Your/You're

Boston Quiet Hammock wrote: »

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

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

The King of Moo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the old ignorant and lazy argument. Lovely.

Boston Quiet Hammock wrote: »

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

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

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Its hard to discuss anything with people like that.

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Sarn wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

When writing something down.

So just writing not just in a professional capacity.

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

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

It suggests that you're careless.

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

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

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