you was

[Rezia]

So here is a phrase
"I said as you was in bed and I wasn't sure if you were receiving".
It's peculiar that there's "you was" and "you were" (reported speech case) in one context. I wonder why it is so. It's clear that "you was" characterizes the colloquial nature of the talk and describes the speech of a hero who is a servant in a family. But why didn't he say "you was" for the third time? I bet it's some grammar trick...

[RawonaM]

But why didn't he say "you was" for the third time? I bet it's some grammar trick...

I guess it's in the subjunctive. Like "if I were" instead of "if I was".

[Rezia]

Yes, but "I was" in Subjunctive is more usual than "I were" for conversational manner.

[RawonaM]

Yes, but "I was" in Subjunctive is more usual than "I were" for conversational manner.

And so? This speaker's idiolect preserves the subjunctive.

[Bifrost]

A person here, whose native language is English, has just told it to be this way due to subjunctive mood. 8)

[Rezia]

Nice. Thank you. So Rawonam was right.

[paul_kiss]

But why...

I think for the same reason why many people (native speakers) say, "he don't give a damn about it".

...or ->
"we be body rocking"...

[Dark]

Remember "The Tribute" by Tenacious D?
"It was a long time ago,
Me and my brother Kyle here...
We WAS hitch-hiking
Down a long and lonesome road..."

What would you say about that?

[Elik]

There's nothing curious about it.

It's just another example of the vernacular speech. Some uneducated speakers do not conjugate the verb to be properly. You can meet such expressions rather often.

[macabro]

Ehh. I consider it's not uneducated speech, but just an example of variety of dialects. Native speakers always speak properly, no matter how they actually do it. imo

[Drunkie]

Native speakers always speak properly

Rubbish. Native speakers are often completely ignorant about their own language. Very often, in fact.

[RawonaM]

Native speakers always speak properly

Rubbish. Native speakers are often completely ignorant about their own language. Very often, in fact.

They don't have to know anything about their own language, they simply speak. Speakers may speak differently from the standard language (in fact, more often than not), this shows that the standard variety is not their own language.

[Drunkie]

They don't have to know anything about their own language, they simply speak.

That's right, but it doesn't mean that they speak 'properly'. That depends, of course, on how you define the notion of 'properly', which is completely subjective. What's proper among one group of people is totally improper among another group. 'You was' may be proper for redneck louts, junkies and gangstazz, but it is not proper for university graduates.
The bottom line is: you may say 'you was' as much as you want, but then don't expect to be taken seriously in any educated company. 

[RawonaM]

Drinkie, if you have not done it so far, please read this: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php/topic,2636.0.html

[Drunkie]

Drinkie, unless you have not done it so far, please read this: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php/topic,2636.0.html

Of course I have read it: a few times, actually. And I don't see any contradiction between what I said here and what you said there. If you think there is any, can you be more specific please?

[paul_kiss]

I think native speakers are always right, and textbooks are wrong. I mean if a native speaker says "this is black" and a textbook says "this is white", the truth is that the true color is black. Because they're native speakers. This is _their_ language. And they feel it, while someone may just _know_about_ it.

[Rezia]

There's nothing curious about it.

It's just another example of the vernacular speech. Some uneducated speakers do not conjugate the verb to be properly. You can meet such expressions rather often.

Well, I think it's quite a common phenomenon typical for informal speech.
Veihman in his book "New in English Grammar" emphasizes tha fact that such cases are frequent and provides the following number of examples:

Here's your keys; There's some children at the door .
Where's those records I lent you? What's her chances? ; How's your distribution plans coming along?

[Drunkie]

Because they're native speakers. This is _their_ language. And they feel it, while someone may just _know_about_ it

What utter rot. If I say black is white and white is black in Russian, that doesn't make it right just because I'm a native speaker, for f**k's sake!

[Drunkie]

If a Cockney lad says "trouble and strife" and the textbook says "wife", then should I consider that the Cockney lad is right just because he's a native speaker? And if he's RIGHT, then perhaps I should switch to ALWAYS saying "trouble and strife" to ALL English speakers in ALL situations? Or maybe it would be sensible to still stick to "wife", as the bleeding textbook says?

[Rezia]

If a Cockney lad says "trouble and strife" and the textbook says "wife", then should I consider that the Cockney lad is right just because he's a native speaker? And if he's RIGHT, then perhaps I should switch to ALWAYS saying "trouble and strife" to ALL English speakers in ALL situations? Or maybe it would be sensible to still stick to "wife", as the bleeding textbook says?

One shouldn't exaggerate, really. And rhyming slang (your "trouble and strife" example) appeared as a code for communication, so the situation you're suggesting is quite absurd .

[paul_kiss]

What utter rot

Heh, and what's that? "Utter rot". Never heard anything like that from any native speaker. Well, if you believe in textbooks that much, go teach native speakers how they have to speak.

[Drunkie]

so the situation you're suggesting is quite absurd

Of course it is absurd. But would it not be absurd to talk to an English-speaking stranger in the manner of hiphop performers? "Hey bro, whazzup. I thinks you is kinda lame, bitch, huh?"

"Utter rot". Never heard anything like that from any native speaker.

Of course you haven't. It's not an expression that 'dem niggaz' would use in their rap lyrics. But my lad, if you haven't heard something, that does not automatically mean that it doesn't exist.

if you believe in textbooks that much, go teach native speakers how they have to speak

I haven't even held an English textbook in my hands since I was out of school, and that was more than ten years ago. I've got plenty of practice talking to real English people.
Hey, I passed through that stage as well - listening to Public Enemy tracks and thinking 'gosh, that's what this language REALLY sounds like'. Well, tough luck - it's only like that if you are in some coloured inner city in LA or NYC. Elsewhere, it's not.
Anyway, I've had enough of this you was/he don't bullcrap. Go on, use it. You'll make a fool out of yourself, not me, so why the bloody hell should I care.

[paul_kiss]

But my lad, if you haven't heard something, that does not automatically mean that it doesn't exist.

I didnt say it dont exist. I just said what I said - "what's this?"

Go on, use it.

No, thanks. I can't really speak like that, just using it occasionally "pah preekoloo". So your sarcasm isn't "bull's eye" here.

[Drunkie]

I didnt say it dont exist. I just said what I said - "what's this?"

If you don't know what it is, go read the dictionary. It might actually do you good.

[paul_kiss]

Lingvo doesn't have your "utter rot".

I think you yourself are exagerrating with these "characteristic" expressions, while keeping your righteous struggle against all vernacular stuff. Am I right?

And I may suggest you to read other people's posts more throroughly so you can't say "if you've not heard... it don't mean it doesn't exist" if a person just said "I haven't heard it, what does it mean?".

I will certainly do good for you.