HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: K Street
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:05:25 GMT

In article <Bzqz8z.2Jt@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
> I ran across a reference to K Street in a recent Economist.  The exact
> context was that Capitol Hill and K Street would be pleased with
> Bentsen's appointment as Treasury Secretary.
> 
> Oviously this is metonomy, but for what?  I assume that this is refering
> to K Street in Washington, D.C., but what's on K Street.  My guess is
> that it's the headquarters of the Treasury Dept. and that this is
> refering to the rank and file Treasury bureaucrats.
> 
> This also reminded me of a short list that I have of streets that have
> become metonyms or toponyms.
> 
>     Wall St.
>     Madison Ave.
>     Fleet St.
>     Skid Road  an actual road in Seattle

Isn't that Skid Row?

>     Grub Street  my dictionary tells me that this referes to literary
> 	    hacks, but I've never heard it used.

nor have I.

> Any additions?

Threadneedle St (probably UK specific, it's where the Bank of England is)

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
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:32:34 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>      Secondly, I am NOT prejudiced against American English. I see 
>nothing wrong with this variant, just as I see nothing wrong with
>Indian English; but I am humble enough to accept a standard English,
>the very existence of which you deny.
>
>                                                                Mandar.

Mandar, save this humble acceptance shit for Chaucer. Anything after that is
merely a corruption.

Why Chaucer, you ask? Why not earlier? Well, Mandar, it's arbitrary. Chaucer
was about the earliest of the evolution of our languages that is generally
agreed on as recognizable modern English. But ask any "fresher" or "freshman"
and you'll find out it's hardly recognizable as English.

Most of us on the net are humble enough to recognize that there *is* no
standard English, just local standards. Anything else is to claim that, say,
a Canadian English dictionary is better or worse than, say, an Australian
English dictionary. Shall we rank all the variants? To whose standards?

The quest for linguistic purity is just as meaningful as the search for
racial purity. The historically recent claimants to the Aryan bloodstock
found that that leads to all sorts of God-awful excesses. Presuming from
your name that you are much closer to Aryan descendency than any German,
you might be able to relate to this racial example of what you are trying
to do linguistically.

Mandar, your .signature is a quote from John Lennon. Remember how some other
parts of the same quote go: "nothing to kill or die for." Try to get with the
spirit of it. I suspect Mr. Lennon included "linguistic purity" in his list.

-Brian
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Who are `we'? (was: Comments in source code)
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:59:47 GMT

In article <1hq81fINNpcc@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>
brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock) writes:

> ["We"] is very common in mathematical writing.  I use `we' to refer to the
> reader and me.  Paul R. Halmos discusses this in his book on mathematical
> exposition.  (I don't recall the exact title, but I think he was one of
> four co-authors.)

  Norman E. Steenrod, Paul R. Halmos, Menahem M. Schiffer, Jean A. Dieudonne.
  How to Write Mathematics.
  Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1973.

This is an essential usage guide for writers of mathematics.  It should go
in the FAQ with the other usage guides.  Where is the FAQ anyway?  How long
have we been hearing about it?

Halmos says "The editorial we is not all bad", faint praise from an author
who knows that this is equivalent to "there is at least one non-bad use of
the editorial we".  Halmos goes on to explain how to avoid it most of the
time.  Just use simple declarative or imperative sentences.  Replace "Thus
we have established property (2)" with "This establishes ..."

Almost all instances of the editorial we can be deleted in this way and the
writing improved thereby.

Halmos does say that *if* you use it, *always* use it "to refer to the reader
and me" as you say.  The forbidden (though commonplace) usage being something
like "in Jones (1984) we showed ..."  So you're right about that.

On the subject of references for mathematics writing, there is also

  Ellen Swanson.
  Mathematics into Type: Copyediting and Proofreading of Mathematics
          for Editorial Assistants and Authors.
  Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1971.

though these days I hardly refer to it, using the TeXbook as my principal
guide.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 04:24:58 GMT

In article <Bzqu43.L33@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.183805.26052@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> uhde@ollie.jsc.nasa.gov (Jo Uhde) writes:
>
>Whatever gives you the idea that I am humour impaired? I appreciate a
>good joke when I see one. But these "radical feminists" aren't joking!
>And from the foll. passage, I don't consider Chakravarthi to be a 
>radical feminist, I simply find him to be a person *misguided* by
>these feminists.
>
>I will relate the following exchange between Chucks, and another
>>Indian friend, Vaman:
>>
>>CHUCKS: Vaman, you must change your name in order to be PC.
>>
>          [..rest deleted...]
>
>What is PC???
>All I can think of is "personal computer".
>
>Could someone please explain?

That does it!  I've been wondering for a while if Mandar was just putting
us on, and this convinces me.  Could anyone seriously deny being humour
impaired, then take a simple joke at face value?  And a self-professed
authority on language fail to recognize such a frequently used acronym
(and one that has been used more than once in this thread)?

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: podi@ESD.3Com.COM (Podibanda Kuruppu)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: use of "in and of itself"
Keywords: itself
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:37:39 GMT
Distribution: alt

Hello there,

I would greatly appreciate it if some kind soul can explain to me - preferablywith a couple of examples - the meaning of the phrase "in and of itself".  I
looked everywhere, including the 3 or so dictionaries that I have for its
meaning with no success.  I can sort of guess its meaning, but I would like
to know what it means exactly.  Please reply to my email address if you can.
Many thanks and have a merry Christmas.


--
-- Podi Kuruppu
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Correct Usage
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:07:38 GMT
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis) says:

>In a previous article, madhusudanan@akocoa.enet.dec.com (MADHUSUDANAN) says:

>>My friend and I had an argument over the correctness of the following expression
>>   "I'll press your bell or XXX's bell"
>>
>>The above expression occurred in a conversation over the telephone between two
>>persons. "Bell" actually means the doorbell and "XXX" means another person who
>
>It's fine with me.  You are using a figure of speech that I believe is
>named syncope.  That is, the dropping of 'words' that finish the

       ^^^^^^^ The correct figure of speech is an ellipsis.

>meaning of the phrase.
-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P. Chatterjee)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Is it 'proper' to use CONTRACTIONS in Resumes/letters?
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:25:32 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Hi,

I had a question.

I'm in the process of applying to grad schools and was wondering 
what the 'rules' are regarding the use of CONTRACTIONS (I've, he's,
we've, etc.) while writing the Statement of Purpose, letters of 
correspondence and the like.

Would really appreciate any kind of input on this.

Thanks.
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:29:05 GMT
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <BzM6px.Dyo@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:
>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>
>>And the old Army saying
>
>>   Shit flows downhill.
>
>Must be some diet they have in the US army.
>
>Prunes, rhubarb and baked beans all washed down with a couple
>of pints of Guinness?
>:-)

"downhill" means down the chain of command.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: zwelethu@bass.bu.edu (Peter Carr)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:54:44 GMT
Organization: I have no organization!
In-reply-to: jcf@world.std.com's message of 21 Dec 92 02:38:02 GMT


Does anyone know the etymology of "bullshit";
I remember hearing about it once, but I forgot the details ....

It seems as if its usage started among farmers who would buy
fertilizer for their crops. It was graded based on whether the shit
came from calves, cows, or bulls. I am not sure of the details, but I
know that bull's shit was the lowest grade. Anyway, after taking
shitment and fertilizing crops with a supposedly higher grade of
manure, when (if) the crops didn't flourish the farmer suspected that
they were given bull shit rather than a higher quality of manure.
Hence the term, "That's bullshit."

If this is correct, its original usage did imply a deliberate
misrepresentation of truth.


--
Peter J. Carr

zwelethu@bass.bu.edu		carrp@cme.nist.gov
(617) 247-0637			(301) 948-4417
523 Beacon Street, apt. 1	14505 Gallant Fox Ln.
Boston, MA 02215-2308		Darnestown, MD 20878
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: More English Excrement
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:01:42 GMT

<HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite understood,
>and maybe someone with more reference materials or a deeper understanding
>of slang than I have can enlighten me. The expression is "shit-eating
>grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
>is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

Two interpretations are possible:

(1) An embarrassed grin, a grin grinned rather than lose one's temper
-- hence, a grin accompanying the eating of shit in the metaphorical
sense of being discomfited.

(2) An obnoxious grin grinned in the face of one whom one has just
defeated or otherwise annoyed: a grin that adds insult to injury &
therefore deserves the epithet "shit-eating" in the generalized
derogatory sense = "damned".

I believe that (2) is the more common acceptation, as in the
admonition "Wipe that shit-eating grin off your face", which was
common in my undergraduate days (mid '50s).

The abbreviation SEG was widely used at Caltech in those days.  "Here
comes --- with his bright-eyed SEG."
-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:24:12 GMT

(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:

>>Amazing how the very people who embrace the program/me distinction to
>>resolve an ambiguity that is trivial to avoid, and has never even been
>>noticed on a continent with a significant fraction of the world's
>>computer programmers, are the same people (2 of them anyway) that
>>resist perfectly natural use of gender neutral language that resolves
>>ambiguities that otherwise occur everyday.

>In defence, I could use a circular argument :
>"Amazing how the people who wish to avoid ambiguity defy the 
>usage of the word programme in resolving ambiguities."         ;)

You are amazed that I wear a coat when it is cold, but not when the
weather is warm. I am amazed that you wear a coat when the weather is
warm, but not when it's cold.

Werner
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: K Street
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:29:31 GMT

In article <Bzqz8z.2Jt@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
:    Wall St.
:    Madison Ave.
:    Fleet St.
:    Skid Road  an actual road in Seattle
:    Grub Street  my dictionary tells me that this referes to literary
:	    hacks, but I've never heard it used.
:    
:Any additions?

Queer Street?

G
From: majid@nakano.me.tohoku.ac.jp (Majid Nili Ahmadaabaady)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: English-English Dictionary
Date: 25 Dec 1992 08:42:37 GMT
Organization: Robotic Lab., Dept. of Machine intelligence & Sys. Eng., Tohoku
	Univ.,Japan
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wombat.mech.tohoku.ac.jp


  Hi:

I am writing to get some information about on-line E-E dictionarys for
UNIX system. If you any, please let me know.

Thanking you in advance,
Majid

 

--
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Capital "I"
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:37:00 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:

>mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay) writes:

>>It seems a sign of our times that the capital 9th letter of English is
>>frequently written with a dot upon its head. I have thought of this as
>>a sign of ignorance. Does anyone know of the history of this affliction?

>...
>I don't know what you mean by "our times", but schoolchildren were
>doing this when I was in grade school, almost 50 years ago.

I have never noticed this, growing up in the Midwest (US).  Could it be
regional?
-- 
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Standards
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:27:30 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <38068@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>Mandar, you aren't really naive enough to think that "The Queen's
>English" means English as spoken by the queen, are you?

It may very well be the same thing.  I've heard Mrs Elizabeth Windsor
on the radio, and she certainly sounds as though she has been trained
to speak the Queen's English.

>The "common characteristics of the English accent" wouldn't fit in a thimble.

Of course they would.  Do you mean that they wouldn't fill a thimble?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Density and Sexist language (was...
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:24:15 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzJurC.Drt@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# But everyone agrees that there are words which evoke male images
# more frequently than female images, and the vice-versa.
# Furthermore, some persons want to drop these words from usage and
# replace them with other words. Well, why stop at "sexist" words?
# Why not resolve ALL ambiguity?? I challenge anyone to do that.

What dictionary do you use that defines ambiguity as "evoking one
image more than another"?  Did some mischievous Englishman tell you
that's what it means?

David "My hovercraft is full of eels" Johns
From: wmc@photon.com (Bill Cornette)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A good dictionary?
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:21:50 GMT
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

exucsge@exu.ericsson.se wrote:
: I am looking for recommendations for a good English dictionary, desk size, either
: hardback or paperback.  I currently am using a 1989 paperback edition of 
: _The American Heritage Dictionary_, but I have been dismayed in the last few 
: months at how many words I have searched for are not included.
: 
: If this information is in a FAQ somewhere, I will appreciate a pointer in the
: right direction.

	Try either the latest AHD (3rd edition) or the "Concise Oxford English
Dictionary".  Both are about the same size (i.e., I am not talking about 
the complete OED or the 2-vol. Shorter OED), and I use both.  They are hard
back volumes, so not quite as easy to keep on a desk as a paperback, but they
are well worth the expense and space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
William M. Cornette         Photon Research Associates, Inc.
(619) 455-9741              9393 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 200
FAX (619) 455-0658          San Diego, California  92121
wmc@photon.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists 
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:51:59 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <725097282snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz> hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:
>
>
>Time for another thread. Why is it that "persons" seems to be rising 
>in popularity at the expense of "people"? To me it seems much more 
>impersonal, treating people as mere population units.
>

         I think "persons" indicates a small group of people, whereas
people encompasses everyone. I think the word "people" is more popular,
though. People generally say : "I am inviting a few people over for
dinner" , instead of : "I am inviting a few persons over for dinner."


                                                         Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:10230 rec.arts.books:23753 talk.philosophy.misc:3139
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:39:22 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Epiphany, Reincarnation

In article <1993Jan3.180014.18966@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu
(Michael Zeleny) says:
>
>In article <93003.164356HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
>HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes (Herschel Browne):
>
>>Carlyle! His style has been vulgarized even further since the reincarnation,
>>but Carlyle he very clearly is. I'm glad I'm finally able to clear this up.
>
>Strangely enough, your epiphany appears to be common among your cock
>and bum brethren.

Very *much* further vulgarized, as he makes clear here.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University, far, far away
From: Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Does this guy have a life?
Date: 24 Dec 1992 04:04:54 GMT
Organization: Civil Engineering, Univ of BC
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.civil.ubc.ca

I guess everyone who reads this newsgroup knows who I'm talking about. How
can someone have the time to start bloody stupid threads and then generate
60% to 70% of the traffic related to those threads? It has helped in some
way though....I have added a word to my dictionary that means 'heaps of
drivel', and its starting to gain usage in my department here. The sad part
is that the newsreader on my Mac doesn't have a kill-file feature.

Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca
Ocean Engineering
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada

John Lennon? Was that the guy who was shot by this crazed university type
who sniffed alt.usage.english for hours every night?

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:52:20 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 mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi):
:Because it is spoken in England - the mother country of English.

Countries don't matter whit bit linguistically, O Mandar.  Speakers do.

:Superior at the moment..yes. But not superior when comparing dialects.

:I am not against changes or local dialects. All I am asking for is your
:recognition of English English as the global standard for English.

You've asked enough.  We aren't buying it.  Haven't you figured 
that out yet?  And you aren't even a real Englishman.  Take off.

Enough.  After seeing 7 new articles in this newsgroup, all by 
Mandar and all cut from the same rotten cloth, that I can see no 
other solution than to relegate him to that place only 3 or 4 others
have merited in 10 years of reading USENET: my kill file.

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


Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.  -- Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Unnecessary adjectives
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 07:18:10 GMT
Organization: University of South Africa

A few years ago there was a tendency to describe all records as "track".

You didn't have a sales record or an academic record, but a "track record". 
For all I know, field records might also have become track records.

Over the last year or so I've noticed a similar tendency for all bocks to 
become "road". This one is much more misleading, because it's newer, and the 
picture that comes to mind is barrels in the road, blue lights flashing, a 
couple of armoured cars or personnel carriers, and police and soldiers armed 
with automatic rifles. The next sentence then mentions a difficult research 
problem or something of the like. So what are we supposed to do when we want 
to talk about a real roadblock? Or even a real track record? Do we say a 
"road roadblock" and a "track track record"? 

Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org