HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:38:59 GMT

In article <Bxx9n8.Cs@cs.psu.edu> plu@math.psu.edu (Mr. Hypothetical) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>Path: news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news
>From: plu@math.psu.edu (Mr. Hypothetical)
>Subject: Re: What's cooking?
>In-Reply-To: ted@physics3's message of 18 Nov 1992 01:47:36 GMT
>Message-ID: <Bxx9n8.Cs@cs.psu.edu>
>Followup-To: alt.usage.english
>Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: jacobi.math.psu.edu
>Organization: Penn State Department of Mathematics
>References: <BxvMIH.JvE@cs.psu.edu> <1ec3g6INNrep@agate.berkeley.edu>
>        <1ec7boINNs78@agate.berkeley.edu>
>Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:23:29 GMT
>Lines: 19
>ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
>      
>   In my experience, the verb "to cook" has both an active and a passive sense.
>   That is, both "I am cooking the eggplants" and "The eggplants are cooking"
>   are correct.  I believe Jin-Yuan's original question was something like
>   "Is sentence (2) acceptable usage?"  I would answer that it is.
>
>I never really thought about it before, but "The eggplants are
>cooking" does sound kind of weird, in a way.... What are the eggplants
>cooking?  I think the sentence is acceptable, but it's not so much
>passive as reflexive: The eggplants are cooking themselves.  On the
>other hand, not every verb is like "cook" - the sentence "Glass Recycles"
>printed on soda bottles still sounds weird to me.
>
>- Todd Andrew Simpson
>
>
>
>
I believe this is what is called the ergative voice.  Here are some
other active/ergative pairs:

She sold the house.
The house sold.

Irv read the book easily.
The book reads easily.

The sergeant trained the recruits.
The recruits trained.

The b term in each is active in form but passive in meaning.  As with
true passives, the object of the active becomes the subject in the new
form.  It is often more fruitful to think of agents, patients, and
instruments, rather than surface subjects and objects.

One example I remember comes from a Campbell's ad:

The soup that eats like a meal.

Parse that, why dontcha?
--
Dennis




debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:38:32 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

Quoting apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) in article <-278349990@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>:

>>And, in the UK, at least, VAX make carpet cleaners.
>...which they advertise with the slogan "Nothing sucks like a VAX" (I kid you
>not).

Sad to say, it was "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux", a different brand.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:17:38 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <BxzJ11.5Ao@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umjaco19@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Martin Andreas Jacobs) writes:
>In article <Bxy9Gy.How@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>>In <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>[...]
>>>The specialisation of originally synonymous terms to express finer
>>>distinctions, or to remove ambiguity, for example. An instance of this
>>>is the British adoption of the US spelling "program" to designate a
>>>computer program, and the specialisation of "programme" for such cases
>>>as "programme of research". 
>>
>>'Program' is not just the US spelling; it was the regular British
>>spelling until the 19th century.
>>
>>In any case the word has pretty much the same meaning in both cases.
>>Would you consider it an improvement to adopt yet another spelling for
>>a TV programn? The possibility for ambiguity between a computer
>      ^^^^^^^^
>Huh ?
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>>Another improvement is the adoption in
>>>Britain of the US meaning of "billion", rather than fostering
>>>ambiguity by continuing to fight a losing battle in favour of the
>>>British "billion".
>>
>>At last! Before you know it, we'll have you spelling 'favor' correctly.
>                                                       ^^^^^
>>
>[even more stuff deleted]
>>
>
>The last time I checked, 'favour' was still spelled with a 'u' in Canada !
>
>>Werner
>
>Martin
>

Capital! Go for it Martin!  Favour is spelled with a 'u' in most places
around the world. Werner showed his ignorance (as do most Americans) of
the correct spelling of favour! It is unfortunate that Americans have
corrupted the written language.

                                                              Mandar.

P.S. Flames will be ignored!

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                         - The Beatles
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:44:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov19.232920.25852@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>You're welcome to like or dislike what you please, and to express your
>dislikes and likes as strongly as you wish.  

>However, that's a long way from saying that *other* people are doing something
>bad by using this or that word.  People are generally doing the best they
>can when they speak, and generally have good and sufficient reasons for
>using the words they use, and avoiding the words they don't.

"Doing something bad" implies that language use -- or misuse -- is a moral
issue.  I see your point that belittling or sneering at _people_ who use
"non-standard" (isn't that a lovely PC word) English is small-minded and
uncool.  I agree.  But I see nothing reprehensible about loathing the
language itself.  Here's the "some of my best friends are ..." argument:

Some of my best friends don't talk so good.  In fact, my dearly beloved
flays the language daily.  But when he says, "She don't care," I don't
correct him.  Fortunately, he doesn't say it too often.  Do I accept the
usage of "don't" rather than "doesn't" as good English in that context?  NO. 
It's hideous, it grates on the ear, and it's wrong.  Is my d.b. stupid and
deserving of my holier-than-thou-izing him?  No, he's a bright guy and a
total sweetie-muffins.  

>If you wish to limit your speech and writing to a standard that satisfies
>you -- *any* standard -- by all means do so.  Everyone has methods and 
>pathways and rules that lead to means of expression they find satisfactory.
>But do not insist that other people limit their speech to the same 
>subset of the language that you have chosen, unless you can *demonstrate* 
>that distinctions of great value are being lost by this or that usage.

There are only three sets of people who can limit others' speech to a
"subset" of language:  editors, teachers and parents.  In challenging the
(mis)use of a word or phrase, I'm not insisting that anyone do anything.  How
can I?  What authority do I have to do so?  But if I'm editing something,
you can bet I'll hold it to a standard.  

A friend of mine who is a professor here showed me a couple of senior
papers, which, he said, weren't unusual.  The language
was awful, with the kinds of mistakes elementary school kids make.  The
grammar, not to mention the spelling, was ... well, you'd probably just
find it creative.  I found it appalling.  My friend, in a fit of
exasperation, scrawled across the top of one paper, "How did you make it
through four years at Penn?"  I understood his exasperation.    
   
>The English language
>is bigger than your idiolect.

Yeah, and getting "bigger" every day.


-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: why wOn't for wIll not?
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:02:42 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1efeprINN9h1@uranium.sto.pdb.sni.de>, sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
> In <761.18.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) writes:
> 
>>TO: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
> 
> 
>>DT>   If you read Lewis Carroll, you will see "won't" and "can't" written
>>  >   with an extra apostrophe: wo'n't and ca'n't.
> 
>>So here's another question:  Where does the "O" in "will not = won't"
>>come from?
> 
> Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
> Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
> Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
> 
>             [What I tell you three times, is true!          ;-]
> 
>                                 Stu Savory

I'll go along with that!
-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
__________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'
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
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:28:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.112957.23053@black.ox.ac.uk> microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.052702.21102@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>I can't believe I missed this the first time around.

>>In article <1992Nov16.023754.9072@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov15.180410.20206@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>>I take it, then, that you've actually looked up "quite" and "unique"
>>>>in a dictionary or similar?  Again, I refer you to Evans and Evans,
>>>>who address the issue directly.

>>>I have, actually.  Unique means "being the only one of its kind."
>>>That people also use it to mean "very unusual" doesn't mean much.

>>Excuse me, Gabe, but when we're discussing words, what does "X means Y"
>>mean, if not "people use X to mean Y"?  Is there some other source of
>>meaning?  If "people also use it to mean Z" doesn't mean much to you, 
>>how *do* you determine what a word means?

>	You aren't related to Humpty Dumpty, by any chance, are you?

>PS I haven't got my copy of Alice with me at the moment; perhaps someone
>	would care to post the quotation that I'm thinking of...

Humpty says that a word means what *he* says it means.  (Gabe, who
doesn't accept the information in dictionaries as useful for determining
what a word means, works a lot like this.  Or at least he's never given
any other reason than his own say-so.)

I say that a word means what LOTS OF PEOPLE say it means -- namely those
who use it.  I say that there is no other standard for determining meaning
of words.  

And I would love to hear of any other standard, any other way aside
from actual usage, of determining what a word means.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: Xcultural, Xtian, Xlation...more?
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:50:09 GMT

In <1992Nov21.065643.45006@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>Fellow sages:

>I'm trying to assemble all the uses of "X" I can find along the lines
>of

>	Xcultural	(trans-, cross-, inter-cultural)
>	Xtian		(Christian)
>	Xlation		(translation)
>	...		...

>in addition to the older Xing and Xmas.  Note that the "X" actually
>represents diverse syllables.  Additions invited; these can't be
>all of them.

I don't know if these are "official" in any sense, but I find myself
using the "X" shorthand for many things starting with a "cross" or a
"trans", such as

     Xprod     cross-prod(uct)
     Xmit      transmit   ---   and all its uncle, aunts, cousins, ...
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:37:12 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Proper Use of Acronyms (was Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?)
 <1992Nov19.142610.23350@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 <1992Nov19.184011.17265@news2.cis.umn.edu>

In article <1992Nov19.184011.17265@news2.cis.umn.edu>,
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) says:
>
>I don't have to because I refuse to.  If I didn't resist using initialisms
>as much as possible, I would use many more.  As soon as one seriously
>starts to question each use of an initialism and experiment with alternatives,
>it becomes clear that you don't _have_ to deal with many in any field, unless
>it is mandated from on high.
>

I disagree, at least for one of my fields, IBM mainframe computing,
particularly in the area of systems programming. There is really
no way, I assure you, that I could make myself understood to colleagues
in my field without constantly using terms like MVS, CICS, VTAM,
SMP/E, SRM, ESA, VSAM, RACF, DFP, and so forth. These have become the
names of the things. I'm not saying I'm glad that things worked out
this way, but things *did* work out this way, and these acronyms
are actually necessary to communication within the field. I'd like
to see you try to do without them for, oh, a day in my job.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:12:23 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov13.135357.6450@den.mmc.com> lauter@pogo.den.mmc.com (Karen ) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.200400.2865@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:

>> I have noticed that I use the word "they" as a singular, gender unspecified
>> pronoun.  Example:

>>       I saw someone the other day.  I was to far away to see what they looked like,

>>   I know that most people cringe hearing the strange mix of number in this sentence.

>And rightfully so that people cringe.  Since "they" refers to "someone" in the
>first sentence, "he" or "she" should be used.  The english language is 
>slaughtered so badly by so many, why should we contribute more when we know better.

The use of "they" as a singular pronoun (with pl. verb form) in cases
of common gender is as old, well established, and correct as the use
of "you" in the singular, as any good dictionary will tell you, and as
has been posted ad nauseam on this newsgroup.

>I only hope that that we Americans aren't or don't become as ignorant as we sometimes
>sound.

It would help a lot if you consulted dictionaries more frequently.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: One Who Loves to Travel
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:33:47 GMT

In article <Nov.13.01.40.17.1992.7921@remus.rutgers.edu>, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
> 
> Does anyone know a word for this?  "ohdophile" comes to mind,
> but I can't locate it in either NI2, NI3, or the OED.  A more
> general search of the OED CD-ROM came up with nothing, also.
> -- 
> Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
-- 
I suspect that `odophile', or even `hodophile' would be a more likely spelling
for such a word.

John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: lists
Keywords: semi colons, commas etc
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:28:46 GMT

In article <7171@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
>What's the correct way to construct a list in English. I use a colon and
>semi-colons, like this:

There are several ways that I do it:

a)  Shopping list:
	Bread
	Eggs
	Butter
	Kitchen Matches

[items set off by tabs...no need for punctuation because the tabs indicate
the breaks]


b) Her book included a full index, table of contents, bibliography, and 
   list of works cited.

[items set off by commas in a sentence, useful when the text of the list
doesn't interrupt the sentence flow.]


c) Please bring the following with you tomorrow:  a calculator, a spiral
	notebook, and a #2 pencil.

[a comma list set off with a colon, useful when the list interrupts the
sentence flow]


d) Special thanks are extended to George Stauffer, Director of the Chapel
   Music Program; Elaine Sisman, Associate Professor of Music History; and 
   Claudia Dumschat, associate organist; without all of whom this event
   would not have been possible.

[semicolons used to set off items...especially useful when your items
_already_ have commas in them]

Just my $0.02.


--

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: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Q about the usage of but and though
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:10:27 GMT

In article <IGARASHI.92Nov21000616@wucc.cfi.waseda.ac.jp> igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp ("Yoshiyuki Igarashi") writes:
>I'd like to know the acceptability of the following sentences with
>_but_/_though_:

>(1) Congressmen, but not the general public, can propose a bill.
>(2) Congressmen(,) though not the general public(,) can propose a bill.

>Would you be kind enough to let me know how good they sound to you?
>(Please don't care about the correctness of the content.  Just think
>about the grammatical forms of the sentences.)

"But" is idiomatic here.  "Though" tends to go with a verb in such
cases -- Congressmen can propose bills, though the general public can't.  
("But" can be put in that sentence, but it changes the emphasis somewhat. 
"Though" makes what congressmen can do sound more like an exception--at least,
it does to me.)

I don't think I'd write either sentence, though I wouldn't worry about the 
first one.  I'd usually put the "general public" part either at the end
or the beginning, not in the middle:
"Congressmen can propose a bill, but the general public can't."
"Although the general public can't propose a bill, congressmen can."
"Although the general public can't do so, congressmen can propose a bill."

Interesting point.

Roger
From: wex@castle.ed.ac.uk (John Wexler)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: dassn't
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:30:04 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University Computing Service

I hazard a guess that "dassn't" is closely related to "dursn't", from
"durst not".

    John Wexler
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: axe (was Re: quite unique research?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:06:24 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

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".

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:22:10 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <722057498@ptero.cs.duke.edu> dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:
>
>Wait, 'you' _is_ both a second-person singular pronoun and a
>second-person plural pronoun.
>
Since 'you' is both singular and plural, are any of the following
considered correct:

  I'll see you all later.
  I'll see all of you later.

  I know that the following are incorrect, but they are used
  in some parts of the country:

  I'll see yous later.   (I was guilty of this one for the longest while.)
  I'll see you'll later.

In my opinion, it is confusing to use 'you' as both singular and plural.

For instance, consider the case of a person leaving a table full of
people.  The person leaving looks in the general direction of the
table and says, "I'll see you later.".
Does he mean that he will see all of them later or one of them later
or some number of them later?
And if he just saying goodbye, is he saying goodbye to all of them
or just some of them.  Should the rest of them feel slighted. :-)

The moral of the story is: When dining with a group of grammarians,
never be the first to leave the table.

-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: axe (was Re: quite unique research?)
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:41:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <lgl51gINNqf6@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) 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".

Boy, I love this group.  




-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english