Thru vs. Through

[snoopercharmbrights]

Is it fuck buddy? Fuckbuddy? Fuck-buddy? ...

Yes, yes and yes, according to choice. However if you want to get the word count up, use the first option.

... I only learned the plural of "manwhore" the other day, thanks to a certain pilot.

Oh, I hope that doesn't mean there is more than one of (her)him.

 

[sassypeach]

Either of the first two; just be consistent with whichever you pick. The principle of the a hyphenation would be that both separated elements should be nouns (e.g., secretary-treasurer).

Makes sense to me, however getting back to thru. The Oxford Dictionary of English is chiefly a US informal spelling of through. So it would seem to me that if the writer intended the person to speak in a particular idiom then it would be appropriate. Depends on the use of it.

 

[sr71plt]

Makes sense to me, however getting back to thru. The Oxford Dictionary of English is chiefly a US informal spelling of through. So it would seem to me that if the writer intended the person to speak in a particular idiom then it would be appropriate. Depends on the use of it.

Yep, I agree. Using it (with consistency) in dialogue to show the level of a character's idiomatic quirks would be both efficient and effective writing.

 

[lushlucid]

It's sms or net speak, not an official work
it's sort of like 'cos instead of because, i wouldn't want to see it in a story

 

[sr71plt]

It's sms or net speak, not an official work
it's sort of like 'cos instead of because, i wouldn't want to see it in a story

Again, what should go in the narrative and what can go in dialogue are two entirely different matters. Such "informal speak" terms have always been embedded in fiction dialogue to provide desired effect. Go read some published novels.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

I understand that sr7plt said:

... The principle of the a hyphenation would be that both separated elements should be nouns ...

I cannot vouch for this personally as I have him(her) on "ignore" but if (s)he did say that I can only assume this means as in "cold-hearted" or "half-witted". Either that or the implication is that either "fuck or "buddy" is not a noun?

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

An Unreserved Public Apology

I apologise unreservedly and whole-heartedly to Lady Cibelle for rising to some blether from sr71plt after advising her never to do so.

 

[sr71plt]

I understand that sr7plt said: I cannot vouch for this personally as I have him(her) on "ignore" but if (s)he did say that I can only assume this means as in "cold-hearted" or "half-witted". Either that or the implication is that either "fuck or "buddy" is not a noun?

Opps, I was wrong, of course. "Fuck" isn't a noun in this construction. However, the hyphenated version ("fuck-buddy") wouldn't fly in U.S. publishing anyway. Publishing is "down" on the use of hyphens. If you don't find it (in the word form you are using) hyphenated in Webster's, publishers will not hyphenate it. In this case, you're given the leeway of "fuck buddy" or "fuckbuddy," because the term isn't established at all, so that should be enough choices.

 

[LadyCibelle]

I apologise unreservedly and whole-heartedly to Lady Cibelle for rising to some blether from sr71plt after advising her never to do so.

Apology accepted, hun. We all fall off the wagon...what's important is the get back on.

 

[cloudy]

Through is a word. Thru is not.

Not in the English speaking world anyway.

Yep.

 

[sr71plt]

Apology accepted, hun. We all fall off the wagon...what's important is the get back on.

Oh, and being nasty. It's important to be nasty, isn't it?

 

[sassypeach]

Yep.

Ok I can see this. I went back to Oxford English Dictionary and after a little perusing low and behold, I came across this; use it informally as in verbal or informal writing.

 

[sr71plt]

Ok I can see this. I went back to Oxford English Dictionary and after a little perusing low and behold, I came across this; use it informally as in verbal or informal writing.

Yes, some folks are being a little hardheaded/obtuse here, I think. The word is in the dictionary, identified as a word. Ipso facto, it's a word. The point is that there are places were it is used appropriately and places where it isn't--like every other word. The art of writing is one of using the right word in the right place.

 

[litchipking]

Through, not thru

I'm not an editor and just a beginning writer but this is my take:

If a common word is spoken differently; in accent, dialect or slang, then the use of the alternate word may be appropriate.

Examples: gotcha, whatcha doin’, gonna, ‘cause.

These words are slang contractions or shortened words and add a certain flavor to the dialogue. “Thru” is pronounced exactly like “through” and therefore does not add anything. Spelling it differently does not help define a character unless the word was actually written by the character, as in the aforementioned text quote.

Just what I think.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not an editor and just a beginning writer but this is my take:

If a common word is spoken differently; in accent, dialect or slang, then the use of the alternate word may be appropriate.

Examples: gotcha, whatcha doin’, gonna, ‘cause.

These words are slang contractions or shortened words and add a certain flavor to the dialogue. “Thru” is pronounced exactly like “through” and therefore does not add anything. Spelling it differently does not help define a character unless the word was actually written by the character, as in the aforementioned text quote.

Just what I think.

So, you don't agree with Webster's--that "thru," is an informal spelling of "through," and therefore could be used by a writer as an efficient, effective way to help "show" a character's education level in that character's dialogue?

 

[starrkers]

For god's sake, sr. We get the point. Webster's says it's an informal usage. We're all talking about a more formal setting than a billboard or shop sign.

 

[sr71plt]

For god's sake, sr. We get the point. Webster's says it's an informal usage. We're all talking about a more formal setting than a billboard or shop sign.

"For god's sake, Starrkers . . ."

No. Many here are talking about not even accepting it as a word to use in any context. You might actually read the thread. The post I've responded to directly discusses using it in dialogue. In terms of "showing" character, spelling it different does, in fact, help define character--both efficiently and effectively. Not my fault if people keep being thickheaded about how it legitimately can be used in creative writing.

 

[starrkers]

"For god's sake, Starrkers . . ."

No. Many here are talking about not even accepting it as a word to use in any context. You might actually read the thread. The post I've responded to directly discusses using it in dialogue. In terms of "showing" character, spelling it different does, in fact, help define character--both efficiently and effectively. Not my fault if people keep being thickheaded about how it legitimately can be used in creative writing.

God save me from pedantic wannabe know-it-alls.

Regardless of whether it is dialogue or not, the style of writing is formal - full sentences in paragraph format. I fail to see how using an informal spelling in a formal setting shows anything other than the author's failure to grasp standard English usage.
If it is slang or sloppy pronunciation being shown, that is different, but this word is pronounced exactly the same regardless of formal or informal spelling. All the use of the informal shows is sloppy writing technique.

 

[sr71plt]

God save me from pedantic wannabe know-it-alls.

Regardless of whether it is dialogue or not, the style of writing is formal - full sentences in paragraph format. I fail to see how using an informal spelling in a formal setting shows anything other than the author's failure to grasp standard English usage.
If it is slang or sloppy pronunciation being shown, that is different, but this word is pronounced exactly the same regardless of formal or informal spelling. All the use of the informal shows is sloppy writing technique.

I haven't the vaguest idea why you think you and I are addressing the same issue. I am clearly talking about there being a place to use "thru." In dialogue, to show education/social level of the character. What the hell does have that to do with formal writing? Narrative and dialogue are two different realms.

And where do you get off calling me a pedantic wannabe know-it-all? I haven't called you anything. Get some manners.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

 

[sr71plt]

I think there are a few folks who might need to pick up and read a published novel. I suggest trying some William Faulkner.

 

[starrkers]

I haven't the vaguest idea why you think you and I are addressing the same issue. I am clearly talking about there being a place to use "thru." In dialogue, to show education/social level of the character. What the hell does have that to do with formal writing? Narrative and dialogue are two different realms.

And where do you get off calling me a pedantic wannabe know-it-all? I haven't called you anything. Get some manners.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I rest my case.

Must be off, there's a mule I need to chat to elsewhere.
Toodles.

 

[sr71plt]

I rest my case.

Must be off, there's a mule I need to chat to elsewhere.
Toodles.

As I noted, you might take a novel with you and actually read it--William Faulkner or Mark Twain might open your eyes and mind. Or maybe not.

Can't do much about your retreating to name calling.

 

[lushlucid]

Again, what should go in the narrative and what can go in dialogue are two entirely different matters. Such "informal speak" terms have always been embedded in fiction dialogue to provide desired effect. Go read some published novels.

In all the novels i have read i have never seen the word 'thru' used.
Cos is at least an abreviation.

 

[litchipking]

Yes, and no

So, you don't agree with Webster's--that "thru," is an informal spelling of "through," and therefore could be used by a writer as an efficient, effective way to help "show" a character's education level in that character's dialogue?

My point is that using an alternate spelling in dialogue has value only if the different spelling causes the word to be pronounced differently. Otherwise, it makes no impact. We are talking about how someone speaks. How you spell what they are saying is irrelevant unless it effects pronunciation.

The only way "thru" helps show a character's education level is if the story is quoting the character's writing.

Again, just my take.

 

[starrkers]

As I noted, you might take a novel with you and actually read it--William Faulkner or Mark Twain might open your eyes and mind. Or maybe not.

Can't do much about your retreating to name calling.

Being awfully precious there, aren't you, sweetheart?

I doubt reading exclusively American authors will do much to change my opinion of their abuse of the English language, thanks all the same.