Is the word 'luv' a legitimate word?

I love the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team. I love jalapeño peppers. I love my wife and children. I love this place.

That's how it's spelled.

caw

blacbird said:

I love the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team. I love jalapeño peppers. I love my wife and children. I love this place.

That's how it's spelled.

caw

Click to expand...

It wouldn't bother me as a term of endearment in dialogue or as a reproduction of a character's inability to spell.

Slade had a number one single with "Coz I Luv You" forty-one years ago. But then deliberate misspelling was a feature of many of their hits and probably infuriated English teachers no end.

Slade was (in a minor way) famous for these kinds of titles, e.g., Cum on feel the noize. If you want to write a novel featuring such spelling, you certainly can. I won't read it.

caw

blacbird said:

I love the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team. I love jalapeño peppers. I love my wife and children. I love this place.

That's how it's spelled.

caw

Click to expand...

In those cases, you'd be right, luv. But if I was serving you a pint, I'd say 'Here you go, luv'. Or I might call you babe, or sweetcheeks.

It sounds different when you say it as a casual endearment.

blacbird said:

Slade was (in a minor way) famous for these kinds of titles, e.g., Cum on feel the noize. If you want to write a novel featuring such spelling, you certainly can. I won't read it.

caw

Click to expand...

And that's the issue, really. How many people wouldn't read a book because "luv" appeared somewhere in it?

Or, more accurately, how many people would stop reading the book--especially if they were really enjoying it--if "luv" popped up? After all, the reader doesn't know, when they first start reading the novel, whether the author has a different opinion on how intrusive that particular word is.

Personally, I would not put down a book I was enjoying just because the author used one lone word that irritated me.

If the use of that word was the final straw on a book that was consistently irritating me, for a variety of reasons, then I would. But one word? I wouldn't throw away a great reading experience over one word.

Again, I'm not British, but as an American who's to the UK a few times, I detected a difference in inflection with the casual "luv" and the more intimate "love." "Luv" felt more like it came from the back of the throat to me, and maybe the "u" sound is a bit shorter.

So it's arguable whether it's pronounced exactly the same as "love" by everyone. Maybe it depends on region too.

Honestly, if it's a legitimate way of using the word in the UK, and a writer's trying to characterize an interaction or person by having them say it "luv" instead of "love" in a casual interaction, I don't see what the problem is. Sounds like readers on both side of the "pond" will hone in on it as being a specific use of the word that is more casual. Sounds like a way of showing something, and we're talking about dialog in fiction, not formal narrative.

For me, 'luv' would be distracting and I'd cringe every time the word was used, but that's just me. If it seems right to you/the character then do it. Your book.

Well, I'd slam the book down and never look at it again, but that's me. Gah. Just reading this thread is giving me a headache.

I was wondering about the text speak thing (because I've seen it way before mobiles). Here we go: First attested 1825.

Probably not text speak then.

^For the record, Shakespeare's use of the word "cos/cuz" however you spell that, drives me bonkers as well. It's not just a textspeak thing, but it does make me grind me teeth quite a bit.

It does depend on context, but it's only acceptable in dialogue and is 'class dependent' in that spelling it as 'luv' only sounds right if the speaker would be likely to spell it that way.
As a word, luv has been around far longer than the appalling 'text speak' (or should that be 'txt spk' ?) as I can remember it as a teenager. You wrote luv on a card or letter ( no e-mails in those days) if you really were just good friends and you weren't hoping to score. Love would imply (in one's own mind at least) a little more romantic feeling for the recipient..... unless it was a relative, of course.

That's here in England, of course. Where English originated before the colonials got their hands on it.

I think "luv" is fine when used appropriately. I also think the way Rowling wrote Hagrid's dialogue in HP and the PS was fine.

Rhoda Nightingale said:

^For the record, Shakespeare's use of the word "cos/cuz" however you spell that, drives me bonkers as well. It's not just a textspeak thing, but it does make me grind me teeth quite a bit.

Click to expand...

It's an abbreviation of "cousin" in Shakespeare's usage, isn't it?

Chris Graham said:

As a word, luv has been around far longer than the appalling 'text speak'

Click to expand...

Tks spk iz a abomin8shn peeps.

I'm English (not that I'm trying to use the argument from authority or anything) and the first thing that spelling says to me is that its an affectation.It doesn't change the meaning if you use the correct spelling so why wouldn't you?

I don't know about other readers, but I'd easily be able to differentiate between the more affectionate term "love" between significant others/friends/etc and the casual "love" between strangers/acquaintances. The situation should be clear without a difference in spelling. I, personally, find the use of "luv" annoying and would stop reading.

If it matters, I'm English and familiar with the usage. I've spent many years living abroad, though, and it's definitely not as common in the US or the Middle East--as you might expect. Perhaps the use of "luv" originates for a wish to make something unfamiliar more clear? Again, I'll reiterate what BetteDavis sad--I'm not trying to say I'm an authority because I'm English, but I have experienced the cross-cultural confusion in slang/casual speech and I wonder if this spelling alteration is related to that? Then again, I've read plenty of British/English pieces that use "luv" so I could very well be wrong.

I read "Alright, luv?" very different to "Alright, love?"
I actually find it irritating when it's spelled correctly but not used to address a character that they actually consider their "love"
It feels far too intimate.
Luv doesn't.

Of course, overkill of using "luv" would bother me, but, and I can see I'm in the minority, I do prefer it.

[Uh, let's not get on to the topic of whether 'alright' is a word either. It is. I say so.]

J. Marks said:

My question to the English writers here is if it's acceptable to use luv. Is the beta reader right about it being just a text appreviation that doesn't have a place in the more formal setting of a manuscript?

Click to expand...

Luv is much, much older than texting. One source suggests it's from the C19th.

The word "luv" wouldn't bother me at all--I figure it's like "hon" here in the South, as in the thing waitresses say.

As "What can I get you, hon?" doesn't make me scream "IT'S HONEY, SPELL IT OUT OR DIE TRYING!" I don't think "luv" would hit me badly either.

If characters start saying "I luv you" without a damn good reason, though, I'll certainly put up an eyebrow.

"Luv" is arguably legitimate when used in privileged forms of speech: names, quotations, signage, strongly voiced dialogue, etc. It's slightly more acceptable in dialogue if the speaker is British and the story is set in the late 60s - early 70s. Use it sparingly, the same way you would any other piece of outmoded slang.

It should not be used phonetically, because its pronunciation is the same as "love."

Don't use it in non-privileged narrative/expository prose. In that context, it's an affectation that will instantly set many readers' teeth on edge. There's no benefit you can get from using "luv" that's worth making a significant fraction of your readers react as though you've just punched the buttons on their ejection seats.

HapiSofi said:

"Luv" is arguably legitimate when used in privileged forms of speech: names, quotations, signage, strongly voiced dialogue, etc. It's slightly more acceptable in dialogue if the speaker is British and the story is set in the late 60s - early 70s. Use it sparingly, the same way you would any other piece of outmoded slang.

Click to expand...

Curious -- why is that time period OK, but others aren't? It's still very current as slang, and it was used back in Victorian times too. So how come only one short period is acceptable?

(I agree with the use sparingly, not because it's outmoded, but because too much of any slang gets wearying after a while)

As I implied, if not stated outright, before; its usage is more appropriate to intimate personal written communications than published writing, (or the written word that is to be read by those that don't know the writer personally).
The only place for it in published writing is in dialogue, and only where it fits the character, for example when the character is a 'sloppy' speaker and drops the end letters of words.
To my mind it implies a miniscule shortening of the already single syllable word, coupled with a diminished meaning to the word 'love' - if that makes sense.
Use it in written conversation, by all means, but the difference is generally too subtle to bother with. If in doubt, use 'love'. Few, if any, people will say that 'luv' would have been better, though there will always be some that get their heads up their arses about 'luv' being used at all..... let alone being used inappropriately.

This thread has been interesting.... it's made me think about something that I'd just not really noticed before.... just accepted.
I did a word search on my 150,000 word novel to see if I'd used it in any of the dialogue and it wasn't found.... though I had used 'luvvies' in a conversation where a character was referring to partygoers from the theatrical profession - It's a term that's in common use here in the UK.

Don't use 'luv' unless it's obviously the character's natural speech and not a possible mistype of love.

I wouldn't find it strange at all - especially when the character is a Londoner/Cockney type.

Bufty said:

I wouldn't find it strange at all - especially when the character is a Londoner/Cockney type.

Click to expand...

I think that's the key -- whether they are the sort of person to use it. If so I wouldn't *not* use it. If they were London/South East born/brought up, blue collar family, over about 30-35, then it'd fit, probably more so in some professions than others, though that's an educated guess (and ofc only in dialogue, but there the connotations are different between luv and love, imo).

I wouldn't use it for a Geordie, or a teenager, or a lawyer.

So 'luvvies', a word coined in the C20th, is fine because it's in common use, but 'luv', a word coined in the C19th and also in common use, is an affectation.

Right.

I'm a Londoner like Cruncy Blanket although I no longer live there. I have no problems with luv or love being written in slang speech if the accent of the speaker is appropriate, however it can be seen by women to be very patronising. If I walked through Petticoat Lane ( a huge outdoor market for those of you who are non Londoners and the streets that make up the market do not include one which is called Petticoat Lane) then I perfectly accept the stall holders calling me over and addressing me as luv. If an older man, a work colleague or a professional addressed me in that manner, I'd bawl him out for being sexually derogatory. So if your usage fits into that sort of situation but in modern day London it is not much used except as I suggested.