Page 2 of 3

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:09 am
by gailr
sluggo wrote:Perry, wanna be a cub reporter (ursamthing like that) and post some Biblicals where Thou dost do double duty as both formal and familiar?
Perry will provide something interesting and helpful.

gailr, however, is enchanted by the concept of combing the Bible for "familiars" (not to mention hints on getting them to do double-duty as "formals")...

gailr

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:12 am
by sluggo
gailr wrote: And who were the four bear's

-gailr
Dunno, but I believe the four bears are Camem, Roger E, Aspirin and Stephen Cole.

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:06 am
by Perry
So I'm to be Jimmy Olsen, instead of Perry White? (Great Ceaser's ghost!) OK, here is one example for each:
But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.
Psalm 3 line 3 (King James Version)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 2:16-17 (King James Version)

For both passages, in the original Hebrew the same second person singular is used. However in the Genesis passage the you is inferred from the verb conjugation, while in the Psalm the word you is used.

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:32 pm
by gailr
Thanks, Perry. I knew thou wouldst have his answer.
sluggo wrote: Dunno, but I believe the four bears are Camem, Roger E, Aspirin and Stephen Cole.
:D :D :D
Although I think Stephen Cole would enjoy feigning umbrage to be in such fur-ocious company.
-gailr

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:08 pm
by sluggo
Perry wrote:So I'm to be Jimmy Olsen, instead of Perry White? (Great Ceaser's ghost!) OK, here is one example for each:
But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.
Psalm 3 line 3 (King James Version)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 2:16-17 (King James Version)

For both passages, in the original Hebrew the same second person singular is used. However in the Genesis passage the you is inferred from the verb conjugation, while in the Psalm the word you is used.
Sorry Perry -didn't mean to demote you but it seemed the only way to work in the 'cub' pun.

From your illuminating Biblebites it seems that both familiar and formal were converted to thou, which begs the question: does the word you ever appear in the (KJ) Bible other than as a plural (i.e did they translate every 2nd person singular into thou)? This would have been early 17th century, ja?

In any case I just love that phrase 'the lifter up of mine head'. Classic.

So how 'bout them Cubs?

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:56 am
by Perry
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Genesis 3:1 (King James Version)

I didn't have time to go through the whole Bible. Mostly you seems to be used for plural. But the ye here seems to be singular. Has anyone else looked into this?

Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet.

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:58 pm
by beck123
Perry wrote:I read the linked article and was interested to note that the apostrophe was conspicuous by its absence. I always thought the yall is written y'all to signify the 'missing' ou.
Everyone today seems to include the apostrophe, except linguists who know the rules behind its omission. That is not a dig aimed at linguists, whom I admire; I just want to point out that all the changes we can see today in the etymology of words occurred without the oversight of specialists and were basically what we would, in retrospect, consider improper and unjustified. Speakers will change the language as they see fit (even in France,) regardless of the opinions of folks like us.

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:01 pm
by beck123
Perry wrote:Also, I would go for writting you'uns instead of yuns, but for a different reason. Two counties over (in Mitchell and Yancy counties) the you of you'ns is fully pronounced.
If this is to be presented as a true contraction that preserves its actual pronunciation, should it not be spelled "you'n's?"

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:06 pm
by beck123
Perry wrote:Or amn't sure, for those that haven't read Ain't Isn't a Four-Letter Word.
I just read the article you recommended and have to say I've been making the same argument for decades. I wasn't aware of the "amn't" variation, but the use of "... aren't I" has always set my teeth on edge.

I realize this post I've been quoting has cobwebs all over it, but if you're still out there, Perry, this was a good one.

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:02 pm
by sluggo
beck123 wrote:
Perry wrote:Also, I would go for writting you'uns instead of yuns, but for a different reason. Two counties over (in Mitchell and Yancy counties) the you of you'ns is fully pronounced.
If this is to be presented as a true contraction that preserves its actual pronunciation, should it not be spelled "you'n's?"
Good point. In a related story over here in the aforementioned counties (and presumably the greater region) lives the interesting 2nd person possessive your'n, (presumably for "your one") which turns out to be older than yours. Except for the missing e being on the end, same deal.

Is an apostrophe needed for every letter substituted, or will we have we made the point that it's a contraction with just one?

Assuming further that a form like she'll've counts as a double...

I have yet to hear you'ns here though...

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:06 pm
by beck123
The apostrophe represents a gap of missing letters and spaces, regardless of how many consecutive letters it would require to populate the gap. If a phrase has two gaps, the contraction would require two apostrophes, as in your example, "she'll've" (which I've never seen actually written, except maybe in poetry.)

I was going to question the validity of your example, but I'll shelve that for now.

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:42 pm
by sluggo
There are others; I couldn't've thought of them at the time of course.. :shock:
beck123 wrote: I'll shelve that for now.
:lol:

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:06 pm
by LukeJavan8
I've heard 'you'ns': especially in ebonics speakers.

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:50 pm
by beck123
sluggo wrote: Good point. In a related story over here in the aforementioned counties (and presumably the greater region) lives the interesting 2nd person possessive your'n, (presumably for "your one") which turns out to be older than yours.
Well, I just turned 60, so it's possible that your your'n is older than mine.

If that contraction trickles out beyond your region in CA and mine in the SE (where it resides replendent throughout the Southern dialects,) we may have to face one, vast your'n nation.

Seriously, my guess is that it's a parallel construction to my/mine, thy/thine, etc. The "n" sound at the end of pronouns has history in the possessives.

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:05 pm
by LukeJavan8
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DEAR ANDY
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU

or You'rn, yous'es, you'ns.