Ya'll, You'uns, and Alright

I was writing an email to someone and realized that there was a rule never discussed in my English classes.

What is the proper punctuation when something belongs to you all? I am a firm proponent of the word ya'll. It is much more specific than the word you. Although 'you' refers to a single person and can be a collective you, the word ya'll always means a collective you. So what happens to something that belongs to ya'll?

Two apostrophes seem weird and awkward. As an example: Ya'll's dog keeps chasing my cat.

This just seems wrong.

When something belongs to it, you don't add an apostrophe; although this is for a different reason. In order to differentiate between 'it is' and the item that belongs to it, we don't use an apostrophe. Example: My car won't start. It threw one of its belts. It's going to have to sit there for a while until I have the money to fix it.

Also, we know from English class that apostrophes are good because they let you know the difference between two or more of something and something that belongs to an individual. Example: Allen's Festival celebrates Allen's contributions to U.S. society. Example 2: The Allens Festival celebrates the contributions to U.S. society made by the Allens. Example 3: The Allens' Festival was well-attended.

The first example is owned by me and is a celebration of me (this blog's author). What else would I celebrate? The second example would also include the contributions made my brother, father, Woody Allen (yech), and sister before she got married. My sister's contributions after marriage would be in the Hartoon Festival. My mother's contributions are even more complicated, as she regains her Allen surname in a few months. Additionally, the owner of the second example's festival is unknown. In the third example, we Allens own the festival.

Blogger's note: The last two paragraphs add absolutely nothing to this post and probably actually muddle the point that I am attempting to make. Upon proofreading these paragraphs, I have found gaps in the logic I use. An example talking about the dog food (food made for dogs), dogs food (food made of dog), the dog's food (food that belongs to that dog), and the dogs' food (food that belongs to those dogs) would work far better. I have decided to keep them anyway, as more blogs should include references to a festival celebrating me.

Although we know that apostrophes are good, we also know that they aren't always needed, as in the 'it' example. Ya'll is already plural, so the inclusion of an additional apostrophe does not seem necessary. Ya'lls and ya'll's are therefore functionally identical. Since English grammatical rules have seemed to fail me, the only thing remaining is aesthetics. I'm not sure which one is more pleasing to the eye, probably 'ya'll's'. (Wow that looks horrible written like that with four apostrophes. Oh well.)

On a similar note, you'uns just seems stupid. I did a quick search on the word and have found from some unreliable sources (It isn't that they're wrong, but if this blog posting were part of an essay in academia, the source would be rejected as not a definitive source on the matter.) that the term is quite old and has existed since at least the civil war.

Ya'll is an unapproved contraction for 'you all'. Digression: According to the almighty Wikipedia, the correct spelling of the word is Y'all... Since when? I wasn't aware that we have definitive spellings of made up words. It would seem that following the pattern, don't and won't would be do'nt and wo'nt. You'll puts the apostrophe prior to the 'll. Of course, the 'll in you'll properly separates the two words. So sometimes the apostrophe goes between the two words that have been joined and sometimes it doesn't. I don't see why you can't put the apostrophe wherever you want it in ya'll. But what is you'uns a contraction for? Anyone?

Anyone?

Hence, it is stupid.

Finally we delve into alright. This started while I was tutoring. Someone was taking a quiz and wanted to know the difference between alright and all right. I wasn't entirely sure, but as far as I knew, alright is a synonym for acceptable and okay. All right means that everything is correct. eg. How did I do on the quiz, Mrs. Jackson? You got them all right.

Curious, I decided to Google the problem. It turns out that alright is never all right. The reasoning is completely retarded to me and an act of pedantry. Digging deep into old writings, such as Shakespeare, alright does not appear. For this reason, and this reason alone, alright is never all right.

Altogether, although, and already have existed for some time, so they are correct. Shakespeare never said that something is alright, hence it isn't. English is an ever-evolving language. Resisting and denying change is futile. It's time for alright to be all right.