A little more on y'all redux

[Jonathan Lighter]

The earliest "y'all" in OED - "you all," actually - is explicitly a singular.

JL

RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: RonButters at AOL.COM
Subject: A little more on y'all redux
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think anyone disagrees with the following (correct me, please, if I=20
am wrong):

1. The form "y'all" is overwhelmingly used in the plural in American English=
,=20
when it is used at all.
2. The form "y'all" is sometimes used in frozen expressions (e.g., "Y'all=20
come back") to address single persons.
3. Some Southerners will tell you, when asked, "Y'all can be used in the=20
singular."
4. People sometimes make slips of the tongue when speaking.
5. Most published articles on the subject in scholarly journals seek to=20
demonstrate that "y'all" is overwhelmingly used in the plural, i.e., most sc=
holars=20
who have seriously studied the subject--enough actually to publish articles=20=
on=20
the topic--agree.
6. One article, by Guy Bailey et al., based on telephone surveys in Texas (o=
r=20
was it Oklahoma?) presents some evidence that, under direct question, a=20
healthy minority of respondents agreed with the proposition that "Y'all can=20=
be used=20
in the singular." The article has been criticized for its methodology, but i=
t=20
certainly supports the anecdotal evidence represented by (3) above.

To this I would add (wondering if there is any disagrement from any quarter)=
:

1. "Y'all" pretty clearly started as a plural, parallel to "yuhnz" (< "you"=20=
+=20
"ones"), "yuhz" (< "you" + "{Plural Suffix}"), and "you guys."
2. There is little if any linguistic reason (psychological or social) for=20
speakers to use "y'all" as a singular, since "you" already exists and "y'all=
" is=20
rather transparently plural given its morphology. Thus one would not EXPECT=20
"y'all" to be used as a singular, except maybe in dialect mixture, by outsid=
ers=20
trying to sound like insiders.

I myself don't know of any "Southern academics and intellectuals" for whom=20
putative singular "y'all" is a "hot-button issue"--or any "sophisticated=20
Southerners" who issue "striking, dogmatic refusal[s]" and "deny categorical=
ly that=20
it can or does" exist. It does seem to be a "hot-button issue" for=20
wuxxmupp2000, who sounds right angry in the message below, apparently becaus=
e people on=20
the listserve have taken issue with various specific pieces of data that hav=
e=20
been asserted seeking to demonstrate specific instances of singular "y'all."

Of course singlular "y'all" "exists." It "exists" in frozen expressions. It=20
"exists" in slips of the tongue. It exists in the minds of some Yankees tryi=
ng=20
to speak Southern. It exists, if only as an artifact of how one asks the=20
question, in Guy Bailey's study. Most importantly, it clearly exists as a=20
grammatical possiblity in the minds of some speakers of American English, as=
some of=20
the writers on this list-serve have demonstrated (just as there are other=20
Southerners, generally a majority, for whom it does not exist as a grammatic=
ally=20
possiblity). It may even exist as a very minor subset of all the unselfconsc=
ious=20
utterances of "y'all" that are generated in America on a given day by bone=20
fide adult nonsenile nonpathological Southern speakers (though why they woul=
d do=20
so seems a historical and linguistic mystery).=20

A serious linguist will ask, "How frequent is this form? Under what=20
circumstances is it actually used? What is the historical and psychological=20=
and social=20
function of such a form?" A serious linguist will not simply rant against=20
against the "academics and intellectuals" who, for reasons that are not clea=
r to=20
anyone, including the ranter ("I find it amazing and symptomatic - of what I=
'm=20
not certain"), do not see the issues the way he does.
>=20
>=20
In a message dated 2/24/05 9:51:49 AM, wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM writes:


> Jim, you misunderstand me. We are on the same side. That was my own=20
> Damyankee hypothesis, and your wife's comment clearly supports it. For the=
average=20
> Southerner, singular "y'all" is not the hot-button issue it is for so many=
=20
> Southern academics and intellectuals.
>=20
> As you say, the repeatedly observed fact is that a singular y'all does=20
> exist.=A0 My post merely addressed the striking, dogmatic refusal of some=20=
s
> ophisticated Southerners to deny categorically that it can or does.=A0 Thi=
s is not new,=20
> and hardly peculiar to this list.=A0 I find it amazing and symptomatic - o=
f=20
> what I'm not certain.
>=20
> An inspection of posts on the issue reveals people taxing our credulity to=
=20
> explain away, oinie by one, singular "y'all" : users are "really" (and alw=
ays)=20
> thinking of other persons not present or otherwise referred to, any instan=
ce=20
> reported by Northerner is untrustworthy, the speaker must have been a=20
> transplanted Yankee, the tendency toward singularity of other second-perso=
n plural=20
> pronouns doesn't matter, the waitress was tired or hung over,=A0 the South=
ern=20
> speaker was deliberately funnin' the interlocutor who she mistakenly took=20=
for=20
> a furriner, etc.
>=20
> What gives?=A0 I'm still awaiting a reference to a printed source claiming=
=20
> that all Southerners use singular "y'all" all the time; maybe there is one=
.=A0 And=20
> don't forget my previous Damyankee hypothesis about the origin of this=20
> sensitivity.
>=20
> JL
>=20


---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
 Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web