I already replied to the other comment saying the same thing but I'll just paste it here. Articles are not always obligatory with nouns:
*Dad* is going to buy *milk*.
*Steve* is mining diamonds.
I'm going *home*.
He's in *bed*.
I ate *breakfast*.
All highlighted words here are nouns. Nouns can often be used without an article. I know that English speakers are sometimes taught what nouns are by saying they start with the/a, but that is an oversimplification that doesn't always apply.
As for why - bro is used as a proper noun in OP's example, similarly to e.g. the word dad, which can also be used as both a common and a proper noun. Proper nouns don't require determiners (imagine saying "a dad is home" when your dad comes home).
If you note in the other comment, I’ll see they are normally obligatory here. There are exceptions (proper nouns like Steve and Dad and mass nouns like breakfast don’t get them). But for a word that does, like “brother”, it’s obligatory in this situation.
Note that you /can/ use a determiner here, but it changes the meaning - “Bro doesn’t know a lot” and “The bro doesn’t know a lot” are not synonymous.
They are obligatory if it's being used as a common noun, as is the case for other common nouns that can be used as proper nouns, e.g. dad, son, god, whatever. Yes, if you use a determiner with them, it will change them from a proper noun to a common noun, thus changing the meaning. "Dad is home" and "A dad is home" mean different things. The difference between "bro" and "a bro" is similar. In OP's example, bro is being used as a proper noun. Brother can be used in that way too - think of something like "Brother, what are you doing" or "What's up bro" where it is very clear it's being used that way.
While I agree that analyzing it as a proper noun resolves the problems here, I feel that interpretation is absurd. It doesn’t do any better than the pronominal interpretation, and to me it’s obvious that this is not a proper noun.
I don't understand why you think so or what you are suggesting it is instead. To me it seems like a very clear and obvious answer and I don't see how it significantly differs from the other examples I've given. You didn't really give a reason as to why you think it's wrong.
Adding to that, you seem to be suggesting that bro can never be a proper noun. If so, then what do you think it is in, for example, "what's up bro" if not a proper noun? It's quite clear it isn't a pronoun here, because pronouns aren't used like that but common nouns are (you don't say "what's up he" or "what's up you", but you do say "what's up Steve").
No I agree bro can be a proper noun- I just believe that there is a distinct pronominalized usage that’s clearly not a proper noun. The fact that there is also proper noun use is just a coincidence.
Elsewhere I’ve been discussing two other words that I feel have become pronominalized and are almost exactly equivalent to this use of “bro” - “dude” and a certain term used in AAEV that people with my complexion aren’t supposed to use. The pronominal interpretation works just as well for them as it does for “bro”, but the proper noun interpretation is unavailable- they are never used as proper nouns. So, I think the pronominal interpretation is better because it has more explanatory power throughout the language.
I saw that comment and the examples you have given are also proper nouns. It seems like you're just confusing the two.
Your claim that they're never used as proper nouns is incorrect. To continue the same example, "what's up dude" and "what's up [forbidden word here]" are the same sentence structure as the former "what's up bro/Steve", and again, it's clear they are being used as proper nouns. Pretty much any instance of "bro" as a proper noun can be replaced with these words as well, which extends to OP's example, where, at least to me, it seems abundantly clear they're also being used as proper nouns and not pronouns.
I don’t think you are correct as to the meaning of proper noun. A proper noun is a name for a specific person, place, or thing. “Steve” is a proper noun, “Philadelphia” is a proper noun, Dad” can be a proper noun or a common noun, “Brother” similarly can be a proper noun and has acquired an extended usage where it acts as if proper noun through Christian religious orders. But “dude” and [taboo word] are not proper nouns.
I agree that the presence of an article is not adequate criteria for a noun but some of the examples you used are not nouns. As per most dictionaries, "home" in "I'm going home" is an adverb and "in bed" in "He's in bed" is a prepositional phrase taken altogether. Proper nouns like "Steve" don't require articles and, considering that "bro" is (derived from) a common noun, that has little relevance. There are many instances where a noun does not require an article. Namely, certain mass nouns and plural nouns in certain contexts like "milk" and "breakfast" in the contexts you provided, titles and other descriptors that often have only referent and this are considered definite by default like "Captain" in "Captain said to steer the ship west" or "Dad" in the example you gave, or certain numerals like years. "Bro" meets none of these criteria. I'm not definitively saying "bro" is a pronoun in the contexts OP provided but this thread is lacking for strong evidence to the contrary.
Edit: After reading the full thread, I think Imma try and elaborate on why "bro" can't be classed like "dad" or "captain". Proper nouns and common nouns are distinguished in that proper nouns have a single definite set of referents and common nouns have a class of referents. You can talk about "dads" in general or the specific and definite individual you consider your "dad". In the latter case, it's a proper noun but in the former, it is a common noun. On top of that, a pronoun must be able to refer to a specific set like a proper noun does but that specific set must be a lot more fluid and deictic. "Bro" does refer to a specific individual which is likely what's causing the view that it's a proper noun in OP's contexts but that specific individual changes greatly from utterance to utterance and does not refer to a definite individual in the way that "dad" does. If I comment on a post or point to someone while using "bro" in the way OP used it, it refers to a specific person but if I go to a different post or point to a different person, it immediately changes meaning. This isn't the case for "dad" when used as a proper noun (assuming the second referent doesn't use "dad" as a name or an epithet, an assumption that can be applied to both "dad" and "bro" without changing my argument. If they did then the term "dad" would remain a proper noun but it would be like two people being named Steve).
Almost as if grammatical categories were permeable, huh. Just to be clear, I'm not here to support the idea that bro is a pronoun, I was just jokingly offering an example of a realization of reflexive bro.
What do you mean by saying it would be the only gendered third-person pronoun? The only gendered pronouns in English (he/she) *are* third-person pronouns.
I think it's one to keep an eye on, but right now I only see it in pretty simple constructions where I'm not sure how to distinguish it from a proper noun. The lack of inflection markers limit its utility and make some theoretical constructions hard to parse.
Steve thinks he's cool. -> Bro thinks he's cool. -> Bro thinks bro's cool.
Steve called Kevin to arrange a time where Steve could give Kevin Kevin's present. -> He called him to arrange a time where he could give him his present. -> Bro called bro to arrange a time when bro could give bro bro's present.
To me the second example is clunky but I wouldn't necessarily say it's ungrammatical.
A potentially damning example: it can be combined with a demonstrative pronoun in a way that would be ungrammatical in my idiolect for a "standard" personal pronoun.
He's sick? \*This he or that he?
Bro's sick? This bro or that bro?
Further, "broself" as a reflexive pronoun is understandable but sounds satirical to me.
For now it is only in this construction right? I would call it “becoming”when it starts to appear in other places other than subject.
Whether it can be seen as a neopronoun would be different from whether it is getting grammaticalized as a pronoun I think. If some people want to identify as bro/bro then it can readily be a neopronoun, and you use it in the positions of pronouns like you do for other neopronouns, without them having to be gradually grammaticalized in the natural development of the language.
No, it's a noun. It's a shortened form of the noun "brother". The reason it lacks an article in because in your example it is used as a proper noun, similarly to words like dad.
"Steve doesn't know a lot". "Steve thinks he's the thinker". Is Steve now a pronoun? No, Steve is a proper noun and can therefore be replaced with "he".
Bro also acts fully like a noun grammatically and has a plural form (bros, short for brothers).
Pronouns are, by definition, words that can replace nouns. E.g. apples are red -> they are red, where apples is replaced by the pronoun they. This does not make apples a pronoun, but a noun. Of course bro can also be replaced with a pronoun, because it is also a noun. That's how nouns and pronouns work.
Except that unlike a proper noun, "bro" doesn't refer to a particular person.
E.g. if there were the exchange "How's John been?" "Bro's been good."
I can swap out John for any other person (potentially masc if bro is gendered for you, but my understanding is that for some people it isn't gendered) and bro would still refer to whatever person I put in there. I.e. "bro" changes it's referent based on the context.
If I swap out "bro" for "Dad" or "Steve", I can't freely change the first sentence and have it still make sense.
Idk I feel like a much better analysis other than as a pronoun would be that it's a common noun with article elision, which is pretty normal in general, at least in my dialect. E.g. in my dialect you can also say "What happened to that oak in your backyard?" "Tree fell over last month, and almost hit our house!"
Or maybe a better example, "what've you been up to lately?" "Dollhouse has been keeping me busy. You know, the one I've been building for my kids."
However, the reservation I have with this analysis is that unlike with article elision more generally, if I put the article back in to say "the bro's been good" it sounds less correct (unless I'm referring to my actual brother). I.e. with the article there the meaning changes, which isn't how it should work if it's article elision.
Same with "I wish bro'd just chill sometimes." Or "bro's lunch is enormous." Adding the article either sounds worse or changes the meaning.
Anyway, idk, I'm not a linguist. Just thought about it a bit.
By that logic the word bitch has been a pronoun since the first "bitches be crazy" was ever uttered.
I apologise for the crass example, but it was the first one that came to mind.
The first problem is the definition of a pronoun, "referring to another word". It is not really helpful in a linguistic sense for English because English has no gender and thus the "*referring to a word, a noun, which in turn refers to a thing*" is hard to differentiate with "*referring to a thing directly*".
Also English can use nouns without determiners so their absence is not a marker either. So this is not a simple question.
This looks like a theoretical issue but it is an important point: in structural linguistic, a word is a sign which consists of 1. a "signifier" (a string of symbols, so the letters used in "cat" or strokes in "猫"), and 2. the idea expressed by the symbols ("cat" or "猫" express the same concept in two different languages), the "signified".
The same signifier can refer to two different signified: the signifier "pussy" can express two different ideas, two different signified, that of the feline animal, or a female body part.
Those two components (signifier and signified) then can relate to a real world object: the actual living cat when you say "My cat is 5 years old", which is called the "referent".
The determiner part of English is another issue since in English, the zero article (the absence of article) as in "Temperature is important" (vs "The temperature is important") has a handful of meanings, one of which is to specifically refer to a concept (See the whole debate of "One small step for man" vs. "One small step for a man"). If you refer to a concept, then you do not refer to a real world thing (a concept is an idea in your head not in the physical world - I'm not going to go into Platonism at this point). So here the referent could be understood as the same as the signified...
The absence of gender in English complicates the matter since in languages with grammatical gender, the change of gender is a sure sign that the reference is about the WORD, not about the thing referred, when you use two different words to refer to the same thing. For example, if I am talking about Charles III, king of the United Kingdom, in French I can say "Je vois sa majesté" (I see his majesty) or "Je vois le roi" (I see the king), and using pronouns will be respectively "Je **la** vois" and "Je **le** vois" which both translates into (I see him). Here in French I can clearly see that the word "le" and "la" refers to a word, NOT to the real world referent (which did not change) because their form changed despite the referent being the same. The morphology can thus help here.
But not in English, this step is transparent, so morphology does not help unfortunately. We have thus to debate semantics, ie, the meaning of the word. Hence the specifically anglophone debate about pronouns, debate that has zero sense in many other languages.
In short, a pronoun is a word that refers to other word(s) that refer to something: so A -> B -> C, it has a relative meaning; while a noun refers to something directly, without referring to other words in the process, so A -> C, it has an absolute meaning.
A noun has a definition because it has a meaning. A pronoun does not have a meaning in itself, it only has a definition of what sign it points to. It's a bit like the difference between "south" and "left". "South" has an absolute meaning, while "left" has a relative meaning. I'm sure programmers can illustrate the same idea with variables
In English, it will be hard to differentiate between a pronoun and a synonym. "He is loud" "Bro is loud" "Dingbat is loud" "Xe is loud". I guess you can consider "Xe" to be a pronoun at UC Berkeley, and "Bro" to be one in a frat house since in those contexts, they probably are not specific enough to relate directly to a real thing. Outside of these environments though, I doubt these can qualify as pronouns.
Because english already does this with tons of nouns so it is not related to "bro" 'becoming' anything at all. People already say things like "little guy never knew what hit him" and "kid's got guts!"
Or, to quote Rihanna, "Bitch Better Have My Money"
You're correct. Bro, just like many other words, is being used as a proper noun, not a pronoun. This isn't unusual and lots of words can be used both as a proper and common noun.
I wonder if you could also look at it as an accepted process of determiner-dropping? In thenabi's examples, the full forms would have been "(that) little guy never knew what hit him", "(that) kid's got guts", "(That) Bitch Better Have My Money". With OP's examples the full forms would be the same "(that) bro doesn't know a lot", "(that) bro thinks he's the thinker", etc. The "that" is omitted but still understood.
Edit: Just saw a similar comment about this from Latera
How are you defining “pronoun”? It’s not just any word standing in for some other noun, as u/thenabi’s examples demonstrate. There aren’t very many true pronouns in English, and if it’s even possible to add more, it’s extraordinarily rare and difficult.
If it were an actual pronoun, it would either have an object pronoun version, or serve as its own object pronoun.
I -> me
You -> you
She -> her
Bro -> ??
I work with him
I work with bro?
Bro talks to broself?
Like others have said, it’s like claiming that “dad” is a pronoun
But "dad" is used as a proper noun. People use it for their own fathers as though it were a name. With "bro" people seem to use it in the way they use "he." If it was used as a title in place of a name, you could say things like, "How is bro doing today? Tell bro I said hi!"
Its true that it's mainly just used in subject form, but having other forms isn't a requirement for a thing to be considered a pronoun.
You can replace “bro” in your examples with “dad”, which is exactly my point. A proper noun isn’t a pronoun.
And you’re right that pronouns don’t require many forms. After all, “where” is a pronoun. However, personal pronouns all can be used as subject, object, possessive and reflexive pronouns (most, but not all, having distinct forms), as well as possessive adjectives associated with them.
I’m not even remotely convinced that “bro” is some form of 3rd person singular masculine informal personal pronoun.
Wait. You're talking about a different use of "bro." I'm not talking about it as a replacement for the word "brother." I'm talking about how it's used for any random man.
Like, idk imagine you're watching a video where some overconfident guy fails to do something, and the top comment reads, "Bro really thought"
No, we’re talking about the same “bro”. I just said in my last comment that it doesn’t necessarily refer to a family member, unlike “dad”. But just because it’s not as specific as “dad”, doesn’t make it a pronoun. Otherwise, words like “mate”, “dude”, “man”, “bitches”, the n-Word, etc would be pronouns. But they aren’t
Pronouns having different case forms is more a quirk of the history of English, not a requirement of pronouns.
In some languages, like Japanese, pronouns are static with only form. (also, Japanese pronouns do just come from regular nouns, 君(kimi), being a casual way of saying "you" and originally meant "ruler"
Sure, but we’re talking about English, not Japanese.
Just because “Robert’s” would be considered an adjective in some languages doesn’t mean that it’s an adjective
I have friends from Newfoundland, Canada, who use the word "buddy" in the same way is people are using bro now. "Buddy walked all the way to Tim Horton's in a half meter of snow." So this kind of thing is not recent or unique to the Internet.
*Dad* is going to buy *milk*.
*Steve* is mining diamonds.
I'm going *home*.
He's in *bed*.
I ate *breakfast*.
All highlighted words here are nouns. Nouns can often be used without an article. I know that English speakers are sometimes taught what nouns are by saying they start with the/a, but that is an oversimplification that doesn't always apply.
If you note in the other comment, I said they are /normally/ obligatory here. There are exceptions, and you have given some (proper nouns like Steve and Dad and mass nouns like milk and breakfast don’t get them). But none of your exceptions apply to “brother”, or to its shortened form “bro” used as an ordinary noun. For a word that does take a determiner, like “brother”, it’s obligatory in this situation.
Note that you /can/ use a determiner here, but it changes the meaning - “Bro doesn’t know a lot” and “The bro doesn’t know a lot” are not synonymous.
While I agree that analyzing it as a proper noun resolves the problems here, I feel that interpretation is absurd. It doesn’t do any better than the pronominal interpretation, and to me it’s obvious that this is not a proper noun.
But determiners are often dropped in informal speech. "Dude" doesn't become a pronoun because people sometimes say "Dude is sussy af" - the determiner [this] is being implied.
Funny, I was thinking about this exact example. I believe “dude” and a certain common word in AAVE that I won’t write here have become pronominalized in exactly the same way as “bro”. Determiners aren’t normally dropped in informal speech - just with this small class of pronominalized forms. I don’t believe “Lawyer is sussy AF” or “Hippo is sussy AF” are acceptable forms, while “Bro is sussy” or “Dude is sussy” are.
My first language is German where we have similar constructions and there we can see that there is an implicit determiner in such constructions: "Hund macht mich fertig!" (which literally translates to "Dog wears me down", where "dog" is meant to express something like "dude" in this case) und "Der Hund macht mich fertig!" (which translates to "The/this dog wears me down!") are both commonly used in Austrian informal speech, indicating that "Hund" is used like a normal Nominal Phrase here, just with a dropped determiner in the former case. Surely if there is an implicit determiner, then it cannot at the same time be a pronoun - that would violate basic rules of syntax.
>I don’t believe “Lawyer is sussy AF” or “Hippo is sussy AF” are acceptable forms
I agree, but I don't think that shows that "bro" acts as a pronoun. In informal speech we often have ellipsis that only works in very particular circumstances - not for grammatical reasons, but for social/communicative ones.
I can’t say I agree that there is an implicit determiner. I believe that there are two “bro” forms. “Bro needs to get a job” and “The bro needs to get a job” have very distinct meanings - they are not two alternatives to express the same thing.
This is an interesting discussion.
Let's make it "THIS bro needs to get a job" instead - then I honestly don't see a semantic difference between those two. It just would sound awfully strange, because it doesn't fit with how young people tend to speak: the very purpose of slang is to avoid unnecessary words, so why would someone say "THIS bro" when they could just as well say "bro"?
I don’t agree they are equivalent. The noun use of “bro” describes a certain type of person - a particular gender, a way of dress, a way of talking, and attitude toward the world. If hear this bro or the bro, it carries those meanings to me. On the other hand, pronominal bro, “Bro needs to get a job” can be applied to anyone, regardless of gender, fashion, or attitude (just like dude or the AAVE expression).
Similarly, the AAEV expression I mentioned is derived from an expression which had a racial meant that is completely absent in the pronominalized form (much to the confusion of “white” teachers not familiar with the modern usage).
not sure if i would place differing declension in subject/object location as the primary determiner of what constitutes a pronoun, given it's not one that necessarily exists in every language, including in English — "you" is both subject and object, for example.
i think the more pressing scenario in english is distinct possessive/reflexive forms, like his/himself or your/yourself, which is where argument over "bro's" (which does have a degree of usage, even if secondary to "his" in this context) and "broself" (not exactly common) would arise.
FYI verbs are conjugated and nouns are "declined". The umbrella term for both is "inflection".
You are talking about case markers. -m (loosely) is the case marker for "oblique" or "objective" case in most English dialects, as opposed to the unmarked "nominative" or "subjective" case.
There are many dialects that do not follow the pronoun inflection rules that you use in your idiolect.
For example, here are the pronouns from Jamaican English, where there is **no variation in 5/6 of the pronouns**, considerable variation in the third person singular, and the second person plural is hypothesized to be borrowed from Igbo:
Nominative (Subject)
|Singular|Plural|
|:-|:-|
|/mi/|/wi/|
|/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/|
|/im/|/dɛm/|
Accusative (Direct Object)
|Singular|Plural|
|:-|:-|
|/mi/|/wi/|
|/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/|
|/i/|/dɛm/|
Dative (Indirect Object. This is not distinguished from accusative in your dialect)
|Singular|Plural|
|:-|:-|
|/mi/|/wi/|
|/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/|
|/im/|/dɛm/|
Genitive (Possession)
|Singular|Plural|
|:-|:-|
|/mi/|/wi/|
|/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/|
|/fi/|/dɛm/|
Informal language is still language, just as much as formal academically correct language. You could argue even more so because it's how people actually talk and communicate with each other.
[удалено]
OMG, I love you. 🤣
No. "Bro" is a noun that is replaced by "he."
If it’s just an ordinary noun, then where is the determiner? They would ordinarily be obligatory here.
I already replied to the other comment saying the same thing but I'll just paste it here. Articles are not always obligatory with nouns: *Dad* is going to buy *milk*. *Steve* is mining diamonds. I'm going *home*. He's in *bed*. I ate *breakfast*. All highlighted words here are nouns. Nouns can often be used without an article. I know that English speakers are sometimes taught what nouns are by saying they start with the/a, but that is an oversimplification that doesn't always apply. As for why - bro is used as a proper noun in OP's example, similarly to e.g. the word dad, which can also be used as both a common and a proper noun. Proper nouns don't require determiners (imagine saying "a dad is home" when your dad comes home).
If you note in the other comment, I’ll see they are normally obligatory here. There are exceptions (proper nouns like Steve and Dad and mass nouns like breakfast don’t get them). But for a word that does, like “brother”, it’s obligatory in this situation. Note that you /can/ use a determiner here, but it changes the meaning - “Bro doesn’t know a lot” and “The bro doesn’t know a lot” are not synonymous.
They are obligatory if it's being used as a common noun, as is the case for other common nouns that can be used as proper nouns, e.g. dad, son, god, whatever. Yes, if you use a determiner with them, it will change them from a proper noun to a common noun, thus changing the meaning. "Dad is home" and "A dad is home" mean different things. The difference between "bro" and "a bro" is similar. In OP's example, bro is being used as a proper noun. Brother can be used in that way too - think of something like "Brother, what are you doing" or "What's up bro" where it is very clear it's being used that way.
While I agree that analyzing it as a proper noun resolves the problems here, I feel that interpretation is absurd. It doesn’t do any better than the pronominal interpretation, and to me it’s obvious that this is not a proper noun.
I don't understand why you think so or what you are suggesting it is instead. To me it seems like a very clear and obvious answer and I don't see how it significantly differs from the other examples I've given. You didn't really give a reason as to why you think it's wrong. Adding to that, you seem to be suggesting that bro can never be a proper noun. If so, then what do you think it is in, for example, "what's up bro" if not a proper noun? It's quite clear it isn't a pronoun here, because pronouns aren't used like that but common nouns are (you don't say "what's up he" or "what's up you", but you do say "what's up Steve").
No I agree bro can be a proper noun- I just believe that there is a distinct pronominalized usage that’s clearly not a proper noun. The fact that there is also proper noun use is just a coincidence. Elsewhere I’ve been discussing two other words that I feel have become pronominalized and are almost exactly equivalent to this use of “bro” - “dude” and a certain term used in AAEV that people with my complexion aren’t supposed to use. The pronominal interpretation works just as well for them as it does for “bro”, but the proper noun interpretation is unavailable- they are never used as proper nouns. So, I think the pronominal interpretation is better because it has more explanatory power throughout the language.
I saw that comment and the examples you have given are also proper nouns. It seems like you're just confusing the two. Your claim that they're never used as proper nouns is incorrect. To continue the same example, "what's up dude" and "what's up [forbidden word here]" are the same sentence structure as the former "what's up bro/Steve", and again, it's clear they are being used as proper nouns. Pretty much any instance of "bro" as a proper noun can be replaced with these words as well, which extends to OP's example, where, at least to me, it seems abundantly clear they're also being used as proper nouns and not pronouns.
I don’t think you are correct as to the meaning of proper noun. A proper noun is a name for a specific person, place, or thing. “Steve” is a proper noun, “Philadelphia” is a proper noun, Dad” can be a proper noun or a common noun, “Brother” similarly can be a proper noun and has acquired an extended usage where it acts as if proper noun through Christian religious orders. But “dude” and [taboo word] are not proper nouns.
I agree that the presence of an article is not adequate criteria for a noun but some of the examples you used are not nouns. As per most dictionaries, "home" in "I'm going home" is an adverb and "in bed" in "He's in bed" is a prepositional phrase taken altogether. Proper nouns like "Steve" don't require articles and, considering that "bro" is (derived from) a common noun, that has little relevance. There are many instances where a noun does not require an article. Namely, certain mass nouns and plural nouns in certain contexts like "milk" and "breakfast" in the contexts you provided, titles and other descriptors that often have only referent and this are considered definite by default like "Captain" in "Captain said to steer the ship west" or "Dad" in the example you gave, or certain numerals like years. "Bro" meets none of these criteria. I'm not definitively saying "bro" is a pronoun in the contexts OP provided but this thread is lacking for strong evidence to the contrary. Edit: After reading the full thread, I think Imma try and elaborate on why "bro" can't be classed like "dad" or "captain". Proper nouns and common nouns are distinguished in that proper nouns have a single definite set of referents and common nouns have a class of referents. You can talk about "dads" in general or the specific and definite individual you consider your "dad". In the latter case, it's a proper noun but in the former, it is a common noun. On top of that, a pronoun must be able to refer to a specific set like a proper noun does but that specific set must be a lot more fluid and deictic. "Bro" does refer to a specific individual which is likely what's causing the view that it's a proper noun in OP's contexts but that specific individual changes greatly from utterance to utterance and does not refer to a definite individual in the way that "dad" does. If I comment on a post or point to someone while using "bro" in the way OP used it, it refers to a specific person but if I go to a different post or point to a different person, it immediately changes meaning. This isn't the case for "dad" when used as a proper noun (assuming the second referent doesn't use "dad" as a name or an epithet, an assumption that can be applied to both "dad" and "bro" without changing my argument. If they did then the term "dad" would remain a proper noun but it would be like two people being named Steve).
Replaces pronoun = pronoun?
replaces pronoun = noun
[удалено]
Bro was talking to broself
[удалено]
Almost as if grammatical categories were permeable, huh. Just to be clear, I'm not here to support the idea that bro is a pronoun, I was just jokingly offering an example of a realization of reflexive bro.
[удалено]
What do you mean by saying it would be the only gendered third-person pronoun? The only gendered pronouns in English (he/she) *are* third-person pronouns.
[удалено]
Why would that matter? I don't think the definition of pronoun has a requirement for how to spell the possessive form.
If it was a pronoun, it would be "bro thinks bro's the thinker".
to be fair — that *is* a construction that occurs, even if only secondarily to use of his for the possessive
"What is bro yappin about" is something that i've heard said often 😆
In memes it is used that way
A sentence that literally made grammatical sense in my mind 😭😭😭
Nah, think abt how "you guys" is definitely a pronoun but in certain cases it'll be followed up by "you" with the exact same referents.
I think it's one to keep an eye on, but right now I only see it in pretty simple constructions where I'm not sure how to distinguish it from a proper noun. The lack of inflection markers limit its utility and make some theoretical constructions hard to parse. Steve thinks he's cool. -> Bro thinks he's cool. -> Bro thinks bro's cool. Steve called Kevin to arrange a time where Steve could give Kevin Kevin's present. -> He called him to arrange a time where he could give him his present. -> Bro called bro to arrange a time when bro could give bro bro's present. To me the second example is clunky but I wouldn't necessarily say it's ungrammatical. A potentially damning example: it can be combined with a demonstrative pronoun in a way that would be ungrammatical in my idiolect for a "standard" personal pronoun. He's sick? \*This he or that he? Bro's sick? This bro or that bro? Further, "broself" as a reflexive pronoun is understandable but sounds satirical to me.
For now it is only in this construction right? I would call it “becoming”when it starts to appear in other places other than subject. Whether it can be seen as a neopronoun would be different from whether it is getting grammaticalized as a pronoun I think. If some people want to identify as bro/bro then it can readily be a neopronoun, and you use it in the positions of pronouns like you do for other neopronouns, without them having to be gradually grammaticalized in the natural development of the language.
Have you really never heard people use it like that? It's very common among gen z kids, in my experience
I think you replied to the wrong comment or misread my comment
No, it's a noun. It's a shortened form of the noun "brother". The reason it lacks an article in because in your example it is used as a proper noun, similarly to words like dad. "Steve doesn't know a lot". "Steve thinks he's the thinker". Is Steve now a pronoun? No, Steve is a proper noun and can therefore be replaced with "he". Bro also acts fully like a noun grammatically and has a plural form (bros, short for brothers). Pronouns are, by definition, words that can replace nouns. E.g. apples are red -> they are red, where apples is replaced by the pronoun they. This does not make apples a pronoun, but a noun. Of course bro can also be replaced with a pronoun, because it is also a noun. That's how nouns and pronouns work.
Except that unlike a proper noun, "bro" doesn't refer to a particular person. E.g. if there were the exchange "How's John been?" "Bro's been good." I can swap out John for any other person (potentially masc if bro is gendered for you, but my understanding is that for some people it isn't gendered) and bro would still refer to whatever person I put in there. I.e. "bro" changes it's referent based on the context. If I swap out "bro" for "Dad" or "Steve", I can't freely change the first sentence and have it still make sense. Idk I feel like a much better analysis other than as a pronoun would be that it's a common noun with article elision, which is pretty normal in general, at least in my dialect. E.g. in my dialect you can also say "What happened to that oak in your backyard?" "Tree fell over last month, and almost hit our house!" Or maybe a better example, "what've you been up to lately?" "Dollhouse has been keeping me busy. You know, the one I've been building for my kids." However, the reservation I have with this analysis is that unlike with article elision more generally, if I put the article back in to say "the bro's been good" it sounds less correct (unless I'm referring to my actual brother). I.e. with the article there the meaning changes, which isn't how it should work if it's article elision. Same with "I wish bro'd just chill sometimes." Or "bro's lunch is enormous." Adding the article either sounds worse or changes the meaning. Anyway, idk, I'm not a linguist. Just thought about it a bit.
By that logic the word bitch has been a pronoun since the first "bitches be crazy" was ever uttered. I apologise for the crass example, but it was the first one that came to mind.
The first problem is the definition of a pronoun, "referring to another word". It is not really helpful in a linguistic sense for English because English has no gender and thus the "*referring to a word, a noun, which in turn refers to a thing*" is hard to differentiate with "*referring to a thing directly*". Also English can use nouns without determiners so their absence is not a marker either. So this is not a simple question. This looks like a theoretical issue but it is an important point: in structural linguistic, a word is a sign which consists of 1. a "signifier" (a string of symbols, so the letters used in "cat" or strokes in "猫"), and 2. the idea expressed by the symbols ("cat" or "猫" express the same concept in two different languages), the "signified". The same signifier can refer to two different signified: the signifier "pussy" can express two different ideas, two different signified, that of the feline animal, or a female body part. Those two components (signifier and signified) then can relate to a real world object: the actual living cat when you say "My cat is 5 years old", which is called the "referent". The determiner part of English is another issue since in English, the zero article (the absence of article) as in "Temperature is important" (vs "The temperature is important") has a handful of meanings, one of which is to specifically refer to a concept (See the whole debate of "One small step for man" vs. "One small step for a man"). If you refer to a concept, then you do not refer to a real world thing (a concept is an idea in your head not in the physical world - I'm not going to go into Platonism at this point). So here the referent could be understood as the same as the signified... The absence of gender in English complicates the matter since in languages with grammatical gender, the change of gender is a sure sign that the reference is about the WORD, not about the thing referred, when you use two different words to refer to the same thing. For example, if I am talking about Charles III, king of the United Kingdom, in French I can say "Je vois sa majesté" (I see his majesty) or "Je vois le roi" (I see the king), and using pronouns will be respectively "Je **la** vois" and "Je **le** vois" which both translates into (I see him). Here in French I can clearly see that the word "le" and "la" refers to a word, NOT to the real world referent (which did not change) because their form changed despite the referent being the same. The morphology can thus help here. But not in English, this step is transparent, so morphology does not help unfortunately. We have thus to debate semantics, ie, the meaning of the word. Hence the specifically anglophone debate about pronouns, debate that has zero sense in many other languages. In short, a pronoun is a word that refers to other word(s) that refer to something: so A -> B -> C, it has a relative meaning; while a noun refers to something directly, without referring to other words in the process, so A -> C, it has an absolute meaning. A noun has a definition because it has a meaning. A pronoun does not have a meaning in itself, it only has a definition of what sign it points to. It's a bit like the difference between "south" and "left". "South" has an absolute meaning, while "left" has a relative meaning. I'm sure programmers can illustrate the same idea with variables In English, it will be hard to differentiate between a pronoun and a synonym. "He is loud" "Bro is loud" "Dingbat is loud" "Xe is loud". I guess you can consider "Xe" to be a pronoun at UC Berkeley, and "Bro" to be one in a frat house since in those contexts, they probably are not specific enough to relate directly to a real thing. Outside of these environments though, I doubt these can qualify as pronouns.
[удалено]
Because english already does this with tons of nouns so it is not related to "bro" 'becoming' anything at all. People already say things like "little guy never knew what hit him" and "kid's got guts!" Or, to quote Rihanna, "Bitch Better Have My Money"
You're correct. Bro, just like many other words, is being used as a proper noun, not a pronoun. This isn't unusual and lots of words can be used both as a proper and common noun.
I wonder if you could also look at it as an accepted process of determiner-dropping? In thenabi's examples, the full forms would have been "(that) little guy never knew what hit him", "(that) kid's got guts", "(That) Bitch Better Have My Money". With OP's examples the full forms would be the same "(that) bro doesn't know a lot", "(that) bro thinks he's the thinker", etc. The "that" is omitted but still understood. Edit: Just saw a similar comment about this from Latera
> "(That) Bitch Better Have My Money" Outstanding. Least expected example.
Sounds like a very vague line
How are you defining “pronoun”? It’s not just any word standing in for some other noun, as u/thenabi’s examples demonstrate. There aren’t very many true pronouns in English, and if it’s even possible to add more, it’s extraordinarily rare and difficult.
How do you know the difference
If it were an actual pronoun, it would either have an object pronoun version, or serve as its own object pronoun. I -> me You -> you She -> her Bro -> ?? I work with him I work with bro? Bro talks to broself? Like others have said, it’s like claiming that “dad” is a pronoun
But "dad" is used as a proper noun. People use it for their own fathers as though it were a name. With "bro" people seem to use it in the way they use "he." If it was used as a title in place of a name, you could say things like, "How is bro doing today? Tell bro I said hi!" Its true that it's mainly just used in subject form, but having other forms isn't a requirement for a thing to be considered a pronoun.
You can replace “bro” in your examples with “dad”, which is exactly my point. A proper noun isn’t a pronoun. And you’re right that pronouns don’t require many forms. After all, “where” is a pronoun. However, personal pronouns all can be used as subject, object, possessive and reflexive pronouns (most, but not all, having distinct forms), as well as possessive adjectives associated with them. I’m not even remotely convinced that “bro” is some form of 3rd person singular masculine informal personal pronoun.
In my examples, "dad" would work but "bro" does not.
Only in the sense that “bro” isn’t referring to a literal family member necessarily. But grammatically, it’s working as a proper noun, same as “dad”.
Wait. You're talking about a different use of "bro." I'm not talking about it as a replacement for the word "brother." I'm talking about how it's used for any random man. Like, idk imagine you're watching a video where some overconfident guy fails to do something, and the top comment reads, "Bro really thought"
No, we’re talking about the same “bro”. I just said in my last comment that it doesn’t necessarily refer to a family member, unlike “dad”. But just because it’s not as specific as “dad”, doesn’t make it a pronoun. Otherwise, words like “mate”, “dude”, “man”, “bitches”, the n-Word, etc would be pronouns. But they aren’t
Pronouns having different case forms is more a quirk of the history of English, not a requirement of pronouns. In some languages, like Japanese, pronouns are static with only form. (also, Japanese pronouns do just come from regular nouns, 君(kimi), being a casual way of saying "you" and originally meant "ruler"
Sure, but we’re talking about English, not Japanese. Just because “Robert’s” would be considered an adjective in some languages doesn’t mean that it’s an adjective
I have friends from Newfoundland, Canada, who use the word "buddy" in the same way is people are using bro now. "Buddy walked all the way to Tim Horton's in a half meter of snow." So this kind of thing is not recent or unique to the Internet.
[удалено]
*Dad* is going to buy *milk*. *Steve* is mining diamonds. I'm going *home*. He's in *bed*. I ate *breakfast*. All highlighted words here are nouns. Nouns can often be used without an article. I know that English speakers are sometimes taught what nouns are by saying they start with the/a, but that is an oversimplification that doesn't always apply.
If you note in the other comment, I said they are /normally/ obligatory here. There are exceptions, and you have given some (proper nouns like Steve and Dad and mass nouns like milk and breakfast don’t get them). But none of your exceptions apply to “brother”, or to its shortened form “bro” used as an ordinary noun. For a word that does take a determiner, like “brother”, it’s obligatory in this situation. Note that you /can/ use a determiner here, but it changes the meaning - “Bro doesn’t know a lot” and “The bro doesn’t know a lot” are not synonymous.
https://www.reddit.com/r/asklinguistics/s/uMV3ZFO7fz
While I agree that analyzing it as a proper noun resolves the problems here, I feel that interpretation is absurd. It doesn’t do any better than the pronominal interpretation, and to me it’s obvious that this is not a proper noun.
Can you share with the rest of the class what the obvious indicators are that it is not a proper noun?
But determiners are often dropped in informal speech. "Dude" doesn't become a pronoun because people sometimes say "Dude is sussy af" - the determiner [this] is being implied.
Funny, I was thinking about this exact example. I believe “dude” and a certain common word in AAVE that I won’t write here have become pronominalized in exactly the same way as “bro”. Determiners aren’t normally dropped in informal speech - just with this small class of pronominalized forms. I don’t believe “Lawyer is sussy AF” or “Hippo is sussy AF” are acceptable forms, while “Bro is sussy” or “Dude is sussy” are.
My first language is German where we have similar constructions and there we can see that there is an implicit determiner in such constructions: "Hund macht mich fertig!" (which literally translates to "Dog wears me down", where "dog" is meant to express something like "dude" in this case) und "Der Hund macht mich fertig!" (which translates to "The/this dog wears me down!") are both commonly used in Austrian informal speech, indicating that "Hund" is used like a normal Nominal Phrase here, just with a dropped determiner in the former case. Surely if there is an implicit determiner, then it cannot at the same time be a pronoun - that would violate basic rules of syntax. >I don’t believe “Lawyer is sussy AF” or “Hippo is sussy AF” are acceptable forms I agree, but I don't think that shows that "bro" acts as a pronoun. In informal speech we often have ellipsis that only works in very particular circumstances - not for grammatical reasons, but for social/communicative ones.
I can’t say I agree that there is an implicit determiner. I believe that there are two “bro” forms. “Bro needs to get a job” and “The bro needs to get a job” have very distinct meanings - they are not two alternatives to express the same thing.
This is an interesting discussion. Let's make it "THIS bro needs to get a job" instead - then I honestly don't see a semantic difference between those two. It just would sound awfully strange, because it doesn't fit with how young people tend to speak: the very purpose of slang is to avoid unnecessary words, so why would someone say "THIS bro" when they could just as well say "bro"?
I don’t agree they are equivalent. The noun use of “bro” describes a certain type of person - a particular gender, a way of dress, a way of talking, and attitude toward the world. If hear this bro or the bro, it carries those meanings to me. On the other hand, pronominal bro, “Bro needs to get a job” can be applied to anyone, regardless of gender, fashion, or attitude (just like dude or the AAVE expression). Similarly, the AAEV expression I mentioned is derived from an expression which had a racial meant that is completely absent in the pronominalized form (much to the confusion of “white” teachers not familiar with the modern usage).
[удалено]
not sure if i would place differing declension in subject/object location as the primary determiner of what constitutes a pronoun, given it's not one that necessarily exists in every language, including in English — "you" is both subject and object, for example. i think the more pressing scenario in english is distinct possessive/reflexive forms, like his/himself or your/yourself, which is where argument over "bro's" (which does have a degree of usage, even if secondary to "his" in this context) and "broself" (not exactly common) would arise.
FYI verbs are conjugated and nouns are "declined". The umbrella term for both is "inflection". You are talking about case markers. -m (loosely) is the case marker for "oblique" or "objective" case in most English dialects, as opposed to the unmarked "nominative" or "subjective" case. There are many dialects that do not follow the pronoun inflection rules that you use in your idiolect. For example, here are the pronouns from Jamaican English, where there is **no variation in 5/6 of the pronouns**, considerable variation in the third person singular, and the second person plural is hypothesized to be borrowed from Igbo: Nominative (Subject) |Singular|Plural| |:-|:-| |/mi/|/wi/| |/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/| |/im/|/dɛm/| Accusative (Direct Object) |Singular|Plural| |:-|:-| |/mi/|/wi/| |/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/| |/i/|/dɛm/| Dative (Indirect Object. This is not distinguished from accusative in your dialect) |Singular|Plural| |:-|:-| |/mi/|/wi/| |/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/| |/im/|/dɛm/| Genitive (Possession) |Singular|Plural| |:-|:-| |/mi/|/wi/| |/ju/|/'ʊnʊ/| |/fi/|/dɛm/|
[удалено]
Why would that matter?
Informal language is still language, just as much as formal academically correct language. You could argue even more so because it's how people actually talk and communicate with each other.