"Who all"

I meant to write "who I heard say that".

I've heard it in the South.

I've heard that my whole life in numerous states including Ohio, Michigan, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, North Carolina, Maryland.

Thanks, R2 and R3.

Why is it necessary? Isn't "who" sufficient?

I grew up in the South and have heard "who all" my entire life.

I suppose the "all" is not necessary.

I moved to southern Virginia (from NJ) when I was younger. I remember trying to explain to my friends that you could be plural. So weird. And sometimes I'm afraid I picked up some of that, even though I've been back in NJ for years.

Did any of you, especially R5, ever find it unusual to your ear, or were you so accustomed to it that it never stood out?

I find "positive anymore" (see link) and the "I'm going get"usage unusual. I think the latter is from the Pacific Northwest, but I'm not certain of that. I've heard people say "I'm going go" or "I'm going Seattle", for example, without "to" after "going".

I've noticed several unusual phrases since moving to the US. A version of this I hear frequently in Chicago, the suburbs, and in Louisiana is "Who's all going..."

Haha. “Who all”.

Adding "all" makes it sound more polite. "Who" and "you" by themselves sound so direct and almost aggressive. "Who all" is softer, as is "yall" or "all yall."

One difference in usage is, for example, if a parent ask their teenager "Who is going to the party?" it is a more general question. The teen could just name one or two people who are also going to the party. "Who ALL is going to the party?" is more pointed. You might not be expected to list every single person who is going to attend, but you are expected to give many more details of whom will be attending, especially problematic people.

[quote] Adding "all" makes it sound more polite.

[quote] "Who ALL is going to the party?" is more pointed.

These two interpretations seem opposed.

OP = Svetlana

It’s a common colloquialism brought to you by people like R11, who would also use the gems like “whom will be attending.”

The correct expression is "whom'll".

R14 You might be one of those people for whom the word "whom" scares you, but there is nothing incorrect about "whom will be attending" in that post. It is not a colloquialism. In that particular passage "who" or "whom" is equally correct. To be doubly sure, I ran it through Grammarly and they agree.

R16 you are so full of shit it’s no wonder you can’t think.

“Whom will be attending....” is absolutely wrong.

Learn what the fuck the objective case is before you go shooting off your “grammarly” mouth again.

I grew up Kansas. We all use this expression. I never thought of it until you mentioned it, but for me, "who all" is asking for a more thorough list of who is going.

If I were to ask "Who's gonna be there?", the person answering, in this fictional example, my mom, would just tell me the names of who I want to hear will be there:

"Oh, Granny n' yer brother'll be there."

But if I ask "Who all's gonna be there?" she's more on the hook to tell who ALL'S gonna be there. "Oh Granny'll be there, yer brother'n his girlfriend Crissy'n her kids'n his kids."

Just an example. It helps flush out lies of omission.

In the sentence...

[quote] You might not be expected to list every single person who is going to attend, but you are expected to give many more details of whom will be attending, especially problematic people.

...whom is correct because it follows the preposition "of." The who or whom grammar rules state that whom should always follow prepositions. Also, resorting to vulgar language, shows that you know you have lost the argument.

No, r19. "Who" is correct. The word is the subject of the clause "who will be attending," not the object of the the preposition "of." "Who will be attending" is the entire object of the preposition "of."

R16 is dead wrong. So very dead wrong.

I'm from Oregon and "who all" sounds normal to me.

I lived in Atlanta for 3 years. "all y'all" was used to mean all of you. As in, I hope "all y'all'" will attend my party. Are "all y'all" going to lunch? Also, "I'm fixin to" type up the report. I was working in a professional office with college graduates, not hillbillies.

R22 have you heard this usage in Oregon?

[quote] I've heard people say "I'm going go" or "I'm going Seattle", for example, without "to" after "going".

R16 While we’re at it, “for whom the word "whom" scares you” is also wrong. Try not to dislocate your brain figuring it out.

For those saying the "all" in "who all" is not necessary, please keep in mind that neither is your post. Neither are most of the words uttered by human beings as they flap their gums day in and day out. But you may utter them as much as you wish. And others may feel free to ignore them.

And R19 the correct form would be “details of THOSE WHO will be attending” (the rest of the sentence is still a mess, but that’s another question).

Growing up in the South, "You all" was an every day expression. But it "You all" was also a plural, meaning more than one person.

Similarly, "Who all" was also commonly used in the South. It also was a plural form, meaning more than one person.

r20 is correct. r19 is just embarassing.

Girls, girls, you ALL are both pretty! (Well not really.)

From Lexico, a collaboration between Dictionary.com and the Oxford University Press.

[quote] However, if you are writing at work, at college or university, or for publication, it is acceptable and even advisable to use the more formal whom, especially in constructions with a preposition.

As "of" is a preposition, "of whom" is perfectly fine, as would be "to whom," "for whom," "by whom," etc...

And, if "of" was accompanied by a qualifier, "whom" would not only be acceptable but obligatory.

[quote] In one specific context whom seems obligatory: when it is preceded by quantifiers such as all of, both of, few of, many of, several of, etc.

A whom said it.

Question for those of non-Southern origin who’ve relocated to the South: have you adopted “y’all” as part of your everyday speech?

I hear it a lot from family members who speak English as a second language, and they also often say "you people." I think it has to do with their primary languages having a plural you (a different word for plural you, not a different sense of the same word), so when they say "you people" or "you all" or "who all," it might reassure them they're making themselves clear.

The "all" is emphatic so it's not necessary but language isnt only necessary.

R24, no, I haven't. That sounds weird.

My former boss, also a gay man who moved out to LA from Houston and was originally from the east coast used to say this all the time. It was strange because he was an accomplished writer and speaker but it was one thing he couldn't shake

Whomst!

I've never heard, "I'm going go" in place of "I'm going to go."

Instead people make an informal contraction of "going to," and it becomes "I'm gonna go."

It's a colloquial way to make a plural, akin to "you all" aka "y'all." Saying "who is coming?" could be interpreted in some contexts as only meaning a certain person.

I'm from Ohio and it sounds perfectly ordinary to me. But not particularly correct, if you're trying to make a good impression.

Dr. Now on My 600 Pound Life says "you all" or "ya'll." I always think it's funny because he's clearly not originally from the American South.

[quote] It's a colloquial way to make a plural, akin to "you all" aka "y'all." Saying "who is coming?" could be interpreted in some contexts as only meaning a certain person.

Wouldn't one, in such instances, ask "Is Paul coming?" if the question is specific to a certain person?

[quote] My former boss, also a gay man who moved out to LA from Houston and was originally from the east coast used to say this all the time. It was strange because he was an accomplished writer and speaker but it was one thing he couldn't shake

I tried to shake it when I lived on the East Coast because every time I said "y'all" in lectures students would comment or react. I stopped saying "fixing to" and other things, but I couldn't stop saying "y'all." It actually serves a function-- it's a polite version of "you." I think that's why it's so enduring.

That said, I would never type "y'all" and I find its spread across social media annoying because it's not used to signal politeness, but some in-group, informal sense.

[quote] It actually serves a function-- it's a polite version of "you."

How is “you” impolite?

My opinion: Just go to the damn party!

I moved to Texas. I don't say y'all, and transplants who go around here (TX) saying it set off alarm bells to me as phonies who are trying to buy a new identity.

It's akin to that bullshit a lot of deplorables believe where the more ignorant or folksy you sound, the more genuine ("better") you are. Fake-ass people drinking out of jelly jars that they bought at Target just to use as drinking glasses, etc. I know someone like this. Came from a wealthy suburb in the Midwest and struts around here acting like he thinks country people act, talking with a Mayberry accent which he must think sounds Texan, talking about going to church and shit. Real country people don't act like that.

It's because English doesn't have a plural 'you'. Simple as that, no matter how you try to spin it into something those "other people" do.

There is too a plural for you...Uncle Jed Clampett would say "youzins"

don't forget "yinz"

You'ins = you ones - meaning: a group. As in "You'ins going to the party tomorrow night?"

It's regional from middle Georgia and north through Tennessee and the Carolinas.

In Kansas we always said "you guys." Old ladies didn't like that but women are hard to placate/schizophrenic when referring to them in the plural. "Are you WOMEN ready to order?" That makes it sound like you're calling them plus-sized. Ladies/girls sounds like you're calling them old, and if they happen to be female slobs and you call them ladies, they will think you're mocking them. Girls sounds like you're not taking them seriously, and don't even go there with gal, especially on DL.

R47, is anyone "othering" people for plural yous in casual conversation? It isn't a question of IF a group does it, it's a question of HOW other groups do it.

Whom is speaking?

[quote] It actually serves a function-- it's a polite version of "you."

"You all" sounds quite aggressive, almost demeaning, to me. It doesn't sound sweet or endearing. Perhaps it's because it reminds me of times I've heard old, white Southern men referring to black people as "you people".

[quote]You'ins = you ones - meaning: a group. As in "You'ins going to the party tomorrow night?"

[quote]It's regional from middle Georgia and north through Tennessee and the Carolinas.

I grew up in rural North Carolina. I never heard anyone use the phrase "You'ins" or "Youzins" or any variation of it. People said "you all." It is polite and sometimes formal to say it. Conversely, " y'all" was very informal. One would never say "y'all" to a boss or a teacher."

The "whom troll" r19 / r31 is so tedious. Just because a word follows the word "of" does not make that word the object of the preposition. In this example, the whole CLAUSE is the object of the preposition and "who" is the subject of that clause. Subjects are always nominative a.k.a. subjective case. Do you understand objective case vs nominative case? Can you diagram a sentence?

Nominative/subjective case pronouns are "I," "you," "he," "she," "it," "we," "they," "who," and "whoever."

Objective case pronouns are "me," "you," "him," "her," "it," "us," "them," and "whom."

If the pronoun stands alone, then it is the object of the preposition (prepositions include "to", "for", "with", "on", "under", "over", etc.) Then, it takes the objective case. "Of whom are you suspicious?" "Under whom did you study?" This is the rule referenced, but applied incorrectly, in r31's post.

If the object of the preposition is, instead, a clause, then that clause has its own subject and verb. Subjects always take the nominative/subjective case, which in this example, is "who".

In the phrase "you are expected to give many more details of who will be attending", the whole clause "who will be attending" is the object of the preposition "of", not just the word "who". "Who" is the subject of the clause "who will be attending", which forces it to take the nominative case.

"He will be attending", "she will be attending", "they will be attending", "who will be attending". It would never be "him will be attending", "her will be attending", "them will be attending", or "whom will be attending". The subject of a clause ALWAYS takes the nominative case. The clause stands alone and the whole thing is the object of "of". "Who" is the subject of that clause.

A better sentence would have been "You are expected to give many more details regarding who will be attending", which removes the "of" that is confusing you. "Regarding" is still a preposition and "who will be attending" is still the object of that preposition, with "who" acting as the subject of that clause.

"Yinz" is very Appalachian, specific to western PA and southern OH/northeastern KY.

Haha. “Who all”.

Perfectly normal and heard daily around these here parts.

As is "fixing to", "of a night", and "all you all"

What does "of a night" mean?

It means "every night" or "occuring at night more often than not".

In a sentence "my dad used to sit on the porch of a night and listen to the whippoorwill".

Thanks (Hillbilly spawn), R60. I'd never heard that.

On a separate note, I think you should authenticate your user name on DL.

r7 I have lived in the Seattle area my entire life, and I have never heard anyone say "I'm going Seattle".

R56 Very common with Pittsburghers and throughout the suburban region.

I've heard it in the Midwest many times. I have also been noticing r7's positive anymore, which I found appalling. This is from people who write things like "I should of went with."

Positive anymore is the canary in the coal mine signaling the terminal illness of the English language.

I'm okay with "y'all" as long as it's not some twitter attention whore trying to sound cute and affectionate (y'all, folx, etc) while lecturing you about your privileges, but "all y'all" is overkill.

Where is this party? Now I want to go too.

R55 Thank you for a very good explanation. I doubt it will sink in for the whom troll though. He probably says shit like “Marcie and myself went to the store.”

Just thought of this thread while sending out a bcc: email where I wanted people to know who was included, but didn't want them to see their email address. What do you think of this usage? Is it odd to your ear?

"Also, everyone included on this email is listed below, so you can see who's all here."

It sounds very odd to me. I suggest this:

In addition, everyone copied on this email is listed below so you can see who's included.

I kind of have a soft spot for the positive “anymore.” It’s extremely colloquial, but seems like a natural converse:

“Traffic has gotten so bad recently. You can’t get from to the other side of town in 15 minutes anymore”

becomes

“Traffic has got so bad. Anymore, it takes at least 15 minutes to get to the other side of town.”

It’s common usage in contractor-speak, and the trades.

PS: r16 is misguided in relying simply on the presence of a preposition, in the who/whom issue, without considering the rest of the sentence's structure, as r55 explained. In addition, while there's always more leeway in speaking or casual writing, “who” or “whom” are technically never equally correct. They are two different words, with different functions.

^^^

“...You can’t get TO the other side ... “

—r71

[quote] It’s common usage in contractor-speak, and the trades.

Which trades, dear?

“Who all”.

Haha.

“Who all”.