HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsew@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Sewell)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Hross
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:08:47 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug26.232637.985@dragon.com> cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith)) writes:


> "Horse" originally comes from "hross," whence, I suspect, "Hoss" 
>Cartwright got his name.  The writers/developers of Bonanza must have 
>had a sense of humor.

I don't think we have to go all the way back to Anglo-Saxon roots to
explain "Hoss"--just ask most any Southerner to pronounce the word
"horse."  (For my Virginian father-in-law it is a precise homonym with
"hoss.")

-- 
David Sewell, English Dept, U of Rochester   |  *************************
  dsew@troi.cc.rochester.edu                 |  "Arizona -- it's not
  dsewell@violet.ccit.arizona.edu            |  Kansas and it never was."
  (On leave in Tucson, Arizona, '92-'93)     |  *************************
From: sorourke@lonestar.utsa.edu (Sean J. Orourke)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A Neologism
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:19:55 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Sep1.233118.15985@nmsu.edu> sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>quixotic

I just looked this up... it comes from Don Quixote (kee-ho-tay) but is
pronounced kwiks-a-tick.  Why?
From: pjh@deirdre.noname (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: University
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:48:01 GMT
Reply-To: pjh@deirdre.noname
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 22908@nessie.mcc.ac.uk, segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes:
>Here we would tend to use then name of the University, so most people
>would say "when I was at UMIST" (providing this was the establishment to
>which they went). To describe going into the campus we would use say
>"into the University" (I use going "to work" along with most of my fellow
>PostGrads), going "to the University" is having been accepted for a
>course. Campus is a word that is very rarely used, it tends to be
>regarded as a sign of being from the other side of the Pond.
>
>There is however no general understanding of the phrases. It certainly
>doesn't play the same part in everyday life as Oz/US soaps would have us
>believe it does there. Most people use "college" (here this means an
>establishment giving basically vocational education to 16-18 year olds)
>or "school" when they ask "so where are you going to <insert word>?".

I used to be at Imperial College (part of London University) and tended to say
that I was "going to college" when I meant "going (from where I lived to the main 
site of Imperial College) to do some work of whatever variety". 

I have now moved to Cambridge University and I still have a tendency to say "going
to college" when I mean "going to work". I have had to train myself to say "going 
into the lab" instead to avoid confusion. Saying "going into college" (when not 
meaning "going to work") usually means going into the college buildings, 
i.e. going into the MCR or to check for pigeons... er, mail in the pigeon holes.

When not at the place and refering to it, I usually use the place name - Imperial
or Cambridge. Imperial is also the College but thought of differently to other
colleges which are often 6th form colleges. And of course the colleges of Cambridge
University are different too.

What do you mean, _you're_ confused?

---
Philippa Hogben   pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if mailing from Janet)
Any mistakes are mine, all mnie.

I am not a .sig virus. I am a free bug. 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: murray.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Subject: English
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:00:19 GMT

I've often wondered about the name Australians have for the English: 
Pommies. It usually modifys another noun, but that's another story.
Does anyone know the etymology?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: RAHLFS@BEATE.RZ.FH-ULM.DE (RZ D. Rahlfs)
Subject: To look for (German: suchen)
Organization: FACHHOCHSCHULE ULM (GERMANY)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:24:45 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

Is someone able to explain the difference between:

-----------------
to look for s.th.
to search s.th.
to search for s.th.
to seek s.th.
to seek for s.th.
to seek after s.th.
-------------------

I'd love to know it.

Dietmar Rahlfs
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:56:57 GMT

In <1992Aug23.060508.852@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:


>As for the subjunctive's dying out, I'm unconvinced.  People still say
>"If I were you" and not "if I was you" unless they're talking about past
>lives.  People say "It's important that he be here" and not "It's important
>that he is here."

You are certainly in disagreement with "Fowler's Modern English Usage"
which considers the "important facts [regarding subjunctives to be]:
(1) that it is moribund except in a few easily specified uses; (2)
that [...] it probably never would have been possible to draw
up a satisfactory table of the English subjunctive uses; (3) that
assuredly no one will ever find it either possible or worth while
to do so now that the subjunctive is dying; and (4) that subjunctives
met with today, outside the few truly living uses, are either
deliberate revivals [...], or antiquated survivals giving 
pretentious flavour [...], or new arrivals possible only in an age
to which the grammar of the subjunctive is not natural but artificial"

Werner
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Date: 27 Aug 1992 13:07:46 GMT
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: daisy.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Aug23.221020.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>,
ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) writes:
> `The opposition are petrified of Nissan' (or roughly that).
> Does this sound odd to ears other than mine.

I would use "is" instead of "are".

> My daughter said `They're just using "petrified" as a synonym of "scared".'

That's OK in my dialect.

--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za             Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
Subject: Re: A Neologism
Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Moving Finger Rights, Ltd.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 20:18:57 GMT

roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
: In article <1992Sep2.134834.9755@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> lange@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
: >roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
: >: In article <1992Sep1.233118.15985@nmsu.edu> sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA) writes:
: 
: >: >Literatify - to create an adjective from a literary character or
: >: >object.
: 
: >: >Here are literafisms I have collected, can anyone think of others?
: 
: >: >pollyanna
: [...]
: >: Not that all of these are adjectives, but anyway,...
: 
: >: shylock.
: [...]
: >: musical/mosaic (from Mousa = muse)
: 
: >mosaic is from Moses, as in "mosaic law."
: 
: Not in the sense of a pattern of tiles, or at least, that's what my
: AHD says.  Your source?
: 
: Roger

My faulty memory. You're correct, of course, as is confirmed by my
Webster's. My error was not capitalizing "Mosaic law." Or perhaps
I should've added "Mosaical" to this cascading list?

Alex
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: "have went" & Re: This usage, it makes me wince (was: Another Americanism?)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:30:05 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <10563@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug28.114714.25710@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> <Keywords: "I should have went....."
|> 
|> We had almost forgotten about this one, hadn't we?  Anyway, while many
|> say "I have went" (I've said it myself), does anyone say "it is went"?
|> If not, is "go" developing to be the only English verb with two past
|> participles, each with its own use?  (And is it the only one?)
|> 
|> <In article <1992Aug26.193831.13522@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
|> <|< 
|> <|< Well, that colleague of mine who makes me wince -- HE SAYS THIS TOO!
|> <
|> <Totally off the subject that was being discussed, but the additional pronoun
|> <in the above sentence makes me wince when I sound it out.  Do the hyphens
|> <in it <...>
|> 
|> Yet another thing to make one wince is the ASCII pseudo-typography,
|> which makes dashes look like hyphens (or pairs thereof) and hyphens
|> look like minus signs.

So what's the difference between a dash and a hyphen?  Serious question here,
not meant to be sarcastic at all.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|What to do I find it hard to know. The road I walk|
|is not the one I chose.   -Yes                    |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:33:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug23.060508.852@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.053835.7320@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>And it hasn't hurt the language one bit.  Browne didn't invent that
>>usage, nor did he abuse it.

>>In his (very colloquial) context, "were" sounds affected.  In that
>>sense, it's *wrong.*

>Nope.  It isn't wrong, and here's why:

>	- The song contrasts two periods...vietnam, and the 1980's.
>	- In the verse in question, it becomes apparent by the *end* of
>	  it that he was talking about the 1980's.
>	- By saying "as if freedom was...." one gets the impression that
>	  he was talking about the 1960's, instead of the 1980's, or
>	  talking generally.

ONLY if one interprets the song in the wrong dialect: Formal English.
As Brahms would have said, any ass can see that the song is in the colloquial 
idiom, and *there* one simply doesn't have to use "as if it were" to
signal the subjunctive.  

Moreover, since he's talking about general concepts such as freedom, why
would one think that such a concept would change over 20 years?  Surely
there's no hint of that in the song.

>The use of the subjunctive would have clarified that a good deal.

Reet.

>As for the subjunctive's dying out, I'm unconvinced.  

Then go to the library and read any of the hundreds of research articles
that demonstrate that very thing beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>People still say
>"If I were you" and not "if I was you" unless they're talking about past
>lives.  

Indeed.  That phrase has idiom status.  Many people only use a very few,
clicheed phrases that have subjunctive formulations.  In general,
however, they don't use subjunctive inflections.

>People say "It's important that he be here" and not "It's important
>that he is here."

Have I got news for you.  Lots of people *don't* say that.

Now, how about, "If this be treason, let us make the most of it."

Would *anyone* still use "be"?  Would you say, "If this be a cake, let's
eat it."

>>>Would've sounded a lot better and made the meaning of his lyric a lot better.

>>Bullshit.  His lyric means exactly the same either way.  If you can't
>>understand the subjunctive meaning from the "as if," you've got bigger
>>problems than I can help you with.

>I didn't ask for your help.  But "if" in this context could mean either the
>hypothetical or the past.  Browne intended it to mean the hypothetical, and
>he instead used an expression that indicated otherwise.

Not to millions of listeners.  Amazing that they screwed up and got it
right.

>>In his context, "were" would have been the error.  People just don't say
>>that in the context of a popular song anymore.

>too bad

Why?  What have we lost?  Your'e the only person I've ever encountered
who didn't get the song...

Roger
From: takoosma@utkvx3.utk.edu (Toby Koosman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Singualar or Plural
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:44:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang) writes...
>The following is posted on soc.culture.china from the keyboard of
>dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu.  I wish to see explanations from experts of
>this group.
Experts?  Wrong group.
>The discussion reminds me of this most confusing thing (I think) in English.
>You say 1 meter, 2 meters, 10 meters, 0.5 meters, 0.001 meters, and you
>even have to say -72 meters, -0.975 meters, and of course, ZERO METERS!  
>Everything except 1 is plural.  Now what about -1?  Is it singular? :-)

I believe most (U.S.) English speakers would say either "minus one meter" or 
"negative-one meters".   Of course, one would also say "five eighths of a
meter" not normally "five-eighths meters".  It's only decimal fractions that
modify the plural.  

As for zero, it wasn't around when grammar was invented.  I guess it takes the
plural in analogy to "no meters".  

Toby Koosman
University of Tennessee   Knoxville, Tennessee  USA
Internet: koosman@utkvx.utk.edu     Bitnet: koosman@utkvx
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Beech vs. Beach
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:15:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <24076@oasys.dt.navy.mil> huangj@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Juliet Huang) writes:
>I have a fairly recent box of Honey Nut Cheerios that offers a free
>Beech ball.  That's Beech with two "e"'s.  On the box, though, they
>show the sand and surf, which I've always thought was BEACH.
>Are they using a definition of beech that I don't know, is it an
>error, or am I mistaken??


Wow, that's one heavy ball.  Try playing water polo with _that_ baby.

You're right, Juliet.  A "beach" is where one builds sand castles and
fries.  A "beech" is a tree.  One could find a beech on a beach, but one
probably wouldn't make balls out of it.



-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
            -- J. Danforth Quayle  
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: "Grammar" & "Usage"
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:35:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.051945.18599@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>> they may more or less be seen as valid
>>representatives of the category of "standard" English, but they are
>>understandable as English because they share these core features.  By way of
>>analogy, an ostrich is less "bird-like" than a robin because the ostrich has
>>fewer (not less) bird-like features -- doesn't fly, doesn't catch worms,
>> sticks head in ground, etc. (Hiding its head in the ground is a sign of 
>>a less bird-like feature, of course.)
>
>Um, I guess.  Which bird is *most* birdlike?  How can you tell?
>What's a standard bird?  

While we may have difficulty agreeing on the ideal form of a bird, many
people have no problems categorizing the ostrich as a non-standard bird,
or a flying toaster as a non-bird.

>"Standard" English is a dialect, and a somewhat artificial one.
>It is not something other than a dialect, does not have any special
>privilege or priority in a linguistic sense.

But it _does_ get accorded "special privilege or priority" by most
people who are *not* linguists.

>You did suggest that they needed to "re-learn" basic grammar and usage.
>And these things are known to everyone who can talk.  Not in a textbook
>way, of course, but known.  

I've heard speach and read prose that would call this assertion into question.
There *are* many people who would do well to re-learn basic grammar and
usage.

>Formal knowledge of grammar has little to do with writing skill

By understanding rules of grammar you can better *apply* them.  Of course,
some people learn to write well first, but many find that their abilities
are improved by an understanding of how the language works.

>And with all the other dialects.  You seem to have gotten hold of the 
>fallacy of there being a "Standard" plus a lot of dialects.  Standard 
>is but one dialect that has been socially privileged.

Properly:  one dialect which has gained more universal acceptability

>Indeed; we call a set of sufficiently overlapping dialects a language.
>Not the other way around; a language is not a standard idiom plus 
>dialects that radiate from it.

But that *is* effectively what happens, even though some linguists may
think otherwise.  When language is *taught*, it is the standard that
is taught, not some remote dialect.  The standard is just that, a standard.


--
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
From: mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ---istocracy ???
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:22:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug26.183055.5041@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.154357.8473@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>In article <25090@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>> In article <Aug.19.21.56.34.1992.16942@pilot.njin.net> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:
>
>>>>Kakistocracy is governance by the worst.  I take this to mean the most
>>>>evil, degraded, despicable, or the like.
>
>>> What's the etymology of this? Looks to me like it means "ruled by
>>> shits" which is pretty common these days.
>
>I once blew this one right here on the net, so:   
>'kakos' means 'bad,' not 'caca.'

Actually, I don't think you blew it.  It seems that 'kaka-' or 'kakka-'
was an imitative IE root of the word meaning "to defecate".  Hence the Greek
'kakos' = "bad", but also Latin 'cacare' (2nd 'a' long) and Old Norse
*'kuka' (reconstructed root), both meaning "to defecate".  And yes, the
Greek 'kakos' _is_ related to 'kaka'.  So you didn't miss by far.

(Let's get out of here!!!)

-Margaret
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: University
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:48:58 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep2.094927.22908@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes:
>
>I'm interested to know that "varsity" is used in NZ though. It has almost
>disappeared here in the UK. It's used as an adjective: the "Varsity
>Match"; Inter-varsity Croquet; etc. Mostly though for Oxbridge stuff, and
>hence thought to be pretentious.

In the US, "varsity" exists only as an adjective and is quite common.  It
referrs to the representative sports team of a school....of any school at
any level.  Seventh graders often play varsity soccer, etc.

>Here we would tend to use then name of the University, so most people
>would say "when I was at UMIST" (providing this was the establishment to
>which they went). To describe going into the campus we would use say
>"into the University" (I use going "to work" along with most of my fellow
>PostGrads), going "to the University" is having been accepted for a
>course. Campus is a word that is very rarely used, it tends to be
>regarded as a sign of being from the other side of the Pond.

Hm.  "to the university" would probably only be used to indicate physical
location in the US.  "I'm going to the university to drop off a paper. 
I'll be back by noon."  Similar situation for "campus."  It only refers to
the actual place.  "I'm not living on campus this semester."  "Into the
university" isn't widely used here.

Beginning an undergraduate tenure at a university is "going to college" or
sometimes "going away to college" or "going away to school."  At gatherings
where it is obvious that all present are college grads or college students,
one might hear "where did you go to school?" or "where do you go to school?"
with some frequency.


--
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
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Reporting Speeches
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:23:30 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Aug31.212256.745@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.135405.26180@nuscc.nus.sg> isc30001@nusunix3.nus.sg (WONG KIN HONG) writes:
>>
>>	He said that he would start working on Monday.
>>	
>>	He said that he will start working on Monday.
>>
>>	What the guy said was: " I will start working on Monday."
> 
> Well, to me they carry different connotations.  When are you
> reporting it?  
> "He said that he would start working on Monday.  It's Tuesday and he
> didn't start working.  He lied."
> or
> "He said that he will start working on Monday.  I hope we can survive
> until then without him."
> 
Maybe it's just my heavy-dosage Classical education, but this second phrase
definitely sounds wrong to me. My memory for Latin and Greek grammar was never
very good, but I always remember that after a past tense verb reported speech
never stays in the same tense. (Latin's acc&inf construction will have
different rules of course.) Maybe someone better acquainted with the languages 
than I can confirm or refute this. 

Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I was always aware of how close to
English the Grammars of Greek and Latin actually are. So Gabe's phrase "He said
that he will start working on Monday" sounds wrong to me in whatever context
it's used. I think the term is "sequence of tenses".
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.200917.7980@news.eng.convex.com>, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:
> From the keyboard of ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert):
> :A Nissan commercial which has been shown recently on TV here includes the line
> :`The opposition are petrified of Nissan' (or roughly that).
> :
> :Does this sound odd to ears other than mine. My daughter said `They're just
> :using "petrified" as a synonym of "scared".'
> :
> :It still sounds odd to me.
> 
> Sounds odd to be, too, but not due to "petrified".  "are" for "is"
> will always sound odd to me.
> 
> --tom
> -- 
>     Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
-- 
The use of `are' when used with a (singular) collective noun is common (I
think) Australian usage, talthough by no means universal. I have to try both to
decide in a particular situation which `sounds right' (which as regular readers
of this newsgroup would know is the only _real_ way to decide whether it is
good grammar or good usage.)

`Nissan are ...' sounds fine to me; what I would have expected is `petrified
_by_' rather than `petrified of'.

John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia