[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I don't know when it was first adopted, but Webster's has it down to 1929. So it's been around for a while.



Being able to use the English language for work and knowing something about it are not necessarily the same thing. Plenty of people who use computers for their work have no idea how their computers actually work outside of the software packages they run. I assume you're competent at your job by virtue of the fact that you still have it, but that by itself isn't terribly meaningful.

Gee, well, let's see .... self employed and I just received a little over $69,000 from my last client who was extremely satisfied with my work. I happen to be one of those people who not only knows how to use a computer, but also how to build one. I am also one of those people who makes a living knowing the English language and how to use it, properly.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Interesting.

Doing a brief Google search, I noted 2,340,000 of 449,000,000 sites using the word "thru", which works out to .4%. Looking for PDF or DOC government files, I noted 7,170 with "thru", as opposed to 214,000 overall. That's 3% (which is certainly better than .4%, obviously), but paling in comparison to those which used "through" (117,000, or 54%).

Assuming that the "thru" spelling in the documents isn't an error, it would appear you are correct, although if I had to submit a government document for publication, and wanted to be on safe ground, I would certainly use "through", since that looks to be much more common (and therefore, understandable) to the target audience.

You would also have to be willing to do a thorough search of the government documents of all 50 states. There are a number of them that use "thru" quite extensively. I know because I do a lot of research into both state and federal filings of all types. Generally at $500 an hour.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

You assume (wrongly) that she teaches a) me, and b) English. Neither one of these assumptions is true. She simply reads and writes English properly. In fact, she and I have frequent disagreements, precisely because I'm more hostile to proper English than I am to common usage English, in most cases. What would be considered "proper" English grammar is frequently much less articulate sounding than "common usage" English, (e.g., "It's me", rather than "It's I"). I can understand why you thought she teaches English, though. I should've been more explicit, I suppose.

Yes, much more explicit. Your post made it sound as if she taught English at a graduate level. In which case, I really have no reason to be the slightest bit impressed with her credentials, since I only have them second hand from you. My mother, on the other hand, actually did teach English at the university level. In fact, she began university studies when she was all of 15, and was on the faculty of the university by the time she was 19. She got tired of being the youngest person in the class and also being the teacher.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Summa cum laude in English (undergrad), and a Masters in Library Science. I don't actually remember my GPA there.

Oh, my ..... Library Science. I guess that counts as being an expert on the English language in some alternative universe. You don't remember your GPA? Do you remember where you went to school??

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Not at all. I wasn't very proud of my SATs. My math score actually brought me down. If I remember right, my SAT was 1260 or so. Not great, but good enough for a scholarship.

I don't remember my SAT score. I do remember that there was an article in the San Diego Union about it at the time. There were a few of us in the County that scored in the 99th percentile on both the Verbal and Math sections of the test. I was one of those. I found the article among my mother's effects when she died ... along with my IQ test scores (didn't make me run out and join Mensa, since I'm not fond of the group, but it was shockingly high).

I was also the recipient of an honors award in both English and Mathematics at my high school. Doesn't mean all that much, but they were nice awards to receive.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

That, I'd rather not get into, for obvious reasons. My only point was that the literacy level is going down generally. Some of her students write well. Others, as I said, are basically incapable of writing a decent sentence. Regardless of admissions standards, the fact that students graduate from any high school and any undergraduate program with these writing deficiencies is the problem.

Yep, I'll bet they are very obvious reasons. And, if that was your only point, then you didn't make it well. Your post came off as more of a tirade against anyone who uses any abbreviations or words or phrases of which you personally do not approve. Further, that those who do so are illiterate. As one of those people, I find your assumption to be as offensive as it gets.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I'm very happy for you...I suppose. The point isn't the prestige of the university, though. Rather, the point is that such students would graduate from an undergraduate program at all.

Well, as one of "such students," (although I have been out of the last graduate program for close to 20 years now) who feels just fine reading "words" such as "pwned" and "cul8tr," again, I take offense at your suggestion that we are somehow incapable of graduating from an institution of higher learning.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

At any rate, with such an extensive education, and with a job that involves communication, I would think you would recognize that it is not an evolution of the language when students can't tell the difference between formal and informal language after having graduated from high school and undergraduate studies (regardless of whether they went to Yale University or a clown college). Part of writing is understanding your audience and tailoring your language to them. The fact that students are increasingly unable to do this is, I submit, a sign of increasing illiteracy.

And, that's where you go completely off track. If a part of writing is understanding your audience, and your audience is using words such as "pwned" ... then a good writer doesn't pitch a fit when they see the words used by that audience. MR is not (I repeat NOT) a series of formal thesis papers written by a bunch of pseudo intellectuals. It is an informal place where people are encouraged to express their opinions. As such, it is not your place to start coming down on people because they choose to use informal language, including slang, LOLCat speak, or any other language they decide to use.

Now, if your point is that the students at your girlfriend's university are unable to use formal English when necessary in the pursuit of their education, then I suggest that school consider examining their admissions standards.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

True enough. So why did you bring it up? As I said originally, it's not a word, so it didn't really have a place in the conversation.

I brought it up because you seem to have some sort of problem with people using shorthand expressions. It appears to be a very large problem as a matter of fact. There are a number of shorthand expressions, which are not words, that are in common usage in the English language. They are growing in number every day. They have been around for well over a century, some of them have been around for several centuries. One of them is SOS. Another one is CUL8TR. Yet another is PWNED Neither is a word. Both are shorthand expressions. One you don't seem to have a problem with. The other two you seem to be certain are only used by illiterates.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Actually, I don't have any issue with "IOU". Is there some reason I should?

Well, yes. It is no worse than PWNED. No more or less a shorthand expression. It's just been in use longer.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

My point is not to say that all shorthand, initialisms, acronyms, etc., are bad and contribute to illiteracy, in and of themselves. My point is that texting, in particular, contributes to illiteracy, because it takes words and destroys their meanings (particularly for homonyms). It doesn't matter what the spacing is (cul8r or c u l8r, for example). The point is that if you write "c", you not only destroy spelling of the word, but by destroying the spelling, you destroy the meaning of the word. It would be no different than spelling "you're" as "your", or, as is done in texting now, "yur" (which destroys both meanings). Another example: "cya". That can either mean "see ya" or "cover your ass". "IOU" and "SOS" are benign because they have specific, explicit meanings. Texting, partially because it's purely phonetic, does not.

The whole point to spelling being important is that different spellings can represent different words. Language becomes a huge tangle if we discard rules of spelling and just spell everything phonetically, which is what texting attempts to do.

And even spelling changes over time. Hell, it even changes between the UK and the USA.

Spelling evolves as the language changes. You're the expert. Go read Pepys' Diary and try telling me that spelling hasn't changed.

I appreciate that you, personally, don't like the fact that the language is changing, and that it is possible that it may become more phonetic and even more abbreviated over time. However, that's just tough. It's going to happen no matter how much you bitch and moan about it, and no matter how many people you insult by calling them illiterate or lazy.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I did not enter this thread to offend anyone, obviously, but since you went out of your way to personally antagonize me, I see no reason to be silent about it.

It's not obvious at all. You post that those of us who use certain words or abbreviations in texting or in informal writing at sites such as this are illiterate and lazy. How in the hell is that supposed to be "obvious" that you were not trying to be offensive?

Could you actually try harder to be offensive?? That must be amazing. And by that, I mean harder than stating that my mother's skills in English clearly didn't get to me by osmosis. That wasn't intended to be offensive?? How about where you said that you clearly had more knowledge of the English language or of languages in general? Not supposed to be offensive??

Gee and gosh .... what exactly do you consider offensive?? Because, if you need lessons, you have come to the right place. I can take any of the nasty and offensive things you have to say, and give them back to you in spades.

Oh, and for the record, my mother WAS one of my teachers at the undergraduate level, and a damned good one at that. Although, she was not one of my teachers at the graduate level. She taught me evenings during the period I was taking university courses while still a 10th and 11th grader, before I left to do work-study in Europe (when I was all of 17).

A final PS of sorts. Destroy the meaning of the words? It's called context, Mr. Library Science. There are many words that, but for context, have any number of meanings. If CUL8TR, in context, conveys the meaning of "see you later" then no words have been destroyed, and their meanings remain unaltered.

Much as good old "IOU" conveys the meaning of "I owe you." Is the word "you" destroyed by the use of "U" to signify it? Remember, this is one of those shorthands with which you have no problem. It's been in use a long time, even in formal writing. So, I disagree with you on even that small point.