# We're = we were?



## MarizitaMex

Is It Possible To Use We're As A Contraction Of We Were?
I Mean, Grammatically Speaking.
Hugs And Kisses!


----------



## ForeverFactor

It doesn't look right to me so as far as I know no, but we probably need a more informed opinion.


----------



## MarizitaMex

Yes, I know it doesn't look right but a student asked me that question with valid arguments and I just can't find anything about it in my grammar books.


----------



## mhp

we're  = we are

Always


----------



## ForeverFactor

All I can say is I'm pretty sure I've never seen it written that way.  If it is used then I wouldn't think very often and we were would be more correct.  I'm trying to think if it might would be spoken that way, but I can't find anything that makes me think so, at least in my own mind, but I could be wrong.


----------



## MarizitaMex

Yeah... I simply got used to the past we were since I was a child.  Thanks a lot my friend.


----------



## MarizitaMex

Thanks MHP!


----------



## Milo 34

The contraction "We're" is for "We are".  It is used in conversation or informal writing.  The past tense "We were" does not have a contraction.  We're is translated as "Somos" or "Estamos."  We were translates as "Éramos" or "Estábamos."


----------



## Richardenglish

Well I was looking for this trouble in my diccionaries because I heard on my  CD of my English book.It says we're =we were I don't know if it is wrong or wright ,but the pronunciation sound like that. Iwas studided in USA also, but I do not find anything about it.


----------



## Richardenglish

Yes it is posible in a CD of my inglish book sound like that only in speech.


----------



## Hearty Charlie

I totally agree with Milo 34: we're is a contraction for "we are" and not for "we were". Native speakers may use informal words or contractions in their respective languages but that doesn't mind they are all correct (think about the special "language" used in text messages among young people, for example).
Regarding "how're" and "there're", I've never heard of them or seen them written. I'd say both are incorrect or very lazy language (maybe because their pronounciations are similar, irrespective of their spelling. But we should try to write words properly). By the way, how would you pronounce a contracted "there're"? Difficult, isn't it?


----------



## Milo 34

Richardenglish said:


> Well I was looking for this trouble in my diccionaries because I heard on my  CD of my English book.It says we're =we were I don't know if it is wrong or wright ,but the pronunciation sound like that. Iwas studided in USA also, but I do not find anything about it.



"We're" is the contraction of "we are".  In the English language, contractions are 
used in informal writing and in conversation and are considered standard.  There is 
no contraction for "we were" (Estábamos/Éramos).  In formal writing, one would use"we are," which in Spanish would equate to "somos" or "estamos".  English teachers avoid saying that the language is "correct" and say that the phrase "standard 
English".  We never say that the language is right.  Wright is a surname.  A reply can
be right or wrong.


----------



## Hearty Charlie

The fact is that even if you're able to pronounce words that are not properly written, that doesn't mind you can use them...just because. In my humble opinion, only very popular expressions or words, easy understandable by almost anyone 
who speaks  the language should be used in this way. We may be able to understand incorrectly written words but we 
shouldn't use them. Imagine I say that "we're're" means "we were there". Can I use it just because I'm able to 
pronounce it and doesn't look so bad? That's what I meant in my previous reply actually.


----------



## MiguelitOOO

Al parecer no es correcto hacer la contracción escrita de _we_+_were _(we´re), pero como algunos participantes del foro han mencionado, en el hablar de las personas puede producirse.
Vengo a este hilo, tras escuchar este extraño uso contraído de _we were_ en la canción "_Born To Be Alive_" de Patrick Hernández, pues si no me fallan los oídos, existe esta contracción en dicha melodía, ya que la letra de la canción, obviamente, escrita, muestra "_You see *we were* born..._", pero por más esfuerzos de atención que hago, sólo escucho "_You see *we're* born_..."
Hago la aclaración de que en la canción hay las dos formas, algunas veces se dice "_we were_" y en otras ocasiones, cuando se acompaña de "_you see_", se escucha "_we're_" (we+were).


----------



## sound shift

MiguelitOOO said:


> Al parecer no es correcto hacer la contracción escrita de _we_+_were _(we´re), pero como algunos participantes del foro han mencionado, en el hablar de las personas puede producirse.


Nunca lo he oído. Daría lugar a confusiones, ya que "we're" = "we are": presente, no pasado.


----------



## Forero

MiguelitOOO said:


> Al parecer no es correcto hacer la contracción escrita de _we_+_were _(we´re), pero como algunos participantes del foro han mencionado, en el hablar de las personas puede producirse.
> Vengo a este hilo, tras escuchar este extraño uso contraído de _we were_ en la canción "_Born To Be Alive_" de Patrick Hernández, pues si no me fallan los oídos, existe esta contracción en dicha melodía, ya que la letra de la canción, obviamente, escrita, muestra "_You see *we were* born..._", pero por más esfuerzos de atención que hago, sólo escucho "_You see *we're* born_..."
> Hago la aclaración de que en la canción hay las dos formas, algunas veces se dice "_we were_" y en otras ocasiones, cuando se acompaña de "_you see_", se escucha "_we're_" (we+were).


Escuché esa canción en YouTube, y sí dice "You see we're born ...." Es decir "You see we are born ...." El "You see" cambia el tiempo.


----------



## MiguelitOOO

Forero said:


> Escuché esa canción en YouTube, y sí dice "You see we're born ...." Es decir "You see we are born ...." El "You see" cambia el tiempo.


Bueno, no soy yo el que dice que "_You see we're born_" es "_You see we were born_" , sino los múltiples usuarios que han subido a youtube videos con "lyric" incluída, muchos de ellos, la mayoría nativos. Para comprobar lo que te digo, sólo tienes que ir a youtube y buscar la canción con lyrics. 
Saludos.


----------



## User With No Name

I think the "we're" in the song lyrics may be sort of a "historical present." After all, one could imagine hearing in a popular song something like "I was born to be alive...  I am born to be alive."

I also think that people worrying about this may be expecting an unrealistic level of precision from popular singers and YouTube video makers.


----------



## Forero

I interpret the difference this way—

"We were born to be alive" = When you and I were born, it was in order to be alive.

"We are born to be alive" = Whenever anyone is born, it is in order to be alive.

In other words, "we" in "we were born" is about the past and includes only people already living, whereas "we are born" is ongoing and includes some people not yet born.


----------



## bradmoss

I was watching the BBC yesterday night, the 4th episode of the series "Trust Me" with Jodie Whittaker.
One doctor says to the other "We're friends" and the other responds "We still are"
I even checked the subtitles, so they use we're as "we were"


----------



## Agró

¿Por qué deduces que "we're friends" en ese contexto es "we were" y no "we are"?

Puede interpretarse así:
-*Somos *amigos.
-Aún lo *somos *(_de momento; luego ya veremos_).

¿No te parece?


----------



## horsewishr

Agró said:


> ¿Por qué deduces que "we're friends" en ese contexto es "we were" y no "we are"?
> 
> Puede interpretarse así:
> -*Somos *amigos.
> -Aún lo *somos *(_de momento; luego ya veremos_).
> 
> ¿No te parece?


Or simply an affirmation.

Yes, after so many years, we are still friends.


----------



## bradmoss

They were Scotish though


----------



## bradmoss

I can't say why now but watching the episode it was just natural


----------



## MiguelitOOO

Un profesor de la Universidad del Estado de Washington, califica el _we were_ contraído como *un error común *(desconozco si es verdad, él lo dice, me imagino porque lo ha visto escrito muy seguido):



> “We’re” is a contraction of the phrase “we are”: the apostrophe stands for the omitted letter A. “Were” is simply a plural past-tense form of the verb “are.” To talk about something happening now or in the future, use “we’re”; but to talk about something in the past, use “were.” If you can’t substitute “we are” for the word you’ve written, omit the apostrophe.
> 
> “We _were_ going to go to the party as a prince and princess, but Derek cut himself shaving, so _we’re_ going instead as a vampire and her victim.”
> 
> Categorized
> Common error


Ahora bien, si el error es común de forma escrita, como dice el profesor, ¿no será más común de forma oral? Lo importante es hacer notar que es un error. No se debe hacer. Pero de que existe, existe. Y tal vez a veces se hace de forma intencional.

we’re / were | Common Errors in English Usage and More | Washington State University


----------



## bradmoss

I found the script:

I want you to tell me how long you've been treating patients when you're half pissed. Fucking hell.
Why? Do you really need to ask me that? 
No, it's just I just wish it wasn't true. You're my friend.
I still am, I hope.
I'm sorry.
It's all right.
It's OK.

Read more: Trust Me (2017) s01e04 Episode Script | SS


----------



## MiguelitOOO

bradmoss said:


> I found the script:
> 
> I want you to tell me how long you've been treating patients when you're half pissed. Fucking hell.
> Why? Do you really need to ask me that?
> No, it's just I just wish it wasn't true. You're my friend.
> I still am, I hope.
> I'm sorry.
> It's all right.
> It's OK.
> 
> Read more: Trust Me (2017) s01e04 Episode Script | SS



El diálogo es ambiguo. El "I'm sorry" se presta a dos interpretaciones: 1.- Se arrepiente de haber dicho en tiempo pretérito que *eran *amigos", o 2.- Dice "I'm sorry" para contestar* un no al "I hope"*.
Creo que los que están en contra del uso de _we were_ contraido dirán que no, y los que abogamos por la posibilidad diremos: pues, tal vez.


----------



## bradmoss

Si, leyendo ahora me genera esa ambigüedad pero anoche me pareció que sería imposible distinguir el presente del pasado con una contracción de este tipo.


----------



## Toddy96

Miguelitooo

Ese artículo dice que el error es confundir "we're" con "were" (justo como pasa en "you're" y "your")
Were going to make it We're going to make it
O.. Your my best friend You're my best friend.
Este es un error de escritura porque hablado se pronuncian igual.

No dice que es un error común usar "we're" como contracción de "you were".


----------



## MiguelitOOO

Toddy96 said:


> Ese artículo dice que el error es confundir "we're" con "were"


¿La gente al leer "_we're_" lo confunde con "_we were_"? Si analizas bien lo que acabas de decir, *entonces es peor el asunto. *


----------



## Toddy96

El tema de este hilo es sobre si "we were" puede ser contraído a "we're". Y es de lo que se habla a lo largo del hilo.

Ese artículo que citaste dice que es común en escritura confundir "we're" con "were" (no con "we were", sólo con "were")
Sólo en escritura porque se pronuncian igual en lenguaje oral.
Osea, no habla del tema que estamos tratando.


----------



## MiguelitOOO

Sí, es verdad, ambos nos alejamos del propósito del hilo, yo al citar sobre la escritura, y tú al contestar mi cita, sin advertirme lo que posteriormente me adviertes.
Aunque no opino lo mismo que tú. La escritura de _we were_ está estrechamente relacionada con la forma oral.


----------



## Toddy96

bradmoss said:


> I found the script:
> 
> I want you to tell me how long you've been treating patients when you're half pissed. Fucking hell.
> Why? Do you really need to ask me that?
> No, it's just I just wish it wasn't true. You're my friend.
> I still am, I hope.
> I'm sorry.
> It's all right.
> It's OK.


That script is different from what you said in #20


----------



## bradmoss

Basicamente es lo mismo o no:
Script real:   You're my friend. I still am, I hope.
Mi memoria: We're friends. We still are


----------



## Toddy96

En ese caso es como dice Agró en #21
Ese "you're" es una contracción de "you are" y no de "you were"


----------



## bradmoss

La duda viene porque la otra doctora afligida le contesta "I still am"


----------



## Bevj

No olvidemos que en inglés hablado, es muy fácil confudir 'We're' (we are) con 'We were', _'perdiendo'_ la segunda 'w'.
Volviendo a la pregunta original, 'we're' _siempre_ significa 'we are'.


----------



## horsewishr

bradmoss said:


> Basicamente es lo mismo o no:
> Script real:   You're my friend. I still am, I hope.
> Mi memoria: We're friends. We still are


Yes, it's exactly the same.
BOTH sentences are in the present tense. * You are* my friend.  _*We*_ *are* friends.


----------

