HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: questions questionsREAD/NEW
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:36:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.173104@IASTATE.EDU>, mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
> In article <9208181722.AA13431@sumac09.cray.com>, jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff
> Drummond) writes:
>>                            [...deleted...]
>> Speak for yourself, please.  I pronounce the `t' in often and consider it
>> 
>> I suppose using four syllables for `vegetable' is not Phonetically Correct
>> either?  *Sigh*
>> 
>> -Jeff    jjd@cray.com
>> --
>> "English has a vocabulary nearly twice the size of any other language."
>> -Charles Berlitz in _Native_Tongues_
> 
> At the risk of inflaming another Pronounciation War, I have to point out
> that eaten, marten, shorten, and whiten are not spelled analogously to
> often.  You might be interested in the following, which is from Charles
> Elster's _There is no Zoo in Zoology_;
> 
> 	In 1932, the English lixicographer Henry Cecil Wyld called
> 	the pronounciation AWF-ten "sham-refined," and today the bad
> 	odor of class-conscious affectation still clings to it as 
> 	persistently as ever.  As if that were not enough, analogy is 
> 	entirely unsupportive:  No one pronounces the T in soften, 
> 	listen, fasten, moisten, hasten, chasten, christen, or 
> 	Christmas -- so, once and for all, let's do away with the 
>   	eccentric AWF-ten.
> 
> On the other hand, Elster does not mention after, sifter, and lifted.
> 
> Incidentally, Elster also calls the four-syllable pronounciation of vegetable
> "an archaism", and adds "in colloquial speech it is virtually extinct". 
> 
> Marie Coffin
-- 
How many syllables do you use in `medicine'? two or three?

John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
Phone National        (049)21 5750    Fax National       (049) 21 6910
      International +61 49 21 5750        International +61 49 21 6910
VAXPSI  PSI%0505249626002::CCJAL      AARNet  ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton)
Subject: Re: The subjunctive
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:30:23 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug11211548@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <4938@sersun1.essex.ac.uk>, tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R) writes:
>
>> In article <BsKJEM.34q@wpi.WPI.EDU> padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
>
>>>And aren't phrases such as "God save the Queen" command form (although,
>>>whether or not it is a wise idea to command God is not a question for
>>>this particular newsgroup)?
>
>> Well...are we talking form or function?  If form, why is it any more
>> `command form' than an ordinary indicative usage.  It is the same form as
>> in I save, you save, we save, they save.
>
>Yes, but He saves, so there is a formal difference from
>the indicative.

Exactly. I assume that in the indicative we would say "God saves the queen",
but the form of the verb seems to be a command as in "God clean Your
room" or something.

Of course, we seem to be missing commas.

And exactly what are we saving the Queen from? ("Oh, no! The Queen's
canoe is about to go over the falls! God, please save the Queen!!").
What is the construction SUPPOSED to mean?

Peter!

(Forgive me for not knowing the proper terminology for "command form")







Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: vince@Cadence.COM (Vince Gibboni)
Subject: Re: Quote or simile for "success"?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:17:04 GMT

viviana@igor.tamri.com (Vivian Aldridge) writes:
>
> I'm having trouble writing the closing remarks to a speech
> I'm giving at work next Thursday. I'd like this speech to
> end with a bang, but somehow it falls short.
>
> This is my last paragraph:
>
>     In closing this is a wonderful group, a group of
>     caring, fun loving, intelligent, and determined
>     people who are willing to get things done. 
>     They give meaning to the word "success."
>
    
    If you'd like it to end with a bang, I'd suggest the following:

        These people don't know the meaning of the word "failure".
        In fact, these people don't know the meaning of the words
        "duck", "loster" or "glue". I often wonder how it is they
        find their way to work every day.

        But, nonetheless, these are the sort of people who made this 
        country great, the sort of people who face danger willingly, 
        the sort of people who do not flinch at the face of death. 
        They are, in fact, the very sort of people who - never to ruin a 
        good-natured joke - will sit idly by with puppy-like loyalty
        in there own special fun-loving way as I toss this incendiary 
        grenade amongst them. [Lob grenade/Take cover].

        Thank you. Drive safely.
        


-- 
                                                        vince@gda.cadence.com
       My friends think she's a dumb blonde,
       but they don't know she dyes her hair.
            - Thomas Dolby
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Puns
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:05:37 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

zrubek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ZRUBEK PETER F) writes:

>pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:

>>cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>>>In article <1992Aug9.111448.16487@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> zrubek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ZRUBEK PETER F) writes:

>>>>I have never seen a pun that WASN'T intended.

>>I was having a discussion on what would have happened had Jesus turned
>>up now rather than ~2000 years ago. Somebody suggested that he would
>>have been excecuted by the electric chair rather than crucifixion. I
>>replied by saying that it would be more difficult nowadays on trumped
>>up charges and was amazed to be greeted by groans. This, I would
>>claim, _was_ a pun that wasn't intended - I didn't even realise what I
>>had said until somebody repeated it for me.

>>Philippa Hogben

>>pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if posting from Janet)



>I suggest that you consult your local Freudian Theory on this one.
>I still have never seen a pun that "wasn't" intended.
>JAC

Huh? What do you mean by a pun that  "wasn't" intended, then?

Philippa.

BTW I am well known around here for being a punster - I suppose the
people I spoke to were "expecting" it to be a pun.
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Guesstimates
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:43:16 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1992Aug15.181037.28202@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
> 
> 'Lewis Carroll' called them "portmanteau words."  Others have extended
> his term to cover phrases, paragraphs, even musical passages.  I once
> used it to describe an algorithm, but no one had any clue what I meant
> and I didn't feel like explaining so it hasn't caught on.
> 
> 	portmanteau	= porte + manteau	ask a.u.f.

"Portmanteau" is not a portmanteau word, it is a compound word.  A portmanteau
word is formed by putting together *parts* of other words (this type of
word is also called a "blend").  Carroll likened such words to portmanteaus,
which are suitcases that have two halves that close together.  Somebody
on the net can probably produce the quote - it's from one of the Alice books.

> 	smog		= smoke + fog		ask any Angeleno

Good example!

> 	malapropism	= mal + a propos 	ask Sheridan

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

> 	slithy		= lithe + slimy		ask 'Lewis Carroll'

Another good example.

A portmanteau word in the spirit of "guesstimate" is "absitively",
a blend of "absolutely" and "positively."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6257 soc.culture.british:11435
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Name for Brits and Irish?
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:56:13 GMT
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute

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

Simon.

  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:33:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.232516.13379@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>And yet: we're in a usage discussion group, where issues of formal
>grammar are also raised.  Given the circumstance, the context, etc., I
>think the appropriateness of lumping all the different issues together
>under "grammar" is questionable.

By you.  I don't question it.

>Why?  Is it not preferred?  I think you'll find many authorities
>preferring it.  Is it prescribed or proscribed?  Not by me, not by most
>prescriptive grammars worth their salt.  (This wrt '10 or less').  

Most prescriptive grammars I've ever seen would proscribe less+countables
or "me and my friends"+predicate.  

>Now, having defined "grammar," you assume that "ungrammatical" has
>certain meanings.  The AHD disagrees, and gives exactly two meanings, as
>opposed to the 7 or 8 it has for "grammar": 
>
>1. Not in accord with a normative prescriptive grammar.
>
>2. Not in accord with any observable pattern of syntax in a language.

RHD II defines "ungrammatical" as

	grammatically incorrect or qwkward; not conforming to the
	rules or principles of grammar or accepted usage.
  			       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That definition seems to be in accord with your earlier statement that
many people in this newsgroup (myself included) use "grammar" to refer
to accepted usage.

>Now, "Me and my friends..." is not ungrammatical by meaning 2.  Meaning
>1, however, allows one to say it's ungrammatical wrt a certain
>prescriptive grammar.  

I prefer the RHD II definition....more fitting of my use of the word
"grammar."  Since I consider usage and grammar to be intertwined, 
it becomes easy to cite sources that would render "10 or less" or
"me and my friends...." ungrammatical.  Chicago, Little Brown, 
Strunk & White, etc....

And yes, I know.  You're going to say, "those sources were written as
style guides for formal writing."  Perhaps.  But since those rules were
constructed to give writers exhausting control over their words, I see
no reason why not to include much of that clarity in spoken language.

>That's all I want: tell us how you arrive at your standards, your norms,
>your rules.  Cite an authority, and tell us what the authority has set
>out to do.  Or provide your own arguments from evidence.

We still decline pronouns in English.  "Me and my friends" violates that
rule, rather blatently.  I see no benefit to violating that rule even in
casual conversation, unless one *wants* to sound like a sixth grader.


--
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: g92h7147@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GR HUTCHISON)
Subject: Re: Women Doctors
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:17:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.180938.5634@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:

>I'd like to know why we commonly see the word "woman" pluralized
>in phrases like "women doctors," "women scholars," or "women plumbers."
>No one would dream of pluralizing the adjective along with the noun in
>the phrases

I should think that this usage is colloquial, as the `correct' expressions
would be "female doctors", "female scholars" and "female plumbers". Thus I 
feel that both "women" and "woman" are wrong... Neither is an adjective!

>        boy wonders
>        girl athletes
>        male nurses
>        (ek cetera).
 
"Male nurses" is of course using the correct structure - "male" is an 
adjective and adjectives aren't usually put into the plural (have you ever 
heard of "houses boats"?) As for "girl athletes", I'd say colloquial English 
has slipped in once again.

"Boy wonders" has me stumped! Perhaps it is just one of those stock 
phrases...

>Actually, I'm having trouble coming up with a familiar, similar
>phrase that starts with "man."   (Perhaps the explanation of this
>will shed light on my original question.)

Here are two:
	Man Friday 
	Man Servant

>Or do I have it mixed up: is "women" the noun and "doctors" the
>adjective in this case???

Could be... Hmmmmm!!!

Hope this helps,
GREG
From: shaevel@Apple.COM (Jeff Shaevel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Puns
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:17:24 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

zrubek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ZRUBEK PETER F) writes:

>I suggest that you consult your local Freudian Theory on this one.
>I still have never seen a pun that "wasn't" intended.

How about the case when the alleged punster is not aware of an alternative
meaning of a word or phrase.

As a child I was interested in magic.  I met a woman at the public library who
told me she was also interested in the subject.  When I got home and told my
parents that I met a magician, I did so by telling them she "knew a few tricks,"
which they found uproariously funny at the time.   At that age and time there 
no way that pun was intentional....
-- 
Jeff Shaevel        :-)-: (comedy/tragedy)    Love may be blind, 
shaevel@apple.com                             but lust is autistic.

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Question about ASCII IPA
    <1992Aug19.231944.28751@news.eng.convex.com> 
    <2A92E8F4.20669@orion.oac.uci.edu> 
    <1992Aug20.031154.15582@news.eng.convex.com>
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:40:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.031154.15582@news.eng.convex.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:
 
>
>Thanks -- I see what you mean.  But do we really want to get into phonologic
>distinctions instead  of merely phonemic one in IPA?  If we do that, then
>we'll start distinguishing between dental and alveolar t's.
>
>--tom
>--
>    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
Although I am confused by your use of the terms 'phonological' versus
'phonemic', it may be worth pointing out that a number of languages do
in fact contrast dental versus alveolar articulations.
 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: "Route"
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:56:39 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of chrisc@debra.dgbt.doc.ca (Chris Camfield):
:
:I've always pronounced it so that it rhymes with "hoot", but then I
:grew up in a family where both parents were originally English.  And I
:am from Canada... but my roomate from Oshawa pronounced it to rhyme
:with "pout".  *grumble grumble*

Just a guess here...

I'll bet the deal is that it was originally pout-rhyming in the UK
(see post on "rowte" spelling), which is what got stuck in the 
American Midwest, who tend to conserve older pronunciations.    
The East Coast of the North American continent, on the other hand,
picks up the phonologic changes from the UK faster.  That's why 
you hear r's treated in New England similarly to how they're treated
in Old England, or the ae/ah and closed/wide-o differences.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
                -- Isaac Asimov
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Asses
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:20:52 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <1992Aug18.104329.9696@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
|> References: <1970@sdrc.COM> <1992Aug11.185359.7097@rose.com> <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>
|> 
|> In a previous article, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) says:
|> >In article <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> >> Oh, and off the subject, thank you *so* much for spelling "piqued" properly.
|> >> I get so weary of reading about people who have had their curiosity "peeked"
|> >> or "peaked".
|> >
|> >Don't let it get you down, it's a mute point, anyway.

Incidentally, I responded to this via e-mail.  I suppose that Mr. Jones just
couldn't help himself :-).

|> I, too, hate to hear about someone whose "interest was peaked," but I've
|> assumed it's the result of letting the computers do -all- the
|> spell-checking.  Do you think actual, live copy editors are letting it slip
|> by?  It's pretty extreme, after all. 

Oh, I've seen it in newspaper headlines.  I *will* admit that I'm talking
about the Raleigh News and Observer, not a exactly a paragon of literacy,
but still.....

I actually called the paper the other day because, throughout an article,
the writer had used "incidences" as a plural of "incident".  It didn't just
happen once, but four times in the body of the article.

I think that actual, live copy editors let all sorts of egregious errors
get through, and I think it's pretty sad.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Despite decades of market research, markets       |
|proliferate and there's no cure in sight.         |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: Re: Asses & Tongue
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:46:49 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 08-19-92 13:34

apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) diffidently mentions:
| 
| scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
| >In article <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
| >> Oh, and off the subject, thank you *so* much for spelling "piqued" properly.
| >> I get so weary of reading about people who have had their curiosity "peeked"
| >> or "peaked".
| >
| >Don't let it get you down, it's a mute point, anyway.
| 
| I try to restrain my urges towards pedantry, but that should be 'moot point'.
| (I couldn't decide if that was a deliberate mistake to make a point; was it?)
 
I think Mr. Merritt has just been played with by words.

Regards: *PC* <peter.churchill@rose.com> who originally posted 
                                         "pique".
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001013
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer (supermarkets)
Summary: It's all very silly
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:11:32 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.191839.682@mala.bc.ca>, epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.115941.12213@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug15.215238.680@mala.bc.ca>,
>> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>>>Does "up to 10" mean "fewer than 10," or "10 or fewer?"
>> 
>> I'd say it means the latter.
>> 
> 
> So would I, but it would be clearer to say "10 items or fewer".  "Up to"
> always sounds like adspeak to me, as in "up to 50% off," which people
> usually fail to interpret as "no more than 50% off."
> 
>> 
>>>On a (barely) related note:  With my last paycheck I got a voucher that
>>>was to be redeemed "after August 10th."  I patiently waited until the 11th
>>>before turning it in.  It turned out that I could have redeemed it on the 
>>>10th.
>> 
>> You didn't ask, but I'd say the voucher lied.
>> 
> 
> When I read the voucher I said to myself, "self, I bet they meant
> 'on or after August 10th.'"  It seems to me that it is more common to get
> this kind of thing wrong than right.

	Or you have far too much time on your hands.  You're assuming that
"after August 10th" meant "after August 10th is past" while the voucher meant
"after August 10th begins".

:)

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:00:16 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <Bsvv1C.EwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by shair@barolo.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Shair):
> Is it time to give up on the distinction between "less" and "fewer?"
> Statements such as this one sound wrong to me:     

           The PS/2 8511 Color Display has far less components than the IBM      
           8512, contributing to higher reliability for the customer.

 
> Bob Shair                          


It doesn't just sound wrong Bob, it *is* wrong. No, we shouldn't give up
these things. Sloppy language produces sloppy thinking and that, as well
as always being aesthetically displeasing and detrimental to civiliztion, can be downright dangerous at
times. I'd sack the author of the advert on the spot (but then again I'd
sack all ad men). Two days ago I came across a leaflet for Lambeth
Council which talked about "it's services"! The barbarians are at the
gate and it needs all of us to drive them away.


Andy
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ash@mlacus.oz.au (Ash Nallawalla)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:22:10 GMT

casley@tarski.stanford.edu (Ross Casley) writes:

>>... the correct transliteration is "mandir" (man rhymes with bun
>>and dir has a soft d and rhymes with deer but not dear). 

>Oh dear.  I've never noticed a difference between deer and dear in 
>any accent.  Would you explain it to me?

Oh dearie me, goodness gracious, and all that. :-) 

It would be hard for an English speaker to pronounce "mandir" = temple.
The "dir" can be imagined as a prolonged "deeer" without an "uh"
in it. The trouble is that the sound is not all that prolonged in
Hindi (or many other Indian languages).

The nearest I can think of is the French "dire" (to speak)
but not the English "dire".  Sorry but I can't be more specific.
Ask an Indian migrant to pronounce "mandir".

PS Apology to Mandar re the meaning of his name.  I hadn't heard
of that flower and don't know Sanskrit.
-- 
=============================================================================
Ash Nallawalla		Tel: +61 3 550-1638 BH; Fax +61 3 742-4566 
ZL4LM/VK3CIT		Postal: P.O. Box 539, Werribee VIC 3030, Australia
ash@mlacus.oz.au        Contact me if you belong to a PC User Group!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english