Simple Grammar Tricks FTW - Page 3

On March 22 2011 12:55 wherebugsgo wrote:
Manit0u is right though, "your" and "you're" actually aren't homophones. If pronounced correctly there is a subtle difference, precisely that "your" rhymes with "door" while "you're" rhymes more closely with "sewer."

Modern English, however, displays no such consistency in sound and spelling, and so a dictionary of English must devote considerable attention to the pronunciation of the language. The English lexicon contains numerous eye rhymes such as love, move, and rove, words which do not sound alike despite their similar spellings. On the other hand, it also contains rhyming words such as breeze, cheese, ease, frieze, and sleaze whose rhymes are all spelled differently.

Readers often turn to the dictionary wanting to learn the exact pronunciation of a word, only to discover that the word may have several pronunciations, as is the case for deity, economic, envelope, and greasy, among many others. The inclusion of variant pronunciations disappoints those who want their dictionary to list one "correct" pronunciation. In truth, though, there can be no objective standard for correct pronunciation other than the usage of thoughtful and, in particular, educated speakers of English. Among such speakers one hears much variation in pronunciation.

On March 23 2011 10:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:
It is not incorrect to say that "your" and "you're" are homophones. It is not incorrect to say that, for some people, "your" and "you're" are not homophones. It is incorrect, however, to say that those two words "if pronounced correctly" sound different from one another. That's wrong.

On March 23 2011 22:50 HULKAMANIA wrote:
EDIT: Actually, nevermind. I think that if I put the question back to you, I'll just be prolonging this little debate. I'll just skip straight to closing arguments.

Your original assertion:



is indefensible. It is indefensible according to the dictionary you yourself said certified correctness. It is indefensible according to the personal experience of a great many native English speakers. It is indefensible, most importantly, according to the conclusions of modern linguistics, which tends to side not only on the descriptivist side of the descriptivism/prescriptivism debate but on the difference side of the difference/deficit debate (in other words, modern linguistics does not evaluate pronunciations in strict "correct or incorrect" terms because language doesn't naturally produce such simple binaries).

But against these arguments you have your personal opinion on English spelling and the testimony of your brother's English teacher in New Zealand.

You'll notice I never said that they couldn't be pronounced differently than one another. I simply took issue with the fact that you think "correctness" somehow mandated that they not be pronounced exactly the same.

I'll close with these thoughts from the Merriam Webster Dictionary's guide to pronunciation:





You're right to say that they are not necessarily homophones for all people at all times. But that was my argument, not yours:

On March 24 2011 13:01 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Or maybe it leads us to Cambridge where all four pronunciations have a homophonic counterpart. The words are links in case you want to see the sources:

your ..../jɔːr/ /jʊr/ /jər/ /jɚ/
you're ../jɔːr/ /jʊr/ /jər/ /jɚ/

So there we have a grand total of four "correct" pronunciations for which there is a perfect, Cambridge-approved homophone in the other set of pronunciations.





Just say it, wherebugsgo. What I want to hear from you is a big, fat:

"your right, hulk."

wherebugsgo

So the dictionary I was originally referencing was Cambridge. M-W contradicts Cambridge on this, as Cambridge's pronunciations suggest that "your" and "you're" are not homophones.

On March 24 2011 13:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:
This one?



Did you miss the links that I provided where Cambridge lists the exact same four pronunciations for "your" and "you're"?

Or is there another secret argument going on that I'm not aware of, one where you're actually winning?

On March 24 2011 14:08 wherebugsgo wrote:


I was referring to the audio.

On March 24 2011 14:12 HULKAMANIA wrote:


Hahahaha. Why? Do you not believe in written pronunciations? Did Cambridge throw those in there as a joke? Is there somewhere on the site that says "P.S.: our audio pronunciations are the real ones. The ones we typed out are only there to mislead you."

Do you ever feel like the point you're defending gets more absurd with each additional post?

On March 24 2011 15:05 wherebugsgo wrote:


No, it's because I didn't bother to read the written pronunciations. Why do you think Cambridge has two different pronunciations listed as the examples?

Readers often turn to the dictionary wanting to learn the exact pronunciation of a word, only to discover that the word may have several pronunciations, as is the case for deity, economic, envelope, and greasy, among many others. The inclusion of variant pronunciations disappoints those who want their dictionary to list one "correct" pronunciation. In truth, though, there can be no objective standard for correct pronunciation other than the usage of thoughtful and, in particular, educated speakers of English. Among such speakers one hears much variation in pronunciation.