atw: Re: Pronounseeashun
- From: Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:22:29 -0800 (PST)
' "Youse" strikes me as idiotic. How do you pluralise
a word which is already plural? Although "youse" does
establish a collective pluralism which is not obvious from the word
"you"; I could equally ask who thought it was a good idea to
have a word which is singular and plural with the same spelling, and
where plurality might not be obvious even in context. '
Other languages do have different forms for singular "you" and plural "you".
English is the odd man out.
English had different forms of "you" too until about 1650. In the King James
Bible the commandments use "thou" ("thou shalt not steal") because God is seen
as speaking to each person individually. The communion service includes "Drink
ye all of this", because the disciples were being addressed collectively at the
Last Supper.
--- On Fri, 6/1/12, John Maizels <jmaizels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: John Maizels <jmaizels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Pronounseeashun
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: Friday, 6 January, 2012, 9:36 AM
Jeff, I wouldn't refute your observation about language
transition. I was taught that any common
language practice is, by definition, correct - even if the practice is
only used by a microcosm of speakers. I struggle
with that concept daily.
It pains me when I hear the word "myself" used in a context
where "me" is both more efficient, and correct and
"myself" is neither. There's a perfectly good
definition of how a reflexive pronoun should be used, but the bulk of
speakers flout that rule. (Some flaunt it, since abundant
malapropism apparently makes a case more strongly.) Does that make
the rule wrong? No, it doesn't. Common usage has
established a convention in which a specific rule is ignored.
Therefore, since I can't control the masses, I have to accept even
professional writers (script writers, specifically) misusing a word in a
way that I find reprehensible. But I don't have to promulgate the
misuse in my own work.
Nice touch in your closing sentence, and no doubt we agree.
"Youse" strikes me as idiotic. How do you pluralise
a word which is already plural? Although "youse" does
establish a collective pluralism which is not obvious from the word
"you"; I could equally ask who thought it was a good idea to
have a word which is singular and plural with the same spelling, and
where plurality might not be obvious even in context. The
local dialect "yins" does the job perfectly well in Pittsburgh,
and works for the same reason that "youse" might.
Although I wouldn't expect to see either word in written
form. No doubt when "youse" starts to appear
in print in Australia, it will contain an apostrophe.
So by your logic, please feel free to prove to me that I shouldn't
address you as "Jeff".
Your logic suggests to me that as soon as a large enough group of people
choose (chooses?) to express language differently, that expressed
language becomes correct. And since a shift has to start with
one person's usage, the single use by that one person would be correct
also. So I won't tell you that your logic is wrong, but I will
suggest that the same logic removes your right to insist on the spelling
and pronunciation of your own name, even though you appear to have a
rule, convention and preference for what you call yourself.*
BTW, I don't know that's a rule, I only imply infer that from your
signature line.
As a communicator, the measure of my work is whether the intended
audience achieves rapid comprehension. Um... I'm sure I could have
expressed that better. As a writer I struggle daily with changes in
language and style, but I feel professionally compelled to deliver
work which observes fundamental rules of grammar and spelling, as
modified by the preference of my client (whatever those rules are, and
however shifting. I accept that my customer has the right, backed
by the Golden Rule, to be the final arbiter, in the interest of continued
employment).
Anyway, that's how it struck myself before having me first
coffee. I will now tiptoe out of the room. No, I
think I"ll run.
John
* although you retain the right to not respond when the source and target
names don't precisely match.
Good grief. It truly
staggers me that, in the twentieth-first century, we are still harbouring
the illusion that any particular linguistic practice is correct or
incorrect. Does anyone today speak, spell, construct or
punctuate as Shakespeare did? No. So is the way we write today incorrect
because it differs so markedly from the writings of an acknowledged
master of the English language? Or was Shakespeare a crap writer?
Likewise, do the Americans punctuate incorrectly because they use
the serial comma when it is not used in most other contemporary
Englishes? Anyone game enough to tell the Americans that?
The whole application of the concept of correctness to a mere convention
(as language is) is a category mistake pure and simple. A linguistic
practice might be conventional or unconventional, effective or
ineffective. But it cannot be correct or incorrect. (Yes, I deliberately
started that last sentence with a conjunction. Feel free to prove
to me, by either a priori means or a posteriori, that my
usage is incorrect. Show me the logic; show me the evidence. How might
you even start?) Or if you want to be relativistic about itand say that
correctness can be applied to majority conventions even if
the conventions are changeablethen you would have to say that
those women who refuse to change their surnames after marriage are
behaving incorrectly. A bit silly, eh?
It further staggers me that contemporary folk are judging others by the
way they pronounce their words. I thought we had defeated this sort of
class-ridden snobbery during the cultural wars of the 1960s and 70s,
along with judging a person’s worth by the clothes they wear or the
length of their hair.
I’ll talk as I please, thank you very much. “Acceptable” my arse.
Do youse understand?
Geoffrey Marnell
John P Maizels
Mobile: +61-412-576-888
Media Versatilist: no problem too complex
Consulting Broadcast Contributor, CX-Network
www cx-tv com
SMPTE Director of International Sections
www smpte org au
Chair, Media Industry Technologist
Certification Ltd
www mitc tv
Other related posts:
