You just are bad

[CanadaDry]

I'm having a discussion with someone and he said "You just are bad" ... Now I'm not native to the English language but something feels off about this sentence...
Is it wrong and why?

 

[Barque]

Some context would be useful. What was he talking about? What did he mean to say?

 

[CanadaDry]

Some context would be useful. What was he talking about? What did he mean to say?

The context is not relevant in this case. That was the whole sentence and it's not displaced out of a larger one.
He was probably trying to say "You are just bad" or "You are just stupid" but instead he said "You just are stupid".
And no, it wasn't a situation where i asked for reasons and he said "There's no reason behind it, you just are stupid"...
That was the whole actual sentence at the beginning of his reply followed by stuff irrelevant to that first sentence.

 

[Barque]

The context is not relevant in this case.

Context is often (in fact, almost always) relevant. It's up to you if you don't want to provide it but you're more likely to get an accurate answer if you do.

He was probably trying to say "You are just bad" or "You are just stupid" but instead he said "You just are stupid".

Ok, looks like you've figured it out yourself.

 

[CanadaDry]

Context is often (in fact, almost always) relevant. It's up to you if you don't want to provide it but you're more likely to get an accurate answer if you do.



Ok, looks like you've figured it out yourself.

Sorry but i didn't ask what is the correct way to say it... What i asked was if it was wrong why was it wrong? From a grammatical point of view.
I also need to know for myself if i want a further understanding of the English language.
Ok, I'll take your word and I'll provide all the context.

You just are stupid. That's not the way statistics work. I know because my cousin works there.

 

[Tarheel]

It's not wrong. "You just are stupid" is a perfectly fine way of saying that.

 

[Tarheel]

There are several ways of telling somebody he is stupid -- none of them polite, of course. (See below.)

You are stupid.
You are just stupid.
You just are stupid.
You are just plain stupid.
You win the stupidity prize.

And many more.

 

[CanadaDry]

It doesn't matter what the insult is. The simple sentence feels wrong. I've never seen anyone using "Just" before "are" written or in a verbal conversation,
and i live in an native English speaking country now. It just rolls off the tongue wrong. Neither i or anyone i asked feel like this sentence is correct...
For ex: "You just are beautiful" or "He just was here" or "No it's not, you just are dumb"
I have no English teachers as acquaintances so i guess I'll just have to take this as grammatically correct and just start using it like this...
Can i please also have an answer from a teacher?

 

[probus]

To me it's the word order that's unnatural. In most contexts I'd prefer "You are just bad". The only time I'd expect to hear the word order in the OP is when the emphasis is on the "are". You just ARE bad. It would mean that neither I nor anyone else made you bad.

 

[CanadaDry]

To me it's the word order that's unnatural. In most contexts I'd prefer "You are just bad". The only time I'd expect to hear the word order in the OP is when the emphasis is on the "are". You just ARE bad. It would mean that neither I nor anyone else made you bad.

Exactly, like in the context i showed as an example:

"There's no reason behind it, you just ARE stupid"

But that wasn't the case...

 

[Barque]

Sorry but i didn't ask what is the correct way to say it... What i asked was if it was wrong why was it wrong? From a grammatical point of view.
I also need to know for myself if i want a further understanding of the English language.
Ok, I'll take your word and I'll provide all the context.

It's wrong because it isn't the usual or natural way to say it (unless you're emphasising the "are", as Probus says). It isn't ungrammatical.

 

[CanadaDry]

It's wrong because it isn't the usual or natural way to say it (unless you're emphasising the "are", as Probus says). It isn't ungrammatical.

I'm sorry but that sounds strange. Till now i looked at the English language ( and languages in general) as an exact science. Sure, ever evolving but if something doesn't sound good or it's "unnatural" then it's not grammatically correct. Guess i was wrong.

 

[Barque]

Till now i looked at the English language ( and languages in general) as an exact science.

English isn't an exact science. Far from it.

And yes, there can be lots of unnatural constructions that are perfectly grammatical.

I jumped in the floor. Grammatical but wrong.

Isn't it that way in Romanian too? I'd have thought that was the case with every language.

 

[emsr2d2]

Till now, I looked at the English language (and languages in general) as an exact science. Sure, they're ever-evolving but if something doesn't sound good or it's "unnatural", then it's not grammatically correct. I guess I was wrong.

Some aspects of languages can probably be considered an exact science but not all aspects. There's one absolute rule I'd like to mention here - you must capitalise the pronoun "I" every time you write/type it. That is a rule that you have chosen to break eleven times in this thread. That doesn't fit with your "exact science" theory.

 

[Tarheel]

@CanadaDry Did you not like my post (#7)?

 

[CanadaDry]

Some aspects of languages can probably be considered an exact science but not all aspects. There's one absolute rule I'd like to mention here - you must capitalise the pronoun "I" every time you write/type it. That is a rule that you have chosen to break eleven times in this thread. That doesn't fit with your "exact science" theory.

That's nice... You're not helping but criticizing my English mostly do to the fact that I'm a non-native speaker. My "theory" was in in reverence to the English language and if there's something more that i could learn I'll be happy to do it but your post is condescending and spiteful ( especially since even one of your colleagues made a mistake) and not helpful in any way.
Oh and " Sure, they're ever"? Who's they? I'm talking about the English language as a whole...
The only thing you helped me understand is that I'm in the wrong place. Have a nice day.
P.S: You can tell what kind of person you are after your insistence on "capitalise" on what seems to be a US site.

 

[5jj]

It's time to lock this thread.

If you stay with us, Canada Dry, please try to be a little less dismissive of members who are giving up their free time to try to help you.

 

[emsr2d2]

That's nice. You're not helping but criticizing my English mostly do due to the fact that I'm a non-native speaker. My "theory" was in in reverence reference to the English language and if there's something more that I could learn, I'll be happy to do it but your post is condescending and spiteful (especially since even one of your colleagues made a mistake) and not helpful in any way.
Oh, and "Sure, they're ever"? Who's they? I'm talking about the English language as a whole.
The only thing you helped me understand is that I'm in the wrong place. Have a nice day.
P.S. You I can tell what kind of person you are after your insistence on "capitalise" on what seems to be a US site.

I wasn't criticising your English. I was correcting it. It's not condescending or spiteful to point out learners' errors. The other members had answered your question so there was no need for me to do so again. However, it's important both for you and other learners to see the corrections I made.
You can't tell what "kind of person" I am based on the word "capitalise". The only thing that indicates is that I'm a BrE speaker, which is already clear from my member profile. This site is based in the UK but each member uses their own variant. If an AmE speaker had written my post, they'd have used "capitalize". I don't know where you got the idea that this is a US-based site.
There was no need to be defensive. If you don't want to learn or improve your English, then perhaps you are in the wrong place. I and my fellow members will continue to correct errors in learners' posts.