Has slang ever improved the English language?

[MissGypsy]

@InvisibleWombat

English has a perfectly good second-person plural: you. Slang use of the plural “you” instead of the singular “thou” caused us to need a new plural. Now that “y’all” is being used as a singular in many parts of the south, the abomination “all y’all” (or, if you’re from Pittsburgh, “you’uns”) is the new plural.

I disagree.

The second-person plural “you” is not easily understood, in precise English.

Person A: “Do you want to come to lunch with us?”
Persons B & C: “Who, me? Or both of us?”

Person A: “Do y’all want to come to lunch with us?”
Persons B & C: “No, we can’t stand y’all!”

Of course, in South Philly, there’s another interesting alternative… “you’se”. As in, “You’se better be home for Christmas this year!” (I want to respond, “We’s’ll be there.”) I think it means “you and yours,” as in you and your family, but I’ve not asked yet.

[asterion]

@InvisibleWombat

English has a perfectly good second-person plural: you. Slang use of the plural “you” instead of the singular “thou” caused us to need a new plural. Now that “y’all” is being used as a singular in many parts of the south, the abomination “all y’all” (or, if you’re from Pittsburgh, “you’uns”) is the new plural.

It’s not “you’uns,” it’s “younz” as in “Younz guys wanna watch the Steelers game?” except I can’t get the pronunciation of “Steelers” right.

I know I’m right, because I saw it on a T-shirt in Altoona.

[Guinastasia]

@asterion

It’s not “you’uns,” it’s “younz” as in “Younz guys wanna watch the Steelers game?” except I can’t get the pronunciation of “Steelers” right.

I know I’m right, because I saw it on a T-shirt in Altoona.

Actually, “younz” comes from Westmoreland country. The TRUE Pittsburgh version is yinz.

It’s “Yinz guys gonna watch dem Stillers an’at?”

And I know I’M right, because I live here an’at.

[Ruken]

MissGypsy, take a look at what you quoted.

Slang use of the plural “you” instead of the singular “thou” caused us to need a new plural.

You used to be exclusively second-person-plural. Thou was exclusively second-person-singular. The “slang” usage of you for both singular and plural is what led to today’s confusion.

You say “precise English”, but your precise English is slang if you look back a few hundred years.

[MissGypsy]

@Ruken

MissGypsy, take a look at what you quoted.You used to be exclusively second-person-plural. Thou was exclusively second-person-singular. The “slang” usage of you for both singular and plural is what led to today’s confusion.

You say “precise English”, but your precise English is slang if you look back a few hundred years.

You got me, there. I was just thinking of typical modern-day English usage.

[RealityChuck]

@The Controvert

If English were more efficient, it would be easier to learn. Most of the people here are already proficient, so perhaps we forgot about the long years needed to learn grammar and spelling.

Sorry, but English grammar is probably the simplest of any language. No gender. No declensions. Simpler verb conjugations.

For instance, compare the simple verb “to walk” in English and French:

English: I walk, you walk, he/she walks, we walk, you walk, they walk.

Two different verb forms.

French: je promène, tu promènes, Il/Elle promène, Nous promenons, Vous promenez, Ils/elles promènent.

Five different verb forms.

Even, “to be” – a verb that’s irregular in all languages – is easier in English:

I am, you are, he/she is, We are, you are, They are.

Three different forms.

French: Je suis, tu es, Il/Elle est, Nous sommes, vous êtes, Ils/Elles sont

Six different forms. You’ll find similar results from conjugating verbs in most other languages, too. Clearly, English grammar is easier.

Admittedly, spelling is an issue, but since most slang terms are easy to spell (it’s older words like through, cough, pneumonia, etc., that cause the trouble), you should be welcoming more slang into the language as a way to make spelling easier.

If we could cut the learning time by a few years, people could do other things with that time.

And how would leaving slang out of the language cut the learning time?

And as for the “long years of learning” – nearly everyone knows the rules of the language before they start school. The school is only teaching the names of rules that you already know and have internalized completely. You would easily understand why the sentence “I saw the movie we had discussed in class” is written with the tenses it has, even if you don’t know that “had discussed” is the past perfect tense (I didn’t – I had to look it up). Most grammar instruction in US schools is redundant and unnecessary in order to learn the language.

Also, English might be adopted as a world-wide language and improve international relations and promote world peace.

It already is adopted as a world-wide language. There was that memorable example in The Story of English (which I suggest you read before spouting off on this subject) of an Italian pilot, flying over Italy, and talking to an Italian control tower – and they’re speaking English. English is taught as the main second language in every non-English-speaking country in the world. It is, de facto, exactly the world-wide language you think it won’t be until it becomes “easier.”

[sciurophobic]

“Kid” once only meant “young goat.” Only later did it become slang for child. I don’t think anyone today would consider it slang.

kid | Origin and meaning of kid by Online Etymology Dictionary

[liberty3701]

@The Controvert

From a linguistic point of view, there are many problems and inefficiencies in the English.

The mind boggles. “From a linguistic point of view”? Surely you don’t mean from actual linguists because I can tell you, no reputable linguist will ever say such a thing. Other people have said this already, but all language comes with inefficencies, that’s the beauty of language.

Slang generally worsens the situation. I can’t imagine Snoop’s izzle-speak being much of an improvement. 733t-5p33k is pretty much an abomination.

Interesting … I would venture to guess that 733t-5p33k is not slang since it can only be written… And I think the -izzle thing is so five minutes ago…

My question is whether there has ever been an improvement as a result of slang. Is it that far-fetched to believe that someone could come up with a solution to a linguistic problem and sneak it in as a slang fix (acting as something of a retrovirus to cure the ills of the English language)?

You can’t “fix” language change except by killing the language. Latin doesn’t have a slang problem, neither does Manx or any other number of extinct languages. English is a thriving language, and it will continue to change, be it through slang, “mistakes,” etc, etc.

If English were more efficient, it would be easier to learn. Most of the people here are already proficient, so perhaps we forgot about the long years needed to learn grammar and spelling. (And all of the exceptions to the rules)

I think you’re thinking of all those stupid prescriptivist stuff you learn in school, which does take forever to learn because it often goes against what you learned in spoken English. They don’t have to teach you to not put adjectives after the noun because you would probably never do that in English. Learning how to speak English when you’re born in an English speaking household/community is no harder than learning Tagalog or Navajo if you grew up listening and interacting in it.

If we could cut the learning time by a few years, people could do other things with that time. Also, English might be adopted as a world-wide language and improve international relations and promote world peace.

It’s already more or less world-wide. And I really don’t think any language would improve IR or bring about world peace. Plenty of people who speak the same language can’t get along, and forcing other people to speak your language will only piss em off.

coughSri LankacoughBelgiumcoughUS English Movementcough

Sorry about that, think I’m coming down with a cold.

And for the record, I don’t think you, The Controvert, are advocating that the whole world only speak English, but, yeah, I just like to point out how ridiculous that is incase any of you’se guys were thinking about it.

[goitazi]

Originally Posted by MissGypsy
Of course, in South Philly, there’s another interesting alternative… “you’se”.

Youse is common in Australia, too. I’ve been told, perhaps unreliably, that it originates from Ireland - is there perhaps an Irish population in the area? Do Bostonians tend to use this expression?

(I want to respond, “We’s’ll be there.”)

I wouldn’t. Youse makes sense because it’s a plural of “you.” One you, two youse. We is already a plural.

I’d say slang absolutely improves the English language. What better way to customize it to your particular social or cultural group? What better way to show inclusiveness or exclusiveness?

Also, I think “finna” is a great word and, it, in itself adds to our language.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

A great article in the NY Times about cuss words (registration required). According to the (highly speculative, but very entertaining) article, swearing may predate our species. Railing against swearing and other forms of slang may therefore be like railing against your knuckles: it’s so much a part of you, there’s no way you can rid yourself of it.

Controvert, I’ve been recommending the book The Language Instinct to a lot of people lately. I think you’d be fascinated by it, especially by the chapter early on that talks about attempts to establish an international language, and why they’ve inevitably failed. Some of the attempts have been extraordinarily efficient, too–one language consisted entirely of five-letter words whose meaning could be derived from the letters making up the word, according to a complex taxonomy.

Daniel

[Bosstone]

Thought experiment: See if you can come up with one single word that neatly encapsulates the entire nuanced meaning of flame (as in “That controversial OP got a lot of flames” or “Let the flaming begin”) that existed before flame did.

Some slang may grate on your ears, but consider that there’s just as many new words that you don’t count as slang because they don’t grate; instead they provide us with ways of talking about new concepts in other expressive ways. People rarely say “I’m going to put this in the microwave oven;” they say “I’m going to nuke this.” That’s slang. Even “I’m going to microwave this” is slang; it’s a verb formed out of a noun that lets you know exactly what the speaker is planning on doing. To be more precise, they were slang, then the general populace started using them.

Slang words are merely colloquialisms people disapprove of.