|
I've long been a fan of proper grammar and diction. I've come up with a good grammar trick that virtually explains all of the tricky words in the English language - namely: their vs there vs they're, your vs you're vs yore, and its vs it's, which I will refer to as matches or match-ups down below. I wanted to share this because most of the write-ups on the website have incorrect usages in them, and it is somewhat embarrassing. The real beauty of this trick is that it's so easy to embed it into your thinking that you can do it automatically, without any real thought.
For each of those three matches, if the word features an apostrophe, separate the word into its two distinct parts. Apostrophes, after all, should imply a contraction (ignore possessives). If it's a contraction, you can separate it into two words and the sentence would still make sense. "If it is a contraction, you can separate it into two words and the sentence would still make sense." "For each of those three matches, if the word features an apostrophe, separate the word into it is two distinct parts." - See? This one makes no sense, but the previous one makes complete sense. If I'd used an apostrophe in that first sentence, I would have used it incorrectly. This should take precedence over possessive usages automatically, but it should be obvious otherwise when to use an apostrophe for a possessive usage.
This largely works for the other two match-ups as well, though they have an extra case in them that uglifies them a bit. First, their vs there vs they're. You can do the same thing - separate into two separate words if you have an apostrophe. "They're fighting for the right to bargain for their benefits." - "They are fighting for the right to bargain for their benefits." It makes sense that way. "They're fighting for the right to bargain for they're benefits." - "They are fighting for the right to bargain for they are benefits." That doesn't make so much sense at all. For their vs there, just remember that there is spelled similarly to where, which is exactly what it's describing (what it is describing). "Where is that little bastard? He's over there." That leaves only their to be used for other times, such as, "That's their plan?! We gotta get outta here!"
My rule for your vs you're vs yore is a bit funnier, I think. Remove the apostrophe and make two words - that still works fine, but how to decide between your and yore? Easy: Yore is never used. Ever. Not even in the days of yore was the term yore ever used. Boo yah.
Sorry for the long first post. Do any of you have any other grammar tricks to help people out? Let me know in the comments.
 
|
Germany2896 Posts
I think most people know which one is right. It's typically not a mistake foreigners make, but one sloppy native speakers make. Becuz u can't be bothered w/ spelling.
|
On February 23 2011 22:49 MasterOfChaos wrote:
I think most people know which one is right. It's typically not a mistake foreigners make, but one sloppy native speakers make. Becuz u can't be bothered w/ spelling.
The man has got a point. I'm not a native speaker but I know which one to use in where. I think most mistakes happen when you're trying to be quick or, most likely, when you can't be bothered to actually get it right. Pretty much like the "D T or DT" in Dutch.
Useful trick nevertheless, it's similar to what I used learning English.
Now do Who or Whom 
|
I don't think that's grammar.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
As has been said, it's not so much a case of not knowing which is which as it is a simple typing error. I don't know if it's this way for most people, but my typing is completely automatic. I don't think about spelling or grammar when I type, I simply think of a sentence and my fingers make the sentence appear on screen :p While very comfortable, it occasionally allows errors to sneak in, for example, the other day in the cricket thread I kept on typing batsment instead of batsmen, because "ment" is a common affix. Same goes with these "grammar" errors you mention, occasionally I'll read over a comment I made a while back and I'll see a "your" instead of "you're", not because I don't know the difference, but simply because I typed it without thinking.
That said, I don't think the newsposts have you're/your or their/they're/there errors very often, although I do occasionally see it's/its errors. It's/Its is just more difficult to pick up in editing than the others.
|
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped.
|
Yea, I pretty much know what to use because of what you said; if I ever have problems, I always check if there's a verb or something in there (that's shortened) by separating it. Now it's so ingrained in my mind that I almost don't have to check/think about it when writing.
The problem for native speakers is this, I think:
It has to do with the fact that most foreigners learn to write/speak at the same time, so they are more aware of the meaning and difference of "it's" and "its". Native speakers, on the other hand, usually first hear the words and link them together because they sound almost the same and only then learn to write them. So when they're actually learning to write they've become so accustomed to equating them that they have trouble to differentiate between them.
|
You'd be surprised how many people ( with English as their first language) actually say "your" instead of "You're" on facebook, such as "Your so cute", "Your retarded" (ironic, uh?).
|
On February 23 2011 23:13 NeoLearner wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2011 22:49 MasterOfChaos wrote:
I think most people know which one is right. It's typically not a mistake foreigners make, but one sloppy native speakers make. Becuz u can't be bothered w/ spelling. The man has got a point. I'm not a native speaker but I know which one to use in where. I think most mistakes happen when you're trying to be quick or, most likely, when you can't be bothered to actually get it right. Pretty much like the "D T or DT" in Dutch. Useful trick nevertheless, it's similar to what I used learning English. Now do Who or Whom
To understand who and whom, you have to be able to find the subject of the sentence reliably and/or be readily familiar with pronoun usage (he, him, his etc.).
The "hard" way to do it for a native speaker is to use the subject vs. object idea. If the thing in question (the who or whom) is the subject, it's generally correct to use "who".
e.g. Who is there?
+ Show Spoiler [More Who] +
There are more complicated examples of this too.
e.g. It was Tim who found the trick.
The most basic sentence structure of the above: "It found."
It = subject
also Tim = It (it was Tim)
also who = Tim
therefore who = subject - so "who" is correct usage here.
If the thing in question is an object, then it's generally correct to use "whom".
e.g. Man: I'm asking for <garbled>. Woman: You're asking for whom?
+ Show Spoiler [More Whom] +
A preposition (into, above, for, of etc.) is a sure sign that "whom" is correct. In fact, if you understand German grammar, you can pretty much think "whom = Dative case".
The easy way to do it for a native speaker is to use personal pronoun replacement. Native speakers almost always use pronouns correctly since they're so commonly spoken correctly.
If you don't know whether it's "who" or "whom" replace it with "he" or "him" and see which one sounds right.
e.g. <x> called me? --> He called me. vs. Him called me. --> <x> must be "Who"
e.g. I'm looking at <x>? --> I'm looking at he. vs. I'm looking at him. --> <x> must be "whom"
I'm not sure how readily pronouns are understood by a non-native speaker so I'm not sure if that would be easier or not.
+ Show Spoiler [More Details] +
"Whoever" and "whomever" actually are a little bit different and more confusing. You can't do the personal pronoun replacement on them and get the correct answer each time.
e.g. I'm looking for <x> placed this here. --> I'm looking for <him>... --> but the answer is "whoever", not "whomever".
Basically if there's a lower-order verb somewhere in the sentence that isn't an infinitive, you need a sort of lower-order subject for it. So the analysis for the above sentence would be:
I'm looking for <x> placed this here.
"I'm looking." - but there is also "placed" so find a "subject" for it.
He placed this here. vs. Him placed this here --> He is correct --> whoever must be correct.
|
Never use the word 'who,' and never have that problem. And it's the lazy people who don't give a damn that make these mistakes. There are few mistakes that people make that they don't know. The only ones I think of are subject-verb relationships (as in verb tenses) and bad word choices.
|
On February 24 2011 05:47 Blisse wrote:
Never use the word 'who,' and never have that problem. And it's the lazy people who don't give a damn that make these mistakes. There are few mistakes that people make that they don't know. The only ones I think of are subject-verb relationships (as in verb tenses) and bad word choices.
I laughed so hard.
On topic, I think very few people who confuse homonyms actually care. Most people don't give a damn what whom means, or when to use their. Those who do care usually already know.
|
On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped.
How is "your" and "you're" a homophone? They sound as different as they're written.
What pissess me off the most right now is the "would of" and "should of" in place of "would have/would've and should have/should've".
And by far the hardest thing for many people when it comes to English grammar would be deciding between using "a" or "an" before a word (eg. a dog, a plane, an antler, an equinox etc.). The basic rule here is that you put "a" before words that start with a consonant and "an" before words that start with a vowel.
There are some exceptions here though, because you'll be putting "an" before words that start with a consonant but which sound as they'd start with a vowel when spoken (eg. an herb).
|
On March 22 2011 00:57 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. How is "your" and "you're" a homophone? They sound as different as they're written. What pissess me off the most right now is the "would of" and "should of" in place of "would have/would've and should have/should've". And by far the hardest thing for many people when it comes to English grammar would be deciding between using "a" or "an" before a word (eg. a dog, a plane, an antler, an equinox etc.). The basic rule here is that you put "a" before words that start with a consonant and "an" before words that start with a vowel. There are some exceptions here though, because you'll be putting "an" before words that start with a consonant but which sound as they'd start with a vowel when spoken (eg. an herb).
Your and You're are definately homophones. Please record the difference if you claim otherwise. Also a/an is simple. Just like you say, it depends on the pronunciation of the next word. And since the h in herb isn't silent in Brittish english, a better example would be "an LP" (for those old enough to remember what that is).
|
United States4126 Posts
The ones that irk me the most when I see the mistake are your vs you're and what Manit0u just said.
Your is relatively easy as it denotes possession of something. For example, something along the lines of "your dumb" is commonly seen on the internet. No, I do not own a dumb. I don't think anyone can ever own a dumb. Clearly this is a case for "you're" to be used. "You are dumb."
W/Sh/Could of, is one of the mistakes that people ignorantly make because it sounds right.
|
On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped.
I don't know if I would go so far as to call every single person who makes a grammatical error a homophone
|
On March 22 2011 01:43 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. I don't know if I would go so far as to call every single person who makes a grammatical error a homophone
A homophone is a pair of words that are pronounced the same way. It's not an insult.
|
I think you missed the joke.
|
I never even heard of 'yore'
On March 22 2011 03:34 XXGeneration wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 01:43 floor exercise wrote:On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. I don't know if I would go so far as to call every single person who makes a grammatical error a homophone A homophone is a pair of words that are pronounced the same way. It's not an insult.
LOL. It's a joke.
|
On March 22 2011 01:10 Hittegods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:57 Manit0u wrote:On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. How is "your" and "you're" a homophone? They sound as different as they're written. What pissess me off the most right now is the "would of" and "should of" in place of "would have/would've and should have/should've". And by far the hardest thing for many people when it comes to English grammar would be deciding between using "a" or "an" before a word (eg. a dog, a plane, an antler, an equinox etc.). The basic rule here is that you put "a" before words that start with a consonant and "an" before words that start with a vowel. There are some exceptions here though, because you'll be putting "an" before words that start with a consonant but which sound as they'd start with a vowel when spoken (eg. an herb). Your and You're are definately homophones. Please record the difference if you claim otherwise.
Well, in "your" it starts with "yo" while in "you're" it starts with "yoo". It's pretty distinguishable in my opinion (you can clearly hear "you" in "you're", while it sounds nothing like regular "you" in "your". "yor" vs "yoo~r").
Edit: And you're right about the "herb". It really seems that the proper British pronounciation is with the non-silent "h", but I have yet to see a person (not even live, in a movie would do just fine) actually use it this way instead of "'erb".
|
On February 23 2011 22:18 WolfgangSenff wrote: My rule for your vs you're vs yore is a bit funnier, I think. Remove the apostrophe and make two words - that still works fine, but how to decide between your and yore? Easy: Yore is never used. Ever. Not even in the days of yore was the term yore ever used. Boo yah.
That's a pretty funny rule for "yore." I approve.
But man I'm going to be honest and say that I don't approve of grammar protips in general. I say this as a graduate student in English and an instructor of college composition courses. Knowing "grammar" just doesn't help you write better. It doesn't improve your expression, your style, your argument, your nothing. I'll throw out some quotes from a grammar studies meta-review that was published in College English:
DeBoer (1959)
The impressive fact is... that in all these studies, carried out in places and at times far removed from each other, often by highly experienced and disinterested investigators, the results have been consistently negative so far as the value of grammar in the improvement of language expression is concerned.
Strom (1960)
Direct methods of instruction, focusing on writing activities and the structuring of ideas, are more efficient in teaching sentence structure, usage, punctuation, and other related factors than are such methods as nomenclature drill, diagramming, and rote memorization of grammatical rules.
Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, Schoer (1963)
In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon many types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified terms: the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible impact or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect on improvement in writing.
Sherwin (1969)
Instruction in formal grammar is an ineffective way to help students achieve proficiency in writing.
Hartwell (1985)
More recent summaries of research--by Elizabeth I. Haynes, Hillary Taylor Holbrook, and Marcia Farr Whiteman--support similar conclusions. Indirect evidence for this position is provided by surveys reported by Betty Bamberg in 1978 and 1981, showing that time spent in grammar instruction in high school is the least important factor, of eight factors examined, in separating regular from remedial writers at the college level.
Now you might wonder: why there isn't even more recent research on this red-hot topic? Well, aside from the overwhelming consensus on the matter and the desire of researchers to "move on to more interesting areas of inquiry" (Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, 228), you also have the fact that grammar studies are increasingly under the purview of linguistics programs.
But let me assure you they have fared no better there.
Basically the problem is that the word "grammar" as it is commonly understood corresponds to nothing in reality. There is no set of rules that govern how a language functions or that delineates between correct and incorrect expressions of that language. There are patterns in language, yes, but the relationship of those patterns to traditional ideas about the structures of language are a bit more complex than a grammar-based approach admits. Our beloved eight-parts-of-speech grammar got its start in Greek metaphysics, and that's essentially what it is: a metaphysical assertion that's highly useful in certain strict, scholarly, and self-aware avenues of inquiry but that should not be used as guide to one's everyday conduct otherwise.
TL/DR:
Don't give out grammar tips.
The grammar you believe in doesn't exist.
Grammatical pet peeves should be euthanized.
also:
Yes, Manit0u, the words "your" and "you're" are homophones for a massive number of native English speakers. And, no, this does not reflect poorly on their intelligence. People pronounce things differently, and that's cool.
|
I definitely don't consider myself a stickler on the subject. However, there is one benefit to following the established rules of English grammar that often gets ignored - how you are perceived by others.
I work in a professional industry. Perception matters. Trying to communicate with a prospective client or colleague and not understanding the difference between a contraction and a possessive pronoun does not instill faith in others that you are on top of your game. It probably shouldn't be this way, but it is. I'm not talking about subtle nuance here, I'm talking about basic stuff. People WILL judge you.
You can take out of that what you want. I'm not trying to compel anybody by this example, just pointing out an empirical observation I've made.
|
Laziness. Not the intellect to judge correct grammar.
|
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."
|
I've never seen an instance of "yore" being used. I didn't even know it existed.
|
i never understood how people make these mistakes (on a consistent basis).
it seems to be primarily a native speaker problem and probably has something to do with learning to read/write at different times
i can't possibly confuse fundamentally different words/phrases like it's/its your/you're there/their/they're lose/loose effect/affect whether/weather..
oh screw it, just read this comic for the (surprisingly comprehensive) list:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling
some others not mentioned are should of, would of etc
though typos are another story. i don't really much care about it's/its because some people just don't like to type the apostrophe (sometimes i dont). however you can't really use that excuse on the other ones since you should be typing youre theyre and so on. casual typing only obviously (a la forums/txting)
then again, gotta keep it in context. a random post on a forum, meh. someone's resume? i throw it out on the spot.
|
I always have trouble with effect vs affect. Then I remember "the arrow affects" and "special effects". I'm sure most people don't care, but it definitely haunts me.
|
On March 22 2011 12:26 SCbiff wrote:
I definitely don't consider myself a stickler on the subject. However, there is one benefit to following the established rules of English grammar that often gets ignored - how you are perceived by others.
I work in a professional industry. Perception matters. Trying to communicate with a prospective client or colleague and not understanding the difference between a contraction and a possessive pronoun does not instill faith in others that you are on top of your game. It probably shouldn't be this way, but it is. I'm not talking about subtle nuance here, I'm talking about basic stuff. People WILL judge you.
You can take out of that what you want. I'm not trying to compel anybody by this example, just pointing out an empirical observation I've made.
You're definitely on to something here. The way you write can have a tremendous influence on how people in the workplace (or on a forum even!) judge you. I agree. I would make a couple caveats, though:
1. When you work in a given company, your fellow professionals don't judge you on how well you conform to "established rules of English grammar," they judge you on how well you conform to the conventions of that company's particular discourse community. That's an important distinction to make.
Elevating the "rules of English grammar" to the status of some superordinate standard is a problem. There are no such rules. It's similar to saying, for instance, that there are "established rules" of professionalism or ethics or appropriate workplace dress that extend over all industries. There aren't. Each company (or, if you want to look at a different levels of scale, each region in that company or each workplace in that region) establishes its own definitions of these concepts. The nature of their written discourse is no different. Each company establishes its own conventions in writing. To start prescribing "rules" in the abstract is to ignore these differences.
2. Even if you're in a situation where appearing correct is important, rote memorization of grammatical rules is an inefficient way to improve usage. Whole writing activities are much better for achieving that sort of flawless presentation.
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."
Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones?
|
Hulk, I found those studies results interesting, however I feel like you're really grasping at straws with regards to SCbiff's point on professionalism in a workplace. Memorizing grammatical rules is not important in terms of overall writing quality for sure, however if you write while bastardizing the different forms of "there" and "your" there are many people who would think less of you. For instance, writing "properly" is especially important when you are composing a cover letter or resume for a position.
|
There is a lot of space in space.
..............^
..............|
...........space
See what I did there?
+ Show Spoiler [The alot] +
This was so helpful for me when I had problem with "a lot" 
|
On March 23 2011 03:26 EscPlan9 wrote:
Hulk, I found those studies results interesting, however I feel like you're really grasping at straws with regards to SCbiff's point on professionalism in a workplace. Memorizing grammatical rules is not important in terms of overall writing quality for sure, however if you write while bastardizing the different forms of "there" and "your" there are many people who would think less of you. For instance, writing "properly" is especially important when you are composing a cover letter or resume for a position.
Yeah, I think you're right. Point taken.
I know that I tend to go into overkill mode in threads on grammar. I dislike grammar fascism so much that I tend to insist on grammar anarchy, which probably isn't the most helpful of positions to adopt (even though it's closer to the reality than the idea that there is one correct way to use the language).
My real issue with SCbiff's post (which is an admittedly minor issue and probably just a semantic quibble on my end) is just that he suggested that there are "rules for English," which there are not. There are only "conventions for discourse communities," and so I think it's a bit of a mistake to conceive of one overarching structure to any given language.
I stand by the essentials of both my points, though, even if they get a little extravagant: 1) what constitutes professional communication will vary from company to company, and 2) the sort of facility with language that allows you to consistently avoid embarrassing errors like "your/you're" mix-ups comes not from memorizing a bunch of grammatical dos & don'ts but from larger-scale, whole writing and reading activities.
So, yeah. On your advice, I'll chill out and quit looking for things to take issue with. But I do think that I am right about the basics of what I have said in this thread, and I think I am fairly communicating the scholarly consensus on those basics.
|
On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones?
So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation?
|
Whenever you use the word "collective," the noun following it should always be in the singular. That's the entire point and definition of the word "collective."
"The scientists put their collective mind together."
^That's right.
"The scientists put their collective minds together and failed epically."
^That's wrong.
|
United States10328 Posts
I'm pretty sure "it's"/"its" and "you're"/"your" are commonly swapped even in serious writing (for example, formal e-mails and even the news!)
In other news, "days of yore" is such a good phrase :O!
|
On March 23 2011 09:45 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones? So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation?
No. That's not what I'm telling you at all. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that I am trying to suggest that "were" and "we're" are homophones?
Anyway, I'll just stick to the point. 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.
For one, I could simply pull rank and show you the IPA pronunciations from dictionary.com:
The IPA pronunciation for "your": yʊər
The IPA pronunciation for "you're": yʊər
Those two pronunciations are identical. They are textbook homophones. You cannot get more homophonic than those two words are.
I could also suggest that you go to Google, filter for .edu sites, and search for "your you're homophone." You'll find a vast body of university-produced literature on how easy it is to confuse the homophones "your" and "you're."
But what I was really trying to do with my last post was explain to you that there is no such thing as a "correct pronunciation." There is a wide range of pronunciations for any given word and each of those pronunciations is perfectly appropriate to the people that use them. So you can't actually argue that "your" and "you're," if pronounced correctly, don't sound the same. Linguistically, that's a nonsense statement. It also does not correspond to the reality that for millions of native English speakers there is absolutely no difference in how those two words are pronounced.
Pronunciation determines whether or not you have a pair of homophones, not spelling. And it is very widespread and widely accepted to pronounce those two words the same exact way.
|
On March 23 2011 10:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 09:45 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones? So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation? No. That's not what I'm telling you at all. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that I am trying to suggest that "were" and "we're" are homophones? Anyway, I'll just stick to the point. 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. For one, I could simply pull rank and show you the IPA pronunciations from dictionary.com: The IPA pronunciation for "your": yʊər The IPA pronunciation for "you're": yʊər Those two pronunciations are identical. They are textbook homophones. You cannot get more homophonic than those two words are. I could also suggest that you go to Google, filter for .edu sites, and search for "your you're homophone." You'll find a vast body of university-produced literature on how easy it is to confuse the homophones "your" and "you're." But what I was really trying to do with my last post was explain to you that there is no such thing as a "correct pronunciation." There is a wide range of pronunciations for any given word and each of those pronunciations is perfectly appropriate to the people that use them. So you can't actually argue that "your" and "you're," if pronounced correctly, don't sound the same. Linguistically, that's a nonsense statement. It also does not correspond to the reality that for millions of native English speakers there is absolutely no difference in how those two words are pronounced. Pronunciation determines whether or not you have a pair of homophones, not spelling. And it is very widespread and widely accepted to pronounce those two words the same exact way.
"You're" has two different pronunciations in modern English, IMO, because it's a contraction and because of the confusion between it and "your." "Your" is also pronounced differently depending on the dialect, but "you're" either rhymes with "your" or it rhymes with "sewer." And, in most dialects, "your" rhymes with "door" or "pure." Almost every modern dictionary will give you these pronunciations.
As for what is the "correct" pronunciation, yeah, it's debatable, but my point in referencing "we're" and "were" is that the contraction still retains the gist of the pronunciation. You don't see "we're" rhyming with "were," even though the words are spelled almost identically. In fact, if you say "we're" out loud you can distinctly hear that it's simply "we" and "are" getting mashed together. The same should hold true for "you" and "are," which means that "you're," as it is a contraction, should simply be the combination of the words "you" and "are" in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning.
Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." All of the dictionaries have one rhyming entry for both words, but there are multiple entries for both, and it's debatable which usages are most common.
EDIT: And while I agree that pronunciation subtleties are useless when it comes to communication, when it comes to formalizing English it is important. If newscasters talked like hicks from the Appalachians we'd probably still understand them, but many English speakers would not be able to. We've seen some controversy on this very site with respect to accents and pronunciation, and it shows that there is some kind of "correct" pronunciation when it comes to formal English.
And, for what I was talking about earlier:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/your
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you're
The first pronunciation examples for the U.S. entries both rhyme. The second don't sound at all similar. From where I am from (the midwest) the pronunciation of "your" is usually closer to the second example given, and the pronunciation for "you're" is either the first or the second. Most people I know don't rhyme the two.
|
On March 23 2011 12:01 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 10:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 09:45 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones? So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation? No. That's not what I'm telling you at all. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that I am trying to suggest that "were" and "we're" are homophones? Anyway, I'll just stick to the point. 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. For one, I could simply pull rank and show you the IPA pronunciations from dictionary.com: The IPA pronunciation for "your": yʊər The IPA pronunciation for "you're": yʊər Those two pronunciations are identical. They are textbook homophones. You cannot get more homophonic than those two words are. I could also suggest that you go to Google, filter for .edu sites, and search for "your you're homophone." You'll find a vast body of university-produced literature on how easy it is to confuse the homophones "your" and "you're." But what I was really trying to do with my last post was explain to you that there is no such thing as a "correct pronunciation." There is a wide range of pronunciations for any given word and each of those pronunciations is perfectly appropriate to the people that use them. So you can't actually argue that "your" and "you're," if pronounced correctly, don't sound the same. Linguistically, that's a nonsense statement. It also does not correspond to the reality that for millions of native English speakers there is absolutely no difference in how those two words are pronounced. Pronunciation determines whether or not you have a pair of homophones, not spelling. And it is very widespread and widely accepted to pronounce those two words the same exact way. "You're" has two different pronunciations in modern English, IMO, because it's a contraction and because of the confusion between it and "your." "Your" is also pronounced differently depending on the dialect, but "you're" either rhymes with "your" or it rhymes with "sewer." And, in most dialects, "your" rhymes with "door" or "pure." Almost every modern dictionary will give you these pronunciations. As for what is the "correct" pronunciation, yeah, it's debatable, but my point in referencing "we're" and "were" is that the contraction still retains the gist of the pronunciation. You don't see "we're" rhyming with "were," even though the words are spelled almost identically. In fact, if you say "we're" out loud you can distinctly hear that it's simply "we" and "are" getting mashed together. The same should hold true for "you" and "are," which means that "you're," as it is a contraction, should simply be the combination of the words "you" and "are" in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning. Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." All of the dictionaries have one rhyming entry for both words, but there are multiple entries for both, and it's debatable which usages are most common. EDIT: And while I agree that pronunciation subtleties are useless when it comes to communication, when it comes to formalizing English it is important. If newscasters talked like hicks from the Appalachians we'd probably still understand them, but many English speakers would not be able to. We've seen some controversy on this very site with respect to accents and pronunciation, and it shows that there is some kind of "correct" pronunciation when it comes to formal English.
I don't even know if you know what you're arguing anymore:
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."
has become:
wherebugsgo wrote:
Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're."
We agree!
|
On March 23 2011 12:08 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 12:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 10:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 09:45 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones? So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation? No. That's not what I'm telling you at all. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that I am trying to suggest that "were" and "we're" are homophones? Anyway, I'll just stick to the point. 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. For one, I could simply pull rank and show you the IPA pronunciations from dictionary.com: The IPA pronunciation for "your": yʊər The IPA pronunciation for "you're": yʊər Those two pronunciations are identical. They are textbook homophones. You cannot get more homophonic than those two words are. I could also suggest that you go to Google, filter for .edu sites, and search for "your you're homophone." You'll find a vast body of university-produced literature on how easy it is to confuse the homophones "your" and "you're." But what I was really trying to do with my last post was explain to you that there is no such thing as a "correct pronunciation." There is a wide range of pronunciations for any given word and each of those pronunciations is perfectly appropriate to the people that use them. So you can't actually argue that "your" and "you're," if pronounced correctly, don't sound the same. Linguistically, that's a nonsense statement. It also does not correspond to the reality that for millions of native English speakers there is absolutely no difference in how those two words are pronounced. Pronunciation determines whether or not you have a pair of homophones, not spelling. And it is very widespread and widely accepted to pronounce those two words the same exact way. "You're" has two different pronunciations in modern English, IMO, because it's a contraction and because of the confusion between it and "your." "Your" is also pronounced differently depending on the dialect, but "you're" either rhymes with "your" or it rhymes with "sewer." And, in most dialects, "your" rhymes with "door" or "pure." Almost every modern dictionary will give you these pronunciations. As for what is the "correct" pronunciation, yeah, it's debatable, but my point in referencing "we're" and "were" is that the contraction still retains the gist of the pronunciation. You don't see "we're" rhyming with "were," even though the words are spelled almost identically. In fact, if you say "we're" out loud you can distinctly hear that it's simply "we" and "are" getting mashed together. The same should hold true for "you" and "are," which means that "you're," as it is a contraction, should simply be the combination of the words "you" and "are" in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning. Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." All of the dictionaries have one rhyming entry for both words, but there are multiple entries for both, and it's debatable which usages are most common. EDIT: And while I agree that pronunciation subtleties are useless when it comes to communication, when it comes to formalizing English it is important. If newscasters talked like hicks from the Appalachians we'd probably still understand them, but many English speakers would not be able to. We've seen some controversy on this very site with respect to accents and pronunciation, and it shows that there is some kind of "correct" pronunciation when it comes to formal English. I don't even know if you know what you're arguing anymore: Show nested quote +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." has become: Show nested quote +wherebugsgo wrote:
Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." We agree!
Correct pronunciation and standard pronunciation are two different things.
Newscaster pronunciation is correct, but it isn't standard.
So, obviously we don't agree, because you don't even understand the difference between the terms "correct" and "standard."
|
On March 23 2011 12:10 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 12:08 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 12:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 10:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 09:45 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones? So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation? No. That's not what I'm telling you at all. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that I am trying to suggest that "were" and "we're" are homophones? Anyway, I'll just stick to the point. 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. For one, I could simply pull rank and show you the IPA pronunciations from dictionary.com: The IPA pronunciation for "your": yʊər The IPA pronunciation for "you're": yʊər Those two pronunciations are identical. They are textbook homophones. You cannot get more homophonic than those two words are. I could also suggest that you go to Google, filter for .edu sites, and search for "your you're homophone." You'll find a vast body of university-produced literature on how easy it is to confuse the homophones "your" and "you're." But what I was really trying to do with my last post was explain to you that there is no such thing as a "correct pronunciation." There is a wide range of pronunciations for any given word and each of those pronunciations is perfectly appropriate to the people that use them. So you can't actually argue that "your" and "you're," if pronounced correctly, don't sound the same. Linguistically, that's a nonsense statement. It also does not correspond to the reality that for millions of native English speakers there is absolutely no difference in how those two words are pronounced. Pronunciation determines whether or not you have a pair of homophones, not spelling. And it is very widespread and widely accepted to pronounce those two words the same exact way. "You're" has two different pronunciations in modern English, IMO, because it's a contraction and because of the confusion between it and "your." "Your" is also pronounced differently depending on the dialect, but "you're" either rhymes with "your" or it rhymes with "sewer." And, in most dialects, "your" rhymes with "door" or "pure." Almost every modern dictionary will give you these pronunciations. As for what is the "correct" pronunciation, yeah, it's debatable, but my point in referencing "we're" and "were" is that the contraction still retains the gist of the pronunciation. You don't see "we're" rhyming with "were," even though the words are spelled almost identically. In fact, if you say "we're" out loud you can distinctly hear that it's simply "we" and "are" getting mashed together. The same should hold true for "you" and "are," which means that "you're," as it is a contraction, should simply be the combination of the words "you" and "are" in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning. Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." All of the dictionaries have one rhyming entry for both words, but there are multiple entries for both, and it's debatable which usages are most common. EDIT: And while I agree that pronunciation subtleties are useless when it comes to communication, when it comes to formalizing English it is important. If newscasters talked like hicks from the Appalachians we'd probably still understand them, but many English speakers would not be able to. We've seen some controversy on this very site with respect to accents and pronunciation, and it shows that there is some kind of "correct" pronunciation when it comes to formal English. I don't even know if you know what you're arguing anymore: 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." has become: wherebugsgo wrote:
Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." We agree! Correct pronunciation and standard pronunciation are two different things. Newscaster pronunciation is correct, but it isn't standard.
OK, so excellent. Now we're back to square one: in your view, what makes a pronunciation correct?
|
On March 23 2011 12:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 12:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 12:08 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 12:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 10:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 09:45 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones? So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation? No. That's not what I'm telling you at all. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that I am trying to suggest that "were" and "we're" are homophones? Anyway, I'll just stick to the point. 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. For one, I could simply pull rank and show you the IPA pronunciations from dictionary.com: The IPA pronunciation for "your": yʊər The IPA pronunciation for "you're": yʊər Those two pronunciations are identical. They are textbook homophones. You cannot get more homophonic than those two words are. I could also suggest that you go to Google, filter for .edu sites, and search for "your you're homophone." You'll find a vast body of university-produced literature on how easy it is to confuse the homophones "your" and "you're." But what I was really trying to do with my last post was explain to you that there is no such thing as a "correct pronunciation." There is a wide range of pronunciations for any given word and each of those pronunciations is perfectly appropriate to the people that use them. So you can't actually argue that "your" and "you're," if pronounced correctly, don't sound the same. Linguistically, that's a nonsense statement. It also does not correspond to the reality that for millions of native English speakers there is absolutely no difference in how those two words are pronounced. Pronunciation determines whether or not you have a pair of homophones, not spelling. And it is very widespread and widely accepted to pronounce those two words the same exact way. "You're" has two different pronunciations in modern English, IMO, because it's a contraction and because of the confusion between it and "your." "Your" is also pronounced differently depending on the dialect, but "you're" either rhymes with "your" or it rhymes with "sewer." And, in most dialects, "your" rhymes with "door" or "pure." Almost every modern dictionary will give you these pronunciations. As for what is the "correct" pronunciation, yeah, it's debatable, but my point in referencing "we're" and "were" is that the contraction still retains the gist of the pronunciation. You don't see "we're" rhyming with "were," even though the words are spelled almost identically. In fact, if you say "we're" out loud you can distinctly hear that it's simply "we" and "are" getting mashed together. The same should hold true for "you" and "are," which means that "you're," as it is a contraction, should simply be the combination of the words "you" and "are" in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning. Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." All of the dictionaries have one rhyming entry for both words, but there are multiple entries for both, and it's debatable which usages are most common. EDIT: And while I agree that pronunciation subtleties are useless when it comes to communication, when it comes to formalizing English it is important. If newscasters talked like hicks from the Appalachians we'd probably still understand them, but many English speakers would not be able to. We've seen some controversy on this very site with respect to accents and pronunciation, and it shows that there is some kind of "correct" pronunciation when it comes to formal English. I don't even know if you know what you're arguing anymore: 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." has become: wherebugsgo wrote:
Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." We agree! Correct pronunciation and standard pronunciation are two different things. Newscaster pronunciation is correct, but it isn't standard. OK, so excellent. Now we're back to square one: in your view, what makes a pronunciation correct?
If it's found in a well-established dictionary such as Cambridge, OED, or M-W, then it's correct.
Take these entries:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/you-re
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/your_1
Listen to the U.S. pronunciation (or, hell, the U.K. if you want) and you can tell that Cambridge CLEARLY differentiates "your" from "you're." They do NOT rhyme.
However, standard pronunciation varies from region to region. In certain regions of the U.S., the two words rhyme in the vernacular. In other places, they don't, and they also use incorrect pronunciations, i.e. those that are not listed in dictionaries. Merriam Webster is the most liberal with respect to pronunciation, as it lists the most.
I will also make the argument, for example, that "their" and "there" should rhyme, but should sound different from "they're." Also, "Mary" should sound different from "marry" and both should sound different from "merry."
|
On March 23 2011 12:32 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2011 12:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 12:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 12:08 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 12:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 10:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 23 2011 09:45 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2011 01:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: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." Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" pronunciation. In your view, who gets to decide what pronunciations are the correct ones? So are you telling me you would pronounce "were" and "we're" the same just because there's no such thing as a "correct" pronunciation? No. That's not what I'm telling you at all. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that I am trying to suggest that "were" and "we're" are homophones? Anyway, I'll just stick to the point. 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. For one, I could simply pull rank and show you the IPA pronunciations from dictionary.com: The IPA pronunciation for "your": yʊər The IPA pronunciation for "you're": yʊər Those two pronunciations are identical. They are textbook homophones. You cannot get more homophonic than those two words are. I could also suggest that you go to Google, filter for .edu sites, and search for "your you're homophone." You'll find a vast body of university-produced literature on how easy it is to confuse the homophones "your" and "you're." But what I was really trying to do with my last post was explain to you that there is no such thing as a "correct pronunciation." There is a wide range of pronunciations for any given word and each of those pronunciations is perfectly appropriate to the people that use them. So you can't actually argue that "your" and "you're," if pronounced correctly, don't sound the same. Linguistically, that's a nonsense statement. It also does not correspond to the reality that for millions of native English speakers there is absolutely no difference in how those two words are pronounced. Pronunciation determines whether or not you have a pair of homophones, not spelling. And it is very widespread and widely accepted to pronounce those two words the same exact way. "You're" has two different pronunciations in modern English, IMO, because it's a contraction and because of the confusion between it and "your." "Your" is also pronounced differently depending on the dialect, but "you're" either rhymes with "your" or it rhymes with "sewer." And, in most dialects, "your" rhymes with "door" or "pure." Almost every modern dictionary will give you these pronunciations. As for what is the "correct" pronunciation, yeah, it's debatable, but my point in referencing "we're" and "were" is that the contraction still retains the gist of the pronunciation. You don't see "we're" rhyming with "were," even though the words are spelled almost identically. In fact, if you say "we're" out loud you can distinctly hear that it's simply "we" and "are" getting mashed together. The same should hold true for "you" and "are," which means that "you're," as it is a contraction, should simply be the combination of the words "you" and "are" in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning. Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." All of the dictionaries have one rhyming entry for both words, but there are multiple entries for both, and it's debatable which usages are most common. EDIT: And while I agree that pronunciation subtleties are useless when it comes to communication, when it comes to formalizing English it is important. If newscasters talked like hicks from the Appalachians we'd probably still understand them, but many English speakers would not be able to. We've seen some controversy on this very site with respect to accents and pronunciation, and it shows that there is some kind of "correct" pronunciation when it comes to formal English. I don't even know if you know what you're arguing anymore: 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." has become: wherebugsgo wrote:
Finally, no, there is no standardized pronunciation for "your" and "you're." We agree! Correct pronunciation and standard pronunciation are two different things. Newscaster pronunciation is correct, but it isn't standard. OK, so excellent. Now we're back to square one: in your view, what makes a pronunciation correct? If it's found in a well-established dictionary such as Cambridge, OED, or M-W, then it's correct.
Well, then, here's the good-as-gold word of Merriam Webster on the subject:
your:
\yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr\
you're:
\yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr, ˌyü-ər\
Obviously there are not only one, but three correct pronunciations in which "your" and "you're" are homophones.
|
Like I said, M-W is the most liberal in its definitions. But what it doesn't say is where each pronunciation is prevalent, nor how common each pronunciation is. It merely states that those are acceptable pronunciations.
In some places, for example, the combination of "your" and "you're" pronunciations do not suggest that they are homophones in that region. This is true for where I am from. According to my brother, it's also true for his experience in high school in New Zealand. He gave me the Mary/marry/merry example (from his former English teacher)
|
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:
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."
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:
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.
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 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: Show nested quote +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." 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: Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. You're right to say that they are not necessarily homophones for all people at all times. But that was my argument, not yours: Show nested quote +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.
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.
Yeah, I said that M-W is a source for "correct" pronunciations. So, we have an issue here. Two dictionaries disagree on this. I happen to agree more strongly with Cambridge on this one.
We won't find a conclusion to this, simply because the two dictionaries aren't compatible in this respect. Like I said earlier, M-W is the most liberal among the three, and most likely to accept "everyday-speak." At any rate, my original argument still stands; you happen to be referencing M-W, while I can reference Cambridge. Where does this lead? Obviously nowhere.
|
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."
|
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."
It's you're, and I am not conceding anything here. My argument stands.
|
This one?
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.
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 13:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:This one? Show nested quote +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. 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?
I was referring to the audio.
|
On March 24 2011 14:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 13:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:This one? 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. 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? I was referring to the audio.
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 14:12 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 14:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 24 2011 13:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:This one? 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. 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? I was referring to the audio. 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?
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?
|
On March 24 2011 15:05 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 14:12 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 24 2011 14:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 24 2011 13:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:This one? 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. 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? I was referring to the audio. 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? 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?
Here is an excerpt from the pronunciation guide for Merriam Webster:
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.
I posted that yesterday! You know, wherebugsgo, I feel like one day you and I could be best friends, but right now you are making me:  .
|
Or... wait. Are you asking why it has a UK and a US pronunciation listed? Because it's a dictionary that is popular in both the UK and the US. I don't really get the question...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ev0Eg.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oub75.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sYAAF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/USznE.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BdiL9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MSuiQ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/53HaM.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ai3sN.png)
