Your/You're

gbee

Scioch wrote: »

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

Clearly, very clearly this very sentence is constructed deliberately to elicit a response.

Bye Mr T.

Scioch

Mr. Boo wrote: »

What insult?

Sorry, read it as "clearly an idiot". I think I'm just started to expect it in every post. I'm sorry I was mistaken.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

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.

I don't think there are many ignorant people disagreeing with you. There are many reasonable, well-thought out arguments arguing against your proposal.

Mr. Boo

Scioch wrote: »

Sorry, read it as "clearly an idiot". I think I'm just started to expect it in every post. I'm sorry I was mistaken.

No problem. Mistakes can be easily made whilst engaging with the written word.

Daveysil15

What's worse is when people write 'alot' instead of 'a lot'.

Eathrin

Scioch wrote: »

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 ?

They are different words that sound the same.
How could you possibly do away with one on those grounds?

MrTsSnickers

gbee wrote: »

Clearly, very clearly this very sentence is constructed deliberately to elicit a response.

Bye Mr T.

Have I missed something?

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't think there are many ignorant people disagreeing with you. There are many reasonable, well-thought out arguments arguing against your proposal.

There are a few well reasoned and though out responses but a lot of ignorant dismissals. Kinda hard to discuss the reasoned responses with the constant posts inferring I'm a stupid, lazy, ignorant idiot.

A man can only take so much.

Scioch

Mr. Boo wrote: »

No problem. Mistakes can be easily made whilst engaging with the written word.

As for your post about my stance. I didnt change from informal to formal setting. I just think that as it currently stands the only valid judging of bad grammar would be in a professional manner. I can understand how an employer would see bad grammar as being careless. But I dont see any reason for someone in general to take it as such. I think thats the point I was trying to make to someone who was arguing that the judging of people who would use your instead of you're was justified.

Mr. Boo

Scioch wrote: »

As for your post about my stance. I didnt change from informal to formal setting. I just think that as it currently stands the only valid judging of bad grammar would be in a professional manner. I can understand how an employer would see bad grammar as being careless. But I dont see any reason for someone in general to take it as such. I think thats the point I was trying to make to someone who was arguing that the judging of people who would use your instead of you're was justified.

I'm afraid I do believe it's a moot point in that case. If you must learn these rules as a matter of course, with consideration for your career prospects and the like, then you may as well use them.

I don't pounce on people for using incorrect grammar, generally speaking. I couldn't give a hoot what people say on internet fora, for example. It was, however, pertinent to the thread (I should also point out that you cannot really discuss one case in a vacuum; and that is why so many people are speaking about grammar more generally). But if a non-native speaker asks me to look at some work, a manuscript perhaps, I will of course point out such glaring errors as your/you're. No editor in their right mind would publish it obviously, but many reviewers would even be PO'd by being handed a "final draft" with basic mistakes.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

As for your post about my stance. I didnt change from informal to formal setting. I just think that as it currently stands the only valid judging of bad grammar would be in a professional manner. I can understand how an employer would see bad grammar as being careless. But I dont see any reason for someone in general to take it as such. I think thats the point I was trying to make to someone who was arguing that the judging of people who would use your instead of you're was justified.

For me, good grammar is essential in all communication. People think good grammar means being very exact in your choice of words, and making no mistakes at all.

But grammar is more fundamental than that. One can make a few mistakes and still have good grammar. Grammar is the basic structure a language is based on. Most people have good grammar, even if they don't realise it.

The problem I have with mistakes like "your" instead of "you're" and "he's" instead of "his" is that they go against the basic grammatical principles of the language, rather than being simple spelling mistakes. If they were allowed to become accepted variations, it could easily lead to a deterioration in the English language, and greatly reduce people's ability to communicate.

Davidius

Eathrin wrote: »

They are different words that sound the same.
How could you possibly do away with one on those grounds?

You wouldn't be doing away with it. "Your" would just mean something else based on grammatical context - as it pretty much does already just unofficially. "Your stupid" would no longer be considered ungrammatical writing as "your" would be an unmarked* contraction of "you are" (as opposed to the marked form "you're"). This is already done in speech for the most part. It's not like there aren't already words which both sound and are spelled the same but whose meaning comes from grammatical context. Ex: twig as a noun and twig as a verb are different words with different etymologies.

If "your" became an acceptable form of "you're" then Grammar Nazis would have less to complain about. People could get on with discussions without having it derailed by unconstructive pedantry. I don't necessarily agree with the proposal but I don't think it's moronic and I think it merits some level of reasoned discussion rather than this dismissive attitude of "they're the rules, deal with it yo".

*I made this piece of terminology up just to note the difference.

Eathrin

Davidius wrote: »

You wouldn't be doing away with it. "Your" would just mean something else based on grammatical context - as it pretty much does already just unofficially. "Your stupid" would no longer be considered ungrammatical writing as "your" would be an unmarked* contraction of "you are" (as opposed to the marked form "you're"). This is already done in speech for the most part. It's not like there aren't already words which both sound and are spelled the same but whose meaning comes from grammatical context. Ex: twig as a noun and twig as a verb are different words with different etymologies.

If "your" became an acceptable form of "you're" then Grammar Nazis would have less to complain about. People could get on with discussions without having it derailed by unconstructive pedantry. I don't necessarily agree with the proposal but I don't think it's moronic and I think it merits some level of reasoned discussion rather than this dismissive attitude of "they're the rules, deal with it yo".

*I made this piece of terminology up just to note the difference.

So we would have to do away with all contractions? We're would become were. He'll will become hell. This is a disastrous path to follow.

If people learned their grammar correctly, and by no means perfectly, this would not be a problem. I retain my stance that this is a moronic proposition. It would just be an out for those who didn't bother listening in school. Well, tough, deal with it.

I don't support "Grammar Nazism" either, I'm sure I've made several grammatical mistakes in this post, but people should get their basics right at the very least.

MJ23

It's the text speak generation creeping in. If i get a text with text speak in it, I just delete it, it hurts my eyes trying to read that rubbish. Anyone over the age of 16 who uses text speak should be shot.
The difference between your and you're is very easy to understand.
It's similar to there, their and they're.
It's very basic really, why can't people learn?

Davidius

Eathrin wrote: »

So we would have to do away with all contractions? We're would become were. He'll will become hell. This is a disastrous path to follow.

If people learned their grammar correctly, and by no means perfectly, this would not be a problem. I retain my stance that this is a moronic proposition. It would just be an out for those who didn't bother listening in school. Well, tough, deal with it.

I don't support "Grammar Nazism" either, I'm sure I've made several grammatical mistakes in this post, but people should get their basics right at the very least.

It doesn't necessarily follow that all contractions will be done away with. "You're" and "your" are almost always ungrammatical when confused. Hence grammatical contexts already distinguish the two as is what happens in speech. "He'll" and "hell" as well as "we're" and "were" are not generally homophonic or ubiquitous so the situation isn't exactly analogous. People would definitely have more trouble parsing them but if the situation was analogous then yes the argument could be extended to them. For a native speaker the worst that would happen (given time) would be that it would look ugly. I think it just seems more unacceptable because we were raised to adhere to certain rules. The real trouble is that non-natives would find it harder to understand.

You're/your is more of a spelling issue than a grammar rule. People end up transcribing "you're" as "your" because in their minds it's a single sound whose meaning is dependent on context. As a word in the spoken language it doesn't seem to be "you are" subconsciously contracted rather it's a word whose etymology is in that contraction - similar to how goodbye ultimately came from God be with ye. (Aside) Speaking of 'ye', fewer people seem to take issue with the ambiguity of "you" in standard grammar even though it's even more ambiguous than a misused "your".

Ultimately though the standard will probably have to give way to prevailing usage. If "your" becomes so prevalent then it would only make sense to consider it an acceptable usage - provided you don't see the contemporary standard grammar and spelling as an end-all construction from which nothing should deviate.

BorneTobyWilde

Don't get me started on ' been & being '

trashcan

Hal Decks wrote: »

Funny how it's always the uneducated who say it doesn't matter!!!!!

Quite. I mean, let's just abolish all proper spelling and grammar and you can write things any way you please. Would that satisfy the lazy and uneducated ?

Wise Old Elf

I bowed out of this late last night on about Page 2, now there's 15 pages?!

I don't agree at all with the OP's point, and am a total Grammar Nazi (but I keep it to myself)!

However, what we seem to forget is that language evolves, and written English now is probably very different to English 100, 200, 300 years ago. Based on this, the OP has a point that the language should evolve to take the your/you're thing out of it (I still disagree ). I can see this happening with a few other things as well, like, for example, should of - I see this written more often than the correct one. I hate the idea though!

Given the responses to the OP, I wonder what kind of responses reminding people that "Craic" may not be an Irish word would get, but then maybe After Hours is not the place to start that one...

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

For me, good grammar is essential in all communication. People think good grammar means being very exact in your choice of words, and making no mistakes at all.

But grammar is more fundamental than that. One can make a few mistakes and still have good grammar. Grammar is the basic structure a language is based on. Most people have good grammar, even if they don't realise it.

The problem I have with mistakes like "your" instead of "you're" and "he's" instead of "his" is that they go against the basic grammatical principles of the language, rather than being simple spelling mistakes. If they were allowed to become accepted variations, it could easily lead to a deterioration in the English language, and greatly reduce people's ability to communicate.

I dont think its essential. The basic principles do need to be there but it doesnt need to be so strict as to be grammatically perfect for something to be understood.

As for the deterioration of the language and reducing peoples ability to communicate I disagree. In fact I think it may have the opposite effect.

The reason I brought this up (and I got into this a bit one the first page, which a few people seemed to agree with in some capacity) was because I was recently thinking of the high level of abstraction of the English language as opposed the low level of abstraction say a computer language has.

My line of thought was that our minds developed using language as a means of communication. The more complex it became the more thought was needed to understand it and the more we could express using it. And our minds grew because of that.

If you were to stick unerringly to the grammatical rules and unmoving from the words in the dictionary you would in fact be limiting the capacity to fully utilise your mind in communicating and expressing yourself. As long as the meaning can be gotten across then the communication is fine, the more thought that goes into it even subconsciously is raising the level of abstraction of the communication and in turn signifies more intelligent communication.

I know you'll likely disagree with me here, and I know others will as they see people who do not stick to the correct usage of words as stupid and ignorant. But I see it as the opposite. I see people who are capable of communicating using their minds, by reading the context and judging the situation rather than rattling off the known words to represent the known instance that they need to get across. Certain animals rattle off words in reference to what that word is associated with. They can hear the name of a colour and pick it out. But what they cannot do is understand. Understanding is the key here, not sticking to a set group of rules.

I'm not saying disregard grammar completely, its a structure that is of great importance. But it only ever is a means by which to enable people to communicate efficiently. If you can do that without using grammar then grammar is irrelevant in that instance. As I see from some other posts grammar is little more than a tool with which to judge someone. Some people are more interested in looking down on people rather than understanding them. So you have to wonder which way is the way that will reduce communication ?

Scioch

Disco Stuart wrote: »

I bowed out of this late last night on about Page 2, now there's 15 pages?!

Shít got heavy there for a while Stu. Words were said, names were mentioned. It was nasty.

Wise Old Elf

Scioch wrote: »

Shít got heavy there for a while Stu. Words were said, names were mentioned. It was nasty.

Glad I did so. I might have had to close my account
Imagine having to spend a day with the family, shudder.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

I dont think its essential. The basic principles do need to be there but it doesnt need to be so strict as to be grammatically perfect for something to be understood.

As for the deterioration of the language and reducing peoples ability to communicate I disagree. In fact I think it may have the opposite effect.

The reason I brought this up (and I got into this a bit one the first page, which a few people seemed to agree with in some capacity) was because I was recently thinking of the high level of abstraction of the English language as opposed the low level of abstraction say a computer language has.

My line of thought was that our minds developed using language as a means of communication. The more complex it became the more thought was needed to understand it and the more we could express using it. And our minds grew because of that.

If you were to stick unerringly to the grammatical rules and unmoving from the words in the dictionary you would in fact be limiting the capacity to fully utilise your mind in communicating and expressing yourself. As long as the meaning can be gotten across then the communication is fine, the more thought that goes into it even subconsciously is raising the level of abstraction of the communication and in turn signifies more intelligent communication.

I know you'll likely disagree with me here, and I know others will as they see people who do not stick to the correct usage of words as stupid and ignorant. But I see it as the opposite. I see people who are capable of communicating using their minds, by reading the context and judging the situation rather than rattling off the known words to represent the known instance that they need to get across. Certain animals rattle off words in reference to what that word is associated with. They can hear the name of a colour and pick it out. But what they cannot do is understand. Understanding is the key here, not sticking to a set group of rules.

I'm not saying disregard grammar completely, its a structure that is of great importance. But it only ever is a means by which to enable people to communicate efficiently. If you can do that without using grammar then grammar is irrelevant in that instance. As I see from some other posts grammar is little more than a tool with which to judge someone. Some people are more interested in looking down on people rather than understanding them. So you have to wonder which way is the way that will reduce communication ?

One of the things that I love most about English is its flexibility. I love how words and phrases can have both literal and figurative meanings, and I'm fascinated by how meanings drift or change completely. (though note how in cases of double meanings or shifts of meaning, there's almost always at least an associational logic involved: very little language arises arbitrarily)

But for all that the English language has evolved, and continues to do so, notice how almost all of this change is in vocabulary, not grammar. Words come from other languages, or become shortened, but the sentences we construct with them have barely changed over hundreds of years. Like I said before, look at Shakespeare. The only problem people have with his work is with the vocabulary, not the grammar, which is basically the same as it is in modern English.

For me, grammar is language. It's the organising system without which a language would fall apart. People think of good grammar as being about using apostrophes correctly or using "fewer" instead of "less" with countable nouns.
But it's more fundamental than that.
It's why we say both "I go to school" and "I'm going to school" and why we instantly know the difference between the two.
It's why we say "I like football" instead of "footballing my happys" and why only the former makes sense.
Grammar is what changes English from a loose assemblage of words from a variety of sources into a functioning system that can produce some transcendent language.

Small understandable mistakes are only to be expected and won't necessarily bring the system down, because most people still have pretty good grammar.
What worries me is that if we start to allow mistakes which go against the fundamental principles which make the language work, then we'll have started down a slippery slope which might lead us into an abyss in which anything goes in terms of language, and communication is much more difficult because some forms allowing for precise dissemination of information and meaning are lost, and because people lack a common framework through which they can communicate.

One final note, with regard to the transmission of meaning being sufficient in communication. That's usually true, but why settle for sufficient? Why not settle for getting your exact meaning across, which is usually very easy to do with a language with such an amazing vocabulary as English? This, for me, is why it's always better to use, for example, "you're" correctly. It all but guarantees that the reader understands it's short for "you are" immediately, which is not the case with everyone when "your" is used.
And then there's the issue of the pleasurable aspect of language. Why settle for getting your basic meaning across when you can do it in a way that's pleasing? That's why I'd prefer to read a Joseph Conrad novel than its plot synopsis on wikipedia. Both get the same basic meaning across, but the former offers a far more enjoyable journey.

Scioch

The King of Moo wrote: »

One of the things that I love most about English is its flexibility. I love how words and phrases can have both literal and figurative meanings, and I'm fascinated by how meanings drift or change completely. (though note how in cases of double meanings or shifts of meaning, there's almost always at least an associational logic involved: very little language arises arbitrarily)

But for all that the English language has evolved, and continues to do so, notice how almost all of this change is in vocabulary, not grammar. Words come from other languages, or become shortened, but the sentences we construct with them have barely changed over hundreds of years. Like I said before, look at Shakespeare. The only problem people have with his work is with the vocabulary, not the grammar, which is basically the same as it is in modern English.

Is the grammar the exact same ? Or is it pretty much the same ? If you changed "your" to mean both "your" and you're" would grammar be completely changed ? Or would it be pretty much the same.

The principles are the same but the wording changes.

For me, grammar is language. It's the organising system without which a language would fall apart. People think of good grammar as being about using apostrophes correctly or using "fewer" instead of "less" with countable nouns.
But it's more fundamental than that.
It's why we say both "I go to school" and "I'm going to school" and why we instantly know the difference between the two.
It's why we say "I like football" instead of "footballing my happys" and why only the former makes sense.
Grammar is what changes English from a loose assemblage of words from a variety of sources into a functioning system that can produce some transcendent language.

Small understandable mistakes are only to be expected and won't necessarily bring the system down, because most people still have pretty good grammar.
What worries me is that if we start to allow mistakes which go against the fundamental principles which make the language work, then we'll have started down a slippery slope which might lead us into an abyss in which anything goes in terms of language, and communication is much more difficult because some forms allowing for precise dissemination of information and meaning are lost, and because people lack a common framework through which they can communicate.

One final note, with regard to the transmission of meaning being sufficient in communication. That's usually true, but why settle for sufficient? Why not settle for getting your exact meaning across, which is usually very easy to do with a language with such an amazing vocabulary as English? This, for me, is why it's always better to use, for example, "you're" correctly. It all but guarantees that the reader understands it's short for "you are" immediately, which is not the case with everyone when "your" is used.
And then there's the issue of the pleasurable aspect of language. Why settle for getting your basic meaning across when you can do it in a way that's pleasing? That's why I'd prefer to read a Joseph Conrad novel than its plot synopsis on wikipedia. Both get the same basic meaning across, but the former offers a far more enjoyable journey.

I get your point but its really just "If we make this change, then we could make more changes, and then it would end in chaos". That can be said about anything.

And sufficient in terms of communication implies the meaning is getting across. If it wasnt then you wouldnt be communicating.

I'm not trying to destroy grammar itself, I'm proposing a small change. I understand that you dont agree with that change but I fail personally to see how it would lead to the destruction of the language.

The King of Moo

Scioch wrote: »

Is the grammar the exact same ? Or is it pretty much the same ? If you changed "your" to mean both "your" and you're" would grammar be completely changed ? Or would it be pretty much the same.

The principles are the same but the wording changes.

For all intents and purposes, it's exactly the same. A philologist might find some small differences, but the fundamentals are the same.

If you changed "your" to mean "you are" it would completely change grammar in terms of how we construct sentences with "to be" in the present simple, which is an essential part of English. The principles would not be the same, because the principles are inextricably linked to the wording. "You're" has a clear relationship to "You are" and to the other contractions of the different present simple forms of "to be." "Your" has no such relationships, and has the additional confusion factor inherent in also being a possessive adjective.
Whatever way you look at it, it's a big change with more drawbacks than benefits.

I get your point but its really just "If we make this change, then we could make more changes, and then it would end in chaos". That can be said about anything.

And sufficient in terms of communication implies the meaning is getting across. If it wasnt then you wouldnt be communicating.

I'm not trying to destroy grammar itself, I'm proposing a small change. I understand that you dont agree with that change but I fail personally to see how it would lead to the destruction of the language.

It could lead to the destruction of language precisely because it's not a small change at all. It's not akin to "If we make this change, then we could make more changes, and then it would end in chaos."
It's more akin to removing a foundation stone from a building and officially sanctioning the possible removal of other foundation stones.

And I don't think you can say that the meaning of one's words is still sufficient if one uses "your" in place of "you're." It might be sufficient for most native speakers, but as others have pointed out, it's still frustrating to read, and why would you want to frustrate your reader?
Secondly, you can't guarantee at all that your meaning would be sufficiently communicated to the non-native speakers of English who greatly outnumber native speakers.

bnt

All you folks saying "language evolves" are missing the point, in my opinion. Yes, language evolves, but we only welcome it if the result is an improvement. If it's not an improvement, we can reject it. To replace "you're" with "your" would not be an improvement, it would result in a loss of meaning from the language. They are two words with different meanings and usages. If you understand the words that are coming out of your mouth as you are speaking them, you don't confuse them.

Maybe it's my non-Irish accent, but when I say them, they don't even sound the same. "Your" rhymes with "door", and "you're" rhymes with "pure". Even the idea of confusing them is confusing to me. :cool:

Feathers

OP, I think you could be on to something. America is probably the place to trial it though — they seem to be more open to reform. They even had some of their top authors put forward similar ideas before.

Mark Twain wrote:

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later.

Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.

Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Hasn't been taken up yet, but only a matter of time, I'm sure.

Davidius

bnt wrote: »

All you folks saying "language evolves" are missing the point, in my opinion. Yes, language evolves, but we only welcome it if the result is an improvement. If it's not an improvement, we can reject it. To replace "you're" with "your" would not be an improvement, it would result in a loss of meaning from the language. They are two words with different meanings and usages. If you understand the words that are coming out of your mouth as you are speaking them, you don't confuse them.

Maybe it's my non-Irish accent, but when I say them, they don't even sound the same. "Your" rhymes with "door", and "you're" rhymes with "pure". Even the idea of confusing them is confusing to me. :cool:

I don't think that's necessarily how language change works and what's being argued is whether making "your" acceptable for "you're" is an improvement or not. I'm not on board with the change because I prefer it when words, meanings and origins are reasonably distinct but I'm not entirely convinced the meaning would be lost if it became standard or acceptable to render "you're" as "your". The grammatical context already exists to distinguish its meaning, and it does so in speech in many dialects. Ultimately I feel a written system does need to update itself to coincide with contemporary usage rather than resist change out of a feeling that the language will be destroyed (though neither should it be too liberal about it). I also think it's pretty rare for people to ever think of any change in a language as an improvement.

As you say you don't pronounce them the same way and that's a point against it. However a lot of people do however, so in their mind and speech the sound "your" already functions the way that's being suggested. It seems evident that people aren't contracting the pronoun and verb, they're treating it as a unitary word which means "you are" in given contexts hence the confusion when writing it down. I don't think changing the spelling to reflect that would drastically change much about the language, it's basically an orthographic change. One that would produce a bit of an irregularity in how forms of the verb 'to be' are rendered but not one I think people would really find any more troublesome than a number of irregularities that already exist.

policarp

Ewer.

Helix

Scioch wrote: »

most people use "your" anyway

really? where? in super uneducated illiterate land?

Scioch

Helix wrote: »

really? where? in super uneducated illiterate land?

Might have sounded better if you used capitals. Not saying you should, because quite a lot of people dont on the internet (or as you like to call it, super uneducated illiterate land) where the vast majority of written communication occurs these days.

Is it correct to do so ? Not according to the rules of the language in the strictest sense. Does it hinder communication ? No. So is it a problem ? No.

i hope i'm speaking good enough for your harvard educated mind to understand. i'd hate to appear as uneducated simply because i dont write perfectly.

1ZRed

Scioch wrote: »

Might have sounded better if you used capitals. Not saying you should, because quite a lot of people dont on the internet (or as you like to call it, super uneducated illiterate land) where the vast majority of written communication occurs these days.

Is it correct to do so ? Not according to the rules of the language in the strictest sense. Does it hinder communication ? No. So is it a problem ? No.

i hope i'm speaking good enough for your harvard educated mind to understand. i'd hate to appear as uneducated simply because i dont write perfectly.

It is a problem and it would hinder communication because it would confuse the meaning of the sentence. Speaking it, there's no difference, but writing is another story.

English has already progressed a lot and that's clear if you've studied Shakespearean literature as an example of that. It's perfectly understandable, albeit difficult sometimes, but it's really been refined over the last few centuries and more approachable in my view.

But that doesn't mean that it should continue to be simplified. We've already gotten to a point where our words have been as shortened as possible, like "they are" is "they're", or "it would" is "it'd". That's the limit on how much simpler the language can evolve without losing meaning, and it's fine and shouldn't change.

I think a clear standard should always be enforced over the language, otherwise with texting and typing it could deteriorate rapidly, which would be a shame because English is a fantastic descriptive language and when put to good use, can make amazing pieces of literature.
But that said, I'm not closed to allowing the language to naturally develop and evolve, so long as it makes sense and is for a good reason.
Giving "your" and "you're" the same spelling causes confusion and is just done out of laziness to me.

My grammar/spelling is far from perfect, and I've probably made a lot of errors in this post, but I think it's good to try and keep the standard up as much as you can. It doesn't take much.

Scioch

1ZRed wrote: »

It is a problem and it would hinder communication because it would confuse the meaning of the sentence. Speaking it, there's no difference, but writing is another story.

But I think its the same, the meaning can be derived from the context the exact same as it is in spoken communication. If its not clear you make it clear, I dont see how it would hinder communication unless it was used in the same fashion as it would be confusing when speaking it. In general use the context would convey the meaning.

English has already progressed a lot and that's clear if you've studied Shakespearean literature as an example of that. It's perfectly understandable, albeit difficult sometimes, but it's really been refined over the last few centuries and more approachable in my view.

I havent studied Shakspearean literature but your not the first person to bring it up. Although I find your view a bit contrary to the previous persons. They said grammar hasnt change at all since that time. Your saying its been refined. And in my view I'm simply talking about further refinement.

But that doesn't mean that it should continue to be simplified. We've already gotten to a point where our words have been as shortened as possible, like "they are" is "they're", or "it would" is "it'd". That's the limit on how much simpler the language can evolve without losing meaning, and it's fine and shouldn't change.

Doesnt mean it has to continue to be simplified but it means it can be. You cannot say thats the limit on how much more it can be refined. It's going to change at some stage as languages merge over the centuries and new words get brought in and old ways of saying things fall out of fashion. It will always change I think, but whether it should is another matter. I think in this case it could, maybe there is not enough reason to say it should but it certainly could without being detrimental I think.

I think a clear standard should always be enforced over the language, otherwise with texting and typing it could deteriorate rapidly, which would be a shame because English is a fantastic descriptive language and when put to good use, can make amazing pieces of literature.
But that said, I'm not closed to allowing the language to naturally develop and evolve, so long as it makes sense and is for a good reason.
Giving "your" and "you're" the same spelling causes confusion and is just done out of laziness to me.

Of course a clear standard should be there, I'm not saying anything to the contrary. And I disagree that it would be done out of sheer laziness. Its adding a level of abstraction to the word. Breaking it up to make it easier to understand might also be considered as lazy, yet its not. Its making things clearer. Its not just a matter of lazy or not. Its just differing views on how a word can be used to communicate. None if us are lazy for not having perfect grammar 100% of the time. Neither are we lazy for not writing everything in legalese to leave absolutely no doubt as to the meanings. We dont have to be that strict as we only need a certain level to communicate with each other and once thats satisfied then thats all that really matters.

My grammar/spelling is far from perfect, and I've probably made a lot of errors in this post, but I think it's good to try and keep the standard up as much as you can. It doesn't take much.

But your mistakes dont make you lazy, neither does your choice to simplify things yourself when you think it wont harm the meaning of what your saying My use of the word your has never once been a hindrance and I use it all the time. This isnt a test on grammar its communicating with another person. The aim is to get your meaning across, not to get it across by removing every single bit of ambiguity. Because as I said if that was the case then we would all be speaking legalese all the time.

Now whether its necessary or not isnt clear. Probably not based on the argument some have put across here. But its not a ridiculous notion to discuss the possible change of words nor is it a sign of laziness or ignorance to do so either as some people seem to think.

Bruthal

Helix wrote: »

really? where? in super uneducated illiterate land?

Capital letters don`t aid reading sentences, in your super literate land then?

1ZRed

Scioch wrote: »

I havent studied Shakspearean literature but your not the first person to bring it up. Although I find your view a bit contrary to the previous persons. They said grammar hasnt change at all since that time. Your saying its been refined. And in my view I'm simply talking about further refinement.

And they'd most likely be 100% right in that, but that was my view on it that the language has become more refined and "orderly" in comparison to today's English. Of course I'm not saying it actually is, but that's the way I saw it.

I'd still be very open-minded to being shown otherwise, though.

Bruthal

1ZRed wrote: »

It is a problem and it would hinder communication because it would confuse the meaning of the sentence. Speaking it, there's no difference, but writing is another story.
.

No homographs for you then, lest confusion shall abound.

Helix

robbie7730 wrote: »

Capital letters don`t aid reading sentences, in your super literate land then?

no, they don't actually

and for the record, i write for a living

ooh the joys of not needing to hit that shift button for a cap when posting online - certainly not the same thing as using the wrong word as the OP suggested

Scioch

Helix wrote: »

no, they don't actually

and for the record, i write for a living

ooh the joys of not needing to hit that shift button for a cap when posting online - certainly not the same thing as using the wrong word as the OP suggested

I write you're as your and think it should be fine as all it is is incorrect spelling while keeping the word phonetically fine. You call that uneducated and illiterate while writing without capitals because you dont want to hit the shift key. There is no difference. Both are deliberate changes without changing the meaning intended or delivered.

Yet you as all the rest will judge whatever you want to do as an intelligent decision while you look down on everyone else and see them as illiterate and uneducated.

Considering how you write, your supposed profession and your inability to understand things in relation to the use of the language your not really in a possession to be calling anyone uneducated.

1ZRed

Scioch wrote: »

I write you're as your and think it should be fine as all it is is incorrect spelling while keeping the word phonetically fine.

But we're not speaking here, so the idea is voided.

Bruthal

1ZRed wrote: »

But we're not speaking here, so the idea is voided.

How is it voided, how do you tell when speaking, which version of your/you`re it is?

YourRound

A few helpful examples:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m08akpHoZx1qm3r26o1_500.jpg

http://www.grammarics.com/wp-content/uploads/Your-vs.-Youre.png

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln4h4pQDrZ1qe4lk1.png

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5qd0jPiH21qe8qiyo1_500.gif


You're attempting to oversimplify your language by doing away with your parts of speech, but you're choosing the lowest common denominator, and your strategy is flawed. By doing so, you're your own obstacle to your goal of improving communication.

1ZRed

robbie7730 wrote: »

How is it voided, how do you tell when speaking, which version of your/you`re it is?

We are writing here, that's when the difference becomes apparent and needed.

Scioch

1ZRed wrote: »

But we're not speaking here, so the idea is voided.

No its not. The word retains its meaning. The spelling is all thats changed. There is more to it than phonetics (such as context) but phonetics does play a part. The vast vast majority of people read with internal dialogue.

I'm sure there are people who can read without it but most dont.

Scioch

1ZRed wrote: »

We are writing here, that's when the difference becomes apparent and needed.

Why does the difference become apparent when writing ? How can you derive its meaning through a spoken sentence without confusion yet be confused with the same thing in writing ? The context is the same in both scenarios. If there was only one word "your" then both scenarios would be exactly the same.

Yes there are times when clarification is needed but not often and no more than is necessary in spoken language. If you stand by the words being needed then you must also think its needed in spoken language. So you must think changing "your" phonetically would be better than it is now. You agree with that ?

Defiler Of The Coffin

Scioch wrote: »

Why does the difference become apparent when writing ? How can you derive its meaning through a spoken sentence without confusion yet be confused with the same thing in writing ? The context is the same in both scenarios. If there was only one word "your" then both scenarios would be exactly the same.

Yes there are times when clarification is needed but not often and no more than is necessary in spoken language. If you stand by the words being needed then you must also think its needed in spoken language. So you must think changing "your" phonetically would be better than it is now. You agree with that ?

Isn't this all completely futile? This thread isn't going to effect any change whatsoever.

1ZRed

Scioch wrote: »

No its not. The word retains its meaning. The spelling is all thats changed. There is more to it than phonetics (such as context) but phonetics does play a part. The vast vast majority of people read with internal dialogue.

I'm sure there are people who can read without it but most dont.

You're free to think however way you like, but it just doesn't make sense. They're two different words and it's been pointed out very well by posters, so I won't say it again.

If ever there was a valid need to change "you're" to "your", and for it to still make sense, it would have been done a long time ago. It's just an extra letter to write and it saves on stoping for a second while reading to figure out what a person means, so to do away with "you're" doesn't save as much time as you'd think.

A poster just said "you're your own obstacle", so that'd be "your your own obstacle"

Scioch

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Isn't this all completely futile? This thread isn't going to effect any change whatsoever.

I can still talk about it. FFS thats what this website is for, talking about stuff.

Scioch

1ZRed wrote: »

You're free to think however way you like, but it just doesn't make sense. They're two different words and it's been pointed out very well by posters, so I won't say it again.

If ever there was a valid need to change "you're" to "your", and for it to still make sense, it would have been done a long time ago. It's just an extra letter to write and it saves on stoping for a second while reading to figure out what a person means, so to do away with "you're" doesn't save as much time as you'd think.

A poster just said "you're your own obstacle", so that'd be "your your own obstacle"

Regardless of the need to change it. You said it only becomes necessary when writing. So you must think its not necessary for spoken communication. Why is that ?

I know they are different words with different meanings and I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying when speaking, there is no discernible difference between the words. That doesnt hinder communication as the meaning can be gotten out of the context. So to me that means in written form its not completely necessary to explicitly state there is a difference.

Your your own obstacle makes perfect sense to me, as I see your as being capable of carrying the dual meanings. I think everyone does, they might not like to see it used like that but they certainly have no trouble in comprehending it.

Bruthal

Helix wrote: »

no, they don't actually

and for the record, i write for a living

Do you publish your writings without capitals?

ooh the joys of not needing to hit that shift button for a cap when posting online - certainly not the same thing as using the wrong word as the OP suggested

So you don`t write properly because you couldn`t be bothered. but you write for a living so thats ok.

Yet you will put others down for errors, some of whom may be at least trying to write properly.

Bruthal

1ZRed wrote: »

We are writing here, that's when the difference becomes apparent and needed.

So if I write "your a boards poster", you wont understand?

But if I say it, you will?

Bruthal

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Isn't this all completely futile? This thread isn't going to effect any change whatsoever.

Just as most threads don`t.