Лингвофорум

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...

Цитата: reziaBut 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".

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

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

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

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

Nice. Thank you. So Rawonam was right.

Цитата: Rezia (2005-07-17, 23:53:59)
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"...

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?

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.

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

Цитата: "macabro" от
Native speakers always speak properly

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

Цитата: Drunkie от декабря  5, 2005, 11:40

Цитата: "macabro" от
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.

Цитата: "RawonaM" от
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. 

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

Цитата: "RawonaM" от
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?

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.

Цитата: Elik от декабря  5, 2005, 07:24
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:

Цитата: 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?

Цитата: "paul_kiss" от
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!

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?

Цитата: Drunkie от декабря  6, 2005, 10:01
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 :).

Цитата: "Drunkie" от 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.

Цитата: "Rezia" от
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?"

Цитата: "paul_kiss" от
"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.

Цитата: "paul_kiss" от
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.

Цитата: "Drunkie" от
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?"

Цитата: "Drunkie" от 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.

Цитата: "paul_kiss" от
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.

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.

It don't have "utter rot", huh, matey? Maybe it have "utter" and "rot', huh, doncha think? Carnt you put them two together?

I'm in no struggle against vernacular stuff. I just want it kept where it belongs - i.e. away from ignorant language-learners.

Came across an interesting quote, so thought I might share it with you guys, especially our dear paul_kiss:
"To me, Cockney speaking men sound completely illiterate - almost as bad as some black American English speakers."
Those are a British woman's words. Pretty telling, isn't it?

Цитата: "Drunkie" от Pretty telling, isn't it?

Maybe. But whoever this British woman is this quote is nothing more than her opinion. I do share it to some extend but not completely. Someone may say whatever he/she wants to, I don't think it's wise to trust those words that much  and make them kind of something "telling".

Imagine, that some English speaking learner of your mother tongue (I guess it's Rus) starts to correct you because your speach don't fit some points in the textbook that learner learnt Russian with. I really don't think the truth will totally be on that English speaking Russian language learner's side. Whatever is written in his book you know better how to speak Russian, don't you?

The paragraph above doesn't really touch vernacular stuff only. It's rather the matter of the whole approach to this issue.

Цитата: "Drunkie" от Maybe it have "utter" and "rot', huh, doncha think? Carnt you put them two together?

Well, that's exactly what I did. And of course the meaning itself's clear. I just never heard these 2 words used together.

And by the way, thanks for a chance to look into the dictionary, as for this "rot" Lingvo gives a damn good phrase:
"ROT YOU, SIR!" Sounds quite noble, ain't it? Not some vulgar "F you!", but "rot you, sir!"

I think "utter rot" may be translated into Rus as "гон"...

Цитата: "paul_kiss" от
starts to correct you because your speach don't fit some points in the textbook that learner learnt Russian with. I really don't think the truth will totally be on that English speaking Russian language learner's side

Well if he corrects my referring to "кофе" as "оно" instead of "он" (which is my usual habit), I'm afraid he'll be right. In fact, many of the things that I say when speaking (supposedly) Russian would be frowned at by scholars. Again, if a native speaker says something, that doesn't make it 'correct'. It may be appropriate in some contexts and situations, but not necessarily 'correct'. How many times does this simple truth have to be repeated?

Цитата: "paul_kiss" от
"ROT YOU, SIR!" Sounds quite noble, ain't it? Not some vulgar "F you!", but "rot you, sir!"

Yeah, sound quite noble it does. Never heard that one before, though.

There - I've said it myself - 'usual habit'. Google it and you'll see that countless native English speakers use it all the time, but it is NOT correct, because a habit can ONLY be usual.

Цитата: "Drunkie" от
In fact, many of the things that I say when speaking (supposedly) Russian would be frowned at by scholars.

Supposedly Russian? If not Russian, then what? :) Drunkie, if by 'scholars' you mean 'linguists', then I want to inform you that they do not frown at any language. If you meant chemists and mathematicians, you're right.

Guys, you just mean different notions using the same word. Drunkie uses 'correct' in the sense "corresponds to the standard language", whereas paul_kiss is talking about linguistic 'correct' (which is indeed everything that a native speaker utters).

Цитата: "RawonaM" от
Supposedly Russian? If not Russian, then what? 

Well, it is Russian but not, er, quite really Russian. Come on, you were born in Ukraine, you must know what I mean :)

Цитата: Drunkie от декабря  7, 2005, 21:37

Цитата: "RawonaM" от
Supposedly Russian? If not Russian, then what? 

Well, it is Russian but not, er, quite really Russian. Come on, you were born in Ukraine, you must know what I mean :)

It does not matter where I was born, you wanted to say "not Standard Russian". But it's Russian anyway. :)

The use of "you was" in the example given by the OP (original poster) has nothing to do with the subjunctive. It is just dialect/sloppy speech.

Let's look at this sentence:

"I said as you was in bed and I wasn't sure if you were receiving".

First of all, "as you was in bed" does not call for the subjunctive. You can check this by trying to use the first person: "as I was in bed, I couldn't get to the phone".  So the first "you was" is just dialect/relaxed English.

The second case, that of "if you were receiving", does not call for the subjunctive either. Try putting it in the first person: "he wasn't sure if I was doing such and such a thing or not". There is no mystery here: the person mixes his usage, sometimes saying "you was" and sometimes saying "you were".

The subjunctive is called for in phrases like "if I were you", but we could go off on a tangent about whether grammar should be prescriptive or descriptive. Conservative speakers in England say "if I were you", but the indicative is used for the subjunctive by what is apparently a majority of native speakers in England today. They would therefore say "if I was you".

However, "if you were receiving" is not a subjunctive-type clause. It is not every if-clause that calls for the subjunctive. The more counterfactual uses do call for it, or at least do so in traditional usage. "I didn't knock the door, as I didn't know if he was indoors or not". This is not subjunctive, and you can't say "he were" in this sentence. "If he were standing on the moon, he would feel the effects of the moon's lighter gravitational pull". This calls for the subjunctive, as he is not on the moon, and the example is totally counterfactual.

Similar to the use of "was" for "were" is "goes" for "go". Look at this conversation:

"I goes, 'where are you going tonight?'"
"He goes, 'to the pub.'"
"I goes, 'can I come along?"

It is a lame conversation, but it's all I can think of right now. I goes, he goes, I goes, he goes, reports the various "entries" in the conversation. It really means "I said", "then he said", "then I said". As this use of "go" for "said" is already a very relaxed way of talking, it is normally found with "I goes", rather than "I go".

Thank you very much for your participation in the discussion. I think that here the speaker ( by using this "if you were" )took his last chance to sound educated as maybe he realised that he was not correct in the first "you was".