Username
sigurd
Member Since
February 1, 2011
Total number of comments
43
Total number of votes received
38
Bio
Latest Comments
ye, yer, yers
- December 30, 2011, 11:21pm
'against'
ye, yer, yers
- December 30, 2011, 11:20pm
I don't think it's againt the nature of English, since they used to be part of it and still are dialectally and ecclesiastically at least.
"Game"?
Also, I was typing about the practicality of single-worded differentiation which is nothing new to English, not about whether or not a language is difficult.
ye, yer, yers
- December 27, 2011, 10:04pm
Porsche: ‘‘Come on now. surely, none of your are really serious that we need to (or even can) revamp all English pronouns to suit your particular pet peeves.’’
I know an official change is probably unlikely in the near future, but, to me, addressing the obvious lack of pronoun forms which many other languages have (many do, and without befogging etiquette) is better than being apathetic and passive about it.
Also, as I’ve continuously stated, it isn’t just my ‘‘pet peeve’’ but also that of many anglophones and people who speak foreign languages and who are used to using the obviously practical distinction.
ye, yer, yers
- December 27, 2011, 9:45pm
I’m aware there’d still be a lack of the possessive forms, but, even with just the readdition of a clear objective and subjective plural, English is much more practical, even if it’s just in personal use.
ye, yer, yers
- December 27, 2011, 12:12pm
‘‘Don't you think that if there had been a real problem, the language would have adapted somehow.’’
Language doesn’t always evolve for the better/to be practical. And, yes, I and many other people have been in situations where ‘you’’s singularity or plurality has not been clear upon hearing it. Most anglophones probably have.
‘‘Languages that have separate singular and plural forms often end up with the latter being used as a formal singular form, and the former being used to speak to imagined 'inferiors'.’’
This needn’t be the case with English. My point is using ‘ye’ as both the subjective and objective plurals for practical differentiation from the singular ‘you’, not for addressing a single person, which is unnecessary etiquette in English. That way, the problem is solved.
ye, yer, yers
- December 26, 2011, 5:30pm
Warsaw Will: ‘‘When we use 'you' we are addressing someone or more than one directly. Both sides know who is being referred to.’’
Balderdash. There are plenty of situations where an audience is uncertain whether or not ‘you’ refers to the person hearing it or another one hearing it or to more than one hearing it.
‘‘And if we don't, we can simply ask.’’
Is asking more practical than just using a simple word, which immediately clarified the difference in first place?
‘‘[...] I really wonder sometimes why you find the natural English we speak and love so unsatisfactory that you're forever wanting to change it.’’
Apart from this thread's topic, do I ‘‘find the natural English we speak and love so unsatisfactory’’ that I'm ‘‘forever wanting to change it’’?
ye, yer, yers
- December 26, 2011, 5:12pm
AnWulf, I meant using ‘ye’ as both the subjective and objective plural as I stated in ‘[...] willing to accept ‘ye’’s other meaning *alongside* its original one [...].’
Also, what do you (or should I type ‘thou’?) think about the current ‘‘error/misuse’’ of the singular ‘you’? Or do you (oops, I did it again) regularly use ‘thou’?
ye, yer, yers
- December 26, 2011, 7:07am
Likewise, ‘you’ should only be a plural, yet, like ‘ye’, it’s been established as meaning something else too in more recent times.
Ideally, if ‘thou’, ‘thee’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’ were in use today, ‘ye’ should only be ‘thou’’s plural. However, since they no longer are, I’m willing to accept ‘ye’’s other meaning alongside its original one for practicality’s sake.
I don’t write fantasy stories but think modern English should definitely have a proper objective plural to remove the ambiguity of the nowadays both singular and plural ‘you’. Many other languages have both forms, and I don’t see why the English language must be impoverished by removing the other. It’s too impractical.
Established since the 15th century, I think ‘ye’ works well as the plural objective form too, and most people would understand it.
Any thoughts?
ye, yer, yers
- December 25, 2011, 8:44am
I’d rather not stay away from them. I’m curious and seek answers. I want to know if ‘your’ and ‘yours’’s plural exist or have been used in English.
Moreover, according to the OED, ‘ye’ was also used as the objective form in the 15th century AD.
Questions
Whom are you? | October 14, 2010 |
Is there a gustative equivalent to the olfactory “malodour”? | February 1, 2011 |
i’s vs “i”s | February 15, 2011 |
Rules for -ise and -ize | March 7, 2011 |
The opposite of “awaken”? | April 14, 2011 |
Is “nevermore” a real word? | April 24, 2011 |
While/among/amid vs whilst/amongst/amidst | September 14, 2011 |
Specifying time duration without “for” | September 20, 2011 |
Semicolon and omission of repetitive words | September 30, 2011 |
whensoever vs. whenever | October 3, 2011 |
Semicolon between sentences joined by a coordinating conjunction | October 15, 2011 |
Correct way to omit words? | November 10, 2011 |
Had he breakfast this morning? | November 19, 2011 |
Interchangeability of possessive “s” and “of” | November 23, 2011 |
...ward/s and un...worthy | November 26, 2011 |
ye, yer, yers | December 23, 2011 |
-ic vs -ical | September 11, 2012 |
ye, yer, yers
I didn't say I'm a native English speaker, and, regardless of whether or not I see English from a different perspective because of it, both native and non-native anglophones have experienced the same problems in regards to the thread's topic.