You are? You's?

This is a discussion thread · 15 replies
1 2
Kim Mi-Kyung:
I read the book "Sonny's blues" yesterday.And I found these wierd sentences.

"But you got to let him knows you's there"
How can I account for this sentence?
And I also don't understand this, too.
"many a time"
Doesn't "Many times" right?
I'll waiting for your replies.
Kim Mi-Kyung
Kyung Hee University at Seoul.
E-mail:(Email Removed)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Don Phillipson:
[nq:1]I read the book "Sonny's blues" yesterday.And I found these wierdsentences. "But you got to let him knows you's there" How can I account for this sentence?[/nq]
This is an attempt to write ungrammatical
spoken dialect. Some Americans and
some British actually say this. (Many
authors write dialect for direct speech
and avoid it elsewhere.)
[nq:1]And I also don't understand this, too. "many a time" Doesn't "Many times" right?[/nq]
Many a time is standard English idiom
(spoken or written); it means many times.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Harvey Van Sickle:
Old can of worms time...does "non-standard" equate to "ungrammatical" spoken dialect?
The dialect is definitely spoken and non-standard, but I suspect that within the conventions of that particular dialect it's behaving in a grammatically consistent manner.

Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Dave:
[nq:1]On 04 Apr 2004, Don Phillipson wrote[/nq]
[nq:2]sentences. This is an attempt to write ungrammatical spoken dialect.[/nq]
[nq:1]Old can of worms time...does "non-standard" equate to "ungrammatical" spoken dialect? The dialect is definitely spoken and non-standard, but I suspect that within the conventions of that particular dialect it's behaving in a grammatically consistent manner.[/nq]
I guess the original sentence could be more (in)correctly written "But you's got to let him knows you's there" (?)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Raymond S. Wise:
[nq:2]On 04 Apr 2004, Don Phillipson wrote Old can of ... that particular dialect it's behaving in a grammatically consistent manner.[/nq]
[nq:1]I guess the original sentence could be more (in)correctly written "But you's got to let him knows you's there" (?)[/nq]
Correctly pronounced only if the speaker is speaking to more than one person, and only if the form of the second person plural happens to be the one used in the dialect in question (if that represents an actual dialect).

While people faking dialects often substitute the nonstandard second person plural form when the speaker is addressing a single person, I know of no dialect in which the speakers actually do so. That is, if the nonstandard second person plural form is "y'all," for example, "y'all" will not be used when addressing a single individual.
However, if correctly pronounced, the sentence in question is not correctly written. If the person was* speaking to more than one person and if the speaker's dialect *did have that pronunciation of the second person plural, the standard spelling of the second person plural would be "youse." (As I have pointed out before, some nonstandard usages nevertheless have standard spellings, for example, "ain't.") So the sentence in question, if correctly representing dialectal speech and more than one person is being addressed, should be written "But youse got to let him knows you's there."

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Cheechat:
[nq:1]Correctly pronounced only if the speaker is speaking to more than one person, and only if the form of the ... if the nonstandard second person plural form is "y'all," for example, "y'all" will not beused when addressing a single individual.[/nq]
A bit off-topic, but there *is* a plural form of "y'all." It's "all y'all." "Y'all" can be used of a group or of a single individual, at least in my observation. This is, of course, only applicable for those trying to blend in in, say, central Missouri.
[nq:1]However, if correctly pronounced, the sentence in question is notcorrectly written. If the person was speaking to more than one ... and more than one person is being addressed, should be written "But youse got to let him knows you's there."[/nq]
In analyzing "youse" vs. "you's," I see the former as a contraction of "you has" (as opposed to the correct "you have") and the latter as "you is" (as opposed to "you are"). E.E. Cummings used "youse" to mean "you" and "your" in at least one of his poems ("mr. youse needn't be so spry"). But, then, that's Cummings.
I don't pose these thoughts with the notion that they will add any real value to the thread; I'm just musing. Hope you don't mind.

Sara K
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Raymond S. Wise:
There was a discussion in the Linguist List, at
http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-720.html
nothing difinitive, but it might be of interest to the people reading this thread. Among other things posters mention variations of the second person pronoun which have not yet been mentioned in this thread, including the possessive form of "y'all," "y'all's." One poster claims that "y'all" is used as a singular pronoun by some Southerners, and suggests that further study of the matter is necessary. He sees himself as arguing against the same consensus that I accept, namely, that "y'all" is used only as a plural in actual dialectal speech.

The spelling "youse" is a standard spelling for the the plural of "you" pronounced /juz/ ("yooz"), but I was wrong when I said it is the standard spelling. The AHD4 has only "youse," but both the *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American ed., and the dictionary at www.infoplease.com give both "yous" and "youse" as spellings for the word, and so I would consider them both standard spellings.
[nq:1]I don't pose these thoughts with the notion that they will add any real value to the thread; I'm just musing. Hope you don't mind.[/nq]
Not at all. It lead me to do more research on the matter.
[nq:1]Sara K[/nq]
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Odysseus:
[nq:1]Not at all. It lead me to do more research on the matter.[/nq]
Do you mean to imply you plumbed the question deeply? One might fathom as much ... Sorry, I just had to sound off, and a mere "Oy!" didn't seem sufficient.

Odysseus
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Dave:
In my experience, "youse" has always been a dialectal plural of "you." My father, who grew up in the upper penninsula of Michigan said this constantly. It's a very popular word among hicks in the midwest U.S. They think "you" can only apply to one person.
And don't suggest you're not adding any value, Sara. You were the first person to actually answer the original poster's question, by pointing out that "you's" is a contraction for "you is." The poor guy just wanted to know what "you's" meant, and nobody would tell him.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
Live chat
Registered users can join here