HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:14:28 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: An apology

In article <38062@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A.
Johns) says:
>
>As far as I know, there are only three verbs outside the verbs of
>sensing that are followed by a bare verb stem: let, make, and help....

Well, actually, this isn't true. There are also all those
auxiliaries followed by the "to-less" infinitive: can, may, must,
shall, will, should, would, could, do.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: An apology
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:02:20 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <92358.194517CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu> CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:

# I have a question unrelated to this subject line. In the sentence,
# "She felt someone tug her coat" what justifies the form "tug"?  Is
# it a subjunctive perhaps?  I note how it differs in meaning from
# "she felt someone tugged her coat" and "she felt somone tugging her
# coat" but how can "tug" be the verb of "someone"? (It's not an
# imperative of course: "someone tug her coat please.")

It's the same form you have in

        I heard someone shout my name.
        I saw someone drop their purse [:)]
        I watched some kids play football.
        etc.

In general, verbs of perception can be followed by either the bare
verb, as above, or an -ing form (traditionally the gerund), with a
difference of meaning.  The bare verb indicates that you felt/saw/
heard the entire event, while the -ing form indicates that you didn't.
Compare

        I heard someone singing Handel's Messiah.
        I heard someone sing Handel's Messiah.

As far as I know, there are only three verbs outside the verbs of
sensing that are followed by a bare verb stem: let, make, and help,
and in parts of the US, at least, help is apparently moving to the
larger category of verbs that are followed by an infinitive (to help
someone to do something).

David Johns
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 31 Dec 1992 05:00:18 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

From article <Bzqz8z.2Jt@techbook.com>, by dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque):
> This also reminded me of a short list that I have of streets that have
> become metonyms or toponyms.
> 
> Any additions?

Cannery Row?

-- 
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: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: An apology
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:28:51 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <92363.111428HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:
# In article <38062@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>,
# djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) says:
# >
# >As far as I know, there are only three verbs outside the verbs
# >of sensing that are followed by a bare verb stem: let, make, and
# >help....
#
# Well, actually, this isn't true. There are also all those
# auxiliaries followed by the "to-less" infinitive: can, may, must,
# shall, will, should, would, could, do.

Absolutely true, although they are clearly in a different class from
the verbs above (morphologically in that they take no "-s" in the
third person singular, syntactically in that they are fronted in
questions, etc., and phonologically in that most of them are reduced
or contracted).  Also, the verb that follows them doesn't have a
separate subject.

But I did miss one: "have", as in "I had the gardener plant some
petunias today."  Southerners seem to shift this one into the "to"
class also.

Another interesting one is "go", as in "go get a pizza".  It can form
a compound verb like this only if it is in its basic form:

        I'm going to go get a pizza.
        Why don't you go get a pizza.
        You would go get a pizza, wouldn't you.
        I started to go get a pizza.
        I had my friend go get a pizza.

but not:

        *I went got (get?) a pizza.
        *He goes gets (get?) a pizza.
        *He was going getting (get?) a pizza.

In these inflected forms you need to interpolate "and".

Interestingly, "try and" works the same way; with inflected forms,
only "try to" will work.

David Johns
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: Apostrophe's - one more time
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:19:50 GMT

jmp@moscom.com (Joe Palumbos) writes:

>Is This Correct?

>	Plural:
>	Merry Christmas, from the Jones's.   


>	Possessive:
>	We'll take the Jones' car.  

No.  The orthodox forms are:

Merry Christmas from Mr. Jones.
Merry Christmas from the Joneses.
We'll take Mr. Jones's car.
We'll take the Joneses' car.

Only the 3rd line is really controversial.  Many people write Jones'
for the singular possessive -- even if they pronounce it with two
syllables!  The Chicago Manual, however, recommends -- I think
sensibly -- adding 's to *all* singulars except for classical names
like Socrates & Jesus.
-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:27:03 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzMu7r.FHo@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> Can't you see that I did it deliberately? I proclaimed that the American
> language isn't English so that I would get people strongly affirming
> the fact that they *do* speak English. Well then, if you *do* speak
> English then why do you defy standard English? (No....the argument
> "there is no standard English, isn't good enough.")
Unfortunately for would-be Mandarians it is not an argument but a fact. The
gospel according to the blessed Mandar falls because it does not acknowledge
simple truths. 

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:36:06 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: History

In article <BzMx11.HCE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>
>This is in direct response to Herschel (sp?) 's contention that "history"
>isn't considered sexist by ANY feminist. He/She asked for references
>which disprove this conjecture.  Also, he/she contended that "herstory"
>isn't used seriously and people refer to it in jocular exchanges. He/she
>asked me to provide an example where such a reference isn't jocular.
>
>Reference : Robin Lakoff : "Language and Women's place". 45-80.
>
>Lakoff considers the argument for changing the word "history". The
>argument goes as follows. A part of the word "history" is the masculine
>"his" (you can read the word as "his story") but women also make history;
>therefore, the usage demeans women.

Yes, my name is Herschel, which is a somewhat unusual name borne only,
to my knowledge, by males. I thought I'd begin with this so that one
thing at least would be made immediately clear to you.

You predictably misstate my earlier challenge to you, which was to
give published references showing some feminists proposing to replace
the word "history" with the word "herstory". You have not done so.
Unfortunately my university library lists the status of its copy
of Lakoff's book (whose title you have wrong) as "reported missing",
so I am unable to judge for myself what it says. However, in your
summary it's hard to tell whether Lakoff is arguing that the use
of the word "history" demeans women or is merely referring to others
who make that claim. Could you give us some actual quotations from
the book? Please don't be insulted, but I haven't got much reason
to expect you to summarize it honestly. Perhaps someone else with
access to this book could do so? It's rather difficult for me to
believe it says what Mandar seems to be saying it says: Lakoff
is a linguist, for god's sake.

>     Yes, I agree that *most* women don't find "history" demeaning. But
>I place before you the irrefutable proof that *some* women, very
>obviously, do find it demeaning.
>

Er...no, you haven't really.

>
>Now for the word "herstory". It will surprise you H. Brown that there
>is a BOOK entitled Herstory.
>
>Herstory : A woman's view of American history - Sochen June.
>

That's "Browne", but you may call me Herschel. No, this does not
surprise me. My field is history, so it's my business to know the
things that go on there. Even though I don't "do" American history,
I was familiar with this book. You will find, if you look into it,
that the author uses the word "history" and derived words all through
it. She uses "herstory" to make a point. There's also a book by
the late Fredy Perlman called _Against His-Story, Against Leviathan_.
And he was a *gulp* MAN! In other words, so what?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:48:15 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>        I feel disgusted.......Bah!

And so Mr Ebenzer Mandar Scrooge retires to his cold attic bedroom for the
night. We can only hope that he is visited by ghosts and returns after
Christmas to give poor Bob "a.e.u" Cratchitt a much-needed respite from the
drudgery of resisting ignorance.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: Re: who or whom (The
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:53:31 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-22-92 12:12
On Dec. 21, Nick Leverton wrote:

LE>In article <12064@scott.ed.ac.uk> jim@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jim  Scobbie) writes:
LE>>Who only England know (1943)    [not sure about this, maybe odd wordorder?]

LE>It's Kipling, I think (confirmation delayed pending Santa Claus bringing
LE>me a nice new ODQ :-)), which would put it somewhat older than 1943.

LE>"What do they know of England, who only England know ?"

From Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 15th ed., page 708, item #16:


'And what should they know of England who only England knows?'


      - 'The English Flag', st. 1.
            - from Ballads and Barrack Room Ballads (1892, 1893)

Hope this helps . . .

                                                Cheers,
                                                Greg.

Greg Grainger
Toronto, Ontario.
greg.grainger@rose.com
11:48:33 am, Tue 12-22-1992.

        Personal policy statement: Neither flames nor flame-bait
        will be responded to.
---
   OLX 2.2   70% of accidents occur at home; the rest in voting booths
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: American English
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:24:39 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec22.235749.14921@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <12195@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>
>>However, this is not the case; and since I don't buy the claim that
>>the polysemy of "man" (which doesn't make it any different from most
>>words anyway) could lead to significant loss of meaning in a natural
>>situation, I see no need for shunning one of the meanings in an
>>artificial manner, or any other similar major surgery.
>
>But will you violently object if some people prefer to use a less
>ambiguous word, like "person"?
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

No....but we *will*, if you try to force us to do the same when either
of the words is applicable.



                                                            Mandar.


                                            
               
-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: jjf@dsbc.icl.co.uk (J J Farrell)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Standards
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:36:58 GMT
Organization: International Computers Limited

In article <BzMtxB.F8w@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>If the Queen were no longer to be considered as the standard, then
>the BBC would be. The flaw in your argument is that you are trying
>to narrow down the standard accent to a single district, city, 
>suburb, and eventually, individual. Look at it this way : When
>countries are considered, the English spoken in England is the
>highest standard (now don't say "By whom in England?". I mean the
>common characteristics of the English accent.)

But the differences across the range of accents used by native English
English speakers are nearly as great as those between all speakers
of English. I've had less difficulty understanding each of the native
USA English speakers that I have met than some of my fellows from England.

>If the correct
>standard *within* England itself were up to debate, then the BBC
>standard would be the correct standard. (Again, take the *common*
>characteristics and resolve differences in favour of the majority).

I'm glad to say that the correct standard within England is not up
for debate since most English people accept that there is no such thing.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:53:10 GMT

>>America won't win on this count.  We have a number of native languages
>>around here.  I say that "native" doesn't count anyway.  If you speak
>>and I (or an Englishperson, to appease Mandar the Great) can 
>>understand you, then you're an English speaker.  Cool, you count.
>>Don't see any value added in requiring the speakers to have used
>>the language from birth.

In countries where English is a second language, and not used in
ordinary conversation, they simply accept the usage prescription from
native English countries. English evolves mainly among native speakers,
or at least among those that use it by default.

Werner




Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Euphamisms (was Re: Radical feminists)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 03:18:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.174420.10201@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.041754.12970@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>Think of all the words people might use today to describe someone as
>>promiscuous:  "easy", "willing", etc.  How many are used to suggest
>>rather than state (that is, as euphemisms), and how many because they
>>convey a more precise shade of meaning?
>
>One book that might help you here is [just a second--my copy's at
>home, and Stanford's library is being extremely slow at the moment]
>
>      Peter Fryer
>      Mrs. Grundy: Studies in English Prudery
>      London House & Maxwell, 1964

Thanks for the reference.  Sounds like a fascinating book!

Unfortunately, the Ottawa Public Library doesn't carry it.  When I
dialed in to check, though, I did find some dictionaries of
euphemisms that should be interesting - I'll check some of these out
when the library reopens from its long Christmas break.

If I find out anything interesting about the word "gay", I'll post
it here.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Capital "I"
Date: 27 Dec 92 20:52:37 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Originator: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca

A question I have long contemplated:
It seems a sign of our times that the capital 9th letter of English is
frequently written with a dot upon its head. I have thought of this as
a sign of ignorance. Does anyone know of the history of this affliction?

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: Fisher...uh...person
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:38:20 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-01-93 12:33


sandy@halcyon.com (Sandy Fifer) wonders:

| We already have words like teacher, dancer, baker. 
| 
| What's wrong with using fisher, server, sewer, crafter, etc.?  These
| words don't sound cumbersome to me.
 
Just be contextually careful when you call someone a "sewer". 

Regards: *PC* <peter.churchill@rose.com> --just far enough out of 
                                           Toronto
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001013
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: lukoff@carson.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:46:34 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <38052@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
># Those who oppose words such as "stewardess", "heroine", "hostess"
># are hypocrites. Their explanation  is that these words further the
># notion that being a man is the norm and being a woman is a deviant.
># i.e. there aren't different words for the male *and* the female.
># Yet, they accept the word "woman". The word "woman" comes from
># "man". (wif-man or literally "wife of man")
>#
>#        I feel disgusted.......Bah!
>#
>#
>#
>#                                                          Mandar.
>
>
>You're not just worried that someone might object to your name, are
>you, Mandar?
>
>David Johns

Looks like everyone is just out to get Mandar now rather than reply
intelligently to his questions. 
Sure, the suffix may seem like the words make men the norm and women
'deviant', but what are we then to do, make up words like 'waitron'?
Or make up words than end in -person? I actually saw a Washington State
government notice for 'fisherperson' licenses and nearly died. So does
anyone have any suggestions as to how we can fix this situation, BESIDES
-person words?

Ben Lukoff
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: excrement/secretion diversity
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:39:58 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 



In the spirit of the "seize-on," with its oh-too-many holidays, I would suggest
that we be ecumenical in our choice of excrement.  Rat shit was a good'un,
but in general I prefer more evocative terms such as...

pissing contest (much like debates on a.u.e.!)

piss it away

piss-poor

pissed off & piss off

(the following three from the Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary)

piss about

piss artist

piss taker

And let's not forget secretions!  For example:

snotty

snot-nosed

sweat ball

scum ball

scum sucker

Enjoy *your* holiday and drive carefully.  I look forward to catching up with
you all next year!

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:28:26 GMT

In article <C04qL0.GvF@world.std.com> jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:
>On both sides of the
>Atlantic we say "the United States is", 

Well, not always.  I remember seeing the musical "Chess" in the West End
some years back and I was quite struck by the following song lyric:

	We wish, no, must make our disgust
	For this abuse perfectly clear.
	We're here for chess.  Are the U.S.? 
	If so, why foul the atmosphere.

I was quite taken aback by the "are the US?" business.  "Is the US" would have
worked just fine w/o ruining the meter of the song.

>Surely, even in this country, one may say "the jury are taking
>their seats".

Actually, when I was in school, I remember being taught that "the jury is
in agreement," but "the jury are in disagreement," inasmuch as they function
as a unit when they agree.  Of course, I don't think I've ever used "the
jury are" in my life, but hey, who knows?  Maybe one day...

>The choice can be pretty skittish.  Thousands of business letters must
>be written every day that begin something like this:  "I have gotten
>in touch with the --- Company, a firm that we have dealt with before
>and that has an excellent reputation.  They tell me that...".  As soon
>as the company opens its collective mouth, it becomes a bunch of human
>beings.

Agreed, though "The government are...." still sounds funny to these
American ears.


--
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: mckeonj@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Xmas in Beijing
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:08:59 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

Just for fun at Xmas time, a definition:
A native English speaker is one who cannot, or will not,
pronounce the guttural H.
He will use all kinds of substitutes, writing and saying
X CH J KH GH and so on.
Ask "why?". The answer is interesting, and serves also to
explain why 13 is unlucky. 
I will post more if required.
-- 
"If England sleeps, shall Ireland dream?" : Se/an macEoin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
From: cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith))
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re:  "Can't see it thunder"
Date: 2 Jan 93 16:19:31 EST
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited

 Where does the expression "can't see it thunder" come from?  If a 
room is dark, I've heard people say, "You can't see it thunder in 
here."  Thunder is the noise, not the lightening.  Did the word 
"thunder" once mean both thunder and lightening?

-- 
Cindy Smith              --  Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter
cms@dragon.com           ||  A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
emory!dragon!cms         ||  
><>                      /\  Woe to craven hearts and drooping hands,
Delay not your       .--/--\--.  to the sinner who treads a double path!
conversion       |----\/-||-\/----| Woe to the faint of heart who trust not,
to the Lord,     |----/\-||-/\----|   who therefore will have no shelter!
put it not off       `--\--/--'     Woe to you who have lost hope!
from day to day          \/   what will you do at the visitation of the Lord?
                         ||           
     -- Ecclesiasticus   ||           -- Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 2:12-14  
        /Ben Sira 5:8    --