 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Plural of you
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Plural of you From: Mooh Date: 30 Oct 02 - 09:48 AM I've just returned from a meeting with the teacher of my grade 6 child, with a principal, another teacher, my wife, and my kid in attendance. It was a casual but necessary (by law I believe) meeting to discuss my kid's progress in a "gifted" program. Very little of any consequence happens at these annual meetings other than the signing of paperwork, and the acknowledgement that the silly computer programs designed to create the paperwork don't work very well. Now, anyone who has ever read my posts here will know I'm not the most articulate, grammatically correct individual, but fer Chrisakes...the teacher addressed my wife and I as "yous", not once, but twice! I wanted to ask her how to spell it. Casual or not, in a meeting of this nature I would expect a teacher to drop the yokel colloquialisms. I hate "yous" whenever I hear it, but for an educated 30something grade 6 teacher to use it with parents doesn't leave me with much faith in her other abilities. I hope I'm not being to judgemental. Am I the only one who is bothered by this stuff anymore? Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: jeffp Date: 30 Oct 02 - 09:51 AM No you're not. It drives me crazy, especially coming from someone who should know better. I would not consider this person to be fit to teach my child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bagpuss Date: 30 Oct 02 - 09:52 AM They are re-making The Silence of the Lambs in Liverpool. It's going to be called... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shurrup Yous (ewes) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bagpuss Date: 30 Oct 02 - 09:57 AM So if I were a teacher and I used any dialectal variations, then I am not fit to be a teacher? I would find it very difficult to for example stop saying "us" instead of "me". I have never dropped these sorts of indicators of my dialect, even in interview situations (pretty formal occasions) and it has never stopped me getting a job (I have got the job in almost every interview I have been to). Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: MMario Date: 30 Oct 02 - 09:57 AM Thou |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:01 AM Danged, if therez one thing that really gits by bobey Wes Ginny butt it's what's happening the purrfectly good English. Youz gotta be beside youzsefl there, Mooh. I mean the very thought of a gifted teacher uszin' youz when most folks know that you'allz is the only correct termonology. Whatz this world comin' to , anywayz? Nevermind. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: JenEllen Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:08 AM The one that still gets me, and I do it often enough to cringe, is --- all y'all --- Bad grammar, and redundant to boot, take 'er out behind the barn.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: mack/misophist Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:09 AM Bagpuss: The job of teaching the lower grades is a little different from other jobs. Much of what is taught is by example, especially speech. Don't forget, standard English is still mandatory in standard jobs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,Kim C Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:10 AM Y'all. Then there's "all y'all." In some parts of the Midwest its you'uns... pronounced more like "yoons." Isn't "yous" a Northern variation? If your child is in a gifted program, and doing very well, I wouldn't worry about it. :-) This teacher may well have other outstanding gifts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,GerMan Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:14 AM There's nothing wrong with "yous" - it's simply part of certain dialects. It would be very boring if we all spoke the same. Until the publication of the first bible in Tudor times there wasn't any standard English & therefore certain dialects were not seen as inferior to others. Ever since then though when the then dialect of the South East of England was used in the Bible anyone with anything different is seen as inferior/uneducated. It's jus' no right ah tells yer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Steve Parkes Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:19 AM I grew up convinced that teachers came from some mysterious other-wordly place where dialect, accent and (above all) slang are unknown; so when you speak to them, you have to speak in their terms, or have them demand "'gis'? I don't know that word!" or "'ain't? Who says 'ain't'?". You know this old chestnut? St Peter is changing the paper in the heavenly fax machine when there's a knock at the Pearly Gates. Not wanting to have to stop what he's doing, St P calls out, "Who's there?" "It is I." "Not another teacher!" Steve P.S. In answer to the question: yes, teachers ought to speak "properly" to parents, unless they are in more intimate circumstances than a PTA meeting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Declan Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:20 AM Yiz are all gettin' very upseh over nuthin' (as they say around here) usually followed by Yanowharrimeann ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: smallpiper Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:21 AM Define standard English - would that be Queens English or American? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: IanC Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:24 AM Mooh If you're being correct in English, YOU is the plural, THOU being the singular. The plural was not only used to denote more than one, but also as a mark of respect. About 200 years ago, people decided to drop the singular and just use the plural (the French are in the process of doing the opposite at the moment - using TU instead of VOUS to their parents etc.). If you think that is not the same thing and didn't cause annoyance to some people, think again. It's one of the things Quakers really got it in the neck for ... using the singular to all, rather than just their social equals or inferiors. I'd be disinclined to complain ... just like the vowing on the hairs of your head, you won't change things one whit. ;-) Ian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bagpuss Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:32 AM I hate the idea that young kids must be taught that local dialects are *wrong* and standard English is correct. Surely they should be taught the use and validity of both forms. My brother is training to be a primary teacher and I'm sure that the obliteration of his dialect is not of primary concern. And neither should it be. I also think that many parents would relate better to a teacher who used dialectal forms - especially if they were local ones, rather than using standard English and sounding *posh*. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Alice Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:41 AM Mooh, I agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Alice Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:45 AM Children learn the local dialect long before they get to school. Students learn grammar in school and I would expect all the teachers to know how to speak using the correct grammar of whatever country they are in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: 53 Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:47 AM yall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bagpuss Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:51 AM Yes the teachers should teach the grammar of standard English. And I'm sure the teacher concerned does know the *correct* grammar and teaches it to the kids. That doesn't mean, however, that they should never use the local dialect - inside the classroom or out of it. I mean I can just imagine in a meeting with parents that I might say something like "If y's (as I would say it) have any problems, then just give us a ring". Would that make me unfit to teach at primary level? Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Fibula Mattock Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:54 AM I am a firm supported of "yous" beacuse using "yous" is a Norn Iron thing, and yous aren't using it proper, so you's aren't! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Alice Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:54 AM My last post disappeared. We play alot with language on Mudcat, so most of us post messages with grammatical errors because this is an informal situation. Dialect is appropriate in some situations and not in others. The teacher should have known better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: MMario Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:54 AM well - depends on whether we are talking second person familiar or second person formal. Thee was familiar, thou formal, You (which some people argue was actually pronounced 'thou' - but when printing became common the less educated read the thorn as a 'y' and it became 'you' ) anyway - depends on where you were - when it was - and sometimes who you were and who you were speaking to |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Teribus Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:56 AM If the subject being taught is standard english then it should be taught correctly. Seems a bit of a waste of time to do it any other way. Bagpuss under your system how would your brother spell, how would he speak in another part of the country with a different dialect, or does he have to copy that to make himself understood. At school (light years ago), the only dialect we ever had to get to grips with was when studying the works of Robert Burns. Our teacher did emphasise that he only ever used it in writing for entertainment, his letters were written in what was accepted as correct english of the day. To encourage the use of dialect in formal education only serves as a dumbing down exercise, that will ultimately be to the detriment of the pupil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: HuwG Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:57 AM British Army usage:
Singular: YOU !!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Fibula Mattock Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:58 AM (Please ignore my atrocious misuse of an apostrophe in my above post. Now that IS unforgiveable.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:01 AM The lack of a single discrete word to indicate the plural of "you" is one of the larger curiosities of the English language. The "proper" plural for "you" is simply "you". One is supposed to be able to tell from the context whether the "you" is singular or plural. As this rarely happens in real life, we are forced to use non-standard terms to indicate plurality. Where I live, "you all" is the standard in polite conversation while its contracted form "y'all" is common among friends. Unfortunately, both terms have a patina of yokelness about them. "You guys" has made some inroads in the past few years though many southern women view "guys" as being male specific and are offended by it. Nobody down here would be caught dead using "yous" or "youns". We give Yankee transplants thirty days to drop the habit, or else. Personally, I usually use "you folks" as it is gender neutral and doesn't make me sound like a bumpkin. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:04 AM "In America they've not spoken it for years..." Americans complaining about people not speaking correct Queen's English? When did the Empire Loyalists take over? Plural for you? What's wrong with that? Now that "you" has been transformed from being just a plural form of "thou" to cover both the singular and plural second person, there is clearly room for a variant which can indicate whether it's one person being addressed or several. In Ireland, and quite widely in England too, it's "yez", " or "yez'all". Perhaps it's time Standard Engklish legitimised this logical development. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Sorcha Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:11 AM Haven't seen "youse" go by yet...........(grin) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bagpuss Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:12 AM My brother (and I) would spell using standard English because our dialect is vernacular and not generally a written form. I only change spelling from standard when I am trying to emphasise the accent/dialect. I live in a different part of the country to where my accent and dialect come from, but I haven't needed to change it in order to be understood - only slow down my speech a little - as Geordies are notorious for the speed of their speech. Most of my teachers used the local dialect to varying degrees - that doesn't mean I was unable to learn the standard English form and that they were unable to teach it. I notice the general tone of this thread is that dialectal variations in grammar are "incorrect". They are only incorrect in standard English. And that dialects are *inferior* to standard English. I wonder if some of this is a US/UK difference in the status of "yous". For example in a semi formal situation I probably wouldn't change *yous*, but I would avoid using other dialectal words that tend to be used only in very informal situations - eg *divvent* instead of don't. Maybe *yous* in wherever you are in the US is a much more informal use compared to UK (more comparable to divvent). Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bill D Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:19 AM this does push one of my buttons...*grin* I agree with Alice--- there is a place for dialect and the use of regional variants. What bothers me is people who seemingly never look at or listen to themselves and 'think' about their use of language. As to the question of whether there IS a 'standard'....sure there is! Just tune in to one of the major nightly news broadcasts. It is not a 100% infallible guide, but I will assure you Tom Brokaw does not say "youse" or "y'all". It is perfectly fine to switch to your preferred local variant at times, but everyone should know what my German teacher in college called "Die Umgangsprache"...that is, the accepted 'default' form of the language (yes, even this changes gradually with time.) School teachers who CANNOT switch or do not know that they are using a word generally considered sub-standard should be informed and encouraged to improve their image. It can happen that an otherwise decent teacher can lose respect because of careless language. (I once listened to a radio talk show where an African-American woman was defending the use of "Ebonics" and the Black 'language' variants by kids. She was pefectly capable of switching--appearing on a radio show and speaking 'standard' English, but suggesting at the same time that young black kids be allowed to grow up unable to adapt and thus limiting their job markets and social acceptance...all because it was their 'right' to speak as they pleased!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mooh Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:21 AM I suppose I could be out of line, but it just seems to me that school is where one learns the general (!) rules of communication whether it's written, spoken, signed, or in languages other than English, including the brave new computer-speak. Some standards should apply in order that understanding is not lost. "Y's" (I like that spelling Bagpuss) is understood perfectly, but it is not the language of the press, of the books I read, or of my home. I admit that could change, but I don't admit it should, there being better choices for change in English language use. Oh boy, another thread topic! Anyway, the school seems to me to be a place where general rules of communication should be used, especially by those who teach. There is no doubt the teacher knows better, but she apparently felt it was acceptable speech even in her professional capacity. I also know my child knows better, but not every child in the classroom will, and I think that helps create a disparity between those students who know and those who don't. Language evolves, but an elemantary school is hardly at the forefront of that evolution. Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Burke Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:28 AM Thee & thou are both 2nd person familiar. I think one is as subject the other object (same as I vs. me) As with French Vous, You used to be either 2nd person formal or 2nd person plural. Perhaps as a reaction against the Quakers' use of the familiar thee, thou for everyone, 'You' became both familar and formal. Ye disappeared along the way as well. King James English used familar thee, thou when addressing God. In the usage change the English Bible & hymns from the period remained more fixed & now about the only one addressed with familar forms is God. Unfortunately, thee, thou seemingly reserved for God alone feels formal to us today & we have lost the Daddy or Papa (Abba) feeling when addressing God. I have even read criticisms of modern translations that use 'you' for God as being too familiar. We still need a plural for the 2nd person so dialectly we've invented y'all, yous, youns, etc. I moved from Louisana's y'all to Minnesota's you guys as a teenager. Then the women's movement came along. I can't say I use a plural a lot, but tend to say something like you folks when needed. What's used in the UK? If thou wants to insist on 'you' being used, perhaps thou shouldst consider reviving thee & thou. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Art Thieme Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:30 AM No judgment here----and I mean that, but around this part of Illinois, the only folks that say yuz, youse, and the like are waitresses in family restaurants. Why that is the case, I have no idea. Just what is. Example: "Are yuz ready to order." I have always come out on stage and said, "Howdy folks !" Quite often this got an almost instantasneous and judgmentally questioning, "HOWDY???" back from some member of the audience----as if I had just revealed myself to be some sort of less-than-educated urban hayseed. Personally, I thought it was a very friendly greeting --------from one person to another-----and nothing more (or less). But we humans do get to feeling superior utilizing one-upmanship almost any way we can to achieve that perception of superiority----whether actual or the stuff of fantasy. We humans are pretty fantastic, or so it seems. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bagpuss Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:31 AM But who is to say that the teacher in question was incapable of switching? Maybe it just comes down to a difference in what he/she considered appropriate for that particular meeting and what Mooh considered appropriate. That's hardly a sacking offence, is it? Again, since I don't know just how informal the US *yous* is, I can't comment on whether everyone would be expected to consider it inappropriate. I just know I wouldn't consider the equivalent in UK English to be so informal that it should never be used in the situation described. I think we can teach kids standard English and therefore expand their horizons and opportunities without implicitly teaching them that their own dialect (and by extension their social class and community) is somehow inferior. One way to do that is for the teachers to show (by example) that they can use both forms and point the way for when each form is the norm and advantageous. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:34 AM Everybody here has valid points. Let me use myself as an example. Someone mentioned that children learn the local vernacular before they ever get to school. That's true. We used the local vernacular in school to talk amongst ourselves..... but I don't recall a single teacher, even here in the Nashville, TN public school system, who didn't use proper grammar in the classroom. I was taught proper grammar, I know how to use proper grammar, and I have a college degree to prove it. However, in informal situations, all bets are off. Grammar rules go out the window. A person's speech is individual like their handwriting. Everybody who has perfect standard handwriting, raise your hand. Anybody? That's what I thought. Anyway, yes, the teacher probably should have been more formal in her speech to you. But as long as she teaches the kids the right way to speak, and the kids are doing well, I don't see anything wrong with it. As I said before, perhaps she has other gifts that make her a good teacher. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Rick Fielding Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:36 AM Hey listen up youse guys. Is there any reason to think that teachers don't reflect the "dumbing down" that we see all around us? I feel for you Mooh; right or wrong I would consider that teacher pretty unhelpful as an educator, and all you can do is try to counter things at home. As much as I have fallen into a kind of oddball style on Mudcat of using words like "ya" for you, and "yer" for your, and worst of all, abbreviating "ing" to "in'" I still really appreciate hearing someone speak correctly. We all use some form of colloquialisms (I DO say "eh"? occasionally) but I'd hope that teachers would resist the urge. Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Nigel Parsons Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:56 AM I was surprised when talking to my daughter's junior school teacher (my daughter was about 9 at that time) that she explained the system of marking some test papers. "The paper has 25 marks available, so to get a percentage we times it by four" I had often wondered where the children were getting that expression from. Also, at one time, my son's English exercise book had several corrections in it, made by the teacher. In each case the teacher had corrected the spelling 'learnt' (past tense of to learn) to learned! What chance for the youth of today ? Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bill D Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:04 PM " Is there any reason to think that teachers don't reflect the "dumbing down" that we see all around us?" exactly, Rick....schools are desperate for teachers for various reasons, and they are accepting 'warm bodies' that once would have been only on the waiting list. Sad situation, and no easy solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: mg Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:25 PM You guys in NW USA. Generally considered gender-neutral but there will always be those who argue. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,curmudgeon Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:28 PM Point of clarification and explanation of usage: I am, tthou art;, me, thee; mine, thine; my, thy. I must add my agreement with Rick and Bill. I have nearly twenty years formal teaching experience. I can't get a job though because a school can hire two college grads for what they would have to pay me. In those few months when I am fortunate enough to have a real job, I read student tests, grade school and high school. Some papers are great, some are awful, most are mediocre. But what is worse is the poorly worded quiestions and the horrible choice of passages used to test our young. Two years ago I was asked to edit the test booklets for a state that shall remain nameless. It should have been a simple proofing job. However, some ed. official had gotten there first and miscorrected all of the quotations, missed most of the typos, and scrawled across a passage about the popularity of a well known youthful wizard, "NO HARRY POTTER!" Vernacular is fine, but not at the cost of effective communication -- Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Jeanie Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:31 PM It can only get worse, Nigel, as the badly taught become teachers themselves, knowing no better. I was intrigued last week, reading the website for the A Level Psychology course run by Palmer's Sixth Form College in Grays, Essex, which included: "Social Psychology, egg prejudice; Cognitive psychology, egg forgetting; Learning Approach, egg phobias; Clinical Psychology, egg schizophrenia" It promised to be really rather interesting, until I realized this was nothing to do with the oval things that emerge from hens, but simply egg = e.g. = exempli gratia = for example !! My daughter's school holds an annual concert given by the holders of music scholarships. This was billed, in the invitation, the reply slip and the programme as the "Scholar's Concert". When I was teaching at the same school, our handwritten reports (one A4 page per subject per pupil)had to be proof-read by the Form Tutor, Head of Department and Head of Year for grammatical and spelling mistakes. This would have been all well and good, but for the fact that every time I had written "practise" (the verb) as in "X needs to practise more", it had been incorrectly "corrected" by the Head of Year to "practice" (the noun) . I never dared to count how many of the blessed reports I had to re-write. - jeanie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Declan Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:39 PM Since we're all being pedantic around here Nigel are you sure you're right about the learned/learnt thing. I always thought that "learnt" was the past participle (*i Can't wait for the spelling corrections on that*) but the past tense was "learned" - for example My Mother learned to sing this song in school but This is a song, learnt in school by my Mother |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Nigel Parsons Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:57 PM Declan: it probably depends on the dictionary being used. Most will give learnt with learned as an alternative. But this does not excuse the teacher crossing out a correctly used word in favour of another. Learned causes confusion as it has a main meaning (not as a secondary spelling) of "having great knowledge or erudition" as in 'My learned friend' Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,iggy pop Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:05 PM I'm a teacher and your hair would curl at some of the things you hear in the common room now. At first it can make you feel superior, but after a while you realise that it's a generational thing. That doesn't mean you get used to it. This is a great site by the way. iggy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:13 PM It is one thing to accept a trend toward standardization which seems to move the language toward greater flexibility; and quite another to hasten the corruption of the language by losing touch with important conventions, such as (IMHO) the difference between you and youse. The "thee and thou" component of this discussion is anachronistic; the words are not in mainstream usage and have not been for decades; they appear in cultural dialects and historical contexts such as the Elizabethan, Amish, and parts of the UK with very long memories!:>) The maintenance of two forms of past tense, one ending with -t and one with -ed, has always struck me as slightly cumbersome and arbitrary because the contexts in which they are used provide plenty of insight into which is meant; so cleaving to the endings is extra freight in most instances I can think of just now. Burnt vs. burned, learnt vs. learned, (not lurn-Ed) perhaps the archaic skint versus skinned...where's the beef? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: ballpienhammer Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:14 PM how about you'uns pronounced yuns in PA. Basic SW PA dialect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: chip a Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:19 PM Well I think it's a great thing this teacher is doing. Providing you with someone to feel superior to and all. My daughter is providing the same service here in the southern U.S. She's a very gifted special ed. teacher who calls her students y'all and lord only knows what other awful stuff. Of course, having been raised in the mountains she can't help her backwards ways. We're just proud she has enough sense to find her way to school every day. And so are her students. :-) Chip |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: MudGuard Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:20 PM Mooh, was the teacher older than you? Then, perhaps, she said "youth" ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mooh Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:25 PM Update. At lunch my daughter informed me that her teacher regularly uses the expression "yous" with small groups or individual students but "probably" wouldn't use it with the whole class. I see little distinction. Further, my kid noticed the use during the meeting and knew I'd have an opinion about it. Her observation, without my prodding, was that the teacher lived in a certain vicinity and that's how they speak there. Kids are observant. Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,iggy folk Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:25 PM I'd hate to cast aspersions on the *real* iggy. I meant to sign in as 'iggy folk' above, just as a joke (yes I know, a very *little* joke) but back to the subject being discussed. Someone mentioned earlier that bad grammar was hardly a 'sacking offence'. At first I thought 'well of course not', but now I'm thinking that perhaps being exposed to a teacher who was that careless over a whole semester could be quite detrimental to a student. Might it at some time prevent the student from getting a specific job? It could. iggy |