Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Y'All

texasmonthly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 381 posts

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#301

Post by kayodelycaon »

globnomulous wrote: post #176
seethishat wrote: post #150

Y'all is efficient. It is just one syllable. Asking the question, "Y'all eat?" Is twice as fast compared to, "Did you all eat?" Of course, I use it because I'm from the south eastern US, not because it's fast.

And to me this just raises the question I often ask myself: whether I'm the only person born in the US in the past fifty years who continues to use the perfect tense and distinguish semantically between it and the simple past. I say "did you eat?" when I want to know whether you ate at a specific, single point in time in the past (and you and I both know which one I mean) -- and you no longer have the opportunity or…

I don’t think anyone in the past used spoken language with the precision you’re describing.

English isn’t a programming language.

All of the questions you’re asked are abstractions of a different question or a series of questions.

Many of them have multiple meanings and you pick the most likely set based on context.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#302

Post by ternnoburn »

pessimizer wrote: post #296
ternnoburn wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These are all black American words, not "queer lingo." Other than "folks" which is Southern, but comes to upper-middle class white people through Obama's act of pretending he had ever met black Americans before college at UCLA. They come from the long tradition of gay men copying black American female mannerisms, not anything "queer." > I suspect the real "villains" here to you are the folk who pull that jargon out a…

Go watch Paris is Burning. They absolutely are Black queer lingo for decades prior to them becoming known outside Black communities. Which then became queer lingo. Which then became popular lingo.

> Gay men have contributed a lot to world culture, they're not villains

Absolutely, I never insinuated otherwise. I also don't believe it's villainous to share one's culture and lingo. But the op who objected to folx appears to think that it is bad. Take it up with them!

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#303

Post by radlad »

pessimizer wrote: post #299
radlad wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Any interaction a 16 year old employee has with a group of strange women who are customers and are older than him should be respectful.

I maintain that the sentence shows no disrespect to my Midwestern sensibilities. It's considered common courtesy to ask someone how their day is going, and I don't consider "you guys" to be a sign of disrespect. In fact, it seems quite clear to me that the parent was attempting to be warm and welcoming.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#305

Post by parpfish »

zer8k wrote: post #292
parpfish wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use parner for non-gender reasons: - You might not know their status (married? Dating?) and the phrase “significant other” is clunky - for grown adults, terms like boyfriend/girlfriend can come off as a little dismissive or juvenile

I've been a grown adult for a long time and still use boyfriend/girlfriend. This obsession with absolute correctness is probably why we are so miserable all the time. To me it's simple 1. Married -> Husband/Wife 2. Dating -> Girlfriend/Boyfriend 3. Middle Ground -> Fiance/fiancee I've yet to see a case this doesn't cover so "partner" seems like a solution looking for a problem.

So If you meet a couple and don’t know if they’re married or dating, you just decide to call them fiance/fiancee?

That’s like thinking “I can just replace null with 0 or empty string. Means the same thing”

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#306

Post by yamazakiwi »

dylan604 wrote: post #226
jeffwask wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After moving to Texas, I adopted it for this reason. It's easy to slide in an no one will be offended.

After moving away from Texas, y'all was the one obvious thing that would give me up. I don't have a Texas drawl unless I'm really tired or putting on airs. Howdy was another one, but used much less frequently. Another word from Texas that drives me crazy is "heighth". I don't know why people add the h at the end when they say it, but nobody spells it that way.

I say Bolth instead of Both but never noticed until recently

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#307

Post by cmurdock »

ternnoburn wrote: post #275
parpfish wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a native midwesterner, I get more annoyed and defensive than I should when people complain that “you guys” isnt gender neutral. Where I come from, everyone is “a guy”. It can mean “male person”, but that’s only if you use it in specific contexts that brings up gender (like saying “guys and gals”).

It's true! But it's also imprecise because of that ambiguity. Take the following construction, "Now, all you guys are going to step off the dance floor." Which could mean everyone clear out, or just the fellahs. I don't get worried about people preferring a term that isn't "you guys", because it's probably an improvement to the language over all, even if it's some friction to change.

I don't think anyone would use that construction though in the midwest if they only meant the men. If they wanted all the guys to get off the dance floor they would say "Now, all the guys are going to step off the dance floor." "The guys" is much different than "you guys", at least where I live.

Granted, it is murky so I also don't really care about switching to y'all. The only problem I have with "y'all" is that it is such a southern thing that using it to me with my midwest accent sounds forced and awkward (At least to my ears).

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#308

Post by tayo42 »

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…

That's just corporate culture, not NY

I grew up using guys just to refer to group of people

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#309

Post by globnomulous »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #301
globnomulous wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to me this just raises the question I often ask myself: whether I'm the only person born in the US in the past fifty years who continues to use the perfect tense and distinguish semantically between it and the simple past. I say "did you eat?" when I want to know whether you ate at a specific, single point in time in the past (and you and I both know which one I mean) -- and you no longer have the opportunity or…

I don’t think anyone in the past used spoken language with the precision you’re describing. English isn’t a programming language. All of the questions you’re asked are abstractions of a different question or a series of questions. Many of them have multiple meanings and you pick the most likely set based on context.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek, and my partner does tell me she has never met anyone more literal or rigid. So I take your point -- and it's fair.

That being said, many in the UK do use the simple past and perfect exactly as I've described. Using the simple past where the perfect is expected is, to their ears, unmistakably incorrect, whereas plenty of native speakers in the US draw no distinction whatsoever.

Re: In Defense of Y'All

#310

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

ternnoburn wrote: post #275
parpfish wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a native midwesterner, I get more annoyed and defensive than I should when people complain that “you guys” isnt gender neutral. Where I come from, everyone is “a guy”. It can mean “male person”, but that’s only if you use it in specific contexts that brings up gender (like saying “guys and gals”).

It's true! But it's also imprecise because of that ambiguity. Take the following construction, "Now, all you guys are going to step off the dance floor." Which could mean everyone clear out, or just the fellahs. I don't get worried about people preferring a term that isn't "you guys", because it's probably an improvement to the language over all, even if it's some friction to change.

This doesn't seem ambiguous. "All you guys are" seems to be narrowing the focus of the sentence, because otherwise it would be more fluidly spoken as "all of you are", and it sounds unnatural to add to the sentence for no other purpose. (It sounds somewhat unnatural under either interpretation, though). If it had been "you guys are all", perhaps that would be ambiguous, but only with a strong emphasis on the word 'guys', which is not how the phrase is normally spoken. Either way I'd expect the dance teacher to be using hand gestures at the same time to indicate which people they're giving directions to.
Post reply on HN