Your/You're

Aoifey!

Scioch wrote: »

Lets not turn this into a general grammar nazi convention. Lets all get back to agreeing with me that the words "your" and "you're" as used these days only really need to be represented by "your".

...no.

Pembily

Scioch wrote: »

Kerrigooney wrote: »

The whole your/you`re thing is pretty annoying but nowhere the level of "could of","should of" or "would of".

That`s just f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]cking insanity.

Lets not turn this into a general grammar nazi convention. Lets all get back to agreeing with me that the words "your" and "you're" as used these days only really need to be represented by "your".

Not a hope. Two different words with different meanings.

Kerrigooney

Scioch wrote: »

Lets not turn this into a general grammar nazi convention. Lets all get back to agreeing with me that the words "your" and "you're" as used these days only really need to be represented by "your".

Not a hope in hell.

General General

fupduck wrote: »

Grammar, the difference between knowing your ****, and knowing you're ****

I strongly approve of this post.

Niles

If it's that confusing to some how about just sticking to 'you are' when in doubt. Simples!

Scioch

Pembily wrote: »

Not a hope. Two different words with different meaning.

One word can have two meanings. Many words do. So why not "your" seeing as it can also represent "you're". ? Why is it wrong to use it to represent something that people take it to represent on reading it ?

It was wrong to say something was cool when its temperature wasnt that low once upon a time. Yet that developed into a new word.

Scioch

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Not a hope in hell.

Is there a hope in hell ? Hell doesnt exist, ergo the is no hope in hell. So your agreeing with me ? I'm sorry I dont understand, you seem to be using correct grammar but when forced to interpret its literal meaning it doesnt make sense.

Perhaps there is more to it than simply obeying grammatical rules. Perhaps communication is whats of most importance here and grammatical rules are merely a guideline to enable that.

So now established that communication is of most importance then grammar must be of less importance therefore grammatical mistakes are insignificant if the meaning is conveyed.

Ergo I am right.

Hal Decks

Scioch wrote: »

Pembily wrote: »

Not a hope. Two different words with different meaning.

One word can have two meanings. Many words do. So why not "your" seeing as it can also represent "you're". ? Why is it wrong to use it to represent something that people take it to represent on reading it ?

It was wrong to say something was cool when its temperature wasnt that low once upon a time. Yet that developed into a new word.

You obviously know the difference so off you go and use both, each in its correct context.

Ciderswigger

Scioch wrote: »

"Your not going to eat all that".

Your not? Or my not?

Scioch

Niles wrote: »

If it's that confusing to some how about just sticking to 'you are' when in doubt. Simples!

There is no confusion, this is my point. No confusion only wagging fingers and tut tuts. Needless judging of individuals who have done no wrong and are simply communicating perfectly fine with their fellow human beings.

Aoifey!

Scioch wrote: »

Is there a hope in hell ? Hell doesnt exist, ergo the is no hope in hell. So your agreeing with me ? I'm sorry I dont understand, you seem to be using correct grammar but when forced to interpret its literal meaning it doesnt make sense.

Perhaps there is more to it than simply obeying grammatical rules. Perhaps communication is whats of most importance here and grammatical rules are merely a guideline to enable that.

So now established that communication is of most importance then grammar must be of less importance therefore grammatical mistakes are insignificant if the meaning is conveyed.

Ergo I am right.

...still no.

fupduck

Scioch wrote: »

Is there a hope in hell ? Hell doesnt exist, ergo the is no hope in hell. So your agreeing with me ? I'm sorry I dont understand, you seem to be using correct grammar but when forced to interpret its literal meaning it doesnt make sense.

Perhaps there is more to it than simply obeying grammatical rules. Perhaps communication is whats of most importance here and grammatical rules are merely a guideline to enable that.

So now established that communication is of most importance then grammar must be of less importance therefore grammatical mistakes are insignificant if the meaning is conveyed.

Ergo I am right.

Than is the word when making a comparison, not then

The King of Moo

Terrible idea.

"You're a magnificent bastard." = Subject (You) + verb (are) + indefinite article (a) + adjective (magnificent) + noun (bastard) = elegant, perfectly understandable sentence.

"Your a magnificent bastard." = Possessive adjective (Your) + indefinite article (a) + adjective (magnificent) + noun (bastard) = gibberish which ignores the basic, crucial principles which underpin the English language.

I disagree that both sentences above are as easily understood as each other. Whenever I see the word "your" I expect it to be followed by a noun, but if someone uses it instead of "you're" and thus follows the word with an article or adjective, I experience a very frustrating interruption to the flow of the sentence. It'd be impossible for most people with a good standard of English to read, for example, an entire novel full of such errors due to the interruptions they cause.

Secondly, I believe that this mistake is a potentially very problematic one, precisely because allowing it to go unchecked means ignoring the basic principles of this wonderful language.
Most people understand these principles on an unconscious level. They might not think about the fact that "you're" is a contraction of "you are" which is a subject pronoun and a verb, but they know precisely how to use it.
Yet the apparent increase of this spelling mistake, due perhaps to the long, long tradition of English speakers learning more from listening than reading combined with a deterioration in spelling, means that people are writing sentences which are nonsensical.
I believe this is a slippery slope which could lead to a state in which people use language in a merely imitative manner, knowing that certain sounds are generally used in certain situations, without the awareness of what the structure of the language is.

Scioch

Hal Decks wrote: »

You obviously know the difference so off you go and use both, each in its correct context.

Your not understanding the topic of this thread I think. You're input is of limited value here if that is the case.

Hows that ? I know what both mean. I also know that they are interchangeable the majority of the time with full meaning retained in the communication.

So I find the strict enforcement of the syntax of the English language in the case of these two particular words rather unnecessary and to be done for no other reason than to be pedantic.

I'd like to remove that and establish "your" as the primary word to represent most instance of the usage the words "your" and "you're" as is currently accepted in the current grammatical rules.

Scioch

fupduck wrote: »

Than is the word when making a comparison, not then

Re-read my post and I think your mistaken sir.

Peregrine

Scioch wrote: »

Kerrigooney wrote: »

The whole your/you`re thing is pretty annoying but nowhere the level of "could of","should of" or "would of".

That`s just f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]cking insanity.

Lets not turn this into a general grammar nazi convention. Lets all get back to agreeing with me that the words "your" and "you're" as used these days only really need to be represented by "your".

"You're" is a contraction of "you are".
It doesn't become "your", it becomes "you're". You're leaving out the "a" when pronouncing it. A contraction is formed by taking the last sound of the verb and pronouncing it after the pronoun, leaving the apostrophe there as it is not one word, simple a contraction of two words and to distinguish it from similar words.

Yes it sounds similar to "your" but that doesn't mean we should merge it with that. It's a totally different word, in fact it's not even a word on it's own, it's just a contraction of two words.

Why are you even bothered? Does all this "e" bit confuse you?

And just cos it wasn't adequate in the example you provided doesn't mean it's not needed.
By your logic, "we're" should also be changed to "wer" which will give it different pronounciation.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

Your not understanding the topic of this thread I think. You're input is of limited value here if that is the case.

Hows that ? I know what both mean. I also know that they are interchangeable the majority of the time with full meaning retained in the communication.

So I find the strict enforcement of the syntax of the English language in the case of these two particular words rather unnecessary and to be done for no other reason than to be pedantic.

I'd like to remove that and establish "your" as the primary word to represent most instance of the usage the words "your" and "you're" as is currently accepted in the current grammatical rules.

What if a primary-school student asked their teacher why we say "I'm," "He's" and "They're," but we use a possessive adjective "your" for the second person singular and plural forms of the verb "to be?"
Assuming the teacher grew up in this your-filled utopia, they'd probably not be able to explain the reason, and the child would be lacking one of the fundamental elements of the English language, seriously affecting their chances to use the language effectively.

fupduck

Scioch wrote: »

Re-read my post and I think your mistaken sir.

oops, sorry, my mistake, I'm drowning in the quagmire of nonsense being bandied about

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

Terrible idea.

"You're a magnificent bastard." = Subject (You) + verb (are) + indefinite article (a) + adjective (magnificent) + noun (bastard) = elegant, perfectly understandable sentence.

"Your a magnificent bastard." = Possessive adjective (Your) + indefinite article (a) + adjective (magnificent) + noun (bastard) = gibberish which ignores the basic, crucial principles which underpin the English language.

I disagree that both sentences above are as easily understood as each other. Whenever I see the word "your" I expect it to be followed by a noun, but if someone uses it instead of "you're" and thus follows the word with an article or adjective, I experience a very frustrating interruption to the flow of the sentence. It'd be impossible for most people with a good standard of English to read, for example, an entire novel full of such errors due to the interruptions they cause.

Secondly, I believe that this mistake is a potentially very problematic one, precisely because allowing it to go unchecked means ignoring the basic principles of this wonderful language.
Most people understand these principles on an unconscious level. They might not think about the fact that "you're" is a contraction of "you are" which is a subject pronoun and a verb, but they know precisely how to use it.
Yet the apparent increase of this spelling mistake, due perhaps to the long, long tradition of English speakers learning more from listening than reading combined with a deterioration in spelling, means that people are writing sentences which are nonsensical.
I believe this is a slippery slope which could lead to a state in which people use language in a merely imitative manner, knowing that certain sounds are generally used in certain situations, without the awareness of what the structure of the language is.

I disagree and I think both sentence are equally as understandable. I do not find it interrupts the flow of the sentence at all and I have a fine grasp of the language. I dont think people stop to view a word in isolation out of context from those around it. In fact I'd say that is not at all how people read and understand. And context is of paramount importance and as such there can be no interruption in the flow of the sentence.

You alluded to the actual problem in that second paragraph. That is that this is a spelling mistake more than a grammatical error yet its viewed as a grammatical error because those words are intertwined to some degree. I myself find I simply spell "you're" as "your". And not mean to say "your" at all. So this also backs my point about the interchangeability of the words. Full meaning would be conveyed and the simple changing of the definition would mean there was no spelling mistake. Meaning it would be completely correct and retain complete meaning and as I said earlier wouldnt affect the sentence at all.

Scioch

fupduck wrote: »

oops, sorry, my mistake, I'm drowning in the quagmire of nonsense being bandied about

Or perhaps your too inclined to pick at grammar and spelling instead of understand and discuss the argument being made ?

I want to help you by removing this beacon of wrongness and making it right. To lessen your burden of policing the language and free so many people from drawing your hasty judgements.

Peregrine

The King of Moo wrote: »

What if a primary-school student asked their teacher why we say "I'm," "He's" and "They're," but we used a possessive adjective "your" for the second person singular and plural forms of the verb "to be?"
Assuming the teacher grew up in this your-filled utopia, they'd probably not be able to explain the reason, and the child would be lacking one of the fundamental elements of the English language, seriously affecting their chances to use the language effectively.

Kudos for being able to distinguish between affect and effect
And exactly, we might be able to distinguish between the meanings of "your" and "you're" in a sentence without any thought but try being a beginner in English, our own children or students in another country. How the hell are they gonna know if "your" is reffering to the possesive second person or second person pronoun??

OP, have you ever tried to learn a foreign language?

Irish Guitarist

Know. I don't think sew. Their too totally different words.

fupduck

Scioch wrote: »

Or perhaps your too inclined to pick at grammar and spelling instead of understand and discuss the argument being made ?

I want to help you by removing this beacon of wrongness and making it right. To lessen your burden of policing the language and free so many people from drawing your hasty judgements.

I politely decline your/yore/you're offer of help, thank you for your concern though

the keen edge

Scioch wrote: »

One word can have two meanings. Many words do. So why not "your" seeing as it can also represent "you're". ? Why is it wrong to use it to represent something that people take it to represent on reading it ?

A single word may have more than a single meaning; although abbreviating the English language to improve it is a bizarre notion.

Scioch wrote: »

It was wrong to say something was cool when its temperature wasnt that low once upon a time. Yet that developed into a new word.

The use of slang may make for a more colorful language; although again its use cannot be viewed as improving comprehension.

Scioch wrote: »

Your not understanding the topic of this thread I think.

That sounds like a quote from Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

Wise Old Elf

Scioch wrote: »

Your not understanding the topic of this thread I think. You're input is of limited value here if that is the case.

Oops, first chink in the armour, you used you're, I thought we were supposed to drop it.:D

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

I disagree and I think both sentence are equally as understandable. I do not find it interrupts the flow of the sentence at all and I have a fine grasp of the language. I dont think people stop to view a word in isolation out of context from those around it. In fact I'd say that is not at all how people read and understand. And context is of paramount importance and as such there can be no interruption in the flow of the sentence.

You alluded to the actual problem in that second paragraph. That is that this is a spelling mistake more than a grammatical error yet its viewed as a grammatical error because those words are intertwined to some degree. I myself find I simply spell "you're" as "your". And not mean to say "your" at all. So this also backs my point about the interchangeability of the words. Full meaning would be conveyed and the simple changing of the definition would mean there was no spelling mistake. Meaning it would be completely correct and retain complete meaning and as I said earlier wouldnt affect the sentence at all.

It's both a spelling mistake and a grammatical one. If the mistake is made now, the meaning is still conveyed because most people now still know that it should be "you're." But its continued ubiquity could easily lead to a situation in the future in which people are unaware of the meaning or even existence of "you're." As I said, this would be a situation in which people constructed meaning simply by assigning representations of certain sounds to certain situations, rather than unconsciously following the structures which the language needs.

Every sentence in English must have a verb.
"Your right" could, first of all, easily be construed as what it represents ("Which way should I turn? To my left or my right?" "Your right.") but more importantly, it has no verb.
It would be a very worrying situation if people were regularly making sentences without verbs. "You're" makes clear the existence of the verb "to be" thanks to the "'re." That's absent in the sentence with "your" and allowing that mistake to become acceptable would decrease the average child's grammar awareness at a crucial stage for language learning, and leave the door wide open for similar mistakes.

Scioch

the keen edge wrote: »

A single word may have more than a single meaning; although abbreviating the English language to improve it is a bizarre notion.

Why is it bizarre ?

The use of slang may make for a more colorful language; although again its use cannot be viewed as improving comprehension.

I'm not saying anything will improve comprehension. I'm saying the use of slang doesnt reduce comprehension.

That sounds like a quote from Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

But still makes perfect sense.

Scioch

Disco Stuart wrote: »

Oops, first chink in the armour, you used you're, I thought we were supposed to drop it.:D

It was a reply to someone who challenged me to use both in their correct context. I used both to represent their opposite meaning and retained full comprehension.

No chink.

Wise Old Elf

Scioch wrote: »

It was a reply to someone who challenged me to use both in their correct context. I used both to represent their opposite meaning and retained full comprehension.

No chink.

Damn, didn't see the challenge. In fairness, anyone who read your OP should realise that you obviously know the correct context.
I still disagree with you're;) original assertion though, sorry.

Super-Rush

yore wrote: »

OP, did your parents ever teach you about grammar? If I incorrectly used "you're" instead of "your" when referring to one of them individually, would they likely ban me?

The last word must be left to a quote from one of the experts:
"ahh heyor, leaaaaveeee irh fuucccckhin houh"

Quit the fcuking bitching about an infraction you got ages ago.

Its pathetic and childish.

Don't reply to this post unless its in pm.

JuliaAbbott

[QUOTE=Scioch;81234826 I myself find I simply spell "you're" as "your". And not mean to say "your" at all. [/QUOTE]

Why though? Why do you find this? I mean, I'm curious about the origin of the issue you have with this word. Have you done always done this, and if so, why do you think that is?

youreadthat

Scioch wrote: »

Lets not turn this into a general grammar nazi convention. Lets all get back to agreeing with me that the words "your" and "you're" as used these days only really need to be represented by "your".

That would actually make English more confusing because you'd add unnecessary exceptions.

For example, the verb table of 'to be' present tense.

I am
You are
He/she/it is
We are
You are
They are

Would now look like.

I am
Your
He she/it is
We are
You are
They are

YET, 'You are' would still exist, because it's used to add emphasis. So we'd get;

I am
Your*
He/she/it is
We are
You are
They are**

*(Possessive adjective used as people can't handle the original contraction, though can handle every other pronoun/verb contraction except as seen in the next point. Also 'You are' does exist and is used every day but let's gloss over that, use one word!)

**(They're (They are) will appear as 'Their' or 'There', for no reason)

TheFruitarian

Weight, may be he has a pint.

I never under stood the kneed for so many words my self.

Wee all no what pee pull mean when they right some ting, sow I'm width the OP on dis won.

IsMiseLisa

I don't understand why people are so opposed to using correct grammar.

Especially regards simple things like 'your' and 'you're' wherein the meaning is ENTIRELY different. (See also: 'their', 'there', 'they're'.)

Drives me mental. (Yes, I have a sad life.)

TheFruitarian

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

I don't understand why people are so opposed to using correct grammar.

Especially regards simple things like 'your' and 'you're' wherein the meaning is ENTIRELY different. (See also: 'their', 'there', 'they're'.)

Drives me mental. (Yes, I have a sad life.)

You mean regarding? Or did you just leave out the words with and to?

IsMiseLisa

TheFruitarian wrote: »

You mean regarding? Or did you just leave out the words with and to?

I think typos are pretty irrelevant to the point of my post. It's one thing to typo, it's something else entirely to choose to be ignorant about the basics of the English language.

XD

Seaneh

A quick 2 minute lesson to help the people who can't remember when which applies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32p8d6OudgU

TheFruitarian

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

It's one thing to typo, it's something else entirely to choose to be ignorant about the basics of the English language.

What makes you think that people who make those errors are not just also making typos?

How do you know that they don't have dyslexia and are just using that word as their brain tells them that it's the right one?

You're just assuming deliberate choice - which tbh, makes zero sense.

mauzo

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

TheFruitarian wrote: »

You mean regarding? Or did you just leave out the words with and to?

I think typos are pretty irrelevant to the point of my post. It's one thing to typo, it's something else entirely to choose to be ignorant about the basics of the English language.

XD

So you made a mistake, but they must be ignorant about the language?

IsMiseLisa

mauzo wrote: »

So you made a mistake, but they must be ignorant about the language?

Well, the fact the OP just casually wants to use 'your' as some kind of universal form of 'your' and 'you're' is a bit ignorant.

There's really no need to look too deeply into this. :pac:

Davidius

"Your/You're" isn't all that big of a deal. People who are fully aware of the difference will make that slip every now and then. Anybody who thinks only idiots do it is either arrogant or ignorant.

I don't think OP's suggestion is all that objectionable but I do think it's unnecessary. If "Your" became the spelling of "You're" it would lose some of the etymology but I'm not convinced there would be any serious hindrance to comprehension . It would become an odd exception that most would be use to in a generation. The words have become pronounced so similarly that grammatical context is the only real means of distinction in speech anyway. I imagine problems parsing text would be a result of having the spelling distinction hammered into you more than anything. I doubt people who aren't drilled with the distinction would have such a problem. I know the difference but I've read many posts where "you're" was written "your" and never noticed until somebody pointed it out.

I'm against it on some level, mainly out of a feeling of empathy for non-native speakers who'll have to read it. Also because I prefer when the meaning or origin of a word is as obvious as possible. It doesn't matter however as "your" is basically an alternate form of "you're" already - the dictionary people just haven't accepted it yet.

IM0

fupduck wrote: »

Grammar, the difference between knowing your ****, and knowing you're ****

I think that is one of the best things Ive ever read :pac:

that man for king!

marcsignal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08

Chuck Stone

The King of Moo wrote: »

Terrible idea.

"You're a magnificent bastard." = Subject (You) + verb (are) + indefinite article (a) + adjective (magnificent) + noun (bastard) = elegant, perfectly understandable sentence.

"Your a magnificent bastard." = Possessive adjective (Your) + indefinite article (a) + adjective (magnificent) + noun (bastard) = gibberish which ignores the basic, crucial principles which underpin the English language.

I disagree that both sentences above are as easily understood as each other. Whenever I see the word "your" I expect it to be followed by a noun, but if someone uses it instead of "you're" and thus follows the word with an article or adjective, I experience a very frustrating interruption to the flow of the sentence. It'd be impossible for most people with a good standard of English to read, for example, an entire novel full of such errors due to the interruptions they cause.

Secondly, I believe that this mistake is a potentially very problematic one, precisely because allowing it to go unchecked means ignoring the basic principles of this wonderful language.
Most people understand these principles on an unconscious level. They might not think about the fact that "you're" is a contraction of "you are" which is a subject pronoun and a verb, but they know precisely how to use it.
Yet the apparent increase of this spelling mistake, due perhaps to the long, long tradition of English speakers learning more from listening than reading combined with a deterioration in spelling, means that people are writing sentences which are nonsensical.
I believe this is a slippery slope which could lead to a state in which people use language in a merely imitative manner, knowing that certain sounds are generally used in certain situations, without the awareness of what the structure of the language is.

Moo, do you think you could write the above better than you have?

Dangerous Man

wendell borton wrote: »

Orwell, 1984.

Context is also a beautiful thing. Read Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language.'

You're a certain level of retard if you're a native speaker and say those two words are the same.

Hooked

Ads by Google wrote: »

You're a certain level of retard if you're a native speaker and say those two words are the same.

Agreed!!!

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

One word can have two meanings. Many words do. So why not "your" seeing as it can also represent "you're". ? Why is it wrong to use it to represent something that people take it to represent on reading it ?

It was wrong to say something was cool when its temperature wasnt that low once upon a time. Yet that developed into a new word.

Slang becoming main stream is not the same as amalgamating two totally different words just to accomodate those who struggle with primary school English.

Ghost Buster

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Slang becoming main stream is not the same as amalgamating two totally different words just to accomodate those who struggle with primary school English.

I've taught English to Vietnamese primary school children who know the difference between your and you're.. No native speaking adult has any excuse.

One that confuses me is the use of "its" and "it's". If I'm right, "it's" is "it is", with "its" as in possession.

Yet if I were to say that book is mine, then it's "boneyarsebogman's book", rather than "boneyarsebogmans book", which would be the plural ... so if I had it right previously, why is "its" denoting possession, instead of "it's"?