HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:41:42 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu

Jin-Yuan Wu writes:
>
>I read a food ad and found two sentances which I don't understand.
>(1) Not all the Italian masterpieces are hanging in museums.
>(2) So come see what's cooking at Applebee's Festa Italiana.
>English is not my native language. I asked some American and English guys
>and they told me that these two sentances are acceptable. Could any one
>tell me why they are accepted grammartically? I thought they should be:
>(1) Not all ... are HUNG in museums.

The verb "to hang" in English can be transitive or intransitive--that
means, it can take an object or not.  If you use "hang" transitively,
you can say, for example, "I hang an Italian masterpiece in a museum."
Turning this sentence around, you would get, "An Italian masterpiece
is HUNG in a museum."  But if you use "to hang" intransitively,
you can say "An Italian masterpiece hangs in a museum," or, as the
ad says, "An Italian masterpiece IS HANGING in a museum."  (Note
that for human beings, the past participle is not hung, but hanged:
"He was hanged at dawn.")

>(2) So come see WHO'S cooking ...
>or So come see what's cooked ...

This is an idiomatic expression.  "What's cooking?", like "What's
up?", is not meant to be taken literally.  It means, "what's going
on, what's happening," or sometimes, "what is developing, what is
about to happen".  The ad uses the expression in order to make a joke
on the word "cooking".

---------------------
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
From: A.M.Wall@newcastle.ac.uk (A.M.Wall)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:26:35 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

In article <28154@castle.ed.ac.uk> benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge) writes:
>Hi everyone!
>	I've been having an argument with a friend about the
>words "quite unique".
>	Is this a valid combination? He says that unique is
>ultimate - you can't have degrees of it. I say there is a
>meaning of unique ('ganz' in German rather than 'ziemlich')
>that would be permissible, meaning 'completely'. But he
>says that even this indicates degree, so therefore is
>incorrect. Who's right??????

The answer is that you're both quite (i.e. perfectly) correct. It just depends 
on the emphasis you put on the words. 
Do you say "QUITE unique" (a measure of degree)
        or "quite UNIQUE" (completely) ?
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pop &c.
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:24:04 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>>I remember an anecdote in the Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes edited by
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Any relation to the Little Black Book of Telephone Numbers? <wicked G>

No, the comma is important in this case. That's the Little, Black Book . . .

-Brian ;-]
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:51:16 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <BxxAC1.Ms4@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>In article <1ec3g6INNrep@agate.berkeley.edu> dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum) writes:
>>ad says, "An Italian masterpiece IS HANGING in a museum."  (Note
>>that for human beings, the past participle is not hung, but hanged:
>>"He was hanged at dawn.")
>
>But people aren't "hanged like a horse" :)

Haven't you seen "Blazing Saddles"? :-)

>6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
>Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK

"Horny as Kay Dekker"?  I'm not familiar with that expression.

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | Politicians are like compost--they
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | should be turned often or they start
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | to smell bad.
				       | 
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Proper Use of Acronyms (was Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 12:31 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

>This is the crucial point. Acronyms and abbreviations are useful and
>preferable if the reader can accept them as words; words that he/she
>either has known before or could acquire easily while reading the pamphlet.

Well said.  One must always keep the reader in mind.  When writing or
editing for "the trade," so to speak, I have a much different attitude
toward acronyms than when I'm writing for the layman.  When possible,
I rely upon my ear, going beyond the confines of the text at hand in
search of usage in the audience community.  When people think in terms
of the acronym, I use it in good conscience; when they spell out the
words, I try to avoid the acronym.

I also find that certain research groups are much more prolific acronym
producers than others.  In these cases, individually innocent acronyms
combine to cause abbreviatory gridlock.  Recently I caught myself using 
an acronym --  no; wait; introducing and defining a *new* acronym -- in 
approximately every other sentence of the introduction to a chapter.  
My solution (after a period of silent shame :) was twofold:  throw out 
the ones that were not referred to very often later in the chapter, and 
defer the use of the others until a less-congested point.

>(It's of no use to write "heavy goods vehicle" a hundred times if there 
>is no reference to a light goods vehicle or a heavy bads vehicle anywhere 
>in the text; I'd rather prefer "HGV" -- if it is explained once for the
>uninitiated reader. On the other hand, "lorry" [or "truck"] probably
>wouldn't be precise enough.)

There are, however, some hazards in the otherwise commendable search for
this degree of precision, especially when you are seeking a collective
neologism for things (such as "heavy goods vehicles") that are not usually
spoken of in a collective sense.  This is a common generator of Bureaucrap,
the incomprehensible language of governments and other large institutions.
It may be serviceable intramurally, but when it gets outside your walls, it
may be interpreted as folly of grandeur at best and deliberate obfuscation
at worst.  The well-meaning desire to save a few words, or to build a 
phrase that encodes an extra layer of meaning within your trade or company,
can earn you a Doublespeak Award faster than you can say "George Orwell."

Joe
"The pallid pimp of the dead-line/The enervate of the pen" --Robert Service
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: I before E rule
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:41:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Nov10.181203.24034@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, meron@ivory.bgu.ac.il
(meron alon) wrote:
> 
> I before E
> except after C
> or when sounds like an A
> as in neighbor or weigh
> 
> 
> 
> There are some more exceptions
> Could someone rime them into this little rule ?

I posted this before, but maybe some folks missed it.  The additional rule
that I know does not rhyme; it just asserts that all the common exceptions
to the rhymed rule are found in the memorable sentence "Neither financier
seized either form of weird leisure."

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Take a shave
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:33:27 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1e8af3INNcuv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis) writes:
>
>In the morning, I will go and shave (unless it's Saturday).  My 
>father-in-law, on the other hand, will be heard saying, "I think
>I will go and take a shave."
>
>I will go and take a shower, or I will shower, but to take a shave?

I for one will "take a shower," and I will "shave," but I will never
"take a shave."  I also won't "take a haircut" or "take a meeting,"
other expressions heard every so often...


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:30:26 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Nov16.112547.22880@black.ox.ac.uk> microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read) writes:
>
>Just for starters here are the relevant extracts from the Fowlers. Before
>you flame me, Roger, I _don't_ think that these are conclusive arguments;
>but I do think that they are well written and entertaining even if wrong!

They are opinions... to some, using unique to mean "one of a kind" is wrong
(not me me).  To others, using unique to mean something *other* than "one of
a kind" is wrong.  Except to Roger, of course, who takes certain pleasure in
seeking out one scholarly opinion to support his view of the week, and then
lambasting the group with invective in trying to defend it.

>(I'm still shaking at the memory of Roger's flames to this newcomer to
>Usenet about "concertize"....)

A pity, isn't it.  


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@fury.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:29:53 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <98880@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.232609.12872@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>Heck, you've got me all wrong.  People *should* learn to write formally.
>>BUT THEY SHOULD ALSO LEARN THAT THEY ARE LEARNING FORMAL WRITING, and 
>>that this has a special relationship to their speech.
>
>I just asked another gentleman this question, so I'll ask you:  why should
>people learn to write formally?  Why not just write in dialect?
>

You *can* write in dialect; that would be called "informal" writing.

>
>>But instead, 
>>they teach abstract rules of grammar, and lose the habit of listening
>>to what one writes.
>
>I completely agree with you (and this is frightening).
>
>>If you think that I consider errors to be part of English, you've 
>>misunderstood everything I said.  There *is* a formal dialect,
>>and knowing it is important.  
>
>Again, why?
>


To put it simply, because!  :)

The very essence of the language is imbibed from the formal dialect,
so it is highly important that you be aware of it.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                         - The Beatles
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:02:49 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <97842@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>>>(I'm still shaking at the memory of Roger's flames to this newcomer to
>>>Usenet about "concertize"....)

>Just look at it as being Rogerized.

I think "Rogered" carries the meaning better :-)

-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:25:25 GMT

In article <BxtI97.n4I@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>I agree with Fowler that "very unique" and "most unique" aren't good
>usage, but I'd make a special case for "quite unique".  It's something
>of an archaism, but you can use "quite" to emphasise adjectives which are
>not of degree:
>
>"The butler lay in the hallway.  Checking his pulse, Lord Dalliwell
>found that he was quite dead."

I believe we should only use "quite" if we can use "not quite" in the
same place.  We can, for example, say that someone is "not quite dead",
meaning "barely alive".  This makes sense because dying is a process,
and one can well advanced in this process without yet being dead.

But what would "not quite unique" mean?

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:47:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.213151.6354@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>
>frigidaire (it is not uncommon to hear a refrigerator referred to using
>            this word in the southeastern U.S.)

"Frigidaire" is used this way also in French Canada.  There was even
a popular song a few years ago:  "Tant qu'il y aura quelque chose dans
le frigidaire".

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:06:58 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
Summary: Quite universal concept.

In article <1992Nov15.001709.14852@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

 [...]
>Moreover, a thing can be "quite unique" wrt *one* basis for comparison,
>by not even coming close to anything else.  After all, most of the comparisons
>we do are not simply same/different; they take into account degrees of
>difference.  
 [...]

The times of the clear "unique"/"not unique" distinction are over.
If there is fuzzy logic in every washing machine you can buy, why
shouldn't it be in the language as well? English couldn't survive
on the world market if it ignored the modern concepts.

And speakers will always (have to) adapt to their language. So it's
time for everyone to get fuzzy. Or should I say "quite fuzzy"?

Yours fuzzily,
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.090118.12334@waikato.ac.nz> maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>In article <TSOS.179.722160418@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov15.001709.14852@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>  [...]
>>>Moreover, a thing can be "quite unique" wrt *one* basis for comparison,
>>>by not even coming close to anything else.  After all, most of the comparisons
>>>we do are not simply same/different; they take into account degrees of
>>>difference.  
>>  [...]

>> The times of the clear "unique"/"not unique" distinction are over.
>> If there is fuzzy logic in every washing machine you can buy, why
>> shouldn't it be in the language as well? English couldn't survive
>> on the world market if it ignored the modern concepts.

>> And speakers will always (have to) adapt to their language. So it's
>> time for everyone to get fuzzy. Or should I say "quite fuzzy"?

>Both languages and washing machines would be far better without
>fuzzy logic. 

Only if the users of language and washing machines were robots would
this be practical.

>It's the wrong way to handle uncertainty about real events. 

What's the right way?  We can't always ask for clarification; we 
usually wind up guessing (albeit in an educated manner) about some aspect
of what even the clearest, most "careful" writer has said.  All of us
have slightly differing concepts attached to words; my notion of "Red"
or "romantic" is not yours, and only a long series of transactions
betweeen us would achieve real clarity and the lack of ambiguity.
And life is too short.

>Because it's purely formal and without any clear semantics
>I think it's probably the wrong way to handle conceptual vagueness
>as well.

Well, what do you recommend?  (I think our friend's use of the term
was metaphorical; he may have been alluding to the sum of our
processes of guessing and estimation.)

Roger
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:04:48 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov23.102226.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>I'd guess that almost all native speakers of English are aware of
>the old form of the second person singular, and could even find the
>right verb ending to go with it.

I'll take your word that a fair number of native speakers of English
know the old forms (all four of them) of the second person singular,
but I'd put money on the fact that the majority wouldn't be able to
find the right verb ending to go with it.  I've seen "thou hath" and
the like _in print_, never mind on the net.

>This is obscure only to those who learnt English as a foreign language.

I beg your pardon?  Did you omit a "some of" between "to" and "those"?

>We didn't stop using that word because we forgot how to say it.
>We stopped (that is, our ancestors stopped) using it because
>(a) there is/was a convention - still alive in some other languages -
>    that the plural form is somehow more respectful, [...]

Still alive in some other languages?  I don't think you would normally
refer to something as being still alive unless you expect it to die,
and the honorific use of the second person plural seems to be there to
stay in most languages which have it, of which there are many.

>(b) deliberate ambiguity can be very convenient.  For example,
>    being able to say "I'll be seeing you" when leaving a group of
>    people avoids the embarrassment of a farewell to one person
>    which omits the others.

Yes, but for each case in which ambiguity is convenient there is a
case in which it is inconvenient, and this is illustrated by the fact
that people end up saying "you all/people/folk(s)/guys/...", as an
attempt to make up for the lost distinction.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:45:17 GMT

Roger, a question.

If you use "unique" to mean "rare" or "unusual" or "a nice knockdown
argument", then what word will you use when you really mean "unique"?

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Source wanted for: "There is nothing so practical as a good theory"
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:56:28 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <Bxy4BC.LGE@acsu.buffalo.edu>, dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) writes:
> I have heard several times a quote that goes something like this:
> 
>    "There is nothing so practical as a good theory"
> 
> Can anyone tell me the source, and also the exact original wording if
> that is not it?  We suspect that is was Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas
> Edison or some such person.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> David Mark
> dmark@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu

I can't really help you with this one, but it puts me in
mind of another of my favourite sayings -

'It works in practice, but not in theory'.

[ The context for this was one of our 'new right' economists
speaking of the NZ Dairy Board, a producer cooperative that
may be the world's largest trader in dairy products. ]
-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
__________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'