Your/You're

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

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

Calm down Op, there they're
sorry
their there
no hang on.
theyre their
Feck now Im confused.

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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.

Its about this one particular instance of spelling and grammar. And in the majority of cases the meaning is not affected at all. So being judged on something that is itself irrelevant is absurd.

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Calm down Op, there they're
sorry
their there
no hang on.
theyre their
Feck now Im confused.

Is there supposed to be a point to that ?

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

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.

What happens in the future when "your" has, hypothetically, taken over completely from "you're?" If a child asked their teacher to clarify, the teacher might not be able to explain as they know nothing about "you're" and maybe not even about "you are." The child's language awareness and skills would thus be seriously, negatively affected.

If the teacher were able to explain, they'd say "In this case, it's short for 'you are.'"
The thing is, there'd be no need for this explanation at all if the child knew the difference between "your" and "you're."
That's what I don't get about your argument. It seems so clear to me that it's simpler with "your" and "you're" both in existence. There's no ambiguity.

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.


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

If you're teaching kids the difference between "you are" and "your," why then confuse them by telling them they can use "your" as short for "you are," when it's so much simpler to teach them that they can use "you're" as a contraction of "you are," which is simpler, more logical, and easier to remember?

As an English-language teacher, I think actively teaching children and non-native speakers that "your" could be used as a contraction of "you are" is a terrible idea. There's nothing good to be said for it.

The reason the teaching of the Irish language hasn't affected people's learning of English is because the two languages have different vocabularies and structures, so it's difficulty to get confused between the two. Teaching someone that they can use "your" instead of "you're" would be confusing because they're two completely different words within the same language being used in the same context simply because they sound similar, which is no basis for teaching a language.

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.

Native speakers would not necessarily pick it up. Using "your" instead of "you're" is a potentially very problematic error, and could lead young people to experience great confusion in learning the fundamentals of the language (largely by picking it up and learning in school) and seriously hinder their use of language.

And I think non-native speakers should be of concern. English is the major lingua franca in the world, and is especially crucial for business. It's hugely important that English be taught properly to non-native speakers.

And I disagree that they would have no more difficulty with "your/you're" than with any of the other many irregularities in the English language.
All of the existing irregularities in the language are at a relatively high level, and not encountered by learners until they're comfortable with the basics of the language. Basic English grammar is simple to learn compared to other languages, and introducing the idea of using "your" instead of "you're" would make it much, much more difficult to learn.

I know for a fact, from experience, that teaching students that "your" and "you're" are interchangeable, and having them read "your" instead of "you are" in textbooks and real-world texts outside class would seriously confuse them.
Basic present simple sentences are taught at beginner and elementary levels, and telling these students that a possessive adjective can also be used in the place of a subject pronoun and a verb would be hugely confusing.
More importantly, many lower level students are older and with fragile confidence, and teaching them something so confusing, or having them encounter it in real life, would seriously dent that confidence and, again, seriously hinder their learning or at worst, make them give up.

Now you might say "Well, teach them that 'your' and 'you are' are different at first, then later when they're stronger, teach them that you can use 'your' instead of 'you're,'" but why not just teach them that they're different and then leave it at that? It's so much simpler.

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.

I genuinely believe that people who make such mistakes are generally ignorant or lazy. It's a sad fact, but there are many ignorant and lazy people out there.
That doesn't mean I think you're one of them. You've already stated that you know the difference between "your" and "you're," and though I disagree strongly with the proposal to allow "your" to be used in place of "you're," I've tried to make my counter-arguments politely.

Novella

Scioch wrote: »

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

No no, you think it's acceptable, which is different from it actually being acceptable.

If what I think is irrelevant, why start a thread looking for opinions? Is my thinking just irrelevant because I'm not here posting, "Absolutely Scioch, spelling and grammar are completely pointless"?

Davidius

I don't think "You're" being changed to "Your" would even be grammatically incorrect. In essence it would just be an unmarked contraction but the meaning would still be there and I'm seriously doubtful people wouldn't understand it.

A problem might be that "You're" and "Your" are pronounced differently by some people, with the former sounding closer to "Yoor" and the latter "Yor". In my experience most people pronounce them exactly the same, which I think highlights how the word isn't really subconsciously spoken as a contracted "You are" but rather a learned sound that means the same thing. I think it's arguable that in speech "You're" as a contraction is mostly etymology rather than a deliberate action similar to how "goodbye" stems from a series of contractions of "God be with ye". Nobody thinks they're saying "God be with ye", and people who write "your" instead of "you're" don't think of it as "you are" specifically but rather a word with equivalent meaning. It doesn't make them dumb it's just an effect of speaking the language natively.

For non-natives who are learning "your" will probably screw with their head a lot more as they're more likely to approach it with a certain grammar in mind. However it being such a common word it would probably be one of the first things they'd learn. Though in my own experience I'm really glad when certain grammatical features are marked as they do in Irish with the urú and séimhiú - I wouldn't have a hope of understanding what's been written without them. Welsh has similar grammatical features but (AFAIK) they render them without transcribing the original word, which I'm sure works for native speakers but probably makes it harder for non-natives to become literate in the language.

I don't think there's anything too ridiculous in what you're saying but I think opinions might differ based on what somebody believes a language's orthography should fundamentally encompass. I don't think those are the kind of objections you're receiving generally though, seems more like people are resistant to it on an emotional level.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the end of the needlessly pedantic Grammar Nazism. Too many people have got it into their head that anybody who makes that mistake is dumb which is just nonsense.

EDIT:
Not a response to more recent posts btw, I had this typed out for a while without posting it.

I agree. Let's just dumb everything down until we've lost the fine art of communication, and are reduced to basic grunting at each other. Easier for everyone! And if nobody understands me, that's everyone else's fault, not mine.

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

What happens in the future when "your" has, hypothetically, taken over completely from "you're?" If a child asked their teacher to clarify, the teacher might not be able to explain as they know nothing about "you're" and maybe not even about "you are." The child's language awareness and skills would thus be seriously, negatively affected.

Why wouldn't they know about "you are" ?? That wouldn't change.

If the teacher were able to explain, they'd say "In this case, it's short for 'you are.'"
The thing is, there'd be no need for this explanation at all if the child knew the difference between "your" and "you're."
That's what I don't get about your argument. It seems so clear to me that it's simpler with "your" and "you're" both in existence. There's no ambiguity

.

They would have to explain that you're is short for you are anyway. So it makes absolutely no difference in that regard.

If you're teaching kids the difference between "you are" and "your," why then confuse them by telling them they can use "your" as short for "you are," when it's so much simpler to teach them that they can use "you're" as a contraction of "you are," which is simpler, more logical, and easier to remember?

Why would that confuse them ? You teach them the meaning of your and that its also a contraction of you are. I dont see anything hard to understand in that.

As an English-language teacher, I think actively teaching children and non-native speakers that "your" could be used as a contraction of "you are" is a terrible idea. There's nothing good to be said for it.

I think its a great idea with loads good to be said about it.

The reason the teaching of the Irish language hasn't affected people's learning of English is because the two languages have different vocabularies and structures, so it's difficulty to get confused between the two. Teaching someone that they can use "your" instead of "you're" would be confusing because they're two completely different words within the same language being used in the same context simply because they sound similar, which is no basis for teaching a language.

Kids who speak English dont stop and ask each other id they mean "your" or "you are". They understand the meaning and take it from the context of the conversation. Your seriously underestimating the intelligence of kids. They can speak and understand the language even without fully understanding the grammatical structure. Changing the definition of "your" wouldnt be beyond their ability to comprehend.

Native speakers would not necessarily pick it up. Using "your" instead of "you're" is a potentially very problematic error, and could lead young people to experience great confusion in learning the fundamentals of the language (largely by picking it up and learning in school) and seriously hinder their use of language.

As I said kids use it anyway without even being aware of the proper grammatical structure. Failure to understand it hinders writing correctly, not their use of the language. And I dont believe this change would hinder them at all.

And I think non-native speakers should be of concern. English is the major lingua franca in the world, and is especially crucial for business. It's hugely important that English be taught properly to non-native speakers.

And I disagree that they would have no more difficulty with "your/you're" than with any of the other many irregularities in the English language.
All of the existing irregularities in the language are at a relatively high level, and not encountered by learners until they're comfortable with the basics of the language. Basic English grammar is simple to learn compared to other languages, and introducing the idea of using "your" instead of "you're" would make it much, much more difficult to learn.

And as with a lot of words that non native speakers encounter that do not correspond with similar words in their own language it would be something that they would have to learn.

Depending on the language there may already be low level irregularities between them. I dont think it would make it much more difficult. It still has to be learned at that level and its still new to them.

I know for a fact, from experience, that teaching students that "your" and "you're" are interchangeable, and having them read "your" instead of "you are" in textbooks and real-world texts outside class would seriously confuse them.
Basic present simple sentences are taught at beginner and elementary levels, and telling these students that a possessive adjective can also be used in the place of a subject pronoun and a verb would be hugely confusing.
More importantly, many lower level students are older and with fragile confidence, and teaching them something so confusing, or having them encounter it in real life, would seriously dent that confidence and, again, seriously hinder their learning or at worst, make them give up.

Now you might say "Well, teach them that 'your' and 'you are' are different at first, then later when they're stronger, teach them that you can use 'your' instead of 'you're,'" but why not just teach them that they're different and then leave it at that? It's so much simpler.

As I said all this has to be learned anyway and I feel the words as they are is unnecessary to some degree. And I'm not sure of you point in the first paragraph when you render it redundant in the second. I dont think it would be more difficult to teach or understand. If the meaning is the meaning then people will learn it and use it in that manner.

I genuinely believe that people who make such mistakes are generally ignorant or lazy. It's a sad fact, but there are many ignorant and lazy people out there.
That doesn't mean I think you're one of them. You've already stated that you know the difference between "your" and "you're," and though I disagree strongly with the proposal to allow "your" to be used in place of "you're," I've tried to make my counter-arguments politely.

And I genuinely believe that people who dwell on this stuff and judge others on such trivial things are ignorant and lazy. Looking for any reason to ignore the validity of an opinion rather than trying to understand it and discuss it. This is what I am seeking to reduce, this ability to judge someone on something so irrelevant. Yet I didnt argue that these people were thick and ignorant, I argues for the change.

I appreciate you discussing it, although I didnt appreciate you bringing it down to the level others have by simply reducing the entire argument to "Learn grammar and stop being ignorant and lazy".

Scioch

bluewolf wrote: »

I agree. Let's just dumb everything down until we've lost the fine art of communication, and are reduced to basic grunting at each other. Easier for everyone! And if nobody understands me, that's everyone else's fault, not mine.

Why the hostility, sarcasm and ignorance about it ? You are talking of dumbing things down and reducing it to grunting at each other yet show absolutely no effort to engage in discussing this.

To sum up your argument in the manner your summing up mine. Lets not discuss anything, lets just swan in and be dicks about stuff we dont agree with.

The likes of you should be delighted to see things being dumbed down. Might eventually get to a level where you can communicate in the manner your accustomed to.

maryxyz

Thank you, King of Moo.

It's very worrying to see this sloppy deterioration in grammar.

Don't give up the good fight and I won't either !

Maryxyz

Scioch

Scioch wrote: »

Why the hostility, sarcasm and ignorance about it ? You are talking of dumbing things down and reducing it to grunting at each other yet show absolutely no effort to engage in discussing this.

To sum up your argument in the manner your summing up mine. Lets not discuss anything, lets just swan in and be dicks about stuff we dont agree with.

The likes of you should be delighted to see things being dumbed down. Might eventually get to a level where you can communicate in the manner your accustomed to.

No, I'm totally agreeing with you. Equating all homophones is just the first step in this wonderful language reform. I've never been particularly bothered about commas either, I think we should just drop those. And full stops.

O to tell a tail
of a man chasing his tale;
'Your right' he longed to here
But did not from anyone hear!
Maybe one or too
And a third agreed with him two
But before long the discussion set sale:
the grammar was not for sail!
Perhaps in some lonely veil
the meaning was hidden with a vale
But ere long he had to drink his ail
To forget the source of his ale!

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

Its about this one particular instance of spelling and grammar. And . So being judged on something that is itself irrelevant is absurd.

Yes the thread is about this one instance of spelling but the point many are making is that the same criteria could be used on many other instances of the language which cause people difficulty.
As you say yourself, "in the majority of cases the meaning is not affected at all". The reason why language developed with all its subtlety and nuances was to enable finer communication to suit all instances.

Scioch

Novella wrote: »

No no, you think it's acceptable, which is different from it actually being acceptable.

If what I think is irrelevant, why start a thread looking for opinions? Is my thinking just irrelevant because I'm not here posting, "Absolutely Scioch, spelling and grammar are completely pointless"?

I dont think you understand the meaning of the word acceptable.

I started a thread to discuss this, not to invite attacks and simplistic retorts from people who just only want to make it known they disagree with me.

Well done people you disagree, aint you great. So fcuk off now ya have that off your chest and let people who want to discuss it discuss it.

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

Is there supposed to be a point to that ?

Yup. A few but its main point was to amuse me.;)

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Yes the thread is about this one instance of spelling but the point many are making is that the same criteria could be used on many other instances of the language which cause people difficulty.
As you say yourself, "in the majority of cases the meaning is not affected at all". The reason why language developed with all its subtlety and nuances was to enable finer communication to suit all instances.

But the point IS that this instance is already widely used. So making points about all the other instances is irrelevant.

Eathrin

The OP's proposition is beyond moronic.

Scioch

bluewolf wrote: »

No, I'm totally agreeing with you. Equating all homophones is just the first step in this wonderful language reform. I've never been particularly bothered about commas either, I think we should just drop those. And full stops.

O to tell a tail
of a man chasing his tale;
'Your right' he longed to here
But did not from anyone hear!
Maybe one or too
And a third agreed with him two
But before long the discussion set sale:
the grammar was not for sail!
Perhaps in some lonely veil
the meaning was hidden with a vale
But ere long he had to drink his ail
To forget the source of his ale!

I dont expect you to contribute seeing as you never actually do. But please dont troll. Its rather embarrassing.

Scioch

Eathrin wrote: »

The OP's proposition is beyond moronic.

The lack of interest in discussing it is beyond moronic. Are people that thick they cannot talk about something ? That ignorant they cant do anything other than be dicks about stuff ?

Xavi6

Scioch wrote: »

But the point IS that this instance is already widely used. So making points about all the other instances is irrelevant.

It's not "widely" used, and even when it is in most instances it's done by mistake.

You on the other hand are doing it on purpose, which is just plain stupid*






*no doubt you'll go all Sensitive Sally again and call that an attack you :rolleyes:

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Yup. A few but its main point was to amuse me.;)

Care to elaborate on the points or are you just happy to be amused at your own genius ?

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

But the point IS that this instance is already widely used. So making points about all the other instances is irrelevant.

But seeing as a lot of folk can and do differentiate between There, Their and They're I am sure confusion and misunderstandings have often happened. Its a matter of clear communication.
What if I wrote 'The Germans are over they're" when I meant 'The Germans are over there"
One could mean that the Germans are in surplus or finished whilst the other clearly means to indicate the location of the Germans

Super-Rush

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.

Scioch wrote: »

I dont think you understand the meaning of the word acceptable.

I started a thread to discuss this, not to invite attacks and simplistic retorts from people who just only want to make it known they disagree with me.

Well done people you disagree, aint you great. So fcuk off now ya have that off your chest and let people who want to discuss it discuss it.

Your one step away from being banned from you're own thread.

Scioch

Xavi6 wrote: »

It's not "widely" used, and even when it is in most instances it's done by mistake.

You on the other hand are doing it on purpose, which is just plain stupid*






*no doubt you'll go all Sensitive Sally again and call that an attack you :rolleyes:

It is widely used. Your view of how I use it is simply stupid.

I'm not sensitive I'm just starting to respond to people in the manner they respond to me. If it seems like I'm being a dick then thats because people are being dicks to me. And I dont see that as an attack on me, just a rather stupid and ignorant statement.

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

Care to elaborate on the points or are you just happy to be amused at your own genius ?

Ok I'll come clean. i mainly did it to watch you get all defensive, then abusive and then jump up and down pyssing your nickers....Seems to be working.

Omackeral

Super-Rush wrote: »

Your one step away from being banned from you're own thread.

Nice...nice.

Xavi6

Scioch wrote: »

It is widely used. Your view of how I use it is simply stupid.

Nope, my view is the correct one. Just accept that that's the way it is and move on.

I'm not sensitive

Yes you are

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ok I'll come clean. i mainly did it to watch you get all defensive, then abusive and then jump up and down pyssing your nickers....Seems to be working.

Oh so you were trolling. I see.

But I'm not being abusive, people are just not too fond of being dealt with in the manner they deal with other people it seems.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Scioch wrote: »

I dont think you understand the meaning of the word acceptable.

I started a thread to discuss this, not to invite attacks and simplistic retorts from people who just only want to make it known they disagree with me.

Well done people you disagree, aint you great. So fcuk off now ya have that off your chest and let people who want to discuss it discuss it.

It's been repeatedly shown to you why your proposal is idiotic and completely unnecessary. They are two different words with two different meanings. You haven't given any good reason why this should happen and I'm surprised you managed to drag out the thread as long as you did. Telling people to fcuk off because they disagree with you achieves nothing save for making yourself look childish.

Scioch

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

It's been repeatedly shown to you why your proposal is idiotic and completely unnecessary. They are two different words with two different meanings. You haven't given any good reason why this should happen and I'm surprised you managed to drag out the thread as long as you did. Telling people to fcuk off because they disagree with you achieves nothing save for making yourself look childish.

I disagree. I think whats been shown to me is just idiotic and irrelevant points.

I get that they are two different words with two different meanings. But thanks for restating that for the seven thousandth time.

I have given good reasons, people have just ignored them. I didnt tell people to fcuk off because they disagreed with me. Lets get that clear. I told them to fcuk off because they had no interest in discussing anything and simply wanted to have a pop or whinge about bad grammar. I regret saying it but it needed to be said.

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

Oh so you were trolling. I see.

But I'm not being abusive, people are just not too fond of being dealt with in the manner they deal with other people it seems.

Nope. Not trolling. It just seems that absolutely nobody agrees with you, which irks you. They have tried to demonstrate to you why you are simply wrong and this also irks you. Seeing as there is no point debating with you I'll settle for adding to your irk a little.

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Nope. Not trolling. It just seems that absolutely nobody agrees with you, which irks you. They have tried to demonstrate to you why you are simply wrong and this also irks you. Seeing as there is no point debating with you I'll settle for adding to your irk a little.

People not agreeing with me doesnt irk me. People discussing why I'm wrong doesnt irk me. I'm very grateful to the likes of King of Moo for engaging on the matter. Its the people who dont want to engage and want to hurl crap and try paint me to be an idiot simply because they disagree with me that irks me.

And if your intent was to add to my irk a little then I'm afraid you were indeed trolling.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Scioch wrote: »

I disagree. I think whats been shown to me is just idiotic and irrelevant points.

I get that they are two different words with two different meanings. But thanks for restating that for the seven thousandth time.

I have given good reasons, people have just ignored them. I didnt tell people to fcuk off because they disagreed with me. Lets get that clear. I told them to fcuk off because they had no interest in discussing anything and simply wanted to have a pop or whinge about bad grammar. I regret saying it but it needed to be said.

You're deluding yourself if you believe that many people are going to substantially engage with you on such a daft proposal. The fact that this thread is so unbalanced should tell you all you need to know without even reading too much into people's replies.

gbee

Apart from ignorance, misspelling and the dreaded auto correction mistakes, your and you're are totally different and makes the sentence read differently than intended.

Also, the incorrect usage is a way to filter posters as one can make a profile of them and those that constantly and deliberately misuse these two words are usually undesirable types that one would probably not speak to if met in a public place.

Your is possessive which means it belongs to you.

You're is short for you are.

So if we use them the same way a remark like 'have your breakfast' could be "have you are breakfast" ~ totally alien to anyone well versed in the language and can quickly be interpreted as Have [to mean your name], YOU are breakfast! Means you get eaten instead of enjoying your [own] breakfast.

Scioch

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

You're deluding yourself if you believe that many people are going to substantially engage with you on such a daft proposal. The fact that this thread is so unbalanced should tell you all you need to know without even reading too much into people's replies.

Its unbalanced yes but contains very little in the way of actual counter arguments. The bulk of the thread is cheap shots at people who make spelling mistakes.

I didnt expect a quality discourse I have to admit. But I didnt expect such hostility either, no matter how absurd the proposal is seen to be.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Scioch wrote: »

Its unbalanced yes but contains very little in the way of actual counter arguments. The bulk of the thread is cheap shots at people who make spelling mistakes.

I didnt expect a quality discourse I have to admit. But I didnt expect such hostility either, no matter how absurd the proposal is seen to be.

How many counter arguments are you expecting? People have explained to you why it doesn't make sense to make them the same word... what more do you expect?

MrTsSnickers

Scioch wrote: »

Its unbalanced yes but contains very little in the way of actual counter arguments.

If you go through the thread there are loads of good, well constructed arguments as to why your proposal is absolutely absurd. I would point you toward some but I can't be bothered going through it all again, but I will say The King of Moo seems like they teach tefl , they seem to know what they're on about.

Mr. Boo

You're clearly not an idiot, OP. You should focus your efforts on something other than this mental idea.

I just read back through what's been posted since this morning and it seems you've revised your stance somewhat from "your should be used for both your and you're", to "your should be used for both your and you're in informal circumstances such as on internet fora". Would this be correct? Because this type of grammatical laziness is already widely tolerated in such media, and so it is a moot point.

If I were to pick up a professional journal (not really relevant in the scientific literature which I am used to) and it contained such blatant disregard for the fundamentals, I would put it down quickly.

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

Its unbalanced yes but contains very little in the way of actual counter arguments. The bulk of the thread is cheap shots at people who make spelling mistakes.

I didnt expect a quality discourse I have to admit. But I didnt expect such hostility either, no matter how absurd the proposal is seen to be.

Im not taking cheap shots at spelling mistakes. I simply find you proposing to change a language to accomodate those who consistently make this mistake utterly barking.

Oh look I mis spelt accomodate again and always do. Lets change the language so that I dont do it again....

Scioch

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

If you go through the thread there are loads of good, well constructed arguments as to why your proposal is absolutely absurd. I would point you toward some but I can't be bothered going through it all again, but I will say The King of Moo seems like they teach tefl , they seem to know what they're on about.

There are some, King of Moo in particular took a great deal of time out to discuss the matter. And I tried to engage with those posters courteously as possible. But there is a hell of a lot noise in here and just general shouting and rabble about grammar and how those who dont adhere to it are lazy and ignorant. Unnecessary hostile stuff.

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Im not taking cheap shots at spelling mistakes. I simply find you proposing to change a language to accomodate those who consistently make this mistake utterly barking.

Oh look I mis spelt accomodate again and always do. Lets change the language so that I dont do it again....

See, arguing that you dont like the idea is fine. But you have been clearly trying to provoke and irritate me. You even stated you did.

You dont agree with me, thats fine. But why do people feel the need to ridicule and drag the thing down to just being so ignorant and hostile about it?

MrTsSnickers

Scioch wrote: »

But there is a hell of a lot noise in here and just general shouting and rabble about grammar and how those who dont adhere to it are lazy and ignorant. Unnecessary hostile stuff.

What exactly were you hoping for? The grammatical and language issues are the main arguments for opposing this idea. Were you hoping for an outpouring of support?

Scioch

Mr. Boo wrote: »

You're clearly not an idiot, OP. You should focus your efforts on something other than this mental idea.

I just read back through what's been posted since this morning and it seems you've revised your stance somewhat from "your should be used for both your and you're", to "your should be used for both your and you're in informal circumstances such as on internet fora". Would this be correct? Because this type of grammatical laziness is already widely tolerated in such media, and so it is a moot point.

If I were to pick up a professional journal (not really relevant in the scientific literature which I am used to) and it contained such blatant disregard for the fundamentals, I would put it down quickly.

Dont appreciate the insult but I'm responding to inform you that your incorrect in your understanding of my stance.

gbee

Scioch wrote: »

..... how those who dont adhere to it are lazy and ignorant. Unnecessary hostile stuff.

There's more of it tight there, your interpretation is groundless if you don't engage at the same level and try to reason, you are simple showing yourself up and what would have been taken as a lighthearted Sunday banter has become intolerable, infantile indignation.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

Why wouldn't they know about "you are" ?? That wouldn't change.

If "your" instead of "you're" became acceptable, then maybe "you're" would be forgotten about.

They would have to explain that you're is short for you are anyway. So it makes absolutely no difference in that regard.

Why would that confuse them ? You teach them the meaning of your and that its also a contraction of you are. I dont see anything hard to understand in that.

Why not just teach them that "you're" is the contraction of "you are" then and leave it at that? Why add confusion by giving them another possible contraction which is also a possessive adjective?

And it would be confusing, I know that from experience. "You're" is a logical example of the present simple contractions of the verb "to be" ("I'm," "he's," "they're" etc.)
"Your" doesn't fit with the other contractions, doesn't look like a contraction because of the lack of an apostrophe, and would cause confusion because it's also a possessive adjective.
I don't get how you can advocate continuing to teach "you're" while also teaching students they can use "your." It's so clearly more confusing than just teaching them "you're" is short for "you are," and I know this from being an experienced English teacher. It's a dreadful idea.

Kids who speak English dont stop and ask each other id they mean "your" or "you are". They understand the meaning and take it from the context of the conversation. Your seriously underestimating the intelligence of kids. They can speak and understand the language even without fully understanding the grammatical structure. Changing the definition of "your" wouldnt be beyond their ability to comprehend.

You're only talking about speaking here. It's confusing for many people to read "your" in place of "you're," let alone try to figure out why they ought to write it.

As I said kids use it anyway without even being aware of the proper grammatical structure. Failure to understand it hinders writing correctly, not their use of the language. And I dont believe this change would hinder them at all.

How can you distinguish between writing and use of language? Writing is one of the most basic uses of language. I don't see how you can seem to be so dismissive of writing. You have to learn it from the beginning along with reading, speaking and listening, and it's crucial for learning grammar.

And as with a lot of words that non native speakers encounter that do not correspond with similar words in their own language it would be something that they would have to learn.

Depending on the language there may already be low level irregularities between them. I dont think it would make it much more difficult. It still has to be learned at that level and its still new to them.

Like I said, the use of "your" instead of "you're" would be an irregularity of a much higher order than the other irregularities which students have to encounter. This would be compounded by the fact that students would have to learn about "you/you're" at beginner or elementary level, when it would definitely be confusing for most students. I know this for a fact.

As I said all this has to be learned anyway and I feel the words as they are is unnecessary to some degree. And I'm not sure of you point in the first paragraph when you render it redundant in the second. I dont think it would be more difficult to teach or understand. If the meaning is the meaning then people will learn it and use it in that manner.

Like I said, I know it would be more difficult to teach and understand, because it's my job to know.

I've used the "you're/your" mistake with many student groups as an example of mistakes native speakers make, and almost none of them could even understand how people could make that mistake. It would definitely be confusing for students.

Davidius

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

What exactly were you hoping for? The grammatical and language issues are the main arguments for opposing this idea. Were you hoping for an outpouring of support?

I think he was hoping for actual reasoned arguments rather than "lol no lern grammer".

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

See, arguing that you dont like the idea is fine. But you have been clearly trying to provoke and irritate me. You even stated you did.

You dont agree with me, thats fine. But why do people feel the need to ridicule and drag the thing down to just being so ignorant and hostile about it?

Nope, not until after a good many posts. I like many others simply gave up on trying to discuss this the moment you started getting a hump on because folk weren't applauding your wonderful idea with the enthusiasm you clearly were expecting.

Scioch

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

What exactly were you hoping for? The grammatical and language issues are the main arguments for opposing this idea. Were you hoping for an outpouring of support?

I was hoping for a discussion in the midst of a bit of noise. I wasnt expecting to be a mob of angry villagers out to burn me at the stake.

Ghost Buster

Scioch wrote: »

Dont appreciate the insult but I'm responding to inform you that your incorrect in your understanding of my stance.

His incorrect what?

Mr. Boo

Scioch wrote: »

Dont appreciate the insult but I'm responding to inform you that your incorrect in your understanding of my stance.

What insult?

Scioch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Nope, not until after a good many posts. I like many others simply gave up on trying to discuss this the moment you started getting a hump on because folk weren't applauding your wonderful idea with the enthusiasm you clearly were expecting.

So you did resort to trolling then.

And as I have already stated I didnt get the hump because of lack of support, it was because of the sheer hostility and ignorance of people.