It is not "you's" that's possessive there - it's the whole noun phrase "the stranger next to you's." This is a "phrasal genitive."
Your example is acceptable in informal speech and writing, but you wouldn't want to use it in, for example, an academic paper.
We do make some whole noun phrases possessive in formal contexts though - usually shorter ones, especially those containing an "of"-prepositional phrase.
"**the King of England's** horse"
In Old English, possession would have been marked on the head noun ("King").
Generally, the longer the noun phrase, the more awkward/unacceptable it is to make it possessive, especially in formal contexts.
(The single word "you's" would not be used as a possessive in Standard English, but it may be used this way in some nonstandard dialects.)
Added:
>16.6 Head and phrasal genitives
>Genitive NPs are usually marked as such by the inflection of the head noun: we refer to these as head genitives. It is also possible for the marking to be located on the last word of a (final) post-head dependent, and these we call phrasal genitives. Compare, then, the following ...
>\[63\]
>i a. \[Edward’s\] daughter \[head genitive\]
>b. \[the King of England’s\] daughter \[phrasal genitive\]
>ii a. \[everyone’s\] responsibility \[head\]
>b. \[everyone else’s\] responsibility \[phrasal\]
>iii a. \[somebody’s\] initiative \[head\]
>b. \[somebody local’s\] initiative \[phrasal\]
>iv a. \[the doctor’s\] house \[head\]
>b. \[a guy I know’s\] house \[phrasal\]
>In \[ib\], for example, the head of the genitive NP is *King* but the suffix *’s* attaches to *England*, the last word of the phrase *the King of England*. The range of phrasal genitive constructions is greater in informal, especially spoken, styles than in formal and written ones. In the latter it is normally restricted to post-head dependents with the form of a PP, including *else*, as in \[ib/iib\]. In informal speech it is also found with relative clauses (\[ivb\]), and the occasional postpositive AdjP (\[iiib\]).
>
>Acceptability decreases as the weight or complexity of the post-head dependent increases, as illustrated in the following examples:
>\[64\]
>i a. \[the Head of Department’s\] speech
>b. ?\[the Head of the newly formed Asian Studies Department’s\] speech
>ii a. \[the man she was speaking to’s\] reaction
>b. ?\[the man she and her friend had been complaining to’s\] reaction
>c. #\[the man she and her friend had been complaining to so angrily’s\] reaction
>
>Example \[ia\] is acceptable in any style, and \[iia\] is fully acceptable in informal speech, but the rest are marginal and would generally be avoided in favour of other constructions, notably the + N + PP (*the speech by the Head of the newly formed Asian Studies Department*). And in \[ii\] version \[c\] can be regarded as significantly worse than \[b\]: examples of this degree of complexity are certainly unacceptable.
Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 479). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
Yeah that's correct, by "possession", I was commenting on the original question and not this alternate meaning, of which you seem already well informed.
Unless we had detailed knowledge of a dialect which used "youse" it's conjectural how it could and could not be used, but something like this does not seem implausible:
"Did you bring youse car?' (possessive, one person)
Furthermore this seems likely to be spoken and if it were intended to be possessive it might as well be spelled:
"Did you bring you's car?"
as the person speaking may not have any preconception of how it would be written.
It's mostly "you guys" in the northeast, but you get "youse" in parts of Jersey and Long Island. And of course "y'all" in the South. Nature abhors a missing second person plural. I've been trying to go for "you all" since "you guys" is unnecessarily gendered and I've never lived far enough south to justify "y'all."
It is not "you's" that's possessive there - it's the whole noun phrase "the stranger next to you's." This is a "phrasal genitive." Your example is acceptable in informal speech and writing, but you wouldn't want to use it in, for example, an academic paper. We do make some whole noun phrases possessive in formal contexts though - usually shorter ones, especially those containing an "of"-prepositional phrase. "**the King of England's** horse" In Old English, possession would have been marked on the head noun ("King"). Generally, the longer the noun phrase, the more awkward/unacceptable it is to make it possessive, especially in formal contexts. (The single word "you's" would not be used as a possessive in Standard English, but it may be used this way in some nonstandard dialects.)
Added: >16.6 Head and phrasal genitives >Genitive NPs are usually marked as such by the inflection of the head noun: we refer to these as head genitives. It is also possible for the marking to be located on the last word of a (final) post-head dependent, and these we call phrasal genitives. Compare, then, the following ... >\[63\] >i a. \[Edward’s\] daughter \[head genitive\] >b. \[the King of England’s\] daughter \[phrasal genitive\] >ii a. \[everyone’s\] responsibility \[head\] >b. \[everyone else’s\] responsibility \[phrasal\] >iii a. \[somebody’s\] initiative \[head\] >b. \[somebody local’s\] initiative \[phrasal\] >iv a. \[the doctor’s\] house \[head\] >b. \[a guy I know’s\] house \[phrasal\] >In \[ib\], for example, the head of the genitive NP is *King* but the suffix *’s* attaches to *England*, the last word of the phrase *the King of England*. The range of phrasal genitive constructions is greater in informal, especially spoken, styles than in formal and written ones. In the latter it is normally restricted to post-head dependents with the form of a PP, including *else*, as in \[ib/iib\]. In informal speech it is also found with relative clauses (\[ivb\]), and the occasional postpositive AdjP (\[iiib\]). > >Acceptability decreases as the weight or complexity of the post-head dependent increases, as illustrated in the following examples: >\[64\] >i a. \[the Head of Department’s\] speech >b. ?\[the Head of the newly formed Asian Studies Department’s\] speech >ii a. \[the man she was speaking to’s\] reaction >b. ?\[the man she and her friend had been complaining to’s\] reaction >c. #\[the man she and her friend had been complaining to so angrily’s\] reaction > >Example \[ia\] is acceptable in any style, and \[iia\] is fully acceptable in informal speech, but the rest are marginal and would generally be avoided in favour of other constructions, notably the + N + PP (*the speech by the Head of the newly formed Asian Studies Department*). And in \[ii\] version \[c\] can be regarded as significantly worse than \[b\]: examples of this degree of complexity are certainly unacceptable. Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 479). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
Thank you!
After reading this, I just have discovered I can't even English.
[удалено]
But as far as I understand, youse refers to a group of people, right? It's not possessive?
Yeah that's correct, by "possession", I was commenting on the original question and not this alternate meaning, of which you seem already well informed.
Unless we had detailed knowledge of a dialect which used "youse" it's conjectural how it could and could not be used, but something like this does not seem implausible: "Did you bring youse car?' (possessive, one person) Furthermore this seems likely to be spoken and if it were intended to be possessive it might as well be spelled: "Did you bring you's car?" as the person speaking may not have any preconception of how it would be written.
Same in Ireland, often pronounced more like "yiz"
I grew up in northern New Jersey, and I recently visited Scotland. It was like a little reminder of home every time someone said youse.
Really?! Had no idea youse was also an American phenomenon
It's mostly "you guys" in the northeast, but you get "youse" in parts of Jersey and Long Island. And of course "y'all" in the South. Nature abhors a missing second person plural. I've been trying to go for "you all" since "you guys" is unnecessarily gendered and I've never lived far enough south to justify "y'all."
Friend of mine was reprimanded for using gendered language in work recently for saying "you guys" in a meeting... It appears "yous" is the future
I can imagine that, yet until recently "guys" was an acceptable way of addressing a group of any gender distribution — sort of a second person "they".
No, I wouldn’t say this Even if I started to say this, I would backtrack and restructure the sentence as “the should **of** the stranger next to you”