The reason it feels wrong is that “are” is the main verb in the sentence and shouldn’t be contracted. You are only supposed to contract auxiliary verbs like “you’re eating already” where eating is the main verb and are is auxiliary.
Edit: (I used a bad example because “eating” is a noun, as pointed out below.)
Un-edit: The example’s correct, “eating” is a verb in this context.
Also, I’m thoroughly confused about who’s saying “you’re already” in this comic.
Yes. It doesn’t work as “you’re already” and really, it doesn’t work all thay well as “you are already” either. This is almost yoda levels of rearrangement.
Yup, this is likely a phonological restriction in addition to a syntactic one, though it’s worth noting that the copula (the “be” verb) shows a lot of idiosyncratic behavior in different contexts in different dialects of English.
It seems that this pattern may have something to do with stress assignment within a predicate, but I’m not sure what the conditioning environment is at first glance. Any English phonologists here who can shed some more light on this?
I’m no expert, but I think “you’re already” doesn’t work because the “anti-stress” on the contraction tells us the focus is later, but the focus of “already” is actually on the “are” in “you’re”. It trips us up because it sneaks the focus past us and then just ends the sentence before the focus the stress told us about arrives.
It may also be because “you are already” is a variant of the sentence “you are” which can’t be contracted, so the contraction insinuates “you’re already [something]”. It makes us parse a different sentence structure than it is, then we get confused when the sentence ends early.
I think your example is actually correct. Eating CAN be a noun, but in your example it is a present participle, a type of verb. It would be a noun if eating was the subject, ie: “eating is fun,” where it would be a gerund.
https://teacherblog.ef.com/grammar-recap-intro-to-gerunds-and-infinitives/
The fact that you seem to not have seen this before indicates that you cannot actually always contract ‘you’ and ‘are’. ‘Cannot’ in the sense that most people don’t do it and you will get grades deducted if you do it when learning English as a second language.
I retract the word ‘indicate.’ It’s not proof, but if you haven’t seen a phrase before, despite n years of reading and/or speaking a language, it means that that phrase is uncommon. If that phrase also looks like it should be used more (I’m referring to “you’re” being very common in different sentence structures), that’s a strong hint that the phrase doesn’t exist or has some very different meaning in that context.
I wasn’t trying to imply that contracting is always wrong. Rather, it is not always right.
In the case of “it’s what it’s”, the “it is” part is being stressed, so contracting it is weird.
This is why I find contracting “You are already“ weird. To me, the stress is on the are. However, after reading and re-reading the statement in my head, I can feel people stressing the already instead. To those, “You’re already” would probably be fine.
![You will pay for this [Salo Comics]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/859bd19d-fce2-49f3-8146-bdeab35d1216.jpeg){kind=link}
“You’re already” makes sense as a sentence and I don’t like it lol
It’s what it’s
Y’all’s opinions are irrelevant here. We are enemies now.
I don’t understand what yinz guys is sayin
Youse people…
Don’t start with that philly jawn
Philly? I do hope you’re kidding
Not kidding, just ignorant 😞
Ha! That’s Pittsburghese, friend!
I realized my faux pas TOO LATE! I got my yinz and jawn all mixed up!
Y’all’sis perfectly good Texan though.deleted by creator
That’s not better… just different
Not much offense, I was born and raised in Texas. Happy as fuck to not be there now
deleted by creator
twitch
I threw up in my dictionary
The reason it feels wrong is that “are” is the main verb in the sentence and shouldn’t be contracted. You are only supposed to contract auxiliary verbs like “you’re eating already” where eating is the main verb and are is auxiliary.
Edit: (I used a bad example because “eating” is a noun, as pointed out below.)Un-edit: The example’s correct, “eating” is a verb in this context.
Also, I’m thoroughly confused about who’s saying “you’re already” in this comic.
But “You’re already fluffy” works without another main verb?
Yes. It doesn’t work as “you’re already” and really, it doesn’t work all thay well as “you are already” either. This is almost yoda levels of rearrangement.
It makes the most sense as “you already are”.
Right you’re
Yup, this is likely a phonological restriction in addition to a syntactic one, though it’s worth noting that the copula (the “be” verb) shows a lot of idiosyncratic behavior in different contexts in different dialects of English.
It seems that this pattern may have something to do with stress assignment within a predicate, but I’m not sure what the conditioning environment is at first glance. Any English phonologists here who can shed some more light on this?
I’m no expert, but I think “you’re already” doesn’t work because the “anti-stress” on the contraction tells us the focus is later, but the focus of “already” is actually on the “are” in “you’re”. It trips us up because it sneaks the focus past us and then just ends the sentence before the focus the stress told us about arrives.
It may also be because “you are already” is a variant of the sentence “you are” which can’t be contracted, so the contraction insinuates “you’re already [something]”. It makes us parse a different sentence structure than it is, then we get confused when the sentence ends early.
deleted by creator
“Eating” isn’t a verb, either. The person you’re responding to just got some terms wrong, the underlying idea about contractions is correct.
“Eating” most definitely is a verb in that context
Good point, thanks I removed the “eating” example. That’s what I get for commenting in the morning.
I think your example is actually correct. Eating CAN be a noun, but in your example it is a present participle, a type of verb. It would be a noun if eating was the subject, ie: “eating is fun,” where it would be a gerund. https://teacherblog.ef.com/grammar-recap-intro-to-gerunds-and-infinitives/
Sigh I think you’re right. It’s the progressive form of the verb.
That’s been throwing me off all day. Thanks for confirming. Grammar is confusing.
Its obviously the cat’s ass, which explains its facial expression.
His knee?
Also, is the cat saying it? The speak marker points to the cat on the third frame not the dude on the third or fourth.
It is wrong: should be “You are already”, as the emphasis of the sentence is on “are”
https://youtu.be/CkZyZFa5qO0
Yeah but I think it’s not a full sentence because she smacks him before he can finish the sentence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
The fact that you seem to not have seen this before indicates that you cannot actually always contract ‘you’ and ‘are’. ‘Cannot’ in the sense that most people don’t do it and you will get grades deducted if you do it when learning English as a second language.
I’m still re-reading this sentence. How does not having seen this before indicate what you can or can not do?
I love how they are trying to correct bad grammar with even worse grammar
🤡
Both of these are perfectly grammatical in modern English though?
It’s poor sentence structure
By what objective metric?
They don’t think it be like it is, but it do
Now that I re-read it, I’m pretty sure the second one should be “actually cannot always”.
I retract the word ‘indicate.’ It’s not proof, but if you haven’t seen a phrase before, despite n years of reading and/or speaking a language, it means that that phrase is uncommon. If that phrase also looks like it should be used more (I’m referring to “you’re” being very common in different sentence structures), that’s a strong hint that the phrase doesn’t exist or has some very different meaning in that context.
Because language is a thing that everyone agrees on, together. If nobody else is using the words like that, maybe you shouldn’t either.
This is the line I am referring to, not any specific word. This sentence is nonsensical:
“The fact you seem to not have seen this before indicates…” followed by “that you cannot always contract ‘you’ and ‘are.’”
How are those related? If someone hasn’t seen this before… it indicates … grammar rules? How does not seeing it indicate a grammar rule?
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I wasn’t trying to imply that contracting is always wrong. Rather, it is not always right.
This is why I find contracting “You are already“ weird. To me, the stress is on the are. However, after reading and re-reading the statement in my head, I can feel people stressing the already instead. To those, “You’re already” would probably be fine.
deleted by creator
No, “cannot” is the more formal way to write it.
deleted by creator