Your/You're

Davidius · 14-10-2012 05:08AM

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

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

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

IM0 · 14-10-2012 05:16AM

fupduck wrote: »

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

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

that man for king!

marcsignal · 14-10-2012 05:19AM

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

Chuck Stone · 14-10-2012 05:29AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Terrible idea.

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

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

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

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

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

Dangerous Man · 14-10-2012 05:50AM

wendell borton wrote: »

Orwell, 1984.

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

14-10-2012 08:10AM

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

Hooked · 14-10-2012 08:55AM

Ads by Google wrote: »

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

Agreed!!!

EF7E73C8-0A2D-48AF-A0DF-55958BA98A5A-4006-000007B87110C02D.jpg

Ghost Buster · 14-10-2012 09:02AM

Scioch wrote: »

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

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

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

14-10-2012 09:27AM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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

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

14-10-2012 10:11AM

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

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

14-10-2012 10:38AM

Yeah lets all mould into txt tlkin retard cúnts.

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

Scioch · 14-10-2012 11:27AM

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Scioch · 14-10-2012 11:30AM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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

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

14-10-2012 11:37AM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

14-10-2012 11:46AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hal Decks · 14-10-2012 12:03PM

Scioch wrote: »

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

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

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

ejmaztec · 14-10-2012 12:07PM

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

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

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

Scioch · 14-10-2012 12:11PM

Hal Decks wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

speedboatchase · 14-10-2012 12:34PM

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

Scioch · 14-10-2012 12:40PM

speedboatchase wrote: »

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

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

corktina · 14-10-2012 12:49PM

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

Scioch · 14-10-2012 12:51PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Mr. Boo · 14-10-2012 12:52PM

Did someone do poorly in their Leaving Cert?

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

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

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

The King of Moo · 14-10-2012 12:55PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

Scioch · 14-10-2012 12:56PM

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Did someone do poorly in their Leaving Cert?

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

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

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

I didnt do the Leaving Cert.

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

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

shopaholic01 · 14-10-2012 01:03PM

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

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

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

2rkehij30qtza5 · 14-10-2012 01:05PM

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

Brad768 · 14-10-2012 01:06PM

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

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

Scioch · 14-10-2012 01:08PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

The King of Moo · 14-10-2012 01:08PM

Scioch wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your/You're

Comments