HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: did vs. done
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:20:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Aug28.135609.22864@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.083524.3482@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>roddi@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Roddi Walker) writes:
>>
>>Consider the following:
>>
>>(a) I did my homework.
>>(b) I done my homework.
>
>Are there dialects that use both of these?  (I mean both of "did" and
>"done" rather than "did" and "have done.")

Certainly.  They're generally basilectical (low status) dialects, but
I heard it all the time in Chicago and I'm sure I hear it around here.
I'd be surprised if you couldn't find such dialects near MIT (or
anywhere else in the country--you hear it on TV a lot).

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 18:12:33 GMT

In article <Bu0JLK.4u0@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

>Peeve time.  I've noticed a remarkable correlation among net posters
>between making pig-ignorant statements about English usage and citing
>the Webster's Collegiate as a source... for a start, it seems to be
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>unique among dictionaries in its market niche in *only* citing usages
>from one side of the Atlantic.  This is not a problem with the grown-up
>Webster or with smaller British dictionaries.  So why do American college
>students go on using this pile of... what's the word...?
                           ^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here.  I've used the Webster's New
Collegiate (Ninth Edition) extensively, and I believe it is one of
the very best collegiate dictionaries ever published.

It does not purport to *focus* on British usage; admittedly it is an
American dictionary.  (Although it does mention almost all prominent
British usages.)

--Daz
From: sorourke@lonestar.utsa.edu (Sean J. Orourke)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:36:32 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Sep2.225412.9559@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>In article <92246.155543IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>>its      for      it's
>
>is due to the fact that spelling one of them with an apostrophe and
>the other without was a really *stupid* (and, I believe, reasonably
>recent) idea, and people forget which one is supposed to take it.
>(They know that "one of those words that seems to need an apostrophe
>arbitrarily doesn't take it--I wonder if this is the one".)

It's really easy to remember.  Contractions need apostrophes.  If the
"its" you're using is short for "it is," put in an apostrophe.  I don't
think there's a rule saying that posessive pronouns always have apostrophes;
in fact, "its" fits in pretty well with "his" and "her."

>
>>tonite   for      tonight
>
>is an example of one of the few real changes going on in English (or,
>at least, American) orthography: the removal of "gh".  This one seems
>to have been driven by advertising, but has been moving for a while.
>I have seen (intentionally used) "nite","frite", "lite", "tho",
>"thru", "laff", and "tuff", and in America, "donut" is common, and
>"draft" is already the usual spelling of the British "draught".  I
>should emphasize that such change goes slowly, but I would not be
>surprised if in a hundred years, "tonight" looks as archaic as
>"oeconomy".

I've always thought of the "ite" spellings as shorthand, but that's
IMHO.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Addition to the grammar discussion
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:42:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.203134.6374@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.175026.2844@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> sds@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Sherwood Daniel Silliman) writes:

>>In the boardroom, one uses formal speech.  At a construction site, one
>>uses informal speech, containing many constructions never used in the
>>boardroom, many of which, I'm sure, would be called "errors" by the
>>people who criticize (and "correct") the way people speak.

>Indeed.

>>In the boardroom, one wears a three-piece suit.  At a construction site,
>>one wears blue jeans and a flannel shirt.  Now, one style is certainly
>>quite a bit less formal than the other.  But it is not "wrong" in some
>>absolute sense.

>Indeed.  It is not wrong to wear blue jeans and a flannel shirt at a
>construction site.  But even at a construction site, there are certain
>things you would not do.  You would not walk around with your genitals
>hanging out in the open.  You would put your shoes on your ears.  You
>wouldn't put your hard-hat over your eyes.

And you wouldn't use any usage you weren't absolutely sure your fellow
ironworkers would understand -- even if it wasn't correct by some standard
of yours.  After all, it's a long way down.

>>So, my question is this.  Does language have some absolute right vs.
>>wrong, or, like dress, are there merely certain societally prescripted
>>guidelines for use in different situations?

>Indeed, there are societally prescripted guuidelines for what is appropriate
>at the construction site, or the board room.  But in the same vein, there
>are societally-prescripted guidelines for what is inappropriate at both,
>such as nudity.

Huh?  Two situations do not a universe make.  The question was: are there 
situation-independent standards of right and wrong wrt usage?

Witness will answer the question.

Roger
From: gm115@cus.cam.ac.uk (Gabor Megyesi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Britism: "taking silk"
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:45:11 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

Taking the silk means to become a Queen's Counsel, one step up from a
barrister, the origin of the phrase is that they have the right to
wear silk gowns.  (In Britain, there are two kinds of lawyers,
solicitors and barristers, the latter had exclusive rights to advocacy
in High Court, but things have changed recently.)

Gabor  
gm115@phx.cam.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Singualar or Plural
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:09:30 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

The following is posted on soc.culture.china from the keyboard of
dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu.  I wish to see explanations from experts of
this group.

============================================================================
The discussion reminds me of this most confusing thing (I think) in English.
You say 1 meter, 2 meters, 10 meters, 0.5 meters, 0.001 meters, and you
even have to say -72 meters, -0.975 meters, and of course, ZERO METERS!  
Everything except 1 is plural.  Now what about -1?  Is it singular? :-)
============================================================================

By the way, since the opposite of `less' and `few' are the same `more',
I feel it is inconsistent to differentiate `less' and `few'. If more
cars, more traffic, naturally less cars, less traffic.
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: How should we decline singular 'they' ?
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:55:08 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

How should we decline singular 'they' ?

I address this question to those who, like me, would
like to substitute a singular 'they' for 'he/she' and
similar constructions, and to those who are willing to
think themselves into this position for the sake of
the discussion.

Consider the sentence :

  'The reader will find it easier to understand C
  declarations and definitions if he/she keeps in 
  perspective that an object declaration or definition
  looks very much like the way the object will be
  referenced in an expression.'

If we could treat 'they' as singular we would replace
'he/she keeps' with 'they keeps'. If we use 'they keep'
it sounds better but clashes in number with 'the reader'.

Do you think that if we grit our teeth, get ready for
flack and condescension, and go on saying 'they keeps'
it will come to sound better in time ?

This problem does not arise with singular and plural
'you' because there is no difference in inflection.
Which raises another option: should we instead attack
our last remaining inflection and start saying 'he keep'
and 'she keep' ?

-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
__________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: Hross
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:34:30 GMT

In <1992Aug26.232637.985@dragon.com> cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith)) writes:

> Speaking of metathesis....

> "Horse" originally comes from "hross," whence, I suspect, "Hoss" 
>Cartwright got his name.  The writers/developers of Bonanza must have 
>had a sense of humor.


And here I was expecting something about H. Ross...
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rjkaduck@student.business.uwo.ca (Raymon J. Kaduck)
Subject: Pommies
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:47:46 GMT

I quote Bill Hornadge in "The Australian Slanguage" p. 169 without 
permission:

The origin of the term is in much dispute, the two favoured versions 
being:
        (1) That the term POM or POME had its origin in the convict era,
            P.O.M.E. being the initials of PRISONER OF MOTHER ENGLAND.
            Supporters of this theory cite the fact that the letters were
            carved on the walls of the Port Arthur gaol in the 1830s.
        (2) That the term POM or POMMY is a contraction of POMEGRANATE,
            the theory being that Englishment were so named because their
            rosy cheeks resembled this typical English fruit.

(end quote)
No doubt there are other theories in circulation.  The text goes on to 
describe the social circumstances of use.  

rjkaduck@student.business.uwo.ca (Raymon J. Kaduck)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario
From: huangj@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Juliet Huang)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Beech vs. Beach
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:50:10 GMT
Reply-To: huangj@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Juliet Huang)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

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??

Julie
From: "raun kupiec" <raun.kupiec@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: conjugating nouns
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:54:55 EST
Reply-To: "raun kupiec" <raun.kupiec@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

Just a bit of word fun.  First, though, I just started reading this
newsgroup and I hope I'm not duplicating a previous topic. :)   I am
assuming this is the right newsgroup for this sort of 'English usage'
word game.

In the February 1975 edition of _Verbatim_ (a language journal) there is
a letter from Arnold M. Zwicky of Ohio State University describing a
pastime of conjugating verbs.  (Yes, I know I'm posting this 17 years
later --  time flies when your not particularly busy.  However, I
recently found this in a back issue.  At the time it was published I
was more concerned with learning grammar and spelling in school than
appreciating this kind of thing.  Furthermore, USENET wasn't around to
be posted on.)  

The idea is fairly self-explanatory.  (Although, from the discussions in
this group I'm sure there are some readers who will fault the inherent
pronunciations.)  This is not quite the same thing as the process of
'verbing' nouns which so many of us use in our everyday speech, but it
is much more fun.  The examples given in the letter ran as follows:

     I steal the keel.  
     I stole the coal. 
     I have stolen the colon.

     They choose the hues.
     They chose the hose.
     They have chosen the hosen.

     They mow the banks of the row.
     They mowed the banks of the road.
     They have mown the banks of the Rhone.

     I do it with the buoys.
     I did it with the biddies.
     I have done it with the bunnies.

I've been unable to come up with anything nearly as amusing as the
original examples. It's easy to get two tenses, such as I rode the toad,
I ride the tide. But three (count 'em, 3) takes a mean lean language
machine. It is also difficult to get the sentences to make sense while
only altering the verb and the noun, and not the prepositions.  However,
here are a few amateur attempts:

     I wear it with my hair.
     I wore it with my whore.
     I have worn it with my horn.

     He is taking the baking.
     He took the book.
     He has taken the bacon.

     I swim around the rim.
     I swam with the ram.
     I have swum in the rum.

Another possibility would be to vary the subject (I, you, he/she, etc)
and conjugate the nouns that way.  However, that is more applicable to a
language like French.  How many verbs in English can be conjugated
within a tense (I am, you are, it is)?

I'd like to see what some of you can come up with.  I'm sure there are
some really fancy possibilities out there, and probably some really
sublime ones too.

---
  SPEED 1.20 [NR]  Applause - n. The echo of a platitude. (Ambrose Bierce)
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: maennig@hugo.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Olaf Maennig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: List of words in American and British English
Date: 1 Sep 1992 06:37:03 GMT
Organization: CS Department, Dortmund University, Germany
Distribution: world
Reply-To: maennig@siggi.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: hugo

Hi, people.

I'm looking for a kind of dictionary which contents a list of words having a
different spelling in American and British English, but the same meaning.
Examples of this would be center - centre, can - tin, color - colour,
program - programme and so on.

Has anyone seen this kind of list anywhere, or can tell me where I can get
such one. It doesn't have to be an electronic list. If someone knows where
to get it by postal mail, tell it to me!

E-mail prefer(r?)ed, because I do not read this group very often, but feel
free to discuss this topic in the public.

Thank you very much.

By the way, does differences exist between those two and Australian/Canadian
English?
-- 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     _                   Department of Computer Science IV
    / \     |\/|         University of Dortmund, Germany
    \_/laf  |  |aennig   e-mail: maennig@siggi.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: Questions from Australia.
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:43:21 GMT

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?
> 
> Andrew
> --
> My .sig is in my other machine...
-- 
Yes, `program' is the original English spelling. The French spelling
`programme' was introduced later. I believe that it was used in the Us early in
the 20th century and crossed the Atlantic to the UK where printers referred to
it as the American spelling.

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: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Computer GRAMMAR
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:36:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.225709.15192@massey.ac.nz> A.Qadir@massey.ac.nz (A. Qadir) writes:
>This is my first posting to this news group. I wonder if any body can
>help me. Someone told me that there is one computer programme around
>which will correct your english GRAMMER, just like Dictionary, which 
>corrects spelling. If anybody knows about any such programme please 
>let me know the name of the programme. Thanks

You neglected to mention what platform you're using.

There are many Macintosh based products.  MS Word 5.0 has a built-in grammar
checker, and then there are products like Sensible Grammar, Grammatik, Correct
Grammar, etc.  I've always found that these programs give a lot of false
alarms, but they may help you catch grammatical errors when you're writing
at 2 a.m. :-)


--
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
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Another Americanism?
Keywords: "I should have went....."
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:38:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug25.235346.6121@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.215417.7272@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> you write:

>>       Has anyone noticed the common(in the U.S., that is) use of
>>the incorrect tense when saying, for example:
>>       "I should have went to the store..."
>>instead of what should be:
>>       "I should have gone to the store..."?

>The only person from whom I have ever heard this construction was a
>portuguese woman who was still struggling with the language, and she
>learned the correct constructon fairly quickly.  If this is an
>Americanism, it's news to this American.

Well, that colleague of mine who makes me wince -- HE SAYS THIS TOO!

No, seriously; and he's a bird-colonel in the reserves, with lots of
schooling behind him.

Ready for this?  He used to be in charge of management training at 
one of America's largest banks.  And he's a fine teacher.  Makes four
figures/day doing corporate training.

"Proper grammar"?  Nope.  Standard spoken usage?  Nope.  Has it hurt him?

Well, he's not a general, is he?  And he never made CEO, either.  I guess
I know why.

Roger
From: isc30001@nusunix3.nus.sg (WONG KIN HONG)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Reporting Speeches
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:54:05 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore


	I have never been clear which tenses to use when reporting
	speeches. Am I right to say that both the following two
	structures are grammatically correct ?

	He said that he would start working on Monday.
	
	He said that he will start working on Monday.

	What the guy said was: " I will start working on Monday."

	If both are correct, when do we use which or are they simply
	inter-changeable? Thanks.


							.Percius.
							"maiden post"
From: segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Petrified of ... (A False Accusation?)
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:10:03 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Hey guys (gender neutral implied here), am I being accused of a "holier than
though" - I'm British *therefore* my English is perfect attitude?

Read this and see, taken from <1992Aug28.163843@IASTATE.EDU>:

In article <1992Aug28.014216.1868@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan
Kirshenbaum) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.101346.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug25.112046.28182@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
(Simon Read) writes:
> >.  I doubt that you'd find any native speaker of English
> >saying "petrified of", even when speaking informally.
> 
> And now I'm not even a native speaker!  Listen, I've gotten used to
> the British with their "we spoke it first, so don't tell us how it's
> supposed to go", but, I do believe that the American variety *is*
> slightly older than the Australian. :-)
> 

Look back over the posts, I didn't write any of the above! If I implied that
attitude I'm sorry, in future I'll prefix everything with IMHO.

To set the record straight: I'm not completely British anyhow, being born in
Minneapolis (must be true, wouldn't make that up). So my BrE is acquired at
great pain from schooling here, and is by NO MEANS perfect.

Simon Read
------------
Simon.Read@umist.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: wes4@pyuxd.uucp (25854-stanley)
Subject: Another Americanism?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 21:54:17 GMT
Keywords: "I should have went....."

	Has anyone noticed the common(in the U.S., that is) use of
the incorrect tense when saying, for example:
	"I should have went to the store..."
instead of what should be:
	"I should have gone to the store..."?
It grates on my ears every time, and I even catch my 9 year old,
on occasion, use it (he promptly gets a lecture on grammar for
this offence).
	I find this to be true in speech, but haven't seen it
written. Could it be a regional thing - I live in New Jersey -
or has it been observed in other English-speaking countries as
well?
	Wendell
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 2 Sep 1992 10:41:43 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn) says:
>
>My wife ALWAYS uses masculine pronouns when referring to animals, even when 
>she knows them to be feminine.


A lot of people, especially older ones, call cats "she" and dogs "he". 
Odd.  And someone whose name eludes me at the moment (Janet Morris?) has a
series of SF books (_Dream Dancer_ etc.) in which the heroine has a space
ship that's definitely masculine.  It works out very well. 

I haven't heard countries called by genders much, except in rather dated,
flowery writing.  And a fellow workshopper who works at a newspaper
corrected a gendered pronoun of mine referring to an animal (a horse, I
think it was), saying animals had to be "it". 


Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english