No Sms abbreviations or other forms of lazy spellings shall be permitted.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kharkhun

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
Iran
Which is more natural?

1. No Sms abbreviations or other forms of lazy spellings (such as "coz", “cos", "u", "ur", "b4", "bcoz", etc) shall be permitted.
2. No texting abbreviations or other forms of lazy spelling (such as "coz", “cos", "u", "ur", "b4", "bcoz", etc) shall be permitted.
 
In the US, we use "texting" and the phrase "SMS" is rarely used. I don't know who your audience is, so I can't recommend one over the other.

I'd use the singular "spelling."

However, don't use both "such as" and "etc." Use one or the other, and if you choose to keep the "etc." note that it needs a period/full stop.

Also, "shall be permitted" is not necessary. You can delete it entirely or just write "permitted."

You might want to add "Use only full/proper words." before your sentence.
 
I agree with Barb, except that in BE etc doesn't need a full stop/period unless it ends a sentence.
 
I am not a teacher.

I beg to differ.

I've never heard that before. Which style guide does that come from?

I have always used a full stop wherever "etc." appears in the sentence, with additional punctuation where necessary.
 
That may have been the case years ago but I don't put a full stop after "etc" unless it's at the end of a sentence either.
 
I agree with Barb about "SMS". It's rarely used in BrE but it is used extensively in continental Europe. If you are going to use it, it needs to be capitalised. I would say "No text abbreviations or other forms of lazy spelling (cos, coz, thx, pls, u etc) are allowed."
 
Which style guide does that come from?

The Guardian don't use one:

http://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-e

And the Telegraph feel the same way, so it cuts across sides in the media:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/about-us/style-book/1435311/Telegraph-style-book-Ee.html

In the past, if it came at the end of the sentence, some recommended two full stops, but I very rarely see that nowadays. However, I do see a mixture of with and without the full stop, but would guess that it's more common without.
 
I definitely have learned that the British are less likely to use the end punctuation on abbreviations (Mr and Mrs don't get it any longer either, do they?) but while it's not required, would anyone consider it incorrect?

That is, by including it, you make the American (and apparently Canadians) (who care at all about such things) happy, but would you make anyone in the UK unhappy?
 
Why would a punctuation mark (unless it is misplaced) make anybody unhappy?
 
Some British follow the rule that says that if the abbreviation ends with the final letter of the word, no punctuation is required - Dr but Prof. - but nowadays there is a greater tendency towards no punctuation. The occasional stickler for the old rule might grumble on seeing an unnecessary full stop and moan about the decline of civilization, but I think that the majority wouldn't consider it incorrect.
 
moan about the decline of civilization

I basically consider you all lawless heathens for omitting ANY of them. We Americans like our periods. ;-)
 
I'd be happy if people simply stopped writing 'ect' when they mean 'etc', as in "My depressed mother has tried antidepressants, psychotherapy, ect."
 
I am not a teacher.

And then there are those who pronounce it ekcetera.
 
I'd be happy if people simply stopped writing 'ect' when they mean 'etc', as in "My depressed mother has tried antidepressants, psychotherapy, ect."

And then there are those who pronounce it ekcetera.

Aaaarrrgh! Stop it. You're giving me palpitations. ;-)
 
...and those who say 'and etc'.
 
... and writing "etc ............."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top