I feel like thru has a special meaning in that it only works in what I’d call “definite” situations – where both the start and end points are listed.
12AM thru 3AM
From the port thru the warehouse district
Monday thru Friday
I would never say going thru the woods, always through, because it’s “indefinite” (for lack of a better term), it doesn’t have a start and end point, just a vague region.
I, too, have no real rational basis for this.
It won’t be quite so big an issue going forward, but think of all the trees that could have been saved if many of the words in our language didn’t have all those extraneous letters.
I first saw it as a child in the early 70’s (when I first learned to read) on certain traffic signs in Maryland where space was limited. “Thru” above “Lane” like:
THRU
LANE
Was the usual culprit, trying to maximize the letters on the sign. Most often seen at tunnels and bridges with variable lane control.
Have you seen “thou” used as a short-form of “though”? Now THAT really throws me off.
With what other word are you confusing “through”? I can accept that “busyness” started being used to avoid confusion with “business”, but there is only one “through”.
“Donut” and “hiccup” also suck. But I will use any of these in Scrabble if I need to. 
In what ways is it superior?!
Quicker and easier to type? 
And easier to spell. How is it not superior? Let’s get rid of most the stupid “ough” endings.
My late grandmother was a school teacher. Yet, her (handwritten) letters to my mom contained words like “thru”, “thot”, and “tho”. I don’t know if she simply had some objection to “ough”, or if she was simply using shorthand for informal writing.
What? :eek: And miss out on the ending that has ten distinct pronunciations ? :mad:
Part of the problem is that change wont be universal. A spelling revision that makes perfect sense to you may not make any sense at all to someone else who has a different dialect, even within the same country.
Which raises another question: just how did American English succeed in changing “plough” and “bough” to plow and bow?
And if we managed to do it once, why won’t it happen again with “through”?
(disclaimer : I hate “thru” . But I don’t mind “nite” for night. I don’t know why)
(Eureka moment : After typing the above post, I just figured out why! “Thru” ends in a U–so it looks like a mistake, the way a child might write. Very few words in English end in a U, so “thru” just looks awkward and ugly.)
(additional Eureka moment: the only word that I can think of which ends in a U is “impromptu”. But that looks okay, neither awkward nor ugly…because it’s a little rare and you don’t use it every day. It’s like a classic wine with a fancy name. )
Plough and bough never struck me as being non-American variants. Granted bough is an uncommon word at best and I’m not sure how often I’ve seen it at all. I’m definitely familiar with plow, but plough seems equally “good” to me – it’s not like color/colour which instantly gives someone away as being non-American (or someone who reads too many British books).
Though I’m going to summon the irrational arbitrary distinction fairy again and say that I’d use “plough” as a verb, but “plow” as a noun (except when talking about sex, where the verb is plow).
Edit: Huh… dictionaries all say plough is British. It may just be that the only place I’ve ever really encountered plough is in older works from Britain or something like that. I don’t exactly read about agriculture a lot.
Most of these seem like suspensions or contractions for the sake of simple convenience. You can similarly use w/o for without and b/c and they aren’t what I’d call alternate spellings. As long as you know your audience (or don’t care about being judged based on your apparent literacy), most of these nonstandard forms are okay.
I don’t like it in the OP’s example, tho.
Plough is still current in Britain (verb and noun) - and it’s definitely the case that ‘plow’ stands out as American English from our point of view.
“Thru” is not standard.
Standardizing usage serves to slow down the pace of language evolution; this in turn maximizes clarity of communication.
The degree to which non-standard usage is acceptable depends on the context. Where non-standard usage is deployed inappropriately, the user risks being perceived as uneducated.
George Bush and I are the deciders for when a given context allows for a departure from standard usage. Due to the incompetence of the vast majority of the polloi, we are usually too busy to respond to individual blunders.
I guess I was flummoxed more by “better in so many ways” and was hoping for a long list. “U” is quicker and easier to type than “you” but doesn’t make it superior.
Does anyone else have a synethesia thing going on where “thru” is this glaring goldenrod color because it’s so fake and manufactured and icky? “Through” is a a nice placid reliable color. Nope, just me?
It didn’t. Not as to the former anyway. A tree branch is a bough in AE as elsewhere.
I’d only be comfortable with “thru” on roadsigns. Otherwise it looks like the writer is an idiot or a teenager, or both.
You repeat yourself, sir.