can written
language also be reduced to texted language?

 

I must confess that I tend to ignore twitter feeds which use texting
language, but it is becoming more and more the norm in order to say more in
less space.  Why would we not abbreviate you to U, given there is no
competing word in English so its meaning is abundantly clear?  Similarly, as
it's and its are quite different in context, why not miss the apostrophe
given the meaning is abundantly clear.  I haven't worked it through with
there and their, but I would also guess that context is all we need to know
which is which, so let's simplify life and make them both "there".  At the
same time let's make let's lets as its meaning is also abundantly clear in
context.

 

 

Other related posts: