HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey)
Subject: Re: Name for Brits and Irish?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: eunet
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:54:24 GMT

In article <3795@keele.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>
>Since all of the island of Ireland is part of Britain, I think British
>still works. However if you don't like it the late John Biggs-Davidson proposed a union between UK
>and Eire with the proposed name of IONA (Isles Of the North Atlantic) so
>I suppose Ionians might work - don't any one tell the Greek government
>though as if current policies are anything to go by they'd sulk like
>mad.
>
>Andy

This has to be deliberate provocation. Since I have nothing better to
do, I will allow myself to be provoked.
1. Ireland is not part of Britain.
2. Eire is an Irish word, and this newsgroup is generally conducted in
English.
3. Even allowing mistake 2 to pass, your use of Eire is incorrect. Eire
is the Irish for Ireland, so the UK and "Eire" are not distinct
entities.
4. You must be someone who either reads this newsgroup a lot, or never
reads it at all.
---- Kevin.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6369 soc.culture.british:11532
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Name for Brits and Irish?
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:13:01 GMT
Distribution: eunet
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany

In <1992Aug12.115613.21356@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:

>Anyone know if there is a collective name for people from the British
>Isles? British doesn't cut it as that excludes the Irish (at least those
>from the Republic) and Anglo-Saxon misses the Celts. Any ideas?

                                   WOGS
                         West of Greenwich, Silly!
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Puns
Date: 15 Aug 92 09:59:06 GMT
	<pjh.713553682@nessi> <1992Aug11.232744.226@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<pjh.713703937@nessi> <TSOS.54.713783625@uni-duesseldorf.de>
	<pjh.713788281@nessi> <TSOS.55.713804863@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de's message of 14 Aug 92 15:07:43 GMT

In article <TSOS.55.713804863@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:

> Smileys and ";-)"'s are not very popular with a.u.e folks (for the
> reasons see the special thread on this subject), so I deliberately
> didn't include any and saved them instead for the less (or fewer?)
> bright days to come.

Probably both if you don't watch it.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:26:01 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <1992Aug12.032735.6755@redsox.bsw.com>,
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>A carpenter's "router" does not "route" (rhyming with "hoot"),
>it "routs" (rhymes with "pouts").
>On the other hand, hardware boxes from Cisco and Wellfleet "route"
>rather than "rout" (one hopes!) the network traffic.
>I grew up in the Boston area and never heard "route" pronounced
>as though rhyming with "pout" until I began working in the computer
>industry.


All of which is true, no doubt, but . . .

. . . I think the single phrase "paper route" has had more influence
than anything else on how the r-word is pronounced in the USA.  Even
within the usage patterns of a single individual, "paper route" seems
to have a reified "r-out" existence, independent of all other occurrences
and pronunciations of the r-word.  And since the "r-out" noun is so
firmly ensconced, I suppose it seems natural that the verb form would be
affected, given our propensity here in the US to indulge in the verbing
of nouns, and, as with "router," even the *wrong* nouns!


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to Joey, who delivered my newspapers for ten years.]
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Gender Benders!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 13:23:13 GMT




In a previous article, greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger) says:


>On Aug 20, James Copeland wrote:
>
>JC>All of this gender bender stuff has me asking the following question:
>JC>Don't you hate it when people use the words "gender" and "sex" interchangably
>JC>One example is when filling out forms which ask for your gender instead of
>JC>your sex.
>JC>If I am not mistaken, sex refers to the biological distinction between men
>JC>and women, while gender refers to the sociological distinction between male
>JC>and female.  There are few cases where the sex of an individual is in questio
>JC>but gender is more of an arbitrary distinction along a continuum. Thus you
>JC>can have masculine women and feminine men.
>
>Some wise person (I wish I could remember who) once said, 'Nouns have
>gender; people have sex.'



Which is why the forms started using "gender," I bet.  Too many jokes about
filling in "sex" with "when I can get it."

Bonita
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:33:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug21.164215.11501@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
Lauren writes:  (various rules regarding "less" and "fewer."
>

Roger responds:
>Stilted.  Try speaking this!
>
But that is how I talk.  It doesn't seem stilted at all to me.

>
>OK: now we know how to write for a wire service.  But this is not to be
>confused with a description of, or a prescription for, general English
>usage at any level.
>
On the contrary.  The style guides I quoted _do_ contain stuff that
is, as you say, mainly useful to editors interested in maintaining
consistency throughout a periodical (or book), like whether or not
to use serial commas and whether or not to put periods in U.S.A.  But
they also contain lots of good old grammar, a sample of which I just
quoted.  Or, if you prefer, lots of good old _correct_ (as opposed to
"general") language usage.

If all you're interested in is general English usage, then hey, the
sky's the limit.  Go wild.  People around here sure do, and if
youse was from Philly, youse'd know that.




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

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
            -- J. Danforth Quayle
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: The Great Debate : Clarifications (LONG)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:47:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug19.055328.5419@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
>
>This is where your lose spelling is letting you down. Being British, I
>would, of course, spell the distance 'kilometre' and the instrument
>'kilometer'. 
>
You lose out on "loose", though.





-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and as far as I'm
concerned, happy campers you will always be."
                  --J. Danforth Quayle in American Samoa
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Zippers
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:45:11 GMT

In article <pel.24.713584026@resntl.bhp.com.au>,
pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn) writes:
>In article <9208072347.AA17228@MIT.EDU> dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
>>The verb, I guess, is always "to zip (up)."
>>What about the noun?  I've heard "zipper" and I've heard "zip."
>>What have y'all heard?  For a reason too boring to
>>explain, I'm particularly interested in Australian usage
>>at the moment.  So pipe up, y'all Down Under!
>>
>>[This post is dedicated to that jolly jambak.]
>
>
>Both "zip" and "zipper" have been used in my hearing, but lately I think 
>mostly "zip". BTW that's jumbuck.


Thanks.  Your response is of a piece with those of other Australians.
It seems that "zip" is never used over "zipper" only in the USA.

As for 'jambak,' I have been conversing recently with several of your
compatriots about this very question.  While their first response was
the same as yours, i.e., to recommend 'jumbuck,' it seems that the
story may be more complicated.  Following is a letter I sent last
evening to two of them:

   > Halfway around the world from Australia, I am reluctant to contradict
   > you on the whys and wherefores of your land.  However, I trust you
   > will take my speculations in the spirit in which they are offered.
   > 
   > After a little work, I found evidence that "jambak" does, in fact,
   > derive from one of several Koori (Native Australian) words.  Depending
   > on the dialect, these words could have included:
   > 
   >    jambak, jimba, jumbuk, jumbuck, dombok, dumbog (and some others)
   > 
   > The meaning these words bear in common is "the white mist before the
   > rain," which, apparently, is what a flock of sheep resembled to the
   > first-time (Koori) beholder.  Only "jumbuk" is in Collins, only
   > "jumbuck" is in Macquarie.  And, as far as I can tell, "jump up" is a
   > semi-humo(u)rous immigrant back-derivation, circa 1890.
   > 
   > These speculations of mine are informed by telephonic discussions with
   > two long-time friends at ANU and dinner with a self-proclaimed scholar
   > here in Cambridge.  I am eager to hear what you think.

So, Paul, now *you* get to tell me what *you* think!


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to Thomas Keneally.]
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Victory at NPR!
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 18 Aug 92 09:54:58 EST
 <1992Aug16.121020.8307@vax.oxford.ac.uk> <1992Aug17.225133.1764@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 




In article <1992Aug17.225133.1764@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:

> Actually, when I'm feeling lonely and isolated in my brilliance, I enjoy
> looking down on the poor fools who aren't privy to the mysteries of the
> cultured dialects of English (which are, after all, closer to that Pla-
> tonic ideal of language we all know exists somewhere it the higher realms).
> I vote that we just let the checkout lines be, and keep it our little secret.
          !!!!!!!!!                                         !!!!!

Why Richard, who *are* these "we" & "our" you refer to?

(grinning ObSmly)

-----ted hayes  

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 12:22:42 GMT




In a previous article, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) says:

>In article <1992Aug23.052841.161@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>
>>20 years ago, this would have been properly written as "every good chef
>>knows his ingredients."  But since the PC crowd has been jumping up and
>>down about nonsexist usage, today I would write the sentence as "all good
>>chefs know their ingredients."  
>
>Oh, calm down.  People are using this construct very frequently.
>Whatever the motivation, the language will change to suit the needs and
>preferences of the people using it.  Consider that, in about 500 years,
>there will exist linguists who will see this upsurge of the singular use
>of "they" and conclude things like, "This part of Western history must
>have seen a massive re-working of gender roles."

Yeah, except the gender role thing only reduced the opposition to this
already common usage.

>>...the English-speaking world is unable to grasp
>>the linguistic concept so prevalent in other languages, namely that a
>>generic male pronoun can refer to people in general, not just men.
>
>EVER so sorry, but this is not natural to me.  Gee, I wonder what
>language I speak? 


Oh, I grasp it.  The generic male pronoun can refer to people in
general.  And so can the generic female.  How about we use half and half?  
"Every good chef knows her ingredients."

Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:50:50 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <cummings.714075674@milton> cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>Is this common in other word that have the "sk" in them?  Or is the
>>reversal lexical in "ask?"  It could just be lexical.
>
>	I often hear people pronounce "asterisk" as "asteriks" or more
>commonly, "asterick."

And I often hear "et cetera" pronounced "ek cetera."  (This is 
mucus to my ears.)

--Daz
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:19:03 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug19.111131.16541@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
>
>How about "escape"?  Little kids seem to pronounce it "ec-scape" and quite
>a few of them continue doing so in adult life.  It isn't easier for the
>tongue, but it must sound more regular to them, somehow, as if it matches
>all the words beginning with "ex".

Ed Norton used to do that all the time.

Another word that gets mangled by kids is "spaghetti," usually turning into
"pasketti" or some such.  This one, thankfully, they tend to short out.

Next thing you know, someone's going to be posting that "pasketti" is a 
reasonable English pronunciation because one kid never managed to say it 
right.


--
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: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:35:02 GMT

yholbroo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Yash Holbrook) writes:

>>Is it time to give up on the distinction between "less" and "fewer?"
>>
>>     The PS/2 8511 Color Display has far less components than the IBM      
>
>Instead of going into and perhaps relaunching a debate
>about "purity" in language (well, what else could a.u.e. be for?), I'll
>just cast my vote for the "correct sound" of it.

There is no information loss in the above context if we use "less" as a
synonym for "fewer."  Often its use implies a slight change of emphasis
(i.e. plural per se = fewer, or plural as a collective = less).  Con-
structions in which a singular replaces a plural are hardy new to the
language.  The British, for instance, are especially fond of doing the
reverse of the above, namely using plurals with morphological singu-
lars.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.161730.9265@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>I would not even on a golf course [actually, I haven't been on one
>>for years ... but I assume I could imagine self in a public house
>>instead] nor in a car [in my Golf, for instance] resort to a
>>language that is - in my humble ears - 'wrong' or 'ungrammatical'.
>
>Neither would I.  

[stuff about informal speech deleted]

>Well, of course!  So do I, and so does my colleague.  Often, however, he
>still makes the errors, despite trying not to.
		 ^^^^^^
Funny how you're calling them errors now.  I'm so glad you agree.

Many, myself included, would use colloquial or informal expressions,
but wouldn't violate grammatical rules in doing so.  "Me and my friends"
would always be an error, no matter how informal the circumstances, at
least in my idiolect.


--
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: sds@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Sherwood Daniel Silliman)
Subject: Re: What ~did~ Don Quixote sit on?
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:00:33 GMT

>>>>  so there we leave Don Quixote, sitting
>>>>  on his ass, until this time next week."
>
>>It sounds like an ignorant urban rumour to me, since Don Quixote
>>didn't sit on a donkey. Being a knight he sat on his horse. Sancho was
>>the donkey rider. I blame underfunding of the education system for the
>>persistence of this thread :-)

This is why he's called Donkey Hotey, right?



-- 
Sherwood D. Silliman         "When I give food to the poor, they call me a
                              saint.  When I ask why the poor have no food,
                              they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:52:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.040130.15303@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>4) Finally, is it (still?) incorrect to pronounce the 't' in often?
>"Often" with the t is pompous and inappropriate for the language we speak.

Perhaps for the language *you* speak; however, I do pronounce "often" with,
if not a definite 't' sound, at least something which audibly distinguishes
between it and "offen".

>You don't pronounce the t in listen or soften, and besides.  If you pronounce

And, for me, similarly with "listen" and "soften".

>the t, then the gag in Pirates of Penzance doesn't work.

Oh, I could care less.

				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
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Victory at NPR!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:05:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.155514.27121@midway.uchicago.edu> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>
>>>>No, you should have pointed out that "8 items or less" is flat-out
>>>>*correct.*  And idiomatic.  And long-standing usage.  And standard.
>>
>>>.......NOT!
>>
>>OK, Gabe: meet you at the OED, or the reference grammar of your choice.
>
>Gabe is just playing the adversary, needling the sorts of folks who
>will find wanton disregard for the OED offensive.  I'll wager that,
>when writing, he uses standard English as well as you.  He's merely
>reminding us that there's no reason to fixate on minor points like
>this (or worse yet, claim some bizarre sort of superiority for being
>aware of them).

Is that what you're doing, Gabe?  If so, you've played your hand
impressively.  (This exchange has continued via email, I might add.)

>Incidentally, the OED is not strictly a prescriptive dictionary (as
>I myself have been repeatedly reminded here), although there is an
>obvious tendency to cite only the "best" sources (!).

True enough.  But it's a wonderful source of idiom, long-standing usage,
and observations about what's standard where.

And sometimes it *does* prescribe.

Roger
>
>-- 
>
>   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
>   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Guesstimates
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 12:19:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.214316.679@mala.bc.ca>,
epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.181037.28202@athena.mit.edu>,
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>> 
>> 	portmanteau	= porte + manteau	ask a.u.f.
>
>"Portmanteau" is not a portmanteau word, it is a compound word.

Yes, but if a.u.f. existed, you'd hear about Mantuan hosiery and such.


>> 	malapropism	= mal + a propos 	ask Sheridan
>
>Not really a portmanteau either.  According to my dicitionary, "malapropism"
>is formed by adding the suffix "-ism" to "Malaprop", the name of Sheridan's
>character; "Malaprop" is formed by dropping the final syllable from the
>French "mal a propos".  On second thought, maybe this does count.  I've
>confused myself!  Help!

No, I won't help -- you got yourself in, you get yourself out!


>A portmanteau word in the spirit of "guesstimate" is "absitively",
>a blend of "absolutely" and "positively."

Yes, except that no one takes "absitively" seriously whereas some people
deliberately use "guesstimate" and expect to be understood.  Do you?


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to words that mean what I want them to mean.]

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: john@bunsen.rosemount.com (John Perkins)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a (sikth) question?
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:27:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.161338.6993@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <frank2.21@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za> frank2@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (FRANK D N) writes:
>>Do people in country's other than South Africa have great difficulty 
>>pronouncing the words *fiFth* and *siXth* correctly? These words are 
>>commonly pronounced *fith* and *sikth* here.	
>
>>I'd guess this has something to do with them phonotactics thingies.
>
>That's the way most English speakers pronounce them, especially "sixth."

Really?  The most common mispronunciation --- I mean variation --- that
I hear for sixth is "sixed."  My bank's computerized account information
'droid pronounces it that way.  "Sikth" sounds more like a lisp to me.

John.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english