Thru vs. Through

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.

For god's sake, Starrkers. We get what you claim is a point.

Who's beating the topic to death now, sweetheart? :D

(At least the States has a publishing industry. You Aussies can't find enough who can read to get one going. :))
 
For god's sake, Starrkers. We get what you claim is a point.

Who's beating the topic to death now, sweetheart? :D

(At least the States has a publishing industry. You Aussies can't find enough who can read to get one going. :))

you're an idiot
 
Deleted for pompous-arseholery :D

Ahh, I see Lady C. is violating the forum rules again. I, of course, didn't post anything that violated forum rules, but I can see why Lady C. would feel threatened by what I had to say.

Won't bother to repost it, but I will note what really amuses me by this "discussion." I'm accused of snobbery for . . . (wait for it) . . . defending the usability of informal/slang words in fiction. Gotta love it.

It's also amusing that it would be thought to be assholery to point out "thru" is indeed a word, and not just an abbreviation either, because the dictionary declares it so--as well, I guess, to point out that they don't put words in the dictionary on the basis of a vote of the largely uninformed.
 
Last edited:
Are we done with that now?

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.

*******
You make a very good point here. Thank you for adding your thoughts to the board. Sometimes these threads can get a little off topic.
 
*******
You make a very good point here. Thank you for adding your thoughts to the board. Sometimes these threads can get a little off topic.
i'm sorry, but you are confusing me, did you just quote and then reply to yourself? or did you hit the wrong window to quote?
 
i'm sorry, but you are confusing me, did you just quote and then reply to yourself? or did you hit the wrong window to quote?

He probably logged on the wrong account. ;)
 
intentional

i'm sorry, but you are confusing me, did you just quote and then reply to yourself? or did you hit the wrong window to quote?


Actually, I intentionally replied to myself. This thread started off with AS asking a question concerning word use and degenerated into a pissing contest. I was just trying to regain focus on the original topic.

I thought it would be a bit funny to reply to my own unanswered comment. Didn't mean to be confusing.
 
Thanks, all. It seems that these editing questions I occasionally pose cause controversy never intended (OK, ok, or Okay for one).

I'm not trying to stir the pot, really, though I do learn from these discussions and hope others do as well.

When it comes to editing, if there are grammar issues with dialogue, I dismiss that since few people "speak" perfectly formed sentences. However, when a writer is developing the narrative, I expect that to be without error as much as possible. Please feel free to comment if you disagree.

I'm smart enough to know I'm not as smart as ya'll (A man's gotta know his limitations, which I do) and as unmanly as it may sound, I stop, ask, and learn.

Okay, moving on to other things... stories to edit, porn to write, ribs to eat...
 
Thanks, all. It seems that these editing questions I occasionally pose cause hen it comes to editing, if there are grammar issues with dialogue, I dismiss that since few people "speak" perfectly formed sentences. However, when a writer is developing the narrative, I expect that to be without error as much as possible. Please feel free to comment if you disagree.


We've discussed this too. If the narrator is functioning as a character, the narrative can follow the speech imperfections expected of the character as well. The most extreme example I can think of this is Mark Twain. check out Huckleberry Finn--1st person narrative in the uneducated voice of a man child. Mickey Spillane is another example, and, I believe writers like Sue Grafton edge on this as well. In general, though, the narrative should be more conventional than the separate character dialogue unless the author is purposely developing it otherwise.
 
We've discussed this too. If the narrator is functioning as a character, the narrative can follow the speech imperfections expected of the character as well. The most extreme example I can think of this is Mark Twain. check out Huckleberry Finn--1st person narrative in the uneducated voice of a man child. Mickey Spillane is another example, and, I believe writers like Sue Grafton edge on this as well. In general, though, the narrative should be more conventional than the separate character dialogue unless the author is purposely developing it otherwise.

James Joyce did it frequently, too. Not to get involved in this argument because I'm not... but there's a non-American who wrote following speech imperfections.

How about we say it's all about preference, intention, purpose? If you're trying to be formal, because that is your preference, intention and purpose... damn... use through. Be aware of your writing style. If you are more informal in style and convention, why worry?

In the end, if you send it to a publisher they'll tell you what you're going to use... it's their money, too.

And now please don't shoot me for getting involved in such things.

*puts tail between legs and runs*
 
James Joyce did it frequently, too. Not to get involved in this argument because I'm not... but there's a non-American who wrote following speech imperfections. ...
He was far from being the first. Shakespeare did it with the characters in the sub-plot of Henry V (especially Fluellyn) and with the French princess.
 
Are you saying my grandmother is a liar?

;)

I'm a little afraid to post here for fear of stirring things back up.

My grandmother used 'thru' and only 'thru.' It was because she became enamored of spelling reform in the late 19th or early 20th century and took up a lot of strange spelling and abbreviation practices. Before that, she used 'through.'

My father returned to 'through' and so it was transmitted to me.

In the example context of this topic, I'd say there is no choice but 'through.'

mh

(BTW, the title is a play on "Are you calling my wife a liar." There's no good answer to that question and if you hear it in a bar, you either RUN for the door or start swinging immediately.)
 
Last edited:
... It was because she became enamored of spelling reform in the late 19th or early 20th century and took up a lot of strange spelling and abbreviation practices. ...
Deliberat speling reform is a totaly diferent mater. If a writer wants to use simplifid speling then that is their chois but the reeder kannot be blamd for finding it dificult to reed. Sum reeders mit not finish the story, espeshaly if fonetic speling is usd.
 
Back
Top