You need to watch it for yourself.

[Glizdka]

"Vihart says hexaflexagons are sometimes unopenupable... umm... I can't really explain it, you need to watch it for yourself."

Would "...you need to watch it yourself." also work? Are there any differences? What about "see/hear/feel,etc. (for) yourself"?

 

[teechar]

unopenupable

I take it that's a typo.
Where did you get that text from? Do you have a link?

 

[Glizdka]

I take it that's a typo.
Where did you get that text from? Do you have a link?

Yes.

And yes.

 

[teechar]

Would "...you need to watch it yourself." also work? Are there any differences? What about "see/hear/feel,etc. (for) yourself"?

In the above, there's no real difference. In other contexts, there might be.

 

[Rover_KE]

Where did you get that text from? Do you have a link?

Yes.

And yes.

Glizdka, always give us the full context in post #1 in future, please. We shouldn't have to ask for it.

 

[Tdol]

The word sounds OK to me, though I might insert hyphens - un-open-up-able

I would use unopenable.

 

[jutfrank]

The normal phrase is:

• to see something for yourself

The use of this phrase is for when there is a need for somebody to have 'direct evidence' of something, rather than just believing another person's testimony. In this case, the speaker is claiming that he/she is not able to communicate to the listener effectively (I can't explain it), so suggests to the listener that they go directly to the source (the video). Since the source appears to be a video, the speaker has substituted see for watch. The phrase is also commonly used with the verb hear, too.

If you don't use for, you're not really using the phrase properly, but the listener may still understand what you mean anyway, depending on the context.