through or thru?
Andre Spallek
Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
American english?
Truly Donovan
Andre Spallek wrote:
>
> Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
> American english?
"Through." "Thru" is reserved almost exclusively for "drive-thru"
establishments, where the inhalation of carbon monoxide fumes is
considered an appetizer to your Big Mac and fries.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Raymot
In article <576rjr$d...@methusalix.rz.tu-clausthal.de>,
sc...@pecip2.pe.tu-clausthal.de says...
>
>Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
>American english?
>
Ack! How could u ask?!
BTW, what is resp.?
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[
msf...@pacbell.net
In article <576rjr$d...@methusalix.rz.tu-clausthal.de>,
sc...@pecip2.pe.tu-clausthal.de (Andre Spallek) wrote:
>
> Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
> American english?
-Through- is the correct usage. -Thru- is a shortcut that is commonly used on
the
'Net, in chat rooms, etc.
-Thru- is very informal and should never be used in business or other than in
the
most informal situations.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Daan Sandee
In article <579d37$t...@grissom.powerup.com.au> rmot...@powerup.com.au (Raymot) writes:
>In article <576rjr$d...@methusalix.rz.tu-clausthal.de>,
>>
>>Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
>>American english?
>
>
>Raymot
"resp." is short for "respectively", which is often misused in various
languages, such as English or German, as a learned-sounding equivalent
for "or." Spelled out, sc...@pecip2.pe.tu-clausthal.de asks :
"Is it better, respectively more common. to write 'through' or 'thru' in
American english?"
Respective to what ?
(In German, the word is "beziehungsweise", commonly abbreviated to "bzw",
and the original meaning, i.e. "respectively", is lost in the abbreviation,
causing Germans to use it casually when they mean "or".)
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee (at) cmns . think . com
Lee Rudolph
san...@think.com.nospam (Daan Sandee) writes:
>"resp." is short for "respectively", which is often misused in various
>languages, such as English or German, as a learned-sounding equivalent
>for "or."
[example of misuse, omitted]
There are, however, legitimate (if perhaps ungainly) uses for "resp."
in English, notably in mathematics (where, I think, it was popularized
in [English] works by Bourbaki). For instance, here's a (mostly deTeXed)
sentence from a survey article on knot theory by Joan Birman that I happen
to have on disk:
An E-linear isomorphism f of Vn may then be represented
by an m^n-dimensional matrix f_{i_1...i_n}^{j_1...j_n})
over E, where the i_k's (resp. j_k's) are row (resp. column)
indices.
And here's a definition from an article I'm supposed to be revising for
the Proceedings of the AMS, punctuated to my own taste (which differs
from Joan's):
A submanifold $P\sub M$ is proper (resp., interior) if
$\Bd P=P\cap\Bd M$ (resp., if $P\sub\Int M$).
Paired "resp."s disambiguate parallel constructions.
Lee Rudolph
American Mark `)
Thru is the Donut of doughnut. :)
Murray Arnow
In article <8488547...@dejanews.com>, msf...@pacbell.net wrote:
>In article <576rjr$d...@methusalix.rz.tu-clausthal.de>,
>>
>> Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
>> American english?
>
>
>the
>'Net, in chat rooms, etc.
>-Thru- is very informal and should never be used in business or other than in
>the
>most informal situations.
If American English is the language used by the Chicago Tribune then it is
better to use thru, nite and some other McCormickisms. Colonel McCormick, the
owner publisher of the Tribune, proposed and promoted these spellings. It is
only recently that "night" has replaced "nite" in this publication.
_____________________________
Murray Arnow (mar...@wwa.com)
M. Murray
: >
: >Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
: >American english?
: >
:
: Ack! How could u ask?!
: BTW, what is resp.?
"resp." is a Germanism. "Respectively" is the rather literal translation
of the German "beziehungsweise", commonly abbreviated as "bzw.", which
Germans use quite frequently, but in a way which doesn't translate easily
into English. A German might write "Ist es besser bzw. haeufiger, in
amerikanischem Englisch "through" oder "thru" zu schreiben?" Similarly,
where English would be "The capitals of France and Italy are Paris and
Rome respectively", the German would be "Die Hauptstaedte von Frankreich
und Italien sind Paris bzw. Rom". Any dictionary will tell you the
translation of "beziehungsweise" is "respectively"; not many will explain
the different usages, or that we would often use "or" instead..
--
Martin Murray :: School of Chemistry, Bristol University, BS8 1TS, England
Tom Wier
American Mark `) wrote:
>
> Thru is the Donut of doughnut. :)
Ahhh, but does not donut carry much more official sanction? Indeed, in most areas, it does. The spelling
"doughnut" is rare nowadays. I personally haven't seen in years...
One could even theoretically get by spelling it thus in a thesis paper (I don't know why one would want to do
this, but it is just for the sake of argument). The same could not be said about "thru".
--
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Tom Wier
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
Tomaso....@worldnet.att.net
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/index.html>
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
David Stewart
Tom Wier <"Tomaso. Houston"@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<329DC8...@worldnet.att.net>...
"donut", "thru", and "nite" are all symptoms of the same malaise. It would
be hard to believe that anyone might think these words should be seen
anywhere except on strip-mall shop signs were it not that the Internet
environment is chock-full of the worst English imagineable.
It would come as no surprise to me to find that such mistakes were ignored
even in thesis papers because the material I see posted in newsgroups (not
usually in AUE) and even written into professional software by graduates
with ten times my intelligence is so badly written.
The dismal thing about this phenomenon is that every instance of it has a
pernicious effect on other users, a very large proportion of whom are young
people in education. I fear that in due course we shall have more means of
instant communication than we could possibly need yet insufficient mastery
of our language to use them with any effect.
David Stewart.
John Nurick
>American Mark `) wrote:
>>
>> Thru is the Donut of doughnut. :)
>
>Ahhh, but does not donut carry much more official sanction? Indeed, in most areas, it does. The spelling
>"doughnut" is rare nowadays. I personally haven't seen in years...
>
>One could even theoretically get by spelling it thus in a thesis paper (I don't know why one would want to do
>this, but it is just for the sake of argument). The same could not be said about "thru".
Perhaps we can establish a useful distinction, at least useful for
lovers of sweet fried snacks: "donut" for the toroidal American item,
"doughnut" for the spheroidal British jam-filled one.
By the way, the Scots have in recent years developed the deep-fried
battered Mars Bar. I suspect this is a deliberate attempt to subvert
the London government's healthy eating policy and force English
taxpayers to spend more money on the National Health Service in
Scotland.
John Nurick
On 25 Nov 1996 12:57:25 GMT, san...@think.com.nospam (Daan Sandee)
wrote:
>>sc...@pecip2.pe.tu-clausthal.de says...
>>>
>>>Is it better resp. more common to write 'through' or 'thru' in
>>>American english?
>>
>>
>"resp." is short for "respectively", which is often misused in various
>languages, such as English or German, as a learned-sounding equivalent
>for "or."
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 19:08:00 GMT, co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (M. Murray)
wrote:
[snip]
>"resp." is a Germanism. "Respectively" is the rather literal translation
>of the German "beziehungsweise", commonly abbreviated as "bzw.", which
>Germans use quite frequently, but in a way which doesn't translate easily
>into English. A German might write "Ist es besser bzw. haeufiger, in
>amerikanischem Englisch "through" oder "thru" zu schreiben?" Similarly,
>where English would be "The capitals of France and Italy are Paris and
>Rome respectively", the German would be "Die Hauptstaedte von Frankreich
>und Italien sind Paris bzw. Rom". Any dictionary will tell you the
>translation of "beziehungsweise" is "respectively"; not many will explain
>the different usages, or that we would often use "or" instead..
>
"Is it better resp. more common...?" is not just an ugly, ungainly
equivalent of "Is it better or more common...?", it is an ugly,
ungainly way of being precise.
It asks two parallel questions in a way that is common in German, that
write-only language, but better done in English as:
"Is it better to write 'through' or 'thru'? Which is more common?"
By contrast, "Is it better or more common...?" can be answered simply
with "Dead common."
Best wishes
John
Lee Rudolph
j.nu...@dial.pipex.com (John Nurick) writes:
[someone, an American I think, wrote:]
>>The spelling
>>"doughnut" is rare nowadays. I personally haven't seen in years...
>
>Perhaps we can establish a useful distinction, at least useful for
>lovers of sweet fried snacks: "donut" for the toroidal American item,
>"doughnut" for the spheroidal British jam-filled one.
The classified listings in Big Yellow (NYNEX's on-line compilation
of commercial telephone directories around the U.S.) have "Doughnuts"
as a major heading. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island (the two
states I drive through [not thru] on my way to work, there are
156 businesses with the string "Donut" in their name (under
various major headings, the most bizarre being CAR WASHING &
POLISHING, where HUMPTY DUMPTY DONUT SHOP on ROUTE 44, RAYNHAM,
MA has been listed), and only 11 with the string "Doughnut".
The 156 is artificially inflated by various chains, mainly
Dunkin' Donut, Mr. Donut, and Bess Eaton Donut ("bes' eatin'",
get it?); but that's only fair, since their fare is likewise
artificially inflated, not like the heartstopping solid tori
purveyed by such nonfranchisee entrepreneurs as Hole in One
Donut, Donut Dream, and Humpty Dumpty Donut Shop, not to
mention the traditionalists like Pauline's Doughnut Shoppe.
On my drive to work (75 miles...) I pass half a dozen places
that advertise "doughnuts", somewhat fewer that advertise
"donuts", and three or four specializing in malasadas (but
only on the weekends). Then again, my route sometimes goes
through Attleborough as was, Attleboro as is.
Dunkin' Donuts, by the way, having given their eponym a bad
name, are moving on to what they (and, no doubt, their
unsuspecting customers) fancy are "bagels". Feh.
Lee Rudolph
JC Dill
On 30 Nov 1996 10:40:55 -0500, lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) wrote:
>
>Dunkin' Donuts, by the way, having given their eponym a bad
>name, are moving on to what they (and, no doubt, their
>unsuspecting customers) fancy are "bagels". Feh.
Le Boulanger here in the SF Bay Area is advertising that they now
serve bagels, the signs say "ohy la la"...
jc
Jonathan Mason
j.nu...@dial.pipex.com (John Nurick) wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:13:36 -0600, Tom Wier <"Tomaso.
>Houston"@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>American Mark `) wrote:
>>>
>>> Thru is the Donut of doughnut. :)
>>
>>
>>this, but it is just for the sake of argument). The same could not be said about "thru".
>
>lovers of sweet fried snacks: "donut" for the toroidal American item,
>"doughnut" for the spheroidal British jam-filled one.
>
expressions "to do one's nut" meaning "to be driven crazy". Thus the
spelling "donut" would intuitively be pronounced "doo nut".
Other commercial spellings are achieving widespread usage in casual
writing (at least in the US), such as "lite" for "light". By analogy, in
hospital patients' progress notes, I often read that "patient had a good
nite!"
Truly Donovan
Jonathan Mason wrote:
>
> Other commercial spellings are achieving widespread usage in casual
> writing (at least in the US), such as "lite" for "light". By analogy, in
> hospital patients' progress notes, I often read that "patient had a good
> nite!"
That's not "casual writing," that's illiterate writing. There is still a
difference.
Baty
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Mason wrote:
>>
>> Other commercial spellings are achieving widespread usage in casual
>> writing (at least in the US), such as "lite" for "light". By analogy, in
>> hospital patients' progress notes, I often read that "patient had a good
>> nite!"
>
>That's not "casual writing," that's illiterate writing. There is still a
>difference.
I agree as far as "nite" is concerned. The respelling serves no useful
purpose except to make the word one letter shorter. Even for sign
painters, that's not much of an improvement. "Thru" on street signs make
a lot of sense, simply because it fits whereas "through" would have to be
written in tiny letters to fit on the typical road sign. I do think
we're stuck with "lite" though. It has come to denote a difference in
meaning: a lite meal and a light meal aren't the same thing. I no longer
find the spelling particularly irritating when it's used to denote
reduced-calorie fare on menus or food packages. At least I know what is
meant. In any other context, the respelling is just plain wrong, IMHO.
Linda
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
> Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>>Jonathan Mason wrote:
>>> ...in hospital patients' progress notes, I often read that "patient had a
>>> good nite!"
>>
>>That's not "casual writing," that's illiterate writing. There is still a
>>difference.
>
> I agree as far as "nite" is concerned. The respelling serves no useful
> purpose except to make the word one letter shorter.
I would not support "nite" as an acceptable spelling--except in the context
quoted, i.e., nursing notes. A great deal of information has to be
communicated in a short amount of time; any saving of letters, even only one,
will be appropriately seized upon, if it will not create misunderstanding.
You don't object to "prn" do you? Think of this spelling of "nite" as
professional jargon.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
>Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>>Jonathan Mason wrote:
>>>
>>> Other commercial spellings are achieving widespread usage in casual
[snip]
>I do think
>we're stuck with "lite" though. It has come to denote a difference in
>meaning: a lite meal and a light meal aren't the same thing. I no longer
>find the spelling particularly irritating when it's used to denote
>reduced-calorie fare on menus or food packages. At least I know what is
>meant. In any other context, the respelling is just plain wrong, IMHO.
'Lite' is also commonly used in computing, to signify a piece of
software which is sold as an 'evaluation' package, without all of the
features of the more expensive version. For example: 'Infoback Lite'.
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
'Make it so.'
Jonathan Mason
will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting)
wrote:
>In article <57tsnu$m...@nadine.teleport.com>, Baty <ba...@teleport.com> writes:
>
>> Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>>>Jonathan Mason wrote:
>>>> good nite!"
>>>
>>>That's not "casual writing," that's illiterate writing. There is still a
>>>difference.
>>
>> I agree as far as "nite" is concerned. The respelling serves no useful
>> purpose except to make the word one letter shorter.
>
>I would not support "nite" as an acceptable spelling--except in the context
>quoted, i.e., nursing notes. A great deal of information has to be
>communicated in a short amount of time; any saving of letters, even only one,
>will be appropriately seized upon, if it will not create misunderstanding.
>You don't object to "prn" do you? Think of this spelling of "nite" as
>professional jargon.
>
by an extermination company called Truly Nolan (apparently the brothers
were called Truly, Sadly, Woefully etc.) proclaiming Nite Nite Termite!!
What could be more natural than to imitate this spelling when you have to
laboriously handwrite the same thing time after time and night after
..err...nite?
Gayle Harrison
We also have Truly Nolen in our area. I once read an article about
him which said that he named his kids things like "Sincerely" so that
people would remember their names. It's good for business,
apparently! I haven't seen any of their little mouse cars lately.
Gayle