Ugh, I've arrived at this one a little late; however I think we 'discussed' the use of 'youse' a year or two ago. I remember that many pointed to the Macquarie, as 'youse' has been included for many years as an accepted multiple tense of 'you' (As opposed to y'all or all of you). I stand by my distaste for the word, but I do agree that language is in constant evolution. I will stick with what I was taught, regardless. If that dates my speech, then so be it. I did just get into a mini-fight with my partner; He pronounces H as 'haitch' whereas I do not; he said that his mother told him about 'people like me' :) Rebecca From: geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Pronounseeashun 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 MarnellPrincipal ConsultantAbelard Consulting Pty Ltd P: 03 9596 3456M: 0419 574 668F: 03 9596 3625W: 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.