Yous guys wanna talk about second person plurals in here?

[manoeuver]

It's interesting, here's what I know...

second person plural is the same as the formal second person address in a number of languages, the ones I know of the top of my head are French (vous) and Russian (вы)

From what I understand, the analog in English is actually you. What we lost was the informal singular, thee. So is you already plural? That would explain why we're casting about for the right word and kludging together words to communicate effectively. Some solutions others have mentioned:

y'all, a contraction of you all, Southern US, esp TX.

yinz, Pittsburgh. (never heard this in PA Dutch country, I grew up nearby. I can check with some friends who live there.)

yous or youse, common in NYC/NJ and Australia.

I find myself youseing the term all. Hello all. Sometimes you all. I did live in Texas for a while, but y'all didn't make it back to Jerz with me.

ok, whatchoo got?

[An old bloke]

It's interesting, here's what I know...

second person plural is the same as the formal second person address in a number of languages, the ones I know of the top of my head are French (vous) and Russian (вы)

From what I understand, the analog in English is actually you. What we lost was the informal singular, thee. So is you already plural? That would explain why we're casting about for the right word and kludging together words to communicate effectively. Some solutions others have mentioned:

y'all, a contraction of you all, Southern US, esp TX.

yinz, Pittsburgh. (never heard this in PA Dutch country, I grew up nearby. I can check with some friends who live there.)

yous or youse, common in NYC/NJ and Australia.

I find myself youseing the term all. Hello all. Sometimes you all. I did live in Texas for a while, but y'all didn't make it back to Jerz with me.

ok, whatchoo got?
I obviously must mix with the wrong people and grown-up completely ignorant of the ways of the community in which I lived because I've never heard yourself being used. Not in my childhood, school life, work, or social life in many parts of NSW, the ACT, the NT, or Qld. That said, it may be a South or Western Australian colloquiallism that im unaware of.

[silverlifter]

Te reo Māori is one of those languages with pronouns that accomodates addressing individuals, two people, or a group:

* Tēnā koe - greeting 1 person
* Tēnā kōrua - greeting 2 people
* Tēnā koutou - greeting 3 or more people

[silverlifter]

I obviously must mix with the wrong people and grown-up completely ignorant of the ways of the community in which I lived because I've never heard yourself being used. Not in my childhood, school life, work, or social life in many parts of NSW, the ACT, the NT, or Qld. That said, it may be a South or Western Australian colloquiallism that im unaware of.

You are unfamiliar with Norman Gunston, then? :p

[eachan]

@manoeuver: Deb heard "yinz" when she lived in Bucks County but it didn't come from there. The people she knew who used it were from either Western Pennsylvania or Appalachia.

I find your suggestion that it is the singular "you" that we have lost interesting, something I hadn't thought of. I'll need to think about that.

[mizgeorge]

I'd tend to say the singular was more often thou (subjective) than thee (objective), but using that rule, the subjective ye rather than you would probably be more appropriate.

I'll add German irh, Swedish ni, Spanish ustedes (or vosotros/as for the very formal in Spain), Italian voi and there are so many more that make things easier.

I'm an RP (BBC) English speaker, but elsewhere have regularly come across yous, you'uns, yez, and more. I dislike the 'you guys' that seems to have crept into use almost everywhere, and y'all has made it's way across the pond now as well.

My solution is usually to use 'all of you', 'both of you', or something similar to make it unambiguous that it's a plural you.

I feel a handwriting exercise coming on.

[FredRydr]

...yinz, Pittsburgh. (never heard this in PA Dutch country, I grew up nearby. I can check with some friends who live there.)....
That's my take on it, too, starting around Chambersburg and then west. I would've phonetically spelled it yoo-enz. I doubt any Pennsylvania public school teacher includes it in their curriculum.

[Biber]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

[catbert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_iGaQglnKg

[TSherbs]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

Why? It's a perfectly clear possessive.

I teach grammar for a living, but I admit the often totally arbitrary and elitist rules of insistence on certain constructions. "Ain't," for example, is perfectly clear and precise. There is no reason not to use it except for adherence to a kind of cultural protocol that is set up to distinguish the educated from the non-educated. And even though I am an educator, the elitism and classism that education has bolstered over the modern centuries is an injustice.
"Y'all" is also quite clear. These terms exist and persist because they work and fill a gap in the formal rules of usage.

[eachan]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

Why? It's a perfectly clear possessive.

I teach grammar for a living, but I admit the often totally arbitrary and elitist rules of insistence on certain constructions. "Ain't," for example, is perfectly clear and precise. There is no reason not to use it except for adherence to a kind of cultural protocol that is set up to distinguish the educated from the non-educated. And even though I am an educator, the elitism and classism that education has bolstered over the modern centuries is an injustice.
"Y'all" is also quite clear. These terms exist and persist because they work and fill a gap in the formal rules of usage.

This is what I had in mind when I started this. So much of our language has been eradicated in the classroom. My own accent was deprecated in school as, I suppose, were almost all local accents. The Scottish Gaelic language is on the verge of extinction due to a misguided educational policy which has been corrected rather too late. Did the plural "you" disappear because it was adjudged not respectable at some point. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched but it's what I was thinking.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I can relate to that. As a Westcountryman you would never be able to tell where I came from by listening to me speak. You would have thought it should be obvious, but it is not. My speech carries the tones of what you may call an unaccented pronunciation, which has its roots in received pronunciation.


You may have also noticed my use of the term 'you' in the above, to be interpreted as both singular and plural depending on who is reading it. For example, eachan may see this as singular as I am replying to his post, and the rest of you may see it as plural and relating to the participants here as a group.


As far as I am concerned the term 'you' is alive and strong, and as has been pointed out several times by others here, has many commonly used variants. Go the English language!

[An old bloke]

I obviously must mix with the wrong people and grown-up completely ignorant of the ways of the community in which I lived because I've never heard yourself being used. Not in my childhood, school life, work, or social life in many parts of NSW, the ACT, the NT, or Qld. That said, it may be a South or Western Australian colloquiallism that im unaware of.

You are unfamiliar with Norman Gunston, then? :p

Norman Gunston? Now that is going back and hardly authoritative since everything he said and did was for comedic value. Using him as an example of 'Straiian' is like using 'Kingswood Country' as a true example of a typical Australian family.

[penwash]

Y'all ain't gettin' it, ain'tcha?




By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

[An old bloke]

Tsherbs, said, 'There is no reason not to use it except for adherence to a kind of cultural protocol that is set up to distinguish the educated from the non-educated. And even though I am an educator, the elitism and classism that education has bolstered over the modern centuries is an injustice.'

Yes, that is an injustice. Judging someone by how they dress, their accent, their use of colloquialisms (slang), and even their physical appearance including such things as height, weight, complexion, how one dresses, or visible disability is equally an injustice, and yet it is a reality of human nature. It is undeniable that we make judgements about people in the first five seconds after meeting them. For instance, I know a man who is a wheelchair user who, despite being independently wealthy, is too frequently assumed to be on welfare and poor.

As someone who spent years teaching and advocating for social justice, I suggest that some minor things by which we are judged, such as language usage, are easily remedied by the individual concerned if they choose, and should not be an issue. In my thinking, what is an issue is the injustice attached to ethnicity and disability -- both of which can be impacted favourably by teachers such as yourself -- and the rest of us by how we treat those around us.

[silverlifter]

I obviously must mix with the wrong people and grown-up completely ignorant of the ways of the community in which I lived because I've never heard yourself being used. Not in my childhood, school life, work, or social life in many parts of NSW, the ACT, the NT, or Qld. That said, it may be a South or Western Australian colloquiallism that im unaware of.

You are unfamiliar with Norman Gunston, then? :p

Norman Gunston? Now that is going back and hardly authoritative since everything he said and did was for comedic value. Using him as an example of 'Straiian' is like using 'Kingswood Country' as a true example of a typical Australian family.

Oh, you want authoritative. Let me suggest the Macquarie Dictionary (https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/blog/article/164/). FWIW, Garry McDonald's genius was as a satirist; and his use of the vernacular was quite deliberate.

[Morgaine]

I am so far behind with a podcast called Something Rhymes with Purple, but it is a good podcast.

[silverlifter]

In case others don't click through to the Macquarie Dictionary article, it has an interesting discussion of the origin of youse and similar terms:


It is responding to an instinctively felt linguistic need. We used to distinguish singular from plural in our pronouns. We used to say thou for the singular and you for the plural, but thou was thought to be too intimate to be used by someone of lowly status addressing someone of higher status and in these circumstances a respectful you was used. So we distorted the grammar and arrived at a polite solution, but this was not without cost because there are situations where it is impossible, just from the words, to tell whether the you in question is one person or a group of people which is why we have created such constructions as you all or in American-speak, y'all, and you lot to give us a plural form. The Irish took the pronoun you and added -s to make a plural.

[manoeuver]

I'd tend to say the singular was more often thou (subjective) than thee (objective), but using that rule, the subjective ye rather than you would probably be more appropriate.


I think that's right, my mistake. I was never even aware of the concept of cases until I started studying Russian at the age of 23 or 24.

Thous and thees abound in the King James translation of the Bible. I've heard somewhere (could have been TV and thus is suspect) that the Amish community in the US still uses thou and thee "because it is how Jesus addressed his disciples."

I (and probably others) always found thou and thee offputting and stiff. some folks would pepper their prayers in church and before meals with them in what young dumb me assumed was a put-on piety. Maybe young dumb me was right, but it was a revelation to me to learn that those are not formal words.


@manoeuver: Deb heard "yinz" when she lived in Bucks County but it didn't come from there. The people she knew who used it were from either Western Pennsylvania or Appalachia.

I find your suggestion that it is the singular "you" that we have lost interesting, something I hadn't thought of. I'll need to think about that.

this is an interesting triangulation. I think there is a lot of fun to be had coming at the English language from our respective perspectives.



...yinz, Pittsburgh. (never heard this in PA Dutch country, I grew up nearby. I can check with some friends who live there.)....
That's my take on it, too, starting around Chambersburg and then west. I would've phonetically spelled it yoo-enz. I doubt any Pennsylvania public school teacher includes it in their curriculum.

yoo-enz and yinz are distinct, I think. not sure of the derivation of you-enz, but it isn't Pgh I should think.

[TSherbs]

...By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

You know of any sales?

[manoeuver]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

Why? It's a perfectly clear possessive.

I teach grammar for a living, but I admit the often totally arbitrary and elitist rules of insistence on certain constructions. "Ain't," for example, is perfectly clear and precise. There is no reason not to use it except for adherence to a kind of cultural protocol that is set up to distinguish the educated from the non-educated. And even though I am an educator, the elitism and classism that education has bolstered over the modern centuries is an injustice.
"Y'all" is also quite clear. These terms exist and persist because they work and fill a gap in the formal rules of usage.

emphasis mine.

Language exploded for me once I embraced the idea that grammar rules are descriptive not prescriptive.

Now I'm delighted instead of horrified by odd syntax and neologisms. I'm delighted to know there are corners of the English language that the grammarians haven't codified.

best of all is tossing the rules aside to make yourself perfectly clear.

[Morgaine]

Y'all ain't gettin' it, ain'tcha?




By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

Would the thread be more acceptable if it were written in fountain pen?

Perhaps thees and thous look better in fountain pen ink (maybe not the pretty sparkly pink) than in pencil or ballpoint?

[TSherbs]

Language exploded for me once I embraced the idea that grammar rules are descriptive not prescriptive.

Now I'm delighted instead of horrified by odd syntax and neologisms. I'm delighted to know there are corners of the English language that the grammarians haven't codified.

best of all is tossing the rules aside to make yourself perfectly clear.

great points

and this is not to say that rules don't matter; they do

but let's keep them in perspective and, at times, at arm's length

and enjoy the rich variety and power and legitimacy of what we term the colloquial and the vernacular

So, who are youse rooting for, KC or New Orleans?

[manoeuver]

By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

this is fun to think about. many of us are kind of bored with pens. it's the adjacencies that keep this place lively.

can you imagine how intolerable a grammar message board would be? better to dip into it with a group of folks like this, there's more fun to be had.

we all obviously have some interest in writing, and a wild array of experience means most of us will learn something cool during the discussion.

[penwash]

By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

this is fun to think about. many of us are kind of bored with pens. it's the adjacencies that keep this place lively.

can you imagine how intolerable a grammar message board would be? better to dip into it with a group of folks like this, there's more fun to be had.

we all obviously have some interest in writing, and a wild array of experience means most of us will learn something cool during the discussion.

I agree that tangential topics could be fun. And if you like (or at least could tolerate without having a heartburn) the people, it would be more fun.

But you may be bored with pens, I am not, far from it.

It remains to be seen if there are more "bored with pens" folk here than the ones who are still having fun.

Maybe a poll thread...

[manoeuver]

great points

and this is not to say that rules don't matter; they do

but let's keep them in perspective and, at times, at arm's length

and enjoy the rich variety and power and legitimacy of what we term the colloquial and the vernacular

for sure. Solid grammar is like a skeleton key.


So, who are youse rooting for, KC or New Orleans? I don't follow hockey.

[Jon Szanto]

Come for the pens, stay for the people. It's what has kept me going for well over a decade. In other news:



https://youtu.be/KvOoR8m0oms

[penwash]

...By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

You know of any sales?

What sales? Second person plurals? No.

(I could assume that you're talking about pens, but since we're out here in the off-topic-la-la-land ...)

[TSherbs]

...By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

You know of any sales?

What sales? Second person plurals? No.

(I could assume that you're talking about pens, but since we're out here in the off-topic-la-la-land ...)

:). Yes, I meant that in lieu of any great sales, I am watching football and checking my phone and staying off the beer.

[An old bloke]

Y'all ain't gettin' it, ain'tcha?




By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

Could it be that fountain pen users are also 'word people', and as such, words and how words are used interest us? With that, are we also thinking people for whom a digression or an abstract thought is an interest? In the end, it may be that we think about stuff, some of which has little to do with inks or pens.

[TSherbs]

Come for the pens, stay for the people. It's what has kept me going for well over a decade. In other news:



https://youtu.be/KvOoR8m0oms

Anderson is a genius.

[CrayonAngelss]

Born and raised in Boiling Springs, PA. This is about 30 minutes west of Harrisburg. I find where I'm from is rather "middle of nowhere" to most, though it is near Hershey! So we have a few notable things. A friend's parents in Gardners (only 10 mins from Boiling Springs) consistently said "yous" or "youinz" and "red up your room" which means "clean (ready up) your room."

As far as PA accents go, it's an interesting mix! I find once we hit Hanover/Gettysburg (heading into Maryland) there is a slight...twang? Noticeable change in accent to my ears. I spent a lot of time in this area and my friends from there would make fun of certain words I said, and we'd lovingly dish it out to one another. They'd say y'all a lot, and I picked it up from them! It still slips out sometimes. They'd say "bibs" for overalls and "crick" for creek. And I find a lot of people I know say "I seen" instead of "I saw."

Now, I live near Lancaster (PA Dutch!) I worked in an Amish tourist trap. And yes they (the Amish) mostly speak actual PA Dutch.. it's nothing to do with Dutch but rather a very different type of German? The kids learn English later on. Their accents can be thick but I'm not sure how to describe it! Of course, this is all anecdotal, but it's true to what I've witnessed and heard my whole life.

As for my accent.. I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary for this area. I've been told I have a very mild, almost modern PA Dutch influence. Probably more of a Central PA accent. It's mostly how I pronounce the "o" sound that can stick out. Once as a waitress, a table asked me if I was from Texas. Ha, not sure what made them think that!

I interject "like" a bit when I talk. I know that can be annoying to some but I don't think I overdo it. It just happens naturally. I have a penpal in Texas who tells me I sound like her family from PA, just with the way I structure my sentences. I have an aversion to the words "to be." I just say "the car needs washed" or "the house needs vacuumed." I never knew that was wrong until I was called out on it! The pronunciation of "water" and "wash" around here is up for debate! I hear "wooder" and "warsh" a lot but I don't naturally say them like that. Oh, and if I say "did you eat yet" I say "jeet yet" lol. And I'll just randomly place the words "then" and "awhile" at the ends of sentences when the mood strikes. Which I also thought was normal.

And as for the plural you.. I just say "hey (you) guys." :)

[eachan]

By the way, why are posts that have nothing to do with pens seem to get more responses here?

(And I include myself as part of those who do respond).

this is fun to think about. many of us are kind of bored with pens. it's the adjacencies that keep this place lively.

can you imagine how intolerable a grammar message board would be? better to dip into it with a group of folks like this, there's more fun to be had.

we all obviously have some interest in writing, and a wild array of experience means most of us will learn something cool during the discussion.

I'm not all bored with pens but it's nice to look at some other issues among the same group of people. I think my take on this is how language has been prescribed and proscribed by (in many cases) half-educated educators working on small kids.

[eachan]

Born and raised in Boiling Springs, PA. This is about 30 minutes west of Harrisburg. I find where I'm from is rather "middle of nowhere" to most, though it is near Hershey! So we have a few notable things. A friend's parents in Gardners (only 10 mins from Boiling Springs) consistently said "yous" or "youinz" and "red up your room" which means "clean (ready up) your room."

As far as PA accents go, it's an interesting mix! I find once we hit Hanover/Gettysburg (heading into Maryland) there is a slight...twang? Noticeable change in accent to my ears. I spent a lot of time in this area and my friends from there would make fun of certain words I said, and we'd lovingly dish it out to one another. They'd say y'all a lot, and I picked it up from them! It still slips out sometimes. They'd say "bibs" for overalls and "crick" for creek. And I find a lot of people I know say "I seen" instead of "I saw."

Now, I live near Lancaster (PA Dutch!) I worked in an Amish tourist trap. And yes they (the Amish) mostly speak actual PA Dutch.. it's nothing to do with Dutch but rather a very different type of German? The kids learn English later on. Their accents can be thick but I'm not sure how to describe it! Of course, this is all anecdotal, but it's true to what I've witnessed and heard my whole life.

As for my accent.. I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary for this area. I've been told I have a very mild, almost modern PA Dutch influence. Probably more of a Central PA accent. It's mostly how I pronounce the "o" sound that can stick out. Once as a waitress, a table asked me if I was from Texas. Ha, not sure what made them think that!

I interject "like" a bit when I talk. I know that can be annoying to some but I don't think I overdo it. It just happens naturally. I have a penpal in Texas who tells me I sound like her family from PA, just with the way I structure my sentences. I have an aversion to the words "to be." I just say "the car needs washed" or "the house needs vacuumed." I never knew that was wrong until I was called out on it! The pronunciation of "water" and "wash" around here is up for debate! I hear "wooder" and "warsh" a lot but I don't naturally say them like that. Oh, and if I say "did you eat yet" I say "jeet yet" lol. And I'll just randomly place the words "then" and "awhile" at the ends of sentences when the mood strikes. Which I also thought was normal.

And as for the plural you.. I just say "hey (you) guys." :)

"Red up your room" could be heard anywhere in Scotland. I know Amish Country and Eastern Pennsylvania a little and I always assumed the the "Dutch" part of that area was really "Deutsch" as German names and ancestry are so common there.

[TSherbs]

I grew up in Lancaster County, and the best way that I can describe the sound of Pennsylvania Dutch is that it sounds more like scrambled English than like German. Take English, mix up all the letters of the words of a sentence, make some random words out of the phonetic soup, and then speak it. That, to me, was what PD sounded like when I was a kid. That's, of course, a description from ignorance.

[Biber]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

Why? It's a perfectly clear possessive.

I teach grammar for a living, but I admit the often totally arbitrary and elitist rules of insistence on certain constructions. "Ain't," for example, is perfectly clear and precise. There is no reason not to use it except for adherence to a kind of cultural protocol that is set up to distinguish the educated from the non-educated. And even though I am an educator, the elitism and classism that education has bolstered over the modern centuries is an injustice.
"Y'all" is also quite clear. These terms exist and persist because they work and fill a gap in the formal rules of usage.

Emphasis added. - No. Nothing elitist about being able to communicate properly within society What? I'm poor so I don't need to be able to be understood? These things entered the lexicon because of ignorance and the lack of, or acceptance of (you can lead a horse to water...) a proper education (breakdown of family structure that values education at work there), and perpetuated by its greater allowance within the culture at large (heaven forbid there actually be rules and structure in human societal existence) How quaint he needs subtitles. Coupled with the refusal of liberal and progressive educators to hold pupils to anything but the lowest standard (if any standard at all) and you have the eventual acceptance of such vulgarities as those offered here. Granted, the one I offered is problematic because English doesn't offer a distinct plural form of You/your, and there seems to be a natural desire for one where it isn't needed. Don't yous agree with I?

The sky is the limit with kids. Expect nothing and that's what you'll get. But hold them to a higher standard and they'll come closer than you expect. Case in point - my son will never say yeah. It is always YES every time. Thank you Mr. Kurtz.

[dneal]

I know Amish Country and Eastern Pennsylvania a little and I always assumed the the "Dutch" part of that area was really "Deutsch" as German names and ancestry are so common there.

You're correct. It's German (Deutsch). It's just an older form of Hoch-Deutsch that has developed it's own colloquializations and pronunciations. Texas has similar areas Northeast of San Antonio, where descendants of German immigrants have kept the language alive (although without the buggies and funny beards...)

[Ole Juul]

I'm still reeling at the thought that all of a sudden "you" is no longer applicable as a plural. So me, and most people I know, have been wrong all this time. Whoda thunk!

[TSherbs]

Emphasis added. - No. Nothing elitist about being able to communicate properly within society What? I'm poor so I don't need to be able to be understood?...

Is there something not clear about "y'all"? It's a contraction of "you all," in the same exact manner of the contraction for "do not" into "don't." There is no "ignorance" there. Just a contraction that is not sanctioned by proper formal English. And the people who use it are not "ignorant" of the proper grammar, either.

"Youse" is just fun play. And it is very clear, too.

[TSherbs]

I'm still reeling at the thought that all of a sudden "you" is no longer applicable as a plural. So me, and most people I know, have been wrong all this time. Whoda thunk!

It's never worked well as a plural (on its own). That's partly why these other variants exist. The formal restriction to it is kinda stoopit.

[An old bloke]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

Why? It's a perfectly clear possessive.

I teach grammar for a living, but I admit the often totally arbitrary and elitist rules of insistence on certain constructions. "Ain't," for example, is perfectly clear and precise. There is no reason not to use it except for adherence to a kind of cultural protocol that is set up to distinguish the educated from the non-educated. And even though I am an educator, the elitism and classism that education has bolstered over the modern centuries is an injustice.
"Y'all" is also quite clear. These terms exist and persist because they work and fill a gap in the formal rules of usage.

Emphasis added. - No. Nothing elitist about being able to communicate properly within society What? I'm poor so I don't need to be able to be understood? These things entered the lexicon because of ignorance and the lack of, or acceptance of (you can lead a horse to water...) a proper education (breakdown of family structure that values education at work there), and perpetuated by its greater allowance within the culture at large (heaven forbid there actually be rules and structure in human societal existence) How quaint he needs subtitles. Coupled with the refusal of liberal and progressive educators to hold pupils to anything but the lowest standard (if any standard at all) and you have the eventual acceptance of such vulgarities as those offered here. Granted, the one I offered is problematic because English doesn't offer a distinct plural form of You/your, and there seems to be a natural desire for one where it isn't needed. Don't yous agree with I?

The sky is the limit with kids. Expect nothing and that's what you'll get. But hold them to a higher standard and they'll come closer than you expect. Case in point - my son will never say yeah. It is always YES every time. Thank you Mr. Kurtz.

Yes! Yes! And, yes!

As for understanding you singular and you plural, what is so hard to understand? The verb case if nothing else tells you whether it is singular or plural. Tsherbs at least should understand that.

I'll ask; Tsherbs, are your objections to grammatical rules and -- dare I say it -- 'proper grammar' part and parcel to a greater objection to the existence of 'rules' ?

[manoeuver]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

Why? It's a perfectly clear possessive.

I teach grammar for a living, but I admit the often totally arbitrary and elitist rules of insistence on certain constructions. "Ain't," for example, is perfectly clear and precise. There is no reason not to use it except for adherence to a kind of cultural protocol that is set up to distinguish the educated from the non-educated. And even though I am an educator, the elitism and classism that education has bolstered over the modern centuries is an injustice.
"Y'all" is also quite clear. These terms exist and persist because they work and fill a gap in the formal rules of usage.

Emphasis added. - No. Nothing elitist about being able to communicate properly within society What? I'm poor so I don't need to be able to be understood? These things entered the lexicon because of ignorance and the lack of, or acceptance of (you can lead a horse to water...) a proper education (breakdown of family structure that values education at work there), and perpetuated by its greater allowance within the culture at large (heaven forbid there actually be rules and structure in human societal existence) How quaint he needs subtitles. Coupled with the refusal of liberal and progressive educators to hold pupils to anything but the lowest standard (if any standard at all) and you have the eventual acceptance of such vulgarities as those offered here. Granted, the one I offered is problematic because English doesn't offer a distinct plural form of You/your, and there seems to be a natural desire for one where it isn't needed. Don't yous agree with I?

The sky is the limit with kids. Expect nothing and that's what you'll get. But hold them to a higher standard and they'll come closer than you expect. Case in point - my son will never say yeah. It is always YES every time. Thank you Mr. Kurtz.

Yes! Yes! And, yes!

As for understanding you singular and you plural, what is so hard to understand? The verb case if nothing else tells you whether it is singular or plural. Tsherbs at least should understand that.

I'll ask; Tsherbs, are your objections to grammatical rules and -- dare I say it -- 'proper grammar' part and parcel to a greater objection to the existence of 'rules' ?

It looks to me like you're strawmanning Tsherbs here, Mr. Bloke.
Proper Grammar is certainly a thing, and it's important to grasp it well.
Being horrified by deviations from proper grammar is a choice.
So is being interested in those deviations.
Making that choice in no way requires objecting to any of the rules or the existence or use of proper grammar.

If you was a perfectly unambiguous second-person plural we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

[FredRydr]

...If you was a perfectly unambiguous second-person plural ....
What th...!?

[TSherbs]

.....As for understanding you singular and you plural, what is so hard to understand? The verb case if nothing else tells you whether it is singular or plural. Tsherbs at least should understand that.
Situation: three students are standing in front of me, and I ask, "Are you planning on skipping school tomorrow?" How does the verb form indicate how many of the students I am addressing? The whole point, if you know your grammar, is that the verb is plural even for the singular "you." If I could say "is," then there would be a bit more clarity.


I'll ask; Tsherbs, are your objections to grammatical rules and -- dare I say it -- 'proper grammar' part and parcel to a greater objection to the existence of 'rules' ?
NO, sir. I enforce strict rules with my students daily. I've even been the head of discipline at my school. As I noted, my job is to teach grammar: I am an English teacher, near my retirement. I correct students daily on their deportment, manners, and speaking. But I also am wary of classist claims of superiority of proper English over the vernacular. Most people who love the language love the power, efficacy, and legitimacy of the vernacular and colloquial (and regional) expressions.

Amiright?

[An old bloke]

My statement regarding verb tense was in error. I realized that later. Your example is correct.

I agree to a point with your statement regarding the vernacular. I offer that its use can cause a lack of clarity. The meaning of a word used in the vernacular may not be universal. For instance, would you understand what a Sydneysider is? Or, what is meant if I said someone was a 'Westie'? Or, what or where the big smoke is? Without this discussion, I for one wouldn't have known that 'yinz' meant second personal plural and not a group of people named Yin if someone used it verbally.

Perhaps I am overly concerned about clarity of language, possibly to the point of obsession.

In my working life, in my profession, intention, meaning, and clarity of what one said had, without overstating the matter, potentially disastrous and lethal consequences. It is for that reason, I hesitate to consider proper usage classist or elitist.

[TSherbs]

My statement regarding verb tense was in error. I realized that later. Your example is correct.

I agree to a point with your statement regarding the vernacular. I offer that its use can cause a lack of clarity. The meaning of a word used in the vernacular may not be universal. For instance, would you understand what a Sydneysider is? Or, what is meant if I said someone was a 'Westie'? Or, what or where the big smoke is? Without this discussion, I for one wouldn't have known that 'yinz' meant second personal plural and not a group of people named Yin if someone used it verbally.

Perhaps I am overly concerned about clarity of language, possibly to the point of obsession.

In my working life, in my profession, intention, meaning, and clarity of what one said had, without overstating the matter, potentially disastrous and lethal consequences. It is for that reason, I hesitate to consider proper usage classist or elitist.

I get your point.

Of course, audience and context mean everything. And, again, knowledge of the standard rules of English matters greatly.

But Biber called people "morons" who spoke or wrote out of the realm of proper grammatical expression, and I objected to that characterization of what is actually very clear English in something like "y'all" or "ain't" or "yous." These things are too often sneered at, and I find the contempt, in this case, misplaced. Especially since this thread is about the ambiguity in English around the singular/plural usages of "you." We all know that this SOUNDS less sophisticated, but my point was to not turn this into the injustice of prejudice.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

And to muddy the waters a little, during a face-to-face conversation spoken language is augmented by visual cues, most of which are outside of our immediate awareness and are likely to influence the words chosen.

[Biber]

But Biber called people "morons" who spoke or wrote out of the realm of proper grammatical expression, and I objected to that characterization of what is actually very clear English in something like "y'all" or "ain't" or "yous." These things are too often sneered at, and I find the contempt, in this case, misplaced. Especially since this thread is about the ambiguity in English around the singular/plural usages of "you." We all know that this SOUNDS less sophisticated, but my point was to not turn this into the injustice of prejudice.

Well this is rich. Contempt? Hardly. I just said I couldn't abide it. As for the "injustice of prejudice," perhaps had you not equated education and speaking proper English with elitism...

[Chuck Naill]

It's interesting, here's what I know...

second person plural is the same as the formal second person address in a number of languages, the ones I know of the top of my head are French (vous) and Russian (вы)

From what I understand, the analog in English is actually you. What we lost was the informal singular, thee. So is you already plural? That would explain why we're casting about for the right word and kludging together words to communicate effectively. Some solutions others have mentioned:

y'all, a contraction of you all, Southern US, esp TX.

yinz, Pittsburgh. (never heard this in PA Dutch country, I grew up nearby. I can check with some friends who live there.)

yous or youse, common in NYC/NJ and Australia.

I find myself youseing the term all. Hello all. Sometimes you all. I did live in Texas for a while, but y'all didn't make it back to Jerz with me.

ok, whatchoo got?

you'ins

[TSherbs]

What I simply cannot abide is "you guys's". I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase.

Biber, this post comes before mine, and is the one that I was referring to. I do not initiate the criticism here; you do. I then responded to it.

I see that I should have quoted "absolute moron" to be more accurate.

This is the contempt that I meant. Would "scorn" or "derision" or "hauteur" or "disparagement" be a better term?

Are you suggesting that I am the prejudiced one for having pointed out the possibility of prejudice?

[Biber]

Do you know the definition of moron? For more than half a century it was defined clinically (as it originated) two steps above idiot and one higher than imbecile. It was actually a level on a greater scale of mental retardation. As I understand it, the term was discarded from clinical psychological use because of its more prevalent colloquial usage as a derogatory reference, which is where it remains today - a turn of phrase. No, you shouldn't have quoted the term, you should have quoted the whole sentence: "I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase." So what could I possibly have meant by that? Could it be that intelligent people sound decidedly less so when they say certain things? Whether you like it or not, people are judged by the way they speak. You are. I am. Everybody is. And again, whether you like it or not, so too do people judge. You do. I do. Everybody does. In my post I was merely stating an instance and criteria where I make such a judgement. I wasn't referencing you or anyone in particular. Contempt? That's a bit strong. Saying something that makes one sound less intelligent is hardly contemptuous. I'll have to think about that one. What is needed is a term that doesn't have motivation but is purely reactionary.

So why are you so offended? Does it apply to you? Do you say "you guys's"? I would venture to guess that you probably don't, though if and when you do, you probably have a good idea of what I would think. Not that it matters now does it? No, it doesn't, not at all. It seems to me that your offence is wholly and utterly feigned.

But what bothers me was your reaction that somehow speaking proper English, and education generally, is somehow elitist. Within the last decade or so that term has become quite a sensitive, and divisive touch word. What did you mean by it? There's your prejudice. Not in calling somebody stupid.

You can have the last word. I've already spent more energy on this than it deserves.

[manoeuver]

Thanks Biber for your constructive contribution to our fun conversation and object lesson on how to interact with grownups. please do fuck off post haste.

[Ole Juul]

In these days of over population, and the internet, and the generally impersonal nature of semi anonymous communication, I sense that there is an increase in people's tendency to take things personally. An interesting contrast.

Maybe that's just my personal perception of contemporary psychology, but for sure it's generally a good idea to try to use "I" messages rather than "you" messages to avoid any bad feelings.

[manoeuver]

Hey you, I think we forgot about yez.

One time on the beach with friends, we started rasslin. some of us ganged up on Johnny Bruno, a Brooklyn Sicilian (and still one of my all-time best friends) and after the tussle was over he said, "It took five of yez to bring me down." That is another good one. Imma start using that one I think.

[TSherbs]

Do you know the definition of moron? For more than half a century it was defined clinically (as it originated) two steps above idiot and one higher than imbecile. It was actually a level on a greater scale of mental retardation. As I understand it, the term was discarded from clinical psychological use because of its more prevalent colloquial usage as a derogatory reference, which is where it remains today - a turn of phrase. No, you shouldn't have quoted the term, you should have quoted the whole sentence: "I've seen many an otherwise intelligent person reduced to an absolute moron by the use of that phrase." So what could I possibly have meant by that? Could it be that intelligent people sound decidedly less so when they say certain things? Whether you like it or not, people are judged by the way they speak. You are. I am. Everybody is. And again, whether you like it or not, so too do people judge. You do. I do. Everybody does. In my post I was merely stating an instance and criteria where I make such a judgement. I wasn't referencing you or anyone in particular. Contempt? That's a bit strong. Saying something that makes one sound less intelligent is hardly contemptuous. I'll have to think about that one. What is needed is a term that doesn't have motivation but is purely reactionary.

So why are you so offended? Does it apply to you? Do you say "you guys's"? I would venture to guess that you probably don't, though if and when you do, you probably have a good idea of what I would think. Not that it matters now does it? No, it doesn't, not at all. It seems to me that your offence is wholly and utterly feigned.

But what bothers me was your reaction that somehow speaking proper English, and education generally, is somehow elitist. Within the last decade or so that term has become quite a sensitive, and divisive touch word. What did you mean by it? There's your prejudice. Not in calling somebody stupid.

You can have the last word. I've already spent more energy on this than it deserves.

I know what "moron" means. I am not sure why you go into this (?).

I am not offended. I am not sure where you even get that impression. If I were offended, I would tell you so in plain English. You don't seem to appreciate someone disagreeing with the "judgment" you make. Of course we are all subjected to judgments by others. But that does not mean that they are "fair" or "good" or "helpful" or "productive" or whatever. Maybe you have not seen what I have written: I am a teacher and I teach proper grammar and expression for a living. I value proper expression immensely, and I am paid to do so.

But no one is an "absolute moron" for sliding into poor grammar or some sort of colloquial expression. And, as I say, there is an aspect of my job (the teaching of proper English) that bolsters some folks' sense of superiority and judgment against others. And there is a long cultural history of the superiority of the educated over the uneducated in the history of humanity, of the refined over the unrefined. From my point of view (and I am highly educated, but not all that refined), I find that history a form of injustice.

[VertOlive]

From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

[TSherbs]

From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

I'm good with the first part, but the "whenever" substitution seems a real strain on meaning.

[An old bloke]

From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

I'm good with the first part, but the "whenever" substitution seems a real strain on meaning.

I'll pose a question here since, as I said before clarity of language are important to me, and I have a tendency to thing abstractly. Recognising that language and the meaning of a given word are often misused and, may from misuse, lose their meaning, could it be that 'whenever' originally meant a time more distant, more abstract, or more unlikely than what 'when' meant?

[TSherbs]

From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

I'm good with the first part, but the "whenever" substitution seems a real strain on meaning.

I'll pose a question here since, as I said before clarity of language are important to me, and I have a tendency to thing abstractly. Recognising that language and the meaning of a given word are often misused and, may from misuse, lose their meaning, could it be that 'whenever' originally meant a time more distant, more abstract, or more unlikely than what 'when' meant?

According to my copy of the OED, "when ever" (initially two words) comes into first recorded use in 1380. The meaning is as we use it today, but the editors add that it also had an additional layer of meaning of "time weakened or lost." I don't know what that means, and the sample sentence is by Wycliffe in Middle English, so....I don't really understand it.

Interesting question, though.

[An old bloke]

From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

I'm good with the first part, but the "whenever" substitution seems a real strain on meaning.

I'll pose a question here since, as I said before clarity of language are important to me, and I have a tendency to thing abstractly. Recognising that language and the meaning of a given word are often misused and, may from misuse, lose their meaning, could it be that 'whenever' originally meant a time more distant, more abstract, or more unlikely than what 'when' meant?

According to my copy of the OED, "when ever" (initially two words) comes into first recorded use in 1380. The meaning is as we use it today, but the editors add that it also had an additional layer of meaning of "time weakened or lost." I don't know what that means, and the sample sentence is by Wycliffe in Middle English, so....I don't really understand it.

Interesting question, though.

The OED is my dictionary of choice and my primary reference. The Cambridge is my second choice followed by the Collins.

I would say that 'time weakened or lost' may agree with the proposition that it means 'more abstract' if we use 'vague' as definition.

[silverlifter]

From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

I'm good with the first part, but the "whenever" substitution seems a real strain on meaning.

I'll pose a question here since, as I said before clarity of language are important to me, and I have a tendency to thing abstractly. Recognising that language and the meaning of a given word are often misused and, may from misuse, lose their meaning, could it be that 'whenever' originally meant a time more distant, more abstract, or more unlikely than what 'when' meant?

According to my copy of the OED, "when ever" (initially two words) comes into first recorded use in 1380. The meaning is as we use it today, but the editors add that it also had an additional layer of meaning of "time weakened or lost." I don't know what that means, and the sample sentence is by Wycliffe in Middle English, so....I don't really understand it.

Interesting question, though.

That rather poetic turn, "time weakened or lost", means (paraphrasing) at that point in time when $condition is/is not fulfilled, ie., is detatched from a specific time. OED likens it to a phrase with a preposition and a gerund, eg., "on seeing..., or in saying..." So, whenever the dog barks, the guests will have arrived.

[TSherbs]

Awesome, Silver. Thank you.

[VertOlive]

When they say whenever, they are always speaking of a distinct and completed event. People of widely varied educational levels use it and each generation seems to use it. My Dad doesn’t count in this group, he’d be 114 years old today. Somewhere in there this came into use.

[silverlifter]

When they say whenever, they are always speaking of a distinct and completed event. People of widely varied educational levels use it and each generation seems to use it. My Dad doesn’t count in this group, he’d be 114 years old today. Somewhere in there this came into use.

So it is only used in the past tense? "Whenever I went to the store Friday last"? I guess it makes sense in most contexts.

If you wanted more specificity, though, it might seem an odd construction (assuming anyone would use it like this):
"Last Friday at noon, whenever I saw Doc Martin..."

[Ole Juul]

I've heard the term a lot and used it myself a lot. But where I live in Western Canada "whenever" is used in the sense of "any time." I haven't heard it in any other context here, or perhaps I just hadn't noticed.

- Whenever I drop by your house you're never in.
- When should I come over?
- Whenever.

[An old bloke]

From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

I'm good with the first part, but the "whenever" substitution seems a real strain on meaning.

I'll pose a question here since, as I said before clarity of language are important to me, and I have a tendency to thing abstractly. Recognising that language and the meaning of a given word are often misused and, may from misuse, lose their meaning, could it be that 'whenever' originally meant a time more distant, more abstract, or more unlikely than what 'when' meant?

According to my copy of the OED, "when ever" (initially two words) comes into first recorded use in 1380. The meaning is as we use it today, but the editors add that it also had an additional layer of meaning of "time weakened or lost." I don't know what that means, and the sample sentence is by Wycliffe in Middle English, so....I don't really understand it.

Interesting question, though.

The OED is my dictionary of choice and my primary reference. The Cambridge is my second choice followed by the Collins.

I would say that 'time weakened or lost' may agree with the proposition that it means 'more abstract' if we use 'vague' as definition.






From what I hear in Texas:

= 3 is “y’all”

> 3 calls for “all y’all”

Possessive is y’all’s

My big linguistic discovery here is the use of “whenever” in place of “when” in almost every instance, that’s new to me. I think it’s more recent since my Dad was born in Texas but never used it.

What do all y’all think?

I'm good with the first part, but the "whenever" substitution seems a real strain on meaning.

I'll pose a question here since, as I said before clarity of language are important to me, and I have a tendency to thing abstractly. Recognising that language and the meaning of a given word are often misused and, may from misuse, lose their meaning, could it be that 'whenever' originally meant a time more distant, more abstract, or more unlikely than what 'when' meant?

According to my copy of the OED, "when ever" (initially two words) comes into first recorded use in 1380. The meaning is as we use it today, but the editors add that it also had an additional layer of meaning of "time weakened or lost." I don't know what that means, and the sample sentence is by Wycliffe in Middle English, so....I don't really understand it.

Interesting question, though.

That rather poetic turn, "time weakened or lost", means (paraphrasing) at that point in time when $condition is/is not fulfilled, ie., is detatched from a specific time. OED likens it to a phrase with a preposition and a gerund, eg., "on seeing..., or in saying..." So, whenever the dog barks, the guests will have arrived.



When they say whenever, they are always speaking of a distinct and completed event. People of widely varied educational levels use it and each generation seems to use it. My Dad doesn’t count in this group, he’d be 114 years old today. Somewhere in there this came into use.

So it is only used in the past tense? "Whenever I went to the store Friday last"? I guess it makes sense in most contexts. ...

I use it. When I do, it is to express it as I suggested above, in the abstract as Silverlifter expressed, 'detached from a specific time'.

When to me, expresses a more defined time.

[Biber]

Apparently "Y'all" is actually singular (according to an august interviewee on a C-Span program yesterday afternoon). The plural is "all-y-all".

[TSherbs]

Can't remember if this was ever posted (from 2016):

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/03/the-case-for-yall/473277/

[welch]

It's "you all" around Washington, DC, probably from the Shenandoah and western edge of Virginia. Not "y'all", which we took as a affectation, like when Nashville put on cowboy hats and went from calling its music "hillbilly" in the 1940's to "country-western" some time in the 1950's.

Accents in the US have been sand-papered off. TV did much of that. I confess, I listened to Chet Huntley and David Brinkley and tried not to sound like a third-generation Washingtonian. New York accents are going out. In addition to television and movies that give kids a model accent, people move more. My kids -- the grand-children plus son and daughter-in law -- are in Missouri. Daughter is in Brooklyn.

Perhaps regional accents are stronger in Britain, but, best I could tell, the strength of accents are jumbled up with social class. Language is less of a tip-off of class in the us, where sharp-eyed people look at shoes, dress-style, food, and where the signs are more subtle.

Accent is good.

[Mustang Mars]

I must admit, “Youse” gets me shaking my head, but saying “aks” instead of “ask” e.g. “I aks you this” does me in completely.

[Chrissy]

The above post reminded me of Michael McIntyre on Geordie accents - 1.07 minutes in:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzymb0YJp7E

[VertOlive]

OK, this is new. In the past month I’ve heard three different native Spanish-speaking men of different age groups address three different Spanish- and non Spanish-speaking women (also of different age groups) as “mother” (in English) in a context where I’d expect to hear “m’am” instead. They were not addressing their own moms and even used it with childless women....I’m guessing a sort of honorific?

[Fermata]

There would have none of this confusion if we still used the word Thou.

Huge mistake, huge.

[manoeuver]

after marinating on this for a times, imma start using ye.
join me if ye like, you'll feel like a pirate.

[TSherbs]

after marinating on this for a times, imma start using ye.
join me if ye like, you'll feel like a pirate.

Hear ye

[eachan]

"Ye" is correct everyday speech the length and breadth of Scotland and even into the north-east of England.