WTF english and false synonyms

[Adeon Writer]

Ohboy the age old "past" form discussions. In german people stopped using the correct past versions because most of them sounded too far off of the original word and then people would look funny at you because they think you made that word up. Nowadays they'll just look funny at you because they think you must be as old as a fossil if you use those versions.

Interesting, it’s specific to German though. In English if you use the wrong tense (and you don’t have a foreign accent, that’s important - we are very forgiving if you sound like a non-native speaker) the usual thought is you sound uneducated. Especially using present verbs where past ones should be used, that’s how people talk in mock hillbilly in english.

This only applies to native speakers to though, it’s pretty much taboo to correct the grammar of a non-native English speaker, you are just expected to do your best to understand them. For better or worse.

 

[WolfEyes]

I think you meant "Your and you are ARE NOT spelling differences.

But that's why i brought it up. People think one means the other, it's a common mistake.


Also that's why it's so bad. You are trusting (i don't) in people that they get what you mean based on the context around the often absolutely crucial word. It's like playing lottery.

Oh. A typo. Whoopie. I fixed it. Again. Happy now?

No. That is how English works.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

So does "You" which in english can address a single person and a group of people count as well? Because that was always my problem with english, this whole contextual meaning thing, one word for many meanings and depending on how it's phrased it gets a whole new meaning, sometimes 2 completely different meanings use the same word and only the rest of the sentence gives a hint as to what you actually mean.

Some English dialects retain plural "you" forms (youse, y'all, all y'all, etc).

 

[WolfEyes]

"Y'all" is a contraction of you all. "All y'all" is incorrect.

Really, the ones you listed are all slang.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Slang particular to a region or population is kinda what makes a dialect. These forms are a survival of the distinction between singular you (thou) and plural you (ye) in early modern English.

eta: "All y'all" is no more correct or incorrect than "y'all" it just has a different geographic spread.

 

[Adeon Writer]

I don’t consider “Y’all” and “Yous” to be bad grammar. They are patching a problem with english and I commend that.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

I can help to defuse or diffuse this problem .
Never mind. I can't help.

I could delve into the various discrete issues here, but I prefer to be discreet.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

 

[WolfEyes]

Slang particular to a region or population is kinda what makes a dialect. These forms are a survival of the distinction between singular you (thou) and plural you (ye) in early modern English.

eta: "All y'all" is no more correct or incorrect than "y'all" it just has a different geographic spread.

I agree. Except for y'all and all y'all. All y'all is redundant. I grew up hearing it every day. It's still wrong.


The secret history of “Y’all”: The murky origins of a legendary Southern slang word

 

[Kara Spengler]

German:
Time-independence: Check... i think.

Clusivity: Check. What a nice word, spellcheck doesn't even recognize it.

Absolute Direction: Uhh. No? I mean you can totally use cardinal directions all the time but someone who doesn't know where North is will have an issue following unless you use cardinal directions relatively to you/your conversation partner. Like those pirates you count your steps with cardinal directions, only difference is that "South" is your South rather than the global South. You can say, turn south to tell someone to turn around 180° though or you can tell someone to turn West or East to tell him to turn left or right but that's something english can do too...i'm happy we don't do this... i wonder if they got a cardinal direction for Up and Down too? How do they play space games?!

Evidentiality: Question? Why is this important in a language... i mean do i get this right, he's saying that having an evidence as must is a good feature? How? I'd see it as a massive limitation if i couldn't say anymore that a sack of rice fell over in china just because neither me nor someone related to me can bring up any evidence that it actually happened. To an extend, wouldn't this totally destroy telling stories? Even as simple as stating a fact would become impossible unless you include that you saw/heard it or at least someone told/showed you...

But yea anyway, i'm sure i've seen many examples for this topic but i can't think of any words right now.

For evidentiality, say someone said 'so-and-so did xyz'. Would it not be helpful to know whether they believed it, witnessed it, or are reporting it as an absolute fact?

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

To be pacific, one shouldn't go looking for an escape goat. I'm gonna nip this in the butt, for all intensive purposes, this is just a mute point. I'll just be here biting my time, curled up in the feeble position all self-depreciatingly, while you argue about words with duel usage. I could sight a few more examples but you should just except the ineviable.

 

[WolfEyes]

To be pacific, one shouldn't go looking for an escape goat. I'm gonna nip this in the butt, for all intensive purposes, this is just a mute point. I'll just be here biting my time, curled up in the feeble position all self-depreciatingly, while you argue about words with duel usage. I could sight a few more examples but you should just except the ineviable.

One of my pet peeves...

It's MOOT not mute!! Unless you mean the point can't speak.

Biding not biting... wtf are you doing to me? AHHHHHHH!

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

One example is ethics and morals. When was the last time you heard about 'legal morals' or 'meta morals'? Chidi on 'The Good Place' is an ethics professor but some people randomly flip between calling him an ethics professor and a morals professor. What would people think is a good definition for each term? Maybe ethics as a framework people can agree to and morals as their particular spin on it?

Hmmm....I'm not sure that's a strong way of defining them; because a group of people can develop and agree on a moral code as well.

I think a better way of putting it might be to say that morals are personal while ethics are impersonal. Moral decisions and actions are something you make or take as Kara Spengler, human person; ethical decisions and actions are something you undertake in your capacity as "a scientist" or "a lawyer" or "the executive of this business". Only individuals can have morals; but individuals or even organizations as a collective can have ethical codes.

And sometimes these might conflict, or at least not mesh. A very striking contrast between morals and ethics would be the Hobby Lobby insurance situation, and others like it - the owners as individuals morally oppose abortion and contraception, but most people would consider withholding medical coverage for those things from employees who don't share those morals to be unethical.

That's my take at least.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

I agree. Except for y'all and all y'all. All y'all is redundant. I grew up hearing it every day. It's still wrong.


The secret history of “Y’all”: The murky origins of a legendary Southern slang word

If a large number of people use it regularly and have a common understanding of it's meaning, is it wrong? It can either (1) add emphasis or (2) distinguish between smaller and larger groups, so it has a distinctive use from "y'all."

 

[Kara Spengler]

I agree. Except for y'all and all y'all. All y'all is redundant. I grew up hearing it every day. It's still wrong.


The secret history of “Y’all”: The murky origins of a legendary Southern slang word

Yes. The phrase "all of you" has a clear definition. Just "you" has one as well. The word "y'all" is pure laziness (and is fingernails on a chalkboard to those of us from the north) however at least can be parsed to "all of you" (even though it is sometimes used for a singular person). The phrase "all y'all" is just a language obscenity.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Oh....one of my favorites: its vs. it's.

I mean it's understandable this could be confusing, because we're used to seeing possessive nouns having apostrophes (Cody's post, the dog's bowl, etc). But pronouns never have them: his, hers, theirs. And that includes "its". No apostrophe!

It's is only ever a contraction for "it is".

 

[Kara Spengler]

Hmmm....I'm not sure that's a strong way of defining them; because a group of people can develop and agree on a moral code as well.

I think a better way of putting it might be to say that morals are personal while ethics are impersonal. Moral decisions and actions are something you make or take as Kara Spengler, human person; ethical decisions and actions are something you undertake in your capacity as "a scientist" or "a lawyer" or "the executive of this business". Only individuals can have morals; but individuals or even organizations as a collective can have ethical codes.

And sometimes these might conflict, or at least not mesh. A very striking contrast between morals and ethics would be the Hobby Lobby insurance situation, and others like it - the owners as individuals morally oppose abortion and contraception, but most people would consider withholding medical coverage for those things from employees who don't share those morals to be unethical.

That's my take at least.

Yes, personal/impersonal is probably closer. For example, you might have various rules under ethics that people agree to but subsets of people might have different morals on how they put spins on those rules. Like a common (although not universal) rule in wicca is "do no harm" but you will find all sorts of ways people interpret that. A vegan environmentalist will have an entirely different take on it than a comando but they are both following the same rule as they define it.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Yes, personal/impersonal is probably closer. For example, you might have various rules under ethics that people agree to but subsets of people might have different morals on how they put spins on those rules. Like a common (although not universal) rule in wicca is "do no harm" but you will find all sorts of ways people interpret that. A vegan environmentalist will have an entirely different take on it than a comando but they are both following the same rule as they define it.

Yes! "Do no harm" is an ethical commandment that a whole bunch of people can earnestly agree to follow - but what exactly counts as "harm" is determined by each individual's morals.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Yes. The phrase "all of you" has a clear definition. Just "you" has one as well. The word "y'all" is pure laziness (and is fingernails on a chalkboard to those of us from the north) however at least can be parsed to "all of you" (even though it is sometimes used for a singular person). The phrase "all y'all" is just a language obscenity.

Not at all if you consider the importance of kinship and social networks in the South. Being able to distinguish between smaller, tight-knit groups and extended, more informal, groups is a necessity of negotiating social roles. Part of the problem is, as Wolf's source suggests, y'all is not a classic contraction despite the fact that it is usually spelled with an apostrophe. It is a feature of several English dialects (mostly Southern and Caribbean) where it is almost never used interchangeably with the words "you all" and it may not even be descended from those words. It just happens to have been drafted into use as the equivalent of "ye" in the half century after that word fell into disuse.

 

[WolfEyes]

If a large number of people use it regularly and have a common understanding of it's meaning, is it wrong? It can either (1) add emphasis or (2) distinguish between smaller and larger groups, so it has a distinctive use from "y'all."

The grammar is incorrect. Technically y'all is incorrect grammar as well. Y'all is just the more generally accepted form in the South. It also depends on the area of the South. Where I grew up y'all was (obviously) acceptable. All y'all was not. Even the teachers would get on your ass for using "all y'all" because y'all already refers to a group or groups. Adding the extra all is redundant. It is not needed.

On the other hand my English teachers didn't like y'all either. Figure that one out.