HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >


"(thru Jun 26, 2013)" PLEASE!

  • 22
  • Share

I have never in my life written, nor would I ever write, the word "through" as "thru". Please don't adopt this as usual practice.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Posting Guidelines | FAQs | Feedback
  1. Beats the hell out of "sammy"!

    2 Replies
    1. re: carolinadawg

      Or "scrummy"


      1. re: carolinadawg

        Or "veggie".

      2. I guess "Xmas" is right out then.

        1. http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/905240

          you can follow how THRU was decided here.

          3 Replies
          1. re: HillJ

            I followed that...but why thru I/o through? Roxlet suggested through.

            1. re: buttertart

              Save space on the subject line? Not sure.

              1. re: HillJ

                OK OK...

          2. buttertart, it was suggested to keep the thread title shorter, as the Mods were concerned about making it any longer than they sometimes get, and no longer wanted to use the previous version of [OLD]. That's all.

            1. Really? Why?

              "Thru" although generally considered informal is becoming more and more accepted in proper writing.

              6 Replies
              1. re: ipsedixit

                That doesn't mean I have to like it. You know the quotation about Champagne and ditchwater, I presume. ;-)

                1. re: buttertart

                  Well, I hear ya on that.

                  But consider the context. I mean, we're on a message board, where you see all sorts of things like "LOL" or "FWIW" or "OP" or whatever.

                  Given all of that, I think using "thru" in lieu of "through" is the least of our worries.

                  Extreme grammatical anality makes one an unpleasant mumpsimus.

                  1. re: ipsedixit

                    I'm not an extremist, I just do not like thru. Or nite.

                    1. re: buttertart

                      I'm with you, and don't use "boro" rather than "borough", either. But CH is stubbornly anti-standards as far as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and profanity are concerned. All individual 'Hounds can do is follow long-standing rules and hope to lead by example. I do think that the generally high quality of the writing on this site contributes to the greater civility found here than on most
                      interactive sites.

                      1. re: greygarious

                        I agree.

                        1. re: greygarious

                          "But CH is stubbornly anti-standards as far as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and profanity are concerned."

                          Let's not lose sight (site?) of why we're here. If this were Arts & Letters Hound or Essay Hound or Literary Hound then I'd be in agreement.

                          But if we toss out the baby with the bath water (recommendations and finds that come to us with less than perfect grammar or spelling attached) then we are the losers.

                2. This is a food/cooking board.
                  Should be throux.

                  2 Replies
                  1. re: hal2010

                    Laugh! Out! Loud!

                    1. re: hal2010

                      tru dat

                    2. I recall that this 'word' was part of the Chicago Tribune's attempt to simplify/rationalize American English spelling, which was thought to be chaotic. If you don't accept this, next thing you'll be telling me that Dewey didn't beat Truman!

                      1. Dare I hope, since WFD #235 is now labeled (through June 28), that the same will be true of the June/July What are you baking when its time comes?

                        1. Colo(u)r me happy :)