You yourself being a sportsperson […] know that sports is one of the few things that teaches discipline.

The intended meaning of sentence should be the following: Since you are a sportsperson hence you must have already known that sports is one of the few things that teaches discipline. There must be something before know; it's my gut feeling. I think it should be "must already," "already," or "would."

  • You would agree, being a sportsperson yourself, that sports teaches discipline.
    – Soulz
    Jun 4, 2013 at 11:17
  • @Soulz I am not making someone agree,though your sentence is correct,but I want to convey he should already know it(that sports teaches discipline). Please tell me the word that suits with "know" Jun 4, 2013 at 13:49
  • I don't think anything is missing.
    – user230
    Jun 4, 2013 at 14:21
  • 1
    How about 'aware'? You must be aware, being a sportsperson yourself, that sports teaches discipline
    – Soulz
    Jun 4, 2013 at 14:22
  • @ Sanket Verma: Although your use of "plural treated as singular" sports is credible, most native speakers would change it to singular sport. To my ear, either is better than saying that sports are one (of life's many pleasures, or whatever), but even that occurs often enough that it must be called "credible" as well. Jun 6, 2013 at 2:21

3 Answers 3


It's not actually necessary to have any other word before "know", but there are a few points to make...

1: OP's inclusion of yourself is grammatically irrelevant here (it just adds emphasis).

2: So is the "parenthetical" phrase being a sportsman (which could be set off by commas).

The alternative "auxiliary" verbs that could optionally go before know can carry different implications...

A: ought to, should, etc. - which [may] imply that the speaker believes/expects you to know.
B: will, would, must, etc. [or nothing] - which imply the speaker knows that you know.
C: may, might, etc. - which imply the speaker thinks it's possible that you know.

For what it's worth, I'll just say that idiomatically probably will is most likely for OP's exact intended meaning. This may seem a little odd to non-native speakers (why say you will know, when what you mean is you do know?) All I can say is native speakers habitually use "future tense" in such statements.

The possibility of including already is a separate issue. Semantically it adds very little, and it wouldn't normally be there unless the speaker specifically wanted to emphasise previously-acquired knowledge affecting present/future actions (i.e. - "You already know it, so I won't bother to explain it [again] now).

  • I actually think should is a better fit here than will. Jun 4, 2013 at 17:26
  • @KenB: Not in OP's exact context, I don't think. He says the person must know. Although the "obligation/expectation" element of should could plausibly attach to the state of affairs as assumed by the speaker, it more often attaches to the person being addressed. And OP isn't suggesting that the person ought to know, he's saying he does (because he must, so it's a foregone conclusion). Jun 4, 2013 at 17:31
  • You make a good argument. I think there's a fine line, though. The speaker could easily be expressing his expectation or hope that the addressee knows. I think more context is required. For example, consider the case of two fathers chatting about raising their respective children. One has stated that he doesn't want his son playing sports because he is afraid of his son being injured. The other then might respond with "But it builds character! You yourself being a sportsperson should know that sports is one of the few things that teaches discipline." This fit's OP's stated context. Jun 4, 2013 at 17:37
  • @KenB: Well, OP's not a native speaker, so we can't read too much into whether he meant ought to when he wrote must. And even native speakers are often careless of the potential distinction in such constructions. But I hope the A/B/C categories in my answer explain how different choices may affect implied meanings. Jun 4, 2013 at 17:48

"Know" works in context. There are different kinds of "knowing". You might know something because of years of careful study, like "Jack knows quantum physics better than Heisenberg." You might know by intuition or common sense, like "You know that young people fall in love." If you think that "know" only applies to the careful-study kind of knowing: No, it doesn't. It is readily understood to mean either kind (and other kinds of knowing).

I think most readers would assume from the context that "know" here refers to knowledge gained from personal experience, or possibly from intuition. When it's really necessary to distinguish, I don't know of a single, commonly-used word that could be substituted. You'd have to either use an obscure word or use a phrase to clarify. Life if you wanted to make clear that Jack's knowledge of physics in fact does not come from years of study but that he just somehow seems to have an intuition about these things, you would say, "Jack knows quantum physics by intuition" or some such.

In your case, you could say, "You know from experience that sports teaches discipline" or "You have seen that sports teaches discipline." You might say, "You intuit that sports teaches discipline" if you insist on using a single word, but that just sounds awkward to me. As I say, I think most readers would take it for granted that you meant knowledge gained from experience or observation, especially with the "as a sportsman" stuck on the front. If your intent was that he knows this because he is read studies in psychology journals of research demonstrating this, then you would need different words to make that clear.


I would suggest:

As a sportsperson, you know that sports is one of the few things that teaches discipline.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .