• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Last post wins - Winner gets a free post!

WarriorWhispers

WarriorWhispers

.Pedigree.
Niedlich the Wolf said:
Please. I hate myself for what I've said.
Click to expand...
Keep the attitude from the image, and you can go far. =]
29929921777_bc6b3d39e7.jpg
 
WarriorWhispers

WarriorWhispers

.Pedigree.
Niedlich the Wolf said:
No it's incorrect.
Click to expand...
"
As others have pointed out, there are dialects in which singular you is used with “is”. There is a logic here, even though it’s not Standard English. The logic is that if you are talking to one person, you use a verb that is singular, “is”, and if you’re talking to more than one, you use a verb that is plural, “are”. Standard English is not logical here. It uses a plural form of “to be” to indicate both singular and plural you.

The reason is historical. Second person singular was originally thou and the pronoun you was always and only the plural form. When thou lost its place in the pronoun order (along with the direct object form thee), the plural form “you” rushed in to fill the gap. That meant that Standard English began using a plural pronoun to refer to one person, a completely illogical band-aid, but a necessary one since thou/thee was lost. (Obviously this is an oversimplified evolution—it was not an overnight process.)

This need for singular and plural you has caused a number of changes in the language, although none is Standard English. In one case you get the verb distinction of “you is” versus “you are”. In another, you get a plural you being created, with forms like y’all, yous, and you guys. In both cases, speakers are trying to distinguish between talking to one person and more than one, a distinction that is lost in modern Standard English.

Standard English is the poorer dialect here, using “you are” to refer to both singular and plural. The fact that SE uses a plural form of “to be” to do that begins to sound illogical and grating once you realize it."

First thing that pulled up.
it's an interesting read.
 
Niedlich the Folf

Niedlich the Folf

Cute Folf.
WarriorWhispers said:
"
As others have pointed out, there are dialects in which singular you is used with “is”. There is a logic here, even though it’s not Standard English. The logic is that if you are talking to one person, you use a verb that is singular, “is”, and if you’re talking to more than one, you use a verb that is plural, “are”. Standard English is not logical here. It uses a plural form of “to be” to indicate both singular and plural you.

The reason is historical. Second person singular was originally thou and the pronoun you was always and only the plural form. When thou lost its place in the pronoun order (along with the direct object form thee), the plural form “you” rushed in to fill the gap. That meant that Standard English began using a plural pronoun to refer to one person, a completely illogical band-aid, but a necessary one since thou/thee was lost. (Obviously this is an oversimplified evolution—it was not an overnight process.)

This need for singular and plural you has caused a number of changes in the language, although none is Standard English. In one case you get the verb distinction of “you is” versus “you are”. In another, you get a plural you being created, with forms like y’all, yous, and you guys. In both cases, speakers are trying to distinguish between talking to one person and more than one, a distinction that is lost in modern Standard English.

Standard English is the poorer dialect here, using “you are” to refer to both singular and plural. The fact that SE uses a plural form of “to be” to do that begins to sound illogical and grating once you realize it."

First thing that pulled up.
it's an interesting read.
Click to expand...
It just talks about how ot wouldn't work in modern English aka the English we use so yes it's incorrect.
 
WarriorWhispers

WarriorWhispers

.Pedigree.
Niedlich the Wolf said:
It just talks about how ot wouldn't work in modern English aka the English we use so yes it's incorrect.
Click to expand...
Not entirely.
It basically breaks it down and the TL;DR version is: In a very particular timeframe, due to english progressing, it wasn't wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top