Re: Not usually.

Subject: Re: Not usually.
Author: Pads
Posted on: 2009-06-08 17:56:00 UTC

park, n. About 1300 parc, parke park, enclosed tract of land, game preserver; earlier, in parkselver fee paid for the privilege of maintaining a tract of enclosed land (1222); borrowed from Old French, possibly also from West Germanic parrik or parrak.
Related to paddock.
The verb parking is first recorded in 1526, meaning to enclose in a park. The meaning of putting a vehicle in a certain place is first recorded in 1844, in military use, though earlier applied to the placement of cannon in 1812.

I knew it was worth hassling my dad for an etymological dictionary for years.

Aye, the subject should always be we, not us, and my example of "us lot" was meant as object, but in fairness we use it informally as the subject too.

So far as I know from American telly, you lot tend to say "guys" where we say "lot". Am I right in thinking that?

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

another random grammar question by Pads on 2009-06-08 10:28:00 UTC Reply

So, pronouns in Old Norse come in singular, dual, and plural - I, we two, and we (in the nominative). But it's just occurred to me that, though we form it out of two words rather than one, we have a difference between dual and plural, at least in the accusative, and at least round my end - we say us two or us lot, and you two or you lot.

Does anyone else use two and, particularly, lot to distinguish between dual and plural? With the usual rider of "where are you when you do this or don't do this?"

Good old Brittania by Heliomance on 2009-06-10 01:54:00 UTC Reply

Normally I don't bother making the distinction, but "you two", "you lot", "us two", "us lot", or even "you three", "you four" etc don't sound odd to my ears.

good to know by Pads on 2009-06-10 02:39:00 UTC Reply

And you're whereabouts? Guessing the UK from the subject.

What I ought to do, since I rather suspect this comes over from the Vikings, is check if other Germanic languages have comparable constructions. Anyone speak German, Swedish, etc?

Indeed, UK. (nm) by Heliomance on 2009-06-11 08:47:00 UTC Reply

Not really. by Sedri on 2009-06-09 00:37:00 UTC Reply

I'll say "You two" sometimes, but only if the lack of context requires it. I might also say "the two of us", but I can't recall myself ever saying "us two", though it is possible. Usually I jut say "we".
Not usually. by Neshomeh on 2009-06-08 16:07:00 UTC Reply

Unless context alone wouldn't make it clear, "you" or "we" suffices here in the midwestern United States. If it is necessary to make a distinction, we'd probably say "the two of us/you" or "we/you all." Occasionally "we two" might occur, but not often in spoken form--too easy to confuse that with "we, too."

"Us" in place of "we" does happen, but in the subject, it's informal if not outright wrong usage.

"Lot" in that sense isn't in the dialect. A lot is either a number more than "some" or somewhere you park things.

Incidentally, I just had one of those moments where I notice how ridiculous a word is. Park. Honestly. What's up with that?

~Neshomeh

Re: Not usually. by Pads on 2009-06-08 17:56:00 UTC Reply

park, n. About 1300 parc, parke park, enclosed tract of land, game preserver; earlier, in parkselver fee paid for the privilege of maintaining a tract of enclosed land (1222); borrowed from Old French, possibly also from West Germanic parrik or parrak.
Related to paddock.
The verb parking is first recorded in 1526, meaning to enclose in a park. The meaning of putting a vehicle in a certain place is first recorded in 1844, in military use, though earlier applied to the placement of cannon in 1812.

I knew it was worth hassling my dad for an etymological dictionary for years.

Aye, the subject should always be we, not us, and my example of "us lot" was meant as object, but in fairness we use it informally as the subject too.

So far as I know from American telly, you lot tend to say "guys" where we say "lot". Am I right in thinking that?

Yep. by Neshomeh on 2009-06-08 21:55:00 UTC Reply

Usually it's "you guys", "those guys", or "hey, guys!"; "us guys" does happen, too, but not so much. The first three forms can refer to groups of either gender or mixed genders; it would be uncommon to use the last of anything but a group of men. No one would ever say "we guys" unless they were referring to a group of men and trying to sound intelligent (and probably failing at it).

Come to think of it, I've been known to say "that lot" or "the whole lot of them," but not often, and probably as a result of exposure to British English.

~Neshomeh

Re: Yep. by Pads on 2009-06-08 22:30:00 UTC Reply

That fits with what Trojie said - she's only ever heard British ex-pats use it. Still, I'll be interested to hear if it's spread anywhere else.

A different word entirely by Leto Haven on 2009-06-09 16:19:00 UTC Reply

What I tend to use on occasion is `both.` As in `both of us went to the store,` or `what, both of you?`

Don`t know if that helps.

Leto

Re: A different word entirely by Pads on 2009-06-10 02:45:00 UTC Reply

We do that too - technically one "ought" to say "we both went" rather than "both of us went", as us is the accusative form of the nominative we, but that one's certainly widespread and common enough to be standard spoken English.

What I'm more interested in this case is the modification of we, us or you to indicate number: as a child my siblings and I were always "you lot" (or occasionally "you three", which is standard); you lot are all PPCers; them lot over there are knobheads - that sort of thing. (And yes, I know "them lot" is horrible grammatically.) Both is good for you and one other, but how do you refer to three or four including yourself; how do you refer to a group of people distinct from a group you're talking about, that sort of thing.

Well... by WarriorJoe on 2009-06-10 03:27:00 UTC Reply

For the record, this is Minnesota, but this is also the Twin Cities. So urban upper Midwest.

Sometimes I use "you lot" or "that lot" or related, but I never heard many other people use that one, so it might just be me.

I hear "that bunch" sometimes, for more than two (or occasionally even for just two, but that's less common). "Those guys", "you guys", and other "guys" are also sort of common here. "You're", "we're", and "they're" are also common. But unless the people in question are commonly associated with each other (group of close friends, etc.), I rarely hear "you three" or similar.

As a side note, this one is almost definitely just me, but I call everyone in my age group "dude" in casual conversation. Boys and girls. I don't remember when I started doing that, but there we are.

Re: Well... by Pads on 2009-06-10 13:12:00 UTC Reply

Ah, the ubiquitous dude! Thank Glod that one hasn't caught on too strongly here. Although I have picked up d00ds from the lolcat bible, of all places, meaning one's people or men or army or whatever.

I can see where "that bunch" would come from - there's a similarity with a bunch of flowers. Makes slightly more sense than "that lot", at any rate.

*updates mental map of the spread of grammatical oddities*

Hey, dude, it's all cool, aight? by WarriorJoe on 2009-06-11 06:34:00 UTC Reply

*snort*

That one almost certainly grew out of either California surfer parlance or the 70's hippie culture. Maybe both. Which would explain why it's so rooted in America but not over in England.

Personally, I like it. Used as I use it it's a nice unisex phrase (because "dudette" sounds really stupid).

Re: Hey, dude, it's all cool, aight? by Pads on 2009-06-11 08:34:00 UTC Reply

In my experience, over here dude is said exclusively by people who smoke a lot of weed. Tends to be followed with an over-exaggerated "sweeeeeeet". No idea why.

I always thought it was a shame that bloke isn't used in America. It's a much better sound to it than guy has.

We say 'sweet' a lot as well by The Trojanhorse on 2009-06-11 09:43:00 UTC Reply

Generally in the form of 'sweet as', but often just 'sweet'. In NZ, 'sweet' means 'awesome' or 'fantastic' or 'okay, that's decided then'. For example, I have just been organising to go out with a friend tomorrow and we decided to meet at location X at time Z, and my response was 'sweet, dude', meaning 'excellent, we have reached a decision, I shall see you there.'

Much shorter!

Also comes in the form of 'sweetbix'. Which is probably just gratuitious word-mangling, really, along the lines of 'awesomesauce' and 'mintosaurus' (oh, yes, 'mint' is also a word of generic approval in NZ...)
Down in NZ we say dude a lot by The Trojanhorse on 2009-06-11 09:41:00 UTC Reply

Generally as an all-purpose naming word. I address the vast majority of my friends, male and female, as dude. Occasionally the female ones object, but not very often.

Interestingly, you know how when you're having an altercation with a stranger and they call you 'friend', and you know they don't mean it in any way in a friendly manner? Same thing happens with dude here, as in 'Hey, back off, dude.'

*cough* We? by Sedri on 2009-06-11 23:31:00 UTC Reply

:P

Of course, I don't count, exactly, not having been here long, but for the record I haven't heard the word "dude" used by people around me at all. "Sweet", yes - some Aussies did that, too.

Haven't heard "mint", though. What's it supposed to mean?

Maybe it's a Wellington thing by The Trojanhorse on 2009-06-12 20:56:00 UTC Reply

Mint means 'awesome' or 'perfect'. Probably came from 'mint condition', kinda thing? I dunno, I hypothesise without evidence :)
*wanders into the middle of the conversation* by tabbycat on 2009-06-12 13:22:00 UTC Reply

Seconded. I don't think I know anyone who regularly uses the word 'dude' :P

I do use 'sweet' a lot, though. It's just so useful :D

And 'mint' as far as I know just means 'awesome', or something similar.