I have always been interested in the patterns of speech used by my fellow Americans. The election season of the past two years have been a bonanza of sorts. During daylight hours, it has become the custom of cable programs to ask a speaker to kill a full hour whether he has anything to say or not. This was eminently true during the 2008 Presidential campaign. As a former union bargainer and as a lobbyist, I empathize with those who are required to fill an hour with very little to say. It can be done. But according to my ears, there is a phrase that has interjected itself into American speech patterns that makes no sense at all. That phrase is “You know?” Or is it “You no?” I suspect that either term is used as a speech extender. But Winston Churchill and Tony Blair and other speakers who speak English properly certainly would take great offense at this linguistic intrusion.
The events that have taken place today, on December 30, constitute a full news day. There is the fighting, for example, going on in the Gaza Strip, where the Israelis swear that they are going to wipe out Hamas. At home, Governor Blagojevich of Illinois has announced that a political hack, who was once the Attorney General of Illinois, was designated to fill out the unexpired term of Barack Obama in the United States Senate. The news hens and news roosters are flapping their wings and again are using the interjectory device of “you know” on several occasions. But it seems that the real news may be coming from Wasilla, Alaska.
A well-schooled commentator who understands the philosophy of the “You know” or “You no” might report from Russia’s neighbor that the news is inspiring. A commentator might say, “You know that over the weekend Bristol Palin, the governor’s daughter, gave birth to a boy. You know that they gave him a very interesting name. You know his name will be Tripp Johnston, you know. You know that his uncle is named Trig Palin. You know that Alaska now has a trig and a trip, you know. Governor Palin has said the more, the merrier even though her daughter and her lover were not married, you know. Also you know that the male youngster who impregnated the governor’s daughter has decided to quit school, thus foregoing a high school diploma, and go to work on the north slope, you know. And now all of us know that the impregnator has quit his job on the north slope. And you know also that his mother has been charged with six counts of selling a controlled substance, which is believed to be meth amphetamines, you know.”
Well, so much for Sarah Palin’s grandson. Between Tripp and Trig and Governor Blagojevich and the Gaza Strip, there is plenty for commentators to discuss. But they still find time to intersperse “you know” or “you no” several times into their speech patterns.
I am not necessarily a purist when it comes to speaking the English language. But I do love to see it used properly. I am a devotee of country speak, black speak, and even political speak. But my fur is rubbed the wrong way when speakers who should know better use the term “you know” or “you no” simply as conversation extenders. For all I know Tripp Johnston or Trig Palin, his uncle, may grow up to speak perfect English, never using the “you know” or “you no” devices to extend their thought. I would like to be around when that glorious day arrives, but in the meantime I suspect that we are going to be stuck with Governor Palin’s thought about “the more, the merrier” as it relates to children. I believe the governor and her female children ought to have a heart-to-heart talk with their ob-gyn.
Well, clearly you know – or you no – that this humble essay has not advanced the ball in resolving the dispute between the “you know” devotees and the worshippers who subscribe to the “you no” school of thought.
The Irish, who speak the English language eloquently, might have a thought that would apply here in this dispute. They could well say that the debate comes about for want of wit. In this case, my tendency is to hold with the Irish.
E. E. CARR
December 30, 2008
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Guilty as charged. I wouldn’t say that my conversation is full of that particular phrase but I also can’t pretend to never use it. I stand behind Pop’s objection to its use in formal channels, however.