Illogic upon illogic!

[conuly]

Notable quote found in my sociolinguistics packet. This is a quote that sociolinguists would tend to disagree with.

You could have fooled me. I thought it was correct to write 'we were' and incorrect to write 'we was'. I did not realise it was just a question dialect: I thought it was a question of grammar or, if you do not like that word, of logic. You cannot use the singular form of the verb with a plural pronoun.

(emphasis totally mine)

Logic? Logic? How can he think of talking about logic in a system where the singular second person plural is supposed to take, oh yes, a plural form of the verb? I was, you were, he/she/it was, we/you/they were. That's logic? Or does he say "you was"? If so, I'm impressed. Most people taking his stance wouldn't.

Head-hurty....

Comments

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I didn't think, in English at least, the verb "to be" had any real logic to it.

[conuly]

Strangely, it does, but only if you take the (very) long view.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I'll take your word for it. You was studying this stuff more than I.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

But "you" IS the second person plural. English does have a second-person singular, we just don't use it anymore. "Thou" is second person singular, and I believe it takes "wast" as the verb form, i.e., "thou wast in error."

When we started using the second person plural for singular references as well, the verb form came along for the ride, pretty much.

[conuly]

You can't fool me that easily! Plenty of people use forms like "y'all" and still insist on saying "you were". Furthermore, "you was" was standard until the Victorian era.

Besides, if we're talking logic, the logic is "when speaking about one person, say was. Otherwise say were".

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

Plus y'all isn't always plural.

[conuly]

What, it's not? Where? When? In what circumstances?

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

There's a short discussion of it here:

http://home.bluemarble.net/~langmin/miniatures/yall.htm

Basically, there are times when it can look singular (but isn't really, but is spoken to one person referring to several absent people), but I've also definitely been y'alled in the singular. That's said to be a myth, but given that it's been said to me by people who weren't just joking, I think it's more like rare.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I didn't think, in English at least, the verb "to be" had any real logic to it.

[conuly]

Strangely, it does, but only if you take the (very) long view.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I'll take your word for it. You was studying this stuff more than I.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

But "you" IS the second person plural. English does have a second-person singular, we just don't use it anymore. "Thou" is second person singular, and I believe it takes "wast" as the verb form, i.e., "thou wast in error."

When we started using the second person plural for singular references as well, the verb form came along for the ride, pretty much.

[conuly]

You can't fool me that easily! Plenty of people use forms like "y'all" and still insist on saying "you were". Furthermore, "you was" was standard until the Victorian era.

Besides, if we're talking logic, the logic is "when speaking about one person, say was. Otherwise say were".

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

Plus y'all isn't always plural.

[conuly]

What, it's not? Where? When? In what circumstances?

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

There's a short discussion of it here:

http://home.bluemarble.net/~langmin/miniatures/yall.htm

Basically, there are times when it can look singular (but isn't really, but is spoken to one person referring to several absent people), but I've also definitely been y'alled in the singular. That's said to be a myth, but given that it's been said to me by people who weren't just joking, I think it's more like rare.