f

*you're

Also, when using ellipses, it is stylistically best to use three dots. Two seems like you meant to place a period but accidentally doubled up, and four or more is excessive.

Grammatical consistency is something that is entirely irrelevant, and only exists because people believe in it's importance. When viewed with any significant historical lens, it's clear that language is constantly evolving. It isn't something that should be guided by pre-established rules of grammar that stifle creativity and the creation of new words and ways in which one can better frame your own ideas. Taking into consideration that words are merely tools (MEMES) to deliver certain packets of information quickly and efficiently in any given context, grammar becomes even less relevant. Especially on the internet. And double especially with cherries in this context.

"..Post if Your Depressed"

Delivers a very clear message in this colloquial setting-- one should post in this there if you fit one of two conditions: 1) You are the user Depressed 2) You fit into some definition of the medical condition of depression-- and I would go so far as to argue it'd be apropos to to have 'Your' be 'Ur.'

Also, ur only reason that ellipses shouldn't be 4 or 2 dots is subjective..... I bet u don't even spam Oxford commas.

I like eggs.

Grammatical consistency is something that is entirely irrelevant, and only exists because people believe in it's importance.

Language itself only exists because people believe it's important. The English language isn't a product of nature, so obviously its rules aren't either. Also, this is an appeal to nature fallacy.

When viewed with any significant historical lens, it's clear that language is constantly evolving.

Language's constant state of flux is not a reason to defy the structural rules governing language, but rather to reinforce them in order to sustain intelligibility in spite of the change. What is considered acceptable occasionally changes; that does not for any reason make it wise to abandon all rules determining what is or is not acceptable. Words are spelled a certain way. Words can only be put together in a certain way. Spelling a word incorrectly or organizing a sentence incorrectly introduces ambiguity, which is antithetical to the entire purpose of languages.

I wasn't depressed until I opened this thread.

I wasn't depressed until I opened this thread.

Read it in reverse and you won't be depressed any more.

My depressed WHAT-

*you're

u penii

i don't lack grammar personally.

Seems like the sentence wasn't finished, or atleast it looks like it. A dot would make it clear however.

<Snipped quote by Darcs>

Language itself only exists because people believe it's important. The English language isn't a product of nature, so obviously its rules aren't either. Also, this is an appeal to nature fallacy.

<Snipped quote by Dracas>

Language's constant state of flux is not a reason to defy the structural rules governing language, but rather to reinforce them in order to sustain intelligibility in spite of the change. What is considered acceptable occasionally changes; that does not for any reason make it wise to abandon all rules determining what is or is not acceptable. Words are spelled a certain way. Words can only be put together in a certain way. Spelling a word incorrectly or organizing a sentence incorrectly introduces ambiguity, which is antithetical to the entire purpose of languages.

Have I ever told you I love you?

Language's constant state of flux is not a reason to defy the structural rules governing language, but rather to reinforce them in order to sustain intelligibility in spite of the change.

But that line between what you view as intelligibility and actual evolution in dialect and slang in pockets of culture is basically impossible to define, attempting to organize any set of rules for language based on intelligibility and avoiding ambiguity should be exactly that. Governing beyond understanding on a casual level is simply emulating some archaic linguistic history for the sake of those setting the rules. In the context it's fairly easy to understand what "..Post if Your Depressed" means. It isn't laziness, it's people realizing conflating the two words is convenient and the next step of evolution for the word-- you can understand what is being said based on the context of the sentence.

It isn't laziness, it's people realizing conflating the two words is convenient and the next step of evolution for the word-- you can understand what is being said based on the context of the sentence.

Neglecting to correctly distinguish between 'you're' and 'your' is not linguistic evolution, it is laziness and/or ignorance that denigrates clarity of meaning. Punctuation, and grammar in general, is the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit. In your case, and Depressed's case, it's definitely the contraction. You're likely just a troll: @Depressed is the actual offender.

if ud rly prfr ppl tlk lk ths thn fn, your fre t spk how u lk—but your speaking that way does not change the rules of the English language, and your freedom to speak however you like is attached to your freedom to be objectively wrong.

If a mistake is so commonly made, it means that the distinction no longer has a meaningful function. Your/You're can (and just very well might) melt into a single word and it will not harm the language in any way. Your just being pedantic.

If a mistake is so commonly made, it means that the distinction no longer has a meaningful function. Your/You're can (and just very well might) melt into a single word and it will not harm the language in any way. Your just being pedantic.

I just outlined a valid example of a way in which such a change would harm the language. 'You're' and 'Your' have entirely different meanings, both of which can make sense in context and convey two entirely dissimilar messages. Any fundamental change to English grammar would introduce ambiguity. It is for the sake of maximizing the English language's purpose, as a medium of communication, that I correct grammatical mistakes. Stuffiness doesn't factor into it.

If you want an example of a grammatical rule that IS entirely unhelpful in maximizing communication, go find a grizzled old grammarian who insists that sentences shouldn't end in prepositions.

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

But that line between what you view as intelligibility and actual evolution in dialect and slang in pockets of culture is basically impossible to define, attempting to organize any set of rules for language based on intelligibility and avoiding ambiguity should be exactly that. Governing beyond understanding on a casual level is simply emulating some archaic linguistic history for the sake of those setting the rules. In the context it's fairly easy to understand what "..Post if Your Depressed" means. It isn't laziness, it's people realizing conflating the two words is convenient and the next step of evolution for the word-- you can understand what is being said based on the context of the sentence.

In this case, yes, it was clear what meaning was intended - but that would not be so in every occurrence of a your/you're mix-up. You cannot, therefore, simply conflate the two words at all times without at some point creating unnecessary and excessive ambiguity.

Nor can you say that the words should just be conflated sometimes; that one should only bother to differentiate between the two, i.e. stick rigorously to the rules of the language, when one believes ambiguity may be caused. By doing so you would simply introduce yet another layer of confusion, adding into the equation the questions "are they bothering to differentiate or not, here?" for the reader and "should I bother to differentiate?" for the writer.

One can only conclude, then, that the two words can never just be conflated. They must be kept separate and used appropriately.

The rules of language exist as a method of standardisation, to ensure all people who speak the language can mutually understand one another. The only rules that should exist are those that aid in this endeavour - I agree with you on that account. But this is the thing: rules must be rules, not vague guidelines to be followed at whim, or else there is no point in having them. If rules are treated as guidelines, to be ignored or dismissed at random according to the fancy of either reader or writer in the moment, they simply end up self-defeating and neutered in their effectiveness. They must be abided by at all times in order to avoid this; in order for language to fulfill its one and only purpose, which is to communicate. Ambiguity is a language's greatest foe.

Now, admittedly this all seems very much like an "on principle" sort of thing, I know. In reality it's okay to bend the rules or make mistakes, and people will often still understand you. But upholding those principles is still vitally important - because if you don't then, as you said, over time things will evolve - they will just get messier and messier until your language is very inefficient and difficult to communicate in. Which is not what you want.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

I just outlined a valid example of a way in which such a change would harm the language. 'You're' and 'Your' have entirely different meanings, both of which can make sense in context and convey two entirely dissimilar messages.

No you didn't. You went to an extreme which nobody is advocating. In order to prove your point, you have to show how misusing your for you're can make a sentence confusing or unreadable. Specifically your and you're, because those are the only words on the table right now, you cannot mangle everything and pretend that you made an argument. If you fail to do this then you entire argument falls apart and you owe @Depressed an apology.

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

No you didn't.

Yes, I did.

Punctuation, and grammar in general, is the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

With that example cited, I'm not about to get into a war of anecdotes. Removing the distinction between 'you're' and 'your' lessens communication in at least one instance, and cannot possibly bolster communication in any instance. The distinction between the two is therefore practically valid.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Yes, I did.

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

Aha, I read the other point. Point taken, sorry for interfering.

your freedom to speak however you like is attached to your freedom to be objectively wrong.

>objectively
Kek

Which is not what you want.

Language being messy and inefficient is exactly what I want, hopefully then it'd better convey thought.