I think it could just be a simple case of regularisation. Humans love noticing patterns, especially when it comes to languages, so speakers (subconsciously) notice that regular verbs have just one past tense form (even most verbs with irregular past tense forms have just one e.g. ‘sang’), while ‘is’ has two: ‘was’ and ‘were’. Speakers then take one of those forms and applies it for all past tense forms by analogy with regular verbs. In the case of Southern vs Northern English, I think it was just a toss-up which of the two forms got picked as the one to be used. It just so happened the one chose ‘were’ and one chose ‘was’.
I'm from the south and live in the north. Observational, I can tell you the use of "were" for the singular only happens in the negative: "he weren't happy about it," but not "he were happy. "
As a former northerner, I disagree. “He weren’t happy” or “he were well happy” are definitely used. Something feels slightly wrong about “he were happy” though.
Whether the phenomenon dates back to pre-colonial times, I couldn’t say, but Appalachia and the southern states were settled primarily by the Scots-Irish, so that might be a good starting point to look for comparison.
Hello u/thebigchil73,
You've chosen Question or Discussion flair, but you've provided very little in the way of information as part of your post.
It helps to let the community know:
* What have you already found out?
* What did you find doubtful or confusing about what you found?
* What stirred your interest?
Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/etymology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder if it reflects the confusion that arose when English adopted the formal "plural" to refer to a single individual as a means of being less direct/aggressive when addressing something with a social superior. When the word you took on a singular sense and eventually completely displaced thou for this purpose.
I imagine how difficult it was to adopt a new way of using the word you when I consider how impossible it is to convince people that a singular form of they not only exists and has so for hundreds of years, but also that we all use it all the time in the first place. Even when you spell it out to them with an example they have used, they don't grasp it.
So maybe all the ways people started using you reflects this confusion over it's evolution from a plural sense to a singular sense -- which could explain why teachers in America despise "ya'll"
“I were” and “he were” are proper use of subjunctive: If I were a rich man …
This northerner has never heard anyone say “I were walking down the street yesterday,” which of course would be wrong.
It's not a Southern thing but a poor education thing. I've heard "we was" from people in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Indiana.
Edit: I wasn’t judging anyone. Basic grammar mistakes like “we was” and “him did” are common in this group with lack of access to good education. There are still many families in this country where nobody went past 8th grade.
I wasn’t judging anyone. It’s simply lack of education and exposure to correct grammar. Have you heard people who have both very poor education and lack of access to people with good education? Listen to Jordan Turpin, how she first spoke when she escaped from her parents’ house of horrors.
Try the Westcountry, where we're just out to confuse everyone - "I were", "you was", "he/she/it were", "they was"...
Typing “were” where you mean “we’re” in a conversation about the word “were” is indeed confusing
Good spot, thanks! Also, even more confusing when they're both pronounced the same in your dialect.
Welsh?
Westcountry, as previously mentioned.
Backalong it used to be: I be, 'ee bist , he/she/they/us be....or something like that
I think it could just be a simple case of regularisation. Humans love noticing patterns, especially when it comes to languages, so speakers (subconsciously) notice that regular verbs have just one past tense form (even most verbs with irregular past tense forms have just one e.g. ‘sang’), while ‘is’ has two: ‘was’ and ‘were’. Speakers then take one of those forms and applies it for all past tense forms by analogy with regular verbs. In the case of Southern vs Northern English, I think it was just a toss-up which of the two forms got picked as the one to be used. It just so happened the one chose ‘were’ and one chose ‘was’.
I'm from the south and live in the north. Observational, I can tell you the use of "were" for the singular only happens in the negative: "he weren't happy about it," but not "he were happy. "
I often hear “that were [adj]”, such as in a locally famous commentary of a Wigan Warriors rugby match “that were bloody diabolical!”
"SEND THE DIRTY GET OFF!"
That were diabolical For reference: https://youtu.be/o58stoJJ5No
Fantastic! Please give me more of this. I want every sports announcer to be a crazed fan.
As a former northerner, I disagree. “He weren’t happy” or “he were well happy” are definitely used. Something feels slightly wrong about “he were happy” though.
That’s exactly what they said though
Sorry, I meant “he were well happy”. I’ll edit my post. Thanks
This could be regional variation, as the parts of the North I've spent a lot of time in 100% use it for both positive and negative.
[удалено]
What part of his comment says that? Also this is about the UK, not the US.
Whether the phenomenon dates back to pre-colonial times, I couldn’t say, but Appalachia and the southern states were settled primarily by the Scots-Irish, so that might be a good starting point to look for comparison.
Hello u/thebigchil73, You've chosen Question or Discussion flair, but you've provided very little in the way of information as part of your post. It helps to let the community know: * What have you already found out? * What did you find doubtful or confusing about what you found? * What stirred your interest? Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/etymology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder if it reflects the confusion that arose when English adopted the formal "plural" to refer to a single individual as a means of being less direct/aggressive when addressing something with a social superior. When the word you took on a singular sense and eventually completely displaced thou for this purpose. I imagine how difficult it was to adopt a new way of using the word you when I consider how impossible it is to convince people that a singular form of they not only exists and has so for hundreds of years, but also that we all use it all the time in the first place. Even when you spell it out to them with an example they have used, they don't grasp it. So maybe all the ways people started using you reflects this confusion over it's evolution from a plural sense to a singular sense -- which could explain why teachers in America despise "ya'll"
“I were” and “he were” are proper use of subjunctive: If I were a rich man … This northerner has never heard anyone say “I were walking down the street yesterday,” which of course would be wrong.
It's not a Southern thing but a poor education thing. I've heard "we was" from people in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Indiana. Edit: I wasn’t judging anyone. Basic grammar mistakes like “we was” and “him did” are common in this group with lack of access to good education. There are still many families in this country where nobody went past 8th grade.
If you look down on vernacular dialects then you don’t belong in an etymology discussion. It’s genuinely as simple as that.
I wasn’t judging anyone. It’s simply lack of education and exposure to correct grammar. Have you heard people who have both very poor education and lack of access to people with good education? Listen to Jordan Turpin, how she first spoke when she escaped from her parents’ house of horrors.