So at last, guys, here we are. We’ve seen the amazing past and triumphant present of guys. But not its future. That’s because we can’t.
As I write this, the first fifth of the 21st century is coming to an end. But not the history of “guys.”
In the previous chapters we’ve watched as “guys” had its birth in the given name of the most shocking terrorist England has ever known; its surprising endurance and then prominence as a by-product of an act of Parliament calling for annual thanksgiving ceremonies thanking God for forestalling the terrorist attempt; the gradual drift from proper name to generic over the centuries; its harsh treatment by George Washington; its use by some in the lower ranks of society; its spread across class and gender boundaries; its intrusion into the English pronoun system gradually filling the gap left by a vanished second-person plural pronoun, until—well, here we are in the present day, and here with us is “guys” in several prominent modern guises.
We have also digressed into the graphic novel V for Vendetta, inspired by the Guy of the Gunpowder Plot, and the feature film made from it; the mask worn by the revolutionary hero of V for Vendetta, inspired by a depiction of the original Guy, and adopted by Occupy protesters in the early 21st century. But since the revolutionary situations imagined and depicted by these modern derivatives have little to do with either the original plot or Bonfire Day, they are not part of the chain of evidence leading from the Guy to “you guys.” In fact, essential to the present wide use of “guy” and “guys” is total separation from Guy Fawkes.
If Alan Moore had never written V for Vendetta, and if David Lloyd had never created the modern mask, and if the Occupy marchers of the current century had never worn the mask—the miraculous transformation of Guy Fawkes into “guy” and “you guys” would have proceeded undisturbed. So we haven’t spent much time on those modern versions of protest inspired by Guy Fawkes. They are sidetracks, not the main line.
In short, this book has tried to do justice to the miraculous past and triumphant present of “guys.” But what next? Does “guys” indeed have a future? Just listen to those around you if you have any doubt (and if you don’t live in the South). Like a whirlwind, or perhaps a blast of fresh air, at the moment “guys” is gaining momentum, taking no prisoners as it has swept away other candidates for second-person plural pronoun.
If the story of “guys” has taught us anything, it’s that the future of a language is not only unpredictable but sometimes unimaginable. With that understanding, there’s no harm in speculating, as long as it’s clear that there’s no formula or theory to back up the speculation. Here are some possible scenarios:
1.“Guys” could become even more firmly settled and acknowledged as the unmarked (but usually friendly) second-person plural pronoun. It should become so firmly established that grammar instruction in schools and teachers would finally recognize it and teach it as standard.
2.“Guy” in the singular might lose its restriction to designating males only, allowing sentences like “She’s quite a guy!” that occasionally occur already.
3.Conversely, feminists and others could argue so strenuously against “guys” that women would be embarrassed to use it.
4.Student activists who now insist on being addressed by their choice of pronoun could take the example of Guy and make their own name the second-person pronoun to be used by everyone, not just toward them but toward everybody. If the student is Carmen, she could address her friends as “carmens” or “you carmens.” That makes as much sense as calling everyone “guys,” the only differences being that she’s the one who invents it for herself, and she won’t have 400 years to make it the new second-person plural for all. Meanwhile, though, her classmate Karl might be addressing his friends as “karls” and urging them to use that for all second-person plural occasions. There would be plenty of candidates, and only one possible winner.
As for what really will happen: “Guys,” what you yourself do may well make the difference. Not that you can change a definition by declaring that you will do it; changes come from slight, usually accidental and unintended and unnoticed reinterpretations of the words we hear. When enough people shift a meaning in a certain direction, the norm moves. But “guys” has settled in most likely for a long time to come.