HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:09:28 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: _1984_ and "they"

In article <168CC10F5E.R0264@vmcms.csuohio.edu>, R0264@vmcms.csuohio.edu says:
>
>In article <12215@kesson.ed.ac.uk>
>iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>  `You _want_ it to happen to the other person.
>>   You don't give a damn what they suffer.'
>>
>>I'm pretty sure this is the only one (I've been reading very closely).
>>I haven't read anything else by G Orwell, so I don't know what happens
>>in his other books, though I intend to find out in the very near future.

>It seems to me that "the other person" was used meaning really, "other
>people", just because it is a familiar figure of speech.

Oh boy, does it *not* mean this in _1984_. It seems really rather
strange to me that not everyone in the English-speaking world is
familiar, intimately, with this book.

In this particular quotation, what's going on is this: Winston and
Julia have been involved in an illicit affair, and have also declared
themselves enemies of the totalitarian state. Their illicit affair
is in itself an offense against the state. Eventually, they're both
arrested and tortured. Winston takes some pride in the fact that
he hasn't betrayed Julia in any fundamental way, although he has
informed on her in very specific ways. He is then presented with
the prospect of having a rat chew into his face. He's terrified
of rats. And he betrays Julia immediately and completely. He
says (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "let it happen to Julia".
Later, when he meets Julia, it becomes clear that she has betrayed
him in precisely the same way. She expresses this as quoted above.

So no, it doesn't mean "other people" -- it means one specific
person that you're willing, and more than willing, to have suffer
instead of yourself.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Euphamisms (was Re: Radical feminists)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:44:20 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

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

The "English" in the title refers to the country rather than the
language, but if I remember correctly, the chapter on verbal taboos
and euphamisms was quite extensive.

The entire book was quite interesting (I picked it up at a used book
store).  Other chapters cover horrors such as nudity, drinking,
sabbath breaking, and dancing. He has several other books on similar
topics (prostitution, birth control, censorship, etc.) but I haven't
read them.

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | The mystery of government is not how
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | Washington works, but how to make it
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | stop.
				       |                   P.J. O'Rourke
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | 
    (415)857-7572
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 24 Dec 92 10:33:38 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <Bzqsz0.JtM@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> It isn't. Prove to me that most Englishmen find American English to
> be as good as English English.

You prove to those of us who live amongst English people of both sexes that
`most' English people find your myth of American English inferior to your myth
of English English.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sandy@halcyon.com (Sandy Fifer)
Subject: Fisher...uh...person
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:23:54 GMT

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.

Sandy
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: K Street
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:16:47 GMT

In article <Bzqz8z.2Jt@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:

>This also reminded me of a short list that I have of streets that have
>become metonyms or toponyms.
>
>    Wall St.
>    Madison Ave.
>    Fleet St.
>    Skid Road  an actual road in Seattle
>    Grub Street  my dictionary tells me that this referes to literary
>	    hacks, but I've never heard it used.
>    
>Any additions?

  Hollywood?

Didn't the street give tinseltown its name?  How about

  both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue

meaning the White House and Congress?

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:22:38 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites

In article <BzqupJ.LE8@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>
>In article <92358.155839HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
>writes:
>>
>>"Wifman" didn't evolve from "man", as you yourself showed; it evolved
>>from a compound of "wif" and "man".
>
>It DID evolve from man. "Man" was gender neutral previously. "wif"
>was used as a suffix to denote gender.
>

Do you ever make sense, or is this all there is? In the word "wifman",
what might the "suffix" be, "wif" or "man"? Actually, neither. It
is a compound of two nouns. It did not evolve from one of its two
elements, but from both of them.

>>>(as a means of specifying the gender). Now, according to you, if
>>>"man" is sexist, and so is "hostess", then "woman" itself should
>>>be sexist.
>>
>>Now this is pretty stupid, don't you think? Is your claim really
>>what it seems to be? Let me restate it for you: People claim that
>>to use the word "man" as if it includes women is or can be sexist
>>or can have the effect of reinforcing sexist patterns of thought.
>>Many hundreds of years ago, the word "woman" evolved from "wif"
>>and "man", the latter word at the time carrying no gender information.
>>Therefore logical consistency requires that we now consider the
>>word "woman" sexist when applied to women. This is what you're
>>saying, and it sure sounds dumb to me.
>
>If you find it *so* dumb, find a flaw in my argument.

You don't have an argument. It's hard to find a hole in what ain't
there.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:45:39 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

poo ,  poo-poo ,  pooh ,  pooh-pooh : Usually refers to a small pile of shit,
				      e.g. a dog shit

doggy-doos			    : [self explanatory]


--

Tariq Hamid	                 	Internet:  tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
 Department of Computer Science  	JANET:     tariqh@uk.ac.qmw.dcs
  Queen Mary & Westfield College  
   Mile End Road                   	  Telephone:  +44 71-975 5245
    LONDON, E1 4NS, UK             	  Fax:        +44 81-980 6533
From: bck1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Brian Kelk)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Summary: collectives again
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:37:39 GMT
Reply-To: bck1@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <C04qL0.GvF@world.std.com> jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:
>bill@mri.com (Bill Weinberg) writes:
>
>>In article <38085@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
>writes:
>
>>>Yes, yes -- the government have decided -- a barbarism no American
>>>would think of uttering.
>
>>It appears that in British English (yes, whatever THAT is) that
>>singular nouns representing organizations, teams, or other multi-
>>person entities are give grammatical plural status, as in
>
>>- the government example above
>>- <football team name> win some cup or other
>>- IBM announce new product
>>- etc.

          ...

>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.


I recently noticed a compact example of this in Star Trek:

     The colony wants their supplies.

Singular to plural in the space of one word! (I would express
something like that with a consistent plural).


Brian Kelk
Cambridge
U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: chaps
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:54:59 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <baron.92.724957187@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
>or elsewhere has met any resistance?

I'm confused.  Which gender isn't allowed to wear chaps?

:-)

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | Feeling good about government is like
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | looking on the bright side of any
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | catastrophe.  When you quit looking
				       | on the bright side, the catastrophe
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | is still there.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: K Street
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:29:40 GMT

In article <C00op6.8Mp@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>The Bowery.
>>Downing St.
>>47th St.

>Someone else has already mentioned Downing St. and I found The Bowery in
>Webster's Third (it's about the same as Skid Road), but what is 47th St.
>metonymous for?

The diamond trade.  (The block bet. 5th and 6th is a remarkable little
world of its own.  Alas, the collapse of the diamond market has done 
much to depress if not destroy the old ambience.)

Come to think of it, Boardwalk (and Park Place) have taken on meanings 
beyond their significance in Atlantic City...

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: kayaalp@seas.smu.edu (Mehmet M. Kayaalp MD)
Subject: Any Special Dictionary Just For Verbs' Usages
Organization: SMU - School of Engineering & Applied Science - Dallas
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:36:23 GMT

I am looking for a work (dictionary?) which is  solely  dedicated
on  usage  of  verbs.  I  am particularly interested in detailed,
comprehensive (as far as possible) list of prepositions used with
every  particular  verb. I assume also that such a work should be
completed with a rich collection of examples. Good  dictionaries,
today,  include  just few examples of prepositions used with par-
ticular verbs.

I am not a native speaker in English (and neither in German), and
I was impressed with the usefulness of such a work in German dur-
ing my high school years. I think every non-native speaker in En-
glish  has to have such a reference in one's hand when one writes
anything seriously in English.

Thank you very much for your interest and time.
mehmet
-- 
Mehmet M. Kayaalp, M.D.         phone(w): (214)768-1469 (voice-mail)
Computer Science Department     fax     : (214)768-3085 
Southern Methodist University   phone(h): (214)706-5982
Dallas, Texas 75275-4191        E-mail  : kayaalp@seas.smu.edu
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:05:59 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: K Street

In article <Bzqz8z.2Jt@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) says:
>
>I ran across a reference to K Street in a recent Economist.  The exact
>context was that Capitol Hill and K Street would be pleased with
>Bentsen's appointment as Treasury Secretary.
>
>Oviously this is metonomy, but for what?  I assume that this is refering
>to K Street in Washington, D.C., but what's on K Street.  My guess is
>that it's the headquarters of the Treasury Dept. and that this is
>refering to the rank and file Treasury bureaucrats.

"K Street" is immediately understood by those of us unlucky enough
to live in this pit of corruption called Washington. K Street is
the architecturally hideous center within Washington of all of those
firms that do all the hideous business for which Washington is
notorious. That is, the big law firms that do the big lobbying.
Also the same big law firms that provide the staffs of most of
the big agencies, departments, whatevers of most presidential
administrations. "K Street" is, in brief, the Washington
establishment that ends up running things no matter who gets
elected.

Didn't you folks in the rest of the world know that?

H.

P.S. The Treasury Department is at Pennsylvania Ave. and 15th Street,
right next to the White House.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Meaning? What meaning?
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:34:32 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>Gee, four totally different definitions for "shit-eating grin".
>Maybe it doesn't really mean anything in particular? Effective
>communication with this expression would seem dicey at best.
>
>Herschel Browne
>"The" American University

This is really pretty interesting. As "linguists" we want to think that the
words carry the meaning. But the existence of such expressions, expressions
that mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean, belie that theory.

Shakespeare used this tool a lot (we think): coined expressions that convey
their meaning by usage and implication alone. Being coined and thus never
before heard, they cannot convey meaning precisely.

It's akin to that satisfying "thunk" you feel when you first hear an expression
that you'd never think up yourself, but you just *know* what it means because
you wish you *had* thought it up yourself.

So, perhaps, Herschel's worry that effective communication is at risk isn't
such a worry after all; the expression carries its own meaning so well that
the listener understands the intended concept precisely.

The science of onomatopoetics?
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:51:49 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: An apology

In article <92358.194517CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu> says:
>
>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?

No. It's an infinitive. And there's nothing weird about it at all.
I heard him scream.  I saw someone fall. She heard me belch.
I heard her belch. They heard him vomit. We let him twist in the
wind. What "justifies" these? Nothing in particular, except grammar.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:51:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <1992Dec30.135951.11004@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.133531.11001@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>> News reports seem to me to use just the street name, but political dramas
>> always use `number ten' to distinguish it from number 11 (The Chancellor of the
>> Exchequer) and number 12 (the whips' office).
>> 
>Another one which has just sprung too mind:
>
>Whitehall for the British civil service.
>

But is this Whitehall the (former) palace or the thoroughfare? I had
always assumed the former, in which case it would not qualify.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:59:16 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English

In article <1htsi8INNe5a@uwm.edu>, jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) says:
>
>Riddle me this:  The word "person" contains the word "son".

No it doesn't. It does contain the letters S-O-N, but not the
word "son", neither etymologically nor phonetically. Consult
a dictionary.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton)
Subject: Re: Fresh# / First-year (Re: American English)
Reply-To: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: Indexed; Access: Random.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:17:33 +0000

In article <12145@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>Does others' mileage differ?

Not in my case, but I've a feeling others' mileages might ...

;-)

N.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Subject: tug/tugging (was: Re: An apology)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 04:41:41 GMT

In article <92358.194517CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu> <CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>
>I have a question unrelated to this subject line.

May I suggest, then, that you change it?

>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.")
>Curious Al

First point: What's this beast?

It's an infinitive.  Most verbs require the use of the "full
infinitive", i.e., with "to", some take the "bare infinitive" (without
"to").  For instance:

* tell, teach, etc., take the full infinitive:

She told him TO lock the door.
He taught her TO cook.

* let, make, see, hear, feel, watch, and a few more take the 'bare'
infinitive:

She heard him lock the door.
He let her take the car.
She felt someone tug her coat.

* help can take either:

They helped him (TO) move the car.

(Actually, I'm curious which usage is more common and where: "help +
bare infinitive" or "help + full infinitive".  I certainly hear the
variant without "to" most of the time.)

Second point: "tug" vs. "tugging".

The verbs "see", "hear", and "feel" can take either the (bare)
infinitive or the present participle, for instance:

"I saw him *cross* the street" vs. "I saw him *crossing* the street".

The difference, as I was taught, is that the infinitive implies that the
action is complete, that is, I saw the whole action of crossing the
street; while the participle suggests that only a part of the action was
seen (heard, felt).

Corrections welcome, especially that grammar books don't seem to fully
agree on some minor points of this issue.


-Margaret

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:59:46 GMT


Could anyone who understands what a Brit means by 'Professor' and who
knows why we sometimes have misunderstandings about visiting US academics,
please tell me what 'professor' means in Canada?  Is it closer to the
British status or the US one?  I'm trying to work out if a Canadian
I know who insists on putting Professor in his signature (in a group
of academics who normally eschew titles) is being more than normally
pretentious or not.

Thanks
G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lukoff@milton.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:08:05 GMT

In article <12214@kesson.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <38043@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>>There is one contingent of anti-theys who claim (1) that the use of a
>>plural pronoun with a grammatically singular antecedent introduces
>>unnecessary ambiguity into the language and (2) that this usage is
>>linguistic engineering -- i.e., an unnatural imposition for social
>>purposes.  My "research" was meant to counter these claims,
>
>So did you manage to counter the first claim?  Number agreement is one
>of the sources of information used for anaphora resolution.
>
>Re the second claim, I wonder whether it is more frequently made by
>anti-theys or pro-theys.  When I first encountered singular "they", it
>was introduced to me as a brilliant invention of Big Sister that one
>had to use because gender-neutral "he" was "sexist".  I had no reason
>to doubt that, so I didn't bother to consult the _OED_ or anything.
>Besides, singular "they" is frequently being sold side by side with
>such obvious FemiNewspeak artifacts as "E(m/ir)", "hir" and the like.
>I have yet to hear a pro-they express an attitude towards those.
>
>Sometimes marketing matters more than origin.  In many European
>languages the word for `turkey' means `Turkish/Egyptian/Indian bird'.
>Now of course the turkey is originally an American bird, but the
>Middle East was strongly involved in its marketing, so its true origin
>ceased to matter.  In the same way, the effort that the PC people put
>into selling singular "they" has the power to make it, for all
>practical purposes, a PC word.
>
>-- 
> `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
>Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
>* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
>* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Meach)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: chaps,lads
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:55:27 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <20202.2b383d28@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
>In article <baron.92.724957187@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>> Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
>> or elsewhere has met any resistance?  The analogous use of *guy* or
>> *guys* in the US has had a split reception, some people arguing that
>> it is perfectly neutral, others saying it is yet one more example of
>> a masculine doubling as a generic.
>I caan tell you that in Ireland, the term "lads" is gender-neutral,
>and has been for about two decades now.

However, I have been accused of *ageism* when I employ this term. . .

--jm
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Barberisms (Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement)
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:35:51 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec31.014810.8852@mri.com> bill@mri.com (Bill Weinberg) writes:
>I do find the singular/plural usage odd, but not "barberous"!

Try "haircut".  That's a barberous word for you.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK