HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:15:50 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Aug23.205345.13379@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen) writes:
> R.S.Hunt@newcastle.ac.uk (R.S. Hunt) writes:
> 
>>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes (20 Aug 92 20:42:42 GMT):
> 
> 
>>> Can any linguists out there tell me which languages (if any) make the
>>> distinction between:
>>>
>>>               the inclusive and exclusive "we"
>>>               	 and
>>>               the inclusive and exclusive "or"
> 
> P.S.  Another pronominal person distinction that is interesting and vaguely
> related to this one (in that both have to do with distance from the speaker)
> is that between third and 'fourth' person in many Amerind languages, i.e.
> 'he here' and 'he there' where 'there' is often something like
> 'aforementioned.'  Parallels three-way deictic distinctions like English
> dialect 'here/there/yonder' --- I think, though I know incl/excl well having
> worked with languages of that sort, whereas 3rd/4th person is just something
> I have read about in articles and books.

The Algonquian "fourth person" category corresponds best to
"non-topic" IMO, though I doubt all Algonquianists would agree.  (I
like your phonology/morphology textbook, BTW, John.)
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Nasalisation
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:14:51 GMT

In article <peeters.715141056@tasman> peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters) writes:
}
}... It strikes me however that in certain varieties
}of American English all vowels are nasalised (even those that are not fol-
}lowed by a nasal consonant). ...

Yes.  In my speech, all vowels, glides, and liquids are nasal except in
position after tautosyllabic non-nasal and not before tautosyllabic nasal.
Thus, enclosing nasal segments in braces, "Larry" is [{leri}] (all nasal),
"I" is [{ay}] or [?ay] (initial glottal prevents nasalization of [a] which
in turn prevents nasalization of [y]), "I'm" is [{aym}] or [?{aym}].  They
may also be nonnasal after a nonasal ambisyllabic, e.g. [r] in "bitter"
[bIDr].

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:54:43 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug28.140244.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>It's true that, in a language which uses grammatical gender, words
>which refer to a male person almost always have the masculine gender
>and words which refer to a female person almost always have the
>feminine gender.  But not always.  Think of German "das Kind"
>(neuter, even when the sex of the child is known) or French
>"une personne" (feminine, even when referring to a male).

These cases provide the best illustration of the connexion between
masculine/feminine gender and male/female sex (as opposed to some
conventional classes, as it is with inanimates).

Just look what happens to gender agreement.  A "sie" very often refers
back to a "Maedchen".  If you come across a dialogue or a passage
where the two characters are identified as "lui" and "elle", you may
be sure that "lui" is a man, not a female professor ("professeur"),
and "elle" is a woman, not a male sentry ("sentinelle").  And so on.

The same happens when the antecedent is determined by pragmatics
rather than discourse.  You wouldn't say "elle es folle" of a male
person ("personne"), nor "il es fou" of a female child ("enfant").

>I'm too rushed at present to look up my Russian dictionary, but I
>think there are also examples like that in Russian.

Yes, of course there are, and they work in a similar way, with gender
agreement observed only in immediate proximity.  The only difference
seems to be that nouns have a somewhat easier time changing genders
than in, say, French.

Actually, I've encountered the phrase _molodaja vrach_ `young (f.)
physician (m.)'.  I have no idea how one is supposed to decline it,
though (as both Acc *_moloduju vrach_ and Acc *_moloduju vracha_ sound
horrible).

Besides, while _vrach prishla_ `the physician (m.) came (f.)' sounds
quite all right, *_rebenok prishla_ `the child (m.) came (f.)' is out
of the question.  Hmm.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:20:34 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug27.154058.5045@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>In article <Aug.21.01.38.23.1992.3016@pilot.njin.net> hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.204242.5942@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>
>>> <...> which languages (if any) make the distinction between:
>>>
>>> 		the inclusive and exclusive "we"
>>
>>Turkic, with a little cheating :-). In Turkish/Turkic phrases like
>>'all of us' or 'some of us' are one word e.g.
>>
>>Hepimiz, [all of us/we] or Baribiz [ditto], Bazimiz [some of us/we]
>
>This state is also present in Hebrew. Kulanu (all of us) vs. Chelkenu
>(some of us).

Ooh.  Folks, let's agree not to make words mean what they don't mean
(at least words with term status).  Neither the Turkish nor the Hebrew
expressions cited say anything about whether the referent of the
second person (the listener) is excluded or included, and this is what
makes a first person plural pronoun exclusive or inclusive.

The following is taken from K E Maitinskaya's book
_Mestoimenija v jazykax raznyx sistem_ (with some additions):

1. Languages with a 1PlExcl and a 1PlIncl pronoun:

  Veynakh (that is Chechen, Ingush, Bats)
  Chamalal (Daghestan) (_issi_ : _il'i_)
  Mongolian (_manaj_, _man@_ : _bidnij_)
  Tungus-Manchu, bar most dialects of Nanay and Ulcha
    (oddly enough, here the _b-_ form is exclusive and the _m-_ inclusive)
  Dravidian, bar Kannada
  Purik, Balti, Mikir (Sino-Tibetan)
  Pidgin English
  Malay (_kami_ : _kita_)
  Quechua (_n~oka-icu_ : _n~oka-nchis_)
  Algonquian
  Somali (_annagu_ : _innagu_)
  Old Nubian
  Fulani (_minin_ : _enin_)

B Comrie (_Languages of the USSR_) adds Svan, Avar, the rest of the
Andi group (apart from Chamalal) and half of the Lezgian languages.

West Greenlandic is said to have the distinction in the
imperative/optative form of the verb but not in the free pronoun.

2. Languages with a 1DuExcl, a 1DuIncl, and a 1Pl pronoun:

  Chitkuli, Lower Kanawara (? - _nizhne-kanavarinskij_) (India)
  Cuz

3. Languages with a 1DuExcl, a 1DuIncl, a 1PlExcl, and a 1PlIncl pronoun:

  Mundari (Munda)
  Dyirring, Kamilaroy, Saybalgal (Australia)
  Kate, Bongu (Papua)
  Hawai`ian, Rotum (Polynesia)

Nivkh has a 1Du, a 1PlExcl, and a 1PlIncl pronoun (_megi_ : _n'@N_ : _mer_).

4. Languages with a full 1{Du|Tr|Pl}{Excl|Incl} system:

  Wororo (Australia)

Ainu (_ci'okay_ (_coka_) : _anokay_ (_a'oka_))
  
In addition, S F Samoilenko_'s PhD thesis reportedly presents evidence
that the 1PlE/1PlI distinction may have existed in Proto-Slavic.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: rmt51@cas.org (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Ships and countries
Reply-To: rmt51@cas.org
Organization: S.W.I.G.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:01:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.144436.20054@discus.technion.ac.il>,
davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
|> 
|>                   [much deleted for brevity]
|> 
|> However machines are not consistent in this respect especially the
|> renewed nouns. For instance computer ("Machshev") is refered as
|> masculine
|> and you'll find many people cursing "him" in the night when the bug is
|> elegantly evading you. (BTW "bug" is also considered masculine).
|> 
I'm not convinced that this has anything to do with Hebrew lacking a
neuter
gender.  Many (if not most) programmers that I encounter in the US refer
to
their programs, or maybe to the computer itself, as "he" almost
universally.
I find it a rather annoying anthropomorphism -- I`ve never seen either a
program or a computer that had wobbly bits.
|>
|>                  [much more deleted as well] 
|> 
|> David.
|> --
|>
===========================================================================
===
|>   David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but
|> Temptation"
|>   s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
|>   davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il

-- 
Rick Turkel           (___  ____ _  _  _  _  _     _  ___   _  _ _  ___
(rmt51@cas.org)           )    |  |  \  )  |/ \     |    |   |  \_)    |
(rmt51@cas.bitnet)       /     | _| __)/   | __)    | ___|_  | _( \    |
			Ein navi be`iro.            |

Xref: sparky sci.lang:6767 sci.cognitive:381
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular comm
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:43:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.182114.929@Princeton.EDU>, mikulska@crux.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.080413.13815@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>>Margaret Mikulska (mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU) writes:
> 
> As for "they" as singular, I agree that as long as this usage is not
> taught (especially to foreigners), it may lead to misuderstandings and
> therefore should be avoided in many texts aimed at foreign audience.
> And the fact is that it is _not_ taught, whether some people like this
> situation or not.  Grammar and usage are still taught in a pre- and
> proscriptive way rather than descriptively.

Ethical usage aside, and I agree, as I've posted before, that the generic use
of masculine gender forms is discriminatory and therefore to be avoided, as
long as we are saying that people _should_ avoid generic masculines, aren't we
being prescriptive?  We are trying change how people use language.  This
particular topic will remain in the prescriptive realm until young children
learn from their peers to avoid generic "he".

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Followup-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:36:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.173343.24488@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Roger Lustig (roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) writes:
>>gal2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>* Every good chef knows their ingredients.
>>>  Everyone in the kitchen knows their ingredients.

>>The former sentence is used less often, and criticized more often; but
>>it's certainly acceptable in informal usage. (See Urdang, for instance.)
>>In formal usage, many people nowadays recast it with "All chefs..."

>Yes, recasting to all plural is often a good idea. However, consider
>an instruction: "When the operator sees the red light blink he must 
>press the blue button." We can probably make some good recasting,
>but not to "all". Neither can we use "they" instead of "he", particularly
>is the instruction is to be read by non-native speakers. Being one
>myself, I can guarantee you that this usage of "they" is utterly
>confusing.

If utter clarity and safety are desired, one can avoid pronouns entirely.

"When the operator see the red light blink, the operator must press..."

Some instructions are already written in that style; as pronouns can
often lead to confusion of referent (not only in English!), this is 
not a bad idea.

Roger
>-- 
>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
>F|rst till kvarn f}r f|rst vankiva


Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
:Fine.  "He" is masculine (implies maleness).  "They" is plural
:(implies two or more of 'em).  Now let's suppose you know that you are
:talking of only one person of unknown sex.  If you use "he", the odds
:of your being right or wrong are about equal.  On the other hand, if
:you use "they", you are a` priori wrong.  Where is the logic?
:
:Ah, but your personal model of the language is able to ignore the
:plurality of "they", while insisting on the masculinity of "he".
:Here's the catch.  You can't really rationalise your intuitions in
:this matter; they are, as you said it yourself, your own "model of how
:the language works", and the way language works is largely determined
:by usage, not by logic alone.

You don't have to rationalize it.  And it surely isn't just the poster's
personal model.  It's just the way the English language works.  Pretty
much always has.  Go read the recently posted document with historical
background, and go with the flow of the last half-millennium.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world.
		--Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:53:45 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

R.S.Hunt@newcastle.ac.uk (R.S. Hunt) writes:

>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes (20 Aug 92 20:42:42 GMT):


>> Can any linguists out there tell me which languages (if any) make the
>> distinction between:
>>
>>               the inclusive and exclusive "we"
>>               	 and
>>               the inclusive and exclusive "or"

P.S.  Another pronominal person distinction that is interesting and vaguely
related to this one (in that both have to do with distance from the speaker)
is that between third and 'fourth' person in many Amerind languages, i.e.
'he here' and 'he there' where 'there' is often something like
'aforementioned.'  Parallels three-way deictic distinctions like English
dialect 'here/there/yonder' --- I think, though I know incl/excl well having
worked with languages of that sort, whereas 3rd/4th person is just something
I have read about in articles and books.

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson)
Subject: Re: phonology question
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 15:05:11 EDT
Organization: Lost Tribes of Gazebo

In article <1992Sep4.120207.3208@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.032626.8708@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
>> Why does it seem awkward for an English-speaker to say "ibpag"?
>> 
>> Is it hard to say because of some problem with the physical mechanisms
>> involved in articulating the sequence?  Or do we English speakers just
>> not hear words structured in this way, and tend to reinterpret and/or
>> repronounce "ibpag"?  I.e. is it a natural mechanism that dictates its
>> awkwardness, or a simple matter of well-formedness judgments?  Or is
>> it some mixture of both?

>[ibpag] violates a constraint in English that adjacent stops within
>a word must agree in voicing. 

Really?  Five minutes' dinking around with /usr/dict/words turns up
the following:

 --BP--          --BT--           --BK--
                subterfuge       Babcock 
                subterranean	 bobcat  
                subtrahend	 mobcap  
                obtain
                obtrude
                obtrusive


 --DP--           --DT--         --DK--
godparent        hardtack       Adkins        
redpoll		 redtop     	godkin       
baldpate	 hardtop    	madcap       
bedpost		 bedtime    	woodcarver   
codpiece	 swordtail  	Radcliffe    
midpoint			woodcock     
swordplay      			handclasp    
tadpole        			redcoat      
woodpeck[er]   			woodcut[ter] 
                		handcuff     
                		wildcat[ter] 
                		broadcast    
                

 --GP--          --GT--          --GK--
eggplant        pigtail
flagpole        dogtooth
pigpen          dogtrot
bagpipe
magpie

This is just the voiced-voiceless direction, I haven't looked at the
other set of possibilities.  These are almost all either Latin
prefix+root combinations (all BT) or compounds (not sure about
"tadpole", "magpie" and of course the proper names).  Notice there are
*no* /bp/ or /gk/ sequences here, though all others, both homo- and
heterorganic, occur.  I think Richard's question is a good one.
(There *is* a record company called Sub Pop, usually pronounced as one
word with a stress pattern like "tadpole", by the way.  I bet you
could say "subpolar" too, now that I think of it.)



-- 
       Rod Johnson  *  rcj@caen.engin.umich.edu  *  (313) 764-3103
    
                "What I do doesn't happen in a warehouse"
                                          --Jim Dickinson
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: pronoun usage
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:11:54 GMT

matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Matt Rosenblatt) writes:

>Since it started out as a
>plural pronoun, "you" takes a plural verb, even when used to refer
>to a singular:  "You do" vs. *"You does."

I don't like this claim for one minute. If "do" is plural, why do we
say "I do"? As far as I know, "I" is not etymologically plural. The
only English verb that comes to mind and which has a different first
and second person singular is "to be" (I am, you are) with the second
person indeed identical to the plural form (we are, you are, they are).
But isn't it a little too radical, on the basis of just one form, to
decide that the verbal form used with "you" sg is as a matter of fact
plural? Of course, "to be" would be an exception again, but it appears
more correct to me to say that the English language normally uses for
its present tense the infinitive without "to", except in the third
person singular, where -s (-es) is added.

>But is the singular "they" recognized quite as much as the singular
>"you"?  Let's look at the reflexive pronouns:

>                           Plural          Singular
>        Second person   "yourselves"      "yourself"
>        Third person    "themselves"          ?

Both on LINGUIST-L (the moderated discussion-list) and on sci.lang (and
I am sure on alt.usage.english as well) quotes have been reproduced
whose authors used "themself". I haven't saved anything of all that,
but others may have and may be willing to share the data with Matt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bert Peeters                         Tel: +61 02 202344
Department of Modern Languages               002 202344
University of Tasmania at Hobart        Fax: 002 207813
GPO Box 252C                            Bert.Peeters@modlang.utas.edu.au
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: phopkins@sol.UVic.CA (Paul Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Nasalisation
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 21:13:52 GMT

In article <81730@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 424@orion.oac.uci.edu, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>Specifying nasal segments as nasalis OVER specification.  Do any
>>languages other than French and Portuguese have PHONEMIC distinctions
>>between nasal and nonnasal segments?
>
>One interesting case is Breton, which goes French one better.  They have
>nasal vowels phonemes for the high vowels, as well.
This hardly does French better, unless you are excluding non-standard
dialects of French. Some French dialects of Quebec still have high nasal
vowel phonemes. (i.e. in these dialects, "fin" is pronounced with a high
vowel).

Paul Hopkins
phopkins@sol.uvic.ca
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:02:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.211044.2221@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
>From: sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)
>Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
>Date: 26 Aug 92 21:10:44 GMT
>In article <1992Aug26.183558.5583@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>At any rate, we only gender-inflect to describe sexed things: humans,
>>animals.
>
>     And ships?
>
>				Charlie

And a lot more than ships.  There are several collections containing
hundreds of examples of gender attributions for inanimates (all taken
from edited, printed sources) ranging from cars and ships to guns,
pencils, tools, books, the weather, and so on.  Of course most of these
are gendered as feminine, and most of the genderers (probably 105% of them)
are male.  There are no studies, so far as I know, of how women attribute
gender to inanimates in English.  That's a bit of research for a nice
PhD dissertation.

Dennis


debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6717 soc.culture.celtic:5606
From: smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: [pronouns] Re: Other properties of pronoun usage
Date: 26 Aug 1992 08:51:24 GMT
Organization: SunConnect
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.france.sun.com

In article <1992Aug25.161124.13656@rdg.dec.com>, cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
	> 
	> In article <1992Aug25.085553.3244@titan.ksc.nasa.gov>, crawford@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (David E. Crawford) writes...
	> > 
	> >Whaddayas mean no plural second person?  Here in the south, the word is
	> >"y'all," a contraction for "you all."  In Brooklyn, it's "yous."  Not exactly
	> >the Queen's English, but it works......
	> > 
	> "yous" is also used in lowland Scots.

And "yous'ns" in backstreet Belfast.


Steve
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english