-
Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work
Is the word 'luv' a legitimate word?
- Thread starter Katana
- Start date
- Status
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...
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,093
- Reaction score
- 676
Londoners, sure. Not a problem. I can hear that voice in my head when I read it.
It goes both ways. Garth Ennis, an Irish writer who normally has a good ear, once had a plainspoken blue-collar Texan character say "Oh well, it needn't be so bad," which is slightly less likely than a rain of frogs.
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.)
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.)
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,093
- Reaction score
- 676
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.
One example: no matter how good your intentions are, addressing members of a certain race or religion as "you people" is bound to raise a lot of hackles. Here's another: niggard is a perfectly legitimate English word that's been around for centuries, but people are still going to trip over it, and the ones that don't know it means "miser; one who is habitually stingy" will think it's offensive.
A good example of bad tone is this line that was submitted to the annual Bulwer-Lytton "first sentence of an imaginary bad novel" competition:
Sets my teeth on edge. If that were a real book, I'd know instantly that I didn't want to read it.
When a word is going to ring false or sound affected to a lot of your readers, you have to stop and ask yourself whether using it is worth the loss of their attention and sympathy. Maybe you'll change it. Maybe you'll wind up using it anyway. What's important to know that it has that effect.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,093
- Reaction score
- 676
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.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,093
- Reaction score
- 676
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,093
- Reaction score
- 676
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?
Interesting. I never knew Americans used it in that context, and like most Brits, i'm quite familiar with American usage. So it just goes to show that we don't always pick up on everything.
Also as someone mentioned the term 'maths' earlier, that sounds normal to me, but if i heard that said in an American accent, it would sound all wrong to me. I would expect all Americans to say 'math' instead.
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.
I might hear it from someone trying to be (or naturally is) very formal. One of my old headmistresses used to say it, (meaning immediately or as near as -- as soon as I've finished what I'm already doing sort of thing) but she was a stickler for formal. Shame really, or we'd have got along famously.
I use (had) gotten too.
Interestingly, I've always thought of that as an Americanism. Might be a London thing, or might be my ignorance showing.
mirandashell
Banned
Don't worry, I wasn't irritated, I was actually agreeing with you, but having a little joke. (sorry, 'taking the piss' might have a different connotation in the States, I don't know, but here it's just light hearted ribbing between mates with no malice intended).
I certainly agree with you about words that although correctly used give the wrong impression, or just aren't understood. That, though, is why books get edited differently for here or there, and why, when we get a US remake of a much loved UK television programme, it's never as good....... to our ears and eyes. We really are 'two nations, divided by a common language'.
Last edited:
I can't look it up right now, but that is a dialect marker; I remember it as Northern, on either side of the Humber.
Get is a loan from Old Norse; it was a marker of the North even in Chaucer's era.
But much of America was settled by those from the North of England, and we kept usages y'all dropped.
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.
You might in your perambulations on AW stop to read The Newbie Guide to Absolute Write.
I would suggest doing that sooner rather than later.
Also, as HapiSofi is the Moderator for this particular forum, I'm pretty sure she wasn't worried.
Well that's interesting too. I live not far from London, my mum, and most of the older generation living here are Londoners.
'Gotten' just sounds to me like standard past perfect, it's so unremarkable that it hasn't ever occurred to me that not everybody uses it.
@CrunchyBlanket.
Yes that's true. Just like the word 'soccer' we invented the term and then moan at them for using it haha..
I'm always more interested by the way language evloves than irritated by it. If it didn't work the way it does, the language wouldn't be anything like it is now. Most of the words we consider 'correct' today are just 'bastardisations' (is that even a word? It is now...) of old germanic and French, Latin and Greek, with a little bit of eastern sprinkled in.
'Gotten' just sounds to me like standard past perfect, it's so unremarkable that it hasn't ever occurred to me that not everybody uses it.
@CrunchyBlanket.
Yes that's true. Just like the word 'soccer' we invented the term and then moan at them for using it haha..
I'm always more interested by the way language evloves than irritated by it. If it didn't work the way it does, the language wouldn't be anything like it is now. Most of the words we consider 'correct' today are just 'bastardisations' (is that even a word? It is now...) of old germanic and French, Latin and Greek, with a little bit of eastern sprinkled in.
Last edited:
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.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction score
- 888
- Location
- Where eggs are small and dear
- Website
- www.sunpig.com
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.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction score
- 888
- Location
- Where eggs are small and dear
- Website
- www.sunpig.com
Yes the French are very picky with that sort of thing. They fiercely guard what they see as their correct usage.. But like all other languages, theirs just evolved from older words... it is a 'Romance' language after all.
@CrunchyBlanket.
Haha well don't worry, they're the only ones who still use it, and they don't really like the sport anyway.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,093
- Reaction score
- 676
A handful of pebbles from the beach: buxom, quick, homely, pomps, acquit, bully, and the apocryphal awful, artificial, and amusing.
- Status