Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, what is the plural you, yous?
This is a first to me, I admit. If you are referring that the context indicates that you could mean singular or plural, I know that part. However, the word by itself is ambiguous regarding singularity or plurality. I appreciate you explaining what you meant.
You have a great day.
elamigo
The plural of "you" is still "you." At least for now.
I use plural you. If I really feel the need to be explicit that I am addressing a group I will say you guys or you all, but mostly just you.
I feel really weird saying y'all. It feels like an affectation or even like I am speaking a foreign language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
I do, however, decry the use of bastardizations of the language that result in the use of "y'all" and "youse" as someone referred to above. I'm not quite ready to give into the "anything goes" theory of language, I "seen" that too many times already.
The language you use is a bastardization to any English speaker from the Adventus Saxonum over fifteen centuries ago, right up to halfway through the 20th century, and even today to any person from an English speaking country other than your own since we all have our own variation to what is considered standard. You are calling perfectly natural linguistic variability, bastardization.
I am not opposed to prescribed grammar/vocabulary, but at the same time I wouldn't illegitmize natural consistent linguistic variation. It is how we got to the "accepted standard" we recognize today.
That said, I will throw myself on my sword if any grammar book ever accepts 'should/would/could of'.
I use plural you. If I really feel the need to be explicit that I am addressing a group I will say you guys or you all, but mostly just you.
I feel really weird saying y'all. It feels like an affectation or even like I am speaking a foreign language.
The language you use is a bastardization to any English speaker from the Adventus Saxonum over fifteen centuries ago, right up to halfway through the 20th century, and even today to any person from an English speaking country other than your own since we all have our own variation to what is considered standard. You are calling perfectly natural linguistic variability, bastardization.
I am not opposed to prescribed grammar/vocabulary, but at the same time I wouldn't illegitmize natural consistent linguistic variation. It is how we got to the "accepted standard" we recognize today.
That said, I will throw myself on my sword if any grammar book ever accepts 'should/would/could of'.
Isn't that more properly expressed as "shoulda/woulda/coulda"?
I use plural you. If I really feel the need to be explicit that I am addressing a group I will say you guys or you all, but mostly just you.
I feel really weird saying y'all. It feels like an affectation or even like I am speaking a foreign language.
The language you use is a bastardization to any English speaker from the Adventus Saxonum over fifteen centuries ago, right up to halfway through the 20th century, and even today to any person from an English speaking country other than your own since we all have our own variation to what is considered standard. You are calling perfectly natural linguistic variability, bastardization.
I am not opposed to prescribed grammar/vocabulary, but at the same time I wouldn't illegitmize natural consistent linguistic variation. It is how we got to the "accepted standard" we recognize today.
That said, I will throw myself on my sword if any grammar book ever accepts 'should/would/could of'.
I agree and should probably not go near "waiting on a bus." Let's face it, if you're waiting on a bus, you're already on it.
Isn't that more properly expressed as "shoulda/woulda/coulda"?
Rendering vernacular speech into print (like shoulda/woulda/coulda) is one thing, but should of/would of/could of, is an ungrammatical misinterpretation of the contractions should've/would've/could've. It is malapropism which is simply incorrect usage.
Like, If I were to write, "For all intents 'n' purposes.", the shortening of and to 'n' reflects a vernacular pronunciation but maintains the grammar and meaning of the phrase, whereas "For all intensive purposes" is simply a misinterpretation of the phrase and would thus be considered incorrect.
Rendering vernacular speech into print (like shoulda/woulda/coulda) is one thing, but should of/would of/could of, is an ungrammatical misinterpretation of the contractions should've/would've/could've. It is malapropism which is simply incorrect usage.
Like, If I were to write, "For all intents 'n' purposes.", the shortening of and to 'n' reflects a vernacular pronunciation but maintains the grammar and meaning of the phrase, whereas "For all intensive purposes" is simply a misinterpretation of the phrase and would thus be considered incorrect.
That is the result of English being a stressed-timed language but this isn't really taught in schools. Instead, schools teach syllables as in multi-syllabic words. This results in words being taught in isolation rather than as part of a phrase or sentence where stress plays a role in what a person hears.
And doesn't intent mean purposes? So isn't that phrase really saying, "for all purposes and purposes." I think it can be done away with.
I've heard about the big C differences between LA and Spain. On (at least) one of the Guitar Hero games they had a song by Radio Futura who I had never heard of before. As soon I heard the singer pronounce hace more like "a-they" I figured they must have been from Spain. Also watched La Reina del Sur on Netflix (with Kate del Castillo) and could hear the difference with the characters/actors from Spain. So I can pick up on that difference, but other than that I don't know enough about the various dialects. In English it's pretty easy for me to pick up on the dialects but Spanish is harder for me outside of that big one
It is not uncommon to see a sign in a car window "se bende" (for sale.) And a friend of mine is named "Yisell" which in English would be Giselle. To hear some different pronunciation(s) of Latin American Spanish---
Rendering vernacular speech into print (like shoulda/woulda/coulda) is one thing, but should of/would of/could of, is an ungrammatical misinterpretation of the contractions should've/would've/could've. It is malapropism which is simply incorrect usage.
Like, If I were to write, "For all intents 'n' purposes.", the shortening of and to 'n' reflects a vernacular pronunciation but maintains the grammar and meaning of the phrase, whereas "For all intensive purposes" is simply a misinterpretation of the phrase and would thus be considered incorrect.
Another common spoken error in U.K., is of the driving offence, “driving without due care and consideration.”
You’ll often hear, “I got done last week for driving with undue care.”
I always say, “So, you got a ticket for driving too carefully?”
English is the world's first global lingua franca, and has so much momentum it's likely to stay that way for centuries.
There's a lot to recommend English: a huge vocabulary, simple grammar, and expressive flexibility.
And then there's spelling.
Should we reform English spelling to make it phonetically consistent? That means as long as you can pronounce a word, you can spell it once you know the rules. No exceptions to memorize.
For those who would say this is impossible, Chinese provided an example of an undertaking of similar scope when it simplified its characters.
There are only two downsides to this I can see, the first being that English's loose phonetics currently allow for more verbal diversity than, say, German. English dialects and pidgins all use the same spelling, with some minor differences, yet are pronounced differently. A stricter phonetical system would privilege a single dialect.
The second downside is that many historical written works would be inaccessible to those who did not also have some familiarity with traditional English spelling. These could be translated however.
As to the upsides, they are almost too numerous to list. The main one I see is that it would make English even easier to learn as a second language and cement its status as the language of humanity for centuries if not millennia.
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I am against all attempts to dumb it down for whatever reason, or for the benefit in any group.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. People will just have to learn how to spell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
