Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

CONLANG Digest - 16 Jun 2000 to 17 Jun 2000 (#2000-166)

From:Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
Date:Sunday, June 18, 2000, 16:27
> From: Oskar Gudlaugsson <hr_oskar@...> > Subject: Old Norse (was Re: New to the list) > > I see this as the single most annoying, confusing, and intolerable part of
> language: failure to make a singular-plural distinction in the second
> pronouns. "You guys" can't always cover the plural, as it's very
> and often inappropriate.
Unabbreviated "you all" is the regular form, or sometimes "all of you" (inclusively). "You all" appears, e.g., in the Bible.
> I've often heard English speakers say something > like "you, and with you I mean all of you, as a nation, not you > personally..." to me. One of those things I don't really understand how
> could happen
Ah, a second-person exclusive :) I thought I was going to put that in a conlang somewhere, and I forget what happened to it...
> From: BP Jonsson <bpj@...> > Subject: Beauty of Old Norse (was Re New to the list) > > >Many difficult clusters appear in > >modern English as well, such as [NTs] in 'strengths'. > > Where the /Ts/ is normally realized as a dental [s]: [srE~s+]; what people > think they say, what they say when reading a word-list and what they say
> normally-paced speech are three different things!
Well, I know for at least one of those different things I have [NgTs] or [NkTs] in 'strengths'.
> From: BP Jonsson <bpj@...> > Subject: Re: OFF: Red Meat Stinkiness > > At 23:53 16.6.2000 -0500, Herman Miller wrote: > > >artificially grown "meat" > > What do you mean by that? Laboratorily or magically produced protein?
Animal 57 ?
> From: BP Jonsson <bpj@...> > Subject: Re: Old Norse (was Re: New to the list) > > I've also taken to use "they" as a gender-nonspecific singular > pronoun. Mainland Scandinavians can use _den_ > for that, fortunately.
Singular "they" is pretty much the only choice in some cases--"If anyone calls for me, tell them I'm out" Someone has a page in defense of "singular they" somewhere full of examples and usage. (I'm not online to find where atm, though).
> From: BP Jonsson <bpj@...> > Subject: Flag of England > > --=====================_33074537==_ > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > I think there should be a campaign for using the flag of England as a > symbol for English-language versions of web pages, rather than the UK/US > flag. I've seen an inverted-colors version of the UK flag, but that isn't > any better IMHO. > > Any comers?
Well, I suspect most people wouldn't recognize the flag of England (I wouldn't). Perhaps we should hire a vexillologist to design a flag for the language ;) I could imagine a page differentiating between UK and US (both flags as separate options) just to be picky. That reminds me of part of a joke someone sent on differences in English speakers... >> Americans: Spell words differently, but still call it "English". >> Brits: Pronounce their words differently, but still call it >> "English". >> Canadians: Spell like the Brits, pronounce like Americans. >> Aussies: Add "G'day", "mate" and a heavy accent to everything >> they say in an attempt to get laid.
> From: Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> > Subject: Re: Old Norse (was Re: New to the list) > > BP Jonsson wrote: > > What about introducing the spelling _youl_? > > But it's not pronounced /jul/. I sometimes just write "yall", no > apostrophe. A pet peeve of mine is the spelling "ya'll", which looks > like "ya will". :-) Probably indicates that it's been re-analyzed as a > single unanalyzable morpheme, so people know that there's supposed to be > an apostrophe, but can't remember where it should go.
> > The apostrophe makes it look > > colloquial, somehow. What is the possessive, BTW? > > Y'all's. I've also heard "y'all's's" (I guess that's how you'd spell > it) for the whatever the word is, the function of "mine", "yours", etc.
I'd probably write it y'alls's, maybe on analogy of hers and its vs it's, or maybe because _three_ apostrophes in a word is quite enough ;) I think I shall convert all y'alls to yalls too (yalls's?).
> I've never heard "y'allselves", tho. :-)
Because, amazingly, "yourself"/"yourselves" is the only standard second person singular/plural distinction. (Someone gave that as proof that 'you' is polysemous regarding singular/plural, and not just number-unmarked.)
> From: "Thomas R. Wier" <artabanos@...> > Subject: Re: Old Norse (was Re: New to the list) > > > What about introducing the spelling _youl_? The apostrophe makes it
> > colloquial, somehow. > > <youl>, to me, suggest the wrong vowel. It's most definitely [a] (or [A] > depending on where you are in the South). If I were to change the usual > spelling, I'd go with <yall>.
<yall>, <yawl>, and <yaul> keep the vowel, but <yall> keeps the etymology so... :)
> > What is the possessive, BTW? > > That depends on dialect. In Texas, in my experience it's usually
> but some people make the distinction in the nominative between <you> > and <y'all>, but keep <your> for both in the possessive. I don't really > know if this is confined to regional dialects within the South; the
> with <'s> might have (somewhat) lower class overtones. > > Nik, others that use it, what do y'all think?
I think I use "yalls's" -- "That's yalls's problem".
> From: "Thomas R. Wier" <artabanos@...> > Subject: Re: Old Norse (was Re: New to the list) > > Nik Taylor wrote: > > > Thomas R. Wier wrote: > > > Nik, others that use it, what do y'all think? > > > > I use y'all's occasionally, probably less often than "y'all", but it > > doesn't have any "lower-class connotations" to me. > > Oh, no. Don't get me wrong. I use it most of the time. I was > just giving reasons for why some people might not. Language > innovation is usually like that.
I think yall's problem (the word's, not you people's) is its dialectness, not necessarily lowerclassness.
> > Y'all's's (/jAlzIz/) > > (same function as yours, mine, etc. - what is that called?), on the > > other hand, does sounds quite peculiar to me, even tho I've heard it a > > few times (and I think I might've even used it a few times without > > realizing it) > > Yeah, I've heard that once or twice. I think there's some confusion > on exactly where the morphological boundary lies for some people.
Not necessarily. The singular forms are your - yours, so the plural form by analogy is yalls - yalls's. "Yalls's" can also be used as a more emphatic quality, though. *Muke!