"Couple" without a preposition?

[Penforhire]

Ugh! No, not that. Try this -- http://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Manual...3917139&sr=1-1

edit - I used to also reference the AP Stylebook but mine seems to have wandered off some time ago -- http://www.amazon.com/Associated-Pre...3917208&sr=1-3

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I would now like to propose a discussion on the proper contraction for "you all":

y'all or ya'll ?

Y'all follows the grammatical contraction 'rules', but it looks silly to me. I'm a Ya'll girl.

y'all or ya'll just sounds wrong. You all also sounds wrong.

But then, a southern accent can sound wrong.

So where did a southern accent come from?

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Ugh! No, not that. Try this -- http://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Manual...3917139&sr=1-1

Dont have a choice till I finish my current degree, they set the rules.

[Steve Robinson]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I would now like to propose a discussion on the proper contraction for "you all":

y'all or ya'll ?

Y'all follows the grammatical contraction 'rules', but it looks silly to me. I'm a Ya'll girl.

As the apostrophe is used to replace the missing part of a word, y'all is the correct contraction of 'you all' replacing 'ou'. Ya'll is incorrect because that would imply a contraction of 'ya all' as someone else suggested, but 'ya' isn't a real word and is itself a slag form of 'you'. So whichever way you cut it, you're looking for a contraction of 'you all' and so to be grammatically correct, it has to be y'all. It also sounds right when spoken as 'yawl', rather than 'yaal' but that might depend where you're from. Also, accepted use of language versus correct use of language are two different things in dialogue. If you want to make dialogue sound phonetically real for a particular character and when spoken in that area it sounds like yaal then in dialogue you might want to write ya'all, but if the sound is yawl then use y'all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Robinson

As the apostrophe is used to replace the missing part of a word, y'all is the correct contraction of 'you all' replacing 'ou'. Ya'll is incorrect because that would imply a contraction of 'ya all' as someone else suggested, but 'ya' isn't a real word and is itself a slag form of 'you'. So whichever way you cut it, you're looking for a contraction of 'you all' and so to be grammatically correct, it has to be y'all. It also sounds right when spoken as 'yawl', rather than 'yaal' but that might depend where you're from. Also, accepted use of language versus correct use of language are two different things in dialogue. If you want to make dialogue sound phonetically real for a particular character and when spoken in that area it sounds like yaal then in dialogue you might want to write ya'all, but if the sound is yawl then use y'all.

Why would you wish to say "you all" in the first place? What advantage does it possess over a simple "you"?

[Steve Robinson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why would you wish to say "you all" in the first place? What advantage does it possess over a simple "you"?

Personally, I don't, Harry. It's just one of the many wonders of the human language.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why would you wish to say "you all" in the first place? What advantage does it possess over a simple "you"?

It is because American English does not have distinct 2nd plural so different areas of the country have come up with different ways to handle that. I have seen/heard..

you
yous
yous guys
you all
y'all

The have see the "pre-end all of" method

all of y'all
all of yous
all of yous guys
and so on

Just depends where you live. Im in Virginia presently, in a large town and hear y'all the most, but last month when I was in NJ I heard "yous guys" a lot. I suspect that long term "y'all" will win since that seems to be most prevalent in my unscientific study.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

It is because American English does not have distinct 2nd plural so different areas of the country have come up with different ways to handle that.

Every other variety of English (British, Australian, Indian, etc) appears to get along very nicely without it . There are really VERY few circumstances in which it's necessary to be able to distinguish, and, if you do, there are ways around it. It's interesting that US English has come up with this, especially given the fact that "you" actually IS plural in the first place.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Every other variety of English (British, Australian, Indian, etc) appears to get along very nicely without it . There are really VERY few circumstances in which it's necessary to be able to distinguish, and, if you do, there are ways around it. It's interesting that US English has come up with this, especially given the fact that "you" actually IS plural in the first place.

Every version of every language has its distinctives so no surprise there. In US English you is sorta treated as plural for grammar but only means one person so you say....

You were a clown

instead of

You was a clown

You is a singular person, but uses the plural verb. Note there is no "s" on clowns...

They were clowns
He was a clown

It is just irregular in that regard.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Every other variety of English (British, Australian, Indian, etc) appears to get along very nicely without it . There are really VERY few circumstances in which it's necessary to be able to distinguish, and, if you do, there are ways around it. It's interesting that US English has come up with this, especially given the fact that "you" actually IS plural in the first place.

I frequently need a plural you instead of a singular you. (I seem to recall the Monty Python trope got several good sketches out of the vagueness of English forms of address.)

Then again, I was born and raised in the southern USA, so it's possible there's a cultural difference I'm grasping that you're not. I'm also strongly suspect of anyone claiming to know all the varieties and dialects of English spoken all over the world -- I used to have an Australian friend who said "yous all" as one word. I've no idea if he was unique in that way, but he at least seemed to find a need for it.

Speaking as someone with an English degree, I'm always surprised at how many people don't recognize that English is a constantly evolving language. And it irks me when time travel movies don't take that into account, for the record.

[HarryT]

In British English, if you were talking to a group of people, the "default" use of "you" would be understood to be referring to the group. If you wanted to address one particular person, you'd use their name.

Eg,
"Where are you from?" to mean the group.
"Where are you from, John?" to refer to one person.

Of course people just do this automatically; nobody stops to think about it. I'm sure the "you all" thing in the Southern US is the same in that respect.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In British English, if you were talking to a group of people, the "default" use of "you" would be understood to be referring to the group. If you wanted to address one particular person, you'd use their name.

Eg,
"Where are you from?" to mean the group.
"Where are you from, John?" to refer to one person.

Of course people just do this automatically; nobody stops to think about it. I'm sure the "you all" thing in the Southern US is the same in that respect.

What if I want to address a singular and don't know their name? Hence the Southern American decision to treat "you" as singular and come up with a new term for the plural.

There is a vast degree of difference in my cultural between "Where do you want to go to eat?" and "Where do ya'll want to go to eat?" Insisting that English can't or shouldn't or doesn't evolve to accommodate cultural differences or insisting that there are other ways to frame the same question is a way of marginalizing another's culture in favor of your preferred culture.

Not that I'm saying you (singular) have done that. But some people do and have and it's a rather tired form of trying to be superior simply by being different.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

There is a vast degree of difference in my cultural between "Where do you want to go to eat?" and "Where do ya'll want to go to eat?"

Is this purely done in spoken English, or would you use it in a formal context in written English, too? Just curious as to whether it is regarded as a local "dialect", or has come to be considered grammatically correct English.

I completely agree with you about the evolution of the language, by the way.

[Halo]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

It does appear regional to say "I'm driving on the 5" versus "I'm driving on 5." I don't know all the linguistic borders these apply to but we use "the" commonly in southern California but not in northern California.

I live in the SF bay area and I've always heard people say "the 5". I had never heard that before moving here. I haven't encountered anyone here that omits "the".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Halo

I live in the SF bay area and I've always heard people say "the 5". I had never heard that before moving here. I haven't encountered anyone here that omits "the".

It's the same with motorways in Britain - they always have the definite article. You always talk about "the M6" or "the M25"; nobody would ever omit the word "the".