you-all's

[Susan Tamasi]

To throw in a Georgian (or Atlantan) perspective, I agree with Natalie's
example of  "all yall's" used to refer to the hearer and those associated
with him/her.  However, for the non-posessive "all ya'll", I've
only heard this when it's used emphatically.  A prime example being "screw
all ya'll."  I never use the non-contracted phrase "you all" so I don't
know the distinction there.  And finally, I still have yet to hear anyone
use "ya'll" to refer to only one person.
-Susan


> But that's not really an answer to your question.  I think throwing in
> "all" in "all yall's" is just like throwing it in when saying "all
> yall":  simply to make clear that everybody is included (with who
> "everybody" is depending on the context -- maybe all the listeners,
> maybe only one of the listeners plus the other people associated with
> that person -- e.g., "you mean all yall's offices got flooded?" might be
> addressed to just one person in the group, the person who just told a
> story about flooded offices in her department).
>
> > Another distinction she makes is that she uses "you all" when "everyone I
> > see is present and I can see them"; vs. "all you all" when "everyone is
> > present but not in view" (not the same as including a large group whose
> > members may NOT all be present, presumably).
>
> Interesting.  Would she not use "all you all" for the situation given in
> your parentheses also?
>
> Coincidentally, I was working on a short article on "yall" just today.
> But it's  about "yall" vs "you-guys" -- nothing about the possessive.
> What I said above about "yall's" and "you-all's" is based not on
> research but just on my intuitions as a native speaker of Southern.
>
> I haven't decided yet whether to use the spelling "yall" or "y'all" in
> the article, btw.  I'm leaning toward "yall."
>
> --
>  -- Natalie Maynor (maynor at ra.msstate.edu)
>