atw: Re: Pronounseeashun
- From: Rebecca Caldwell <beckyakasha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tech writers group <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:40:53 +0800
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.
Other related posts:
