I guess it depends on how you think about it. I grew up with that, and a hell of a lot worse with me being from Yorkshire, so I don't really think about what it actually means at all; it's just another contraction, and that's about it.
But Bruce Lee things sound rather painful for everyone involved!
I've been researching this Yorkshire place on the YouTube for the past 20 minutes (like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V54g0314UA&feature=mfu_in_order... ) and I can definitely see the speed at which one speaks being a factor but it seems like 80% understandable. 80%'s not bad. It's actually kind of, endearing maybe? But I'm pretty sure I would Bruce Lee thing whole houses if I lived anywhere north of that.
Just watched that video, and it's spot on, although there is a lot of variation. I'd say I even speak a little bit faster than that, but I tend to tone it down a lot when I'm talking to anyone who doesn't know me that well.
The university that she was talking about, Huddersfield, is actually south of where I live, so I guess I'd be Bruce Lee'd into submission!
Noooooo...! And to think you'd be spared, if you would only, slow, down.
It's not even a concious thing though! There's no need for you to slow down if everyone can understand you anyway. It just takes time; my fiancé lives in PA and he couldn't understand a word when we first met, but I can witter away at my normal speed now and he has no problems, in fact, he starts picking it up himself after a while!
Who says "there're" isn't a word? Contractions are done kind of on the fly anyway, especially in the interrogative. Why not allow constructions like "who're you?" or "what'd you say?" I see them as legally constructed expressions. The problem with "There's people outside" is that when you uncontract it, it's flat out wrong.
Precisely, we must advocate the widespread use of these words or our grandchildren will be fed to Morlocks.
"there're" & "should've"
Again, a case of suggested usage rather than breaking any rules. Contractions are perfectly legal, it's just that in certain situations, they can lead to less clarity of information. :)
How about overused colloquialisms?
Woot! woot! woot!
At the end of the day
Outside the box
The bottom line is
Chat shorthand used outside of chat situations?
Meaningless filler words?
Mike: "Well, I was like on my way to, uh, Willis's house when, umm, my car ran out of like gas." Ike: "Hmm. Well, I guess you were having like a bad day." (I have a nephew who seems to manage to fit at least four likes into every sentence.)
Meaningless filler words are often used just because our we can't keep up with ourselves! I agree that "like" is pretty awful, but admittedly I do use it myself on occasions. However, "umm" and "uh" are completely normal.
Am I right or wot?
Chat shorthand outside of chat situations, whenever I've heard it, has always been as a joke. "El Oh El"