Namor:

#3

After trolling the internet, I do see some websites that claim that contractions can be homonyms. These sources would postulate that all homonym contractions are homophones, just like you suggest. While I do not agree with this statement (read below), I do understand that it is a somewhat ‘official’ rule that I am glad you brought to my attention. Nevertheless, read below for my opinion on why it should not be seen as a homonym.  

I wonder if calling ‘you’re’ a homonym of any sort works. What I mean by this is that contractions are a combination of two separate words. Therefore, ‘you’re’ is not entirely a single word in the same manner as ‘your’ is, and thus, I find it difficult to discern how it fits into the idea that “two words are homonyms if they are pronounced orspelled the same way but have different meanings.” Technically, ‘you’re’ is meant to be seen as two separate words as that is the form of a contraction. I did not mean to come off rude, I was just trying to explain the intricacies of contractions. In fact, when I write, I tend to stay away from using contractions at all. Clear writing is easier to achieve without relying on condensed words. Regardless of my English background, this is obviously my subjective opinion. 

ALSO, the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) does not have a listing for ‘you’re’ as it is not a word in itself, but a contraction of two separate words. Furthermore, the less scholarly dictionary.com does have a listing for ‘you’re’. The definition it provides is as follows: you’re - contraction of you are.

In other words, what I am trying to say, albeit very cryptically, is that ‘your’ cannot be a direct homonym to ‘you’re’ because ‘you’re’ is not a word in itself, but a contraction of two separate words. Specifically it is like saying that ‘your’ is the homonym of ‘you are’, which it is not. 

theslyestfox:

Apparently the word Homonym encompasses both words that are pronounced the same and have different spellings/meaning and also words that are spelled the same but have different meanings? Then homographs are spelled the same and homophones are not.

“Noun1.homonym - two words are homonyms if they are pronounced or spelled the same way but have different meanings

homograph - two words are homographs if they are spelled the same way but differ in meaning (e.g. fair)

homophone - two words are homophones if they are pronounced the same way but differ in meaning or spelling or both (e.g. bare and bear)”

I suppose homophone would have been the more appropriate word, yes. Mind you I’m not even the person who originally brought the word “homonym” into this issue.

blownspeakers:

Homonyms are spelled the same. Homophones sound the same, but can have different spellings. Homonyms are all homophones, but not necessarily vice versa.

theslyestfox:

It’s a homonym because a homonyms is actually two words that sound the same but have different spellings, origins or meanings (not two words with the same spelling, as you said). Like meat/meet, two/too/to or your/you’re. “You’re” is a contraction, but “your” is not…and they are homonyms for each other. In the future you might want to check up on the dictionary definition of the word you’re claiming someone used incorrectly before you wrongly call them out.

submariner:

How is this a homonym? Homonyms are two words with the same spelling, which this is not. This is a contraction. So yes, the misuse, or lack of use of this contraction is quite irritating. However, I believe YOU’RE mistaken in YOUR choice of referring to this error as a “misused homonym,” when what you mean is a misused or mistakenly unused contraction. Unless, for some reason you are referencing people who mistakenly believe that the misuse of ‘your’ as ‘you’re’ is actually a homonym. Here, I would agree. Bravo.

theslyestfox:

bearslair:

bsqv:

you know how sometimes you’ve got a back ache and then you go to the chiropractor and they crunch your back and all of a sudden everything’s golden?  that’s how i felt when i saw this and realized someone with the power of big fonts backing them shares my abhorrence for misused homonyms.  bravo, wordboner.  YOU’RE pretty great.

sweetdreamssweetcheeks:wordboner: (also check out #1) (click for tees) (and #1 tees)

Oh man, you have no idea how much this bothers me.  If you use it wrong in a sentence you immediately lose intelligence points on the Blair scale.

thirded. It makes me cringe, and I’d probably think twice about dating someone I was attracted to if they did this. Or the they’re/their/there one. Its/it’s is lightly more forgivable, because it’s the opposite of normal rules that state the apostrophe is used in the possissive form, and I used to always get them mixed up.

How is this a homonym? Homonyms are two words with the same spelling, which this is not. This is a contraction. So yes, the misuse, or lack of use of this contraction is quite irritating. However, I believe YOU’RE mistaken in YOUR choice of referring to this error as a “misused homonym,” when what you mean is a misused or mistakenly unused contraction. Unless, for some reason you are referencing people who mistakenly believe that the misuse of ‘your’ as ‘you’re’ is actually a homonym. Here, I would agree. Bravo.

theslyestfox:

bearslair:

bsqv:

you know how sometimes you’ve got a back ache and then you go to the chiropractor and they crunch your back and all of a sudden everything’s golden?  that’s how i felt when i saw this and realized someone with the power of big fonts backing them shares my abhorrence for misused homonyms.  bravo, wordboner.  YOU’RE pretty great.

sweetdreamssweetcheeks:wordboner: (also check out #1) (click for tees) (and #1 tees)

Oh man, you have no idea how much this bothers me.  If you use it wrong in a sentence you immediately lose intelligence points on the Blair scale.

thirded. It makes me cringe, and I’d probably think twice about dating someone I was attracted to if they did this. Or the they’re/their/there one. Its/it’s is lightly more forgivable, because it’s the opposite of normal rules that state the apostrophe is used in the possissive form, and I used to always get them mixed up.

GPOYW (2): eating two mchicken edition. 

GPOYW: relaxin’ and listening to New Order edition.