69
votes
Historian finds evidence for use of y'all in London from 1600s
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- 'Y'all,' that most Southern of Southernisms, is going mainstream - and it's about time
- Authors
- David B. Parker
- Published
- Nov 29 2022
- Word count
- 875 words
I've been carrying the torch for "y'all" and "ain't" for years now. Slang is one of the most interesting cultural artifacts in language and I love how dynamic, vibrant, and living English as a language can be. I absolutely detest the pedants out there which wish to freeze English like a museum piece. Here's the history article by the same author cataloguing the uses of "y'all" in older poetry from the 1600s: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/159662
What's interesting about the concept of trying to "freeze English" or adhere to strict, traditional grammar rules, is just how absolute bullshit it all is. Hell Shakespeare would just make up words when it fit him!
Neat PBS video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S7B4xlifyk
I think there's a time to use English "traditionally", and times where you can just use slang and make up new words. Art is a great medium to make up whatever shit you want. But there are also times when imprecise language causes problems with communication, and that's no good.
Once there's a communication problem, if we lack the tools to communicate in a better way (e.g. the rules of grammar), then it becomes extremely difficult to get back on track. Just look at any large Reddit thread. You can probably find two people arguing with each other but they aren't even talking about the same thing.
English is already complicated enough as it is. I'm not sure that it's the best language for "precise" communication (have you ever read a law written in English?) but it's probably still easier than convincing everyone to learn a new language in order to communicate better.
Slang and dialectical language =/= imprecise language, though. "Y'all" is a great example of this, since it's objectively more precise than using "you" for both the singular and plural, and there are ambiguous sentences that can be made unambiguous by use of it.
Dialects of a language don't become the "standard" dialect because they're clearer to communicate in or otherwise superior to other dialects in some way. The choice of a standard is usually based entirely on sociocultural and/or political factors.
I agree that generally the point of language is to be understood. But that means different things in different contexts. There are some contexts where using formal standard English would be significantly less understandable than using some other dialect.
The types of communication issues you describe are external to language. Most reddit misunderstandings do not arise from grammatical issues at all, but rather differing interpretations and assumptions of the authors' intentions behind the meaning of what they write. It's not really possible for any human language or dialect to completely eliminate that.
And in any case, someone using slang or a different dialect doesn't "lack the rules of grammar". They may be speaking a dialect with different grammar than yours, but that's not inherently wrong or inferior.
Anytime I've ever received shit for "improper" English, I'd just think about good ol' Billy Shakes.
I've found that in my own journey of trying to choose more inclusive language, "yall" and "folks" do pretty damn well, despite the lower-class status. I still have trouble with saying "guys"...its so normalized as gender-neutral for me at this point its basically unshakable.
"Folks" is another word I love using. I also use "guys" and "dudes" in both gendered and gender-neutral ways. Outside any of the politics of language, I personally like the idea and flavor of words which switch meaning not just in context of the surrounding sentence but even because of the audience. It tickles my brain in a very unique way.
I wonder if there is a fancy term for words like that.
Dudehood transcends gender and that's a hill I'll die on.
The best response I ever heard to the idea that "dude" (and "guy") is non-gendered is...
Ask a straight man how many dudes (or guys) he's had sex with, and you'll soon see how non-gendered "dude" (or "guy") is!
cc: @CosmicDefect
As I said lol, the word can be both depending on context and audience. And if not, I'll keep using it as such until everyone else agrees with me.
I have another, real life example of how inherently gendered "dudes" is.
I had this discussion with my (male) ex.
I asked him: If I came home from a night out, telling him that I'd met some dudes that I had so much fun with, they bought me drinks and we were dancing all evening long... Would you assume I was talking about a group of other women?
His response was "...no... But... Still...!"
All I had to say in reply was that even knowing how absolutely unlikely it would be that I would join a group of men like that, even if it genuinely was only platonic fun, his first thoughts would be that "dudes" meant, well, dudes.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this term in the next 10-20 years.
As a woman with a few years on me this feels like girls and women once again telling ourselves that we don't mind, we're cool with it, we're one of the boys...
Younger female generations doing their best to fit themselves into "equality" by adapting themselves to the male-set standard. Being very ready to erase our own uniqueness to make ourselves feel equal.
Obligatory not all men, not all women.
I'm just curious to see if the term "dude" as gender neutral will stick, or if it will be a buzzword that fades again.
The actually still gendered aspect of language becomes very apparent once you start looking for neutral or feminine origin words for the male origin words used today, I feel.
In my language, using the equivalent of "folks" is common for talking to or about other groups. Or just the plural for you.
"Hey plural-yous" or "I met some folks" is the standard. It doesn't really work the same way in English though.
I do notice a clear tendency for most girls and women to so easily accept and defend erasing the feminine on favour of being included and not excluding anyone.
All change in society usually stems from a passionate minority, and usually always incurs anything from being ignored to being ridiculed by the passive majority that just want to get on with their day.
I see this as another one of these situations. It might be that the passionate minority voice (like me) will be ignored. Or maybe not. We'll know in 10-20 years of it is a passing phenomenon or not.
As the, now, older and ore critical woman I have become, I am against so thoughtlessly erasing femininity by actively submitting ourselves to clearly male denominators.
On the other hand, the fact that girls and women these days are even present in all parts of society to the point of even being considered for automatic inclusion at all is a hugely positive situation in my opinion.
Can't imagine women 200 years ago being so seamlessly included in vernacular and situations that used to be exclusively male.
This is a good point, and I struggle to come up with a good counter "argument." It's definitely something I'm going to continue to ponder.
I like using "dudes" as a gender neutral term, but you're right, it's only ever "what is up my dudes." If I were to say something like "I ran into these dudes the other day and..." then male would definitely be inferred. On the other hand, how long ago was it that you could mention any profession and everyone would automatically assume it was a man?
In your opinion, do you think I'm being inclusive, or more disrespectful? I don't think any of the women in my life mind being called dude, but now idk if appropriating a "masculine" word is inclusive or not.
Have you considered adding "yous mugs" to your repertoire?
/joke, but also that's one of those phrases that I want to bring back, like rad and sick as synonyms for awesome
I feel like there's equal cause to de-gender some pronouns. "Guys" to me, is entirely generally neutral, same as "Dude". I do not nor ever have used them or any other version of those words as anything but gender neutral.
I know that for many, and for a long time, those words were specific to a gender, but I think the organic evolution of linguistics doesn't mean they still have to.
I've been thinking a lot about my use of "guy(s)" and "dude(s)", and it turns out that my use is a lot more systematic than I thought it was. My linguistic background is pretty much 100% Upper Midwest of the US. I grew up in the very rural (and very white) Upper Midwest but have subsequently lived in some of the metropolitan centers of the region.
"You guys" as the generic second-person plural pronoun is really firmly ingrained. "Guys" as a generic form of address sounds works for me, too, although it feels less entrenched. So, "you guys need to stop it" would be very natural for me to say, and "hey, guys, stop it" a little less so but not by much.
"Dude" only feels non-gendered to me when using it as a form of address ("Dude, what are you doing?"), and then it has to be with someone I'm very familiar with. It doesn't really work as a non-gendered pronoun for me, either singular or plural, although it's not so "strongly gendered" as to confuse me if someone else were to use it that way. I'd find it awkward-sounding but not actually confusing.
"Guys" can also work for me as a non-gendered third-person noun, but only in limited circumstances. I'd have to be addressing someone I know well and also referring to people we're both very familiar with. So, "what are those guys doing?" would work to refer to a mixed group of people, but really only if everyone involved was well known to each other.
I try to be careful about using "guys" generically, since not everyone sees it as non-gendered. I really wish we had a universal second-person plural pronoun. It seems like "y'all" is becoming less regional than it was when I was growing up, but it feels weirdly pretentious for me to try to use it.
Every generation gets taught a version of English at a single point of time, and they automatically consider that particular version to be The One And Only True English. Changes made 30 years before they were born are part of this One And Only True English, while changes made 30 years after they were born are an obvious degradation of the language. It's been happening for centuries, and will still be happening centuries from now.
When people point out that "OMG you can't change the meaning of that word!" I respond with "Do you still use 'terrific' to mean 'inspiring terror'?", and they tell me I'm stupid. But it's the same thing: a word shifted meaning. The only difference is that that they weren't around to observe that previous shift of meaning, and they are around to observe the current shift of meaning.
Apologies if I have told you this already, but one of the most fun and fascinating books I have read this year is linguist Gretchen McCulloch's Because Internet
You might also enjoy "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher. It's thorough but accessible, and totally fascinating.
Yes, I was going to mention that one, too! I really enjoyed it a lot. It's been a long time, actually; I should give it a re-read.
Thank you for the recommendation!
Wait... "ain't" ain't a word? Huh, I learned something today. (I'm not a native english speaker)
It certainly wasn't according to my English teachers at school! But goshdarnit, I like the word.
According to grade-school wisdom in my hometown: "Ain't" ain't a word and you ain't supposed to say it more than three times a day or you ain't gonna have good luck!
As an Aussie, I have to put in the obligatory objection to the Americanisation of the English language, and the obligatory advocacy of "youse" as a much better alternative. Even though "y'all" might have roots in London's Middle English, that's not where it's mostly used these days.
However, as a traditionalist... we should never have done away with "thou". We already had two perfectly good second-person pronouns for singular and plural use in "thou" and "you", but we did away with one of them! Now we're trying to solve a problem of our own creation.
#bringbackthou
iirc the reason "thou" fell out of favor was because it turned into a formality distinction in addition to plurality (like French tu and vous). People over time ended up favoring the more formal pronoun because by the 13th century it was insulting to use "thou" for someone (since it was used for children, presumably it sounded patronizing ig). So that's why "thou" fell out of use for the singular in most dialects.
I once came across a guy (in an Esperanto forum weirdly enough) who insisted on using it for everyone and tbh, it did feel kinda insulting. But he also did the same thing in Esperanto which might influence my opinion there.
You're right about why "thou" fell out of favour. That doesn't mean we didn't need it then, and don't need it now!
#bringbackthou
I'd even take "yinz" over bringing back "thou" tbh.
And I would prefer "youse" over "yinz". We all have our own local preferences.
Hence the need to cast back to the original forms, which have no such regional prejudices attached to them.
#bringbackthou
I used "yinz" as an example bc it's used exclusively in a city that's my home city's football rival, and thus it's my non-preference regionally.
Y'all is already widespread enough among Americans of my age regardless of region that it's a train that can't be stopped imo. But nothing stopping different regions from using different ones tbh. Go ahead and use "youse".
Which means that, one day, we could have "y'all" as a formal pronoun and "you" as an informal one.
I'll throw the "ye" hat into the ring. The Newfoundland-based contingent of my family already uses it, so that should make uptake easier.
Wow, so saying "It's Soccer Y'all" at first blush sounds very American but both of those words were invented and used by the Brits. What a world.
Wait till the braintrust in Texas learns their fave word is just old limey word. The remaining teeth will shatter when the double chin hits the floor.
I think he points out that it could be either. People who used y'all might have migrated to the South Eastern colonies and kept it alive while it died in England, or it could have been reinvented. There isn't clear evidence.
You may already know this, but in a similar vein, the American rhotic r is an example of this. (The rhotic r sound being the difference between the American pronunciation of better as bet-er verses the English pronunciation as bet-uh) Evidence suggests that the English used to have a rhotic r sound until the 17th or 18th century, after which it was gradually dropped. The Americans however largely kept the rhotic r, with the exception of the upper class and Eastern American port cities that had close ties with England. The American rhotic r is technically the 'correct' pronunciation, but most Brits would argue that the rhotic r is incorrect. I just thought it was interesting that the way Americans say their R's is closely linked to their history and relationship with Britain.
Benjamin Franklin's life story is very interesting in terms of that British American relationship. There are books, films, tv series and I'm sure there must be podcasts and youtube videos. You might enjoy checking it out.
How we talk about dinosaurs in culture is endlessly fascinating and evolving as we learn more about them. The big push these days in paleontology circles is to shout from the rooftops "birds are dinosaurs!" In a lot of places like museums and educational books, the language is changing from "dinosaurs went extinct" to "non-avian dinosaurs went extinct."
Yes, I sometimes reflect on how weird it is that we as Americans seem to think of the British as the good guys (at least against other European powers) throughout history except when fighting us. It's especially interesting how it seems like the common conception is that the British (e.g., Nelson and Wellington) were the good guys when fighting against the French even though we were fighting against the British at the same time.
All adolescents fight for independence from their parents. But, as adults, most people accept their parents as being an important part of what made them who they are today. Family is still family.
A very good example of how old language from England influenced the American language, while the American language also kept evolving on its own is the word 'aks' for 'ask'.
In the US it's considered a part of the African American vernacular. Which in itself is only now getting recognition as a valid, separate branch of English development.
In England, there are still some dialects that use aks.
The word was taught to the slaves by those more likely to actually talk with them, which wasn't the rich, upper-class people. But commoners. Just like how, back in England, those commoners would be from more rural or lower-class areas where language changed much slower.
The word 'aks' is probably as old as 'ask', or at least both so old it that you can't really say one is more real than the other.
https://youtube.com/@SunnmCheaux
This is a black man that teaches Gullah and also makes social media videos on a whole lot of relevant topics.
He mentions it in some of his videos.
I first heard of it in a random video about old British dialects vs modern English in the context of changes from Old English, to old English and its development to today's use.
I'm curious if it's a class thing. Being slang, lower classes tend to have better tolerance of it than upper classes. I mentioned in a cousin post that I notice "yall" and "folks" being readily used in lower-class circles but definitely not in upper-class ones..
Class is exactly why "ain't" went from being a perfectly proper English contraction of "am not" to being considered wrong - because this contraction was used mostly by lower class people, so middle- and upper-class English people in the 1800s stopped using it, to avoid any possibility of being considered lower-class.