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.
![You will pay for this [Salo Comics]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/859bd19d-fce2-49f3-8146-bdeab35d1216.jpeg){kind=link}
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”.
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?
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.