Re: 1.5.12-1: ld (make) Error while compiling

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Dec 14 14:55, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:40:09AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> I read an article somewhere about how people try to use this kind of
> >> shorthand in corporate communications and need to be *trained* [...]
> >
> >That stuff drives me up the wall as well.  It just makes you sound like
> >[...]
> >I read the same article, I think:
> ><http://news.com.com/What+corporate+America+cant+build+a+sentence/2100-1030_3-5481494.html>
> 
> Yep, that was it.

It just occured to me that there's something strange and perhaps even
unfair in flaming about that, for want of a better word, "modern" writing
style.

- What about the fairly widespread usage of slang expressions like
  "dunno", "nope" or even "thanks"?  What's different to "plz"?

- We're using a pretty big number of acronyms like AFAIK, ASAP, YMMV
  in daily email exchange.  How is that different to "u r"?

- Most disturbingly, there's an "official" way of using shorthands in
  the written english language:

    you're, there's, can't

  instead of
  
    you are, there is, cannot

  Why is that blessed?  In theory that should only be used to indicate
  spoken language (e. g. as part of a quote) but it's common usage in
  practically all written english texts.

I imply that most people would be able to write a text without using
any of these shortcuts, despite of the above article.  So, what is
it that makes some of us uneasy about "u r" and friends, while we're
happily using a lot of different shorthands without much thinking?
Is there a difference in quality?  For example, do you think using
"u r" is in some way impolite against the reader while using "you're"
isn't because it's common sense and using "you are" is just outlandish?


Curious,
Corinna