In Defense of Y'All • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#281

Post by zahlman » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

gregw2 wrote: post #11

I tease non-Texans that Texan English is actually superior to normal American English because it supports second-person plural via "Y'all" exactly as mentioned in this article... "you guys" is, to some ears, sexist, and "youse guys" (a New York-ism) is a little too old-school Italian. English lost its second person plural when we switched from Thou (second person singular formal + Thee=second person singular informal…

> because it supports second-person plural via "Y'all" exactly as mentioned in this article... "you guys" is, to some ears, sexist

Many people nowadays are happy to use "singular they" to refer to specific, definite individuals whose gender is not in question, and seem not to worry at all about creating ambiguity with the ordinary plural use of "they" (despite frequently doing so). So why would they care about being able to distinguish singular from plural in the second person, either?

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#282

Post by ryoshu » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

mystified5016 wrote: post #100

gregw2 wrote: post #11

I tease non-Texans that Texan English is actually superior to normal American English because it supports second-person plural via "Y'all" exactly as mentioned in this article... "you guys" is, to some ears, sexist, and "youse guys" (a New York-ism) is a little too old-school Italian. English lost its second person plural when we switched from Thou (second person singular formal + Thee=second person singular informal…

This whole thread is extremely confusing to this Appalachian native. Y'all is used quite widely throughout the entire southeast. It's recognized, if not used, through the entire country. I've also seen its use increasing in the Midwest as it seeps out of the south. Do many people actually see this as a novel word? It's incredibly common from my perspective here in Ohio.

I'm from the midwest with family from the deep south. I've ported y'all to NYC, but it took some convincing to get folks to be comfortable with using it.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#283

Post by zahlman » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:26 PM UTC

ternnoburn wrote: post #279

parpfish wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

latinx is nothing compared to "folx"

Isn't "folx" lingo or jargon? Like, let me explain a bit... Just like "shade", "tea", and other queer lingo that was predominantly used within the queer community, "folx" was originally (in recent usage) a term that was used by some queer folk as a signal to indicate safety and inclusiveness. But like "shade", some outsiders heard that jargon and started using it in communities where it wasn't common, and didn't carr…

People absolutely say "folks" in person nowadays (of course you wouldn't be able to hear a distinction between "ks" and "x"). It's common (although, yes, mediated by subculture) around where I live.

I grew up in a culture where nobody had a problem with "you guys". I am really not that old, and I still live in the same city.

As for "not carrying the original intent" - I don't see how there's any meaningful difference in intent.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#284

Post by shakow » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:27 PM UTC

hprotagonist wrote: post #50

cjs_ac wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Early Modern English, you is inherently plural; the singular form is thou . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

thou is the singular intimate. (compare the tu- form, in french). You could be singular or plural, but it was always formal. (compare the vous- form, in french) Knowing this puts a whole new spin on things like the KJV, since as moderns we hear "thou" and think "fancy old timey speech! very formal!" and it is exactly the opposite. Quakers/Friends chose the thou- form as the preferred form to address everyone; this wa…

I don't know for “you”, but the French « vous » (or e.g. вы, вие, etc.) are only formal in the singular form, otherwise they're just bog standard 2pp.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#285

Post by ted_bunny » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:27 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #131

coldpie wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought 'they' is always plural? You see someone two blocks away doing something unusual and say, "what are they doing?"

Only if you can't determine gender. Otherwise, you'd be "what is she/he doing?" It's usually clear from context. How often do you look two blocks away and see a group of unrelated individuals doing different things to the point "what are they doing" is unclear? Can't say I've ever run into that in my 48 years.

They also refers to the abstract "one."

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#286

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

Onawa wrote: post #273

cpburns2009 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people outside the midwest understand just how ubiquitous "you guys" is here. After a previous time this discussion occurred on HN, I had to chuckle to myself when I heard my sister address a group of little girls as "you guys". It's our version of "y'all".

My first job was as a host at Red Lobster. I was reprimanded for saying "How are you guys doing today?" as I was seating a group of ladies. 16-year old me was trying my best to be polite, but language changes over time and that was one of my first introductions to code switching.

> language changes over time

But this language has not been changing over time. This was a dictate from HR departments, made up from whole cloth. If anything has changed over time, it's that "gals" has been an anachronism for a long while, outside of a few isolated corners of the Southern and Western US where it can still manage to sound cute in some contexts. We don't really need a special diminutive for groups of women.

That being said, it's not formal language, it's chummy. If you're a 16 year old host at a restaurant speaking to a group of women older than you, you probably shouldn't be chummy.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#287

Post by zahlman » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

Diti wrote: post #248

kbelder wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>who are latin@ Is that a real thing or are you joking?

Considering the comment history of the person you are talking to (basically only ever replies to fight over social justice), I think they must be mentioning a real trend.

The Wikipedia article is surprisingly on-point and insightful for a contemporary culture-war concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#288

Post by radlad » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:31 PM UTC

troyvit wrote: post #266

cpburns2009 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people outside the midwest understand just how ubiquitous "you guys" is here. After a previous time this discussion occurred on HN, I had to chuckle to myself when I heard my sister address a group of little girls as "you guys". It's our version of "y'all".

Even as far west as Colorado we used it the same way when I was young. Then I got a job at an NYC company and the gendered-ness of it was frowned upon. I actually switched to "ya'll" and it worked great. All the New Yorkers just thought that's how Coloradoans talk. So, thanks Texas. Totally unrelated but this Blaze Foley song talks specifically about getting back to a place "where the people say ya'll." It's beautifu…

I am another Midwesterner who has largely switched from "you guys" to "y'all" (nit: ya'll is not considered correct spelling) after some lengthy and heated Slack discussions between Midwesterners and West Coast at $previousJob.

P.S. Michael Cera does a nice cover of that song.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#289

Post by radlad » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:31 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #286

Onawa wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first job was as a host at Red Lobster. I was reprimanded for saying "How are you guys doing today?" as I was seating a group of ladies. 16-year old me was trying my best to be polite, but language changes over time and that was one of my first introductions to code switching.

> language changes over time But this language has not been changing over time. This was a dictate from HR departments, made up from whole cloth. If anything has changed over time, it's that "gals" has been an anachronism for a long while, outside of a few isolated corners of the Southern and Western US where it can still manage to sound cute in some contexts. We don't really need a special diminutive for groups of w…

I'd hardly call Red Lobster formal. "Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC is an American casual dining restaurant chain," according to Wikipedia.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#290

Post by ternnoburn » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 5:33 PM UTC

kbelder wrote: post #236

kanbara wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>who are latin@ Is that a real thing or are you joking?

I'm answering in good faith, assuming the question is in good faith.

Latin@ (or latine or latinao) are all attempts to add non gendered versions of gendered words in Spanish.

Some percentage of the population, probably in the tenths of a percentage point, identify as non binary. Those people prefer to use non gendered indicators where possible.

That's ... kinda possible in English, where you can use they/them or replace father with parent, for instance.

In Romance languages this is much more difficult because adjectives are supposed to agree with the gender of the person -- for instance roja is red, feminine, and rojo is red, masculine.

So, there is a genuine movement by people who are non binary to try out different things. Combining the an and o, for instance, to get rojao, or roj@. Or using a third vowel to indicate gender neutrality, e.g. roje.

It's extremely important, imo, to differentiate this from Latinx. Latinx is an American English construct, latin@ is a Spanish language construct. Latinx is an almost exclusively American (and therefore largely exogenous concept to Spanish speakers), whereas latine is a Chilean/Argentinian construction that is endogenous.

Hope this comment is helpful, I'd ask that people vote on it based on whether they felt I made a good faith effort to factually answer this person's question, even if they dislike the idea of gender neutral Romance languages.