“You and your” vs. “Your and your”
Which is correct, and why?
identifying you and your competitors’ relative market performance
or
identifying your and your competitors’ relative market performance
Each entity is in possession of “relative market performance”, so I think grammar dictates both be your, but it sounds godawful.
word-choice possessives compound-possessives
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
add a comment |
Which is correct, and why?
identifying you and your competitors’ relative market performance
or
identifying your and your competitors’ relative market performance
Each entity is in possession of “relative market performance”, so I think grammar dictates both be your, but it sounds godawful.
word-choice possessives compound-possessives
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
1
Godawful is in the eye of the beholder, but either way I'll take godawful over plain ungrammatical anytime. I mean, you could go ahead and replace the first your with a vush, which is Russian for "your", and you would avoid repetition, but you'd also avoid making any sense. Same goes for replacing your with any other word. English is just crazy like that — when you mean your, you have to say your.
– RegDwigнt♦
Jan 18 '13 at 19:56
possible duplicate of "Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."
– FumbleFingers
Jan 18 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
Which is correct, and why?
identifying you and your competitors’ relative market performance
or
identifying your and your competitors’ relative market performance
Each entity is in possession of “relative market performance”, so I think grammar dictates both be your, but it sounds godawful.
word-choice possessives compound-possessives
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
Which is correct, and why?
identifying you and your competitors’ relative market performance
or
identifying your and your competitors’ relative market performance
Each entity is in possession of “relative market performance”, so I think grammar dictates both be your, but it sounds godawful.
word-choice possessives compound-possessives
word-choice possessives compound-possessives
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
edited 2 days ago
tchrist♦
108k28290463
108k28290463
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
asked Jan 18 '13 at 19:47
Pete
140116
140116
1
Godawful is in the eye of the beholder, but either way I'll take godawful over plain ungrammatical anytime. I mean, you could go ahead and replace the first your with a vush, which is Russian for "your", and you would avoid repetition, but you'd also avoid making any sense. Same goes for replacing your with any other word. English is just crazy like that — when you mean your, you have to say your.
– RegDwigнt♦
Jan 18 '13 at 19:56
possible duplicate of "Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."
– FumbleFingers
Jan 18 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
1
Godawful is in the eye of the beholder, but either way I'll take godawful over plain ungrammatical anytime. I mean, you could go ahead and replace the first your with a vush, which is Russian for "your", and you would avoid repetition, but you'd also avoid making any sense. Same goes for replacing your with any other word. English is just crazy like that — when you mean your, you have to say your.
– RegDwigнt♦
Jan 18 '13 at 19:56
possible duplicate of "Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."
– FumbleFingers
Jan 18 '13 at 22:22
1
1
Godawful is in the eye of the beholder, but either way I'll take godawful over plain ungrammatical anytime. I mean, you could go ahead and replace the first your with a vush, which is Russian for "your", and you would avoid repetition, but you'd also avoid making any sense. Same goes for replacing your with any other word. English is just crazy like that — when you mean your, you have to say your.
– RegDwigнt♦
Jan 18 '13 at 19:56
Godawful is in the eye of the beholder, but either way I'll take godawful over plain ungrammatical anytime. I mean, you could go ahead and replace the first your with a vush, which is Russian for "your", and you would avoid repetition, but you'd also avoid making any sense. Same goes for replacing your with any other word. English is just crazy like that — when you mean your, you have to say your.
– RegDwigнt♦
Jan 18 '13 at 19:56
possible duplicate of "Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."
– FumbleFingers
Jan 18 '13 at 22:22
possible duplicate of "Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."
– FumbleFingers
Jan 18 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
It has to be your and your. If you don’t like it, you can say something like ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance as well as your own.’
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
1
Howsabout "...identifying the relative market performance of you and your competitors...
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:07
@Pete. That might do. There is an ellipted of before 'your competitors'.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:08
Would the inclusion of the ellipted of signify the exclusive possession of relative market performance for each entity ("you" and "your")? Could its omission signify the market performance is relative between the entities, i.e., a comparison? Comparison is definitely involved in the source.
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:21
@Pete. Then say ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance compared with your own.’ Much, as always, depends on context, and on the knowledge which the writer shares with the reader.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:30
1
I'd consider just adding apostrophes to make it "...your, and your competitors', relative...". The sense comes to the same, but the pause breaks up the repetition.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 18 '13 at 20:54
|
show 2 more comments
I think that the phrase
your and your competitors’ relative market performance
is a pretty odd fish in the first place—because performance comes out singular here even though the actual subject being discussed is at least two instances of performance (yours and your competitors', the latter of which may be tracked as a set of grouped and averaged numbers or as multiple sets of individual numbers, one for each competitor) considered relative to each other.
In the more normal case, the noun at the end of the phrase would be plural, as in
your and your girlfriend's fathers
and most people (I suspect) would feel absolutely no temptation to express that relationship as
you and your girlfriend's fathers
or
your and your girlfriend's father
or
you and your girlfriend's father
So the real culprit here is "relative performance," which invites us to understand it as referring to one performance that both you and your competitors share, rather than as referring to two (or more) sets of performance data matched against one another. The expression is idiomatically legitimate—indeed, completely normal—but that doesn't make it any less of an impediment to recognizing the real-world comparison that underlies the expression in this instance.
Even in that case, however, any inclination to choose against the replicated possessive in "your and your competitors'" recedes if we recast the conversation as being about matching our performance and our competitors' performance. Would anyone argue in favor of
identifying us and our competitors’ relative market performance
as against
identifying our and our competitors’ relative market performance
? I wouldn't. That the wording is "your and your competitors'" instead of "our and our competitors'" is of no syntactical importance to whether the first word should take the form of a possessive.
I can't think of any plausible argument for adopting the wording "you and your competitor's market performance" or "us and our competitor's market performance" in preference to "your and your competitor's market performance" or "our and our competitor's market performance."
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
add a comment |
In almost all such cases, rephrasing would both sound better and make more sense. "You and your competitors' relative market performance...." vs "your relative market performance and that of your competitors."
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
add a comment |
Most of the difficulty here is that the choice isn’t between ‘your and your… ’… it’s between ‘your and your competitors’…
Beyond that, try treating it like the hoary-old ‘I or me…’ and simplify it by dropping one of the parties.
Does ‘… your (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
Does ‘… your competitors’ (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
If they really seem too ugly when you put them back together, slip in a comma to change the impact…
‘… your, and your competitors’…’
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
add a comment |
I'm not sure about the above answers: one of the unique facets of the English lanugage is that there is no accepted codable manual of English grammar like there is for say French or Spanish. This allows the acceptability of certain grammatical trends to change over time, such as "who vs whom" and "he/she" vs "they" for the ungendered third person. I believe this question is one of those cases: it is MUCH more natural to say "You and your competitor's _____" and even sounds natural, to be honest. Saying "me and his dog" does not sound natural, on the contrary, so I would not say it is acceptable. It also follow that "you and your" as such flow so naturally that the "r" that should technically be at the end of the first you is simply dropped and implied. It sounds terribly awkward to say "your and your" IMO, even if it is technically correct.
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
Please consider adding some references and line breaks to you your answer.
– Helmar
Jan 11 '17 at 7:44
add a comment |
protected by tchrist♦ Apr 14 '17 at 21:53
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It has to be your and your. If you don’t like it, you can say something like ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance as well as your own.’
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
1
Howsabout "...identifying the relative market performance of you and your competitors...
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:07
@Pete. That might do. There is an ellipted of before 'your competitors'.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:08
Would the inclusion of the ellipted of signify the exclusive possession of relative market performance for each entity ("you" and "your")? Could its omission signify the market performance is relative between the entities, i.e., a comparison? Comparison is definitely involved in the source.
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:21
@Pete. Then say ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance compared with your own.’ Much, as always, depends on context, and on the knowledge which the writer shares with the reader.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:30
1
I'd consider just adding apostrophes to make it "...your, and your competitors', relative...". The sense comes to the same, but the pause breaks up the repetition.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 18 '13 at 20:54
|
show 2 more comments
It has to be your and your. If you don’t like it, you can say something like ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance as well as your own.’
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
1
Howsabout "...identifying the relative market performance of you and your competitors...
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:07
@Pete. That might do. There is an ellipted of before 'your competitors'.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:08
Would the inclusion of the ellipted of signify the exclusive possession of relative market performance for each entity ("you" and "your")? Could its omission signify the market performance is relative between the entities, i.e., a comparison? Comparison is definitely involved in the source.
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:21
@Pete. Then say ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance compared with your own.’ Much, as always, depends on context, and on the knowledge which the writer shares with the reader.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:30
1
I'd consider just adding apostrophes to make it "...your, and your competitors', relative...". The sense comes to the same, but the pause breaks up the repetition.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 18 '13 at 20:54
|
show 2 more comments
It has to be your and your. If you don’t like it, you can say something like ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance as well as your own.’
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
It has to be your and your. If you don’t like it, you can say something like ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance as well as your own.’
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
answered Jan 18 '13 at 19:57
Barrie England
128k10202347
128k10202347
1
Howsabout "...identifying the relative market performance of you and your competitors...
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:07
@Pete. That might do. There is an ellipted of before 'your competitors'.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:08
Would the inclusion of the ellipted of signify the exclusive possession of relative market performance for each entity ("you" and "your")? Could its omission signify the market performance is relative between the entities, i.e., a comparison? Comparison is definitely involved in the source.
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:21
@Pete. Then say ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance compared with your own.’ Much, as always, depends on context, and on the knowledge which the writer shares with the reader.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:30
1
I'd consider just adding apostrophes to make it "...your, and your competitors', relative...". The sense comes to the same, but the pause breaks up the repetition.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 18 '13 at 20:54
|
show 2 more comments
1
Howsabout "...identifying the relative market performance of you and your competitors...
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:07
@Pete. That might do. There is an ellipted of before 'your competitors'.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:08
Would the inclusion of the ellipted of signify the exclusive possession of relative market performance for each entity ("you" and "your")? Could its omission signify the market performance is relative between the entities, i.e., a comparison? Comparison is definitely involved in the source.
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:21
@Pete. Then say ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance compared with your own.’ Much, as always, depends on context, and on the knowledge which the writer shares with the reader.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:30
1
I'd consider just adding apostrophes to make it "...your, and your competitors', relative...". The sense comes to the same, but the pause breaks up the repetition.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 18 '13 at 20:54
1
1
Howsabout "...identifying the relative market performance of you and your competitors...
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:07
Howsabout "...identifying the relative market performance of you and your competitors...
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:07
@Pete. That might do. There is an ellipted of before 'your competitors'.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:08
@Pete. That might do. There is an ellipted of before 'your competitors'.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:08
Would the inclusion of the ellipted of signify the exclusive possession of relative market performance for each entity ("you" and "your")? Could its omission signify the market performance is relative between the entities, i.e., a comparison? Comparison is definitely involved in the source.
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:21
Would the inclusion of the ellipted of signify the exclusive possession of relative market performance for each entity ("you" and "your")? Could its omission signify the market performance is relative between the entities, i.e., a comparison? Comparison is definitely involved in the source.
– Pete
Jan 18 '13 at 20:21
@Pete. Then say ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance compared with your own.’ Much, as always, depends on context, and on the knowledge which the writer shares with the reader.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:30
@Pete. Then say ‘...identifying your competitors' relative market performance compared with your own.’ Much, as always, depends on context, and on the knowledge which the writer shares with the reader.
– Barrie England
Jan 18 '13 at 20:30
1
1
I'd consider just adding apostrophes to make it "...your, and your competitors', relative...". The sense comes to the same, but the pause breaks up the repetition.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 18 '13 at 20:54
I'd consider just adding apostrophes to make it "...your, and your competitors', relative...". The sense comes to the same, but the pause breaks up the repetition.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 18 '13 at 20:54
|
show 2 more comments
I think that the phrase
your and your competitors’ relative market performance
is a pretty odd fish in the first place—because performance comes out singular here even though the actual subject being discussed is at least two instances of performance (yours and your competitors', the latter of which may be tracked as a set of grouped and averaged numbers or as multiple sets of individual numbers, one for each competitor) considered relative to each other.
In the more normal case, the noun at the end of the phrase would be plural, as in
your and your girlfriend's fathers
and most people (I suspect) would feel absolutely no temptation to express that relationship as
you and your girlfriend's fathers
or
your and your girlfriend's father
or
you and your girlfriend's father
So the real culprit here is "relative performance," which invites us to understand it as referring to one performance that both you and your competitors share, rather than as referring to two (or more) sets of performance data matched against one another. The expression is idiomatically legitimate—indeed, completely normal—but that doesn't make it any less of an impediment to recognizing the real-world comparison that underlies the expression in this instance.
Even in that case, however, any inclination to choose against the replicated possessive in "your and your competitors'" recedes if we recast the conversation as being about matching our performance and our competitors' performance. Would anyone argue in favor of
identifying us and our competitors’ relative market performance
as against
identifying our and our competitors’ relative market performance
? I wouldn't. That the wording is "your and your competitors'" instead of "our and our competitors'" is of no syntactical importance to whether the first word should take the form of a possessive.
I can't think of any plausible argument for adopting the wording "you and your competitor's market performance" or "us and our competitor's market performance" in preference to "your and your competitor's market performance" or "our and our competitor's market performance."
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
add a comment |
I think that the phrase
your and your competitors’ relative market performance
is a pretty odd fish in the first place—because performance comes out singular here even though the actual subject being discussed is at least two instances of performance (yours and your competitors', the latter of which may be tracked as a set of grouped and averaged numbers or as multiple sets of individual numbers, one for each competitor) considered relative to each other.
In the more normal case, the noun at the end of the phrase would be plural, as in
your and your girlfriend's fathers
and most people (I suspect) would feel absolutely no temptation to express that relationship as
you and your girlfriend's fathers
or
your and your girlfriend's father
or
you and your girlfriend's father
So the real culprit here is "relative performance," which invites us to understand it as referring to one performance that both you and your competitors share, rather than as referring to two (or more) sets of performance data matched against one another. The expression is idiomatically legitimate—indeed, completely normal—but that doesn't make it any less of an impediment to recognizing the real-world comparison that underlies the expression in this instance.
Even in that case, however, any inclination to choose against the replicated possessive in "your and your competitors'" recedes if we recast the conversation as being about matching our performance and our competitors' performance. Would anyone argue in favor of
identifying us and our competitors’ relative market performance
as against
identifying our and our competitors’ relative market performance
? I wouldn't. That the wording is "your and your competitors'" instead of "our and our competitors'" is of no syntactical importance to whether the first word should take the form of a possessive.
I can't think of any plausible argument for adopting the wording "you and your competitor's market performance" or "us and our competitor's market performance" in preference to "your and your competitor's market performance" or "our and our competitor's market performance."
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
add a comment |
I think that the phrase
your and your competitors’ relative market performance
is a pretty odd fish in the first place—because performance comes out singular here even though the actual subject being discussed is at least two instances of performance (yours and your competitors', the latter of which may be tracked as a set of grouped and averaged numbers or as multiple sets of individual numbers, one for each competitor) considered relative to each other.
In the more normal case, the noun at the end of the phrase would be plural, as in
your and your girlfriend's fathers
and most people (I suspect) would feel absolutely no temptation to express that relationship as
you and your girlfriend's fathers
or
your and your girlfriend's father
or
you and your girlfriend's father
So the real culprit here is "relative performance," which invites us to understand it as referring to one performance that both you and your competitors share, rather than as referring to two (or more) sets of performance data matched against one another. The expression is idiomatically legitimate—indeed, completely normal—but that doesn't make it any less of an impediment to recognizing the real-world comparison that underlies the expression in this instance.
Even in that case, however, any inclination to choose against the replicated possessive in "your and your competitors'" recedes if we recast the conversation as being about matching our performance and our competitors' performance. Would anyone argue in favor of
identifying us and our competitors’ relative market performance
as against
identifying our and our competitors’ relative market performance
? I wouldn't. That the wording is "your and your competitors'" instead of "our and our competitors'" is of no syntactical importance to whether the first word should take the form of a possessive.
I can't think of any plausible argument for adopting the wording "you and your competitor's market performance" or "us and our competitor's market performance" in preference to "your and your competitor's market performance" or "our and our competitor's market performance."
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
I think that the phrase
your and your competitors’ relative market performance
is a pretty odd fish in the first place—because performance comes out singular here even though the actual subject being discussed is at least two instances of performance (yours and your competitors', the latter of which may be tracked as a set of grouped and averaged numbers or as multiple sets of individual numbers, one for each competitor) considered relative to each other.
In the more normal case, the noun at the end of the phrase would be plural, as in
your and your girlfriend's fathers
and most people (I suspect) would feel absolutely no temptation to express that relationship as
you and your girlfriend's fathers
or
your and your girlfriend's father
or
you and your girlfriend's father
So the real culprit here is "relative performance," which invites us to understand it as referring to one performance that both you and your competitors share, rather than as referring to two (or more) sets of performance data matched against one another. The expression is idiomatically legitimate—indeed, completely normal—but that doesn't make it any less of an impediment to recognizing the real-world comparison that underlies the expression in this instance.
Even in that case, however, any inclination to choose against the replicated possessive in "your and your competitors'" recedes if we recast the conversation as being about matching our performance and our competitors' performance. Would anyone argue in favor of
identifying us and our competitors’ relative market performance
as against
identifying our and our competitors’ relative market performance
? I wouldn't. That the wording is "your and your competitors'" instead of "our and our competitors'" is of no syntactical importance to whether the first word should take the form of a possessive.
I can't think of any plausible argument for adopting the wording "you and your competitor's market performance" or "us and our competitor's market performance" in preference to "your and your competitor's market performance" or "our and our competitor's market performance."
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
answered Jan 11 '17 at 7:36
Sven Yargs
111k18236494
111k18236494
add a comment |
add a comment |
In almost all such cases, rephrasing would both sound better and make more sense. "You and your competitors' relative market performance...." vs "your relative market performance and that of your competitors."
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
add a comment |
In almost all such cases, rephrasing would both sound better and make more sense. "You and your competitors' relative market performance...." vs "your relative market performance and that of your competitors."
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
add a comment |
In almost all such cases, rephrasing would both sound better and make more sense. "You and your competitors' relative market performance...." vs "your relative market performance and that of your competitors."
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
In almost all such cases, rephrasing would both sound better and make more sense. "You and your competitors' relative market performance...." vs "your relative market performance and that of your competitors."
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
answered Apr 14 '17 at 21:42
D. Joseph Ammel
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Most of the difficulty here is that the choice isn’t between ‘your and your… ’… it’s between ‘your and your competitors’…
Beyond that, try treating it like the hoary-old ‘I or me…’ and simplify it by dropping one of the parties.
Does ‘… your (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
Does ‘… your competitors’ (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
If they really seem too ugly when you put them back together, slip in a comma to change the impact…
‘… your, and your competitors’…’
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
add a comment |
Most of the difficulty here is that the choice isn’t between ‘your and your… ’… it’s between ‘your and your competitors’…
Beyond that, try treating it like the hoary-old ‘I or me…’ and simplify it by dropping one of the parties.
Does ‘… your (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
Does ‘… your competitors’ (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
If they really seem too ugly when you put them back together, slip in a comma to change the impact…
‘… your, and your competitors’…’
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
add a comment |
Most of the difficulty here is that the choice isn’t between ‘your and your… ’… it’s between ‘your and your competitors’…
Beyond that, try treating it like the hoary-old ‘I or me…’ and simplify it by dropping one of the parties.
Does ‘… your (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
Does ‘… your competitors’ (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
If they really seem too ugly when you put them back together, slip in a comma to change the impact…
‘… your, and your competitors’…’
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
Most of the difficulty here is that the choice isn’t between ‘your and your… ’… it’s between ‘your and your competitors’…
Beyond that, try treating it like the hoary-old ‘I or me…’ and simplify it by dropping one of the parties.
Does ‘… your (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
Does ‘… your competitors’ (relative) market performance’ by itself seem correct?
If they really seem too ugly when you put them back together, slip in a comma to change the impact…
‘… your, and your competitors’…’
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
answered Apr 28 '17 at 9:42
Robbie Goodwin
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
I'm not sure about the above answers: one of the unique facets of the English lanugage is that there is no accepted codable manual of English grammar like there is for say French or Spanish. This allows the acceptability of certain grammatical trends to change over time, such as "who vs whom" and "he/she" vs "they" for the ungendered third person. I believe this question is one of those cases: it is MUCH more natural to say "You and your competitor's _____" and even sounds natural, to be honest. Saying "me and his dog" does not sound natural, on the contrary, so I would not say it is acceptable. It also follow that "you and your" as such flow so naturally that the "r" that should technically be at the end of the first you is simply dropped and implied. It sounds terribly awkward to say "your and your" IMO, even if it is technically correct.
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
Please consider adding some references and line breaks to you your answer.
– Helmar
Jan 11 '17 at 7:44
add a comment |
I'm not sure about the above answers: one of the unique facets of the English lanugage is that there is no accepted codable manual of English grammar like there is for say French or Spanish. This allows the acceptability of certain grammatical trends to change over time, such as "who vs whom" and "he/she" vs "they" for the ungendered third person. I believe this question is one of those cases: it is MUCH more natural to say "You and your competitor's _____" and even sounds natural, to be honest. Saying "me and his dog" does not sound natural, on the contrary, so I would not say it is acceptable. It also follow that "you and your" as such flow so naturally that the "r" that should technically be at the end of the first you is simply dropped and implied. It sounds terribly awkward to say "your and your" IMO, even if it is technically correct.
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
Please consider adding some references and line breaks to you your answer.
– Helmar
Jan 11 '17 at 7:44
add a comment |
I'm not sure about the above answers: one of the unique facets of the English lanugage is that there is no accepted codable manual of English grammar like there is for say French or Spanish. This allows the acceptability of certain grammatical trends to change over time, such as "who vs whom" and "he/she" vs "they" for the ungendered third person. I believe this question is one of those cases: it is MUCH more natural to say "You and your competitor's _____" and even sounds natural, to be honest. Saying "me and his dog" does not sound natural, on the contrary, so I would not say it is acceptable. It also follow that "you and your" as such flow so naturally that the "r" that should technically be at the end of the first you is simply dropped and implied. It sounds terribly awkward to say "your and your" IMO, even if it is technically correct.
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
I'm not sure about the above answers: one of the unique facets of the English lanugage is that there is no accepted codable manual of English grammar like there is for say French or Spanish. This allows the acceptability of certain grammatical trends to change over time, such as "who vs whom" and "he/she" vs "they" for the ungendered third person. I believe this question is one of those cases: it is MUCH more natural to say "You and your competitor's _____" and even sounds natural, to be honest. Saying "me and his dog" does not sound natural, on the contrary, so I would not say it is acceptable. It also follow that "you and your" as such flow so naturally that the "r" that should technically be at the end of the first you is simply dropped and implied. It sounds terribly awkward to say "your and your" IMO, even if it is technically correct.
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
answered Jan 11 '17 at 0:33
language dog
1
1
Please consider adding some references and line breaks to you your answer.
– Helmar
Jan 11 '17 at 7:44
add a comment |
Please consider adding some references and line breaks to you your answer.
– Helmar
Jan 11 '17 at 7:44
Please consider adding some references and line breaks to you your answer.
– Helmar
Jan 11 '17 at 7:44
Please consider adding some references and line breaks to you your answer.
– Helmar
Jan 11 '17 at 7:44
add a comment |
protected by tchrist♦ Apr 14 '17 at 21:53
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
1
Godawful is in the eye of the beholder, but either way I'll take godawful over plain ungrammatical anytime. I mean, you could go ahead and replace the first your with a vush, which is Russian for "your", and you would avoid repetition, but you'd also avoid making any sense. Same goes for replacing your with any other word. English is just crazy like that — when you mean your, you have to say your.
– RegDwigнt♦
Jan 18 '13 at 19:56
possible duplicate of "Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."
– FumbleFingers
Jan 18 '13 at 22:22