HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Grammar" & "Usage" -- it's almost over...
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:55:48 GMT
 <1992Aug24.211604.8510@Princeton.EDU> <1992Aug25.204333.3741@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug26.051945.18599@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wright State University

This post has gone from around 100 lines to over 445 lines in *less than*
one week.  I can't think of a rationale for it to continue, as the main points
have only become entrenched, not especially altered.  So here is a summary of
my reactions to Roger's positions and a summary of my own.  This irenic
offering is made to appease those who are bored with this post; no surrender is
implied.

1.  I have put forth the idea that there is a core of English grammar and usage
that serves as a prototypical English -- I do *NOT* mean "Standard English" [tm]
as Roger imputes to me.  I can provide very good and well-validated 
research that demonstrates this for categories of all sorts of things 
(e.g., the category "bird" is best represented by the member "robin").  
I don't see how dialects as members of the category "English" are 
different from robins and ostriches, by analogy.

I have no doubt that other people have advocated the same "English as category"
debate.  I have no knowledge of these debates, as I am not a professional
linguist.  But from my field of expertise I think it's pretty reasonable.

2.  Thus the point of a.u.e. seems to me to be discussions over the attributes
of members, or the validity of members, of the category "English."

3.  I think writing is a type of dialect, and has its own usage that is largely
different from speech.  Roger's suggestions that one can write verbatim, then
edit it, etc., supports my point, as one sees that verbal dialects don't format
well in writing, and typically vice-versa.  This is because verbal
communication is different from written communication, a point Bonita made.
Southerners write English that is understandable to the British, and Roger's
assertion that they write in the dialect comes from verbiage, I think, and not
as much in usage/grammar.

4.  Roger has expert envy. (oops, the devil made me do that!)

5.  I never said that people who cannot write well are stupid.  Writing well is
a skill, much as race car driving is a higher level of skill than driving down
the street.  But at the same time I think it's the case that people who are 
unfortunately less intelligent are less likely to write adequately.  For
the majority, I would say that poor writing may be *either* a sign of poor
writing ability or inadequate understanding of what is to be communicated. 
Sometimes both causes are present.  Inadequate writing ability can be
ameliorated, I think, by understanding and practicing -- re-learning may not be
far off -- the fundamentals *of writing*.  Inadequate comprehension 
requires another tool kit.

OK Roger, have at it, make it short, and let's move on.

-----ted hayes
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Questions from Australia.
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:40:05 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Aug26.143156.1@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au>, andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.033714.13503@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>> 
>> The extraneous me in programme is not consistent with anagram,
>> diagram, telegram etc. which have a similar root (Fowler), and is not
>> even recommended by the OED. 
>>
> I missed the start of this thread so am not sure if *this* is extraneous but
> it was my understanding that programme (Pocket Oxford, 1942, reprint 1967)
> was an erroneous back-formation on the French root gramme, Late Latin gramma
> from the Greek "small weight", whereas its correct etymology is program
> (Macquarie, 1980, which acknowledges the alternative spelling) from Late Latin
> programma from the Greek "public notice in writing" with the Greek root gramma,
> "something drawn or written". Can anyone confirm or refute this supposition?

This sounds likely: didn't the Victorians change the spelling of "ameba" to
"amoeba" in order to reflect the pseudo-Latinate spelling of a Greekish word?

As to the correct spelling of the P word, I would be shocked and surprised if
the OED didn't recommend "programme": apart from listings of computer code,
all British prog-----s are programmes. And computer prog------s are only
programs because the Americans have a hold on the industry.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Ships and countries
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:01:36 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1992Sep1.004314.18499@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>> Many (if not most) programmers that I encounter in the US refer to
>> their programs, or maybe to the computer itself, as "he" almost
>> universally.  I find it a rather annoying anthropomorphism ...
> 
> Well, I don't draw any conclusions from them, but the following remarks
> in the Jargon File (version 2.9.10) seem apropos:
> 
> |  :Anthromorphization: -------------------- Semantically, one rich source
> |  of jargon constructions is the hackish tendency to anthropomorphize
> |  hardware and software.  This isn't done in a na"ive way; hackers don't
> |  personalize their stuff in the sense of feeling empathy with it, nor do
> |  they mystically believe that the things they work on every day are
> |  `alive'.  What *is* common is to hear hardware or software talked about
> |  as though it has homunculi talking to each other inside it, with
> |  intentions and desires.  Thus, one hears "The protocol handler got
> |  confused", or that programs "are trying" to do things, or one may say of
> |  a routine that "its goal in life is to X".  One even hears explanations
> |  like "...  and its poor little brain couldn't understand X, and it
> |  died."  Sometimes modelling things this way actually seems to make them
> |  easier to understand, perhaps because it's instinctively natural to
> |  think of anything with a really complex behavioral repertoire as `like a
> |  person' rather than `like a thing'.
> 
> I suspect that the tendency of the homunculi to be referred to in the
> masculine simply reflects the masculine majority in programming.
>
Check that jargon file extract again: the examples use the neuter pronoun.
I've never heard programs or computers referred to as "he", only "it".
Mind you, I'm in Canada, but I would have thought that if US programmers
called their programs "he" the usage would have migrated north in
manuals and periodicals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: To look for (German: suchen)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 11:05:52 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, RAHLFS@BEATE.RZ.FH-ULM.DE (RZ D. Rahlfs) says:

>Is someone able to explain the difference between:

I can't resist displaying my ignorance, so here you are:


to look for s.th. = the common way of saying it; to try to find s.th.


to search s.th.  = to hunt around and in s.th.; you search a person to
find his gun; you search a room to find a lost document. 

to search for s.th.  = the same as "to look for", but with slightly more
implication of thoroughness and persistence.  "I looked for my keys.  They
were on the table." vs.  "I searched high and low for my keys, but could
not find them." You "look for" your child when you notice she's missing;
you "search" for her (frantically!) when you can't find her immediately.


to seek s.th. = the same as "look for" OR a more extended and less
concrete process, as to seek happiness all your life.  Some implication of
far-ranging search, covering a wide area in time or space.  A dog or a
missile "seeks" its prey. 

to seek for s.th.   to seek after s.th.  = People use these, especially
the latter, but they may be redundancies.  You can seek after knowledge, I
guess, but I'd rather leave out the "for" and "after".  (You can, however,
seek -to- do something; it means you try to do it.)


Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: What does this mean?
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:51:54 GMT

In article <92Aug29.1206.11942@crash.canon.co.uk> tim@crash.canon.co.uk writes:
>From: tim@crash.canon.co.uk
>Subject: Re: What does this mean?
>Date: 29 Aug 92 11:07:03 GMT

>diamong@gov.on.ca (Gerald Diamond) writes:
>:
>|I saw an ad in the subway (Toronto) yesterday that said
>|
>|"All flavours not available in all provinces"
>:
>|
>|I assume the company meant 
>|
>|"Some flavours may not be be available in certain provinces"
>|
>|but I think it might be interpreted as 
>|
>|"No flavours available anywhere!"

>Agree. I guess they got the "not" in the wrong place. They really
>wanted "Not all flavors are available in all provinces". However, your
>paraphrase has a better ring to it. Have you considered becoming a copy
>writer?

>Tx.
>--
>check my header - "when the time runs out... when the money runs out..."

This is similar to an advertisement for whisky seen on an Australian bus.
"Nothing improves the flavour of water as much as Teacher's" (the brand of 
scotch) Does this mean you would be better off adding nothing to your water?
I think I need a drink.
-------- 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                            \  / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Another Americanism?
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:48:28 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <j-cn8jd.henry@netcom.com>, henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard) writes:
> This may be a Beebism, but on the BBC I keep hearing sentences like:
> 
> 	This is the first time this has happened for thirty years.
> 	                                         ^^^
> where I, an American, would say:
> 
> 	This is the first time this has happened in thirty years.
> 	                                         ^^
> Is "for" here standard British English? 

I would have said so. I also detect the very slightest of differences of 
meaning: saying "...for thirty years" indicates that the event referred to did
actually happen thirty years ago, whereas saying "...in thirty years" indicates
either that the event may or not have happened thirty years ago or that the
speaker has been doing the same thing for thirty years and the event has never
happened. This is probably just me, though. We would say "this has happened
three times in thirty years", though.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Another Americanism?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 02:15:35 GMT

> The use of "for" here is perfectly correct to these British ears. The US 
> version using "in" always jars slightly.

Ah, so you not only use "for", but you don't use "in".  For :-) that case,
how would you translate this example into your English?

	It's good to be healthy again.  Last night was the first
	time that I slept for eight hours in a week.

(I would find it more natural to put "in a week" directly after "time",
but that's only a matter of style.  The above version seems correct to
me, just slightly awkward.)
-- 
Mark Brader			"It's simply a matter of style, and while there
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto		 are many wrong styles, there really isn't any
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com	 one right style."	-- Ray Butterworth

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
From: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:37:45 GMT
 U><1992Aug20.124208.24389@news.columbia.edu><1992Aug20.155651.25778@Princeton.
 EDU> <pjh.714401779@nessi><1992Aug24.110842.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center

In article <1992Aug24.110842.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
|   They will, however, insist very strongly that the meaning of "<"
|   depends on the domain of discourse.  For example, they will insist
|   that a comparison between integers is fundamentally different
|   from a comparison between real numbers.  The fact that the symbol is
|   used with several different meanings is simply a consequence that
|   mathematicians are forever running out of symbols and have to
|   recycle them.  The less/fewer distinction is there in the minds of
|   both the reader and writer, even if it fails to show up in the 
|   written form.
|
|   Ask a mathematician to explain his/her results in plain English,
|   and the less/fewer distinction will reappear: "In essence, this
|   result means that there are fewer cases where ..."  This is simply
|   a case where the meaning of a word can change because technical jargon
|   is being used.
---
Actually, I think mathematicians would say that '<' is an ordering
relationship that only coincidentally relates to quantity or amount.
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:	uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,	 arpa:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Subject: Re: Puns
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 02:21:13 GMT

From article <1992Aug16.173221.10116@waikato.ac.nz>, by maj@waikato.ac.nz:
> My goodness, I havn't been following this thread
> really closely ! I thought 'pundette' was being ...
 
 [You all know what this is about.]

I should have thought the "feminine" form of "punster" (if indeed we
really _need_ such a construct in the English Language) would be
"punstette".

I tend to agree with Mr. Jorgensen that a "pundette" is a female "pundit".

But then I'm only one o' them 'Mericans, so what do I know?  :-)
-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:35:05 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <92246.155543IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
> Why do so many people (especially native speakers of English) spell
> incorrectly the following forms:
> your     for      you're
:
:
etc.

Simple. Ignorance. Modern school methods have many wonderful advantages over
traditional learning-by-rote methods, principally that of being enjoyable, but
they have the disadvantage that they do not emphasise the importance of good
spelling and presentation. I also have a sneaking suspicion that a good few of
today's young primary school teachers never learnt to spell themselves, so
cannot teach spelling without an awful lot of ground-work on their part,
ground-work which they do not have time to do, being too involved in paperwork.    

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: "have went" & Re: This usage, it makes me wince (was: Another Americanism?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:55:47 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug28.114714.25710@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
<Keywords: "I should have went....."

We had almost forgotten about this one, hadn't we?  Anyway, while many
say "I have went" (I've said it myself), does anyone say "it is went"?
If not, is "go" developing to be the only English verb with two past
participles, each with its own use?  (And is it the only one?)

<In article <1992Aug26.193831.13522@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
<|< 
<|< Well, that colleague of mine who makes me wince -- HE SAYS THIS TOO!
<
<Totally off the subject that was being discussed, but the additional pronoun
<in the above sentence makes me wince when I sound it out.  Do the hyphens
<in it <...>

Yet another thing to make one wince is the ASCII pseudo-typography,
which makes dashes look like hyphens (or pairs thereof) and hyphens
look like minus signs.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Another Americanism?
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:13:37 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
Keywords: "I should have went....."
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.

People don't like to use past participles, perhaps because it
complicates the simple morphological system of present versus past
tenses.  In general, uneducated people are more apt to do this than
those who've had to write thesis papers, but even amongst this 
group you will find a hesitancy in uttering certain past participles,
(pet theory approaching) particularly those with "u's" in them,
such as run, drunk, sung, and swum.  Then again, it's been a long
time since I've heard either lain or awoken.  Try to trick someone
into saying that they haven't sw*m in the lake in several years, 
and see how often they get it wrong.

But I don't think this is a particularly recent phenomenon.
I recently saw _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ performed, and noted
that there were a lot of cases that were "wrong", something like
"had oft spoke of this".  I'd've said "spoken" there.  Or perhaps
Billy the Bard's just following different rules.

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

    It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
		    -- Andrew Jackson
From: isc30001@nusunix2.nus.sg (WONG KIN HONG)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Reporting Speeches
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:17:15 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

: Well, to me they carry different connotations.  When are you
: reporting it?  
: 
: "He said that he would start working on Monday.  It's Tuesday and he
: didn't start working.  He lied."
: 
: or
: 
: "He said that he will start working on Monday.  I hope we can survive
: until then without him."


	But I understand that we retain the tenses in their original
	forms only when we are stating facts ? In other words, the 
	tenses should be consistent with 'He said' under normal
	circumstances.

	What if we are writing minutes ? Suppose the chairman said
	"The program will start in September." and it's only August
	now. Do I write "The chairman said that the program would
	start in September." or "...will start..." ? I'm confused
	because I've come across minutes written in both the manners.


							.Percius.
.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au
Subject: Re: Questions from Australia.
Organization: BHP Research, Newcastle Laboratories
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:31:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.033714.13503@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
> 
> The extraneous me in programme is not consistent with anagram,
> diagram, telegram etc. which have a similar root (Fowler), and is not
> even recommended by the OED. 
>
I missed the start of this thread so am not sure if *this* is extraneous but
it was my understanding that programme (Pocket Oxford, 1942, reprint 1967)
was an erroneous back-formation on the French root gramme, Late Latin gramma
from the Greek "small weight", whereas its correct etymology is program
(Macquarie, 1980, which acknowledges the alternative spelling) from Late Latin
programma from the Greek "public notice in writing" with the Greek root gramma,
"something drawn or written". Can anyone confirm or refute this supposition?

Andrew
--
My .sig is in my other machine...
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dian@druggist.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: Beech vs. Beach
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:08:09 GMT

In <24076@oasys.dt.navy.mil> huangj@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Juliet Huang) writes:

>Hi,

>I'm not sure if this has been brought up before but...

>I have a fairly recent box of Honey Nut Cheerios that offers a free
>Beech ball.  That's Beech with two "e"'s.  On the box, though, they
>show the sand and surf, which I've always thought was BEACH.
>Are they using a definition of beech that I don't know, is it an
>error, or am I mistaken??

Either the ball is made of beech wood (I doubt), is produced by
Beech chewing gum people (remember Beech-Nut Gum?), is the brand name
of an sports equip mfr (cfr "Gleem" toothpaste), or is one more chink 
in the armor of literacy...

____
Dian
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
From: phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:35:20 EDT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep3.851.6301@channel1>, "raun kupiec" <raun.kupiec@channel1.com> writes:
>> In article <86205@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L.
>>    Crawford) writes:
>> Anybody seen any awful menu translations?  ...
> 
>> In article <86205@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> esr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU
>>    (Edwin S. Russell) writes:
> 
>> Someone posted this list about a year ago:
> 
>> "Roast beef with au jus sauce"
>> "Today's soup du jour"
>> "Enchilada with Salsa sauce"
>> "Potatoes au gratin with cheese"
> 
> A similar effect is "the La Brea Tar Pits" (the the Tar Tar Pits)

I would maintain that "today's soup du jour" is not redundant.  After all, it
could be yesterday's soup du jour (and frequently is) or even next Thursday's.
The phrase would have to read "Today's soup d'aujourd'hui" to be redundant.
The others phrases are abominations which I have never seen, except for "with
au jus sauce," which is all-too-common.

Peter Hoogenboom
phoogenb@ucs.indiana.edu