Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Your/You're

2456789

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭Duckworth_Luas


    Exactly, to many people get there knickers in a knot when someone use's it wrong
    fyp


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse
    Helping your uncle jack off his horse




    This stuff is important so rather than attempt to change a language you could just stay awake in school

    What the fcuk kinda school did you go to ?


  • Moderators Posts: 3,554 ✭✭✭Wise Old Elf


    Scioch wrote: »
    You think people should all learn to pronounce it properly too ? Are accents wrong now ?

    Why do you want to control and restrict everything ? What cant you just let it be free to grow and change ?

    I must control everything... people who pronounce the following will be killed (with a nod to mitchell and webb):

    Expresso
    Nucular
    Deteriated
    Pacific (when they mean specific)

    That is all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭earlyevening


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

    wrongly

    Did you go to primary school?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Hal Decks wrote: »
    You have this ar5e ways. It is only understandable because the claim being made is wrong.
    When I see such grammar and syntax I don't bother reading any further. I have better things to do than to be deciphering what some illiterate is typing.

    It's not difficult to differentiate between your and you're. If you find it is, then you have a problem.

    Thats just you being a grammar snob. Nothing to do with not understanding it. And its not that its difficult, its that its unnecessary.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Aoifey! wrote: »
    isn't*

    Isnt wha ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭earlyevening




    "We won't tell you we're judging you, but we will."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭yore


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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,048 ✭✭✭demakinz


    I don't like you are post op.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    wrongly
    Ahem.

    Not wrongly; incorrectly:pac:.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch



    "We won't tell you we're judging you, but we will."

    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. Its unnecessary to enforce the grammar and judge those who dont adhere to it in that case.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    Scioch wrote: »
    frag420 wrote: »
    You're wasting your time op!!

    Let that be a lesson to you!!

    Your wasting your time. We need to make progress as a society and language is an important part of that. Our minds developed through communication and language and to develop our minds we need to add more layers to language.

    We need to obtain a higher level of abstraction and where better to start than with more multiple meanings for words.


    Someone needs a sense of humour transplant!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭earlyevening


    Ahem.

    Not wrongly; incorrectly:pac:.

    I agree. I was going to post that, but I thought I'd just stick to the adverb issue rather than complicate it further.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    frag420 wrote: »
    Someone needs a sense of humour transplant!!

    Good point. Sarcasm !! Where would we be without sarcasm !!

    You say something grammatically correct but with the complete opposite meaning.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    Scioch wrote: »
    Lets just get rid of you're.

    That's Ridonculous, Don't try to change words.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    Yisser its fixed, next.


  • Moderators Posts: 3,554 ✭✭✭Wise Old Elf


    cowzerp wrote: »
    That's Ridonculous, Don't try to change words.

    Ridonculous - it's a perfectly cromulent word


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭Niles


    I don't generally pick up people on such errors.

    However, the 'there/they're/their', 'you're/your' and the apostrophe rules aren't that hard to learn, seems to be more a case of people not being bothered to learn them than anything else. Even if you didn't absorb the rule in school (for whatever reason) surely they could easily be learned in adulthood, it's not like a whole new language or anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


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

    That`s just fucking insanity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


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

    That`s just fucking insanity.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,571 ✭✭✭Aoifey!


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

    ...no.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭Pembily


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

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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


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

    Not a hope in hell.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭General General


    fupduck wrote: »
    Grammar, the difference between knowing your ****, and knowing you're ****

    I strongly approve of this post.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭Niles


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Pembily wrote: »
    Not a hope. Two different words with different meaning.

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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Not a hope in hell.

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

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

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

    Ergo I am right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Hal Decks


    Scioch wrote: »
    Pembily wrote: »
    Not a hope. Two different words with different meaning.

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

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


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Ciderswigger


    Scioch wrote: »
    "Your not going to eat all that".

    Your not? Or my not?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


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

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


Advertisement