4 ms·
“serious discussion” notwithstanding, I thought the “u’re” was particularly interesting. Why not “ur”? “u” is obviously easier to write, so why worry about prop
by theoreticalmal 2y ago
“serious discussion” notwithstanding, I thought the “u’re” was particularly interesting. Why not “ur”? “u” is obviously easier to write, so why worry about properly contracting it? Just interesting imo
- em3rgent0rdr 2y agoAbbreviations can only be useful when they're unambiguous within their context. Maybe “u’re” is unambiguous here, but “re” might have been a step too far to still know what word writer was abbreviating.
- JadeNB 2y agoMaybe “u’re” is unambiguous here, but “re” might have been a step too far to still know what word writer was abbreviating. The question was about contracting “u’re” to “ur”, as is commonly done in text-ese, not to “re”.
- ibash 2y agoIt wasn’t clear to me what “u’re” was and I wouldn’t have understood without the comment. I’m a native English speaker.
- nivertech 2y agoWasn’t the guy who wrote “all correct” as “oll korrekt”[1] a native [American] English speaker also? —- 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK
- quuxplusone 2y agoNot to contradict you, but fascinating coincidence: my favorite alleged originator of OK — "Old Kinderhook," Martin Van Buren — is to date the one and only U.S. president who did not speak English as his first language. (But "oll korrect" is apparently attributed to Andrew Jackson, who was a native speaker, yes.)