HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emcmanus@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus)
Subject: Re: [pronouns] Re: Other properties of pronoun usage
Organization: Open Software Foundation Research Institute, Grenoble
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:44:43 GMT

cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic seem to have undergone this change 
>very recently, and it is probably still happening. The 2nd person
>plural form "sibh" was reserved as a polite form, but these days
>both languages are losing the polite form rapidly and replacing it
>with "thu","tu/" for singular and "sibh" for plural. 

There is no polite second person form in Irish Gaelic.  The second
person singular is always "tu/".  I do not know how long this has been
the case (if indeed it was ever different) but it is not something
that has happened recently.

,
Eamonn
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Zusammenfassung: Rechtschreibereform
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:58:17 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <ZMJ6GGW@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> knappen@obelix.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE writes:
>Weil wir in Deutschland erst die gesprochene Sprache lernen und dann das
>Schreiben, ist ph nicht harmlos. Zudem geht bei einer Abschaffung des ph keine
>Information verloren, deutsch f=griechisch fi. 

Also "Fysik" statt "Physik".  Hmm.  Soll "y" auch nicht verlassen werden?

Dazu eine Frage.  Warum schrieb man vor etwa einem Jahrhundert (?)
"th" in einigen deutschen Woertern ("roth", "thun", "That")?

>"> ">   (Also dann: Zhurnal, Garazhe, Montazhe, Dzhungel).
<...>
>Jede Idee sieht "undeutsch" aus,

Natuerlich, - weil der zh-Laut so sehr undeutsch ist.  Mein
Familienname wird bei Deutschen stets "Derschanski" ausgesprochen.

>weil hier das lateinische Alphabet keine guten Angebote macht.

Siehst Du, Leo, das cyrillische Alphabet hat seine Vorteile.  :-)
Deutsch muss cyrillisiert werden, dann sind alle Schwierigkeiten weg.

>Unsere "ostlichen Nachbarn benutzen \v{z} (z mit Ha\v{c}ek),

Eure _oestlichen_ Nachbarn?!  Ich glaubte, die sprachen Polnisch ...
und dort wird der zh-Laut als \.{z} ("z" mit Ueberpunkt) geschrieben.
\v{z} wird im Tschechischen, Slowakischen, Sorbischen (Ober- und
Unter-), Kroatischen, Slowenischen, Litauischen und Lettischen benutzt.
(Aber immer neben "\v{s}", nicht "sch" wie im Deutschen.)

>was nat"urlich auch eine M"oglichkeit w"are, aber teuer (neue Schreibmaschinen
>und Kompjutertastaturen).

Trotzdem wuerde "\v{z}" neben "sch" ganz dumm (weil asymmetrisch) aussehen.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (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
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:03:27 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <_qdn5md@lynx.unm.edu> lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY) writes:
>
>As would I.  What evidence supports the claim that syntactic categories are 
>"classical" even in the senses (a) that they have sharp boundaries (in
>the minds of single speakers -- variation is not the issue here); and 
>(b) that they are simple sets -- i.e. without internal structure and
>particularly without differentiation in category membership among members?

Several questions arise here.

First, tactical.  Who has the burden of proof?  Surely the side in a
discussion that claims to have evidence against a particular view of
things.  So if I want to argue against categories having prototypes, I
need to redo ostriches and Popes in a satisfactory manner.  This being
sci.lang and not a refereed journal, and life being short, I've hinted
at a possibility, but I'm sure the discussion could go on.  If you want
to argue against syntactic categories being "classical", as you put it,
you need to show something wrong with that view.  In each case, you have
to challenge the view that has results, that explains things.

Second, empirical. In any case, I know of no evidence, for example, that
syntactic movement can "more or less happen" (HPSG language, "that a
category can be not a particularly good instantiation of SLASH") or any
evidence that a preposition "belongs inside a particular NP, but not as
well as some other category does" or that a morpheme is a mediocre
example of 3pl object agreement or that "X sort of c-commands Y".
Wherever language of that sort creeps into syntax (e.g. the notorious
"governs in some sense"), careful subsequent work removes the fog and
explains new things in the process. So Occam's razor supports the view
of categories with less apparatus, since the notion prototype appears
dispensible in syntax.


>To the extent that your answer is based on "the great work I read and teach",
>what insightful generalizations in syntax do you believe hinge critically
>on the "classical" nature of syntactic categories?  Presumably only those
>could support (indirectly) a claim that syntax has (only) "classical"
>categories.  This question is not intended to be snide in any way -- there
>are important insights gained and being gained by linguists working in
>frameworks that assume classical categories (including various generative
>ones), and I assume, with (I hope) most of my "Cognitive" colleagues, that
>ultimately we must account for those generalizations which hold up as 
>well as those who sought to incorporate them in other frameworks.

A question I asked on LINGUIST and got no answer to.  Is anything
interesting actually being done on any of these questions?

-David Pesetsky
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6978 alt.usage.english:7152
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:33:12 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep2.160536.28325@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
>     In this discussion a number of people seem to have characterized
>this use of "they" as an attempt to express sex uncertainty in inpover-
>ished English, which has the terrible disadvantage of not being gender
>inflected.

I'm not sure what "gender-inflected" means here.  English differs in
two ways from, say, German: (1) its gender is natural rather than
conventional (inanimates are seldom masculine or feminine) and (2)
there is little gender agreement (gender only affects the choice of
third person singular pronoun).  But the two don't necessarily go together:
there are languages where a lot of gender agreement is done, but masculine
does mean male, and feminine does mean female.

>     Does anyone know of a language that has a "apparently gramatical"
>way of expressing sex uncertainty?  By "apparently gramatical" I mean
>a way that does not appear to conflict with any other grammar rules of
>the language.

I've asked this question on several occasions, with no success.
According to my experience, the following universal holds:

  If a language distinguishes between a masculine and a feminine gender,
  one of these two (almost always the masculine; for exceptions see the
  Linguist List, March-April 1992) is used as gender-unspecific.  This
  works both in languages in which inanimate objects can be masculine or
  feminine (German, Russian) and in which they can't (Bengali, Dargva).

  Exception: English.

End of hypothesis.  Counter-evidence still welcome.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (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: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Lojban: a constructed human language
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:52:05 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <64887@cup.portal.com>, EZ-as-pi@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Gilson) writes:
> To my knowledge, NOBODY is fluent in
> Lojban. Bob LeChevalier, its developer
> (or co-developer), lives near me, and
> I've met him, and he will state that
> he is more fluent in Lojban than any
> living person, but even he does not
> really qualify as fluent.
> 
>                     Bruce R. Gilson

That's a very interesting datum.  I wonder if anyone or any group
became fluent in the earlier Loglan?  When you consider that this
project has been around since 1955, and that some of its primary goals
sort of depend on this very thing...

I'd like to hear more about this.  Does LeChevalier himself say he
does not really qualify as fluent, or is that your judgment, and if
the latter, roughly what criteria for fluency were you applying?
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Agglutinative languages
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:56:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.191142.12213@microsoft.com> siobhan@microsoft.com (Siobhan Harper) writes:
>(if the terminology I'm using is dated, well, you'll know how long
>it's been since I studied linguistics ;)
>
>I'm interested in knowing specifically whether Basque is an agglutinative
>language in the sense that Turkish is, and more generally, what other
>languages are. I know about Finnish, Hungarian, and their cousins, but
>what other languages are truly agglutinative?
>
I think some Aleut languages. 

Regards,
Janis C.

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Axe - is it really easy?
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:11:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.044312.2673@midway.uchicago.edu>
hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>
>Also note that the Latin 'x' became 'ss' in Italian and is (almost?) never
                           ^                             ^^           ^^^^^
>pronounced /ks/ in French - obviously, there is nothing "easy" about it.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Sven
 
Not so:  in 'taxi', 'M'exique', 'extra', 'luxe', and 'rayons-x', as well
as many other words it is pronounce /ks/ by the French:  indeed the name
of the letter itself in French is pronounced /iks/.
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: k and s
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:48:44 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <9208312107.AA16863@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> lucas@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Bruce Lucas") writes:
}The relationship of k and s is something that has long puzzled me. ...

As part of their synchronic phonological theory, Chomsky and Halle
in The Sound Pattern of English posit an "evolution" from k to s,
with supporting examples from Slavic.  Approximately:
	k -> k'	before front vowel (k' is [-back], front velar)
	k' -> c  (c is [+coronal], palato-alveolar)
	c -> check c ([+delayed release,+strident], palato-alveolar affricate)
	check c -> ts' ([+anterior], palatalized dental affricate)
	ts' -> ts  ([-high], plain dental affricate)
	ts -> s ([+continuant])
I may not have recalled all the details exactly right.

The first context sensitive step in the above is due to a language
idiosyncratic phonological rule; the others, triggered by the first,
are due to universal markedness conventions.  Presumably, this theory
of palatalization could be assimilated into natural phonology by
making all the steps due to processes.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Subject: [English] the word "Usonian"
Reply-To: chungdan@leland.stanford.edu
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 17:03:20 GMT


     From where came the word "Usonian"?  It seems to come from the
same root from which came the Esperanto word "Usono".

						Daniel Chung
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: alvin@netcom.com (Alvin H. White)
Subject: Re: New (beta) ASCII representation of IPA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 21:27:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:

>I've put together a first cut at a new representation of IPA in ASCII.
>It still needs a bit of work, but I think it's better than the one
>we have now.  In particular, it should make it possible to use *all*
>of the IPA while still being simple and readable (especially for
>phonemes which occur regularly in English).

>The document I've put together is rather formal and aimed at people
>familiar with phonetic notation (those who know what a "voiceless
>pharyngeal fricative" is).  Once the details have been nailed down, we
>should also put together an example-heavy introduction to at least the
>English phoneme set for non-linguists.

>Now I'm looking for volunteers to go over it and smooth out the
>obvious flaws and typos (those of you who got unsolicited manuscripts,
>I've already found and fixed a couple) before I post it.  Or, if
>there's a consensus, I could just post it to the net, and we could
>hash it out here (it's 385 lines).


I was going to save it if you posted it. Anything is better than 
nothing. Sorry I don't have enough skill to help much but I 
think it is something everyone should have. Good Luck.

I was up to a meeting at Xerox last week where they gave away
old copies of the Unicode Standard for Worldwide Character 
Encoding. I asked if someone had an IPA cross index for all the
30,000 odd characters. No one said yes.


alvin@netcom.com

Alvin H. White, Gen. Sect.
G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.
1505 De Rose Way #66 
San Jose, CA 95126 USA

(408) 286-2794
(408) 286-4244

Government Online Database Systems
Bureau for Resource Allocations to Information Networks
[an idea waiting to happen]

120 West 38 North

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Translate Phrase Latin->English
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:53:51 GMT

elf@ee.ryerson.ca (luis fernandes) writes:

>Could someone translate the following phrase:

>	Timor Mortis conturbat me
        The fear of death disturbs me.

>It is from William Dunbar's _Lament_for_the_Common Man_; the
>phrase ends each verse.

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was: Cognitive linguistics...)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:10:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.191204.14266@leland.Stanford.EDU> alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU 
(Rich Alderson) writes:
>In article <BtyKxo.LI@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v187ef4y@ubvmsd (Patrick J Crowe)
>writes:
>[in reference to a mention of the "impossibility" of pronouncing */bnIk/ in
>English]
>
>>This got me playing with pronounciation.  While thinking of how /bn/ sounded,
>>I thought of /bn-na-na/ for banana, where the hyphens separate syllables.
>>This is similar to an example someone gave in an earlier thread, of /cn/ for
>>can.
>
>[...] Of course, it is also possible to pronounce the word "banana" in 
>rapid speech as
>
>	[bnA.n@]
>
>with exactly the same consonant cluster as */bnIk/.  The difference is that the
>rapid pronounciation of "banana" arises through the operation of automatic
>processes rather than as a set of specifications in the lexicon.

I recall from my phonology text that rapid speech plays havoc with phonological
systems.  The author (Cullingford, I believe it was) notes, for instance,
that in his own rapid speech "difficulty" contains a fricative [x], which
is not a phoneme in his idiolect.  When linguists talk about certain 
consonant clusters not occurring in a language, they are generally not
talking about rapid speech. 

(I think this amounts to about the same thing Rich is saying.)
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: k and s
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:53:31 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article AA16863@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU, lucas@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Bruce Lucas") writes:
>The relationship of k and s is something that has long puzzled me.
>I am aware of two examples of a phonological correspondence between
>k and s in Indo-European languages: one involving (for example) Latin
>and Sanskrit and one involving (for example) Latin and French.  (Compare
>for example the words for "hundred" in those languages.)  What puzzles me
>is how k could become s or vice versa; they are produced in completely
>different parts of the mouth and sound very different.  Obviously my naive
>understanding of the processes of phonological change is incomplete;
>is there an expert in this field willing to say something that will
>make this correspondence more intuitive to me?

Usually, it comes about by a process of palatalization.  The "fronted"
pronunciation of an adjacent vowel or glide (y) affects the articulation
of the [k], causing a fricative noise.  A good example of palatalization
is "dija" for "did ya..."  If English speakers were to pronounce the word
"cute" like "chute", then you would have a case of [k] palatalization.
The journey to [s] is not so difficult, now.  Lose the initial stop
articulation at the beginning of the affricate--e.g. when a drunk person
pronounces "pitcher" as "pisher".  The only other change needed is to
shift the palatal "sh" articulation further forward in the mouth to
"s".  All of these changes occur quite naturally in languages all over
the world.  Over time, the original motivation for the change is lost,
and you end up with /k/~/s/ alternations.  Russian, for example, has
come through three major waves of palatalization, leaving /k/~/c^/, 
/k/~/s^/, and /k/~/ts/ alternations in the modern lexical system.  

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.celtic
From: pjn@phsun.ph.kcl.ac.uk (Philip J. Naylor.)
Subject: Re: [pronouns] Re: Other properties of pronoun usage
Organization: King's College London
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:31:41 GMT
X-Posted-From: phsun.ph.kcl.ac.uk
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug25.161124.13656@rdg.dec.com>, cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug25.085553.3244@titan.ksc.nasa.gov>, crawford@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (David E. Crawford) writes...
|> > 
|> >Whaddayas mean no plural second person?  Here in the south, the word is
|> >"y'all," a contraction for "you all."  In Brooklyn, it's "yous."  Not exactly
|> >the Queen's English, but it works......
|> > 
|> "yous" is also used in lowland Scots.
|> 
	"you" is plural.  "thee" is singular, and as such is still used frequently in the west of England.  In fact you can still find some of the
denizens of Bristol using the Anglo-Saxon "thee bist" in place of "you are".

-- 
| Philip J. Naylor      |  " 'The time has come', the Walrus said, 'to talk   |
| King's College London |   of many things: of shoes -and ships -and sealing  |
|                       |   wax, of cabbages -and King's.' "                  |
| pjn@phsun.ph.kcl.ac.uk|                     -Lewis Carroll (well, almost).  |
From: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Zusammenfassung: Rechtschreibereform
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:02:30 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, U of Saarland, FRG

knappen@obelix.kph.uni-mainz.de (Joerg Knappen) writes:
> * /f/ kann f, v oder ph geschrieben werden. Wenigstens ph sollte zu f werden.
> * "`Montage"' kann auf zweierlei Weise ausgesprochen werden, die auch im 
>   Schriftbild unterschieden werden sollten. Meine Idee: Einf"uhrung von zh
>   (Also dann: Zhurnal, Garazhe, Montazhe, Dzhungel).
> * Phonetische Schreibung von Fremdw"ortern (wie im Niederl"andischen).

Mein Vorschlag: Schafft das herkoemmliche Alphabet ab, ruestet alle
Schreibmaschinen und Computer um, in Zukunft schreiben wir nur noch in der von
der IPA empfohlenen Lautschrift!
Mal sehen, ob das dann noch irgendjemand (ausser den Phonetikern) lesen kann...

			Julia 8-)

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				Julia Simon

 Fachschaftsrat Computerlinguistik	DIaLOGIKa GmbH
 Fachbereich 8.7, Bau 17, Zi. 201
 Universita"t des Saarlandes		Albertstr., Pascalschacht
 D-W-6600 Saarbru"cken, Germany		D-W-6602 Dudweiler, Germany

			email: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de
			       sileas@coli.uni-sb.de
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: olems@ulrik.uio.no (Ole Michael Selberg)
Subject: Re: Latin 'x'
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: Oslo University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.183114.25788@enea.se>, sommar@enea.se (Erland
Sommarskog) wrote:
> 
> Sven Hauptfeld (hau4@midway.uchicago.edu) writes:
> >Also note that the Latin 'x' became 'ss' in Italian
> 
> Did it? Always? My Latin is not very good, but didn't "x" in Latin
> in many cases evolve to something else? "Felix" and "pax" are
> "felice" and "pace" in Italian. In French "felix" does not
> seem to exist as such, but well "felicitation" and others.
> "Pax" is "paix", but it still "pacificer". As I really don't
> know what I am talking about, anyone care to fill in?
> 
Italian "felice" and "pace" have developed from the Vulgar
Latin accusatives and ablatives "felice" and "pace", not from
the Classical Latin nominatives "felix" and "pax". Similarly,
Italina "notte " presupposes "nocte", not "nox".

Ole Michael Selberg
Institutt for oesteuropeiske og orientalske studier
Universitetet i Oslo
Postboks 1030 Blindern
N-0315 Oslo 3
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Esperanto's embedded sexism
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:08:48 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Sep4.065059.28372@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, jcl@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (John C. Laviolette) writes:

>     concerning Esperanto's pair "patro/patrino", and whether "patrino" is
> thus derivative of a male noun:
>          Is "patro" really male, or is it merely being used for a male
> role?  Maleness, as I recall, is expressed in Esperanto by the prefix
> "vir-", so "father" should strictly speaking be "virpatro".  But one might
> argue that there is nothing really specially about a male parent (contrary
> to Quayle;) any parent can fill the role of a father towards a child
> (we're speaking in terms of internal social structure of the family, not
> the very fleeting male reproductive role.)
>          "Mother", on the other hand, is a distinct parent role, because a
> human being who carries someone inside her body for nine months and
> breastfeeds the child thereafter will act in a way no other human being
> will act.

As the father (reproductive and nurturing) of three, I resent the
insinuation that the mother "thereafter will act in a way no other
human being will act".  Mothers aren't necessarily better parents
than fathers, it's just that on the whole they have had more reason
(and necessity) to nurture.  But I, and many other fathers, do a
damned good job of it too!

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:18:52 GMT

In article <BtLEI9.BBx@acsu.buffalo.edu>
v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe) writes:
>
>Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
>If you claim my views reflect the opinions of my department, you'll be laughed
>out of acedemia.
        ^^^^^^^^
If you keep on spelling it that way, you may be too!
 
 
Newsgroups: sci.lang