Around you / The province
One of the most distinctive aspects of our dialectal variation is the absence of the second person plural throughout the verb system and the pronouns you, os, and your possessives. Exceptin certain regions of La Palma, La Gomera, and parts of Tenerife—where they persist as archaic features—the pronominal structure in Canarian Spanish only includes us, you, and them in the plural form. In contrast, in northern or Castilian forms, there is a correlation: you serves as the plural of you (“you go”) alongside a pronoun “you van”. The exclusion of “you” in the Canarian norm has broadened the meaning of “you”, encompassing the plurals of you both in a familiar and formal context: Canarians generally say “you go” without needing to determine if the listeners should be addressed with familiarity or courtesy.
Outside the archaic regions mentioned, phrases such as “I see you!” form part of the slogan of a Canarian banking entity supporting its notable advertising claim. This form is also commonly expressed in daily conversations (“Are you going now?”) and appears more frequently in formal speeches, conferences, and various types of correspondence: “You, distinguished and esteemed congressmen, I address myself to you with the highest respect,” erroneously interpreting this pronoun as a mark of greater cultivated or prestigious language use. This usage of “you” has popularly been termed “tuteo”.
We even encounter a mixture of the two approaches, where “you” is, paradoxically, used in a familiar or informal context, while it becomes a courteous pronoun in other situations. “What would you like to take?” a waiter might ask his regular local patrons, but he might switch to “What would you prefer?” when he feels that newcomers deserve a more respectful approach. This belief in presenting a more refined version of the language often leads to anomalies. A typical usage for any Canarian speaker would be “What would you like to take?” in all scenarios, highlighting a certain linguistic insecurity and a complex relationship to the northern Spanish norm. Hence, we see a phenomenon of “vosotrism” or “osstage”, where the speaker opts for the Castilian expression of courtesy rather than sticking to their natural form.
There’s nothing problematic about consciously and consistently choosing between the northern or Castilian pronominal systems (without apprehension of linguistic inadequacy). Knowing that this form represents another variation of Spanish where “you” serves as the plural of “you” and encompasses the value of courtesy is a personal choice. After all, the decision between the two systems reflects an individual’s right to embrace an aspect of the Spanish language, despite evident dissonance with the dialectical context.
It must be acknowledged that this subject is complex and merits in-depth linguistic analysis due to the varied perceptions surrounding the facts. However, it would be prudent to recommend consistency since irregularities in these pronoun choices could reveal an insecurity and lack of mastery of the language. This is illustrated in a message from a Canarian addressing a group with “I write to inform you about an upcoming meeting…” and concluding with “You are all invited”. The frequent switches between pronouns and verb forms—”Do you hear me?” or “I hope you do not leave”—further evidence this hybrid situation between the two systems, which I previously discussed in an article addressing university settings.
Moreover, when examining works by local writers, particularly in poetry, encounters with “you” may occur, presenting their respective ambiguous pronouns and broken second-person structures. This could lead one to assume that such pronouns are intrinsic to the Canarian norms, justifying their use in any communicative encounter. Instead of rejecting or critiquing these instances, it would prove beneficial to regard them as literary techniques or poetic liberties akin to rhetorical devices like apostrophe, personification, metaphor, or hyperbaton, which are decidedly different from everyday spoken language. Undoubtedly, within literary contexts, deviations such as hyperbaton and other poetic devices would be perceived as forms of elevated language.
While it may appear trivial, it is noteworthy that the stability of the southern pronominal system (without “you”) does not induce the insecurities or hesitations present in the northern forms. Anomalous structures, such as “*exit” and “*sit” fluctuate against the established “salid” and “sitting” norms, while a speaker of the southern system would effortlessly use “leave” or “feel” without hesitation. A famously problematic case is the verb IR (SE), whose imperative “id” should, in theory, lose the D when followed by the pronoun, becoming “*íos” in line with northern Spanish norms. Nevertheless, this form has, for various reasons, been dismissed, and the generally accepted usage is “gone”, which ironically stands alongside its implausible counterpart, “go”, both of which the Royal Academy has surprisingly validated. In the context of the Canarian dialect, an imperative from the second person plural, “Váyanse” would be the expected form.
It could be posited that for educational purposes, only the pronominal system without “you” (os) or the appropriate verbal forms (we sing, you sing, and they sing) should be promoted as conducive to our norm, steering clear of “osstage” for any justification, even those citing literary origins, as potentially superior to our already established standard.
Ultimately, to safeguard the integrity of our existing system and with the view of education, it is vital to avoid any interference that could obstruct the natural language acquisition process, which will commence, primarily, through our own dialectal variation.
It seems probable that objections to these recommendations may arise, and all language variants ought to be respected. While acknowledging the dynamic nature of any living language, it is essential to be vigilant against excessive variation and uncontrollable shifts that might impede authentic learning.
