What about the road signs that say “Not a thru street”?
Luv it!
I’m not so sure. This is a person who insists on *spelt *being the past participle of spell. My guess for a birthdate is right in that range.
Common usage in the UK.
They’re OK.
Yes, that’ll be alrite.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh. Well, I just thru it out there.
The question is, who decides what is or isn’t a word, and what its meaning is? I’m a big one for popular consensus on such things.
At any rate, I haven’t figured out what a reasonable alternative is, other than letting the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary make the call. Popular consensus may give us abominable alternate spellings such as ‘barbeque,’ but it’s a price I’m willing to pay.
You’re rgument seams too bee that cause somewon “mispelt” one word in anotherwise flawless sentence - there is a problem and it shows up as a shiny turd on perfect lawn.
Isn’t this like complaining that a museum has 4,999 beautiful pieces of art, and one piece of crap? Some would argue that means the one piece of crap isn’t crap - and that the observer needs to change their opinion.
Thru-out my adult life, I have always thot that all the words that start with t and contain ough ought to be spelled otherwise, tho I am aware that it would be tuff to get people to change. I can fill the troff of progress but I cannot make anyone feed at it.
I had a terrible time as a kid learning all the tough** words, and even today I can be tripped up if I’m not reading carefully. The ough sequence is fairly useless in general, but I don’t feel the need to get rid of ought or enough because there is no possibility of confusing those words with anything else. For whatever reason, I don’t have any trouble distinguishing bought and brought and borough and bough. I might confuse chough for cough but the former comes up so rarely that I wouldn’t bother to change either.
Alot of these jokes are really bad.
I remember when I first bumped into the word “colonel”. Then wondered how an “el” could change it so dramatically from “colon”.
Not just common, but standard.
No problem with that. It makes sense.
Yes, when it comes to English, what is and isn’t a correct word or spelling is difficult to say. I’ll admit claiming it’s “not a word” is a bit of an exaggeration in that the very fact that someone has used it makes it a word in some sense. But there obviously has to be some point where, although something has been used, it is still not a “correct” spelling to use. “Thru” might have been used for 200 years but that doesn’t mean it has been correct to use it for 200 years. Again, what is correct when it comes to the English language? We can probably all agree “tomato’s” is incorrect, despite the fact that many people use it. I think the best test I can come up with when deciding on what makes a good spelling is whether or not you would use it in an essay, but it’s by no means a perfect way to measure it. If I were judging an essay and saw the “thru” spelling used, it would affect my opinion of the essay negatively, and I would expect the same if someone else were judging my own essay.
DrDeth, I read your explanation for your usage of “through” and “thru”, but it seems to me that it’s the same word being used with the same literal meaning, the difference being that when you write “through”, the word is being used metaphorically.
No, I don’t think so. In some sense English is like art and subjective judgement is all we have, but for practical reasons we do need rules and standards, even if they’re unofficial. So, to me it’s more like a museum that has 4,999 beautiful pieces of art and one piece that the vast majority of critics agree is actually a failed barbecue pit, despite their acknowledgement that some might argue that the very fact that one person calls it art makes it so.
I’m pretty sure that “rite” is a perfectly good and non-controversial word.
(Yes, I know what you mean. Just saying.)
Bozuit - your points are well taken - and as far as your essay test goes - I have no problem with it - in general - and probably wouldn’t use it for an essay. Plenty of people don’t write essays and that test seems a elitist. Language changes and it shouldn’t be left up to the people in elite positions of academia to decide when that is. I write different when writing stuff for science usage (I wouldn’t use “stuff” for example). Same with court documents, text messages, email - it depends on the audience.
I don’t think thru is in the same league as (and I don’t think you are claiming it is) people who write “to” for “too” and then claim - well you understood it. To me - it is very common - and it doesn’t mess up the meaning - and as some have argued - almost has its own connotation which in some cases makes it worth using instead of through.
Doughnut or Donut? Hiccough or Hiccup? Through or Thru?
I’m down with all three latter versions, yo!
Yepper. I’m not prepared to accept thru to mean finished, but to go thru a door is usage evolving in the right direction.
I like usage, but it should be leavened with understandability and usefulness. “Thru” meets all three tests. It is commonly used. It is easily understandable. It is useful as in differentiating “being finished’ and ‘going thru”. It also has less letters, important for signs. Easier to spell.
Just apply these three tests and you’re golden.
Right.
Blame it on the Chicago Tribune. Starting in 1934, they were a proponent of simplified spelling. Some of their offerings stuck and are with us today: analog, canceled and catalog. Others like jaz, frate (freight) and etiquet didn’t exactly win fans with the public.