HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: Yall
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:51:23 GMT

In <92227.125607GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu (Callec Dradja) writes:

>I am from Pittsburgh, but I was educated in a "good" school so I never
>use the Pittsburgh second person plural 'yins.' In fact, I really do not
>have a second person plural in my idiolect, and I feel the lack of it.
>Sometimes I will use 'you guys' or 'you all' ,but NEVER 'yous' (yooz) or
>'yall.' The problem is that all of these pronouns sound terribly uneducated
>to me because the people in this area that happen to use them ARE uneducated.

>What I am getting to is that even though the second person plurals sound
>uneducated to me and to quite a number of people, I see the need and I would
>be willing to support the use of 'yall.' It seems to be the most grammatically
>correct of the different choices, and perhaps more importantly, I think
>that it is already the most widespread. So I am making a call for people
>to start using 'yall' in all forms of writing and all forms of formal
>speech. Then again, this seems to already be happening with the examples
>set by the large number of Texas politicians.

I think your reasoning is great and am ready to concur; however, I cannot
stand the "yall" spelling.  I vote for "y'all," which will make it much
easier for people to realize what this really means.  Then, in a few years,
we won't have to worry about dropping the ' because the ones who cannot
handle "it's" and "its" correctly will have dropped it for us.  

____
Dian
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Subject: Re: Quote or simile for "success"?
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:37:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.202328.3991@igor.tamri.com> viviana@igor.tamri.com (Vivian Aldridge) writes:

>
>Hello everyone,
>
>I'm having trouble writing the closing remarks to a speech
>I'm giving at work next Thursday. I'd like this speech to
>end with a bang, but somehow it falls short.
>
>This is my last paragraph:
>
>	In closing this is a wonderful group, a group of
>	caring, fun loving, intelligent, and determined
>	people who are willing to get things done. 
>	They give meaning to the word "success."
>
>Yawn-"they give meaning to the word "success."
>
>I need a quote or maybe a simile. I haven't found one that
>fits however. Can you help?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Vivian
>
>viviana@tamri.com
>
You should add one or two smileys (by means of an OHP, perhaps). These
cute little things are not very popular with most people in this group,
but they are certainly tolerable if otherwise the irony of a remark
got lost. Indeed, I'm afraid that certain people could take this last
paragraph of your speech seriously.

BTW, I find "simile" a very unusual spelling for "smiley".

--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Ab morgen wird gearbeitet."
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Victory at NPR!
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:32:17 GMT
 <1992Aug19.155514.27121@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug19.183447.3628@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug20.035235.19918@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wright State University



Oh dear.

[comments from the usual suspects deleted]

Roger>OK, Gabe: meet you at the OED, or the reference grammar of your choice.

Richard> Gabe is just playing the adversary, needling the sorts of folks who
Richard> will find wanton disregard for the OED offensive.  

TH>*Great* line!

Roger> Could you explain it to me, then?

I think that if you didn't get it the first time, no amount of explaining
will suffice now.

TH>Roger's bombast of late indicates that the only authority he would see fit to
TH>revere would be himself.

Roger> Look, is this a smileyless joke or something?  I'm the only one here
Roger> *citing* authorities, and I've mentioned a stack of them.  Evans and
Roger> Evans, the OED, Jespersen, McKnight, Lounsbury; there, I've cited them
Roger> again.  

Nope.  Roger, you are wrong.  You are *NOT* the only one citing authorities;
many on this net have cited plenty of "authorities" before you came along. 
Which is a curious gambit for you anyway, since on many occasions you seem to
have argued for a relativist interpretation of language use.  By relativist I
mean that some pronunciation ("aks," "aksteric") is okey-dokey because it is
used at all and understood at all. (I am not a linguist, so I cannot comment on
any recent trends in linguistic journals on "relativism.")

Several postings have argued that there are standards -- and not just
prejudices, but *guidelines for use* -- that are important and necessary 
for accurate communication.  The "less" v. "fewer" debate is one such 
argument.  Your appeals to authority have been of the sort where only the
authorities you agree with are right, and other people's references are wrong
prima facie, and that's that.  More on this later.

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 13:19:32 GMT




In a previous article, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) says:

> I do a lot of thinking
>without language. For example, if I'm designing a mechanism, I think
>in terms of images of shapes and motion. If I'm composing music I
>think in terms of sounds. If I'm nipping smartly through rush hour
>traffic I'm thinking entirely in terms of two-dimensional trajectories
>in a cluttered space. If I'm playing chess I think in terms of chess
>moves, patterns, and threats. In many cases not only do these detailed
>and complex cogitations involve no words, but they are also extremely
>difficult to put into words.

>...

>One thing we do know is that people who have led lives narrowly
>circumscribed by an entirely verbal academic curriculum often develop
>the strange notion that there is no such thing as a non-verbal
>thought. This is rather like those experimental kittens who, brought
>up in an environment entirely devoid of vertical lines, become cats
>who are quite unable to see (and presumably to conceive of) vertical
>lines :-)



This is fascinating, and possibly a true analogy.  As an extremely
word-oriented person, I tend to define things as "rational thought" only if
they occur in words.  The thoughts of spatial relations and sounds you
mention would indeed be almost invisible to me, in the sense that I would
(a) forget them as soon as they'd passed through my skull (unless I'd
captured them in words) and (b) tend to think of them as "daydreaming" or
"mind wandering" rather than "thinking".

Let me hasten to add that I don't disbelieve that these are real kinds of
thought.  But I never think of them that way, and my mind is so unskilled
in these areas that it seems that I'm not even using it. 

Now, that's beautifully obscure.  Let's see, I do drive.  If I avoid a
collision with an idiot on the road, I don't feel I've -thought- about the
trajectories, etc., at all, but merely that my reflexes took over and
brought me home safe.  It doesn't seem like thinking because it isn't
verbal.  But as I drive along after the incident, it replays itself in my
mind verbally, thus becoming something I can (a) think about, (b) remember,
and (c) tell others of.  ("This utter idiot swerved into my lane at the
200th Street intersection...")

I think it must be interesting to think in those other ways, and feel that
you're actually thinking, and get something out of it.  Can you actually
-remember- what hasn't been verbalized?  I can't.  I remember at age nine,
trying to describe a certain morning in my diary, and my joy at finding out
that re-reading the lines brought the whole atmosphere before me again.


Bonita Kale
From: esr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Edwin S. Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:11:49 GMT

In article <86205@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L.  
Crawford) writes:
> Anybody seen any awful menu translations?  ...

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"
From: padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:55:51 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <1992Aug13.115308.8108@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
>>
>>Where in the New York area? By me, if one said that "route" rhymed
>>with "pout", you may have just as well said "pop" for "soda". We 
>>don't cotton none to youse smart-alecky Midwesterners.
>
>Mom from the Bronx, Dad from Brooklyn.  I was born in Manhattan, reared in
>the Bronx and on Long Island.  I'll swear we all said "rowte."
>
>One possible difference is time.  I was born in 1945.  That seems longer
>ago than it used to.

The time difference could explain it. There are some words that are
pronounced differently among generations, although none comes to mind
right about now (any examples ou there?)

Peter!
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:36:25 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

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 done a little
>research and discovered (what a surprise!) that it's an unresolved
>issue.

If by "language" you mean a natural human spoken language like
English, then the answer is clearly "yes". I do a lot of thinking
without language. For example, if I'm designing a mechanism, I think
in terms of images of shapes and motion. If I'm composing music I
think in terms of sounds. If I'm nipping smartly through rush hour
traffic I'm thinking entirely in terms of two-dimensional trajectories
in a cluttered space. If I'm playing chess I think in terms of chess
moves, patterns, and threats. In many cases not only do these detailed
and complex cogitations involve no words, but they are also extremely
difficult to put into words.

On the other hand, your question is whether all these different
kinds of mental computation involve language-like processes, in the
sense that the mental processes involved are not only describable in
(say) propositional terms, but actually involve such a representation
as an essential ingredient of the process, then the answer is that we
don't yet know.

A related question is whether the learning of a natural human language
produces structures in the brain/mind which can then be usefully
turned to other purposes, i.e., other kinds of rational but non-verbal
(and perhaps non-verbalisable) thought, much in the way that being
descended from a manual fruit-picking tree dweller has equipped us
human beings with the appropriate skills for navigating powered
vehicles by means of a compact cokpit of controls and displays. We
don't know the answer to that one either.

One thing we do know is that people who have led lives narrowly
circumscribed by an entirely verbal academic curriculum often develop
the strange notion that there is no such thing as a non-verbal
thought. This is rather like those experimental kittens who, brought
up in an environment entirely devoid of vertical lines, become cats
who are quite unable to see (and presumably to conceive of) vertical
lines :-)
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Use of Myself (was Re: Use of 'I' and 'me')
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:44:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.110134.10341@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
>
>In a previous article, dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha) says:

>>Is anyone else bugged by the phrasing that leads to "Please mail it to myself,"
>>or "give it to myself"?  Somehow, I see a difference between telling myself
>>something (maybe I am telling _my_ _self_ something?) and exhorting someone
>>else to do/send/tell something to "myself." 
>>
>>Is it a regional difference?  Do you want people to give things to "you," or
>>to "yourself"?

>Never heard it and I hope I never do.  On the other hand, if I did, I might
>immediately forget it, assuming it to be an error.  Mail to me, please, not
>to myself or I.

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
  About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door as in I went."
--Fitzgerald, _Rubaiyat_, 27/30/27.

Roger
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6752 sci.lang:6608
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Question about ASCII IPA
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:33:41 GMT
	<1992Aug19.203114.13853@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
	<1992Aug19.231944.28751@news.eng.convex.com>
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago

I believe that voiceless bilabial fricatives appear in the parody
volume Studies from Out of Left Field: Defamatory Essays dedicated
to James D. McCawley, recently reprinted by John Benjamins. A volume
no linguist, amateur or professional, should be without.

A voiceless bilabial digital trill appears in a parody song
by Mitch Marks (I think), in the samizdat CLS songbook.

It is useful to have such notations around, especially in
an election year. :-)

Eric SChiller
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: wcsjc@alfred.carleton.ca (John Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:17:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.215050.22371@nas.nasa.gov>,
asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:

>And I often hear "et cetera" pronounced "ek cetera."  (This is 
>mucus to my ears.)

How about nookeelur energy?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: pundette
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:33:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <1992Aug10.112029.8144@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
[deletions]
>
>I would have thought so. By the way, can someone explain why "waitron" was
>coined and not a different word. It is *hideously* ugly. I continue to use
>"waiter" and "waitress", partly because I can't think of anything else.

I was reading Julian May's "Jack the Bodiless" last night
when I happened on the use of the "waitron"; this waitron
was clearly contrasted to her patrons. Could this be the
explanation of the waitron coinage: patron/waitron? If so, I
like the neologism a little better, since it implies a kind
of equality between the customer and the server; as an
ex-bartender, ex-wine steward, ex-bar manager, who has served many
a drink and many a lunch and appetizer in many a bar, I am
very impatient with anyone who thinks that he or she is
inherently superior to the person bringing on the goodies.

Server, btw, is a widely employed, non-gender-specific term
for waiters and waitresses.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: LESS v FEWER - SAINSBURY'S GUILTY
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:45:51 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

To contribute to this thread a little more. Today was shopping day so I
went down to Mr Sainsbury's local emporium only to find, "Quick checkout
- 8 items or less". I've written to the manager about this and will post
the reply assuming I get one.

Andy
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:59:32 GMT
	<1992Aug12.052915.14487@news.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu's message of 12 Aug 92 05:29:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.052915.14487@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> In New York, that'd rhyme with "hoot," including the word router.

I'm from upstate NY, and the network router would be
as you say, but the carpentry router would be with
the owt.  And all the paper routes I had as an
adolescent were the rootes, except to my fathers
parents who were from Missouri and Iowa.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: The Great Debate : Clarifications (LONG)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:51:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.112717.16987@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
> 
> References: <1992Aug19.055328.5419@osf.org> <1992Aug18.224525.13872@mlacus.oz.au> <1992Aug3.095308.8728@techbook.com> <4908@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> <1992Aug7.091859.19895@techbook.com> <1992Aug7.230951.22137@sq.sq.com> <1992Aug11.111319.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <colville.713502993@deakin>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In article <1992Aug18.224525.13872@mlacus.oz.au>, ash@mlacus.oz.au (Ash
> Nallawalla) writes:
>> Sad to say but the form I hear more often is "kiLOM-eter". My preference
>> is kilo-MEter.  I didn't understand what you meant by Gough's pronunciation
>> being French style because I'd expect the French to say "KI-lo-metr".
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Bonita
I just wonder if people who say kil-OM-e-ter also say cen-TIM-e-ter and
mill-IM-e-ter.

KILL-o-meter is the `official' pronounciation (as endorsed by the Metric
Conversion Board many years ago), along with MIC-ro-meter, etc. but the
kil-OM-eter pronounciation is common in AUS.
 
-- 

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: Can I axe you a question?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:42:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.033002.17569@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>I'd be surprised to hear a radio announcer say "excape" (well, let's
>>>say, one on WCBS or the like); but it's a colloquial pronunciation, and
>>>all the tantrums in the worlds aren't going to make it go away.  In some
>>>contexts it's shocking; in others, it's just fine.
>
>>Why would you find it so shocking, Roger?  Everyone would understand what
>>he meant.  Isn't *that* all that's important?
>
>No.  What a silly idea.  Haven't you ever heard of style?  When I tune
>to WCBS I expect a certain style.

One of the styles that you (or at least I) expect from a radio news program
is proper English.  I'd be surprised to hear "excape" from my radio, just as
I'd be surprised to hear "Less stocks were traded on the NASDAQ this month
than last."  

You may not expect it, but many people would expect that a printed sign in
a place of business use standard grammar, and thus are surprised when signs
say "ten items or less."  Many of the newer ones are, however, written
correctly.

>When I listen to people talking on the street or in the office, I have
>different expectations.  Don't you?

People can use whatever they want on the street.  One hopes that people in
a business environment will speak well, however.


--
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
Subject: Re: "Route" for yall!
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:25:58 EST
 <1992Aug12.162307.3404@desire.wright.edu> <baron.20.713717987@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 



In article <baron.20.713717987@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.162307.3404@desire.wright.edu> 
> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>> I move we make "yall" the proper second-person plural pronoun and
>>> be done with it.
>>
>>Seconded.  All of yall in favor, send yall's votes to Peter for tabulation!
>>
>>-----ted hayes
> Ted, that's "all ya'll," to be precise.

Actually, to be *really* precise, it's y'all.  But who's counting?

(ObSmly)

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:04:47 GMT

On the pronunciation of _often_:

It may be more common than you think to find variation in the pronunciation
of this word within a single individual's usage.  So for example, I once
attended a lecture where a colleague read a formal paper, and every time
he came to _often_ he pronounced the _t_.

Later, during the question session, he came out from behind the lectern,
slumped comfortably against the table, and pronounced _often_ with no
_t_ a tall, a tall.

So I think the formality issue comes in here, even if it is was originally
a sham formality.

Here are some other variations: (your own usage will be more reliably
reported by observers than by you yourself)--

the _l_ in falcon (and the related name, Faulkner)

forehead (is the rhyme, "and when he was bad he was horrid" or is it
"horehead"?)

scallop (in New England it's still scollop; elsewhere scaellup seems to
prevail?)

and what about grocery/groshery?

and _th_ in English was originally pronounced as _t_ in such words
as Elizabeth (whence Betty), Anthony (Tony), author (cf. french auteur).

What's my point?  I forget.

Dennis




debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:59:18 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <Bsvv1C.EwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rmshair@chgvmic1.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>Is it time to give up on the distinction between "less" and "fewer?"

Not a chance.


>          The PS/2 8511 Color Display has far less components than the IBM      
Less is used when the item in question does not come in discrete, countable
units.  Fewer is used when the items are countable.  The usage you mention
is dead wrong.

Less traffic, fewer cars.  Less money, fewer dollars. 


--
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
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6633 sci.lang:6552