HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Victory at NPR!
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:34:46 EST
 <1992Aug19.044625.23826@news.columbia.edu> <1992Aug19.144409.22434@Princeton.EDU> <1992Aug19.155514.27121@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 




In article <1992Aug19.155514.27121@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) 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.  

*Great* line!

> 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 (!).

Roger's bombast of late indicates that the only authority he would see fit to
revere would be himself.

(To be fair, each of us is only a step behind him, though -- as Barbara
Bush might say -- at least we'd be correct!)

-----ted hayes

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: mereological
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:46:09 GMT

In <BtDxDx.401@mtholyoke.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>I cannot find "mereological" in Webster's or Random House's
>or Oxford's unabridged dictionaries.  I encountered it in a 
>(recent) philosophy book:  "Thus a mereological hierarchy ... 
>is discerned." Can anyone provide a definition?  Thanks!

There's the question of which Webster's; here's the entry from the 3rd
edition of the Merriam-Webster unabridged:

   mereology ... [irreg. fr. ^3 mer + -logy]   _logic_:  a theory of
      extended individuals in their relationships of part to whole and of
      overlappying --- compare CALCULUS OF INDIVIDUALS.

The ^3 mer- prefix has this entry:

   mer- or mero- {ISV, fr. Gk meros part...]:  part : partial <meraspis>
      <merohedral> <merosporangium>
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6684 sci.lang:6581
From: nee1@quads.uchicago.edu (barbara helen need)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a (sikth) question?
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:42:27 GMT
Reply-To: nee1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

How about /siksths/?

-- 
Bitnet:                   uclnee1@uchimvs1
Internet:         nee1@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Kanef@Charon.ARC.NASA.gov (Bob Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: Usage: 'goes' for 'said'
Organization: None
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:06:43 GMT

In article <6163@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com>, hillyer@rrc.chevron.com (Martin J. Hillyer) writes:
|> I go, "How much is that doggie in the window?", and he goes, "$199.95 plus 
!> tax".  I seem to hear it all the time recently., even from educated people
!> Is it a Wast Coast usage (I presume it's at least US, not found in the UK yet)?

Using "goes" for an animal or an object making a sound is very old,
if "Pop Goes the Weasle" is as old as I assume it is.  So maybe using
it for describing human speech is supposed to convey speech that has
no thought behind it, which does pretty well describe some of the
conversations I've heard being recounted by people who use "goes" that way.

The usage of "like" (mentioned later), as in "I'm like, 'No way'",
may be a way of describing an emotion by a tone of voice, more than
introducing a direct quote -- so the main point of the sentence is not
so much "I said 'No way'" as "I was indignant" (or "suprised", or whatever).
The speaker may not be able to think of the right word, like "indignant",
quickly enough, or might feel that there's no word that exactly expresses it.
I've also heard "all" use that way, as in "And he's all, 'This is a very
rare breed of dog'".
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 14:43:07 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Re: less and fewer.

My UPI style guide puts it this way:

"In general, use fewer for individual items, less for bulk or quantity.

Wrong:  The trend is toward more machines and less people. (People, in this
case, refers to individuals.)

Wrong:  She was fewer than 60 years old. (Years, in this instance, refers
to a period of time, not individual years.)

Right:  Not fewer than 10 applicants called. (Individuals.)

Right:  I had less than $50 in my pocket. (An amount.) But: I had fewer
than to $1 bills in my pocket. (Individual items.)"

The AP style guide says basically the same thing.


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

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
            -- J. Danforth Quayle  
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
Subject: Guesstimates
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 08:26:25 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12266; Fri, 14 Aug 92 05:27:42 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA17381; Fri, 14 Aug 92 05:27:38 -0700
X-Received: from TMS-PORT-7.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTPid AA07521; Fri, 14 Aug 92 08:27:24 EDT
X-To: alt.usage.english.usenet



Y'know, I've been wondering . . .

Does the word "guesstimate" exist purely to titillate?  One hefty
dictionary of my acquaintance defines it as:

           An estimate based on a guess or a conjecture.

It's another word we've all seen -- and perhaps even used.  But why?
Has anyone plumbed the word's idiosyncrasies?  How does one construe
it?  Outside [of] dictionaries, do people use "guess" and "conjecture"
as if they were on opposite ends of some sort of spectrum (e.g., on a
spectrum from "heuristic" to "logical")?  If so, is "estimate" to be
found somewhere on the same spectrum?  What, as they say, gives?

I'm *particularly* interested in responses from people, if any, who
use the g-word in their work and play, and who are satisfied, upon
reflection, that they use it consciously and with reason or pleasure.


Thanks,
Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to those who climb <x> because <x> is there.]

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard)
Subject: Re: Someone kicked my Donkey...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 04:08:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug14.092528.19377@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>This discussion reminds me of a somewhat contrived joke which depends on
>the different meanings a Briton and an American would assign to the
>sentence:
>
>  I feel the perfect ass.
Then there's this limerick, which only works in Yankspeak:

There once was a pretty young lass
Who had a most magnificent ass.
'Twas not round and pink,
As you probably think,
But was gray, had long ears, and ate grass.

I heard this in high school, some time in the pleistocene.
-- 
 ________________________________________________________
/ Henry  || We are such stuffe as dreames are made on;   \
\ Polard || and our little life is rounded with a sleepe /
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pundette
Date: 15 Aug 92 08:49:11 GMT
	<TSOS.49.713517609@uni-duesseldorf.de>
	<1992Aug14.140140.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au's message of 14 Aug 92 04:01:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.140140.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

> Is it not true that German speakers can,
> because of the structure of their language, still understand the
> distinction between discrimination based on gender and discrimination
> based on sex?  This distinction has pretty well disappeared in English,

I am able to discriminate among people based on their
gender, and I am able to discriminate based on whether
or not they will have sex with me.  I think that both
can be important determinants, in the proper context.
Now, I can easily understand the distinction, so I
can't imagine why the English would have trouble with
this.  Is it the way they dress, or do they just need
to learn some better pick-up lines?  Maybe they just
need to get out more.  And why do I find myself asking
myself, "What does Mandar think about this?"
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: LESS v FEWER - SAINSBURY'S GUILTY
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 10:36:57 GMT




In a previous article, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) says:

>In article <3813@keele.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

>> Today was shopping day so I
>>went down to Mr Sainsbury's local emporium only to find, "Quick checkout
>>- 8 items or less". I've written to the manager about this and will post
>>the reply assuming I get one.


>
>The problem with the express lane is not whether they use less or
>fewer, it's that it takes longer to buy something in the express
>lane than in the regular lanes.


"X items or less" doesn't bother me, and I can't figure out why.  (No, I
don't think it's because I'm only semiliterate and have no respect for the
language.)  Two possibilities:

1. Any supermarket is so full of misspelled signs ("Marshmellows", "Iceburg
Lettuce") that a simple error of grammar, spelled correctly, is almost a
relief.

2. I'm thinking of "X items or less [stuff than that]." 

3. I was brainwashed by contests that asked for your answer in "25 words or
less."  (Which doesn't bother me either.  I think vaguely of "25 words or
less writing."

By the way, publishers seem to avoid the whole less/fewer problem by
saying, "3,000 words maximum," or "under 10,000 words."

Bonita Kale
From: ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: ssmith@xocolatl.com
Organization: Amethyst Systems, Fremont, CA

crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

> Anybody out there aware of a net group that deals with terrible
> English translations?  I collect mangled English and would love
> to find such a group.
> 
> (The subject line refers to the "Coke adds life" campaign
> that was supposedly translated in China as "Coke brings
> back your ancestors from the dead."  Probably an urban legend,
> but a good one.)

Reminds me of the Chevy Nova...No va meaning "doesn't go" in Spanish.

There was also the underarm deodorant--Tickle, I think--that was
being endorsed here in the States by an octopus (okay, okay, a lovely
young woman dressed as one).  It was a successful ad campaign here,
so it was exported to China and/or the Far East.  Apparently some
people there regard the octopus as having eight *legs*.....

I, too, collect mangled English and would also love to find such a
group!

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolatl.com
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6482 sci.lang:6464
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:41:16 CDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <2A8EE4FC.15085@orion.oac.uci.edu>, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.203635.3839@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>Can anyone shed some light on how the dreadful usage of the word "axe" in
>>place of "ask" ever got started?  Is there any linguistin explanation as
>>to why the s and k sounds get reversed in many inner-city dialects?
> 
> Is this common in other word that have the "sk" in them?  Or is the
> reversal lexical in "ask?"  It could just be lexical.
> 
> Regards,
> Janis C.

The form pronounced "axe" for "ask" is the original form.  Cf. Old
English _acsian_, i.e. /aksjan/ 'to ask.'  As often happens, an early
form remains here in the dialects.  It is the standard variants that
underwent the metathesis, or reversal, of the two consonants.

	- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a (sikth) question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:13:38 GMT

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."

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:33:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.143914.1820@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> perry@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:

>A few questions for the English gurus:

>1) Which is correct:

>"To a large degree"
>	-or-
>"to a great degree"

> Which adjective is correct? Why?

Most people would use "great," but some say "large."  People will
understand you either way.  

Why do more people say "great"?  Because they do.  No particular reason;
that's just the way it happened.

>2) Which is correct:

>"I went to the store which sold bread."
>	-or-
>"I went to the store that sold bread."

>   I am interested in the rules for when to use which vs. that.

Depends on what you're trying to say.  If you're trying to describe the
store, and distinguish it from other stores (which presumably don't
sell bread) you'll probably use "that."  If you're referrring to a
specific store, say, the only one in town, and wish to mention that it
sold bread, then "which" is more likely.  You'd probably also want to
put in a comma after "store" in that case.

But this is merely what *usually* happens.  Very often people will not
make the distinction quite this way, and -- mirabile dictu -- they will
still be understood.  Not only that, but the two words have been almost
interchangeable in this sense for centuries and centuries.  The
insistence on the limiting "that" and non-limiting "which" is an
invention of the English teachers.  If you don't believe me, look up the
Lord's Prayer (Matt., ch. 6) in different translations:

Our Father, that art in Heaven...
Our Father, which art in Heaven...
Our Father, who art in Heaven...

All three can be found, not to mention variants of comma placement and
"is" or "are" for "art".

>3) Which spelling is correct and from where did the phrase come?

Or, more commonly, "where did the phrase come from?"  8-)

After all, if we didn't end with prepositions now and then, we wouldn't
be such stuff as dreams are made on...

>"Speak your piece."
>	-or-
>"Speak your peace."

Piece, as in part, as in a play.  "Peace" is used in "Speak now or
forever hold your peace."  The OED will give you the history of "Speak
your piece."  the CMU library has an OED.

>Can you back up your answer historically?  I have seen it written both ways
>recently.

Well, the latter can be discarded by dint of its not making any sense.
Or was there some special context, in which people were speaking peace
(however that may be done).

>4) Finally, is it (still?) incorrect to pronounce the 't' in often?

Often.  But you can hear it in some dialects.

Roger

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6566 sci.lang:6521
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:42:38 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug18.052700.13587@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Poor elephant was stripped off of his TUX !
>
>Don't walk there after DUCKS !

That's nothing.  If we really subscribe to metathesis, we then have to
discuss computer teminology:  Floppy dicks and hard dicks.  And for
audiophile, compact dicks.  

Time to add alt.sex to the crosspost.


--
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: wcsjc@alfred.carleton.ca (John Coughlin)
Subject: Re: ---istocracy ???
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:23:05 GMT

In <Aug.19.21.56.34.1992.16942@pilot.njin.net> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:

>Kakistocracy is governance by the worst.  I take this to mean the most
>evil, degraded, despicable, or the like.  What is the form of
>governance that is by the least able or competent...as in the
>administration of a university...is this also kakistocracy?

A word I came up with a few years ago to describe this is "mediocracy".
-- 

Flesh: John Coughlin                            Elvis ate my Cadillac
Net: wcsjc@ccs.carleton.ca     Vox: +1 613 957-2851     Fax: 990-7370
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sfriedman@pbs.org (FRED)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:56:26 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

In article <66cFPB12w165w@xocolatl.com>, ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
> 
>> Anybody out there aware of a net group that deals with terrible
>> English translations?  I collect mangled English and would love
>> to find such a group.
>> (The subject line refers to the "Coke adds life" campaign
>> that was supposedly translated in China as "Coke brings
>> back your ancestors from the dead."  Probably an urban legend,
>> but a good one.)

As I heard it, ca. 1980, `_Pepsi_ brings your ancestors back from 
the dead' was a translation of `Come alive with
the Pepsi Generation' for the Taiwan market.....

-- 
<<<<<sfriedman@pbs.org     ...{uupsi,vrdhxq,csed-1,ida.org}!pbs!sfriedman!>>>>>
<<<<<<<<   I'm Fred.  Don't blame my employer; it's not responsible.   >>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Avoid contact with eyes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Toeing Victory!
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:11:04 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug21.050525.16927@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.022554.29394@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>I learned the phrase "toe the line" as a description of what happened in 
>>>Parliament.  That is, one would "toe the line" -- anybody know whether there
>>>is a physical line involved? -- of one's political party to identify oneself
>>>with the party's views, etc.  

>According to Partridge, "toe the line" means 

>	To appear in an identification parade, from ca. 1910 -- 2. to conform:
>	call 'if you join the Army, you'll have to toe the line.'  Ex infantry
>	drill.  P.B. since mid-C.20, in very gen use and with specified
>	application, as in 'these place-seeking MPs are all the same--no
>	independence, just toeing the party line all through.'

AHD goes crashing down to defeat...has Murray County been heard from?

>>Right; that's called the party line.  (So is a phone with extensions in
>>several homes; I wonder which came first.  Don't have an OED around.)

>RHD II dates "Party Line" from 1825-1835 in America.

>As for telephones, that term came about in the 1880's, when your phone #
>might have been 832C, and your neighbor might have been 832D. To ring
>you, the operator would connect the calling party to jack 832, and tap
>the appropriate party letter on her ringing key (in morse code).
>As for being awakened by your neighbor's calls, it didn't matter much
>since the exchange usually closed at 9 p.m. anyway.

Three parties on
My party line
But that third party --
Lord, ain't mine!
--Langston Hughes  (not Ross Perot!)

>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

I think I'll defer to you on this one....

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton)
Subject: Re: Smileys -- A matter of gender
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:03:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.154957.10009@waikato.ac.nz> maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>
>By the way, in NZ we recently have started using the term 'blokess',
>the problem seems to be that 'bloke' is irreparably masculine, but
>we love to use it as a part of our linguistic heritage. We can't go
>on calling the sheilas 'sheilas' so we seem to have gone into
>constructions like 'all you blokes and blokesses'.

Assuming that "sheila" is a general term for woman, in much the same
way I have learned that "bloke" is a general term for man, then why
exactly can't you call women "sheilas"? Or is my assumption completely
incorrect?

By the way - the comic strip "Brenda Starr" yesterday used the 
term "reportress"!! (This was spoken by some psychaitress in the
strip)

Peter! (feminine form, Petress! of course)
From: padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route" for yall!
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:52:13 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <1992Aug13.192558.3445@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>
>In article <baron.20.713717987@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
>baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug12.162307.3404@desire.wright.edu> 
>> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>> I move we make "yall" the proper second-person plural pronoun and
>>>> be done with it.
>>>
>>>Seconded.  All of yall in favor, send yall's votes to Peter for tabulation!
>>>
>>>-----ted hayes
>> Ted, that's "all ya'll," to be precise.
>
>Actually, to be *really* precise, it's y'all.  But who's counting?
>

Me, I think. That's three. One more and we're everybody.

I purposely removed the apostrophe, by the way, to make it look
more like a real word.

I would guess then that the second person plural possesive would
probably be "yalls".

Any affinity for "youse"/"yews" and "youses"/"yewses"??

Peter! (who will be gone for a week)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british