atw: Re: Youse
- From: "Lewington, Warren J (WT)" <warren.lewington.ext@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:26:45 -0500
"Youse" is a particular component of spoken language common to parts of
Australian yobbo and ethnic culture. It probably shouldn't be used in
formal prose or professional English but is definitely part of the
language - its a possibly unique or localised form of English dialect -
like 'trunk' or 'trash' or 'crisps' or 'nigger' or "y'all" etc. So there
should be every entitlement to use it in fiction, or quotations of
spoken English surely? And there is plenty of precedence for that usage
form - from Shakespeare to Dickens, Twain as another example and so on.
Regards,
Warren
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Randall
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 15:03
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: www.abelard.com.au <http://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. Check it out
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/tv/catchup/tagline/*http://au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7
/?cmp=mailtag> .
Other related posts:
