HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Proper Use of Acronyms (was Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:07:51 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

In article <1992Nov19.184011.17265@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

>I would question whether they speed up reading.  The first few do.  When only
>a few are used, they place no strain on the memory, and are easier to grasp
>than the long phrases they abbreviate.  Who would want to have DNA spelled
>out all through "Double Helix"?  When DDT was first used, it seemed to be
>a simplification.  But when hundreds of initialisms are used in a single
>field, they become a nuisance.  They slow down the reader.  In the mind's
>ear, they must be spelled out.  In the mind's eye, they must be looked up
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in a glossary.  They are not words; they are not language; they are not
>what people remember naturally.

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.

It's very annoying to read an article that confronts me with a wealth of 
acronyms which I have to spell out in my mind before I can grasp the
meaning. But it's equally annoying to read the same groups of words
again and again where the actual wording doesn't help to understand;
in this case an acronym is a better way to identify the object.

(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.)

--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: lists
Summary: lists
Keywords: semi colons, commas etc
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:21:32 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: British Telecom

What's the correct way to construct a list in English. I use a colon and
semi-colons, like this:

item number 1;
item number 2;
item number n;
last item.

Several methods different from this have been suggested to me as the
"real" way to do it.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>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.

Stop lying.

I have so far posted *six* scholarly opinions, and have sought in vain for
one that contradicts my original assertion about "quite unique."  Some
people don't want one to use "more unique," and anyone who wishes to 
eschew that usage is entirely welcome to, but I have yet to hear a
historically or linguistically informed opinion that tells one that it
is wrong.  

As for lambasting the group, what do you suppose you're doing when you
tell us that a given usage is "wrong" and then don't give us any way
fo telling how you came to such a conclusion?  I have asked you dozens
of times about this, asked you to tell me how you know that a meaning
given in the dictionary is "wrong," and have received only silence in
return.  You're welcome to your opinion, but remember that opinions 
count for much more when supported by argument or evidence.

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

>A pity, isn't it.  

What's a pity?  That people can't walk over to the dictionary (or hook up
with the on-line OED)?  That whole issue was avoidable, and the people who
spoke of that usage as being "depressing," "ugly," etc. might have saved
their breath.

Roger
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pop &c.
Date: 17 Nov 1992 01:39:21 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


OK, so now we have the following terms for soft drinks:

	soft drink
	carbonated beverage
	fizzy water
	soda
	soda water
	pop
	soda pop
	coke
	pepsi
	[no Coke! Pepsi!  (sorry :-))]

Anyone with ready access to a dictionary of regional dialects willing
to post the definitive list of these terms?
-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire
From: igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp ("Yoshiyuki Igarashi")
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Help: What's "diamond jacket"?
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:59:32 GMT
Organization: Centre for Informatics, WASEDA University
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: wucc.cfi.waseda.ac.jp

The following is part of a consumer column of a certain newspaper, where
a reader writes a letter saying that the diamond s/he bought turned out
to be fake.  There I found a phrase "diamond jacket" that I, as a
Japanese, don't understand.  I consulted several dictionaries but
couldn't find the phrase.  Would any of you tell me what it is?

	I purchased a diamond pendant in March 1984 for $3,000.  In
	December 1985 I took this pendant to a different jeweler to
	have a diamond jacket made.  The gemologist there examined the
	pendant and told me it was not a diamond but a cubic zirconia...

-- 
Yoshiyuki Igarashi @ Tokyo International University  (~~T~~) T T  T
E-mail: igarashi@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp                I    I I  I
        igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp                       U    U  UU
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: mnemonics in general
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:32:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.122923.25536@black.ox.ac.uk>, microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Microsoc) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.043447.5968@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>>eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes: 
>>| In article <29OCT199216261065@adpdp2.lanl.gov>, 108116@adpdp2.lanl.gov (108116) writes:
>>| > Ok guys!  What mnemonics do you all know?  The more unusual the better, I'll
>>| > start you off:
>>| 
>>| Well, there's the one for remembering the first hundred or so digits
>>| of pi.  It starts out as "God, I need a drink!"  Can't have been a
>>| very good mnemonic, though: I've forgotten the rest.
>>
>>OK, I don't *think* I'm stupid, but how does one use "God, I need a drink"
>>to remember 3.14159?
> 
> Count the number of letters in each word....
> 
> Again, it can't be a good mnemonic since I can't remember it, but isn't it
> something like 
> "God, I need a drink (alcoholic of course) after that heavy
> lecture involving Quantum Mechanics?" 
> (Would give 3.14159265457979... is that right, anyone?)
> 
---
My memory says 3.14159265358979323846... which means it must be `...the heavy
lectures...'.

Now if I could only lay my hands on my copy of Abramowitz and Stegun ...


John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
Phone National        (049)21 5751    Fax National       (049) 21 6910
      International +61 49 21 5751        International +61 49 21 6910
VAXPSI  PSI%0505249626002::CCJAL      AARNet  ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What is wrong with "rule of thumb" ?
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)


DC>In any case, I agree that it would be foolish to avoid this useful phrase
  >just because some people think it has a brutal origin that hardly anyone
  >else knows about.

Then (IMHO) you don't understand the incredible lengths to which
proponents of Political Correctness will go.  No matter how obscure or
rare a word or phrase, if at any time or place it might have the
slightest possibility of offending any being, it shall not be used by
any Politically Correct being.
---
 . OLX 3.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                                                                                         
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: plu@math.psu.edu (Mr. Hypothetical)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Penn State Department of Mathematics
	<1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov>
	<1992Nov18.221451.14168@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:33:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.221451.14168@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
   In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
   >
   >Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:
   >
   >a)	2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.
   >
   >b)	1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.  
   >
   >Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
   >perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
   >than the number 2, in the above contexts.

   Wrong - there are not infinitely more real numbers than integers.  If I
   had my university notes, I could trot out the proof, but in the
   meantime:  there are infinite numbers of integers and of real numbers.
   "Infinite" being an absolute term, you can't say that one infinite set
   is larger than the other (and certainly not infinitely larger).

No, in fact you can say that the set of real numbers is larger than
the set of integers.  I shouldn't try to go into too much detail here,
but if Z is the set of integers and R the set of real numbers, then
one can prove that there is no function f from Z to R such that every
real number r is equal to f(z) for some integer z.  In other words,
any function from Z to R has to "miss" part of R (in fact, almost all
of R).  Since we can construct a function from the positive integers
to Z that doesn't miss any of Z, the integers are said to be
"countably" infinite - they can be counted, 1,2,3,....  But R is
uncountably infinite.  That said, I don't think I would say 1/3 as a
real number was more unique than 2 as an integer (but that's just my
opinion).

Speaking of "uniqueness", I once took a (math) class in which the
notion of "strong uniqueness of best approximation" was introduced;
also, the class used a book whose author used the aberrant "unicity"
instead of "uniqueness".  (I think unicity comes from the French word
for uniqueness [unicit\'e?], though the book was written in English by
a German.)

- Todd Andrew Simpson

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 05:30:09 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

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mikulska@crux.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.034224.17561@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.164506.24509@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>
[That's Gabe, I think; I'm losing track of attributions, sorry. -MM]
>>
>>>Wow!  Can I have that in writing?
>>
>>You just did.
>
>Legally speaking, email doesn't count as "in writing."  Fax me.

Would a fax be legally binding?  I recall a looong discussion on
soc.culture.jewish about whether a get sent by fax counts or not.
Law is still behind technology, y'know.  :-)

-Margaret

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: axe (was Re: quite unique research?)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:00:17 GMT

In article <lgl51gINNqf6@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.200903.3843@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>|> In that vain, "most unique" would probably still
>|> lose out, as would "axe" and "less items" and a whole lot of others
>|> that you have at one time or another have claimed to be acceptable.

>Pardon me, I just got here.  But what is supposed to be wrong
>with the word "axe" ?   I've always understood it to be 
>a perfectly good alternate spelling of "ax".

You just *had* to axe, didn't you?  8-)

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:52:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.120939.10190@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov16.112547.22880@black.ox.ac.uk> microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read) writes:

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

>> A pity, isn't it.  

>I agree. And I'm still waiting for him to tell me what it actually means...

I told you several times!  Once again: "To give, or perform in, concerts."
That's straight from the dictionary.  

Now, there are shades of meaning related to the actual usage of the 
word, as with any other word that has a synonym.  I think the plural
"concerts" in the definition makes it clear that there's a habitual
or repeated aspect to the meaning: one doesn't concertize if one
gives one student recital or performs for friends in one's living room 
now and then.  And the word is usually used when speaking of professional
musicians, notably those who tour.  But amateurs can concertize, and one
can concertize without leaving town.  

And this has been the case for over a century.  Still confused?

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Nico Tranquilli <ntranqu@caticsuf.cati.csufresno.edu>
Subject: last,latest,latter
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72E937FD4070B1B@mac2.di.unipi.it>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 17 Nov 92 11: 18:07 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Pisa University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:17:38 GMT

Could anyone please tell me the differences between
LAST, LATEST(?), LATTER ?

It's an ignorant question, I know and I also know that the last time I
posted here I had no replies, so I wonder if this newgroup is "reserved"
for native english speakers only...)
From: hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: How's it hanging? (was Re: What's cooking?)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 07:06:56 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au

harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper) writes:

>>But people aren't "hanged like a horse" :)


>	The cowboy and his horse were hanged at dawn.  Their corpses
>	were hung in the public square afterwards.

	Except for this poor fellow, he was hanged like his horse.




--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:34:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.231257.5217@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

>O. K.  You've convinced me.  I'll never use it again except as a
>technical term meaning "one of a kind, there are no others".  For

Gee, that was *frighteningly easy*.  Maybe I should start a cult or 
something!

Seriously, though, I don't want to disallow uses of "unique."  
I don't mind hearing it, and use it as a marker to indicate that a
really rare or perhaps one-of-a-kind attribute is about to be
announced, or that such an attribute is lurking around for me to find,
and that it's probably something good.  At least, that's what I think 
I think when I hear it.  

AnD of course, the triviality of the word makes its "misuse" unimportant.
We don't lose much by using it to mean "rare" because we don't gain much by
using it in the first place.


Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:17:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.044553.27898@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders) writes:
>roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov16.112547.22880@black.ox.ac.uk> microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read) writes:

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

>>>A pity, isn't it.  
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>What's a pity?  That people can't walk over to the dictionary (or hook up
>>with the on-line OED)?  That whole issue was avoidable, and the people who
>>spoke of that usage as being "depressing," "ugly," etc. might have saved
>>their breath.

>I believe the writer was referring to your penchant for becoming rude
>and abusive when others disagree with you.  

You know, I'd like to see a posting of mine in which I become rude
because people disagree with me.  

Yes, occasionally I say rude things around here.  But they're 
generally reactions to things *I* perceive as being far more rude:
calling people who use this or that idiom "ignorant" or "illiterate"
or "wrong" without any reason.  Talking about the terrible decline in
standards -- without evidence that things were ever better, or telling
what the standards might be.  Using language as a club to enforce
class differences.

I think we can all do better than that.

>This was the reason I
>dropped the recent thread on "pro-active" and "impact"; I didn't 
>feel like responding to personal abuse and snide remarks.

Well, if I offended you I'm truly sorry.  But I'd like to
see those remarks again.  As I recall, the arguments against those
words involved things like "copywriters/politicians/marketing people
use these words so they must be bad."  

I guess I *do* respond badly to such combinations of counterfactuality,
illogic, and sneering; why not consider what the words mean, how they
are and aren't used, and why they might have arisen in the first place?
Time and again, someone will post a peeve about this or that word, and
not even bother to ask or speculate on how the word might have arisen,
or why it's used.  I think we shouldn't skip that step.

>If you'll excuse me, I'm going shopping for some asbestos Fruit of
>the Looms.  With Roger around, it's best to be prepared for those
>below-the-belt flames, too.

No flames intended here or elsewhere.  If you have a specific posting
of mine you'd like to discuss, let me see it.  If I was rude, you'll
get an apology immediately.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:38:24 GMT

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" :)

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english