Grammar Corner

[OmerV]

But the lazy southern drawl that morphs "you all" to y'all is acceptable because it predates your memory? You're straining at this when really these things are akin to one another.

What does this have to do with what you just quoted? Are you just jumping back to a different point because the last one didn't work?

But back to "ya'll" .... as I said before, every region has it's own quirks, and we all understand that. That's not what the use of "ratchet" is. The way "ratchet" is being used now isn't born out of hundreds of years of widespread use over a large region of the country, nor was it taking an entirely different word and commandeering it to mean something different because it happens to very vaguely sound like another word. It's a contraction, and like all contractions, was borne out of a natural tendency of people to condense speech.

In any case, if you find "ya'll" to be annoying, that's up to you. If I find "ratchet", as it is used by millennials, to be annoying, that's up to me.

 

[OmerV]

It was not an accepted contraction at first and is still not generally accepted in formal writing.

We aren't talking about formal writing, we are talking about every day speaking. People have always condensed speech - that's always been a natural tendency. It's why all contractions exist, including those that are acceptable in formal writing. Taking a word that with it's own definition and using it in place of another word with an entirely different definition because it sounds vaguely similar is not a natural tendency. You all, and ya'll have the same definition, ratchet and wretched don't. People don't get to decide batch means beach because the words sound vaguely similar.

 

[Runwildboys]

It was not an accepted contraction at first and is still not generally accepted in formal writing.

How does that equate to the use of "ratchet"?

 

[Runwildboys]

What does this have to do with what you just quoted? Are you just jumping back to a different point because the last one didn't work?

But back to "ya'll" .... as I said before, every region has it's own quirks, and we all understand that. That's not what the use of "ratchet" is. The way "ratchet" is being used now isn't born out of hundreds of years of widespread use over a large region of the country, nor was it taking an entirely different word and commandeering it to mean something different because it happens to very vaguely sound like another word. It's a contraction, and like all contractions, was borne out of a natural tendency of people to condense speech.

In any case, if you find "ya'll" to be annoying, that's up to you. If I find "ratchet", as it is used by millennials, to be annoying, that's up to me.

I think you confused yourself. In one sentence, you started off talking about "y'all", then switched to "ratchet", as if you were still talking about "y'all". Lol

 

[rynochop]

Exactly.

If someone is arguing that it's redundant or technically incorrect, I will wholeheartedly agree. However, folks claiming that it's not a recognized word or even in the dictionary are not dealing with reality.

You're just arguing with semantics then..just say regardless, it's the same thing without being pretentious
It's a sore spot with me cause I used to work with this woman that said it all the time and acted holier than thou..I liked her otherwise but it drove me crazy

 

[OmerV]

I think you confused yourself. In one sentence, you started off talking about "y'all", then switched to "ratchet", as if you were still talking about "y'all". Lol

I started off talking about ya'll saying it was a regional quirk, but went on to talk about ratchet by saying that it is not a regional quirk. But I do see that my last sentence in that paragraph starting with "it's a contraction" may have seemed like I was still talking about ratchet.

 

[Runwildboys]

I started off talking about ya'll saying it was a regional quirk, but went on to talk about ratchet by saying that it is not a regional quirk. But I do see that my last sentence in that paragraph starting with "it's a contraction" may have seemed like I was still talking about ratchet.

Read your sentence that starts with, "The way 'ratchet' is being used now..."

 

[OmerV]

Read your sentence that starts with, "The way 'ratchet' is being used now..."

Oops, lol. I see it now. I think I wrote, and then revised part of the sentence without realizing it wouldn't fit with the rest of the sentence.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

We aren't talking about formal writing, we are talking about every day speaking. People have always condensed speech - that's always been a natural tendency. It's why all contractions exist, including those that are acceptable in formal writing. Taking a word that with it's own definition and using it in place of another word with an entirely different definition because it sounds vaguely similar is not a natural tendency. You all, and ya'll have the same definition, ratchet and wretched don't. People don't get to decide batch means beach because the words sound vaguely similar.

"We're talking about everyday speech [...]"

Yeah, precisely.

People have and will continue to *******ize language. You're hurt by it. I'm not tripping over the etymology of the slang term. You're stuck on it.

 

[Runwildboys]

"We're talking about everyday speech [...]"

Yeah, precisely.

People have and will continue to *******ize language. You're hurt by it. I'm not tripping over the etymology of the slang term. You're stuck on it.

You seem to be hurt by the fact that we dislike the use of the word, so you keep trying to justify it with moot points.
You seem like an intelligent person, so I don't think you actually believe most of your own argument. I think you just wanted to debate something.

 

[OmerV]

"We're talking about everyday speech [...]"

Yeah, precisely.

People have and will continue to *******ize language. You're hurt by it. I'm not tripping over the etymology of the slang term. You're stuck on it.

I'm "hurt by it". lol

We are talking about something I find irritating. You are trying to make a drama out of it. Maybe it's different for you, but everything I find irritating is not a dramatic thing in my life.

The thread was created to talk about things people do with the language we find irritating. The point of the thread was not to initiate the kind of drama you think it conjures up. And it certainly wasn't to prompt someone to repeatedly come up with irrelevant apples to tuna fish comparisons to dispute how I feel about a particular term being used these days.

You don't have to feel the same way I do, just as I don't have to feel the same way you do about something you find irritating. The difference is you seem to have a strange compulsion to try and make me feel the same way you do.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You're just arguing with semantics then..just say regardless, it's the same thing without being pretentious
It's a sore spot with me cause I used to work with this woman that said it all the time and acted holier than thou..I liked her otherwise but it drove me crazy

I don't think you understand the meaning of semantics then. We aren't debating the meaning of the word irregardless.

This is a binary concept (not semantics). That being is it a recognized word or not? The answer is yes (I've provided multiple supporting references twice now). Whether it's informal, redundant, incorrect or otherwise is a second-order question unrelated to the first.

I think you obviously have an emotional connection to the word/debate based on the story you mentioned. However, it doesn't objectivly change the facts.

 

[rynochop]

I don't think you understand the meaning of semantics then. We aren't debating the meaning of the word irregardless.

This is a binary concept (not semantics). That being is it a recognized word or not? The answer is yes (I've provided multiple supporting references twice now). Whether it's informal, redundant, incorrect or otherwise is a second-order question unrelated to the first.

I think you obviously have an emotional connection to the word/debate based on the story you mentioned. However, it doesn't objectivly change the facts.

Irregardless I'm sure we can agree theres no point putting Ir before it

 

[CouchCoach]

It was not an accepted contraction at first and is still not generally accepted in formal writing.

Pshaw, says y’all.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You seem to be hurt by the fact that we dislike the use of the word, so you keep trying to justify it with moot points.
You seem like an intelligent person, so I don't think you actually believe most of your own argument. I think you just wanted to debate something.

That's cute. You took the very things I said about you and said them about me. They're only "moot" points because you don't want to acknowledge and deal with them. Don't confuse your generic blanket response as an actual substanative argument.

 

[Runwildboys]

That's cute. You took the very things I said about you and said them about me. They're only "moot" points because you don't want to acknowledge and deal with them. Don't confuse your generic blanket response as an actual substanative argument.

They're moot points because they're irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the basis of the argument.
Calling my statements "cute" or "generic blanket responses" is a nice try at deflecting them, but every point I've made is valid, whereas every effort you've made to justify your point of view is simply trying to baffle me with BS.
You claim the word y'all is on the same level as ratchet, but it's simply a contraction, which is completely different, rendering it moot...I already addressed that.

Tell me what else I didn't "acknowledge and deal with".

 

[OmerV]

They're moot points because they're irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the basis of the argument.
Calling my statements "cute" or "generic blanket responses" is a nice try at deflecting them, but every point I've made is valid, whereas every effort you've made to justify your point of view is simply trying to baffle me with BS.
You claim the word y'all is on the same level as ratchet, but it's simply a contraction, which is completely different, rendering it moot...I already addressed that.

Tell me else I didn't "acknowledge and deal with".

Yeah, I don't get equating a contraction with taking a word with one meaning, and using it as a substitute for another word with an entirely different meaning simply because there is a faint similarity in how they sound. It's not hard to understand why people contract words in informal speech, but to treat unrelated words as if they have the same meaning is not the same thing.

 

[Xelda]

It was only a bye week, I promise! Y'all are about to lose your minds over grammar. Save something for the off season.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I don't recall hearing this misused often, to be honest.

Then try to get out more often. Broadcasters, teens, adults, may confuse the two.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

It was not an accepted contraction at first and is still not generally accepted in formal writing.

No thesis, no job application, no formal presentation would pass muster using y'all. Y'all is strictly feedlot or bowling night lingo. But idiots will write here, "Ha! Y'all don't know nothing" and will think themselves vaguely original ...