What do y'all think about "ya'll?"
- Thread starter Harry Mason
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't see why 'you all' is such a burden. We don't contract, say 'would you/could you/should you' but they would seem to be obvious choices. Could you and would you in particular seem ideal condidates ahead of y'all.
But then the English language is always in flux and far be it from me to stand in the way of progress but I have a thing about spoken language. I just find that the English language (and other languages but let's not get sidetracked) have the potential to sound rather beautiful when a properly constructed sentence is said with adequate grace and along with other slang terms like 'ain't' and certain contractions like 'shan't' just don't seem to work in my view of beautiful language.
I know it's a weird reason, but I like my Latinate words above and beyond the base Anglo-Saxony, so I shall cling to my high ground even as the base is chipped away by text speak and Americanisms.
But then the English language is always in flux and far be it from me to stand in the way of progress but I have a thing about spoken language. I just find that the English language (and other languages but let's not get sidetracked) have the potential to sound rather beautiful when a properly constructed sentence is said with adequate grace and along with other slang terms like 'ain't' and certain contractions like 'shan't' just don't seem to work in my view of beautiful language.
I know it's a weird reason, but I like my Latinate words above and beyond the base Anglo-Saxony, so I shall cling to my high ground even as the base is chipped away by text speak and Americanisms.
I use y'all sometimes, but I'm concious of it, so I try to limit its use. But I must admit, it's pretty helpful. And I live in West Virginia, so it's pretty normal to a lot of people here.
I'm more concerned about the misspelling of "its." See above paragraph for a good example of the right way to do it.
I'm more concerned about the misspelling of "its." See above paragraph for a good example of the right way to do it.
Great idea, I still think that it'll be poked fun at though, even if the majority of people adopt it, I think i'll start using it now actually...
Grr, whenever someone says "y'all" it makes me want to punch them. I just say "you guys" when addressing a group.
Well, I live in Southern California. 'Ya'll', is not something I hear on a day-to-day basis. Unless I am talking to a friend of mine who is originally from Texas. I know a few people who think it's hillbilly to use. Sort of trashy. Usually associated to someone of lesser intelligence.
I surely don't think that - but I don't use it either. I tend to just say, "You all".
I surely don't think that - but I don't use it either. I tend to just say, "You all".
I say y'all sometimes even though I live up in Washington (state). It's easy and convenient and people know what you're talking about. Altough if you don't want to say y'all you can address a group by saying "everyone". For example, you could go to a group and ask if they want to go see a movie, you would say "Does everyone here want to go see a movie?"
Sometimes when you're addressing a group, you acknowledge them as individuals in a group. For example, "Does anyone here want to go see a movie?" This addresses the group but does not force everyone to conform as a group but instead allows them to make a decision as an individual.
It's really not so difficult to address a group but "y'all" or "all y'all" are just two more ways to do so.
Sometimes when you're addressing a group, you acknowledge them as individuals in a group. For example, "Does anyone here want to go see a movie?" This addresses the group but does not force everyone to conform as a group but instead allows them to make a decision as an individual.
It's really not so difficult to address a group but "y'all" or "all y'all" are just two more ways to do so.
For one, stop switching between different contractions. "Y'all" is correct, but "ya'll" isn't.
Or "ya'll" could be seen as an abbreviation of "ya, I'll" which in turn abbreviates "ya, I will" and it gets confusing for most people when you're abbreviating an abbreviation.
So, "Are y'all coming to the midnight release of Portal 2?"
My response might be, "Ya'll come."
Of course, this gets confusing when you use both "ya'll" and "y'all" frequently, since they sound quite similar. My point is, use the right contractions when you're writing your post.
Now, to the matter at hand. English at its most basic level is a means of communication. Ergo, whatever makes it easier to communicate is worth incorporating into your vocabularly.
The debate here is then whether "y'all" makes it easier to communicate; and one can only judge that based on personal experience. As I'm not someone who uses unconventional abbreviations all that much *cough*, let me simply say that if you feel like saying "y'all" and it gets the message across effectively, then feel free to taint the English language with yet another psuedo-proper abbreviation.
Yes, psuedo-proper. It's technically proper, as you say, but it still breaks a few basic rules of contractions. The first word isn't written in full, and the second is - which is inconsistent with how every other contraction in the accepted English language functions.
Or "ya'll" could be seen as an abbreviation of "ya, I'll" which in turn abbreviates "ya, I will" and it gets confusing for most people when you're abbreviating an abbreviation.
So, "Are y'all coming to the midnight release of Portal 2?"
My response might be, "Ya'll come."
Of course, this gets confusing when you use both "ya'll" and "y'all" frequently, since they sound quite similar. My point is, use the right contractions when you're writing your post.
Now, to the matter at hand. English at its most basic level is a means of communication. Ergo, whatever makes it easier to communicate is worth incorporating into your vocabularly.
The debate here is then whether "y'all" makes it easier to communicate; and one can only judge that based on personal experience. As I'm not someone who uses unconventional abbreviations all that much *cough*, let me simply say that if you feel like saying "y'all" and it gets the message across effectively, then feel free to taint the English language with yet another psuedo-proper abbreviation.
Yes, psuedo-proper. It's technically proper, as you say, but it still breaks a few basic rules of contractions. The first word isn't written in full, and the second is - which is inconsistent with how every other contraction in the accepted English language functions.
If I had my way, "yous guys" would be the official way the pronounce the second person plural of English, because then you could pretend you were in a 1950's gangster movie all the time...
A good example of the reason behind even thinking about this at all is in your post. There was a time that ALL contractions sounded uncouth to sophisticated ears. There was a stigma connected to any use of shortened words at all.
In your post, you used three separate contractions ("I've," "It's," and "wouldn't). Those words have probably been in the common vocabulary as long as you and I have been alive, but to your average well-spoken person 100 years ago, they sounded decidedly "hick."
Imagine if this:
It's not that I've had that much "trouble" with the situation, really. And it's not about being lazy. Let me just clarify and say the major I am pursuing requires that I think about these things a lot.Mr Thin said:
A good example of the reason behind even thinking about this at all is in your post. There was a time that ALL contractions sounded uncouth to sophisticated ears. There was a stigma connected to any use of shortened words at all.
In your post, you used three separate contractions ("I've," "It's," and "wouldn't). Those words have probably been in the common vocabulary as long as you and I have been alive, but to your average well-spoken person 100 years ago, they sounded decidedly "hick."
Imagine if this:
Were this:Mr Thin said:
It sounds a little stiff if you say it out loud, DOESN'T it? ("Does not it?")Mr Thin said:
What its a group of girls? What if its a mixed group and you want to address both genders? I would say "you people" is a more neutral alternative except for the negative connotation of that phrase that makes it undesirable too. It's actually quiet confusing.Revenge Revisited said:
OT: I think English used to have a second person plural int he same way it used to have a formal pronouns, like "thy." They were lost overtime from lack of use with lots of other parts of English as it evolved. If its underused enough to not warrant continued inclusion in the language its probably not something that is a major concern. Still, We could just have the official peop0le in charge of official English create a second person plural pronoun.
Yes, it most certainly does.Harry Mason said:
And perhaps, to the average well-spoken person 100 years from now, "y'all" will sound just as normal to them as "wouldn't" does to me.
But that's in the future, just as "wouldn't" sounding "hick" is in the past.
Right now, "wouldn't" sounds perfectly normal, and "y'all" makes you sound like white trash.
That's precisely my point! There is a solid chance that "y'all" will be common English in the near future. I think predicting and discussing the evolution of language is quite interesting and thread worthy, but then maybe that's because I'm a massive nerd and a linguistics major.Mr Thin said:
By the way, if living in the American South East, saying "y'all" and not having any money designates a person as "white trash," then I fear I fit snugly unto that category...
Dear me.
English has lost a lot of words due to disuse, but most of them are formal pronouns, like you said. Formal pronouns becoming extinct in English makes sense to me. The importance of status has waned due to civil rights, changes in the economy, etc. What I can't figure out is why something as USEFUL as a gender neutral second person plural pronoun would disappear.Twilight_guy said:
It's interesting to think about.