It was never needed in the past and ads no context that a simple exclamation point or bold letters could do if a person wants to add emphasis.
It was never needed in the past and ads no context that a simple exclamation point or bold letters could do if a person wants to add emphasis.
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.
This is the correct answer. It doesn’t address the multiple mistakes in English and spelling that the OP ended up writing, though. Nor does it address the spelling variant, although that does not seem to be the particular focus of the original enquiry.
Tho = 3 letters, all necessary Though = 6 letters, 3 unnecessary
So, brevity.
Additionally, “tho” is more casual and observational in usage, “though” implies more a more deliberate counterpoint.
Yes, this is a great point.
What if you’re not into the whole brevity thing though?
Then use the whole word
The great news about language is you determine how it’s used, so if you want to superfluouate your words, go for it. I suppose the only limitation on how you use language is your ability to communicate with people you need to. And, like, some laws.
I kno.
I no*
ik
Exactly. An exclamation point or bolding your letters sure does add emphasis, but if you actually wanted to make it a clear counterclaim, though or tho does the job a whole lot better.
Did you italicize when you should have bolded? Hate when that happens.
I sort of use it like as a hybrid of
Might be the people-pleaser in me but I find it helps to make a contention both more palatable to hear and likely to be engaged with since you’re agreeing but also clarifying where you sense incongruity