 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Plural of you
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,Ard Mhacha Date: 04 Nov 02 - 01:22 PM Sorry to disagree with Hrot and Jon, but youse-ins are both wrong. After all I live here in the north of Ireland and I can assure youse-ins, that it aint yez. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: SharonA Date: 04 Nov 02 - 01:07 PM Mooh: Glad you appreciated my joke! I wasn't sure whether the misspellings of "too" and "judgmental" were a joke on your part, or just typos. Anyway, I have to wonder whether the teacher's abbreviation of her surname is a matter of "dumbing it down" for her pupils, or a matter of having tired of seeing her full surname misspelled too often, or a matter of preferring to be called (for example) "Miss X" instead of "Miss Xavier". I have what I think is a simple surname but I've seen several creative misspellings of it! Hence the handle "SharonA"! :^) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mooh Date: 02 Nov 02 - 10:10 AM Update: My kid brought this topic to my attention again and in the course of our conversation she informs that her teacher abbreviates her surname to simplify it for her students. I'd be afraid of a lawsuit if I got too deep into the specifics, but her full name doesn't seem to me to need abbreviation. I guess I'm learning something new every day, even things I don't want to know. I agree with TD above regarding the home being (hopefully) a bigger influence to students than school, but as I mentioned earlier, misuse of language can serve to widen the disparity between the kids who understand and those who don't, especially when the home isn't able to counter the misuse. Thanks Mudcatfolk for your information, opinion, discussion, and interest. I love this place! Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: TNDARLN Date: 02 Nov 02 - 09:30 AM Warning: Rant to follow!!! MMB- I also could not wait to get to the end of this thread. Let me explain some background [as it applies to my response here] things about myself: I've been teaching for about 20 years- and I'll probably be one of those that they have to carry out [cold & stiff ] of the classroom. This is what I do, this is what I am, this is how I've been called to serve. I am not part of the NEA crowd or mindset. In fact, I hope I aggravate them at least as much as they aggravate me. I say that, to say I am against protecting incompetency/warm body "teachers" in classrooms. I also believe [and aspire to]that teachers should set a high moral standard for their students [run that'un by the NEA]. I believe this, in part, because, as Mooh pointed out in his original post, children DO notice what their teachers say/do. These same kids also notice what their parents say/do: and PLEASE remember: the parents are the child's first teachers. And I'm saying this generally, certainly not person-specific. I teach in a beautiful area of Appalachia that was formerly "out in the sticks" - poor white rural. However, as the metro area of a nearby city has encroached, the demographics have changed: now we have very expensive homes/subdivisions being built w/in sight of run-down [i.e., not double wide]trailers. I teach children whose parents expect them to get a good education, alongside with children who are there only to keep the social workers out of the parents' face for truancy charges. [And with kids' "fashion styles" being what they are today, it can be very difficult to tell which is which, especially when you throw in what the kids have to say about their own parents' behaviors.....] Because I teach music, I deal with regional dialects/phrases a lot as they appear in the folk song material. That's ok, because I am "big" on preserving regional culture- not remaking it. I want these kids to know and understand their roots- I want them to understand those "sayins" their grandparents used. [and since many of my kids are being raised by their grandparents while Mama's out doin' "her" thing, I want to strengthen those bonds with the GPs any way I can- I do not intend to alienate a child from the loving nurture of a grandparent by turning my nose up/their nose up at the way their grandparents talk] Teaching choral singing brings up a contradiction in all this: we cannot sing the way we talk. I'll show the kids how to form a vowel sound, for instance, and we'll do it correctly- and then, for contrast, we'll do it the way we'd say it. And they laugh! I've never had a kid miss the point on this. And then I stress to them: we have to learn how to sing together well, and we have to learn how to read, write, and communicate correctly. Then I say this to them: "But I don't wanna' mess wi' the way you tawlk." They know what I'm saying. I choose to fight the cultural homogenization/ "dumbing down" brought on by electronic media. Call it, "doing my thing for diversity...." Mooh, you could probably mention your concern to the teacher, and she'd either correct what she said, or she'd give you a discourse [!]as to why she does what she does. But from here, I'd say there are bigger concerns to be dealt with. Oops, I mean "with which to deal". That's my story, and I'm... TD [not tee'd! really!] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mooh Date: 02 Nov 02 - 07:31 AM SharonA...LOL! I proofread that post and never caught the obvious "to". I often find that my second "o" doesn't happen when I type, or second "l", "c", or "s" for that mater...um...matter. It drives me nuts when I see others do it, but when I do it I'm pretty embarrassed, even if it is a typo. Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Jon Bartlett Date: 02 Nov 02 - 04:41 AM Yer right Hrothgar; but I presume this guy knew he ought to talk 'proper' but couldn't remember the right grammar. Mark, I think it was someone harder-boiled that either Keillor or Thurber. Ring Lardner? Dashiel Hammett (sp?). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Hrothgar Date: 02 Nov 02 - 12:25 AM Jon G, If he had a college education, he should have said "Who is it?" because the verb to be takes the same case after it as before it, i.e., subjective case should be used for the object of a verb to be. Um, er, pedant alert? Ard M, I thought the universal usage in Ireland was "yez." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,Ard Mhaca Date: 01 Nov 02 - 04:14 PM And from the north of Ireland, everyday use, "what the hell are youse-ins on about".Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: SharonA Date: 01 Nov 02 - 03:03 PM (continued) Likewise, I've heard and read Quakers using "thee is" instead of "thou art", and so forth. As for the original question, I agree with Mooh that the teacher should not have used "yous" in her conversation during her meeting with her pupil's parents, precisely because it leaves parents with the impression that Mooh describes: that the teacher may be derelict in her duty to teach her students the proper use of grammar and, perhaps, in other teaching responsibilities as well. As a teacher, one is a walking advertisement for one's school and its programs, so one needs to be "on duty", in a sense, constantly, always watchful of one's behavior, particularly in the company of parents who are the customers for the business of education. But, then, I too have left others with the impression that I am too judgmental (but never "to judgemental"! *G*). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: SharonA Date: 01 Nov 02 - 02:48 PM Mark: No, you're not making it up. IanC may be speaking of Quakers across the pond, but here in the US I have both read and heard the use of the word "thee" by Quakers where a King-James-Bible writer would have used "thou". In fact, I've heard and read Quakers using "thee has" instead of "thou hast". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: CapriUni Date: 01 Nov 02 - 10:44 AM Quakers use "You" now, like everybody else. Some, from meetings around Fritchley in Derbyshire, continued the usage into the 1970s and wore formal "old" quaker costumes too. In the early 70s, though, the few who were left rejioned the main body of the Society. Well, most of who left, perhaps... but you cannot know for sure that all do... Our own 'Catter InOBU (Larry)-- unless he's been pulling our collective legs all this time ;-) -- continues to use 'thee' and 'thou' on occasion, as well as wear the old plain clothes. It's not the path I ever took as a Quaker, since I thought the philosophy of such habits was not to call attention to the individual as an ego.... But if that is the call the Spirit and his Conscience gave him, I'll not be the one to say "Nay". One thing I did acquire from my mother was a strong aversion to gross generalization, particalurly of those with whom you do not identify... (another pronoun gripe coming up). She'd say to me: :::Drum Roll::: "They is a four-letter word!" PS. Larry, I still love the idea of you meeting that "gaggle" of teens from Falwell's Camp at your door in plain Quaker garb, and giving your speach with all the thee's and thy's in place... I keep visualizing them looking behind you, to see if Uncle Ben and Aunt Jamima will show up (!) ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Ringer Date: 01 Nov 02 - 09:28 AM MMario (your post 30 Oct 10:54am), and Stilly Rive Sage (your post 30 Oct 02 05:10pm): I don't think the history of the English language permits the belief that "you" developed from "thou" by a misreading of the thorn character. In Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon, spoken by Germanic settlers in Britain from C5 to C11 approx) the 2nd-person personal pronouns had 3 forms by number, distinguishing singular, dual and plural (as I understand Welsh does? but I'm no expert on Welsh - come to that, I'm no expert on English, either, but can read text-books as well as any man), as follows. Since I don't know how to get HTML to put a horizontal line over an "e", "i" or a "u" to make the vowel-sound that echoes the letter's pronunciation, I use acute accents; g is pronounced "y" approx - I won't go into voiced velar fricatives or palatal fricatives - and I represent the thorn character by an italicised th, thus: th. Nom & Voc sing: thú (whence thou) I live in north Derbyshire (UK), where the familiar 2nd-person singular may still be heard - particularly in pubs (is that because alcohol tends to remove the veneer that years of listening to the BBC have imposed, and makes us revert to childhood speech patterns?) - though in a very degenerate form. Oddly enough, the mainland Europeans, of whom we have a constant succession staying, and who I always try to introduce to "the pub", and who have such a (less degenerate) form, seem to be incapable of hearing it, even when I point it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Bagpuss Date: 01 Nov 02 - 09:26 AM Many of the *rules* of English grammar were artifically imposed on the English language - borrowed from Latin in an attempt to make the language more prestigious and *logical*. I believe the I/me rule came about in this way. Prior to this grammatical borrowing it was widespread and *correct* to say eg "Me and Fred are going out". Then the rule was borrowed from Latin and the upper classes started making the distinction so as to distinguish themselves from the unlearned lower classes who knew nothing of Latin. And because the higher class way of speaking became known as the correct grammar it started to be used (often incorrectly) by the rest of England who wanted to appear educated but didn't really know what the new rule was. The French don't say "Pierre et je........" but "Pierre et moi......" in the context we are talking about - and their language is more directly related to Latin. I don't know how common the distinction is in other languages. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: annamill Date: 01 Nov 02 - 09:17 AM Gee. I always thought it was spelt "youse", but I grew up in New Jersey. **BG** Love, Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: HuwG Date: 01 Nov 02 - 09:06 AM mmn quoth thus: "It seems that wherever one turns today it is impossible to avoid substitution of the plural "their" for the singular "his or her" when the antecedent is singular..." There is a story of some magistrate in Britain, with apparently only a fuzzy grasp of grammar and political correctness, who said when passing sentence, "It is clear from the evidence that you felled your victim with a head-butt, and then kicked your victim in their testicles..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Nov 02 - 07:54 AM "Their", in situations where strict grammar would indicate "his or her", seems to me a perfectly logical and convenient development of language. I see it as analogous to the way that the formerly plural "you" has come to be accepted as the normal singular second person (resulting in a perceived need for a replacement plural second person, met by such terms as "yous" or "yez" or "y'all", and this remarkable thread.) But I'm with you all the way, mmb, on the I - me issue, when it arises from a failed and misplaced attempt to sound correct. (Leaving aside the separate issue which arises when what is involved in using the "wrong" personal pronoun isn't that, but reflects a regional or dialect usage.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Declan Date: 01 Nov 02 - 05:24 AM mmb, The use of the term they/their in the singular has been in use in many parts of Ireland for years. It isn't something that came from a desire for gender neutrality. I know a lot of blatantly sexist people who use this all the time. But it is a form I like because it does serve that purpose. I've heard people tie themselves up in knots in only a few short sentences because they've insisted in using He or she and his or her every time they (or should I say he or she) needed to use one of these pronouns. Its sometimes difficult to get a point across if this sort of verbosity is required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: IanC Date: 01 Nov 02 - 05:11 AM Mark You're making it up. Anyway, Quakers use "You" now, like everybody else. Some, from meetings around Fritchley in Derbyshire, continued the usage into the 1970s and wore formal "old" quaker costumes too. In the early 70s, though, the few who were left rejioned the main body of the Society. :-) Ian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mark Cohen Date: 01 Nov 02 - 04:01 AM It sure sounds like Garrison Keillor, Jon, but I suspect it's earlier than that...maybe James Thurber? But I was going to make a nitpicking point that doesn't seem to have been made yet--possibly because it's wrong! I seem to recall reading somewhere that Quakers didn't use "thou" but instead used "thee" for both subject and object. Am I just making that up, or is it true? Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Jon Bartlett Date: 01 Nov 02 - 12:09 AM Thanks, mmb, some good points. Who, by the by (an American ?novelist) wrote: "He heard a knock at the door. 'Whom is it?' he said, because he had been to college." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: mmb Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:31 PM Uh-oh! I feel a lecture coming on . . . I thought I was NEVER going to reach the end of this thread!!! But I read every message, and mentally crossed out items I might have addressed when I saw they had been more than adequately dispatched. Right up front, a disclaimer: I am not only a former teacher and principal, but am now a central office administrator, responsible for managing the state certification and subsequent professional development programs of some 900 Catholic-school teachers in Florida's Tampa Bay area. I am also in my 60's, and agree whole-heartedly that part of the issue under discussion is generational, part is regional, and part has to do with the expectations parents have of those with whom they share the responsibility (Dare I say "privilege"?) of educating their children. Previous postings have touched upon formal vs informal speech, sensitivity to colloquialisms, and an ear for dialects. There have been several references to what might be called "a sense of the appropriate." Sociology was invoked to help explain the "creep" of what were formerly considered inflexible rules of grammar and syntax. And psychology goes a long way towards explaining the intensity (or lack thereof) when long-internalized rules appear to be de-valued in critical circumstances (such as the education of our children). The very fact that there are rules or conventions governing the use of language is as important to some as it is irritating to others, and the lack of consensus is - to me - the real crux of this thread, on both sides of The Pond. As an example, permit me a little thread-creep, please, into my own personal angst at two flagrant, pervasive, seemingly ubiquitous and irreversible corruptions of grammar and syntax in current popular American speech and writing. (One is only marginally thread-creep, I think, because it jumped out at me as I read the very first posting in this thread, and I read all the way through to see if even one other person would address it. Unless it happened while I was writing this, I rest my case.) But first: It seems that wherever one turns today it is impossible to avoid substitution of the plural "their" for the singular "his or her" when the antecedent is singular, e.g., "Who left their book on the table?" I haven't yet seen it in textbooks, but when I hear it defended as "gender-neutral language," or as "ink and space economical," it's like fingernails running down my mental chalkboard. The second strikes me as even more egregious because - to me, at least - it represents the failure of an entire generation of teachers to instill just a tidbit of critical judgement into deciding when to use "I" or "me" in association with another person. In fact, most Americans today automatically default to "I" in all situations, because all they remember is being told repeatedly to say "xxx and I" - with no context applied. What I, and my generation of teachers learned to teach was a simple test: Which would you substitute for "XXX and I/me," "We" or "Us"? If you would say "We," then the correct choice is "XXX and I." No one has trouble seeing the error of "Us did it," but don't realize that that is the reason why "Tom and me did it" is incorrect form. In like manner, if one can see clearly why it is not acceptable usage to say "The teacher addressed WE," why is it so difficult to transfer that judgement to the correct form: ". . . the teacher addressed my wife and ME?" I think I need to avoid threads that set me into lecture mode. Happy what's-left-of-Hallowe'en, youse-all! M. : ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: CapriUni Date: 31 Oct 02 - 07:27 PM Thanks, Snuffy and McGrath! I've got it now, I think... One thing about this dropping of "Thou/Thee" -- it sure does lead to fuzzier thinking about language. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 02 - 07:06 PM But isn't doing precisely that the basis of the economic system under which we exist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Steve Latimer Date: 31 Oct 02 - 07:01 PM When I was taking Grade 10 English the teacher overheard one of my classmates say youse guys. He very dramtically said "You use a hammer, you use a saw, you DON'T youse guys". It's stuck with me ever since. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Snuffy Date: 31 Oct 02 - 06:41 PM I do thou dost he/she/it does we/you/they do I have thou hast he/she/it has we/you/they have etc etc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 02 - 05:31 PM I am Thou art He she or it is We are You are They are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: CapriUni Date: 31 Oct 02 - 05:15 PM Okay, now that I'm thinking about it... (dangerous thing, thinking ;-)), which is correct: Thou is or Thou are (or "art")? Since "thou" is singular, my first thought is "thou is ___" is correct. But I've almost always heard it as "thou art ____" instead... Just wondering... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 31 Oct 02 - 04:38 PM Gosh, and here I've been wrong all these years when I say things like, "May I yous your pen?" This is really a nonsense discussion. There is one and only one language that is pure and uniform - MATHEMATICS!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: EBarnacle1 Date: 31 Oct 02 - 04:19 PM Charlie, we just haven't gotten that far, yet. We might, though. We are enjoying ourselves and shooting bull at each other, with no harm done to anyone. There's even a little real information built in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie Date: 31 Oct 02 - 04:00 PM MMario et al: "thou" is singular; "ye" is plural. Beyond that, methinks this thread proves little beyond the universal compulsion to fill up dialog boxes. Otherwise we could debate the relative merits of the French youx, the Hebrew youim, the Polynesian you-you, the Latin youii, the Pigeon you-fella, the Spanish youes, the German youen and the phonetic uu. CC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 02 - 02:33 PM Plenty of people have tried the kind of thing EBarnacle suggests. Can't be done. Language doesn't work that way. But people somehow always seem to invent new ways of dealing with the difficulties - in spite of the efforts of other people to stop them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: EBarnacle1 Date: 31 Oct 02 - 01:46 PM Good point, Kim C, I took German too long ago. Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions in life. There are, however, elegant ones. Why not start over with a new set of terms? That way the words would carry no his{make that her}story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Don Firth Date: 31 Oct 02 - 01:43 PM When I worked at Boeing some years ago, the woman who worked at the next drawing table was from Texas, and she had quite a—what?—accent? Drawl? Anyway, she mentioned that one of her relatives had "three all way-ulls" in his back yard. It took some probing to learn that he had three oil wells in his back yard! She and I got to discussing regional accents and general use of language. Very enlightening. It's not necessarily ignorance or general lack of education. She pointed out that comedians or actors trying to imitate a Southern accent usually get it all wrong. On the matter of "you all" (or "y'all"), she explained to me that it's not just a regionalism; it communicates something specific. "If I'm having a dinner party and I say 'why don't you come?' I mean 'you.' Just you. But if I say 'why don't y'all come?' I mean 'bring your family.'" Makes perfect sense to me. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Stilly River Sage Date: 31 Oct 02 - 01:14 PM Stilly--InOBU--a shortened local term for the Stillaguamish River. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Burke Date: 31 Oct 02 - 12:47 PM This being the US, land using first names immediately upon introduation, any revival of 2nd person singular, whether thee or du should be applied as the Quakers did (do?) to everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST Date: 31 Oct 02 - 12:42 PM When I moved to WVa from Phila( where we regularly said "youse or you guys", I was politely informed of the proper way to say the plural of you. I asked a few friends "What are youse doing this weekend?" They asked "What is youse?" I said "You and you are youse!" They said "No man, That's y'all" And actually "Y'all" really does flow off the tongue quite smoothly! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Date: 31 Oct 02 - 12:12 PM EBarnacle, it isn't even as simple as that.... "sie" can also mean "she" or "it" or "they" or "them." Then there's "Sie" with a capital S, which is you-formal............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: InOBU Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:35 AM Silly RIver! Right you are, the y without the bend on the end was a different sound then the y with the curl, it represted a thorn and was called, funny enough, a thorn. So ye would have been pronounced the in ye old tavern, but ye as the plural of you would have had the curl and been pronouced ye, ... cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: chip a Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:30 AM I think that focusing on our differences causes.........differences! Of course we are all different and differences in our speech can be a celebration of that. When we think of another as somehow inferior because of this kind of difference, though, we set the stage for our own basest characteristics to come to the fore. "Every time I go to town, the boys start kickin' my dog around" Well, it is a music forum! Sorry, Mooh. It's me being overly defensive rather than you being superior. :-) Chip |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: EBarnacle1 Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:30 AM Amos, is that the thee-all and end all? We could always revert to the German "du" for the informal you and "sie" for the formal and plural. If we do that, we could also follow the German example and not call anyone du until we sit sit down and share a drink and agree to be informal. Of course, for those of us who don't drink, this could also create an issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:27 AM "Guy" can refer to women, just the same way "bird" can refer to men (viz PG Wodehouse books). I suspect "you guys" may well be more common among women these days than among men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: katlaughing Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:15 AM This is a good case for children learning manners, as SRS says, from their parents. If they know what is correct then the teacher's usage should not be a problem, though I wouldn't care for her use of it, either. I've always used you guys until I had a wonderful professor from Africa point out to me that I was excluding all members of the same sex as myself, so I swtiched to you folks. Of course, all bets are off at Mudcat where some of us like to hone our skills at writing in the venacular! There are always going to be elements in our children's lives which don't meet our standards. All we can do is teach them what we feel if proper and know that it usually sticks.:-) kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Declan Date: 31 Oct 02 - 10:37 AM While I don't get that upset about you,Yiz, Yous, Ye etc. there is one thing that I find quite irritating and that is where people use the Present Participle in situations where I would have thought the past participle was more appropriate. For example many of the English people reading this post will probably think "That Declan needs his head examining", whereas I would think it more correct to say "That Declan needs his head examined". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mr Red Date: 31 Oct 02 - 08:29 AM Winston Churchill was there long since when he said. "This is the kind of English, up with which we will not put." Mind you I think is body language was a bit more colloqial. V |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 02 - 06:54 PM If speaking to both, Mrz, how about "th'all"? Makes it clear that personal closeness is still implied. :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mrrzy Date: 30 Oct 02 - 06:49 PM I'm trying to use the Quaker thee when talking to just ONE of the twins, so they don't ask Both of us or just me? - and You for the plural, but I also like You/Y'All, since I live in the South and it's everywhere... but I don't say either thee or y'all in constrained circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Mooh Date: 30 Oct 02 - 06:45 PM chip a...Perhaps I haven't made my point well, but the point is that in a professional capacity a rather unprofessional use of language (I thought, though there are obviously those who disagree) does not represent a teacher's abilities well. I characterized the expression as a yokel colloquialism, so what? I'm a yokel too, but I wouldn't use language in a such an unschooled way when the situation calls for a schooled manner of speech. Besides, my use of language here in Mudcatville is not the same as the situation I described in my original post. As I described, apparently the teacher uses the expression regularly with students, so I think I have some justification for my misgivings. I'd rather "yous" wasn't used in the classroom, and the teacher's use of it in a meeting led me to discover that it is. If that's all it is, so be it. If it's an indicator of other things, I'm concerned. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, chip. Thanks all for your input, this has been an interesting and enlightening chat. Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: Stilly River Sage Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:10 PM
MMario touched on the answer to part of this discussion, and I'll give illustrations. There will be a test following the lecture. What is being discussed here is "grammar," which is another word in linguistic circles for "manners." We all communicate, and whether we use Yous or You or Thou, we make ourselves understood. That is communications. How we do it, the words we choose ("grammar"), are simply a form of manners, (does one know the proper word to choose in which occasion? Is a subject or object or direct object involved, i.e. who/whom discussions?). We're also seeing the effect of the printing press. The "Thou vs You" discussion comes from the removal by early printers of the "thorn" or Th combination. Th was simplified to Y. So "Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe" should be pronounced THE Olde Coffee Shoppe because the Y is supposed to represent the TH sound. But we can read and we know what Y in most instances is supposed to sound like so we've corrupted this spoken bit of our language in preference to the written form. I learned this the hard way, so pay attention, any of you who think your English is so superior to anyone else's that you must correct them. Back in my uppity undergraduate days when I must have thought I was god's gift to the English language I took a letter from a friend, corrected his English, and mailed it back. And promptly lost that friend. Someone told me years later why I'd never heard from him again--that he'd been devastated by this little act that I hadn't thought about in years. I hope you're all blushing as you read this--I am as I write it. It was unconscionable. I had a wonderful class in the mid-1990's on the History and Development of the English Langauge. I remember, at the beginning of the class, thinking how amusing it must sound when this professor, with a broad West Texas accent, taught Shakespeare (another of his specialties) with that accent. As we proceeded through the course, I realized how snobbish I'd been. And now I make a point to focus on what people are trying to say. We all use language differently, and post colonial theorists will tell you that captive cultures have wonderfully witty ways of "signifying" to get double meanings into their use of English (in this context) as the colonizer's language. Language serves lots of masters. All of this said, before my master's in English and learning all of this great stuff, I didn't want my children to grow up with a Texas drawl, so I corrected them if they came home from school or play with some of these dipthongs peppering their speech. I'm from north of Seattle, and have Norwegian inflections in my English. I have realized that my children are bilingual. At home they speak English that to my ears is unaccented. But with their friends they have a few Texas terms that creep in. I now know better than to worry about it. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: GutBucketeer Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:06 PM When I was in third grade my teacher, Miss McKissik, taught us the proper use of you singular as you, and you plural as y'all which is a contraction of "you all". She was from Mississippi and explained very simply that yankees just didn't have the sense to speak correctly. We wrote it out and everything. Of course, if y'all is used inappropriately then it is a real sign of ignorance. Gutbucketeer So there! Now what gets me is when people use lighted instead of lit such as "I lighted the lamp". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plural of you From: chip a Date: 30 Oct 02 - 04:24 PM Mooh, You said yokel and you question all her abilities based on the use of one word. Maybe I misunderstood you? :-) Chip |