How can some people struggle to grasp even the most simple and clearly-defined of all facts? I mean, sure, I'm not expecting every average Joe Bloggs on the street to be able to give me a concise summary of Newton's laws of motion, nor for them to be able to bang out the clarinet part to Beethoven's 9th on demand, though I think some things shouldn't be above what one might expect someone of average intelligence that you stop on the street to be able to do. First and foremost amongst these, in my books, is proper use of the English language.

I was shown today an example of atrocious grammar and spelling, whose transgression I shall not reveal for obvious reasons. (Not that they'd even know who they were, so they won't even know this is being directed towards them - thus, I implore anyone who has ever misspelled anything ever to pay heed for I may well be talking about you.) However, I felt, in light of this magnanimous display of ineptitude to redefine a few immensely simple concepts that I've had mastery of since well before I even knew the Internet existed.

Your, You're

These two always manage to rile me up when people mistake them - mainly because they're so immensely different. Your defines the possession by a singular or multiple third party in direct address. For example: This is your mistake. You're, however is short for 'you are' and does not have any possessive qualities in itself whatsoever. For example: You're a cretin. Yore is another matter altogether, and 'ur' does not even constitute a word, though is a proper noun if used in reference to the ancient Mesopotamian city. Chances are, however, if you use the word 'ur' that you won't have the foggiest where or what Mesopotamia is.

For note, the same applies with 'theirs' and 'there's', also 'whose' and 'who's' which can be substituted mutatis mutandis into the first few sentences of the above paragraph.

They're, There, Their

As with above, they're implies omission of letters, shortening 'they are' into a single word by use of the magical device we with IQs larger than that of the average German Shepherd folk call an apostrophe. There is a demonstrative pronoun to stand in for any proper noun or direction, whilst also having the additional function of being an imprecise location over yonder. Their, however, implies ownership again. The three are not related other than being homophones, and ought not to be confused.

"I couldn't of...[sic]"

It's mildly amusing (on the same level that one might experience should they realise that an elderly relative has just told an embarrassing story from their childhood) that I put [sic] after the quote, as that's precisely how it makes me feel to write such a crude perversion of English. The sentence above, if you haven't realised already, should read 'I couldn't have'. I mean, how is it possible to mix the words 'of' and 'have' up? Do I go into a chemist and ask for "a box have that"? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I have an ounce of sense about my person.

Linguistically, conditional sentences demand an auxiliary verb which, in any Indo-European language, will most likely take the form of 'to have' or 'to be'. Last I checked, 'of' was not an auxiliary verb, nor a conjugation of one and so I think I'll go ahead and use the proper conjunction if it's all the same with you. Even if it's not I still will.

(Oh yes: I'm back.)

Gaz out.