because"you're" is a contraction of "you are" whereas "your" is a possessive.
So: "You're a twat" and
"Your sister is a twat"
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:39,
archived)
So: "You're a twat" and
"Your sister is a twat"
If enough people spelt it "your"would you eventually relent, or would you stick to you're guns forever, even if your the only one complaining?
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:40,
archived)
Yknow,"your" could also be a contraction of "you are".
Think about "shan't", which is a contraction of "shall not" and used to have two apostrophes.
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:44,
archived)
Think about "shan't", which is a contraction of "shall not" and used to have two apostrophes.
It's spelt like thatall through Alice in Wonderland.
Also "wo'n't" (woll not), in Samuel Johnson's dictionary.
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:51,
archived)
Also "wo'n't" (woll not), in Samuel Johnson's dictionary.
I sha'n't read it,I'm reading something else at the moment
(
ClanSoul,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:52,
archived)
Here's what would happen.Language would evolve eventually, and the likes of me would appear to be old fogeys, desperately stuck in the past, clinging on to faded glory and finding ourselves evermore in agreement with the Daily Mail. Meanwhile, you will consider yourself a free spirit, bold and innovative, until the day you see a child spelling a sentence "Tzu l88trz" and you cry out "No! it's C U L8tr!".
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:44,
archived)
There have to be brakes on the process.What I was interested in is that it resolves itself behind the scenes. People say things like "no, it's sha'n't with two apostophes" and then other people say "but two apostrophes are silly" and then one day they are silly, and some knowledge has been created, even though the whole process operated on gut feeling and nobody really thought about it very much or discussed it very much apart from being annoyed and curmudgeonly.
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:50,
archived)
Some things are pet hates, and probably will change.Some things obscure meaning. You could work out "your/you're" from context, but it's easier to have a convention to distinguish. Language may evolve, but the fitness function has to be based on meaning.
( The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:54,
archived)
And the protozoan era of pneumono languagemeans I don't understand a word you just said
( ClanSoul,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:57,
archived)
Yeah, I was being pompous again.And "fitness function" is jargon. Sorry, 'bout that.
( The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:01,
archived)
Once we had thou, thee, and thine, for use in talking down to people.We lost interest in distinguishing those. Why not use "your" for "you're", and distinguish "is a characteristic of you" from "belongs to you" purely by context? Wouldn't be hard.
Thing is that this is a matter of statistical usefulness, and it might be a good idea or a bad idea, and I have no way to be sure, and neither do you. The words just have to fight it out by themselves to prove their worth empirically. The whole explicit side of the discussion is fascinatingly pointless.
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:05,
archived)
Thing is that this is a matter of statistical usefulness, and it might be a good idea or a bad idea, and I have no way to be sure, and neither do you. The words just have to fight it out by themselves to prove their worth empirically. The whole explicit side of the discussion is fascinatingly pointless.
Nonsense, the words don't fight it out in some remote Antarctic arena.The obvious way to determine word usage is to talk about it. And be annoying by pointing out others 'mistakes' :)
We probably lost thou, thee, and thine because we became a less polite society (and less boring, frankly). I don't see people not caring about the difference between possessives and contractions.
Anyway, yes, it is all a bit academic, since in a decade the language will be txtspk.
(We probably lost thou, thee, and thine because we became a less polite society (and less boring, frankly). I don't see people not caring about the difference between possessives and contractions.
Anyway, yes, it is all a bit academic, since in a decade the language will be txtspk.
The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:16,
archived)
Well, OK.Still, we're all massively affected by convention and by preferences we can't easily justify. And it's hard to explain the evolution of language convincingly even in retrospect (perhaps we became a more polite society, too polite to want to talk down to people alot?) I think the bulk of the process takes place below the surface, great though it is to discuss things.
In summary, yay for free markets, boo to central planning.
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:32,
archived)
In summary, yay for free markets, boo to central planning.
Generally speaking,spelling and grammar have to serve a practical purpose or, as you suggested, rules are abandoned.
The word "shan't" is unlikely to be confused with any other, similarly spelt word. Whereas, when reading, it's quite useful to be able to differentiate between "your" and "you're". Obviously, when you're speaking, you don't need to pronounce the apostrophe.
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:56,
archived)
The word "shan't" is unlikely to be confused with any other, similarly spelt word. Whereas, when reading, it's quite useful to be able to differentiate between "your" and "you're". Obviously, when you're speaking, you don't need to pronounce the apostrophe.
So should we pronounce the e in "you're" for extra clarity?Makes logical sense, but prolly woll not happen, and prolly shouldnt.
(,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:23,
archived)
Or:"You're covered in my semen"
"Your daughter was covered in my semen last night"
("Your daughter was covered in my semen last night"
ClanSoul,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:40,
archived)
Also"You're all gay" and
"Your all gay"
("Your all gay"
DoctorGonzo should be more drunk,
Fri 30 Nov 2007, 17:46,
archived)