Grammar question

There was a PBS mini-series documentary thingie called "Do You Speak American?" where this phenom was also mentioned. When I first heard it on the program, I couldn't believe it. However, when I received calls from friends and family during back home I could hear some of it.

I have difficulty hearing the Chicago accent myself, likely because I am so accustomed to it. I spend a day or two back home and I start hardening my "th's". I didn't consider it that difficult of an accent or 'dialect.' However, mi esposa Venezolana has a different opinion.

We were dropping off my sons at my ex's. She is married to someone from the south side. Her husband and I were discussing some stuff about the pet dog and Da Bears. When we left, my wife asked me if I could understand my ex's husband. She told me she found it difficult to understand his accent, almost as hard as Ross Perot's. I never considered it an accent as one would a southern accent, New Yorkers, or Californian accent.

The "Just a Regular Guy" comes from an FM radio rock station. To announce upcoming concert and 'cultural' events, they used a character, with a comically strong Chicago accent. His handle was "Just a regular guy."

 

Thanks for the info, Russ.

My wife, who's Japanese, also finds some regional accents much easier to understand than others. Fortunately, we live in eastern New England with its r-less accent. When we visit West Virginia she's lost.

 

Same

Are y'all goin' to the K-Mart?(plu) Is yer ass goin' to the K-Mart? (sing) We is goin' down to the K-Mart an y'all kin come if'in ya want? We was gonna park closter to them swangin' doors, but had to park down yonder.

If'in y'all gets lost , just holler real loud. Joe Bob's ears is big enough to hear taters growin'. And Little Bob, don't be spittin' no chaw on the nolium. We ain't hicks ya know. Understand where I'm comin' from?

I shore wisht you'd git hitched to yer sister, the baby's due nex month. Hell, I thought Bastard wus my name til I got all growed-up, at 13. Reckon Yankees has beat us to the good stuff? Ain't nary a cracker in sight.

If you have difficulty understanding the above, please stay where you are. They have changed the "Blue Light Special" to the "Blue Hair Special". Everyone sounds like Fran Dresher, with a cold.

Only a Yankee, or poor actor, would use y'all in the singular. It just ain't done that way, no how. Transplanted Yankees got no say in the matter. Nuff said.

 

Clay,

Interesting slant but my experience regarding the use of ya'll is as dipicted below:

"Ching, Marvin K. L. "Plural You/Ya'll Variation by a Court Judge: Situational Use"
American Speech - Volume 76, Number 2, Summer 2001, pp. 115-127
Duke University Press


Excerpt

YOU ALL/YA'LL HAS BEEN THE TOPIC of much commentary.1 Of the 253 articles in McMillan and Montgomery (1989, 265-97) in the chapter on morphology and syntax, 25 are about you all or ya'll, and 17 (68%) of these debate whether these forms can also be used in the singular. Some assert that these words are for stylistic exaggeration or cordiality or reflect the inclusive or associative use of the pronoun to refer to understood others besides the singular addressee. The other 8 articles cited concern whether the stress was originally on the first or second syllable of you all and whether the biblical or Shakespearean you all is related by this stress placement; also, alternate forms of the second-person plural, such as you'uns, are analyzed. Subsequent studies continue the issue of ya'll as singular and cite the appearance of ya'll outside the traditional South: in Oklahoma (Tillery and Bailey 1998) and in Vernacular Black English in Waterloo, Iowa (Riney 1993, 87). The contribution of the Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States (1986-92) in discerning you all versus ya'll geographic areas has been noted (Montgomery 1998, 36).

Montgomery (1996, 5-10) discusses the complexity and versatility of ya'll, a fused grammaticalization of you all, as having these six properties: (1) a paradigmatic gap for plural you; (2) an associative plural, including individuals associated but not present with the singular addressee; (3) an institutional plural addressed to one person representing a group; (4) an unknown potential referent; (5) a form used in direct address in certain contexts (e.g., partings, greetings, invitations, and vocatives); and (6) a stylistic choice distinct in tone (e.g., in intimacy, familiarity, and informality)."

I use "ya'll" as a singular routinely as explained in (5) and (6). I never use ya'll in a formal or professional setting. I'm not a transplanted yankee, although I have been a transplanted southerner upon occasion. I don't have a sister so I married my cousin, we have the upgraded Big K, chaw don't hit any nolium since my daddy always made us swaller it before goin' ina store (we also had to put our hands in our pockets and couldn't bring 'em out until our bare feet hit the blacktop of the parking lot). All this typin' has got me hankerin' for an RC and a moonpie.

See ya'll later.....

Kevin

 

Dr Bear,

The "on the job" training thing is hilarious, I know what he was thinking

Anyone who has seen Austin Powers: Goldmember knows what I'm talking about.

Austin says:

"I don't want to see my Dad "On the Job" right before they start speaking in cockney English.

 

Same

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Updated in 2003, you-all also y'all is used in addressing two or more people or referring to two or more people, one of whom is addressed. The single most famous feature of Southern U.S. dialects is the pronoun y'all, sometimes heard in its variant you-all. You-all functions with perfect grammatical regularity as a second person plural pronoun, taking its own possessive you-all's (or less frequently, your-all's, where both parts of the word are inflected for possession): You-all's voices sound alike. Southerners do not, as is sometimes believed, use you-all or y'all for both singular and plural you. A single person may only be addressed as you-all if the speaker implies in the reference other persons not present: Did you-all [you and others] have dinner yet? You and you-all preserve the singular/plural distinction that English used to have in thou and ye, the subject forms of singular and plural you, respectively (thee and you were the singular and plural object forms). The distinction between singular thou/thee and plural ye/you began to blur as early as the 13th century, when the plural form was often used for the singular in formal contexts or to indicate politeness, much as the French use tu for singular and familiar "you," and vous for both plural and polite singular "you". In English, the object form you gradually came to be used in subject position as well, so that the four forms thou, thee, ye, and you collapsed into one form, you. Thou and thee were quite rare in educated speech in the 16th century, and they disappeared completely from standard English in the 18th. However, the distinction between singular and plural you is just as useful as that between other singular and plural pronoun forms, such as I and we. In addition to y'all, other forms for plural you include you-uns, youse, and you guys or yous guys. Yous is common in vernacular varieties in the Northeast, particularly in large cities like Ney York and Boston, and also common in in Irish English. You-uns is found in western Pennsylvania and in the Appalachians and probably reflects the Scotch-Irish roots of many European settlers. You guys and youse guys appear to be newer innovations than the other dialectal forms of plural you.
So, do you have any moonpie left? We may be ex- husbands-in- law? The RC and pie were the highlight of my paper route. Rode all over town and spent my earnings before I made um. The lure was too much. Reckon it's like my exes. The lure to get rid of them was worth the expense. I'd just tell um to take it all and y'all get lost. Y'all was their families and hangers-on. An entourage of plastic people. Plastic and silicon. Didn't need floats in the pool. I always looked at them as a bunch of punchbowl floaters. Yeah, I'm slanted.

 

In my opinion it should be "In March" and 'on' can be omited from the last two sentences all together--maybe they were just trying to be cute with the language

 

Think Kahn's Joshin Ya

CapNgGown,
Betcha Khan ticklin us'ins fancy. Betcha case corder. If'in yu figger wha a case corder ist, I gef yu won.

 

Well... finally someone addresses that which was asked in the thread-starting post. And I agree.

As interesting as this thread has gotten, I notice that no one -- that is, 'til CapnGown bravely chimed-in -- has simply declared that it's wrong. Or is all the tolerance of regionalisms proffered here a roundabout way of saying it's simply that, and should, therefore, be tolerated?

"On March" instead of "in March" is wrong. Not tolerable because it sounds like it might be a regionalism, but just plain wrong.

"On tomorrow" instead of simply "tomorrow" is wrong. "On yesterday" instead of, simply, "yesterday" is wrong.

And, one of my biggest pet peeves: "On line" instead of "in line" is wrong... always has been... and no New Yorker -- or anyone else, for that matter -- will ever rationalize his/her way out of that with me.

I know I'll be assailed for this -- and that the "English is constantly evolving" argument is headed my way -- but does mere evolution necessarily mean wholesale reckless disregard for rules and standards?

It's just maddening to me... and always has been. Recent generations' misuse/transposition of "of" and "for" is one of those so-called "evolutions" that's got me yelling at the TV and radio the most these days. There are many others.

Words like "y'all" and "you'uns" and all the other similar regionalisms really are just that. Regarding such as using "on" when either "in" or nothing at all is correct is not the same as -- and, in fact, does a disservice to -- toleration/recognition of mere regionalisms. We should all be less tolerant and more demanding. Tolerance of a regionalism, and just plain suspending the rules -- or even laziness -- are very different things. I like my wanton deviations from standard English, and reckless abandon of the rules seemingly for its own sake, to have some kind of provenance; some rational, traceable, historical underpinning... preferably one that has something to do with native non-English speakers screwing it up while doing their best to get it right, and then that, over time, becoming commonplace... perhaps even to the chagrin of those who inadvertently coined it.

But some regionalisms aren't. They're just wrong. As there is such a thing as evil, there is such a thing as wrong. Why we won't just say so when it's appropriate is also maddening!

ADDENDUM: Whew! That certainly felt good. I've been stifling coming in here and making essentially that post almost since this thread began. Why I picked today, I don't know... but it sure was cathartic.

 

I have a few tics in my speech and writing that are markers. I wonder from whence they came? We Canucks have too many language pools from which to draw our water!

I use "in future" rather than "in the future" and "to hospital" and "in hosptial" rather than "to the hospital" and "in the hospital". I also try to avoid the use of "presently" except to mean "shortly" or "momentarily" or "in a short while" in the American sense. Most people in Vancouver (we pronounce it "Vang-couver") don't seem to use these forms in this way -- perhaps I've had a few too many British bosses.

Of course, one says, "I will do it that way in future" (continual intent, "from now on") but "I will mail that in the future." (one time intent, sometime in the future, once or some specific number of times in the future)

That said -- someone people "believe on" and some people "believe in". So -- do we believe on March, or in March?

 

And when I returned from PQ, I had some leftover French-isms.

I went to my bank and said, in English, paycheck in hand: "I'd like to deposit all save twenty."

The teller looked at me and said, "You don't have a savings account."

"All save twenty," I repeated.

No idea she hadn't any notion what I was saying! Finally, it clicked: "I'd like to deposit all of that, except for 20 in cash, please."

 

Her problem was still one of English, not French-isms. The use of "save" in that way is well-known to English speakers. She was just young and grew up watching too much TV.

 

Maybe she thought you were from parts where they say, "Ah reckon Ah'll save twenty."

 

Same

Bill's as sharp as my straight razor. Because, that's what I considered when I first saw the statement. Being in the south, it could be taken either way. And I'm sure he focused my way, while pondering his response.

Gregg is correct about just plain laziness, regionalisms, and tolerance. Improper grammar is laziness or breeding. Even crackers are dismayed at some of the trash.

There is a proper Southern manner, with drawl and y'all, that doesn't destroy the language. It adds flavor. I don't want to sound like a Brit, Bostonian, or New Yorker.

Unfortunately, schools do not teach diction, grammar, sentence structure, etc...any longer. My father was properly instructed, as was I, and uses no mannerisms or lazy English when he speaks or writes.

I am both lazy and teasing in my communications. Most realize my game, and some accept me as a member of their group, complete with upside down sentences and all. It is aggravating and insulting on occasion. Especially, if easily offended.

"I'm sure it's lonely for those of you at the top, but it's pleasing to look down upon everyone at the bottom. . . ."

I read this statement somewhere, and forgot the author, and I've probably screwed it up. So, Ah reckon Ah'll get detention again.

 

As a former linguistics student, I'm pretty much an ideologue about the equal and considerable value of various vernaculars. You get converted in the first semester.

The funny thing is, I actually say "Ah'll save twenty," myself, and I'm from western New England, the only part of the country where there's no regional accent ;-)

I think it's because the diphthong /ay/ begins in the back of the mouth and ends in the front, but I pronounce /l/ in the back after a vowel, so I just save the round trip. If I do hyper-correct to "I'll," it's almost di-syllabic, with a glide to the front, then to the back:/ayul/.

Or maybe it's just reduction of an unstressed syllable. Aono.

 

Same

Aono too. I think my diphthong got broken while skiing the di-syllabic slope. Those /\/ kept gettin' in the way. All I could hear was old Spencer saying, "He there now does enjoy eternal rest. . . ."

 

Same

Bill,
My English teacher girlfriend said I had something dangling from my modifier. Guess you saw it even though we're typing. I'm glad no girls are on this thread. Don't wanna be a known dangler. Wonder if I have to post a sign on my condo or notify my yuppie neighbors? She only has an MA in English, so I'm not overly concerned if you're not.

Now she says I'm not being specific with my pronouns. I just exclamatory sentenced her.

Chronic Dangler,
Clay

 

Re: Think Kahn's Joshin Ya

Whoa- when people write like that it makes me feel like I'm reading Zora Neal Hurston book--deciphering a dialect--I guess I am in a way.

 

Re: Re: Grammar question

If that makes you mad you might flip at this :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051116/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_life_britain_text;_ylt=AqCJ_gwbhbYBXunH_93cAGbtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA

There are even tutorials for this kind of writing or abbreviation www.t9.com

It seems that language is always in flux for good or for bad

 

Sorry-I just realized that my first link doesn't work:

If your interested the title of the article is 'Beep. It's from Hamlet. 2B? NT2B?=???'

here's another try at posting the actual link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051116/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_life_britain_text;_ylt=AqCJ_gwbhbYBXunH_93cAGbtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA

hopefully that works