Re: The future of the English second person plural (was Re: Aquestion)

BP Jonsson wrote:

> Isn't it the case that <you guys> is tainted by the fact that "guy" (a) is
> a noun, and (b) is of primarily masculine reference, while these problems
> don't attach to "you all"?
Yes, those would seem to be problems at first glance, but in actual fact of
usage, (a)  "guy" here has come to be cliticized in many respects, and in
connection with (b) the fact that <guy> on its own is very widely used with
an epicene gender rather than merely masculine (especially in the plural),
<you guys> tends to be thought of as one stock phrase applicable to
everyone, rather than two separately analyzable words.  (Though, of course, it
transparently originates in two separate words.)

> When I grasp for a 2.pl. pron. when writing
> English I usually use "you all", which might have to do with the fact that
> in Swedish _allihop_ "all together -- lit. 'all in a crowd!'" is often used
> to clarify that an imperative is directed to several people.
This is in fact how Southerners deal with the fact that the standard language
lacks the distinction.  George W. Bush, the son of the former President and
the likely Republican nominee for the next President, was giving a speech
yesterday in which he addressed the crowd as "you all".   It occurred to me
that he probably had to consciously think to use this form, since <y'all> has
in Southern usage become fully grammaticalized, and so doesn't immediately
lend itself to decontraction.  Certainly, *I* would have to consciously think to
do this.

>  I can also
> more easily imagine something like "youl" or "yall" be adopted as a written
> form (to begin with surely as an informal phenomenon), than "youguys".
Well, <y'all> is already widely used in literature when any attempt is made
to be accurate in dialect.  Southerners writing informally also use this form
(with apostrophe, although since it has been grammaticalized, as I said, we
have to *learn* to put the apostrophe there; since it's not specificly taught
in schools, one often sees misspellings like <ya'll>.  In an ideal world, the word
would be spelt as used, i.e., as <yall>).

> Some disjected reflections:
>
> What's the etymology of <you'uns>, that Tom mentioned.  "You ones?"
Yes, that's the commonly attributed origin.

> What about "you people"?  Is it only a quasi-formal version of "you guys/all"?
There is an interesting difference in usage between <y'all> and <you people>.
For me, the latter is a very in-your-face way of addressing people, and
in my region, one only uses it in arguments or to distance yourself from the
people you're addressing.  <y'all> seems to be rather more friendly;  this
could of course be just that it's not specificly used in arguments, and so is
relatively less aggressive.

> I read once that some Brit dialects use "your" as 2.pl., with "you's" and
> "your's" as possessives, but that's probably traditional-dialectal, and
> dying out?
>
> Is it only I that am surprised that "yous" as a pl. doesn't catch on?
I think this mostly has to do with the fact that it's so rare and is almost
entirely restricted to specific regions of the countries in which it's used,
and, in the US at least, is usually rural and carries a much greater stigma
than any of the other possibilities.  For me, it conjures up the image of
New Jersey street-toughs, kinda like in "West Side Story".  (That
probably has less to do with reality and more to do with the fact that
I never hear it around here -- ever).

===========================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
===========================================