Deleted member 42
Too many of the American writers I've seen use it just think it looks cool on the page.
So you're saying luv isn't alright?
Too many of the American writers I've seen use it just think it looks cool on the page.
Londoners, sure. Not a problem. I can hear that voice in my head when I read it.(My bold) Ahh, right, see, now it becomes clear. That wasn't coming through earlier
I'd never use it for an American character (just as I wouldn't use y'all for a cockney) or for a Brit lawyer or a Geordie because all words have to fit the character. And sometimes, this one does.
It's less about dictionaries, and what's objectively right and wrong, and more about how readers react. There are plenty of grammatical, dictionary-listed words and phrases that will disturb your audience's perception of you in unexpected ways.This is a fascinating discussion, I definitely had no idea that "luv" was a permissible word. I don't think I would ever use it (to me it seems text-y) but I don't discredit anyone else for using it, especially with it being in the dictionary and all. Now if we could just stop the imos and imhos...
Sets my teeth on edge. If that were a real book, I'd know instantly that I didn't want to read it."I was a very, very, very sensitive child."
Well thank you Happy Sophie, I'm so pleased that you don't mind us English having different spellings of the 'English' language.
I suppose it's not an affectation to spell happy with one 'P' and an 'I'....... you may well spell your name with an 'F' so I'll let you off that one...... seriously though, my little bit of piss taking aside, you're right.
That's a great example.Also, if someone said to me 'I'll do it presently' i'd think that they were deliberately trying to sound old fashioned, it would sound unnatural where i come from. (East Anglia) and also i'd assume they meant they would do it right now, and i'd be thinking '...Well go on then.' i've never hear that used to say 'i'll do it later'
So you're saying luv isn't alright?
This raises a number of issues. Do you really want to discuss them, or are you just feeling irritated?Well thank you Happy Sophie, I'm so pleased that you don't mind us English having different spellings of the 'English' language.
I suppose it's not an affectation to spell happy with one 'P' and an 'I'....... you may well spell your name with an 'F' so I'll let you off that one...... seriously though, my little bit of piss taking aside, you're right.
The alternative spelling should only be used when the writer is confident that it's appropriate, and in America, it rarely, if ever, is.
Fortunately, the distinction between 'luv' in the right place, and 'love' in the same place, is so fine that it won't matter. Unlike 'luv' in the wrong place, which grates on the sensibilities.
I'd go so far as to suggest that in the US edit of a work, it is left out and 'love' is used. If only to stop its inappropriate use by those that see it, don't understand it, but use it because they think it's 'cool'.
It's such a small word, but it can cause so much controversy. (and the pronunciation of that one is a whole new can of worms........ start on that, and the whole world could go tits up.)
That's a great example.
"Presently" is one of those older forms like "had gotten" or saying "fall" for "autumn" that survived in North America, but fell out of use in the U.K. However, during the intervening centuries its meaning shifted. When Americans use it, they mean "real soon now." Its original sense was "immediately," which is the one you're familiar with.
That's a great example.
"Presently" is one of those older forms like "had gotten" or saying "fall" for "autumn" that survived in North America, but fell out of use in the U.K. However, during the intervening centuries its meaning shifted. When Americans use it, they mean "real soon now." Its original sense was "immediately," which is the one you're familiar with.
I use (had) gotten too.And 'had gotten' is still in common use in England. I still use it and it just sounds perfectly normal and natural to me. In fact i wasn't even aware it was supposed to have changed... Perhaps i just missed that meeting, i don't know.
And 'had gotten' is still in common use in England. I still use it and it just sounds perfectly normal and natural to me. In fact i wasn't even aware it was supposed to have changed... Perhaps i just missed that meeting, i don't know.
This raises a number of issues. Do you really want to discuss them, or are you just feeling irritated?
If it's the latter, how about I acknowledge that you felt irritated, you agree, and we both save ourselves a lot of typing?
Interestingly, I've always thought of that as an Americanism. Might be a London thing, or might be my ignorance showing.
Don't worry, I wasn't irritated, I was actually agreeing with you, but having a little joke.
I'm often amused by the way British people bitch about Americanisms invading our language when half the time, they originated on our very shores.
I notice the same thing with French speakers from France complaining about le français québécois, when the feature they're annoyed about is in fact archaic French that the Québec preserved.
Yes that's true. Just like the word 'soccer' we invented the term and then moan at them for using it haha..
I notice the same thing with French speakers from France complaining about le français québécois, when the feature they're annoyed about is in fact archaic French that the Québec preserved.
One of my favorite "meaning has shifted" terms is "tabled". If one tables a motion in the UK, one brings it up for discussion. If one does so in the US, it means that discussion on it is deferred, probably for good.