0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
Usage
A case of interchangeable your/you're
I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something:
"You will have to confirm your coming."
Here, "coming" is a gerund.
"You will have to confirm you're coming."
Here, "you're coming" is a subordinate clause.
Both sentences sound the same and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.
I can imagine that, whichever one I choose, it'll look wrong to some.
Of course, there are other possibilities, like sticking the old "that" in, but still..
Can anyone think of any other examples of this kind of curiosity?
Stewart.
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
"You will have to confirm your coming."
Here, "coming" is a gerund.
"You will have to confirm you're coming."
Here, "you're coming" is a subordinate clause.
Both sentences sound the same and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.
I can imagine that, whichever one I choose, it'll look wrong to some.
Of course, there are other possibilities, like sticking the old "that" in, but still..
Can anyone think of any other examples of this kind of curiosity?
Stewart.
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Top answer
" Here, "coming" is ... coming" is a subordinate clause. [/nq] I disagree.
- " Here, "coming" is ...
- coming" is a subordinate clause.
- [/nq] I disagree.
- In some dialects they sound different, but more importantly they do not mean the same think.
- They mean something very similar, but not exactly the same.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
17 Answers
0
Stewart Gordon typed thus:
[nq:1]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: "You will have to confirm your coming." Here, "coming" is ... coming" is a subordinate clause. Both sentences sound the same and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.[/nq]
I disagree. In some dialects they sound different, but more importantly they do not mean the sam
[nq:1]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: "You will have to confirm your coming." Here, "coming" is ... coming" is a subordinate clause. Both sentences sound the same and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.[/nq]
I disagree. In some dialects they sound different, but more importantly they do not mean the sam
00
[nq:2]"You will have to confirm your coming." "You will have to confirm you're coming."[/nq]
[nq:1]They mean something very similar, but not exactly the same.[/nq]
Would you care to give us your two interpretations?
Thanks,
R.
[nq:1]They mean something very similar, but not exactly the same.[/nq]
Would you care to give us your two interpretations?
Thanks,
R.
00
david56 typed thus:
[nq:1]Stewart Gordon typed thus:[/nq]
[nq:2]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: ... and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.[/nq]
[nq:1]I disagree. In some dialects they sound different, but more importantly they do not mean the same think. They mean something very similar, but not exactly the same. This is why
[nq:1]Stewart Gordon typed thus:[/nq]
[nq:2]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: ... and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.[/nq]
[nq:1]I disagree. In some dialects they sound different, but more importantly they do not mean the same think. They mean something very similar, but not exactly the same. This is why
00
[nq:1]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: "You will have to confirm your coming." Here, "coming" is ... like sticking the old "that" in, but still.. Can anyone think of any other examples of this kind of curiosity?[/nq]
He clung to his Tory sentiments.
He clung to his story of a mugging.
He clung to history as a justification.
(Granted, stress on differi
He clung to his Tory sentiments.
He clung to his story of a mugging.
He clung to history as a justification.
(Granted, stress on differi
00
[nq:1]I can imagine were and we're being identical (wurr), but I hear some of my own frequent acquaintances pronouncing we're as "ware" (unless I have that reversed). And I more often pronounce "we're" as "weer" than as "wur".[/nq]
When followed by a word beginning with a vowel, many (most?) Brits (and many/most others?) pronounce the "we're" vowel as just a quick /I/, with the /r/ getting tac
When followed by a word beginning with a vowel, many (most?) Brits (and many/most others?) pronounce the "we're" vowel as just a quick /I/, with the /r/ getting tac
00
[nq:1]Stewart Gordon typed thus:[/nq]
[nq:2]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: ... and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.[/nq]
[nq:1]I disagree. In some dialects they sound different, but more importantly they do not mean the same think. They mean something very similar, but not exactly the same. This is why they both exist, perhap
[nq:2]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: ... and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.[/nq]
[nq:1]I disagree. In some dialects they sound different, but more importantly they do not mean the same think. They mean something very similar, but not exactly the same. This is why they both exist, perhap
00
[nq:2]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: ... and have the same meaning, but have different grammatical structure.[/nq]
OK, but the first (with "your") is not a sentence that anyone would actually use.
[nq:1]I can imagine were and we're being identical (wurr), but I hear some ofmy own frequent acquaintances pronouncing we're as "ware" (unless I have that reverse
OK, but the first (with "your") is not a sentence that anyone would actually use.
[nq:1]I can imagine were and we're being identical (wurr), but I hear some ofmy own frequent acquaintances pronouncing we're as "ware" (unless I have that reverse
00
[nq:1]OK, but the first (with "your") is not a sentence that anyone would actually use.[/nq]
He's just used it
R.
He's just used it
R.
00
Stewart Gordon filted:
[nq:1]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: "You will have to confirm your coming." Here, "coming" is ... like sticking the old "that" in, but still.. Can anyone think of any other examples of this kind of curiosity?[/nq]
"A wise cat knows its master."
"A wise cat knows it's master."
Identical to the ear, completely opposing meanings
[nq:1]I discovered this yesterday, as I was thinking about something: "You will have to confirm your coming." Here, "coming" is ... like sticking the old "that" in, but still.. Can anyone think of any other examples of this kind of curiosity?[/nq]
"A wise cat knows its master."
"A wise cat knows it's master."
Identical to the ear, completely opposing meanings
00
[nq:2]OK, but the first (with "your") is not a sentence that anyone wouldactually use.[/nq]
[nq:1]He's just used it R.[/nq]
[nq:1]He's just used it
R.[/nq]0
Related Questions