Your/You're

Jay D

Yeah lets all mould into txt tlkin retard cúnts.

No separation from lazy stupid people and those who make an effort.

Scioch

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

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:

How is it ignorant ? People who use "your" instead of "you're" mean the latter but write it as the former. So its a spelling mistake just as yours is.

Say both of those in your head. Its the same word that represents two different things and is spelled differently when written. So when people use it in the wrong context it can only ever be a spelling mistake and phonetically they are using the correct word.

All this really is is a chance for people to pick at things and call others ignorant. As you did. There is a reason grammar nazi's are despised these days. Its because they are pointless **** with nothing relevant to contribute to discussions.

Scioch

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 dont want to accommodate those struggling with primary English. I want to remove the ability for pathetic people with nothing to do other than pick at grammar from picking at this seeing as though its so widely done and both words phonetically are the exact same. In spoken conversation its the same word. When written its an excuse for some sad twat to try to be clever in pointing out peoples spelling mistakes.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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"?

It's boneyarsebogman's book. It's got 43 pages. Its cover is red.

Omackeral

Scioch, is this plan for you're/your the a precursor for your ultimate plan? I think I've seen you post the following on another forum;

The European Commission has just announced that English will be the official
language of the European Union. German, which was the other possibility, narrowly missed out.

During negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would
become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly this will make
sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favor of "k".
This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like
fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments
will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a
deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the
silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer pepl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z"
and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou"
and after zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no
mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza.
Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und after zis fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German; lik zey vunted in ze
forst plas.

Hal Decks

Scioch wrote: »

......
I dont want to accommodate those struggling with primary English. I want to remove the ability for pathetic people with nothing to do other than pick at grammar from picking at this ......

Reading your (not you're) posts show you as the "pathetic" one, not those you describe. (They, ironically, being the ones who are correct, you being completely in the wrong)

How can you possibly argue that you, being incorrect, are 'right' and those who are correct are 'wrong'?

ejmaztec

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Exactly, too many people get their knickers in a knot when someone uses it wrong.

I definitely see a knob joke just waiting to happen in that one.

Scioch

Hal Decks wrote: »

Reading your (not you're) posts show you as the "pathetic" one, not those you describe. (They, ironically, being the ones who are correct, you being completely in the wrong)

How can you possibly argue that you, being incorrect, are 'right' and those who are correct are 'wrong'?

I'm not arguing that they are wrong in what they say. I'm arguing that their input is worthless. Two people discussing something, make mistakes in spelling but meaning still gets across, conversation continues.

Third person comes along, no interest in participating in the discussion and only want to point out spelling mistakes.

Third person is pathetic because their input is of absolutely no value and only succeeds in interrupting the discussion.

But I am talking generally here, as I assume other are when they use words like ignorant. Dont start throwing around personal insults.

speedboatchase

What a dumb argument. Are people really so clueless and lazy these days that they can't deal with two words that sound the same but are spelt differently?

Scioch

speedboatchase wrote: »

What a dumb argument. Are people really so clueless and lazy these days that they can't deal with two words that sound the same but are spelt differently?

Which clueless lazy people are you talking about ? The people who use them ill befitting the laws of grammar and spelling or the people who get their knickers in a twist over their use despite understanding perfectly whats been said and ignore it in favour of pointing out trivial crap like some sad little know it all wannabe robot ?

corktina

lets just get rid of you're and substitute "you are" ...radical!

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

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.

The meaning is conveyed now because the words are interchangeable because they are phonetically identical. The structure would still be there as would "you are" to enforce a certain meaning if deemed necessary.

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.

The verb in the case of "your" meaning "you're" would still be there, implied in "your". The verb is not present in spoken language either so when deemed necessary it is enforced by using "you are right". All these supposed problems your talking about already exist in spoken language. Yet they are not causing any mayhem. Why ? Because when there is a need to clarify, you clarify. If there isnt, you dont. For the vast majority of interactions there is no need to clarify meaning as the meaning is inherent in the context.

Mr. Boo

Did someone do poorly in their Leaving Cert?

It starts with your/you're and their/there/they're.

Then we accept "he's bad grammar" instead of "his bad grammar". /shudder

Then all of a sudden "could of edited" and "would of edited". No fockin' way!

The King of Moo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

Probably, I was pretty tired when I wrote it (hence the typo). I think my argument comes across as well as is necessary though.

Deleted User wrote: »

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"?

Basically, using "it's" for both the possessive form of "it" and a contraction of "it is" was confusing. L
ike using "your" instead of "you're," "it's" used for possession would often cause a mental hiccup, as the reader would initially take it for the more common contraction of "it is."
Therefore, "its" is an exception to the rule that you add "'s" to a noun or pronoun to show possession to avoid confusion.

Scioch

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Did someone do poorly in their Leaving Cert?

It starts with your/you're and their/there/they're.

Then we accept "he's bad grammar" instead of "his bad grammar". /shudder

Then all of a sudden "could of edited" and "would of edited". No fockin' way!]

I didnt do the Leaving Cert.

If people are using he's regularly to replace his then it would become acceptable eventually and the grammar would change. Thats how the language evolved into what it is. If we stuck to the original way of doing things we'd still be living in caves grunting at each other.

As for your last bit I dont even know where to start.

shopaholic01

OP, I can't understand how you can confuse 'your' with 'you're - The King of Moo has expained it clearly (as have others).


Other bugbears for me: 'I seen', 'I done', 'should/would/could of', 'does/do be' and people who spell 'does' as 'dose'.


As for not completing your LC, you would surely have learned this in primary school.

2rkehij30qtza5

If dats ur argumnt op den y dont we all rite lik dis 4m now on & not use propr grammr. Im sure every1 understands me ere n im not spellin tings rite!
I strongly disagree with you by the way!

Brad768

Your is possessive, something you own. You're is a contraction of you are.
You couldn't say "Is that you're pen?"
#nothard

(You have no idea how many times I have read over this post looking for grammatical errors :P)

Scioch

shopaholic01 wrote: »

OP, I can't understand how you can confuse 'your' with 'you're - The King of Moo has expained it clearly (as have others).


Other bugbears for me: 'I seen', 'I done', 'should/would/could of', 'does/do be' and people who spell 'does' as 'dose'.


As for not completing your LC, you would surely have learned this in primary school.

I cant understand how you cant understand what this thread is about. I've made it quite clear I understand perfectly what both words represent and I'm arguing that its unnecessary to enforce two different words to represent two different things when one word would suffice. As is apparent by the widespread use of "your" to represent "you're".

I did learn it in primary school, I wasnt making any point by saying I didnt do my leaving cert other than to respond to someone jibe about me doing poorly in the leaving cert.

Oh and this isnt a thread for other spelling mistakes you dislike, please keep on topic or it'll go down hill very fast. Thank you.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

The meaning is conveyed now because the words are interchangeable because they are phonetically identical. The structure would still be there as would "you are" to enforce a certain meaning if deemed necessary.



The verb in the case of "your" meaning "you're" would still be there, implied in "your". The verb is not present in spoken language either so when deemed necessary it is enforced by using "you are right". All these supposed problems your talking about already exist in spoken language. Yet they are not causing any mayhem. Why ? Because when there is a need to clarify, you clarify. If there isnt, you dont. For the vast majority of interactions there is no need to clarify meaning as the meaning is inherent in the context.

It's not implied at all. There's no indication whatsoever that there's a verb there. "Your right" is two adjectives: it's nonsense (unless used in the rare occasion of a short form of "It's on your right-hand side").

The problem is that you're looking at this from the position of a native English speaker who already knows the difference between "your" and "you're," and therefore doesn't mind if the two become interchangeable.

But put yourself in the position of a young child learning grammar in school, or someone learning English as a second language, and you might see that the loss of "you're" would be confusing and have a deterimental effect on their learning.

It might seem like it's no problem because the two sound the same, but there's more to English than just listening to it. Learning to write basic present simple sentences, one of the foundation stones of learning English for both native and non-native speakers, would be, at best, an incredibly confusing process without "you're."
You really need these basic structures like a present simple sentence with a subject, a verb and an object. It's hard to be aware of this when you're a native speaker, but if you replaced "you're" with "your" that structure would be greatly disturbed, and learning English would become much more confusing for both native and non-native speakers.

The only people who would be helped by your proposal are contemporary native-speaking adults who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" or can't be bothered to check that they've used the correct word.

Scioch

Boston Quiet Hammock wrote: »

If dats ur argumnt op den y dont we all rite lik dis 4m now on & not use propr grammr. Im sure every1 understands me ere n im not spellin tings rite!
I strongly disagree with you by the way!

Because thats hard to read and understand. I'm talking about changing one word because its already widely used easily understood and is identical phonetically to a word that already exists. Your changing the entire language. There is no comparison.

shopaholic01

Scioch wrote: »

I cant understand how you cant understand what this thread is about. I've made it quite clear I understand perfectly what both words represent and I'm arguing that its unnecessary to enforce two different words to represent two different things when one word would suffice. As is apparent by the widespread use of "your" to represent "you're".

I did learn it in primary school, I wasnt making any point by saying I didnt do my leaving cert other than to respond to someone jibe about me doing poorly in the leaving cert.

Oh and this isnt a thread for other spelling mistakes you dislike, please keep on topic or it'll go down hill very fast. Thank you.

I am extremely sorry. Please accept my sincere apology.

Xavi6

Scioch wrote: »

I cant understand how you cant understand what this thread is about. I've made it quite clear I understand perfectly what both words represent and I'm arguing that its unnecessary to enforce two different words to represent two different things when one word would suffice. As is apparent by the widespread use of "your" to represent "you're".

Except of course that the words are actually "your" and "you are" so having one word won't suffice. Next you'll just be wanting it be "yr" :rolleyes:

Your argument is a shit one and it IS necessary to have both.

Brad768

Scioch wrote: »

I'm arguing that its unnecessary to enforce two different words to represent two different things when one word would suffice. As is apparent by the widespread use of "your" to represent "you're".

Well the people who are using "your" when they are supposed to be using "you're" are either to lazy, or don't know the difference.

Scioch wrote: »

Lets just get rid of you're. "Your not going to eat all that". Doesn't make a difference, sentence still makes sense.

The reason it makes sense when you say it is because phonetically, they are the same

2rkehij30qtza5

Scioch wrote: »

Boston Quiet Hammock wrote: »

If dats ur argumnt op den y dont we all rite lik dis 4m now on & not use propr grammr. Im sure every1 understands me ere n im not spellin tings rite!
I strongly disagree with you by the way!

Because thats hard to read and understand. I'm talking about changing one word because its already widely used easily understood and is identical phonetically to a word that already exists. Your changing the entire language. There is no comparison.

Getting rid of 'you're' is also changing the language!! Daft! And putting in incorrect words such as your when it should be you're also makes text hard to read. It changes the context.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

I didnt do the Leaving Cert.

If people are using he's regularly to replace his then it would become acceptable eventually and the grammar would change. Thats how the language evolved into what it is. If we stuck to the original way of doing things we'd still be living in caves grunting at each other.

As for your last bit I dont even know where to start.

That'd be a revolting development. It's one thing to shorten and simplify individual words. That's a normal evolution of language.
What you're talking about is taking the grammar principles which have served the language so well for hundreds of years and assigning them different meanings based on words and phrases which sound similar, rather than existing logically within the elegant structure of the language.

Like I said, this would only help the few modern people who're too lazy to check what they write or are stupid enough to think that "he's" is actually the third person singular masculine possessive pronoun (I'm normally fairly forgiving when it comes to grammar and spelling mistakes, but a person would have to be stupid to think that).

It would at the same time make the language much more difficult to learn for everybody, and potentially lead to the loss of the structures the language needs.

Go look at a Shakespeare play, and you'll see that the grammar is basically the same as it is now. There's a reason for that: it works.

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's not implied at all. There's no indication whatsoever that there's a verb there. "Your right" is two adjectives: it's nonsense (unless used in the rare occasion of a short form of "It's on your right-hand side").

As I said if there is need to clarify, then you clarify. Just as you do in spoken language. But your treating "your right" as an isolated instance of that phrase, it cant be. Whats the context ? What was asked ? What was implied ? If there is no context then you give it context, if there is then the meaning will be clear. This stuff already happens in spoken language.

The problem is that you're looking at this from the position of a native English speaker who already knows the difference between "your" and "you're," and therefore doesn't mind if the two become interchangeable.

I get your point but it would be hard for me to see it otherwise. People who would be native speakers would pick this up as they do everything else. Non native speakers would have trouble with it but no more trouble than with anything else not inherent in their own language. Unless you also want to change the language to make it easier to learn then I dont thing non native speakers should be of concern.

But put yourself in the position of a young child learning grammar in school, or someone learning English as a second language, and you might see that the loss of "you're" would be confusing and have a deterimental effect on their learning.

I dont think it would be that confusing or detrimental. "you are" and "your" would still exist and would be taught. But your would have multiple meanings. The amount of confusion that is inflicted by teaching Irish and how it conflicts with the English language was never an issue.

It might seem like it's no problem because the two sound the same, but there's more to English than just listening to it. Learning to write basic present simple sentences, one of the foundation stones of learning English for both native and non-native speakers, would be, at best, an incredibly confusing process without "you're."
You really need these basic structures like a present simple sentence with a subject, a verb and an object. It's hard to be aware of this when you're a native speaker, but if you replaced "you're" with "your" that structure would be greatly disturbed, and learning English would become much more confusing for both native and non-native speakers.

That structure would still be there, even if differentiating it by using you are for educational purposes.

The only people who would be helped by your proposal are contemporary native-speaking adults who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" or can't be bothered to check that they've used the correct word.

After all your solid discussing (of which you were one of few who engaged in a decent manner) you resort to this ? Seriously ?

Back to the old ignorant and lazy argument. Lovely.

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

Like I said, this would only help the few modern people who're too lazy to check what they write or are stupid enough to think that "he's" is actually the third person singular masculine possessive pronoun (I'm normally fairly forgiving when it comes to grammar and spelling mistakes, but a person would have to be stupid to think that).

Lazy and stupid, yeah I get it. Well argued. :rolleyes:

Scioch

Boston Quiet Hammock wrote: »

Getting rid of 'you're' is also changing the language!! Daft! And putting in incorrect words such as your when it should be you're also makes text hard to read. It changes the context.

It isnt changing the language its changing a word. It doesnt make things harder to read and it doesnt change the context.

Xavi6

Scioch wrote: »

Lazy and stupid, yeah I get it. Well argued. :rolleyes:

What's the problem? It's the truth.

MJ23

I suppose you feel the same about there, their and they're?

You idiot

2rkehij30qtza5

Scioch wrote: »

Boston Quiet Hammock wrote: »

It doesnt make things harder to read and it doesnt change the context.

1. Yes it changes the context. There are enough examples of this given by other posters which I suggest you read.
2. Yes it does make things harder to read when the wrong word which means something else is inserted into a sentence.

Scioch

Xavi6 wrote: »

What's the problem? It's the truth.

Its not, its just an ignorant and hostile way of dismissing the argument. I tried to engage people in this thread and ignore the grammar nazi stuff and the whinging and moaning and spelling corrections.

But it just all boils down to me being called stupid and lazy. I type your instead of you're because I think it suffices. I am not lazy, I am not stupid and I have not encountered any problem yet where my meaning was not clear.

The only problem I have encountered has been from people who feel the need to point out a spelling mistake or here where people feel the need to just dismiss it as lazy and stupid.

Simplistic, ignorant and hostile crap from people uninterested in doing anything but being ignorant and hostile.

Its hard to discuss anything with people like that.

Xavi6

Scioch wrote: »

Its not, its just an ignorant and hostile way of dismissing the argument. I tried to engage people in this thread and ignore the grammar nazi stuff and the whinging and moaning and spelling corrections.

How can you ignore grammar nazi stuff and spelling corrections in a thread YOU started about grammar and spelling?

But it just all boils down to me being called stupid and lazy. I type your instead of you're because I think it suffices. I am not lazy, I am not stupid and I have not encountered any problem yet where my meaning was not clear.

Your one man crusade against the rules of the English language is admirable but ultimately you're wrong so don't get all defensive when people who do follow those rules pull you up on it.

The only problem I have encountered has been from people who feel the need to point out a spelling mistake or here where people feel the need to just dismiss it as lazy and stupid.

Simplistic, ignorant and hostile crap from people uninterested in doing anything but being ignorant and hostile.

Its hard to discuss anything with people like that.

It's always hard to discuss something with people who think rules don't matter. They do, so if you are deliberately going against them then expect comment on it.

Play by the rules, i.e. add an extra letter and character to your word, and there won't be a problem.

Easy.

take everything

Scioch wrote: »

But it does make sense. You understand what that sentence meant and exactly what I was saying.

It doesnt actually matter from a communication point of view. Only a syntactical point of view.

Did you not read post 15?
It explains everything.

Scioch

Xavi6 wrote: »

How can you ignore grammar nazi stuff and spelling corrections in a thread YOU started about grammar and spelling?

I started it to discuss a certain word and its use. Many more people took their cue to start correcting everything. I ignored that so as not to have the thread derailed. Make sense ?

Your one man crusade against the rules of the English language is admirable but ultimately you're wrong so don't get all defensive when people who do follow those rules pull you up on it.

Its not a one man crusade against anything, its a discussion or at least started out as a discussion which has turned into an attack on me. Hoe can I not get defensive when I'm being treated the poster boy for everything grammar nazi's despise ? I'm getting a lot of flak here with very little discussion. I'm gonna defend myself and my point in whatever manner people engage me. If I come across as defensive then chances are I'm responding to someone who's on the attack rather than showing any interest in discussing the topic.

It's always hard to discuss something with people who think rules don't matter. They do, so if you are deliberately going against them then expect comment on it.

We are discussing the rules, that is the topic of the thread. Its just hard to discuss anything with people who are not interested in the topic and just using it as an excuse to have a whinge about bad grammar and spelling.

Play by the rules, i.e. add an extra letter and character to your word, and there won't be a problem.

Easy.

As I said, I never had a problem. Only those more interested in spelling and grammar than the topic have the problem.

Novella

I, quite frankly, can't believe there are people who think the OP is a good idea. You're and your are not the same. What people need to do is understand that, it's not even complicated. If the day ever came where it was acceptable to substitute one for the other, that would be a sad, sad day.

Scioch

Novella wrote: »

I, quite frankly, can't believe there are people who think the OP is a good idea. You're and your are not the same. What people need to do is understand that, it's not even complicated. If the day ever came where it was acceptable to substitute one for the other, that would be a sad, sad day.

Your on boards. Its acceptable here and not acceptable to point out its error. Crazy stuff.

gosuckonalemon

It scares me to think that there are people out there that think like this. I blame their parents.

Novella

Scioch wrote: »

Novella wrote: »

I, quite frankly, can't believe there are people who think the OP is a good idea. You're and your are not the same. What people need to do is understand that, it's not even complicated. If the day ever came where it was acceptable to substitute one for the other, that would be a sad, sad day.

Your on boards. Its acceptable here and not acceptable to point out its error. Crazy stuff.

It may be acceptable to you, as demonstrated by your incorrect usage above, but it does not make sense. It's a juvenile error.

Xavi6

Scioch wrote: »

I started it to discuss a certain word and its use. Many more people took their cue to start correcting everything. I ignored that so as not to have the thread derailed. Make sense ?

Sure, it makes sense because it's only serving to push your agenda in the direction you want. Things don't work so simply on a discussion forum.

Anyway, what's the harm in discussing other similar bad grammar/word use? You seem to have no problem using "its" instead of "it's" so that's fair game as well.

Its not a one man crusade against anything, its a discussion or at least started out as a discussion which has turned into an attack on me. Hoe can I not get defensive when I'm being treated the poster boy for everything grammar nazi's despise ? I'm getting a lot of flak here with very little discussion. I'm gonna defend myself and my point in whatever manner people engage me. If I come across as defensive then chances are I'm responding to someone who's on the attack rather than showing any interest in discussing the topic.

Well yes it is, YOU want to change the English language. Again, it's your thread pushing the agenda yet you seem hurt by people having a go at you over it.

We are discussing the rules, that is the topic of the thread. Its just hard to discuss anything with people who are not interested in the topic and just using it as an excuse to have a whinge about bad grammar and spelling.

Rules plural? Because in your first you said we're discussing one instance so which is it?

As I said, I never had a problem. Only those more interested in spelling and grammar than the topic have the problem.

You do have a problem though - you don't like the fact "you're" and "your" can't be governed by one word.

Scioch

Novella wrote: »

It may be acceptable to you, as demonstrated by your incorrect usage above, but it does not make sense. It's a juvenile error.

Its acceptable to use it, not just for me but for everyone. You thinking its juvenile is irrelevant.

Scioch

Xavi6 wrote: »

Sure, it makes sense because it's only serving to push your agenda in the direction you want. Things don't work so simply on a discussion forum.

As I said I started the thread to discuss it. I have no agenda, I am not drawing up a paper to try and enact changes. I am merely wanting to discuss this. others dont, they want to name call and attack. Not sure how things work in the aussie rules forum but from what I can tell the rest of this discussion forum is for discussion and not name calling, attacking for the sake of it and picking at grammar.

Anyway, what's the harm in discussing other similar bad grammar/word use? You seem to have no problem using "its" instead of "it's" so that's fair game as well.

No harm its just not the topic of this thread. You want to discuss it then start a thread.

Well yes it is, YOU want to change the English language. Again, it's your thread pushing the agenda yet you seem hurt by people having a go at you over it.

As I said, I want to discuss it. I'm not hurt by people having a go at me, I just find it rather annoying when people have a go at me rather than attempt to discuss it.

Rules plural? Because in your first you said we're discussing one instance so which is it?

Have I confused you by trying to get back to the topic ? :rolleyes:

You do have a problem though - you don't like the fact "you're" and "your" can't be governed by one word.

Thats not a problem for me, I do have a problem here though. People on this discussion forum with no interest in discussing anything and thinking having a go at someone is how to engage with people. Yet I'm the lazy stupid one. Strange.

MrTsSnickers

Scioch wrote: »

Thats what I'm all about. Redefining the word so as to avoid being judged unfairly on its use. If someone says "your" instead of "you're" they dont deserve to be judged.

Yes they do. Now it is fine if someone doesn't want to or care about the difference, but I do, therefore I will absolutely judge. As is my right.

If you don't care about the difference between you're and your, that's okay, not right but okay, it's fine to have no difference when speaking but in written work it does make a difference. You're is you are and your is a possession or some such. Personally, I am terrible at spelling, but I acknowledge it and try to improve on it, you're negligent on your grammar, your choice, however, you're wrong. .

Scioch

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

Yes they do. Now it is fine if someone doesn't want to or care about the difference, but I do, therefore I will absolutely judge. As is my right.

If you don't care about the difference between you're and your, that's okay, not right but okay, it's fine to have no difference when speaking but in written work it does make a difference. You're is you are and your is a possession or some such. Personally, I am terrible at spelling, but I acknowledge it and try to improve on it, you're negligent on your grammar, your choice, however, you're wrong. .

What do you mean by written work ? I'm talking about the general use of it. I'm I'm writing a legal document or writing to someone of note I'll be careful to avoid any ambiguity for fear of being judged. But it shoudlnt really matter as it doesnt imply anything whatsoever about the person.

Using your instead of you're does not automatically make me less intelligent, it doesnt make my points any less valid. If its judgement simply based of the fact the writing is not grammatically correct in the case of that word then I think its unnecessary and unfair judgement.

Sarn

Scioch wrote: »

Its acceptable to use it, not just for me but for everyone.

I wouldn't say it is aceptable to use it, it is more a case of it being tolerated in informal texts.

Personally, given the nature of this forum, grammatical and spelling errors don't bother me. I make them on occassion. But advocating replacing 'you're' with 'your' does not make sense, for the many reasons given above.

Scioch

Sarn wrote: »

I wouldn't say it is aceptable to use it, it is more a case of it being tolerated in informal texts.

Personally, given the nature of this forum, grammatical and spelling errors don't bother me. I make them on occassion. But advocating replacing 'you're' with 'your' does not make sense, for the many reasons given above.

No it is acceptable on this site. Reason being that dwelling on spelling mistakes is detrimental to the discussion.

I take the same view of the language in the larger sense. I think its something which doesnt need to be separated. I take the point about the learning process though but I dont think it would be a big an issue as others.

I think it might have more positive benefits in the long run by forcing people to think early on abut context and maybe directing them into having a greater understanding of communication itself rather than simply learning how to communicate within the confines of given rules.

MrTsSnickers

Scioch wrote: »

What do you mean by written work ?

When writing something down.

Scioch wrote: »

I'm talking about the general use of it. I'm I'm writing a legal document or writing to someone of note I'll be careful to avoid any ambiguity for fear of being judged.

Writing something down is general use. There is a difference between using a word when speaking, i.e. it doesn't matter if you intentionally use your instead on you're when talking with someone, who gives a toss? It is understood by both parties. It's when it is written down incorrectly is when it matters. they mean different things. It also doesn't matter if you're writing to someone of note or not, just because your getting your point across your suggesting that the rules of language are foolish. They're not foolish, they're there for a reason because ultimately it is easier to learn a language when there are rules to follow.

Scioch wrote:

; But it shoudlnt really matter as it doesnt imply anything whatsoever about the person.

It suggests that you're careless.

Scioch wrote:

;Using your instead of you're does not automatically make me less intelligent, it doesnt make my points any less valid. If its judgement simply based of the fact the writing is not grammatically correct in the case of that word then I think its unnecessary and unfair judgement.

It doesn't automatically mean that you are of lower intelligence, or that your points are less valid, it says to me that you don't take care to write something properly which can be very telling about a person in general.

Scioch

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

When writing something down.

So just writing not just in a professional capacity.

Writing something down is general use. There is a difference between using a word when speaking, i.e. it doesn't matter if you intentionally use your instead on you're when talking with someone, who gives a toss? It is understood by both parties. It's when it is written down incorrectly is when it matters. they mean different things. It also doesn't matter if you're writing to someone of note or not, just because your getting your point across your suggesting that the rules of language are foolish. They're not foolish, they're there for a reason because ultimately it is easier to learn a language when there are rules to follow.

So its ok when speaking because both parties understand it ? So why is it not ok in writing when both parties understand it ? And how is it suggesting the rules of the language are foolish ? Their reason for being is to enable people to understand each other. So why are the rules themselves more important than their reason for being ?

It suggests that you're careless.

Only because its not grammatically correct according to grammar rules than are not needed in that situation. So its unnecessarily portraying you as careless.

It doesn't automatically mean that you are of lower intelligence, or that your points are less valid, it says to me that you don't take care to write something properly which can be very telling about a person in general.

In a professional capacity perhaps but not in general use. In general use its of no consequence whatsoever.

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

I dont want to accommodate those struggling with primary English. I want to remove the ability for pathetic people with nothing to do other than pick at grammar from picking at this seeing as though its so widely done and both words phonetically are the exact same. In spoken conversation its the same word. When written its an excuse for some sad twat to try to be clever in pointing out peoples spelling mistakes.

But but but this thread IS all about spelling and grammar and their and They're mean totally different things and mixing them totally misconstrues the meaning intended.