Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

A y'all question

Switch Blayde

Excuse my ignorance as a Northerner, but I have a character from Alabama who uses y'all. But I came to a sentence where it didn't sound right.

A lot of times people start a sentence with "You know." For example, "You know, maybe tomorrow" or "You know, I was walking to school when..."

Back to my Alabama girl who uses y'all. Her dialogue is:

"Oh my god. First time I came since— You know, since this started."


When I change it to "Y'all know, since this started" it sounds wrong.

Opinions?

Replies:   TeNderLoin  docholladay
Ross at Play
Updated:

My impression is that verbal tics are never long.
Both "Y'all" and "Y'know" sound plausible, but no one would try to squeeze an extra syllable inside "Y'know".

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

Both "Y'all" and "Y'know"


It would be "Y'all know," not "Y'know." But that didn't sound right to me.

Any Southerners out there?

Has the phrase "you know" become so prominent that even a person who says "y'all" instead of "you" would still say "you know"?

Ross at Play

I have no idea whether Southerners would say "You know" or "Y'know".
My only point was "Y'all know" does not sound right to me either, and I think that is because it is too long for someone to say as a verbal tic.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@Switch Blayde

It would be "Y'all know," not "Y'know."


Y'all know is what I would expect to hear (TX panhandle). I was trying to think of when I last heard a 'you know' round here at the start of a sentence and came up blank.
That said, I don't have much to do with kids, so their speech may still include it.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
ustourist

@Ross at Play

Round here they say "Y'all, y'all" as plural, and I can't see how that can sound right to anyone. ;)

Ross at Play

@ustourist

Round here they say "Y'all, y'all" as plural

This looks like a time when the truth is far too strange to use in fiction.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist
Updated:

@Ross at Play

If you want strange...

If you ask an older person their job they may well answer 'retard'.

ETA... Written and spoken that way
As in - I used to be a computer programmer but am now retard...

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Switch Blayde

@ustourist

Y'all know is what I would expect to hear (TX panhandle)


That helps a little, but Texas is different than Alabama, especially West Texas. The Y'all y'all for example.

I wonder if "you know" is as common nowadays. I think it's been replaced with "So." Just listen to people talk, even the people on the news.

"So I was walking..." "So it's like..."

Switch Blayde

When in doubt, change it. I changed it to:

"Oh my god. First time I came since— Well, since this started."


But I'm still curious. No Deep South folks out there?

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

But I'm still curious. No Deep South folks out there?


What do you consider the deep south?

I'm from the upper midwest myself.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
ustourist

@Switch Blayde

Oyster50 chimes in occasionally, but he is the only one I recall who has stated a location. There also seem to be a couple of people from the Ozarks but that may be too much of a regional variation to help.

Replies:   oyster50
pcbondsman

@ustourist

Round here they say "Y'all, y'all" as plural, and I can't see how that can sound right to anyone. ;)


No, no, no! "Y'all" is singular, "all y'all" is plural.

Said only partially in jest.

Originally from the Midwest (lower) but now living in NW Florida.

aubie56
Updated:

I am from south Alabama, though I now live in New England. Here is the straight story on "you" versus "y'all."

"You" is singular and "y'all" is plural, and there are NO exceptions, despite what some ignorant Yankees try to foist on the unsuspecting. I can't help cringing when I here y'all used incorrectly. For example, "y'all know" is absolutely correct when speaking to more than one person; otherwise, "you know" would be correct.

If you need more instruction, please feel free to call on me. This subject is NOT OPEN TO ARGUMENT!

Capt. Zapp

@ustourist

Round here they say "Y'all, y'all" as plural,


I've never heard "Y'all, y'all" as plural, but "All y'all" is correct when addressing larger groups. I've also heard "You'uns" when directed at small groups. "You'uns best be gitten outta thar afore the hounds git ya."

Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

What do you consider the deep south?


Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc. The character is from Alabama.

Switch Blayde

@aubie56

I am from south Alabama, though I now live in New England. Here is the straight story on "you" versus "y'all."

"You" is singular and "y'all" is plural,


OUCH! That means I got it wrong if she's from Alabama. I was using y'all in the singular. Thanks.

I know a woman from West Texas. For her, y'all is singular and all y'all is plural.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
TeNderLoin
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

Y'all = you all. It's the plural form of "you".

Y'know = you know. Totally different concept.

For your sentence, I would use "Y'know" or "Ya know". As you were thinking, "Y'all" doesn't really fit there.

:)

Ernest Bywater

We now have the real answer from two southern gentlemen.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Has the phrase "you know" become so prominent that even a person who says "y'all" instead of "you" would still say "you know"?

I live in the South (N.C.), even though I don't partake in that particular culturalism. As Ross pointed out, it would be "Y'all know" (I've heard it used before). Also, don't forget the occasional "All Y'all". It's not frequently used, but it often fits given circumstances.

Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

Round here they say "Y'all, y'all" as plural, and I can't see how that can sound right to anyone. ;)

As I noted, it's not completely a plural. While it refers to 'a group', when you're referring to everyone amidst several groups, it would be "All y'all."

By the way, I don't think I've ever heard a 'true' Southerner use the term "amidst"! ;D

Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

If you ask an older person their job they may well answer 'retard'.

It sounds like that, but you wouldn't spell it that way. Try "ret'rd" instead. That better captures how it's pronounced.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

When in doubt, change it. I changed it to:

"Oh my god. First time I came since— Well, since this started."

But I'm still curious. No Deep South folks out there?

I be one, but your revised version doesn't sound Southern at all!

"M'God, First I came in f'ever." Thought it's an odd mix of Louisiana Southern and 80's Valley Girl (which NO ONE speaks anymore!). Reconsidering it, replace "I came" with "I cum".

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I know a woman from West Texas. For her, y'all is singular and all y'all is plural.

As I stated earlier, you're wrong on both counts. "Y'all" refers to a group. "All Y'all" refers to multiple groups (such as different Sororities members at a Frat party).

Crumbly Writer

@Crumbly Writer

As I stated earlier, you're wrong on both counts. "Y'all" refers to a group. "All Y'all" refers to multiple groups (such as different Sororities members at a Frat party).

I amend my answer, as I didn't take the context into account. If she's only speaking to one person, "y'all" wouldn't fit. TeNderLoin is correct.

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

Reconsidering it, replace "I came" with "I cum".


cum = noun (meaning semen)
come/came = verb (meaning orgasm)

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


As I stated earlier, you're wrong on both counts. "Y'all" refers to a group. "All Y'all" refers to multiple groups (such as different Sororities members at a Frat party).


How can I be wrong when a woman who's from West Texas told me that's the way they speak where she's from? Y'all = you; All y'all = more than one of you.

Aubie made it clear, though, that's not true in Alabama where my character is from. My guess is West Texas is unique so what Aubie defined is the norm for a Southern y'all. I ended up changing the "y'all" to "you" and mentioned it was said with a Southern accent.

Wheezer

Not a true Southerner, but grew up 'next door' to the Ozarks. Around here, people who would say "Y'all" would not say "you know," but would pronounce it "ya'know," or even "ya'knows."

oyster50

@ustourist

I can say I'm from the 'Deep South'. If I was any more south I'd be floating in the gulf of Mexico.

'Y'all know' is perfectly colloquial, as is 'y'know'. Modern media has brought a lot of homogeneity to language, so it's quite common to run into both.

Even when speaking to one person standing in front of you, 'y'all know' can be correct, implying that the speaker expects the listener to understand that the information is something that he AND his absent associates would know.

docholladay

@Switch Blayde

y'all


The word usage is a plural expression. It is a contraction of two words "You All". Multiple people or groupings for example an entire family or team instead of just one person.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@docholladay


The word usage is a plural expression


Not in West Texas. "All y'all" is the plural version.

But I took it out. Too many of you corrected this Northerner that in most places "y'all" is plural so it wouldn't have been right to use since the girl was talking to one guy.

I really appreciate all the comments. It prevented me from making a mistake.

Thanks, y'all.

And if there are any West Texans here, I'll include you in my thanks with:

Thanks, all y'all.

:)

docholladay

@Switch Blayde

Best advice is to look at the base words used for the contraction. That base tends to already have rules for usage. A contraction is just an "Oral" short-hand.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@docholladay

Best advice is to look at the base words used for the contraction


Except the only person I know who uses it is from West Texas and she doesn't do it the same way as in the South.

docholladay

@Switch Blayde

Understandable. Its also why I suggested breaking those contractions down to the base words. Then after breaking them down to those words decide on the usage. Plug in the base words and see if they would work. Any contraction is just a short-hand version of the base words.

sejintenej

@docholladay

Its also why I suggested breaking those contractions down to the base words. Then after breaking them down to those words decide on the usage. Plug in the base words and see if they would work. Any contraction is just a short-hand version of the base words.

I wonder if it is that simple. Yes, y'all may well have started as a form of address directed to a group. Surely over the decades, centuries that combination could itself have been locally bastardised into an address to a single person. This would lead to different posters having different experiences

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Thanks, all y'all.

Ha-ha. Since you're specifically thanking a specific group (SOL authors), that would be "y'all" (as you're referencing a single group). You'd use "all y'all" if you were including biographers, fiction authors and playrights, as they all belong to other groups.

"you" is singular.
"y'all" refers to a specific group.
"all y'all" incorporates multiple groups.
"damn yankee!" covers everyone else. ;D

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Except the only person I know who uses it is from West Texas and she doesn't do it the same way as in the South.

I believe that "all y'all" is a relatively recent import to Texas, coming via several generations of visiting college students. "All, y'all" definitely originates in the "Deep South" (i.e. the southern EASTERN U.S.). It's not even that widespread in the Carolinas.

Crumbly Writer

@sejintenej

Yes, y'all may well have started as a form of address directed to a group. Surely over the decades, centuries that combination could itself have been locally bastardised into an address to a single person. This would lead to different posters having different experiences

I think Oyster50 go this one spot on. When you use "y'all" in reference to a single person, you're recognizing their membership in a larger, absent group (ex. my loyal friends, my homies (mixing ethnic groups), or locals).

Thus you wouldn't use "y'all" to refer to a boyfriend, unless you were referencing every boy you've ever fooled around with (a definite recipe for disaster).

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

"damn yankee!" covers everyone else. ;D


Interesting, I had no idea that Mexicans, Canadians and Europeans were Yankees.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Dominions Son

I had no idea that Mexicans, Canadians and Europeans were Yankees.


The way I heard it, to a true Southerner a Yankee is anyone who lives North of the Mason-Dixon line. :)

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@REP

The way I heard it, to a true Southerner a Yankee is anyone who lives North of the Mason-Dixon line. :)

The way I've observed it over the years, true Southerners consider Yankees to be anyone living north of whichever state they happen to live in at the time. Thus North Caroline looks down on Virginia, Georgians look down on South Carolina, while those living in Louisiana can't figure out which state lies north of them. ;D

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

true Southerners consider Yankees to be anyone living north of whichever state they happen to live in at the time.

Which is Mexico is planning to build a wall to keep them out.

Replies:   ustourist  Ross at Play
ustourist

@Ross at Play

Which is Mexico is planning to build a wall to keep them out.

No.
The US will be building it - the Mexicans will be paying for it (at Mexican labour rates).

Dominions Son

@ustourist

The US will be building it - the Mexicans will be paying for it (at Mexican labour rates).


And it will keep out illegal immigrants about half as well as a colander hold water.

Ernest Bywater

@ustourist

The US will be building it - the Mexicans will be paying for it (at Mexican labour rates).


It should slow down some of the drug shipments and other smuggling that goes on, too.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

It should slow down some of the drug shipments and other smuggling that goes on, too.


For about five minutes.

richardshagrin

The deep south is that part that will be under water when the sea level rises, like parts of New Orleans where the levees keep out water except during hurricanes and areas near Miami. Most of the Florida Keys. I understand the highest point on Key West is their garbage dump which may be as high as 40 feet above sea level.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Ross at Play

@CW : true Southerners consider Yankees to be anyone living north of whichever state they happen to live in at the time.

@Me : Which is Mexico is planning to build a wall to keep them out.

Sometimes it is fun making not-so-good, but obvious jokes, just to see how many Americans will take them seriously.

Can you really not see 'Mexico is planning to build a wall' is an intentional error?

The joke was to suggest so many Southerners will keep going further to get away from Yankees that Mexico has decided on drastic measures to keep them out.

Replies:   Dominions Son  ustourist
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

The joke was to suggest so many Southerners will keep going further to get away from Yankees that Mexico has decided on drastic measures to keep them out.


Oh! So that's how Trump was planning to get the Mexicans to Pay for the wall. Nobody I know believed he would be able to pull that off. :)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Switch Blayde

@docholladay

Understandable. Its also why I suggested breaking those contractions down to the base words.


It was more complicated than that.

The protagonist was doing undercover work and went into a bar where the Russian gang hang out. He asked too many questions and then slipped up so he ended up with a prostitute in the back and asked if she was Russian. Again he was told he asked too many questions.

When he met her, he asked what her name was and she responded with:

"Why do y'all want to know?"


Then next paragraph was:

Well, she wasn't Russian.


I thought it was funny, but by not being able to use "y'all" it doesn't work.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Nobody I know believed he would be able to pull that off. :)


confiscated money from the drug lords.

sejintenej

@ustourist

@Ross at Play

Which is Mexico is planning to build a wall to keep them out.

No.

The US will be building it - the Mexicans will be paying for it (at Mexican labour rates).


What he hasn't realised is that at the rate they are already building tunnels the wall must be upside down.

docholladay

@Switch Blayde

I thought it was funny, but by not being able to use "y'all" it doesn't work.


In order to be able to use the expression she only had to have spent time in the South. She doesn't have to be from there. Its one of those little things people tend to remember about different places when they have spent any amount of time there. Its why certain phrases get so widely distributed. Its the little things expressions that get remembered and are often miss used.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
ustourist

@Ross at Play

I thought it was obvious, hence my comment about paying at Mexican labour rates. Afterwards I did think about changing it to the fact that the Mexicans had contracted the US to build it, but I didn't expect such a big whoosh to sound over the heads of those who responded.

I was surprised Ernest missed the humor though.

Capt. Zapp

@Switch Blayde

When he met her, he asked what her name was and she responded with:
"Why do y'all want to know?"

Then next paragraph was:
Well, she wasn't Russian.

I thought it was funny, but by not being able to use "y'all" it doesn't work.


In this example, 'y'all' works just fine although I would change it to "Why y'all wanna know?"

Switch Blayde

@docholladay

In order to be able to use the expression she only had to have spent time in the South.


That's not a problem. She was from Alabama and moved (not specified where in the story, but not in the South) 6 months before. So if she used "y'all" she'd say it automatically.

But Aubie is from Alabama and he said "y'all" is singular. He was adamant about it. In all her usages, she was talking directly to the protagonist so she would be saying "you" and not "y'all" (singular).

I guess I could have her come from West Texas, but based on the comments here many people would take issue with using "y'all" in the singular.

Replies:   aubie56  docholladay
StarFleetCarl

@Crumbly Writer

"damn yankee!" covers everyone else.


Not quite. A yankee is someone from north of the Mason-Dixon line, perhaps visiting the true land of milk and honey, but that still goes home. A Damn Yankee is someone who lived North but has now moved into the promised land - and stayed.

I qualify as the latter - used to live in Oklahoma North, now I live in Indiana South.

Oh, and to the OP, it would have been Ya know. Y'all can be both singular or (more normally) plural, as in "Y'all not from round here, is ya?" The other term, All y'all, is plural or referring to a group. "All y'all is a bunch o' ignert assholes." (And yes, is would be used, regardless of quantity, or whether are would be a better choice.)

My brother lived (and raised 4 kids) in southern Mississippi - so I've 40 some odd years of exposure to that culture and dialect. And as I said, now I live in Oklahoma, so ... (Could be worse - go visit Nawleans some time. That Cajun stuff is just tough.) (That would be New Orleans, for you refined English people who have to understand Scottish or Welsh.)

Replies:   oyster50
oyster50

@StarFleetCarl

My brother lived (and raised 4 kids) in southern Mississippi - so I've 40 some odd years of exposure to that culture and dialect. And as I said, now I live in Oklahoma, so ... (Could be worse - go visit Nawleans some time. That Cajun stuff is just tough.) (That would be New Orleans, for you refined English people who have to understand Scottish or Welsh.)


And you've thereby made the classic Yankee mistake. New Orleans is NOT Cajun, it's French, Creole, whatever, but NOT Cajun. My ancestors left France in the 1500's, settled in Acadia, which is now mostly Nova Scotia, in Canada. When the British ran France out of Canada, they expected my ancestors to swear allegiance to the Crown. When we didn't, they exiled us south to their more complacent (at the time) colonies.

Many of us decided to head for Louisiana, Knowing it to also be a French colony. There was a difference, though. New Orleans was the dumping ground for scions of French nobles who hoped to make easy fortunes in the New World. They existed mostly on regular shipments of help from France, depending on the work of their slaves and the work of local Indians.

Seeing that this was the same bunch of assholes they'd migrated from France get away from, my folks kept going west, settling west of the Mississippi River, along the bayous of south central Louisiana, in what is now termed 'Acadiana'. The people are different. The food is different. The language is different. The music is different.

New Orleans went on the be America's titty bar. Acadiana is still today a wellspring of hard-working people running farms and working in the oilfields and offshore. You can hardly visit an oil-producing area on the planet and not run into somebody with a connection to Acadiana.

Sore point? You betcha.

aubie56

@Switch Blayde

But Aubie is from Alabama and he said "y'all" is singular.


You got it backwards!!! I didn't tell y'all that!

Or is this just to rattle my cage?

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@aubie56

You got it backwards!!! I didn't tell y'all that!

Or is this just to rattle my cage?


aubie,

This is what you said (which made me change my story):

I am from south Alabama, though I now live in New England. Here is the straight story on "you" versus "y'all."

"You" is singular and "y'all" is plural, and there are NO exceptions, despite what some ignorant Yankees try to foist on the unsuspecting. I can't help cringing when I here y'all used incorrectly. For example, "y'all know" is absolutely correct when speaking to more than one person; otherwise, "you know" would be correct.

If you need more instruction, please feel free to call on me. This subject is NOT OPEN TO ARGUMENT!

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I thought it was funny, but by not being able to use "y'all" it doesn't work.

Just switch it to:

"Why do y'all keep askin' that?

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

Just switch it to:

"Why do y'all keep askin' that?


That's the same thing. If "y'all" is only plural, it doesn't work.

I'm waiting for aubie's reply because he's the one who made me take y'all out.

Replies:   aubie56  Crumbly Writer
richardshagrin

Yawl is singular, although it has two masts.

aubie56

@Switch Blayde

I'm waiting for aubie's reply

I'm sorry, but I have lost track of the question. Please clue me in.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

Yawl is singular, although it has two masts.


And y'awl is how you refer to another person's woodworking tool while talking to them about it.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Switch Blayde

@aubie56

I'm sorry, but I have lost track of the question. Please clue me in.


I have a character from Alabama. She uses "y'all" instead of "you" when speaking to an individual.

The question had to do with starting a sentence with the common term "you know" as in "You know, you keep saying that."

The question was simply if a person who says "y'all" when others say "you," would they say "you know" or "y'all know"?

But then you said "y'all" in plural and someone who says "y'all" would not replace "you " with it when talking about one person.

That's why I changed all my "y'all"s to "you"s.

Replies:   aubie56
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

That's the same thing. If "y'all" is only plural, it doesn't work.

"Why do y'all" isn't referencing the questioner, but is instead questioning the wider (non-present) group, and thus is a plural reference. That's the only 'singular' use of 'y'all', but it's also the distinction between "y'all" and "all y'all", so it's an essential distinction. What's more, it's a distinction that's purely in the mind of the speaker, not based on the sentence being spoken.

If the quoted speaker sees the person they're referencing as some hypothetical larger group (ex: Northern Elites, or Democrats suffering from sour grapes), they'll say "y'all" to a single person to designate they're opinions are circumspect because of their association. Believe me, this is something all us "damn yankees" (northerners living in the south) face on a continual basis.

Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

Yawl is singular, although it has two masts.

Does that mean that "all yawl" is plural, or would that be "Yawl Yawl"? 'D

I'm planning to visit New York, New York harbor in my Yawl, Yawl.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

And y'awl is how you refer to another person's woodworking tool while talking to them about it.

All y'all's y'awls go on y'all's yawl, in the yawl's y'awl haul.

Just try saying that three times fast! 'D You may be able to pronounce it correctly, but I guarantee you won't know how many "y'alls" you've included.

aubie56

@Switch Blayde

"You know, you keep saying that."


As far as I know, that is the way the sentence would go when speaking to one person.

However, if there were a group of people, as at a meeting, one could say, "Y'all know who I am talking about." To me, "y'all" can only be used when speaking to more than one person at a time.

StarFleet Carl

@oyster50

New Orleans is NOT Cajun, it's French, Creole, whatever, but NOT Cajun.


Sorry, I didn't mean that New Orleans was Cajun. I'm not sure what the hell it is - I think you named it right, America's titty bar. (My intoduction to it was when went to visit when I was 14. I have always been a big guy - 5'11" and 210 at age 14. Yeah, that was ... something.)

The area of Mississippi I was referencing is the Columbia - McComb area, so we visited their friends in Ponchatula and Bogalusa. I know that's a bit further north than what you're talking about, and almost 40 years ago, so it's (hopefully) a whole different place than it was then.

REP
Updated:

I sort of have a question regarding y'all: Does it really matter?


By that I mean, this is a speech pattern common to certain parts of the US. Y'all is how some people address a single person and they may use y'all to address a group of people.

As an Author, are you trying to reflect the speech pattern used by a group of people in a specific area (or someone from that area), or are you trying to be grammatically correct?

Personally, if that is the way people speak in the area I am writing about, then that is what I would use in my story. If y'all is right for that area use it. If all y'all is right then use it.

edited to add: And don't worry about whether the character's speech is grammatically correct. It's what is used in that area.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@REP

Personally, if that is the way people speak in the area I am writing about, then that is what I would use in my story. If y'all is right for that area use it. If all y'all is right then use it.


For no particular reason, other than I wanted her to be Southern because I wanted to use y'all, I chose Alabama. It's the first Southern state that popped into my head. Aubie was from Alabama and he was adamant about y'all being only plural.

It's not a grammatically correct issue. Dialogue isn't grammatically correct if it's to sound real. But I like my stories to be realistic even when I suspend disbelief. I didn't want to lose credibility with Southerners.

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

I didn't want to lose credibility with Southerners.

A tough ask if you plan on writing in anything anyone else would recognise as English. ;)

REP

@Switch Blayde

But I like my stories to be realistic even when I suspend disbelief.


I agree SB. That is the approach that I use. There is also a great deal of appropriateness to using stereotypes - a stereotype becomes a stereotype because it usually reflects a common theme or trait (good or bad) in reality.

Crumbly Writer

I hate to suggest it, but there are so many minor disagreements about how to apply "y'all" in this discussion, I'd almost suggest using a footnote to denote: "usage may vary in different locales". :(

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

As a side note, for all of us considering writing our own style guides, we may need to devote an entire chapter just to handling how to use "y'all"! ::(

Replies:   REP
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


I'd almost suggest using a footnote to denote: "usage may vary in different locales". :(


I originally asked a question about an expression (you know) and not y'all. After aubie convinced me not to use it in the singular, I looked it up on Wikipedia and now I'm convinced he was right.


There is long-standing disagreement about whether y'all has primarily or exclusively plural reference.[4] The debate itself extends to the late nineteenth century, and has often been repeated since.[10] While many Southerners hold that y'all is only properly used as a plural pronoun, strong counter evidence suggests that the word is also used with a singular reference,[2][9][12][13] particularly amongst non-Southerners.[14]


Notice the "non-Southerners" which is me. I didn't want to come across as stupid in my story.

and


H. L. Mencken recognized that y'all or you-all will usually have a plural reference, but acknowledged singular reference use has been observed. He stated that plural use is a cardinal article of faith in the South. ... Nevertheless, it has been questioned very often, and with a considerable showing of evidence. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, to be sure, you-all indicates a plural, implicit if not explicit, and thus means, when addressed to a single person, 'you and your folks' or the like, but the hundredth time it is impossible to discover any such extension of meaning.

— H. L. Mencken, The American Language Supplement 2: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States, 1948, p.337


Note the "he stated that plural use is a cardinal article of faith in the South" and "ninety-nine times out of a hundred, to be sure, you-all indicates a plural."

So I took it out of the story.

Replies:   REP  Crumbly Writer
sejintenej

@oyster50

So Acadiana and Norleans are both of French origin though perhaps from different class and region backgrounds arriving by different routes?
I understand that Norleans Creole is very "changed" French but how close is Acadiana French (if it still exists) to its original French / Oïl origins,

Replies:   oyster50
REP

@Crumbly Writer

we may need to devote


or don't use it. :)

REP
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

From what I've observed SB, people are creatures of habit. We use words and phrases that sound right to us without stopping to think about what that word or phrase actually means.

I've met people who have a definite Southern accent. During our conversations, they used y'all in reference to me personally. Granted they may have been thinking of everyone when the addressed me specifically.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@REP

During our conversations, they used y'all in reference to me personally.


The Wikipedia quote said 99% of the time it's used as plural, which means 1% of the time it's used singularly. The West Texas woman I know falls into that 1%. But I'm safer not using it. It's not that important.

I was more concerned with the non-Southerner comment. Maybe because it hit home.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer  REP
Ernest Bywater

Well, it seems the question is now answered. However, like a certain televisions show used to say at the end of each episode:

"You all come back, now."

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
oyster50

@sejintenej

sejintenej
3/4/2017, 3:11:03 PM

@oyster50

So Acadiana and Norleans are both of French origin though perhaps from different class and region backgrounds arriving by different routes?
I understand that Norleans Creole is very "changed" French but how close is Acadiana French (if it still exists) to its original French / Oïl origins,


Interesting question. First, Cajun French got separated from Parisian (mainstream) French for three hundred years, so in WW I when some Cajuns found them selves sent to pull France out of the fire, they were roundly derided for for the strange-sounding applications of a language Cajuns spoke in Louisiana. Second, there are a lot of words in Parisian French that are completely different in Cajun French because we had to describe things that didn't exist in France.

There is a movement to keep French alive in Acadiana, and we still have Cajun French radio programs.

It's kind of disjointed, though. Trying to tie Cajuns to France, is, in my opinion, a bit of a stretch. My ancestors were on this continent well before most of the British newcomers who got the credit, and Tying us to the France we left is like trying to make teh same connection between Massachusetts and London.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@oyster50

Tying us to the France we left is like trying to make teh same connection between Massachusetts and London.


Trying to tie LA to Madrid would probably be a closer comparison.

Replies:   sejintenej
PotomacBob

@aubie56

aubie 56 is correct!

docholladay

@Switch Blayde

I went to school in Luverne, Montgomery and Birmingham. All of those locations are in Alabama. I know Luverne is in Crenshaw county, but i am unsure of which counties are included in the major cities. So to some extents I am also from Alabama although I actually lived between Patsburg and Petry Alabama. Both locations were very small in size. Patsburg if you blinked while driving though you would miss the major businesses altogether. I still have relatives in that vicinity.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Note the "he stated that plural use is a cardinal article of faith in the South" and "ninety-nine times out of a hundred, to be sure, you-all indicates a plural."

So I took it out of the story.

I'm not disagreeing, as that was my original position. My only objection concerned the use of "all y'all", making "y'all" a relative plurality, often used to reference specific subgroups.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

The Wikipedia quote said 99% of the time it's used as plural, which means 1% of the time it's used singularly. The West Texas woman I know falls into that 1%. But I'm safer not using it. It's not that important.

If you don't use the term, you can't use it incorrectly. Thus the best way to avoid using it wrong (in the singular), is simply not to use it in those contexts. That's fairly straightforward.

docholladay

I have also heard "y-all" used to reference everyone associated with a person, such as family members who are not present at the location.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@docholladay

I have also heard "y-all" used to reference everyone associated with a person, such as family members who are not present at the location.

Y'all making a mockery of Southernisms.

Switch Blayde

@docholladay

So to some extents I am also from Alabama


You didn't comment on the y'all being singular.

btw, I had dinner with a woman who's from Missouri. She said y'all can be singular.

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

My only objection concerned the use of "all y'all", making "y'all" a relative plurality, often used to reference specific subgroups.


The Wikipedia article reference "all y'all" as a larger or more diverse group than y'all.

sejintenej

@Dominions Son

Tying us to the France we left is like trying to make teh same connection between Massachusetts and London.

Trying to tie LA to Madrid would probably be a closer comparison.

I would say that most New York English is probably 99% understandable in England even now and the native (as opposed to snowbird) Floridians I met could almost be mistaken for English.

I could understand most South American Spanish (but certainly never the Paraguayan variety - yeuch!) and if Lucero is anything to go by then Mexican Spanish is no problem. MIT's undergraduate Spanish course covers some of the major Latin American variations but I haven't got to Puerto Rico and Texas yet.

I find it totally impossible and Brasilian friends agree that spoken European Portuguese is almost impossible. Written is not much better with some phrases having opposite meanings. As a family have a very longstanding and close Portuguese friend - he and I have to talk in French to be understood.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@sejintenej

some phrases having opposite meanings


Like 'me either' and 'I could care less'? :)

AJ

Replies:   sejintenej  Ross at Play
REP

@Switch Blayde

The Wikipedia quote said 99% of the time it's used as plural, which means 1% of the time it's used singularly


 H. L. Mencken cited 99 out of 100, but where did he get those numbers and were the numbers substantiated in his book; if so, how.

Personally, I suspect people using the term in personal conversations intend their use of the term to be singular. It is the rest of us who have no knowledge of the person's intent who interpret that intent to be a plural usage of the term.

sejintenej
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


some phrases having opposite meanings

Like 'me either' and 'I could care less'? :)


That sort of thing

pois não is a strong, very definite phrase which can mean "but of course" as in I'll do it" or "you are absolutely right" but in the other country the words take their literal meaning of "but no" as in "no way, José".

Where I once worked there was a form of address which sounded like "shoshi" meaning sweetheart or darling. Two miles away (same language, different country) I was told I would get my throat cut for telling her she was a whore!

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

Like 'me either' and 'I could care less'? :)

There are many words that are used euphemistically or ironically so often they come to take on the meaning people were previously avoiding trying to say.
A few hundred years ago a mother would probably be pleased if told, "Your daughter is currently out in the garden engaged in vigorous intercourse with a local boy." :-)

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

There are many words that are used euphemistically or ironically so often they come to take on the meaning people were previously avoiding trying to say.


And there are many idioms that somehow get turned around backwards yet still sort of retain their original meaning.

For example: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

That's backwards. How do you eat your cake if you don't have it? In point of fact, they saying was originally "You can't eat your cake and have it too." which makes sense, you no longer have your cake after you've eaten it. However somewhere along the way it got twisted around backwards.

Replies:   Ross at Play
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

I recently read a SOL story in which the author used 'I could care less' in a context where the meaning could have been literal or sarcastic. The author didn't condescend to enlighten readers with any clues. :(

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

We could go on finding examples like that endlessly; this lot here probably will.

There is one class of words that surprised me when I learned they had NOT undergone some sort of role reversal.

At one time I thought inflammable was an oxymoron, and at that time I did not know that gruntled was an actual word.

I read a column by the late William Safire in the NY Times. It explained that although the prefixes in- and dis- usually reverse the meaning of a word, if used with words that already carry a negative connotation they may (do?) intensify the negative meaning of the base word.
Thus, inflammable does mean 'very flammable', and disgrunted does mean 'very gruntled'.

I edit for two authors for whom English is their second language. They frequently apologise for not getting idiomatic expressions right. I sometimes think they deserve the apologies for the number of bizarre inconsistencies in my native language.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Ross at Play
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

the author used 'I could care less' in a context where the meaning could have been literal or sarcastic.

Without seeing the context, I expect I would interpret that literally. In the absence of a known non-literal interpretation, I would only interpret sarcasm when the literal meaning does not make sense.

I have certainly used phrasings similar to that for the purposes of surreptitious sarcasm, i.e. not using the exact wording of an idiomatic expression, so that if challenged, I can lie and claim I intended the literal interpretation - BUT using something close enough to an idiomatic expression for my target to naturally suspect sarcastic intent, and then know full well that was my real intended meaning.

You will find examples of that if I ever get around to finishing a book I sometimes work on, with the working title of How To Be a Complete and Utter Bastard.

richardshagrin

@Ross at Play

I am not a complete idiot, I had my wisdom teeth, appendix and gall bladder removed.

Ross at Play

@richardshagrin

I am not a complete idiot, I had my wisdom teeth, appendix and gall bladder removed.

That looks like an intended joke. If so, it went right over my head.
Please explain.
Or if you are an Aussie, "Please explain!" said with a red-headed accent. :-)

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@Ross at Play

If I were complete I would have all my parts. Maybe I need to look around and see if my sense of humor is still attached.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

At one time I thought inflammable was an oxymoron, and at that time I did not know that gruntled was an actual word.


Speaking of that sort of thing, people are overwhelmed or underwhelmed, why isn't anyone ever just whelmed?

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

How To Be a Complete and Utter Bastard.


Have your parents' marriage annulled?

AJ

REP

@Dominions Son

why isn't anyone ever just whelmed?


That would be the status quo. If you are in that group, its members are happy with what is so they don't speak out for or against it. :)

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

why isn't anyone ever just whelmed?


Or even whelmt! :)

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ross at Play

@richardshagrin

I am not a complete idiot, I had my wisdom teeth, appendix and gall bladder removed.

Okay, LOL.
I might have spotted the clue, the word 'complete', if you had indicated what you were responding to by quoting my How To Be a Complete and Utter Bastard.

StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

"You all come back, now."


Except that it's ""y'all come back now, y'hear?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvE9zJgm8OY

Opening and closing credits - listen at about 1:58.

That's what happens when an announcer TRIES to sound southern, the actual lyrics read 'ya'hear'.

Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

If I were complete I would have all my parts. Maybe I need to look around and see if my sense of humor is still attached.

(i.e. He was a complete idiot, until he had his gall bladder and appendix removed, but the real clincher was removing his wisdom teeth!)

Sometimes you've got to be obvious when making a pun. Subtle only works when everyone knows what you're talking about.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

Speaking of that sort of thing, people are overwhelmed or underwhelmed, why isn't anyone ever just whelmed?

Is that similar to being under or overwhelped?

Crumbly Writer

@REP

That would be the status quo. If you are in that group, its members are happy with what is so they don't speak out for or against it. :)

For example: Clinton lost the election because her fans were completely whelmed!

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

Or even whelmt!

Whelmt Definition: Being whelmed while being smacked in the face with a wet fish!

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

(i.e. He was a complete idiot, until he had his gall bladder and appendix removed, but the real clincher was removing his wisdom teeth!)

Are you a complete idiot, or have your wisdom teeth been removed?

Think about it!

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

Are you a complete idiot, or have your wisdom teeth been removed?

Think about it!

I can't, my wisdom teeth were removed! :(

Technically, mine were impacted, meaning they were too stupid to figure out which way was up!

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

Sometimes you've got to be obvious when making a pun. Subtle only works when everyone knows what you're talking about.

No. Only Americans think it's important everyone understands their jokes.
British and Australians do not debase the quality of their humour so everyone will know how clever we are being.
We prefer the quiet satisfaction of noticing who is not clever enough to see our jokes.
The ultimate satisfaction is some noticing you have insulted someone, but the victim not realising it.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Capt. Zapp

@Crumbly Writer

Whelmt


I thought that was the contraction of "Well Met" ;)

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

The ultimate satisfaction is some noticing you have insulted someone, but the victim not realizing it.

That's useful when writing on forums, emails or the local pub. However, it's not useful when your humor falls flat in a story, and readers wonder what the frig you were thinking. :(

Remember, not everyone reading across the globe originates in either Britain or Australia. 'D

Replies:   Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

@Capt. Zapp

I thought that was the contraction of "Well Met" ;)

That would be "Wel'm't," which doesn't quite roll off the tongue. 'D

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

However, it's not useful when your humor falls flat in a story, and readers wonder what the frig you were thinking. :(

No! For the type of humour I am describing there must be two totally satisfactory interpretations.
Some people will have no idea there is a joke in there too. For them, the literal interpretation and fit seamlessly into the story. No harm done.
For those who can see the other meaning the joke is so more satisfying.
Shakespeare was a master at that. His "tragedies" are filled with hilarious jokes. Those who cannot spot them still find the drama on its own satisfying.

awnlee jawking

@Crumbly Writer

Whelmt Definition: Being whelmed while being smacked in the face with a wet fish!


Diversion Alert! That got me thinking about dry fish. Is there such a thing as fish jerky?

AJ

sejintenej

Crumbly Writer:

Remember, not everyone reading across the globe originates in either Britain or Australia.

No, we all come from East Africa originally but as for your comment:

4/10/2010 Norman's gone, There ain't no Wisdom left

The Aussies should get that, but do Americans have a sense of humour?

Ross at Play

@sejintenej

but do Americans have a sense of humour?

Yes, when it's obvious - wisecracks or farce - but few ever notice wit.

awnlee jawking

@sejintenej

No, we all come from East Africa originally but as for your comment:


I'm reserving judgement on that. I understand human remains have been found in China and South Africa which can't readily be explained by migration, so Homo sapiens may have evolved several times when its time was ripe.

The one thing that seems pretty certain is that there are no native Americans.

AJ

Replies:   REP  Crumbly Writer
richardshagrin

@awnlee jawking

Yes, I visit grocery stores in Seattle with smoked salmon and other forms of preserved fish. I am not certain they call it "jerky" as most people don't like jerks.

Replies:   docholladay
REP

@awnlee jawking

Homo sapiens may have evolved several times when its time was ripe.


There is no "may have" about it. As shown by the following link's graphic, there have been numerous branches to our "family tree" and all but one is now extinct. I saw a similar family tree back in the eighties, which prompted my second failed attempt at writing fiction. I still have the story files and may resurrect the story in the future.

https://phylogenous.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/familytree_lg.jpg

human remains have been found in China and South Africa which can't readily be explained by migration


When you are looking at over seven million years of migration and the geological changes that have taken place, it is conceivable that our species originated at one general location and then spread across the world. So "human" remains are likely to be found anywhere.

Replies:   sejintenej
docholladay

@richardshagrin

Have you ever tried any of Stewart's Meat Market's sausages or other varieties. I find them quite good myself. I know they now have outlets at the farmer's market or something there in Seattle although their origin is actually about 50 miles or so east of Olympia. I order some from their main store whenever I can afford it. Admittedly its only about once a year or so.

sejintenej

@REP

human remains have been found in China and South Africa which can't readily be explained by migration

When you are looking at over seven million years of migration and the geological changes that have taken place, it is conceivable that our species originated at one general location and then spread across the world. So "human" remains are likely to be found anywhere.

More interesting is where current humans stemmed from.

There is an argument based on female DNA (male DNA doesn't allow back-tracking apparently) that the many tested women of all races are descended from just four women! REP; we might be related!

Next, compare DNA by where it occurs and there are link maps. The guess is that about 100 people crossed the Red Sea from close to Djibouti to Aden and then split, some going north and west, some eastwards. Of course there has been subsequent movement both ways which has messed things up - Viking blood in the Crimea for example. On top of that were bouts of Black Death and other diseases which have led at least one authority to postulate that at one time the world population fell to a thousand or more.

Of course all this is educated guesswork and doesn't tell me when my next gin & tonic is arriving

awnlee jawking

@sejintenej

There is an argument based on female DNA (male DNA doesn't allow back-tracking apparently) that the many tested women of all races are descended from just four women! REP; we might be related!


Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed directly from the mother.

The putative number of ancestral women is, like the number of portions of fruit and veg you're supposed to eat, dependent on which source you prefer. Is it four, seven, thirteen...?

To me the guesstimate of four suggests that Homo sapiens arose independently at least four times, it being possible that other instantiations died out.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed directly from the mother.


Well, since we've wandered this far afield - I once saw a science documentary where they went on about DNA being used to track migration etc, and they found evidence that some Mitochondrial DNA will override others. Thus if you start with types A, B, C, D, and E from 5 different sources and a type A breeds with a type B then their descendants will all be type A thus, over time, type A will eventually surpass all the others - except for isolated communities with no interaction with type A. However, once there is contact it would only take a few generations for type A to replace the other. However, what you got from this crossbreed wasn't a clear type A, but a type A1, then A2 etc. Thus A crosses with B to become A1 and A crosses with C to be A2 an A1 cross with A2 will give A3. While an A1 cross with C will give an A4. The program said this explained why there were what appeared to be changes and mutations within the type A Mitochondrial DNA as it spread. In short: they said the variations were all due to cross breeding with descendants of different originating Mitochondrial DNA.

The same doco went on to identify at least five different originating DNA centers around the world over time by some other differences in other aspects of their DNA, and they merged over time due to crossbreeding.

I don't know enough about it all to be sure one way or the other, but the article did make a lot more sense than the everyone is descended from only one source theory which has issues due to inbreeding aspects etc.

If we want to take this further it should move to a new thread.

The

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

That got me thinking about dry fish. Is there such a thing as fish jerky?

I've met plenty of jerky fish (like those refusing to bite my bait!), as well as a few bitchy fishwives.

By the way, after 130 friggin' comments about the ever-present question about 'how do you format apply y'all', it's time we changed the topic.

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

The one thing that seems pretty certain is that there are no native Americans.

They why do we have "native" Asians, where they supposedly migrated from other continents as well. Besides, according to most guestimates, homosapiens originated in Africa, Neanderthals in Europe (their genes are what allowed us to survive in northern climates, and combat many diseases in new environments), and the Denisovans from Asia (though we're not sure that's where they originally came from). However, they've identified when each wave of homosapiens first arrived in Europe, as well as whether they were hunter/gatherers, or farmers, thus we know much of how we came to be who we are now.

Crumbly Writer

@sejintenej

Of course all this is educated guesswork and doesn't tell me when my next gin & tonic is arriving

There's a new study (just released) which specifies what happens where there are too few surviving members of a species to survive (the rate of mutations goes wild, with degenerative mutations becoming prominent, rather than dying out in short order). That thoroughly screws up most PA stories! (I may have to revise my "Great Death" series, to at least acknowledge the risks and how the survivors plan to address it.)

Replies:   sejintenej
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

I don't know enough about it all to be sure one way or the other, but the article did make a lot more sense than the everyone is descended from only one source theory which has issues due to inbreeding aspects etc.

The hell with that, it's obvious we're all decended from Eve and Lilly (Adam's first wife), who cooked up a fertilized egg to implant in Eve using genetic engineering (leads to an entirely new interpretation of the "fruit of knowledge" that Eve consumed!).

Adam and his descendants just tagged along to steal the credit.

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer



The hell with that, it's obvious we're all decended from Eve and Lilly (Adam's first wife), who cooked up a fertilized egg to implant in Eve using genetic engineering (leads to an entirely new interpretation of the "fruit of knowledge" that Eve consumed!).

Adam and his descendants just tagged along to steal the credit.


shhh. The anti-church crowd will be after you soon. Mind you, the radical church crowd don't realise that their most stringent rules are behaviour are actually based on Satanic sources.

Switch Blayde

DNA


Just the other day a group of us were talking about this. A husband and wife used Ancestry.com to analyze their DNA. The wife is mostly Italian, but one part of her was Jewish.

How can a religion be mixed in with geographic regions? What in her DNA could say she was part Jewish?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

How can a religion be mixed in with geographic regions? What in her DNA could say she was part Jewish?


Some ethnic groups have markers which show in their descendants. This applies to most Jews of historical ethnic descent, as against Jews from converts.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

There is an argument based on female DNA


You have two different sets of DNA in every cell, there is the nucleus DNA and the mitochondrial DNA. The back tracking is based on mitochondrial DNA.

It's not female DNA in the sense that only females have it, but rather your nucleus DNA is half from your father and half from your mother, but your mitochondrial DNA comes exclusively from your mother, therefore it tracks to matriarchal lines.

sejintenej

@Crumbly Writer

That thoroughly screws up most PA stories! (I may have to revise my "Great Death" series, to at least acknowledge the risks and how the survivors plan to address it.)

Don't go screwing up a good story with too strict a regard for the truth

sejintenej
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


I once saw a science documentary where they went on about DNA being used to track migration etc, and they found evidence that some Mitochondrial DNA will override others. Thus if you start with types A, B, C, D, and E from 5 different sources and a type A breeds with a type B then their descendants will all be type A thus, over time, type A will eventually surpass all the others - except for isolated communities with no interaction with type A. However, once there is contact it would only take a few generations for type A to replace the other. However, what you got from this crossbreed wasn't a clear type A, but a type A1, then A2 etc. (edited)


I must have been watching a similar programme but got the impression that there are a host of different strains which they could trace and which can show up in an individual's DNA. That is not to say that they can work out the closeness / majority - minority in any one person's DNA.
It can also uphold other evidence of migratory movements - Vikings in the Crimea for example.
In my case it should include Nordic and Spanish but perhaps there is some fabulous south seas islander girl in the mix.

Ross at Play

@Ernest Bywater

I don't know enough about it all to be sure one way or the other, but the article did make a lot more sense than the everyone is descended from only one source theory

I don't think there has ever been a one source theory, at least not among those who consider Darwin more credible than the Book of Genesis.
The theory has always been a subset of one species, with sufficient diversity to maintain a viable species, ceases interbreeding with the 'parent species', then habitat and selection drives the median characteristics of proto-species in some other direction.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
awnlee_jawking

@Crumbly Writer

The hell with that, it's obvious we're all decended from Eve and Lilly (Adam's first wife), who cooked up a fertilized egg to implant in Eve using genetic engineering (leads to an entirely new interpretation of the "fruit of knowledge" that Eve consumed!).


I prefer my theory that Eve was Lilith's daughter by Adam, hence the 'forbidden fruit' nature of Adam and Eve's relationship.

AJ

REP

@sejintenej

doesn't tell me when my next gin & tonic is arriving


Hopefully within 5 minutes of ordering it. :)

I agree with you that what our scientific community has to say about Human Evolution is guesswork based on a small amount of evidence and a lot of logical conclusions and assumptions. When you read what they say in the articles they and others write about the subject, the content of many articles is filled with comments like "If (or assuming) that is true, then ..."

Once that remark is made the writer continues their remarks as if the remarks are fact. People reading these articles overlook the "If" clauses and accept the remarks as fact.

Replies:   sejintenej
sejintenej

@REP

Once that remark is made the writer continues their remarks as if the remarks are fact. People reading these articles overlook the "If" clauses and accept the remarks as fact.

They also quote the results of scientific tests but it is usually impossible to see if the text is test result or resultant guesswork.
Should we ban scientific comment as being potentially misleading?

Replies:   REP
REP

@sejintenej

Should we ban scientific comment as being potentially misleading?


How about "Alternate Truths"

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

Some ethnic groups have markers which show in their descendants. This applies to most Jews of historical ethnic descent, as against Jews from converts.

More often, the 'markers' are mutations, often with negative health conditions which only affect specific ethnic/religious groups.

Crumbly Writer

@REP

How about "Alternate Truths"

That's the entire Trump 'alt facts' dogma, that a scientific assumption, or a temporary misquote in a paper, is equivalent of outright lies. Thus all 'opinions' weigh the same, regardless of content (i.e. no statement is any more 'true' than any other).

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

i.e. no statement is any more 'true' than any other


What do you expect from a scam artist?

Ernest Bywater

@Ross at Play

I don't think there has ever been a one source theory


For many years there was a group who pushed every human was descended from on mutation from the Great Rift Valley in Africa and named her Eve. The program i saw about the other centres was the first I saw that defied the one source theory.

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

That's the entire Trump 'alt facts' dogma,


As against the Democrats 'alt facts' dogma.

Both sides lie, it's just some (like Clinton) behave in a more criminal way than others.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

Both sides lie, it's just some (like Clinton) behave in a more criminal way than others.

Hardly. In the traditional case, you know politicians are liars, but they realize they can only get away with so much without a huge electoral 'mandate' to justify taking more drastic actions.

With Trump, he's taking a 'Winner Take All' approach. Regardless of how many people actually support him, he's going to change the ENTIRE Government structure, and rework the entire Constitution (or rather, simply ignore it altogether). To him, there aren't any small lies, any lie is justified in pushing his agenda. What's more, when he's caught in a flagrant lie, he simply creates one ever more ridiculous, and the 'media' lets him get away with it every time, refusing to call him on his outrageous behavior, bending over backwards to pretend they're being 'objective' (i.e. you've got to give credence to the other guy's claims, no matter how outrageous they might be).

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

when he's caught in a flagrant lie, he simply creates one ever more ridiculous, and the 'media' lets him get away with it every time, refusing to call him on his outrageous behavior, bending over backwards to pretend they're being 'objective'


You're watching different news programs than I.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp  Wheezer
Capt. Zapp

@Switch Blayde

when he's caught in a flagrant lie, he simply creates one ever more ridiculous, and the 'media' lets him get away with it every time, refusing to call him on his outrageous behavior, bending over backwards to pretend they're being 'objective'


You're watching different news programs than I.


I agree SB. It sounds like he is watching replays of Obama. "I have a pen and a phone." The Constitution is getting in the way of what he wants to do.

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

every human was descended from on mutation from the Great Rift Valley in Africa


I suspect that's still the majority opinion, but I believe there's sufficient evidence to the contrary that it shouldn't be peddled as fact.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Wheezer

@Switch Blayde

You're watching different news programs than I.


Fox is not real news.

Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

I suspect that's still the majority opinion, but I believe there's sufficient evidence to the contrary that it shouldn't be peddled as fact.


agreed.

Ernest Bywater

@Wheezer

Fox is not real news.


neither are any of the other major US networks who claim to be. All of them have severe political bias they use to bend the news so far out of shape you can't recognise it.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Wheezer


Fox is not real news.


I never watch Fox. I mostly watch CNN and more and more I'm turning them off because they're turning me off. They don't report unbiased news. Just look at their panels. You know what they're going to say before they say it. And the commentators, when they interview someone, badger them until they get the answer they want and when they don't, they try another angle, never giving up.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Switch Blayde

They don't report unbiased news. Just look at their panels. You know what they're going to say before they say it. And the commentators, when they interview someone, badger them until they get the answer they want and when they don't, they try another angle, never giving up.


SOP for the media regardless of their political leaning.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

neither are any of the other major US networks who claim to be. All of them have severe political bias they use to bend the news so far out of shape you can't recognise it.

As long as reporting actual details is seen as 'political bias', while 'alternate facts' (which are easily disproven) are seen as legitimate political views, you're right.

Again, while Hillary probably would have stretched things, she'd have been limited, whereas Trump simply doesn't accept limits (like the Constitution, or having to justify outrageous statements), so there's little limiting the extent of his damage. As long as he pleases his 30% fanbase, he'll keep dismantling everything accomplished in the 20th Century (and much of what was accomplished in the 19th, with Steve Bannon in charge).

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Me : I don't think there has ever been a one source theory

You: For many years there was a group who pushed every human was descended from on mutation from the Great Rift Valley in Africa and named her Eve.

I said 'I don't think ...' and I accept what you say, that ... was not correct.

What you mentioned does not pass my 'smell test' - implying I do not intend debating this.
Anything other than a small group seems ludicrous to me.
Is that possible that one woman had a mutation protecting from some disease?
Some generations later, could every surviving member of that group had that mutation from where she was somewhere in their family tree?
Yes. That seems plausible, but I don't think many think is what was meant by an 'Eve'.

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

As long as reporting actual details is seen as 'political bias',


Classic examples of how the media distort what they show:

1. Terrorists fire rockets from Lebanon into Northern Israel. Israeli Defence Force returns accurate fire and destroys truck launching rockets. Explosion of rockets still on truck causes major damage to the apartment blocks close to where the truck was parked. A couple of the US media went on site and took video of the damaged buildings while reporting on the damage done by the Israeli fire. To help emphasise the point they wanted they strategically placed new toys on the rubble to imply the iDF killed children. At no point did they mention the damage was done by the rockets exploding (known because it was witnessed by UN forces nearby) and at no time did they make any video of the Israeli residences damaged by the rockets fired into Israel.

2. Australian Government was shipping Uranium ore out of the country. Live news broadcast from the docks shows a police escort for the truck when they reached where the anti-nuclear protesters were set up. Protester throws half brick and hit a motorcycle cop on the side of the head, he blacks out and his now uncontrolled bike deviates into the crowd of protesters while he starts to fall off the bike. Evening news anchor reports on the vicious cop who rode his bike into the crowd, and only shows the part of the clip where he hits the crowd before he falls off the bike. They cut the brick and the hit, and him falling off the bike.

Modern media rules are - Report the facts, but only as far as they can be bent to support the bias we want.

Ernest Bywater

@Ross at Play

I don't think many think is what was meant by an 'Eve'.


A lot of the top anthropologists pushed the line that this being they called Eve had a mutation which she then passed on to everyone else, and only her descendants became humans. That was a few decades back when it was the major positions - I, like many, thought they were nuts, but that was the official stance of the evolution leaders at the time, and for many years afterwards.

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

The way the human brain stores information leads to an innate bias towards simplicity - Occam's Razor. So there's a tendency to unitarise phenomena: one Big Bang, life on Earth 'created' only once, the mutation to create Home sapiens occurred only once, Monotheism etc.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

So there's a tendency to unitarise phenomena: one Big Bang

I have long thought that expression 'The Big Bang' is an example of our species' innate egocentricity.
I cannot see how humans could gather enough evidence to call it anything more definite than 'Our Big Bang'.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

'The Big Bang'


I can't find that story anywhere. I assume it occurs during a large family reunion. I searched on story title, incest, group...

*ducking*

Ross at Play

@Ernest Bywater

I, like many, thought they were nuts

When do they claim she existed?
Does their theory account for the fact as while Europeans, we both have a significant percentage of Neanderthal DNA?
... please feel free to decide you can't be bothered discussing this topic anymore. :-)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Ross at Play

When do they claim she existed?


These wikipedia articles tell a lot of the Out of Africa theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

The doco I saw that disputed it was citing other development areas with known artifacts much earlier than what the dispersal theory could account for. They also said it was possible the claimed mutations in the dispersal theory mt dna could be caused by the cross breeding as against other environmental mutation factors.

The whole things is so long ago, and from so little evidence it's impossible to saw what the truth is.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

from so little evidence it's impossible to saw what the truth is.


Those little green men were crafty buggers. Apart from building 'Egyptian' pyramids in South America, they cleaned up after themselves pretty well :)

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

Those little green men were crafty buggers.


I don't know where you get these little green men stuff from, the pyramids were all built by orange giants from Wolf 359.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Ernest Bywater
3/8/2017, 1:46:05 PM

@awnlee jawking

Those little green men were crafty buggers.



I don't know where you get these little green men stuff from, the pyramids were all built by orange giants from Wolf 359.


You're both wrong. The pyramids weren't built at all. They are shells left behind by giant crustaceans from 55 Cancri.

sejintenej

@Ross at Play

Is that possible that one woman had a mutation protecting from some disease?

Some generations later, could every surviving member of that group had that mutation from where she was somewhere in their family tree?

Yes, it is definitely possible / proven;
--women in Sierra Leone (or close to there) seem to be immune to AIDS
--West Indians, West Africans, Saudis often have Sickle Cell Anaemia which gives resistance to falciparum malaria (the worst type of malaria)

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@sejintenej

Yes, it is definitely possible / proven;

Thanks.
IT IS what I meant, and these were intended as rhetorical questions I would answer myself in the affirmative.
* * *
I got the wording not quite right.
The first should start with 'Is it possible ...'
And the second with 'And, ... , could every ...'
My answer was 'Yes. That seems plausible ...'

REP

@sejintenej

Yes, it is definitely possible / proven


Nah, you are all wrong! ... One of the mutations my brother and I inherited from our mother Eve, currently referred to as Hillary and her looks are remarkably well preserved, was eternal life. She decided we should mess with everyone's mind by having us (i.e., my brother, me, and our descendants who also have the eternal life gene) build them. So far, we have sat back and laughed our heads off at all the way out theories our efforts have created. Last year, Mom gave us another project: Pick a total idiot and make him President. It is almost amusing as the pyramids. :)

Back to Top