A Linguistic Question

[stoutfellow]

This is something I'm thinking about bringing up on the American Dialect Society list, but I'd like to do a little unscientific research before asking the bigwigs.

I find that I use the compound pronouns "who-all" and "what-all" fairly often in speech, and occasionally in writing. They feel to me like compound words - hence the hyphenation - rather than phrases. As far as meaning goes, a question like, "Who-all showed up at the party?" asks for a complete roster, where "Who showed up?" could be satisfied by naming a few notables. I use them in questions and in negative statements - "I don't know what-all that boy got up to!" - but only rarely if at all in affirmative statements. They have a definite colloquial feel to them, and actually strike me as more Southern than anything else. (My own dialect is of the "North Midlands" family, but with some Southern influence.)

So, a few questions for anyone who cares to comment. Do you use these phrases? (And what about "where-all", "how-all", "when-all"?) If you do, do they strike you as compound words or as phrases? Do you interpret their meanings differently than I do? Do you ever use them in affirmative statements? Any other thoughts any of you might offer would also be appreciated.

Comments

All the Alls

[sunlizzard.livejournal.com]

I definitely use who-all and what-all, often; where-all and how-all, occasionally; when-all, very seldom. In questions and negatives, yes; in affirmatives, very rarely (it just sounds a bit "off" for some reason, though I can't really say why that'd be).

I don't recall any of these -all usages from my earlier childhood in northern Illinois, but I grew up Okie, from whence most of my speech patterns come, and clearly remember using them since then. To my ear, they certainly sound like words that have a drawl or twang to them, and not entirely just because "you-all" is such. Stylistically, they skew Southern and Texan (and so, by extension, into SE New Mexico... we're kind of Far, Far West Texas, see).

Also, I'd favor them being compounds, not phrases. "You all" and "you-all" do not mean the same thing, nor are they pronounced the same. It's subtle, but, well, there you have it: they're different. It is because that set connotes different meanings that I would reason all the other "-alls" should be treated the same--they are compounds, not phrases. While only "you-all" can be contracted (to "y'all"), the fact that the others can not doesn't let them off the hook for being compounds.

Just my entirely unprofessional, un-linguistic (linguisticist?) opinion, here. *smile*

Re: All the Alls

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

This is definitely getting interesting. (The separation between affirmatives and other sorts of sentence is not unusual; most dialects of English forbid "any" in affirmatives, for instance.) The distinction you draw between "you all" and "you-all" is a known phenomenon, having to do with "junctures" - the sounds, pauses and whatnot that go between words, phrases, or sentences. There's a juncture in "you all" that's not there in "you-all".

I'm definitely taking this to ADS.

Re: All the Alls

[sunlizzard.livejournal.com]

Ah. To supplement:

It's not just the pause, present in "you all" and absent in "you-all," it's that the two sets have a different emphasis (as syllables would). In the compound "you-all," the first word has the emphasis; in the phrase "you all," the emphasis falls on the second word.

That's why you would write them differently, to visually differentiate between the two.

Oh, my. That's yet another argument for compounding who-all and what-all, too, isn't it? *beams*