Source: Networking Bible by Barrie Sosinsky (2009)


There is a considerable amount of product information in this book, and I’ve tried very hard to make this information both accurate and up to date. Unfortunately, product information ages faster than any one of use would like, and many times in the course of writing this book, I’ve encountered products and companies I’ve known that are no longer with us.

Particularly, I don't understand this: any one of use. Is he talking about people? People of use?

Just dawned on me. Could it possibly be a typographical error? Sounds like it should be "us" instead of "use".

  • 3
    I agree with your guess. I have just checked. The typo is really in the book. Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 2:47
  • 1
    Yeah, looks like a typo. It DOES have an alternate meaning (that any person of use to the author would like), but that meaning makes no sense in this context
    – Alex K
    Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 6:41
  • 3
    I'm 99% sure it's a typo, as you guessed. "any one of us" makes a lot more sense than "any one of use".
    – stangdon
    Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 15:46
  • That's a typo. I would bet my (small amount of) reputation on it. Commented Apr 27, 2016 at 21:56
  • You are welcome to post it as an answer to your own question (that is acceptable here). Commented Apr 28, 2016 at 20:55

1 Answer 1


The comments on the question are likely correct in saying that it is a typographical error in the book itself, however, there is another possibility given the text's tone is a little informal:

It may be that 'use' is a misspelling of a colloquial Australian/Irish/American term 'youse' meaning 'you'. Which is a cry for a plural of you using an 's' sound at the end!

See the following excerpt from the Australian Macquarie Dictionary below (bold is mine):

It is interesting to look at the history of youse. It seems to derive from Irish English and from there makes its way into both Australian and American English. Perhaps we inherit colonial attitudes towards the Irish which might explain the fierce resistance that this word encounters.

It is responding to an instinctively felt linguistic need. We used to distinguish singular from plural in our pronouns. We used to say thou for the singular and you for the plural, but thou was thought to be too intimate to be used by someone of lowly status addressing someone of higher status and in these circumstances a respectful you was used. So we distorted the grammar and arrived at a polite solution, but this was not without cost because there are situations where it is impossible, just from the words, to tell whether the you in question is one person or a group of people which is why we have created such constructions as you all or in American-speak, y'all, and you lot to give us a plural form. The Irish took the pronoun you and added -s to make a plural.

We do not think that youse will ever achieve linguistic respectability but we should understand where it is coming from, and we should certainly include it in the dictionary with the appropriate usage notes and language labels. Too often the people who are outraged by its inclusion react to the headword on the page without reading the whole entry.

See: https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/news/view/editor/article/164/

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .