3 ms·

> Edit: [linguistic relativism] Their, they're and there are commonly misused, but that doesn't change what each means.

• mindcrime 4y ago
  but that doesn't change what each means. It does if it happens often enough, and if people accept it as such. See: "literally now literally means figuratively" and other such apparent madness. Of course you, or I, or anyone else can refuse to accept such changes, but at the end of the day we really have nothing firmer to stand on than "I don't like it."
  • LarryMullins 4y ago
    "I left my bag over they're" is simply wrong. Bury your [you're??] head in the sand if you want, it's still wrong.
    • amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      Yeah, but that's just spelling, which in English is pretty fucked.
      • LarryMullins 4y ago
        Both there/they're and corporal/corporeal seem to be [near] homophone swaps. It's an easy enough mistake to make, but still a mistake.
    • mindcrime 4y ago
      "I left my bag over they're" is simply wrong. For now, yes. 110 years from now? Who knows? Personally I find myself chafing at some of changes that have become prevalent just in my lifetime, but I really don't want to be the old guy yelling "you kids get off my lawn" or whatever. So I grin and bear it and remind myself that "language changes, and it doesn't care what I think about it." :-)