End of ADS-L Digest - 8 Aug 1994 to 9 Aug 1994

**********************************************







There are 12 messages totalling 328 lines in this issue.



Topics of the day:



 1. you (5)

 2. singular they, y'all

 3. he/she (3)

 4. your male type cats (3)



----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:  Wed, 10 Aug 1994 11:09:39 -0500

From:  debaron[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]UIUC.EDU

Subject: you



>Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 10:45:06 -0500

>From: Dennis Baron <baron[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>

>To: baron[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

>Subject: you

>

Thought y'all'd be interested in this extension of an old discussion:



>

>>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english



>>From: peter[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]fourier.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)

>>Subject: Re: "You" [was: herstory-this bugs me]



>>Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 23:26:17 GMT



>Greg Resch (resch[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]cpcug.org) wrote:

>

>[Comments about the loss of "thou" and "thee"]

>

>>dwharper[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ingr.com (Dan Harper) wrote:

>>>

>>> Sorry, perhaps I should have written, "There seems to be a real need in

>>> English for a plural second person pronoun that is different in form from

>>> the singular second person pronoun."

>

>>I can almost agree with that, except that there *was* one, which we seem

>>(*supra*) to have dropped. That, and my objection to a related attempt

>>now in vogue to institute the use of "they" for the putatively offensive

>>"he" and "she," are why I object to a *new* "separate" form.

>

>>But the "you-all" and "youse" mentioned earlier are dialectal in America,

>>so I can not accept them as having gained some "pluplural" meaning. Sorry.

>>                        ^^^^^^^^^ [JOKE!]

>

>There is a small part of the USA where "y'all" seems to be doing

>its job as a plural; on the other hand, we've seen complaints in

>this group that some people are now using "y'all" as a _singular_

>pronoun.

>

>Something similar is happening in Australia. One does hear "youse"

>moderately often - although it has never been adopted by the

>"educated" speakers - and at first sight this appears to satisfy

>the need for a plural pronoun. I have noticed, however, that many

>people who use "youse" have started using "youses" as the plural

>form, which suggests that they think of "youse" as being singular.

>

>My overall impression is that native English speakers don't want to

>have separate pronouns for the second person singular and plural.

>Whenever a new plural form is introduced, it evolves to the point

>where the singular/plural distinction is lost again.

>

>>>      I thought the parallel to what may be happening with the third

>>> person was obvious.

>

>I'm not at all convinced that there is a parallel. Blurring the

>singular/plural distinction in the third person works in some

>situations, but not in others. The words "he", "she", and "it"

>show no sign at all of following "thou" into oblivion.

>

>--

>Peter Moylan            peter[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ee.newcastle.edu.au

>     (also peter[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]tesla.newcastle.edu.au, eepjm[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]cc.newcastle.edu.au)

>

>

Dennis Baron                       debaron[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]uiuc.edu



Department of English                  217-333-2392

University of Illinois                fax: 217-333-4321

608 South Wright Street

Urbana, Illinois 61801