atw: Re: Pronounseeashun [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: "Charles Boyle" <Charles.Boyle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:11:31 +1000
....and in New Zealand it's always going to be ewes.... :-)
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2012 1:07 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Pronounseeashun [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Geoffrey said:
>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.
... except that then we'd have the plural form as "U's" and half of this
list would drop off the twig in apoplexies.... :-)
Peter M
From: "Geoffrey" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06/01/2012 11:41 AM
Subject: atw: Re: Pronounseeashun
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
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: www.abelard.com.au <http://www.abelard.com.au/>
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto: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:
