# "your not"? "you not"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2001, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082 "2001-11-08T00:20:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![phartizan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba8739/32.png) [@phartizan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phartizan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082/21 "2001-12-01T15:09:58Z")
I have little trouble with English in practice, but can’t explain it in grammatical terms, so I’m sympathetic to those who don’t get it. I’m guessing that they see the word “gerund”, and skip over it as excessively technical. Tell ‘em it’s a noun, and they may think [sub]it don’t look like no friggin’ noun[/sub] I’m not sure this helps: > [@](#): > > **[Gerunds](http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/028.html) are verb forms ending in -ing that act as nouns…** > [@](#): > > **Some people insist that when aa noun or pronoun modifies a [gerund](http://www.bartleby.com/68/38/2738.html) (I don’t like his driving so fast, rather than I don’t like him driving so fast…) was long required in English classes. But for some time now either the genitive (possessive) or the objective case has also been Standard before gerunds, although Formal writing may use a bit more genitive with pronouns than it does with nouns. Native speakers can now trust their ears.** WTF? Does that mean you can say “We appreciate you not smoking”? And native English speakers: be careful about trusting your ears. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082/22 "2001-12-01T15:23:19Z")
Trusting your ears is great advice for daily understanding of grammar. The best definition I ever heard was “a grammatical structure is one which a native speaker of the language would use and would agree sounds correct.” Here’s where people get in trouble with that: they say things like “I hear people saying ‘ain’t’ all the time and I know what it means, therefore it’s grammatical.” Sure, on a certain level. It’s grammatical for very informal uses. As a rule, when someone asks whether something is “grammatical” or not, they don’t want to know whether it’s grammatical for very informal uses, they want to know whether it’s grammatical for standard (i.e., relatively formal) use. So, yes, if you are a native speaker, you can trust your ears. Until you get into something that confuses you and makes you worry you’re not saying it correctly. Then you should trust the rules of grammar, such as they are. Good point, **phartizan**! Oh, and no, it does not mean you can say “We appreciate you not smoking,” which is still an ungrammatical structure. I think what [bartleby.com](http://bartleby.com) is saying is that _in certain structures_, using the nominative (“you”) instead of the genitive (“your”) does not create an ungrammatical structure and thus is equally acceptable. I say, aren’t there enough exceptions in grammar already? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![phartizan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba8739/32.png) [@phartizan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phartizan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082/23 "2001-12-01T15:31:23Z")
According to the [first link](http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/028.html), most grammarians didn’t accept a sentence where the negative not intervened between the pronoun and the gerund. I’m ain’t so sure about trustin’ you’re ear’s. 😃 And if you’re not careful, you may label yourself as uneducated. It depends on the context. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082/24 "2001-12-01T16:00:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by phartizan \* > And if you’re not careful, you may label yourself as uneducated. It depends on the context. Truer words were never spoke. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082/25 "2001-12-01T18:14:26Z")
As I understood it, the direct object in such sentences can be either (a) a gerund, the -ing form of a verb functioning as a noun, which can be modified by a possessive pronoun (_your_) functioning as an adjective, or (b) a noun clause (phrase?) in which the gerund functions as verb and can take a subject, i.e., _you_. The context of the _main verb_ indicates which form would be correct. Therefore, if the action described by the gerund is what is being appreciated, forbidden, etc., then form (a) is correct; if the totality of the noun clause is prohibited (“Children under 18 riding bikes,” where adults riding bikes, children riding horses, or mahouts riding elephants are not specified), then the “you” form is in fact correct. Almost always, the “your” form with the gerund proper as the direct object best describes the situation, and is the proper form to use. ---
**Author:** ![DopeyDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@DopeyDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DopeyDave)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082/26 "2001-12-02T01:59:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KneadToKnow \* > **… a rule of English grammar which states that more often than not, the next noun (or nominative) after the transitive verb is its object (barring formations which require indirect objects, but that’s a whole other lesson :)). In the ungrammatical formation, “you” is the next nominative after the verb and would therefore appear to be the object, leaving “not smoking” as a meaningless structure within the sentence… Simplify it a little bit by replacing the nominative “not smoking” with the nominative “kindness” and I think you’ll see immediately that “your” is the only grammatical option.** _(my underlining)_ I agree with KneadToKnow’s argument, but I am certain the word should be ‘ **objective** ’, not ‘nominative’. A transitive verb always takes an _object_. If the sentence in question were ‘They appreciate my not smoking’, the choice would be between ‘me’ and ‘my’, and ‘me’ is indisputably the objective case of ‘I’. The word ‘you’ can be either nominative or objective. On the effectiveness of the wording I am undecided. If the construction seems strange or fussy to all but a few pedants, then that favors rewording. On the other hand, there is a succinct courtesy in the current wording that would be lost in the other suggestions made so far. For example, ‘Please, no smoking’ does not seem to acknowledge or value – to my mind – that there is a choice, to refrain from smoking. ‘Thank you for not smoking’ is possibly a better wording, especially as it uses simpler words, but it might appear to be presumptuous – it assumes the person is not smoking, whereas the original wording does not, and its directness could work against it: people could say, ‘Well, thank you, buddy! but I’m a-gonna smoke anyhow!’ I trust that the sign designers researched their market. In any case, their wording does help retain a logical form. Surely that’s something! ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082/27 "2001-12-02T15:20:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DopeyDave \* > I am certain the word should be ‘ **objective** ’, not ‘nominative’ I meant _nominative_ in the sense of a word performing the function of a noun, even if it is not inherently a noun, not _nominative_ as a case, as opposed to _genitive_ or _objective_. In looking this up in a couple of dictionaries, though, I see that I appear to have conflated the two words _nominal_ and _substantive_. Good catch, \*_DopeyDave_! Thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-not-you-not/92082.md?page=1)