Ask Lemmy

It does add context though.

If I just said “it adds context”, it’s not seen as a counterclaim to your claim. It’s just a new standalone statement.

Looking for an explanation, yes? It's a linguistic convention, totally. I mean, you know, we add a lot of unnecessary words, like, serious. It's superfluous verbage. Look, I know it seems to be a recent thing, but it's, like, been going on for a long time, right?

Language changes over time tho

Narrator : Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them.

(Shameless self-promotion: if you like this subject, consider [email protected] )

It's being used as an adversative conjunction, connecting a phrase (usually a clause) with whatever precedes it, in a way that highlights that the precedent would incorrectly imply something. Here's a set of examples showing it:

1. "That 'tho' is like a 'but'. But it's used at the end of the sentence."
2. "That 'tho' is like a 'but'. It's used at the end of the sentence tho."
3. "That 'tho' is like a 'but'. It's used at the end of the sentence."

#1 and #2 are equivalent: the first sentence introduces an information (that "tho" is like a "but"), that information implies something incorrect (if "tho" is like a "but", it goes at the start of the sentence, right?), and the second sentence contradicts said implication (nope, "tho" goes at the end). With the "but" or the "tho", that contradiction is explicit.

Now look at #3 - it sounds like [incorrectly] saying that "but" goes at the end of the sentence, unlike #1 or #2.

A conjunction going after the elements being "conjoined" might sound a bit weird, but it's nothing new, or English exclusive. Latin for example used -que (additive conjunction; "and") this way: first you list the items being conjoined, then plop a -que at the end. (Classical examples: "arma uirumque cano" [I sing the arms and men] and "Senatus Populusque Romanus" [Roman Senate and People]).

Now, on why it's being used this way: there's the spelling and the increased usage.

"Tho" as a short form for "though" is old; Merrian-Webster claims that it was already uncommonly used in the 18xx. It's just that, nowadays, it became more socially accepted in informal writing, due to increased usage. This sort of "grammatical word" (conjunctions, articles, adpositions, copula verb etc.) tends to be rather small, both phonetically and spelling-wise.

And the usage of "though" as an adversative conjunction is attested from the 12th century. Probably even older since cognates in other Germanic languages also have the adversative meaning.

I'm not sure on what I'm going to say next, but I think that the increased modern usage is the result of some changes on how people interpret "but". Some have been treating it as if it contradicted everything said before, like:

• Alice: "I wanted a banana pie. Not an apple pie."
• Bob: "Why do you hate apples?"
• Alice: "I like apples, but I like bananas better."
• Bob [who stopped hearing at the "but"]: "THAN U DUN LIEK APPLES!"

That probably led to increased usage of "though" because it's used after whatever you said the relevant piece of info. So it's basically a way to cut short an assumption before it even happens.

Chan its polite tho

Chan because it would be rude not to tho

Using "though" has a long history.

Tho is just for brevity, like drive-thru instead of drive-through.

You don't think it be that way, but it do tho.

It does soften language that could otherwise be mistaken for harshness tho

Dat ass tho

Now? It's been happening since cell phones became common. It started as lazy typing (or just bad spelling) and it just became a thing shortly after.

Any word that can be shortened was shortened, like ur example. If punctuation isn't understood, it's left out. The worst part of this is that spelling and grammar checkers are "smart", so they integrate slang as "correct" and probably type mistakes for people automatically.

What's wrong with it tho?

It was never needed in the past

Citation needed.

Lo, here we witness the claimant’s protest: “though” be not used in the past under any circumstance and still never shall it be shortened and used colloquially hence—for we all know: language may never change, even in the slightest!

….but really tho

https://youtu.be/m31Qh1uonJQ?si=IClY_r1C9tnAIIjE