Quote:
Originally Posted by RickyMaveety
And, perhaps they should make a better study of the English language. So many "shorthand" phrases that have become words (and are even in most "proper" dictionaries these days).
Snafu comes to mind .... and the less well known, but always reliable, fubar. As well as the previously mentioned "thru" which is just a phonetic spelling of "through" and yet is making its way into the dictionary.
|
1) Snafu isn't shorthand. It's an initialism. That's very distinct from abominations like "c u l8r". I'll happily stipulate that there are many such initialisms in the English language.
2) Something being in the dictionary doesn't make it a word. "D'oh" is in Webster's:
Quote:
2.
Main Entry:
d'oh
Variant(s):
or doh \ˈdō\
Function:
interjection
Date:
1993
—used to express sudden recognition of a foolish blunder or an ironic turn of events
|
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/d%27oh
"Thru" is listed in Webster's as a variant spelling of "through". I find that unfortunate, but it has to do with the general, and growing, illiteracy of the American public.
Literacy is more than the ability to read at a 5th grade level. It also implies being able to string two words together without hurting yourself. This is becoming very rare. My girlfriend is a professor teaching graduate students, and is horrified by their lack of writing skills.
"Texting" spelling represents more than just trying to save a few keystrokes on a phone. If that was all it was, it wouldn't be leaking into undergraduate papers. Instead, texting spelling represents a general
inability to communicate using written English. Unless we
want an illiterate population, these trends need to be extinguished with extreme prejudice.