kingseven wrote:Ho' would require one because it is an omission of letters, and commonly written like that. Spro appears to me more a reorganisation of letters, rather than a condensation/omission.
*wonders why I am even thinking out loud on this one....*
I see your point on ho', I interpreted your apostrophisation as an indication of plural rather than the omission.
I think that in the context of omission-inspired spelling the first point of omission takes precedence, as is the case with 'spro. Thus 'hos (in so far as ho is an abbreviation of whore) takes precedence over ho's.
Also, how come its spros and hoes and not sproes and hos
I'm sticking with 'spros before hoes
I hope whoever created the word knows the pain they've caused.