Addendum: a few examples of when it would be correct to say “y’all” to one person:
-Talking to somebody in another department about something that department is doing
-Talking to a married friend about her and her husband’s plans for the weekend
-A waitress talking to an individual person at a table when she has reason to expect more people will be joining him, and she’s talking about something affecting them all
I know this is wrong, but can’t recite chapter and verse as to why- “have got”. Years ago (maybe still?), Pennsylvania’s license plate slogan was “You’ve got a friend in Pennsylvania”. As a resident at the time, it would irk me to no end seeing it on the back of everyone’s car. You have a friend- that’s all you need to say.
Also, ending sentences with “at”. “Where’s the store at? Where’s it at?”
How about, Where’s the store? Where is it? Not only is the “at” unnecessary, it’s wrong.
It sounds fine to me. It’s wrong? Why on earth do you think that?
I prefer “you’ve got a friend.” It simply sounds better to my ear.
But, I come from the land of the might coulds, so what do I know?
Because I was taught that it was wrong, and as I mentioned, I can’t recall why or what the rule was. But since I was taught it was wrong at a fairly young age, I immediately saw it as wrong when I read it and it never sounded right to me, and that feeling has persisted into adulthood. But since I know my grade-school teachers would never lie to me ( 
), it still strikes me as wrong.
If I have time to do a little digging to find out conclusively, I’ll advise.
I don’t doubt that some grade school teachers tell their students that it’s wrong - God knows that teachers don’t know the first thing about English grammar. I’m just curious because I’ve never even heard that “rule” before, and I’m familiar with most such made-up rules.
I think it’s because “you’ve got a friend” or “you’ve got mail” is just a conjunction of saying “you have got mail”, and since the result is the same as saying “you have mail”, the “got” is unnecessary, and consequently, incorrect. It’s either “you have mail”, as in, this mail has been accumulating for you, or “you got mail”, as in, you just received this mail, but to mash the two together results in a mixed meaning. Or something.
But there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be two ways to say the same thing - in fact, English (and all languages) do that all the time. Both are perfectly natural ways of speaking English - why should we arbitrarily decide that one is “not necessary” when people use it all the time? Having more ways to say something allows for more subtle shades of meaning to be conveyed.
I think I hear a difference in meaning between “you have a friend” and “you’ve got a friend,” but I can’t even figure out what it is. The addition of the “got” seems to add more emphasis, but I don’t know why. Maybe it’s just a more emphatic sounding word?
I’m not sure. It makes it feel more “immediate” to me, which is probably another way of saying just what you said. Like I said - subtle shades of meaning. There’s probably someone who’s done explicit work examining when people use one and when they use another, but I’ve never heard anything about it.
Wearing a belt with suspenders adds more emphasis to keeping your pants up, but it doesn’t mean it’s necessary.
So? There’s no reason we have to use emphasis at all in language. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t or that it’s wrong.
You didn’t need “more” in the above sentence. See, we all use words that aren’t strictly necessary. See, I said “strictly” when I didn’t need to. See, I said “see” when I didn’t need to.
UNCLE! OK, ok, I cave. Point taken.
In fact, this guy seems to agree with you. Basically he’s saying, the “have got” contraction isn’t gramatically wrong, but the present conditional tense isn’t the most pleasant to the ear.
And now, I have got to move on…
Forgot to add:
I’m holding firm on the “where’s it at” thing, dadgummit.
It’s not actually any longer. Because you can’t say “Where’s it?” - that’s ungrammatical (try to say it if you don’t believe me - it’ll sound weird as hell), as you can’t contract “is” when it’s carrying stress. Adding the “at” allows the stress to move to that word, leaving you free to contract “Where is”. Your two choices are “Where is it?” and “Where’s it at?”, which are equal in length.
Incidentally, I looked at that - and the guy doesn’t make the slightest sense. How is that the “present conditional tense”? English doesn’t have conditional “tenses” - we express the same thing through auxiliary markers. Conditional clauses usually use “would”, as in “I would fly off to Bora Bora” (if I could get some time off work). “I have got” is not conditional at all.
No offense, but while I’m sure that eZine is an excellent resource for the Long Island gay community, this is the problem with people who don’t know much about grammar trying to tell the rest of us how to talk. He doesn’t even seem to understand “traditional grammar” of the sort taught in schools, much less more modern conceptions of how language works. The dude just doesn’t make sense here.
It gets worse if you read on - he starts talking about the passive voice - but none of the sentences he’s discussing use it! That term seems to be the most misused grammatical term in existence - people who right about it generally seem to think it means “sentences that I personally don’t like”. That sort of thing is covered in high school composition classes - we’re not talking stuff you have to learn in linguistics courses. There’s little excuse for not knowing it, and none at all for writing about it anyway.
“We must become ‘good grammar’ watchdogs.” Ironic that he’s flapping his gums about something he doesn’t know even the most basic things about. I guess that’s my battle that I won’t stop fighting - people who don’t have even the most basic knowledge of grammar (like the author of this article) simply shouldn’t be going around telling the rest of us how to talk. The trouble is that people who legitimately need resources on good writing style find this sort of crap instead, and end up confused and following silly superstitions and making their writing worse in the process.
Correct, you can’t contract “is” when it’s carrying stress. Which is why you don’t use the contraction, but rather say “where is it”, stressing the “is”.
Length doesn’t matter. As stated in this resource, do not use extra prepositions when the meaning is clear without them.
Fine. I give up. You’ve conclusively established your superiority in all things grammatical. Enjoy. 
I know this battle is lost, but “I could care less” seems entirely appropriate to me. Think about the tone of voice people use when they say it. It’s not something you can ever say to someone politely. It’s an insult.
In fact, to me the phrase has always been an obvious instance of sarcasm (again, listen to the tone of voice) and, like most sarcastic comments, deliberately states the opposite of what is meant.
“I could care less…”
Now, I will admit that many catch-phrases lose force when they are over-used, and one might argue that the innate sarcasm of this term has been diluted by over-use and by the tendency of people who both hear it and who speak it to treat it as a literal statement. Still, I’m always astounded at how many people regard this as obviously mistaken.
Another battle I know is lost: people who dismiss an argument with “Oh, you’re just arguing semantics.” I always want to respond with “Why, thank you for recognizing that. You, on the other hand, are merely arguing terminology.”
“Semantics” is the underlying meaning of whatever it is that we are talking about. What should we be discussing or arguing about if not the semantics? It’s only when the discussion has degenerated to disputes over the proper terminology to use to express those semantics that the argument has become trivial.