http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wgwZuXA6UA
– Dent! Jesus! I thought you was dead.
– Half
Why does he say 'was' instead of 'were'?
– Dent! Jesus! I thought you was dead.
– Half
Why does he say 'was' instead of 'were'?
You was?
Why does he say, 'I thought you was dead!'
Because he is shocked and he is not thinking about the rules of grammar. He is just saying the first thing that comes into his head, which unfortunately is grammatically incorrect.
Because he is shocked and he is not thinking about the rules of grammar. He is just saying the first thing that comes into his head, which unfortunately is grammatically incorrect.
Incorrect but not uncommon unfortunately....along with:
I seen
You be
They is
and a host of others
I seen
You be
They is
and a host of others
I seen
You be
They is
and a host of others
English verbs are so difficult and they've got so many forms that native speakers are not able to use them properly :-)
You be
They is
and a host of others
English verbs are so difficult and they've got so many forms that native speakers are not able to use them properly :-)
Robin Michael,
That's not really very accurate. In terms of usage, there are two ways to say how speech is incorrect:
1) Prescriptivism--For example, it's something your English composition teacher would warn against.
2) Descriptivism--How native speakers actually use the language.
In terms of errors, linguists find #2 the more interesting to study, especially when dealing with learning by non-native speakers of a language.
Now, "You was" sounds like Ebonics to me--a university professor might say that's wrong, but step into a community that speaks like that and try to tell them they're wrong. Though it is prescriptively incorrect, it is descriptively correct. In terms of linguistics, therefore, it is not an error.
That's not really very accurate. In terms of usage, there are two ways to say how speech is incorrect:
1) Prescriptivism--For example, it's something your English composition teacher would warn against.
2) Descriptivism--How native speakers actually use the language.
In terms of errors, linguists find #2 the more interesting to study, especially when dealing with learning by non-native speakers of a language.
Now, "You was" sounds like Ebonics to me--a university professor might say that's wrong, but step into a community that speaks like that and try to tell them they're wrong. Though it is prescriptively incorrect, it is descriptively correct. In terms of linguistics, therefore, it is not an error.
"You was" is very common in vernacular speech throughout the US, especially among the low income and blue collar populace.
>>>Now, "You was" sounds like Ebonics to me--a university professor might say that's wrong, but step into a community that speaks like that and try to tell them they're wrong. Though it is prescriptively incorrect, it is descriptively correct. In terms of linguistics, therefore, it is not an error. <<<
I think they'd know that it was "technically" wrong - meaning not standard, but right according to how they identify themselves as a subculture. Its just a matter of how they would prioritise their language use. Their perceptions of self identity trump the technical correctness of usage. Some bounce from one to the other effortlessly - Oprah is an example. Bottom line, the use of "Ebonics" forms is a choice, which I don't think is made out of ignorance of standard forms.
I think they'd know that it was "technically" wrong - meaning not standard, but right according to how they identify themselves as a subculture. Its just a matter of how they would prioritise their language use. Their perceptions of self identity trump the technical correctness of usage. Some bounce from one to the other effortlessly - Oprah is an example. Bottom line, the use of "Ebonics" forms is a choice, which I don't think is made out of ignorance of standard forms.
It's about as correct as using 'Tu suis' or 'Vous es' in French - but it is used, nonetheless.
Did you know in Devon, we have a tendency to replace the nominative personal pronouns with the accusative ones?
'Her's gonna be late, y'know'
'Tin't us 'ho said it, twas her'
'Her be anuverr one'
And we understand each other perfectly well! I mean, it's a miracle!
Did you know in Devon, we have a tendency to replace the nominative personal pronouns with the accusative ones?
'Her's gonna be late, y'know'
'Tin't us 'ho said it, twas her'
'Her be anuverr one'
And we understand each other perfectly well! I mean, it's a miracle!
English tends to be even easier. It'll be like Chinese in a couple of centuries, at least from a morphological point of view
But if we judge everything by how people speak the language, then there is no such thingas incorrect grammar, because anything that anyone says is, by definition, how people talk.
Another thing from the Dark Knight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1jhJB8bqZk
– It's simple we don't have to be afraid of scum like you
— Yeah... You do, Brian. You really do. (You do be afraid??)
I would say: "you really are" (you are afraid). What do you think of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1jhJB8bqZk
– It's simple we don't have to be afraid of scum like you
— Yeah... You do, Brian. You really do. (You do be afraid??)
I would say: "you really are" (you are afraid). What do you think of this?
I've always thought of 'you was' and 'I seen' as a very New York/New 'Joisey' sort of thing?
Some young people use these forms to sound cool, rebellious or tough. They have an "I'm too cool to speak properly" mentality.
I've seen this kind of thing in other languages too. Try chatting with a French teenager on msn for example and you'd shed a tear. Phrases like "nous é sort hier soir" are more problematic than just textspeak.
I've seen this kind of thing in other languages too. Try chatting with a French teenager on msn for example and you'd shed a tear. Phrases like "nous é sort hier soir" are more problematic than just textspeak.