atw: Re: Youse

Geoff

 

Isn't much of our use of language designed to express aspects of who we are
rather than just what we say?  We give verbal clues in our use of language
to our social origins, our desire for social acceptance, our sense of beauty
and rhythm and a myriad of other things.  

 

If you want an argument based on reason, then the reason is that I DO use
language to express much more than thoughts.  Is that "reason" enough.

 

Christine

 

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 5:06 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse

 

So I take your message to mean that you will happily accept "youse" when 90%
of the population is using it, since then it won't be associated with
Pauline Hanson (who would have been well and truly forgotten by then). But
then maybe I misunderstood your "Groan" at the start. Perhaps you'll never
use it.

 

I long to hear an argument based on reason.

 

 

Geoffrey Marnell

Principal Consultant

Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd

T: +61 3 9596 3456

F: +61 3 9596 3625

W:  <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au

Skype: geoffrey.marnell

 

 

  _____  

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:56 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse

 

My question to Ken was a challenge to his unconditional and unqualified
refusal to support the word. So, Ken, have you (has anyone)  got an argument
to support NEVER using "youse" regardless of current usage?

 

Groan.  OK, I'll use it when it ceases to be associated with a Pauline
Hanson voice.  It's actually hard to say without the correct voice.  Try it.
Say "Will youse all come with me" in a Pauline Hanson voice, then say it
again doing your best imitation of QEII. 

 

ck

 

 

  _____  

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rebecca Caldwell
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:43 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse

I'm particularly against it because most of the inarticulate people I know
use it, whereas the well spoken people don't. As a child, I was 'told off'
for using words like that, and was directed to say "Where are you all
going?" or similar. In my writings at work (replying to email enquiries is a
classic example) I deal with people from all over the world that may not
understand English contractions, even 'can't' and 'won't' are sometimes
misunderstood (I know!), so I defer to 'can not' and 'will not' for clarity.


 

While my speech may be informal at times, my writing at work isn't - so I
wouldn't use the word 'youse' in writing.

 

I do support the continued evolution of language, but I am happy to use
'you' as a singular and plural in the case of "where are you going?"

 

 

 

  _____  

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 12:40 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse

 

Hi Ken,

 

Can you offer us some arguments for not supporting the use of "youse"? You
say it is useful to make the distinction between second-person singular and
plural, so are you saying that you would prefer some other word? If so, why?

 

Cheers

 

 

Geoffrey Marnell

Principal Consultant

Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd

T: +61 3 9596 3456

F: +61 3 9596 3625

W:  <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au

Skype: geoffrey.marnell

 

 

  _____  

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Randall
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:03 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse


I do not support the use of the word "youse'.

 

However, it is true that it is useful to distinguish between 

singular and plural "you".  All other European languages have

different forms for singular and plural "you".  English did too until 

about 1650.  

 

The King James Bible illustrates this.  The Ten Commandments 

use "thou" - "thou shalt not kill" - since God is speaking to 

each individual, but at the Last Supper the disciples are told 

"drink ye all of this, for this is My blood that is shed for you".

 

Interestingly, "shed for you" shows that "you" was originally the 

objective or accusative form, but now is used as the subjective 

or nominative as well.  Not only is there now a single "you" for 

singular and plural, but its form does not change with case (also 

unlike other European languages).    


--- On Tue, 2/2/10, Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Youse
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: Tuesday, 2 February, 2010, 2:45 PM

Not sure I understand you Terry. "Yous" is not a word in Australian English,
so the non-standardness can't be referring to the adding of an e at the end.
"Non-standard" typically means not widely accepted in general writing or
speech.

 

As for ambiguity, what would be the cost to language learning and use if
there was a word for every likely number of people in a group? 

 

It's the same with plural possession: I write "The students' assignments
were unexpectedly good". You know by the placement of the apostrophe that I
am talking about more than one student, but I've not told you how many
students I am referring to. But is that a reason to stop using possessive
apostrophes to distinguish singular from plural? I doubt it. So, likewise:
if I say "Where are youse going?", it's clear that I am talking about more
than one person. That's a step forward even though I haven't made it clear
how many I was addressing (just as I didn't make it clear how many
assignments I was referring to). 

 

I don't think one can have it both ways: insisting on the usefulness of
singular-plural distinctions in possession but arguing that singular-plural
distinctions in the second-person are not useful. Why are such distinctions
useful in first person ("I" and "we") and third person ("he" and "they") but
not in the second person? 

 

Here's to that mellifluous, poetic word "youse". May it live a long and
hearty life.

 

Cheers

 

 

Geoffrey Marnell

Principal Consultant

Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd

T: +61 3 9596 3456

F: +61 3 9596 3625

W:  <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au

Skype: geoffrey.marnell

 

 


  _____  


From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry Dowling
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 2:20 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Not all change is loss

The Macquarie now lists "youse". It calls its use "non-standard"

Surely, the 'non-standard' simply refers to the use of the 'e' after the
's'. :-) I'm struggling to think of a similar example.

  

removing the ambiguity in statements like "Where are you going?" when
uttered in front of a group of people. 

I still see ambiguity here. How many of the crowd are now being addressed?
You only know that it's more than one. The only time the ambiguity is
removed is if it's a crowd of two. Not much of an advantage to compensate
for the 'ugliness'. 

  

Cheers, 

Terry 

 

 

  _____  

Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and
for free at PLUS7.
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/tv/catchup/tagline/*http:/au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7/?cmp
=mailtag> Check it out.

Other related posts: