English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The 'official' plural second person pronoun in English is you.
There are several ways in English to manufacture plural you, one of which is youse.
According to etymonline.com youse is a :
dialectal inflection of you, 1876, not always used in plural senses.
This seems vague and weak definition.
Is youse even correct English and what is its true etymology?
From an Irish perspective youse sounds totally fine:
The word ye, yis or yous, otherwise archaic, is still used in place of "you" for the second-person plural. Ye'r, Yisser or Yousser are the possessive forms, e.g. "Where are yous going?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English
And from Terence Patrick Dolan's Dictionary of Hiberno-English
YOUS, also YIZ, plural of 'you.' In [the] Irish [language] there is both a singular and a plural second person pronoun, as there used to be in English, with 'thou' as the singular and 'ye' as the plural. The form 'you' was originally the accusative and dative plural of 'ye.' From the 14th century it became customary to use the plural form, 'you,'in addressing superiors in place of 'thee' and 'thou'; from the 15th century, 'you' began to be used in place of 'ye.' From the time large numbers of Irish people became exposed to English, in the late 16th century and onwards, the 'you' form was therefore the normal form of address to a single person. As regards the verbal forms, there is evidence that in the 17th and 18th centuries some people tried to distinguish between singular and plural by making changes to the verb: we thus find 'you is' and 'you are'; but this useful device was abandoned in the interests of so-called purity of the language. Confronted with this bewildering volatility in the use and formation of the second person pronoun, it would appear that Irish speakers of English decided to distinguish singular from plural by attaching the plural signal 's' to the singular 'you', on the analogy of regular pluralisations such as 'cow' - 'cows'. 'Yous all better be back here on the dot of six o'clock or we're leaving without ye.' Joyce, 'A Mother' (Dubliners, 160): 'He said "yous" so softly that it passed unnoticed'; Doyle, The Van, 20: 'Did yis have your dinners at half-time or somethin?'
Prescriptivism at its finest. Simply because a word does not have a position in the standard dialect does not mean it is not a word. Regardless, it is clearly from 'you' (the second person pronoun) and the plural 's'. It fills a niche Standard English lacks: differentiation of singular and plural in the second person.
First thing to note is that English is an ever changing language with many different dialects, one of which is taken to be "standard" or "correct" English. However, words from regional dialects or newly coined words cross over into standard English all the time.
Since the words "thou" and "ye" fell out of usage in English for singular and plural respectively, the word "you" has gained traction as both the second person singular and the second person plural. This leaves a gap in the language though, and "pressure" to fill the gap. Speakers of languages including this distinction often find it frustrating that English lacks it, and indeed, even monolingual speakers of English run into times where the lack of specificity of "you" becomes a pain.
Just yesterday I was writing an Email to someone in a department of a company in another part of the country, as it had been indicated to me that his dept. was responsible for some process which I had some questions about. The email I wanted to write was:
"John tells me he thinks youse look after [certain process], could you assist me with X Y & Z".
Unfortunately, because of the stigma of using a word like "yous", I was left wanting. If I had said "you", the person reading the email would have taken it to mean that he personally was responsible for the process, which I am positive he isn't. I could have gone for "you lot", but that sounds a little rude to me (Oi! You lot!). In the end, I caved and wrote "you guys", which doesn't feel at all natural to me, a Brit, but filled the gap I needed.
As usually happens when language shifts to lose a useful piece of grammar, dialect variations that cover this gap tend to spring up. The most notable of these are:
An interesting article about all of this here, if you're interested. http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/yall-youuns-yinz-youse-how-regional-dialects-are-fixing-standard-english
According to Etymonline:
dialectal inflection of you, 1876, not always used in plural senses.
The book Labrador Days Tales of the Sea Toilers (1919) uses it to represent "Newfoundland and Labrador dialect", according to the transcriber. Here is an example where youse is clearly singular:
"Youse can call it that if you likes, Doctor, for 't will be a fine fish he lands into it. But I reckon 't is more of a dock he'll need."
Another source, Proceedings of the New York State Bar Association (1902), uses the word quoting someone from Montreal:
Straightening up, with an injured air, he brushed the entire aggregation of insects from the back of his hand, remarking, "Now, for that, youse all go!" (Laughter.)
In some dialects, youse is the plural form of you, but in others it can be used as either singuar or plural.
However, I have also found a few older sources that youse it as an alternate form of use:
