[Grammar] understanding singular/plural - You were drinking some water

[HeartShape]

Hi,

I just want to clarify my understanding on the following:

I have the following two sentences (sentence 2 is incorrect).

1. You were drinking some water.
2. [STRIKE] You was drinking some water.[/STRIKE]

The sentence looks singular because there is only one subject as in one person, but the reason we use plural verb "were" is because when we talk about someone it is always in the plural form because there are two people: "I" (first person) and "you" (second person).

So when we talk about someone, the other person you talk about becomes the "you", second person, which is the reason why the following sentence is plural. Is this understanding correct?

 

[Rover_KE]

I don't know, but I can tell you that you'll hear a great many people saying 'you was', 'we was' and 'they was'.

If they know it's wrong, they don't care (unlike us – who do).

 

[HeartShape]

I don't know, but I can tell you that you'll hear a great many people saying 'you was', 'we was' and 'they was'.

If they know it's wrong, they don't care (unlike us – who do).

That's because they don't understand grammar.

 

[HeartShape]

I think I should mention this: there is the other way of identifying when to use singular or plural is simply by recognizing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd form. But for my personal understanding I really want to break down the idea into something logical to help better understand the idea behind it.

 

[jutfrank]

Are you asking whether the reason we conjugate the verb be as you were is that we imagine ourselves as included in the subject, thus making it plural? No.

We can use you were to talk about both a second person singular and plural subject.

 

[HeartShape]

Are you asking whether the reason we conjugate the verb be as you were is that we imagine ourselves as included in the subject, thus making it plural? No.

We can use you were to talk about both a second person singular and plural subject.

No, because then the sentence could mean, we were drinking.

Any ideas?

(I'm meaning that when we write, we write about the other person and since we are talking about the other person, the other person becomes plural because, after all, this person is the second person and “second” does mean two).

 

[jutfrank]

Remember the basics. These are the past tense conjugations for the verb be:

1st person sing. was
2nd person sing. were
3rd person sing. was

1st person pl. were
2nd person pl. were
3rd person pl. were

You should not think of the were form of the 2nd person singular as plural. This is confusing you and leading you to false conclusions.

 

[Rover_KE]

... you'll hear a great many people saying 'you was', 'we was' and 'they was'.

If they know it's wrong, they don't care (unlike us – who do).

That's because they don't understand grammar.

Not always, it isn't. Take Bradley Walsh – a well-educated, well-read, knowledgable broadcaster, actor, stand-up comic and TV quiz presenter. He's always saying 'you was'. He has to know it's ungrammatical but that's the way he speaks and he doesn't care what we think about it.

 

[jutfrank]

Not always, it isn't. Take Bradley Walsh – a well-educated, well-read, knowledgable broadcaster, actor, stand-up comic and TV quiz presenter. He's always saying 'you was'. He has to know it's ungrammatical but that's the way he speaks and he doesn't care what we think about it.

I do the same thing in certain company. It is not for lack of awareness but simply part of the dialect which I was brought up to speak. I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of speakers who do this are also aware of the standard form. Probably all of those whom I know personally.

 

[TheParser]

But for my personal understanding I really want to break down the idea into something logical to help better understand the idea behind it.

NOT A TEACHER

Hello, HeartShape:

I am wondering whether the following brief information might help you reach your goal.

*****

1. Hundreds of years ago, if an English person was addressing one person, s/he might say,"I fear thou art sick." (Second person singular)

2. In addressing two or more persons (second person plural), s/he would use ye, as in "Oh come, all ye faithful." Furthermore, if s/he wanted the objective form of "ye," the word you would be used.

3. Over the years, the English people started to use "you" where they had previously used those other words. (Poetry still occasionally uses the older forms.)

*****

Well, that's all I will say, for the subject is too complicated for me to understand. There are articles that you can read on the Web.




My principal source (those example sentences): Michael Swan, Practical English Usage (1995 edition), entry #388 on page 390.

 

[Phaedrus]

1. Hundreds of years ago, if an English person was addressing one person, s/he might say,"I fear thou art sick." (Second person singular)

2. In addressing two or more persons (second person plural), s/he would use ye, as in "Oh come, all ye faithful." Furthermore, if s/he wanted the objective form of "ye," the word you would be used.

3. Over the years, the English people started to use "you" where they had previously used those other words. (Poetry still occasionally uses the older forms.)

Great points. HeartShape might also be interested to know that wast was the singular past tense form of be in the second person. Thus we have:

past second-person singular: "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezekiel, 28:13, KJV).

past second-person plural: "Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led" (1 Corinthians 12:2, KJV).

That doesn't change the fact that was is ungrammatical (or nonstandard) in (2). Five hundred years ago, however, I believe the following would have worked:

singular: Thou wast drinking some water.
plural: Ye were drinking some water.

 

[HeartShape]

Remember the basics. These are the past tense conjugations for the verb be:

1st person sing. was
2nd person sing. were (no difference)
3rd person sing. was

1st person pl. were
2nd person pl. were (no difference)
3rd person pl. were

You should not think of the were form of the 2nd person singular as plural. This is confusing you and leading you to false conclusions.

Like it or not we have to understand the technicalities.

The sentence is in plural form as well as in singular form. There is actually nothing to distinguish the sentence apart. It's the truth, isn't it?

 

[jutfrank]

The sentence is in plural form as well as in singular form. There is actually nothing to distinguish the sentence apart. It's the truth, isn't it?

Without context, that's right, yes.

 

[emsr2d2]

That's why context is important.

"You were drinking some water" is correct if you're talking to one person.
"You were drinking some water" is correct if you're talking to two or more people.

As you can see, the sentences are absolutely identical.


American English (I don't know if it's all variants) has an interesting solution to this.

You = 1 person (second person singular)
Y'all = 2 or 3 people (second person plural)
All y'all = several people (still second person plural)

We don't use them in British English. And apologies to our American friends if I got that wrong!

 

[HeartShape]

Without context, that's right, yes.

That's why context is important.

"You were drinking some water" is correct if you're talking to one person.
"You were drinking some water" is correct if you're talking to two or more people.

As you can see, the sentences are absolutely identical.


American English (I don't know if it's all variants) has an interesting solution to this.

You = 1 person (second person singular)
Y'all = 2 or 3 people (second person plural)
All y'all = several people (still second person plural)

We don't use them in British English. And apologies to our American friends if I got that wrong!

Not necessarily....

Explanation: so that brings me back to the original question, where "I" in the first person and "you" in the second person is always a plural form because two people make a plural. Since "you" is actually always plural, we cannot form a grammatical sentence with a plural "you" with a singular verb "was".

Example:

1. [STRIKE]You was drinking some water.[/STRIKE] (Singular)
2. Thou wast drinking some water. (Singular)

Notice the above sentence "was" is almost identical to "wast" (the correct version of the singular form). Sentence 1 should be grammatically correct, but since “you” is always considered plural in syntax, this now violates “you” from being used as an actual singular form with the verb “was”.

So my conclusion is, “you” is actually always plural never singular in syntax meaning. Context has almost no bearing here because we have just demonstrated that “you” cannot form a grammatical singular sentence with the singular verb “was”. We could make up context to justify our reasoning but this still doesn’t change the power of correct syntax usage.

 

[emsr2d2]

I genuinely don't know what you're getting at. You is not "always considered plural" at all.

You (second person singular) is always singular.
You (second person plural) is always plural.

"I" and "you" (and "I and "he/she/they") together make "we" (first person plural).

 

[HeartShape]

I genuinely don't know what you're getting at. You is not "always considered plural" at all.

You (second person singular) is always singular.
You (second person plural) is always plural.

"I" and "you" (and "I and "he/she/they") together make "we" (first person plural).

I think since you have now written it like that, you have clearly identified its singular form.

Example:

I = You => Singular and the same with the rest.

The "you" standing alone cannot be used with a singular verb. That's true, isn't it?

 

[Phaedrus]

Whether the 'you' has singular or plural reference, it is always used with a plural verb in standard English.

Couldn't we say, alternatively, that just as you isn't intrinsically plural in Present Day English, were isn't intrinsically plural in Present Day English, either?

I think were can be considered a singular verb or a plural verb with a second-person subject depending on whether there is singular or plural reference.

The O.E.D. does state that were is the "2nd singular and plural" of the verb be. Plus, we use were with singular subjects in all persons in the subjunctive.

It seems to me that the sense of the plural in the use of were with you singular must have gone out when you ceased to seem plural in singular reference.

Historically, when you did seem plural even with singular reference, English had what I call "the royal you." You flattered the one whom one was addressing.

I believe that that stage came during the transition from thou/thee-ye/you usage to the use of you across the board, when you also ceased to seem accusative.

Just because I can use fish to refer to more than one fish doesn't mean that fish is a plural noun when I use it to refer to one fish. Fish can be singular or plural.

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Heartshape:

I have noticed that you want language to be "logical." But human beings are not necessarily logical.

I have found something in my favorite grammarian's masterpiece that should interest -- and amuse -- you.

1. Correct English many years ago was: "Where wast thou born?"

a. Yet a famous English writer named Marlowe more than 300 years ago wrote: "Where was thou born?"

b. And a famous novelist named Fielding wrote: "Pray, Sir, how was you cured of your love?" (my emphasis of the pronoun)

2. The American dictionary writer Noah Webster [in the 19th century, I believe] said this: "The compilers of grammars condemn the use of was with you -- but in vain. The practice is universal, except among men who learn their language by books."

a. [My comment: Mr. Webster would be delighted, I guess, to know that teachers have finally been successful in stamping out "You was" among the vast majority of English speakers.]



Source: George Oliver Curme, A Grammar of the English Language (1931), Vol. II, page 54.

 

[jutfrank]

I think were can be considered a singular verb or a plural verb with a second-person subject depending on whether there is singular or plural reference.

I'd go further and say that it is not right to think of singular or plural verbs. To me, only noun phrases can be plural or singular. The verbs which are used with them must be in agreement with the number of their subjects but that's not to say that the verbs themselves are plural in any sense.

I do not see were as a plural verb—it's just a conjugated form that agrees with the second person singular as well as the first, second and third persons plural. Any historical explanation is irrelevant to current usage.