Should of ...

[Derideo_Te]

There are way too many people in this thread with far better qualifications than I to decide what is and isn't proper usage, grammar and spelling.

It used to bug me that people in Boston and New York would use the term "yous" (as in yous guys) for the plural of you until I watched the PBS documentary "The Story of English" by Robert MacNeil (MacNeil Lehrer News Hour fame). Apparently the term yous comes from Ireland and since those cities are where a great many of the Irish settled it probably entered into American english usage from there.

So nowadays when I hear people use the term "axe" when they mean "ask" I wonder about the origin rather than getting irritated.

English has become the world's 2nd language by default. But that results in changes to the language as it acquires regional terms that eventually become common everyday terms. Going "commando" derives from the term used by the Afrikaaners to describe their hit and run tactics against the British during the Boer Wars. The term itself derives from Dutch, Spanish and originally Latin.

So we have a living language and I am cool with that. It beats a dead language.

I'm very familiar with youse from growing up in Philadelphia (area). The perception issue comes in with the fact that it's associated with the lower classes -- which is what we Irish were upon arrival.

Now I have a friend from New York who insists that Pennsylvanians have another you-plural term which is "yuns" (for "you ones"). I explain to her that that's western Pennsylvania, which as far as we're concerned is another state with another language. I drop both of them and use y'all from my Southern relatives as the most workable. We do after all have the deficiency of lacking a proper word singularly for you-plural. The beginning of the end on that was when we dropped the familiar thou and made formal you do double (triple) duty. That breeds chaos.

The terms will just have to fight it out until a winner emerges but for me the best candidate is y'all. Provided it's not used as a singular.



Related to yuns though, here in Appalachia I came across the contraction your'n (yours, that which belongs to you, from "your one").

"'At car's same color as your'n" my mechanic said.

Looking into derivations though, it turns out your'n has been around longer than yours (Middle English, 2nd half of the 14th century). Which begs the question of which one's "wrong".

Speaking for myself only the answer is "none of the above". If the terminology is understood by those using it then it is an acceptable means of communication. Only if it isn't comprehensible to others does it become an issue.

The ambiguity of the plural you is probably behind all of these regional derivations. The problem only arises if someone uses a regional term on the interwebs and that results in a miscommunication.

However I see the internet as becoming the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable terminology and usage. If we coined a new term to describe the evolution of the language on the internet, say Intelish or Englinet, and it was picked up and entered into general usage then that to me would be just fine.

An example of this is the slang term "interwebs" that I used it earlier. It originated as a disparaging term to describe those who were ignorant of the internet but has now become common enough that everyone reading it knows what it means.

 

[Unkotare]

T

It used to bug me that people in Boston and New York would use the term "yous" (as in yous guys) for the plural of you ...

People in Boston do not generally say "yous." That's New York City.

 

[Synthaholic]

Whom: It is archaic because it isn't used...

It is used quite often by even moderately educated people. It is not archaic.

LOL I've asked you twice to explain how one uses it, and you have failed to do so; thus, I must conclude you have no idea and are not one of those 'moderately educated people' who use it.

I work and have worked closely with very highly educated people for over 28 years. I rarely hear anyone using it.

You are so full of shit.

"To whom are you referring to?"

 

[Esmeralda]

I wooden get in the mud with that loser expeshully in a thread like this -- 'language Nazi' is entirely appropriate terminilogy; he regularly edits other people's posts. Best we all have it on ignore.

Back to the show.

I could care less is an idiom. It isn't expressing the idea with correct logic, but we all know what it means because it is idiomatic. This is the type of thing that doesn't bother me at all. The purpose of language is to communicate (as you have proved in the post I quoted above), so if you use an idiom that everyone understands, even if it is incorrect English or incorrrect logic, that doesn't really matter because you have communicated what you mean. The purpose of language is to communicate. If someone has communicated his point clearly for his audience, then he has fulfilled the purpose of language.

Sure, and if we all had a dime for every time we see a badly phrased/misspelled post here that we just interpret and ignore the flaw, we could all afford the Taj Mahal.

But for me it says something about the mind of the poster that they can type "could care less" and apparently not be aware that they mean the direct opposite of what they just said. It tells me there's a certain thought road not taken.

For better or worse we have a mathematical logic; one negative counteracts the other -- not unlike the English professor who noted that in English a double negative becomes a positive, while in Russian a double negative affirms the negative, but (he goes on) there is no language in which a double positive becomes a negative -- to which a wag in the back quips, "yeah, right".

Most people don't think about the things they toss off. Most people don't think much about language, only enough to suit their immediate needs. There are certain things that annoy individuals, but it's nothing about which to get your knickers in a twist.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is used quite often by even moderately educated people. It is not archaic.

LOL I've asked you twice to explain how one uses it, and you have failed to do so; thus, I must conclude you have no idea and are not one of those 'moderately educated people' who use it.

I work and have worked closely with very highly educated people for over 28 years. I rarely hear anyone using it.

You are so full of shit.

"To whom are you referring to?"

You only need one to, and it's the first one.

 

[Pogo]

I could care less is an idiom. It isn't expressing the idea with correct logic, but we all know what it means because it is idiomatic. This is the type of thing that doesn't bother me at all. The purpose of language is to communicate (as you have proved in the post I quoted above), so if you use an idiom that everyone understands, even if it is incorrect English or incorrrect logic, that doesn't really matter because you have communicated what you mean. The purpose of language is to communicate. If someone has communicated his point clearly for his audience, then he has fulfilled the purpose of language.

Sure, and if we all had a dime for every time we see a badly phrased/misspelled post here that we just interpret and ignore the flaw, we could all afford the Taj Mahal.

But for me it says something about the mind of the poster that they can type "could care less" and apparently not be aware that they mean the direct opposite of what they just said. It tells me there's a certain thought road not taken.

For better or worse we have a mathematical logic; one negative counteracts the other -- not unlike the English professor who noted that in English a double negative becomes a positive, while in Russian a double negative affirms the negative, but (he goes on) there is no language in which a double positive becomes a negative -- to which a wag in the back quips, "yeah, right".

Most people don't think about the things they toss off. Most people don't think much about language, only enough to suit their immediate needs. There are certain things that annoy individuals, but it's nothing about which to get your knickers in a twist.

It's not knicker-twisting so much as a curiosity that people speak without hearing themselves when they come out with "PIN number" or "could care less" or write using an apostrophe to form a plural. It just makes one wonder, if they're not listening to/reading their own words, what are they listening to? It's a curiosity about variant ways that minds work.

Apparently I'm a damn good proofreader, as were both of my parents. But it's never been something to work at; for me these things leap off the page, grab me by the eyes and start stabbing in a furious rage demanding I do something about them pronto. Not an easy thing to ignore. But ignore one must if one is going to enter into discussion without getting distracted here. That's why this is such a great vent thread.

I think use of language, properly exercised, is its own art form -- which means abuse thereof is something quite different.

OK, here's today's peeve expression:

"No problem"

 

[Pogo]

I've always said this board needs a resident psychiatrist.

 

[Pogo]

I kind of like it as a compound: "assraped". The absence of hyphen or space allows it to go by the eye faster, which boosts its impact on the synapse when it hits all at once. Second choice would be separate words: "ass raped". The hyphen softens it a bit too much. Unless that's what you want to do.

Not to, y'know, overanalyze...

 

[Pogo]

I kind of like it as a compound: "assraped". The absence of hyphen or space allows it to go by the eye faster, which boosts its impact on the synapse when it hits all at once. Second choice would be separate words: "ass raped". The hyphen softens it a bit too much. Unless that's what you want to do.

Not to, y'know, overanalyze...

I'm going to ask that you put on your proof-reader hat, and give your best assessment of the following sentence. Feel free to rewrite it if errors are found. I am here to learn.

Unkotare liked to suck the cocks of hobos, but only when they had a spare fifth of Jameson and Lucky Strikes to trade even those with whom he had conflicts in the past, but not always.

If I had a way to ever remove my proofreader hat it would be a first.

It's pretty strong as is IMHO; I might move the third phrase more to the front for clarity, rearrange the syntax for a less fractured flow and insert an em dash to set up the punchline:

Unkotare liked to suck the cocks of hobos, even (but not always) those with whom he had conflicts in the past --but only when they had a spare fifth of Jameson and Lucky Strikes to trade.

Now "but not always" is clearer to which event it refers, and the second but conjunction is less ambiguous in its reference. "Even those" no longer seems to point to "Lucky Strikes" as it's now closer to its target.

Basically setting the concepts in chronological order. That is, if I have interpreted the ambiguity correctly in its intent. To tinker a bit more I might find an alternative for one of the buts, e.g. though. Just to avoid the repetition.

 

[Grandma]

OK, here's today's peeve expression:

"No problem"

It comes, I believe, from Spanish, as a humble form of acknowledging thanks.

"Muchas gracias por el dinero."

"Por nada."

"For nothing" eventually morphed into "no problem."

 

[Pogo]

OK, here's today's peeve expression:

"No problem"

It comes, I believe, from Spanish, as a humble form of acknowledging thanks.

"Muchas gracias por el dinero."

"Por nada."

"For nothing" eventually morphed into "no problem."

That's an interesting derivation.

I thought the expression was de nada, not that it makes a difference, and in French it's de rien. But the thing is, neither of those mean "problem"; they mean "nothing".

That's the hangup -- the speaker is introducing, by negation, the idea that the situation could have been a "problem" -- usually in something that would be hard pressed to morph itself into one. Makes ya wonder why the speaker thinks in terms of "problems".

Seems to me the logical morph of de nada would be "not at all" or at a stretch, "don't mention it".

 

[Vandalshandle]

Instead of reading this thread, I should have stood in bed....

 

[Asclepias]

Idiocracy, it's here.

The bastardization of the glorious and eloquent English language has been a problem for ages. I dare say, few people today could pass a grammar test. Sentence structure has been all but destroyed; I notice this more now than when I was younger, partly because I write a lot, partly because I am more aware, and partly because people are becoming more ignorant. There are countless examples I could give, but the latest I am seeing more and more is-

"I should of went somewhere else."

I wonder how many here will even see the grotesque stupidity in that sentence.

[MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION]

The English language is a bastard language itself. There is nothing really "English" about it. Its made up of words and phrases borrowed from other cultures spanning the globe. Thats why people frequently say its the hardest language to learn. Communication is more important than keeping any language "pure" unless it conveys some attribute found nowhere else. If I speak Ebonics to someone else that speaks the dialect then we communicate just fine.

 

[Esmeralda]

Democrats seem to say more stupid things than Republicans do.
I have never heard any Republican running for the Presidency say we have 57 states or a Representative on the floor of the house say, if everyone stands on one end of an Island that it will sink.
Schools not teaching our young, effect everyone in this country not just the left or right.

Here's Peach174 bringing the stupid and the hyper-partisanship to yet another thread.

We also didn't have a president besides W. to make up words like "misunderestimated" and say things like "Putting food on their families".

Anytime you want to compare Obama's one or two verbal gaffes with Bush's litany, I'm game.

OK look, Luddly brought it in first, and it has no place here. They're both wrong.
We've got a nice discussion of vital real-world import that directly affects people's lives; let's not sully it by devolving into something as trite, trivial and meaningless as politics.

At least you are able to put it into perspective.

 

[Esmeralda]

Sure, and if we all had a dime for every time we see a badly phrased/misspelled post here that we just interpret and ignore the flaw, we could all afford the Taj Mahal.

But for me it says something about the mind of the poster that they can type "could care less" and apparently not be aware that they mean the direct opposite of what they just said. It tells me there's a certain thought road not taken.

For better or worse we have a mathematical logic; one negative counteracts the other -- not unlike the English professor who noted that in English a double negative becomes a positive, while in Russian a double negative affirms the negative, but (he goes on) there is no language in which a double positive becomes a negative -- to which a wag in the back quips, "yeah, right".

Most people don't think about the things they toss off. Most people don't think much about language, only enough to suit their immediate needs. There are certain things that annoy individuals, but it's nothing about which to get your knickers in a twist.

It's not knicker-twisting so much as a curiosity that people speak without hearing themselves when they come out with "PIN number" or "could care less" or write using an apostrophe to form a plural. It just makes one wonder, if they're not listening to/reading their own words, what are they listening to? It's a curiosity about variant ways that minds work.

Apparently I'm a damn good proofreader, as were both of my parents. But it's never been something to work at; for me these things leap off the page, grab me by the eyes and start stabbing in a furious rage demanding I do something about them pronto. Not an easy thing to ignore. But ignore one must if one is going to enter into discussion without getting distracted here. That's why this is such a great vent thread.

I think use of language, properly exercised, is its own art form -- which means abuse thereof is something quite different.

OK, here's today's peeve expression:

"No problem"

They are listening to this

Jabberwocky




By Lewis Carroll


’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.


“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!”


He took his vorpal sword in hand;

Long time the manxome foe he sought—

So rested he by the Tumtum tree

And stood awhile in thought.


And, as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!


One, two! One, two! And through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.


“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

He chortled in his joy.


’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Languge is about communication. Bottom line. Although it is generally logical, it isn't always so. As well, English grammar is not always logical.

 

[Grandma]

OK, here's today's peeve expression:

"No problem"

It comes, I believe, from Spanish, as a humble form of acknowledging thanks.

"Muchas gracias por el dinero."

"Por nada."

"For nothing" eventually morphed into "no problem."

That's an interesting derivation.

I thought the expression was de nada, not that it makes a difference, and in French it's de rien. But the thing is, neither of those mean "problem"; they mean "nothing".

That's the hangup -- the speaker is introducing, by negation, the idea that the situation could have been a "problem" -- usually in something that would be hard pressed to morph itself into one. Makes ya wonder why the speaker thinks in terms of "problems".

Seems to me the logical morph of de nada would be "not at all" or at a stretch, "don't mention it".

It's de nada in Spain, por nada in Mexico.

 

[Mr. H.]

They had us diagramming sentences in grade school. In the ought-60's. Those nuns were most excellent English, Spelling, and Grammar teachers. And they could wield a mean yardstick.

 

[Asclepias]

It is an unfortunate reflection on society that some people are so eager to jump on a notion like "languages change over time," which is a more complicated topic than the mere banality it is apparently regarded as by the semi-informed, because they see it as an easy excuse for a lack of care and attention in the use of language. Many here have noted that the function of language is communication, and so it is. Some should take a moment to reflect on what they are 'communicating' about themselves when they essentially defend ignorance and sloth.

I make plenty of errors. Rewriting is good writing. Accepting mediocrity and inaccuracy out of mere resignation is good for nothing.

Basically they are saying they could care less as long as the idea is communicated. Take texting for instance. Its an entirely new language that has evolved. I could sit on my high horse and bemoan how people are destroying the language or get with it and become proficient in the language of texting. English has no redeeming quality that makes it untouchable to the ravages of time. Bravo for actually offering your opinion.

 

[Pogo]

Idiocracy, it's here.

The bastardization of the glorious and eloquent English language has been a problem for ages. I dare say, few people today could pass a grammar test. Sentence structure has been all but destroyed; I notice this more now than when I was younger, partly because I write a lot, partly because I am more aware, and partly because people are becoming more ignorant. There are countless examples I could give, but the latest I am seeing more and more is-

"I should of went somewhere else."

I wonder how many here will even see the grotesque stupidity in that sentence.

[MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION]

The English language is a bastard language itself. There is nothing really "English" about it. Its made up of words and phrases borrowed from other cultures spanning the globe. Thats why people frequently say its the hardest language to learn. Communication is more important than keeping any language "pure" unless it conveys some attribute found nowhere else. If I speak Ebonics to someone else that speaks the dialect then we communicate just fine.

There's plenty "English" about it (Anglo-Saxon) as well as German, French and too many other donor languages to count. I don't think that's why they say it's hard to learn; I think it's because of our inconsistent rules of spelling and grammar. Which is going to happen when in most languages that (a) hang around a long time and (b) interact with other ones. As opposed to, say, Icelandic, which steadfastly retains its structure to the point where an Icelander can still read Old Norse sagas of 800 years ago, which would be all but impossible for us.

But I think what makes English difficult for other speakers is navigaiting through "The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs the Dough" and such variable orthographical hiccoughs.

 

[Pogo]

They had us diagramming sentences in grade school. In the ought-60's. Those nuns were most excellent English, Spelling, and Grammar teachers. And they could wield a mean yardstick.

One thing Catholic school teaches is quick reflexes. Because when that bullet-shaped rubber tip comes off that pointer she's swinging at somebody on the other side of the room, there's just no way to predict which way that thing's gonna bounce.

Amirite, H?