# You are welcome



## Alxmrphi

Saoul said:
			
		

> You are welcome!



It's rarely seen in it's full form, sounds kinda weird, If I was you I'd always contract it to "you're welcome".


----------



## lsp

Alex_Murphy said:
			
		

> It's rarely seen in it's full form, sounds kinda weird, If I was you I'd always contract it to "you're welcome".


"*its*", "If I *were* you," and I disagree. In short responses like this one, it is not at all rare.


----------



## Alxmrphi

You live in the US, and I live in England. - It's different, it'd be weird for me if someone said it like that, it's quite, robotic.

Ooops, missed the "its", I am suprised I said "was" I had to check, dunno what happened there, late night last night.


----------



## You little ripper!

> You live in the US, and I live in England. - It's different, it'd be weird for me if someone said it like that, it's quite, robotic.


It's the same in Australia. I would never say _You *are* welcome_. It sounds so stilted to me. I would always say _You're welcome. _But then BE and AusE are very similar.


----------



## lsp

Charles Costante said:
			
		

> It's the same in Australia. I would never say _You *are* welcome_. It sounds so stilted to me. I would always say _You're welcome. _But then BE and AusE are very similar.


I wouldn't say it as a matter of course, but (and I wish I could add an audio file), say it slowly, smiling, feigning a great formality... ? Is the idea coming across at all? And maybe the *You* is stronger than the *are*...


----------



## You little ripper!

lsp said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say it as a matter of course, but (and I wish I could add an audio file), say it slowly, smiling, feigning a great formality... ? Is the idea coming across at all? And maybe the *You* is stronger than the *are*...


If the stress is put on the *welcome* it would sound O.K. to me, but I still prefer the contracted form. But hey Lsp, if you're saying it me, I'll take it any way it which you'd like to say it!


----------



## lsp

Charles Costante said:
			
		

> If the stress is put on the *welcome* it would sound O.K. to me, but I still prefer the contracted form. But hey Lsp, if you're saying it me, I'll take it any way it which you'd like to say it!


To you I seem to have more occasion to say "Thanks!"


----------



## You little ripper!

lsp said:
			
		

> To you I seem to have more occasion to say "Thanks!"


Lsp you only said that so I'll say, "That's not at all true, but it's really nice of you to say so", so then you can say, "You *are* welcome!"


----------



## danielfranco

In Texas we avoid it altogether by saying "ya betcha!".


----------



## TimLA

danielfranco said:
			
		

> In Texas we avoid it altogether by saying "ya betcha!".


 
Bravissimo Daniel...I'm laughing my face off!!!....  

Tim


----------



## Random1

> If the stress is put on the *welcome* it would sound O.K. to me, but I still prefer the contracted form. But hey Lsp, if you're saying it me, I'll take it any way it which you'd like to say it!


Stressing the welcome almost sounds demanding 

Upstate New York everyone says "You're welcome." You can say it faster


----------



## Saoul

Is there such a great difference between " You are welcome" and "You're welcome"? 

Do they sound so different? I'm surprized. 
I need some more details. As Italian, I just sense that "you're welcome" is a bit more colloquial than "You are welcome"... and it is something very very small. 
Input, please! Details, please! Infos, please!


----------



## Presto627

danielfranco said:
			
		

> In Texas we avoid it altogether by saying "ya betcha!".



haha.. yeah, or "No Problem!"


----------



## Random1

> Do they sound so different?


Not at all 

Say "You are" and then say "You're." Almost the same


----------



## Saoul

So what is this all about? 
Am I missing something?


----------



## Random1

> So what is this all about?
> Am I missing something?


This is about whether or not your contract you are to you're when you say "You're welcome."
Nothing more


----------



## Saoul

Sorry as a foreigner, I feel in the middle of the Twilight zone, here.

What's the difference between You're and You are.
Is there a greatly different nuance? I thought one was informal, and the other formal. Nothing more...

When I wrote "Do they sound so different?" I didn't mean "Are their sounds so different?" but just "Are their meanings so different?".
I wasn't able to express this, I apologize... but now I wonder... is the idea that You are conveys so different from the one that You're does?


----------



## daoxunchang

Maybe just regional and personal choice? And sometimes affected by the occasion?


----------



## lsp

Saoul said:
			
		

> Sorry as a foreigner, I feel in the middle of the Twilight zone, here.
> 
> What's the difference between You're and You are.
> Is there a greatly different nuance? I thought one was informal, and the other formal. Nothing more...
> 
> When I wrote "Do they sound so different?" I didn't mean "Are their sounds so different?" but just "Are their meanings so different?".
> I wasn't able to express this, I apologize... but now I wonder... is the idea that You are conveys so different from the one that You're does?


Opting for the complete word instead of a contraction (I am fine, instead of I'm fine) except where the emphasis is required, can often sound very snobby and/or stilted. And I fear if you have an accent, it may sound like you just aren't fluent.


----------



## scotu

Saoul said:
			
		

> Sorry as a foreigner, I feel in the middle of the Twilight zone, here.
> 
> What's the difference between You're and You are.
> Is there a greatly different nuance? I thought one was informal, and the other formal. Nothing more...
> 
> When I wrote "Do they sound so different?" I didn't mean "Are their sounds so different?" but just "Are their meanings so different?".
> I wasn't able to express this, I apologize... but now I wonder... is the idea that You are conveys so different from the one that You're does?


 
You are right there's no difference. "you're welcome" is the standard expected casual response to "thank you".  "you *are* welcome" maybe adds a little emphasis as in "you are (*truly*) welcome".(coming from an AE)


----------



## Joelline

I have to agree with Alex:



			
				Alex_Murphy said:
			
		

> it'd be weird for me if someone said it like that, it's quite, robotic.


 
YOU ARE WECOME sound just like something Frankenstein would say (or maybe one of those Martians in science fiction movies!) 

Pronouncing such a common phrase one word at a time is too slow for normal conversation! It's that recorded telephone voice that comes on and says, "Hel .. lo. The ... office ..is ...not ...open.. right ...now..." 

Freaks me out!

Joelline


----------



## combustion

Sometimes, in California, I heard something like "You welcome", without the verb... is it possible?
comb...
PS: please, correct my English...


----------



## Random1

> Sometimes, in California, I have heard something like "You welcome", without the verb... is it possible?
> comb...
> PS: please, correct my English...


Not to be mean, you asked for corrections 

"You welcome" is not a sentance, as it contains no verb. I think it is just bad english


----------



## lsp

Random1 said:
			
		

> Not to be mean, you asked for corrections
> 
> "You welcome" is not a sent*e*nce, as it contains no verb. I think it is just bad english


I'd guess that's more a question of pronunciation, not grammatical construction, comb.


----------



## combustion

Thank you Random1 and Lsp!
comb...


----------



## You little ripper!

combustion said:
			
		

> Sometimes, in California, I heard something like "You welcome", without the verb... is it possible?
> comb...
> PS: please, correct my English...


If it is said very fast it may actually sound like that comb. I don't really think that is what they're really saying.


----------



## roxcyn

I think someone can say "you are welcome," but it sounds funny.  Perhaps it is because we are accustomed to contracting?

One thing I noticed:
Are you going, too?
Yes, I am.

But you wouldn't use the contracted form:
Yes, I'm.


----------



## Joelline

roxcyn,

You are absolutely right, but how does one explain to a non-native speaker that sometimes, one really must not use a contraction, and sometimes, one really should use a contraction?  

I think one needs a great deal of exposure to the language (English, in this case) to pick up these sorts of things (which are, after all, illogical!).


----------



## Saoul

So we got to the bottom of the thing, here!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I happen to understand that by a grammar point of view, there's no difference... "You are welcome" sounds posh to Natives, because of the fact that they are used to the contracted form "You're welcome". Moreover, a non-Native speaker, with any accent, may appear non-fluent.
Am I getting it right?


----------



## You little ripper!

Joelline said:
			
		

> roxcyn,
> 
> You are absolutely right, but how does one explain to a non-native speaker that sometimes, one really must not use a contraction, and sometimes, one really should use a contraction?
> 
> I think one needs a great deal of exposure to the language (English, in this case) to pick up these sorts of things (which are, after all, illogical!).


I don't think there is a rule, but from what I can gather, when the verbs "to be" and "to have" are at the end of the sentence, you can't contract it. If the sentence continues after those verbs, you can.
I could be missing something, and would be interested to know if there are any others that fit into this category.

Are you coming?
Yes I'm.   (The verb 'am' is at the end)
Yes, I'm coming  (The sentence continues after 'am')


Someone told me you weren't coming?
No, I'm.   (The verb 'am' is at the end)
No I'm not.    (The sentence continues after 'am' with 'not')

Have you got your coat?
Yes I've.   (The verb 'have' is at the end)
Yes, I've got my coat.  (The sentence continues after 'have')
No, I haven't.  (The sentence continues after 'have' with 'not')


----------



## lsp

roxcyn said:
			
		

> I think someone can say "you are welcome," but it sounds funny.  Perhaps *it is* because *we are *accustomed to contracting?...





			
				Joelline said:
			
		

> *You are* absolutely right, but how does one explain to a non-native speaker that sometimes, ...





			
				Charles Costante said:
			
		

> I don't think *there is* a rule, but from what I can gather, when the verbs "to be" and "to have" are at the end of the sentence, you can't contract it.





			
				Charles Costante said:
			
		

> If *it is* said very fast it may actually sound like that comb. I don't really think *that is* what they're really saying.



I don't know if you all did it on purpose or not...  We type as we speak, especially here, to try to replicate the tone of voice we hear ourselves using if we could speak our posts. Other than Charles's observation that contractions can't end sentences, and something else I recently noticed about have (it's contracted more commonly where have is the auxiliary, rather than when its sense is possession or obligation/necessity. EX: I've heard of that book. I have that book. I have to read that book), I can't think of any rules. We are just guided by emphasis, which takes developing an ear for each word's contribution to a sentence in the language you're learning.


----------



## A90Six

lsp said:
			
		

> I don't know if you all did it on purpose or not... We type as we speak, especially here, to try to replicate the tone of voice we hear ourselves using if we could speak our posts. Other than Charles's observation that contractions can't end sentences, and something else I recently noticed about have (it's contracted more commonly where have is the auxiliary, rather than when its sense is possession or obligation/necessity. EX: I've heard of that book. I have that book. I have to read that book), I can't think of any rules. We are just guided by emphasis, which takes developing an ear for each word's contribution to a sentence in the language you're learning.


lsp,

When you say, "We type as we speak," I take it that you mean, "we type our words in the manner that we would speak them," and not that we do both things at the same time.

If this be the case then I must disagree. Were I to type in the manner that I speak, few would understand a word, let alone a sentence. The English I type here in this forum is the English that I assume to be the most standard, and that I feel best describes the language for those that seek to understand.

I live in London and my spoken English is awash with CRS and abundant in contractions, glottal stops, misrelated constructions and many other anomalies.

I enjoy this board, not only because I feel I may be able to help others, but also because it improves my knowledge of the language, but it doesn't improve my _general_ spoken use. Were I to speak English in my locale in the manner that I type here, I would get some very strange looks!


----------



## lsp

A90Six said:
			
		

> lsp,
> 
> When you say, "We type as we speak," I take it that you mean, "we type our words in the manner that we would speak them," and not that we do both things at the same time. (I meant the former, but the latter is also true )
> 
> If this be the case then I must disagree. Were I to type in the manner that I speak, few would understand a word, let alone a sentence. The English I type here in this forum is the English that I assume to be the most standard, and that I feel best describes the language for those that seek to understand.
> 
> I live in London and my spoken English is awash with CRS and abundant in contractions, glottal stops, misrelated constructions and many other anomalies.
> 
> I enjoy this board, not only because I feel I may be able to help others, but also because it improves my knowledge of the language, but it doesn't improve my _general_ spoken use. Were I to speak English in my locale in the manner that I type here, I would get some very strange looks!


I can see you took me too literally. I also speak more informally, often not in full sentences, and so on. I meant in the _tone_ of voice. We _compensate_ for the fact that our words will be read without our inflections to assist our intentions. That's why we have italics and bold, too - to further simulate what the voice is otherwise powerless to convey online.


----------



## You little ripper!

With writing  there is obviously more time to think about what you want to say, but about 98% of what I write is the same as what I would say if I were speaking directly to the person concerned. That includes whether I use contractions or not.


----------



## Joelline

> Originally Posted by *Joelline*
> _*You are* absolutely right, but how does one explain to a non-native speaker that sometimes, ..._


 
I can only speak for myself, but I avoided the contraction for emphasis:  If I had spoken the words, I would have said them emphatically, word by word.

Saoul, I'm sorry no one answered your question:  Yes, you are right--except, perhaps, that I wouldn't say it's "posh" not to use the contraction for "Your are welcome"; I would say it's a bit awkward.


----------



## Moogey

(I know this thread is rather old but it was recently brought up) I agree that "you are welcome" sounds very odd. I never hear it said this way, nor do I say it.

"You welcome" is *definitely* something you'd hear from AAVE.

-M


----------



## Saoul

Moogey said:
			
		

> (I know this thread is rather old but it was recently brought up) I agree that "you are welcome" sounds very odd. I never hear it said this way, nor do I say it.
> 
> "You welcome" is *definitely* something you'd hear from AAVE.
> 
> -M



Strange name! Who's he/she? Just kidding. What is AAVE, Moogey?


----------



## Moogey

Saoul, AAVE is African American Vernacular English, also (more commonly? but less politcally correct) known as Ebonics.

This is the vernacular/dialect spoken by many African Americans around America. There's a whole big discussion about it here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=24275&highlight=AAVE 

-M


----------



## LV4-26

lsp said:
			
		

> something else I recently noticed about have (it's contracted more commonly where have is the auxiliary, rather than when its sense is possession or obligation/necessity. EX: I've heard of that book. I have that book. I have to read that book), I can't think of any rules.


Attempted explanation/rule :
The main verb _(have_, in sentences #2 & 3) may not be contracted lest it would loose its strength.
I agree that doesn't work with _you're welcome. _
Possibly because, in the structure [_be_ + adjective],_ be_ is weak, the strong word is the adjective.


----------



## .   1

If someone enunciates the full _You are welcome_ to me I will immediately check to see if I have offended them in some way because of the formality contained within an informal virtually automatic response.

.,,
I feel much better when the reply is as sloppy as _no worries._


----------



## Otter

Charles Costante said:
			
		

> It's the same in Australia. I would never say _You *are* welcome_. It sounds so stilted to me. I would always say _You're welcome. _But then BE and AusE are very similar.


 
Mebbe l'm outta line, posting before I finish the thread, but, in the U.S., yes, it might _sound_ odd but, in writing, it's not odd at all.



			
				Random1 said:
			
		

> Not to be mean, you asked for corrections
> 
> "You welcome" is not a sentance, as it contains no verb. I think it is just bad english


 
"You Welcome" could be a colloquialism or slang in Southern California.



			
				Joelline said:
			
		

> roxcyn,
> 
> You are absolutely right, but how does one explain to a non-native speaker that sometimes, one really must not use a contraction, and sometimes, one really should use a contraction?
> 
> I think one needs a great deal of exposure to the language (English, in this case) to pick up these sorts of things (which are, after all, illogical!).


 
See, I don't think any native English speaker would fault a non-native speaker for saying, "you are welcome" Often, when I'm writing or speaking to a non-native speaker, I do not use contractions.. . . . just for ease of understanding and clarity.



			
				lsp said:
			
		

> I don't know if you all did it on purpose or not... We type as we speak, especially here, to try to replicate the tone of voice we hear ourselves using if we could speak our posts. *Other than Charles's observation that contractions can't end sentences*, and something else I recently noticed about have (it's contracted more commonly where have is the auxiliary, rather than when its sense is possession or obligation/necessity. EX: I've heard of that book. I have that book. I have to read that book), I can't think of any rules. We are just guided by emphasis, which takes developing an ear for each word's contribution to a sentence in the language you're learning.


 
Can you do it?
No, I can't. 

Have you been there?
No, I haven't.

Did she eat the spaghetti?
No, she didn't.

Perfect modern English.


----------

