• BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I refuse to accept Texas’ claim on y’all. Its a word collectively owned by everyone south of the mason-dixon line and I will fight to the death over this.

    Signed, floridaman

    • Intralexical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      …Am I not allowed to use “y’all”, north of the 49th parallel? Do we have to bring back “thou” so “you” can be plural again? Or is this part of the Quebecois plot to force everyone to parler en français donc nous pouvons utiliser “vous”? C’est bien, anyway, j’suppose.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        Fun fact:

        “Thou” and “you” were the same word.

        The “th” sound used to have its own character in written English called the thorn. When typefaces came along, it was excluded and sometimes replaced with a “y.”

        Also why “Ye” and “The” are the same.

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        Is it bad that I’m more bothered by “j’suppose” than the inclusion of “anyway”?

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          C’est un trait quebecois, je pense… les cowboys fringants la dit (“anyway”), donc je ne sais, c’est probablement ok… J’ai entendu “j’suppose” avant aussi, vraiment, je pense…? Est-ce que ça n’est pas comme “I’spose” en anglais? Reverso a beaucoup des examples pour “j’suppose”, quand même. (Je ne suis pas quebecois ou francophone, si tu ne peut pas voir pour quelque raison; je suis un idiot anglophone.)

          • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            “I’spose” est facile. “J’suppose” est dur à dire, parce qu’on ne peut pas dire “j’s” comme “i’s”.

            J’ai dû sortir mon français rouillé. Merci pour la pratique. Et oui, j’ai utilisé Google.

            • Intralexical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              “I’spose” est facile. “J’suppose” est dur à dire, parce qu’on ne peut pas dire “j’s” comme “i’s”.

              Eh, je ne sais. C’est plus difficile que “I’spose”, oui, mais je pense que c’est ok… Les cowboys fringants dit aussi “j’te”, “j’rentre”, et probablement les autres consonnes aussi, donc, généralement, je l’imagine comme si on bredouille un peu.

              J’ai dû sortir mon français rouillé. Merci pour la pratique. Et oui, j’ai utilisé Google.

              Et la même à toi! Mais j’utilise Google pour traduire du français vers l’anglais, après avoir premièrement écrit la français avec Collins et quelquefois Reverso (mon professeur français a toujours aimé ça). Je fais des corrections alors peut-être. Ainsi, Google me dit si j’ai fait des grosses erreurs, mais je pratique mon français tout seul.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well, I’m doing my best to import it into the New Zealand vernacular, we are South of the 49th.

        So, uh, I dunno.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You can use yall but the "L"s are quieter the further north you go such that they’re silent near the border

        “How ya doin” is simply plural above the 49th

    • ilex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Everyone gets y’all. It fills the dumb gap in English where the plural of you is you. Now if we could only get a singular neutral 3rd for people that isn’t also the plural.

      E: Or we could start pronouncing They singular like latchkey, for a thee sound. So we can get fun words like they’s (thees). It will also make English even more confusing for newbies. What’s not to love?

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        If the plural of goose is geese, then the plural of moose is meese.

        I approve of this message, are y’all with me?

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      So long as we can still claim “Y’all’d’nt’ve”

      It’s our greatest contribution to the lexicon and extremely efficient.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s also second person plural (or singular), second person is always ungendered.

      First and second person, plural and singular are never gendered: I, you, we, you / y’all / all y’all. The only pronouns that are gendered are the third person singular: he / she / it. Third person plural (they) is also ungendered.

      • FunctionFn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The most common form (at least where I’m from) of second person plural behind “you all (y’all)” is gendered: “you guys”. It’s used in an ungendered way increasingly commonly, but “guy” is still gendered to plenty of English speakers.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          “Guys” is sometimes gendered, sometimes not. There really isn’t a female-gendered equivalent to “you guys”. You could say something like “you gals”, but that’s just not used. Most often you could say “could you guys follow me?” to a group of women and nobody would think twice about it.