I was thinking how odd it looked in the title of some of Prince’s songs. Now, it’s all over song titles (i.e. “Since U Been Gone”). I see its widespread use all over the internet.
At first, I was against it, but the more I see it, the more natural it looks. If “I” can be a word, why not “u”?
So, what would make “u” officially a word?
“U” already is a real word. It’s the 21st letter of the alphabet.
It is already officially a word, albeit in Afrikaans rather than in English. It is the honourific version of “you” - used when speaking to someone of more importance than oneself (teacher, magistrate, all adults when a child, etc), although I think it is falling out of use as society becomes more casual generally.
I think it’s always capitalised like “I” in English, but I can’t remember.
Grim
It’s always been capitalized when I’ve seen it.
Pronouncing it properly is a bit of a challenge for me. So I just say “E”.
There is no “officially” in English. When a large proportion of people use “u” to mean “you,” then it will enter the language.
BTW, the OED attests to this usage with examples going back to 1840. Even before Prince, there was U-Haul. So it’s safe to say that it’s been in the language for quite some time. As to whether it will replace “you,” become an accepted alternative, or vanish completely, time will tell.
I can’t see it being made any kind of “official” word since it’s just an abbreviation – like “R” (are), “4” (for) or “C” (see). If they added one they’d almost have to add them all.
If anything, “u” is a variant spelling of “you”, and “you” is one of the commonest words used in English. So “u” is a word, though non-standard usage: I would not advise its use in formal writing, but I am untroubled by its use in a colloquial context.
Of course, it makes the person who uses it look like an illiterate, so I wouldn’t recommend using it in colloquial English either.
depends on the context … in forums/newsgrous/e-mails - I would wager that it is widely accepted and nobody would think you are illiterate …
just think of all the “B2B” etc… abbreviations - nobody would doubt your writing skills
U-Haul seems to be doing fine despite the name.
It’s not a usage that I, personally, am comfortable using. But any word is “officially” a word if the person reading it knows what it means. English is not a dead language. It’s like that “have you ever really looked at your hand?” concept of there being no such thing as the present: as soon as you conceive of this moment as the present, it’s already in the past. English is the same way: official English is those words that are in use NOW–but that now is gone, and that version of “official” English is gone.
I agree that when I see someone use “u” I tend to judge them immature, but since I know what they mean when they use it, it’s a word.
U-Haul is acceptable, as are many “clever” names like that. (Except for the rash of “…4 U” type places I’ve seen cropping up – y’know, like “Ca$h 4 U” or “Variety 4 U” – those irritate my sensibilities)
Acronyms are perfectly acceptable these days too, so widespread are they that we read and understand them about as quickly as if they were spelled out.
Those are about economy or some percieved degree of cleverness though. Use of contractions for words that are already short to begin with just speaks of childishness (attributed to script kiddies/l33tsp33k), laziness and/or the perception of illiteracy. It may not be the case, but I guess I’m a bit of a stickler for good diction. Not that I’m a model of erudition or consider myself “better” I just think it shows a greater level of outward intelligence when one takes the time to spell it out properly. (Common slang and creative license excepted)
u dig?
Many of these “clever” names are devised for the purpose of creating unique spellings of common words so that they would qualify for trademark protection. They are not meant to be standard English, merely to be memorable and legally protected.
IANAL, but I believe that ordinary words can become trade marks without unique spellings, e.g., “Apple”. So "You-haul"would be just as registerable as “U-haul”. (Further, given that “U-haul” is registered, they would fight to protect thermselves against another business calling itself “You-haul” or even “Yu-haul”, since it moight be confused with their trademark).
“You” is “u” in Dutch.
IANAL either, but if I recall “You-Haul” or “Yu-Haul” couldn’t be considered infringing but “U-Haul Trailer Rentals” for example could be fought for being an example of trademark dilution.
I am reminded of an issue a couple of years back where Atari, Inc. (formerly Infogrames) issued a cease-and-desist letter to atarilabs.com for this very issue. Atari, Inc. did not have a division or child company called “Atari Labs” but nevertheless were in a legal position to prevent anyone from registering a domain or company or attempting to use anything with “Atari” in its title.
I think the above posters are misinterpreting the way trademarks work.
Common words can be trademarked if the usual meaning of the word does not indicate the function. Therefore Apple can be a trademark for computers but Apple brand apple juice could not be. App-L apple juice would be allowable, however.
Nor do competitor names have to strictly include the original brand. “You-Haul” would be rejected in a second for being too easily confused with U-Haul. Just by answering the phone, e.g., confusion would be immediate and obvious.
Yup. Though I’m sure, if you consult One-Letter Words: A Dictionary, you’ll find that it’s got several other definitions – given that the dictionary covers 26 letters but includes over 1000 definitions total.