HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Summary: Phonotactics
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:05:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.033323.23575@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>In English, /sk#/ (where # denotes word boundary) is so uncommon that
>some speakers put it into the impossible class and replace it with
>/ks#/, which is common.

but nobody confuses "bask" with "back" can't it just be a regional, learned 
dialect?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
Subject: Abject Subjunctivity
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:01:15 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA21252; Thu, 13 Aug 92 17:04:18 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA11265; Thu, 13 Aug 92 17:04:16 -0700
X-Received: from TMS-PORT-1.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTPid AA05448; Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:04:06 EDT
X-To: alt.usage.english.usenet
X-Command: : Send_AEvt(doAutoForward)


> In article <SLAGLE.92Aug11210527@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug11.105833.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>,
> > eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> > 
> >> Aha!  At last I understand my vague unease at the American practice 
> >> of verbing nouns.  I shall be more tolerant now that I understand
> >> that American English does not have any nouns.
> > 
> > If I nouned you, would you be a subjunctive object?
> 
> No, I would be an objecting subject.
>
> [ . . . and so on, in abject tone.]



Gentlemen!

Your grammars would be proud of
you, if only they could see you now.


Dhanesh
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:52:24 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

In article EwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu, shair@barolo.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Shair) writes:
>Is it time to give up on the distinction between "less" and "fewer?"
>Statements such as this one, excerpted from the formal IBM Announcement
>Letter for a new display, sound wrong to me:     

>          BUSINESS SOLUTIONS                                                    

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

>Bob Shair

You want to give up on the distinction between "less" and "fewer" because
someone in the Pretentious Business Solutions Marketing department couldn't
think of the right word at the time? Have you ever thought of becoming a
heretic within IBM?

-m.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: takoosma@utkvx1.utk.edu (Toby Koosman)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.115423.29874@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com 
(A. Jing Hippy) writes...
>In article <18AUG199214361713@utkvx1.utk.edu>, takoosma@utkvx1.utk.edu (Toby Koosman) writes:
>|> A lot of the features of Black English are also found in white Southern
>|> dialects.  I haven't heard it, but my cohabitor (who has relatives there)
>|> claims that everyone on the North Carolina Piedmont sounds black.
> 
>OOOooooohh!  This from someone in TENN-uh-see?  Your cohabitor needs to
>sharpen his or her listening skills.
> 

This from someone in North Carolina?  Perhaps you would not object to the
statement that everyone on the Piedmont, black or white, sounds, to some
ears, _the same_.  There are plenty of regions in the South where black and
white dialects sound more like one another than like anything else.  Is it 
strange to assert that black dialects owe more to the American South than
to Africa?

Toby Koosman
University of Tennessee   Knoxville, Tennessee  USA
Internet: koosman@utkvx.utk.edu     Bitnet: koosman@utkvx
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: pundette ... & puntron!
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:28:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.100007.3388@desire.wright.edu>,
thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Besides, as I opined earlier, "waitron" has that automaton-like look that
>so aptly describes the duties of the job.

Contemptuous or not, the "automaton" remark is inappropriate because
waiting on real, live human beings is very difficult to automate.


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to Marvin Minsky, who will die trying.]

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Question about ASCII IPA
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:05:07 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, 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 eddie@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Eddie Rooney):
:[ do you mean "phonetic" ? ER]

yes.  

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

	    Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
	    Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Someone kicked my Donkey...
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:10:14 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

In article 92Aug11235523@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.062625.181@syacus.acus.oz.au>, steven@syacus.acus.oz.au (Steven Malikoff) writes:
>> However, in Yankspeak(tm), you use "ass" for (2). Can you correctly
>> interpret the non-offensive sentence "The horse kicked my ass" to mean
>> "The horse kicked my donkey"?  Assume that I own an ass and that it's in
>> a paddock with other asses, so you can't respond with "the horse kicked
>> THE ass".

>The horse kicked an ass.
>The horse kicked one of the asses.
>The horse behaved like an ass.
>--
>----
>Mark E. Slagle

Or indeed,

	"That bum hurt my ass."

which might occur in a tale of poverty and alcohol-induced violence
in the US, but brings an exceedingly odd scene to the imagination
this side of the Pacific (although I almost always hear "donkey" used
in preference to "ass"). I think "ass" is just not a very good
word. It can't compete with a word like "donkey".

-michael norris.
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Someone kicked my Donkey...
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:25:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug13020956@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>>> I recall that my dad once used the term "bitch", in context, to refer to
>>>> a female dog, and my mother dressed him down for it pretty severely. In
>>>> her mind, it was a "bad" word and should never be used at all.  
>
>>>Bitched him out good, did she?
>
>> What an asinine thing to say. 
>
>Et too, brute, doggoneit?

ASS-inine, ASS-inine.  Get it???  See the subject line???  How come I'm
not allowed to use smileys, anyways?

Oh, woof to you too.

.


-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and as far as I'm
concerned, happy campers you will always be."
                  --J. Danforth Quayle in American Samoa
From: djs@jet.uk (David J Stevenson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Danger! Will Robinson!
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:26:39 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <9208111922.AA10767@MIT.EDU> dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:


>More ignorance from the desk of dks:

>  Will someone PLEASE tell me where the phrase:

>        Danger!  Will Robinson!

>  comes from?


>Much grass,
>Dhanesh
It's the robot from Lost In Space, Will Robinson is the oiky kid of the family.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------+
| David Stevenson  djs@jet.uk   Tel: +44 235 465028 |
+---------------------------------------------------+
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:39:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.040130.15303@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.143914.1820@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> perry@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:

>>"I went to the store which sold bread."
>>	-or-
>>"I went to the store that sold bread."
>
>Depends on what kind of store, and what the context is.  If you went to
>a bakery, you'd say "I went to the store that sold bread," since "that"
>restricts the class of stores to the one that sells bread.
>
>If you went to the only store in town, and that store just happened to
>sell bread, you'd say "I went to the store which sold bread," since the
>class is already restricted to the only store you could have gone to.
>
>	"The car, which is broken, is in the garage"
>
>describes the state of a car which is already specified.
>
>	"The car that is broken is in the garage."
>
>Tells which car is broken.

Wishful thinking, alas.  The language doesn't work that way; the
that/which distinction you claim is not standard.  To quote Evans and
Evans:

The distinction bwtween restrictive "that" and descriptive "which" or
"who" is an invention of the grammarians and a very recent one.  Fowler,
who recommends it, says, "it would be idle to pretend that it is the
practice either of most or of the best writers."  What is not the
practice of most, or of the best, is not part of our common language.  

[he goes on to give examples old and new; Matt. 22:21 (KJV) is telling.]

Anyone who likes to do so may limit his own "that"s to defining clauses.
But he must not read this distinction into other men's writing, and he
must not expect his readers to recognize it in his own.  

[much more, which I won't quote here.]

So there you have Evans *and* Fowler, along with every reference gramar
available, stating (or, in Fowler's case, admitting) that the
distinction is one that you may, but need not, make.

Roger
From: futor@llnl.gov (randy j futor)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Asses & Tongue in cheek
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:46:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: CSo @ LLNL


 euaneg@eua.ericsson.se (Nils-Erik.Gustafsson) wrote:
> 
> . . . an episode of 'Don Quixote' . . . concluding thusly:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__
\/  -+-  randy  -+-  all generalizations are flawed  -+-  futor@llnl.gov
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Someone kicked my Donkey...
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:28:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug11235523@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>The horse kicked an ass.
>The horse kicked one of the asses.
>The horse behaved like an ass.


More asininity.




-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and as far as I'm
concerned, happy campers you will always be."
                  --J. Danforth Quayle in American Samoa
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: The Great Debate : Clarifications (LONG)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 13:19:58 GMT




In a previous article, engf002@csc.canterbury.ac.nz () says:

>In article <1992Aug19.112717.16987@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
>> 
>> ...
>> I never heard anything but kil-OM-e-ter until my kids started getting
>> metric in school.  Then they were told to pronounce it KIL-o-meet-er. 
>> Sounds very weird to me.


>You don't say cen-TIM-e-ter or mi-LIM-e-ter or even ki-LO-gram
>so why say kil-OM-e-ter?


Brought up that way.  My old (1967) dictionary gives that pronunciation,
with the note: "not parallel with other metric-system compounds." No logic,
just the way it was. 

Bonita

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: malcolm@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:31:15 GMT
Reply-To: malcolm@minster.york.ac.uk (Malcolm Wallace)
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Tom Christiansen writes:
>
>I have never heard anyone pronounce "root" as though it were "rut".
>You don't pronounce "foot" as though it were "fut", now do you?

Now here's an interesting case in question.  Of all the "oo" words,
"foot" is the only one which *is* pronounced "fut" in Northern
Ireland, and that only occasionally.

    "Gedoff me fut.  Yer stawndin on muh bug toe."

Otherwise, we say "loot", "hoot", "toot", "soot", "roof", "woof",
"poof", "root", "route" etc.  with identical vowels.

I have only ever heard the "rowt" pronunciation of "route" from without
the British Isles.

    -malc.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:51:52 GMT

In article <57560033@hpscit.sc.hp.com> fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
>
>Pondering a question posed in misc.writing led me to the question, "Is
>rational thought possible without language?" 

I've often wondered about this one myself.  It would seem that we
subvocalize a great deal while thinking, especially when pondering
complex matters.

Certainly rational thought on a low level is possible without language.
Even children who speak late make rational choices of sorts.  But I 
suspect that how people ponder complex thoughts is intimately connected
with the way in which they manipulate those thoughts using their language.

Any natively bilingual people out there?  Is your thought process the same
in one language as in another?


--
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: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: Zippers
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 01:47:06 GMT

In article <9208072347.AA17228@MIT.EDU> dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
>From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
>Subject: Zippers
>Date: Fri, 07 Aug 92 19:45:48 EST


>The verb, I guess, is always "to zip (up)."
>What about the noun?  I've heard "zipper" and I've heard "zip."

>What have y'all heard?  For a reason too boring to
>explain, I'm particularly interested in Australian usage
>at the moment.  So pipe up, y'all Down Under!


>Dhanesh

>[This post is dedicated to that jolly jambak.]

Both "zip" and "zipper" have been used in my hearing, but lately I think 
mostly "zip". BTW that's jumbuck.
-------- PAUL R OSBORN, Research Scientist, Sensing Technology --- /\/\ --
                BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia  / / /\
Snail   :       P.O. Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287                 / / /  \
Tel     :       +61 49 51-0605  Fax : +61 49 50-2126            / / / /\ \
Telex   :       AA 28768                                        \ \/ / / /
Internet:       pel@resntl.bhp.com.au                            \  / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:25:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.203121.5690@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.153627.23885@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>Here's where *I* stand up for a distinction.  To be sure, issues of
>>usage are often referred to colloquially as "grammar."  

>>Why *not* say "usage" when we mean usage?  

>Because, as you yourself cited, there are multiple meanings to the word
>grammar.  And someone may say grammar and mean grammar, but be using a
>meaning different from yours.

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.

>One of the meanings of "grammar" as far as I recall is, "Knowledge and
>usage of the preferred or prescribed forms in speaking or writing"
>(RHD II).  As such I feel no compunction about calling something like
>"10 items or less" or "me and my friends went to the store" ungrammatical.

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').  

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.

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.  

So cite one.  And in doing so, tell us what that prescriptive grammar is
for; is it for all kinds of speech, for business, for formal writing,
for everyday talking?  Tell us in what way the grammar is normative;
explain the norms.  

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.

But pontificating about what's right and what's wrong is profoundly
uninteresting, imho.  Without backing such statements are vacuous,
especially as so many ofthem turn out to be wrong.

>Linguists would probably call it "colloquial usage."  They're welcome
>to.  I call it ungrammatical.

Do what you want.  But tell us *why*.

Roger
From: VSLARRY@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Larry Israel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Whose Ox
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:06:04 GMT
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

>  And so on.  As you can see, in Exodus it is the ox that does the goring,
>  whereas the phrase that has come down to us -- as used/mentioned above by
>  Bob and Roger -- casts the poor beast as victim.  Synecdoche or not, the
>  gored ox is still a puzzle to me: speculation on its pedigree is welcome.
>

However, if Dhanesh had continued looking until Exodus 21:35 he would have
found (my translation):

35 If a man's ox push his friend's ox and he dies they shall sell the living
ox and split the money and split the dead ox as well.

36 Or if he was informed that his ox was a gorer in days past and his owners
did not guard him, he shall pay an ox for an ox, and the dead ox shall belong
to him.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Madam // Cut your head hair
Date: 15 Aug 92 10:34:05 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu's message of 14 Aug 92 21:44:58 GMT

In article <9208142144.AA02346@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu>, xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang) writes:

> 1) What is the word to use to address a married ( elderly ) woman ?

"Yo mama."

But only on Chippewa street and surrounding environs,
or maybe down Fillmore a ways, once you get a few
blocks south of Main.

"Yo bitch" might get her attention too, but it could get 
you killed.  But I had to get it into the post somehow.

****

Since your question was apparently in earnest, and your
name and question imply that you are not a native of
the lovely Queen city of Buffalo, from which your post 
emanates, I will point out that I AM KIDDING.  You can 
usually get away with referring to any woman who is your 
elder as ma'am.  This works in most parts of the country 
and isn't likely to get your face slapped in any area with 
which I am familiar.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Forever Manglia
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:14:10 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <9208152302.AA18676@MIT.EDU>, dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
>
> In article <86205@netnews.upenn.edu>,
> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>   > How about mangled English that isn't necessarily
>   > part of a screwed up ad campaign?
>
> To which:
>     How about mangled English that isn't necessarily
>     mangled in translation?
>

	"The Whitecaps are behind the eight-ball, literally and figuratively"

			- Soccer commentator John McKeachie

	"The crowd gave him a warm round ovation"
	
			- Sports newsreader Michael Landsberg
	
	"Please try and write more neater"

			- my grade 9 biology teacher - in writing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:38:48 GMT

In <pjh.714050893@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <14048@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> s913606@yallara.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (Mab) writes:
>>>We were discussing the use of the term 'you and I' as opposed to 'you
>>>and me' the other day... as in:
>>>'You and I can go now' (pretend there's no such word as 'we' okay?)
>>>and
>>>'He called you and me'

<discussions omitted>

In grade school, it was common to hear kids state, "ME and Larry went...,"
"ME and Susie want...," and so forth.  The instant and constant response from
the teacher was to smirk and say , "Larry [Susie] isn't MEan!" and so the kid 
would have to restate it as "Larry and _I_ went...," or "Susie and _I_ want...."

I really think that this is part of the reason that "X and I" have become a
fixed pair, without regard to context, as in "Susie and I want you to mail it
back to her and me."

____
Dian
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@uvmark.uucp (Roger MacNicol)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 13:32:47 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <cummings.714075674@milton> cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>Is this common in other word that have the "sk" in them?  Or is the
>>reversal lexical in "ask?"  It could just be lexical.
>
>	I often hear people pronounce "asterisk" as "asteriks" or more
>commonly, "asterick."
                                                     ^^^^^^^^

No, no, no, this time it isn't sloppy English, it's just people who have 
spent too much time reading those wonderful cartoon books about the little 
chap from Gaul and his battles with the Romans ...

- Roger


-- 
 Roger MacNicol, Software Engineer
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701
 email: uvmark%roger@merk.com
 Phone: (508) 879-3311, Fax: (508) 655-8395
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6707 sci.lang:6592