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]

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?

[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?

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.

[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?

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. FWIW, Garry McDonald's genius was as a satirist; and his use of the vernacular was quite deliberate.

[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

[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]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...!?

[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!