"You talkin’ to me?"

This time we are looking on the crossword clue for: "You talkin' to me?".
it’s A 34 letters crossword puzzle definition. See the possibilities below.

Did you find what you needed?
We hope you did!. If you are still unsure with some definitions, don’t hesitate to search them here with our crossword solver.

Possible Answers: YEAH, HUH, PJS.

Random information on the term “HUH”:

A speech disfluency, also spelled speech dysfluency, is any of various breaks, irregularities (within the English language, similar speech dysfluency occurs in different forms in other languages), or non-lexical vocables that occurs within the flow of otherwise fluent speech. These include false starts, i.e. words and sentences that are cut off mid-utterance, phrases that are restarted or repeated and repeated syllables, fillers i.e. grunts or non-lexical utterances such as “huh”, “uh”, “erm”, “um”, “well”, “so”, and “like”, and repaired utterances, i.e. instances of speakers correcting their own slips of the tongue or mispronunciations (before anyone else gets a chance to). “Huh” is claimed to be a universal syllable.

Fillers are parts of speech which are not generally recognized as purposeful or containing formal meaning, usually expressed as pauses such as uh, like and er, but also extending to repairs (“He was wearing a black—uh, I mean a blue, a blue shirt”), and articulation problems such as stuttering. Use is normally frowned upon in mass media such as news reports or films, but they occur regularly in everyday conversation, sometimes representing upwards of 20% of “words” in conversation. Fillers can also be used as a pause for thought (“I arrived at, um—3 o’clock”).


New Crossword clues and help App now available in the App Store and Google Play Store!
Crossword clues app Android Crossword clues app iphone iOs

HUH on Wikipedia

Random information on the term “PJS”:

PJS v News Group Newspapers ([2016] EWCA Civ 100) is an English legal case in which an anonymised privacy injunction[n 1] was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as “PJS”, in order to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people.

In January 2016, PJS applied to the High Court of Justice in London for an injunction to prevent publication of a news story relating to the encounter by The Sun on Sunday. This was declined on the basis that publication would be in the public interest. PJS applied to the Court of Appeal and was successful in overturning the High Court decision. In April 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled that the injunction should be lifted, as the allegations had been published widely both abroad and online. PJS then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which in May 2016 decided to uphold the injunction by a majority of 4-1.

The case has led to debate about the effectiveness of injunctions in the age of the Internet and social media websites.

PJS on Wikipedia


Leave a Comment