HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:53:34 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
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 maj@waikato.ac.nz:
: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'
:
: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' ?

No no no.  Singular "they" works just like singular "you".

    Do you guys think you know the answer?
    Someone put yours in front of mine!
    If you can look it up for yourself, you will.

    Does anyone think they know the answer?
    Someone put theirs in front of mine!
    If the user can look it up for themself, they will.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
	Zounds!  I was never so bethumped with words
	since I first called my brother's father dad.
			-- William Shakespeare, "King John"
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: riggsby@utkvx1.utk.edu (STUART)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:22:00 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep3.123520.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes...
>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
I once saw "roast beef served in its own au jus".
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: What does this mean?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:04:03 GMT

In <1992Aug29.192350.3804@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:

>GD>I saw an ad in the subway (Toronto) yesterday that said
>> 
>>"All flavours not available in all provinces"
>>in reference to a certain line of coolers  (i.e. fruit, alcohol, and
>>water mixtures)

>DD> Rather than a problem with a double negative, this is instead an instance 
>> of a misplaced negative: "Not all flavours are available in every province"

>But in a twisted way the original phrase is technically correct: it
>apparently is the case that "(The set of) All flavours [are] not available
>(in the set of) all provinces."

>Dian's recasting is *much* better.  However, it still requires one to store the
>"Not" as a modifier of "available" over the space of three words.  As an
>alternative with lesser cognitive demand, how's about:

>"Some flavours are unavailable in some provinces." 


>-----ted hayes

>(P.S.: Dian, look: punctuation within the quotation marks!)

Thank you, Ted, for the comments (and for the punctuation!)
You rightly point out the problem of carrying "not" over three 
words, but as this is advertising copy, I suspect that any ad
touting unavailability of a product would strike the ad agency 
as showcasing a defect.  Perhaps a "Flavor availability
varies by province" casting would work? It could also stir up
issues of regional pride: "We Torontoans (Torontarians??) don't
have peach, and we're proud of it!"

____
Dian

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Reporting Speeches
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:22:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.135405.26180@nuscc.nus.sg> isc30001@nusunix3.nus.sg (WONG KIN HONG) writes:
>
>	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."

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."


--
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: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Toeing Victory!
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:21:14 GMT
 <1992Aug21.022554.29394@Princeton.EDU> <1992Aug22.204040.3700@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug23.051409.5224@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: all
Organization: Wright State University



Roger> Like, chill out, dude!  I merely asked some questions.  I haven't made
> any final statement about this issue, though someone else (Gabe, I
> believe) posted an informative, credible entry in Partridge that was at
> variance with my sources.  I already noted in my reply that I found that
> convincing.

I haven't seen your reply.  It is either not posted on our system yet or I
missed it.  I also saw Gabe's contribution, but after I had replied to yours. 
So *you* chill out too!


TH>I don't know whether toeing the starting line gave rise to toeing the party
>line.  I don't recall the OED saying anything on the issue.  But so what?  
>They could be equally valid and completely unrelated (except by virtue 
>of describing the actual motor movement).  
> 
Roger> Occam's razor suggests that we consider that possibility second, don't
> you think?

Consider, yes.  Be swayed, not necessarily.


TH> These lines
>could be *COMPLETELY UNRELATED*, AND RUNNING/POLITICS could BOTH give rise to
>the same idiom. 
> 
Roger> And one of them could actually be the anagram of something obscene.  But
> that's pretty unlikely, don't you think?  That the same idiom arises
> twice, *without* the two geneses (Cream ale for me, please) being
> related?

Why not?  Happens often in academic disciplines.
  
TH>since most uses of toe
>the line occur in the sense of "follow the party platform" and not 
>"move now to the same starting point as everyone else," I SAY that 
> toe the line is best -- but not exclusively -- understood in the 
>Parliamentary interpretation.  
> 
Roger> Around here we understand it in the more general sense of enforced
> discipline, which could come from either one, don't you think?

No.  I still like the party unity aspect.  And Gabe's contribution I think
bolsters my interpretation.

You say it comes out the same in the wash --- fine.  So I see no necessity to
change my belief about the term's etymology.

TH>At other times we may cede to the expertise of the AHD etc., but not today.  
>And that's OK.
> 
Roger> What's this "cede" stuff?  You use expert sources to make *yourself*
> expert.  You read what others say, consider their reasoning and
> evidence, and then make up your own mind.  
> Or don't they do things like that where you come from?

Are you asking or insinuating?  Yes, in fact, "they do things like that"
where I came from -- New York (city).

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de (Frerk Meyer)
Subject: Short question on word sequence
Reply-To: frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: AG Telematik
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:15:38 GMT

What is correct:
1. "One less car", or
2. "One car less" ?

please respond by e-mail, thanks
-- 
Frerk Meyer                 Who was the most successful athlete    __o 
frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de  of the Olympic Games in Barcelona?   _`\<,_
IRCNICK = Portnoy           Ms. Anna Bolica !                   (_)/ (_)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Usage: 'goes' for 'said'
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:06:14 GMT

In article <17egt1INN1ht@agate.berkeley.edu>, windsor@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Katherine Windsor) writes:

> Have y'all seen the Saturn commercial, in which a nice-looking
> late-teen/early-twenties aged woman is narrating the visit she 
> and her father took to a car dealer?  In this ad, she 
> distinctly says "and he (meaning her father) goes (meaning said)..."

   Doesn't "goes" imply something slightly more than "said"?
"Said" can be used whenever you repeat someone's words.  Doesn't
"goes" imply that she's mimicking her father's tone of voice, as
well as repeating his words?

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?READ/NEW
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 11:43:10 GMT




In a previous article, ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) says:

>In article <1992Aug27.095508.10385@waikato.ac.nz>, maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>> 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.
... 
 
>> 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' ?



>-- 
>I have absolutely no problem with `they keep' in this example.


Neither do I.  In fact (and I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong),
this is what we do with "you"--we use the plural form, "You are", rather
than the singular, which, I suppose (on the analogy of "thou") would be
"you art." Ouch.  When we stopped making the singular/plural distinction,
we adopted plural for all uses.  As we did/are doing with "they". 

Bonita Kale
From: windsor@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Katherine Windsor)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Usage: 'goes' for 'said'
Date: 25 Aug 1992 23:48:49 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug21.133113.10283@waikato.ac.nz> maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>This 'goes' thing is quite big in kiwiland, especially 
>in comedy programs imitating the speech of teenage girls :
>
>'And I go " . . . . . . ",
>and he goes, he goes, he goes " . . . . ." '
>
>
>-- 
>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.'

Have y'all seen the Saturn commercial, in which a nice-looking
late-teen/early-twenties aged woman is narrating the visit she 
and her father took to a car dealer?  In this ad, she 
distinctly says "and he (meaning her father) goes (meaning said)..."
twice.  TWICE.  I really don't care what people say at home, in 
the privacy of livingrooms, et al., but really!  And on prime time,
too.  
I really should not be irritated - I feel like knocking any English
usage is like knocking religion.  In fact, I like that analogy:
The ways in which English is spoken are as diverse and incomprehensible
as the ways in which (and the things to which) people worship.  While
we don't condone all of them, we can't condemn any of them.  What we can 
do is sit by smugly, secure in the 
knowledge that OUR way is the only right one.

Peace.            
	-katherine windsor
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:29:20 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article 10385@waikato.ac.nz, maj@waikato.ac.nz () writes:
>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'.
>

Well, they keeps sounds ... yeech. 

How about re-writing your little example:

	Readers will find it easier to understand C 
	declarations and definitions if they keep in 
	perspective that an object declaration or definition
	looks very much like the way the object will be
	referenced in an expression.

Reads OK.  Sounds OK.  No problem.

---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?READ/NEW
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 05:41:27 GMT


> The codified grammar _may_ be used as a guide; it may be used to help
> understand why one phrase `sounds right' and another wrong. But, in the end,
> if the formal text-book grammar says one thing and the native users of the
> language another, then it is the grammar which is wrong.

Hear, hear.  And it's me who agrees that that's what a grammar is for.
From: mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:49:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug27.095508.10385@waikato.ac.nz> maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>How should we decline singular 'they' ?

We shouldn't and we don't.

>Consider the sentence :
>
>  'The reader will find it easier to understand C
>  declarations and definitions if he/she keeps [...]
>
>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'.

keep/keeps belongs to conjugation, not declension.

>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 ?

Just write "The reader*s* will find ... if they keep ...".


-Margaret
mikulska@astro.princeton.edu
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: University
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:54:41 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <Bttxr1.KB7@comp.vuw.ac.nz> brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel) writes:
>
>Here in New Zealand, the use in speech of "uni" is a mark of an Australian,
>NZers say "varsity". 

In America, varsity refers to a principal athletic team representing a 
school.  


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: holyoak@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Douglas Holyoak)
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Organization: Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.081030.9888@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan
Tilque) writes:
> 
> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> >
> >So an English teacher would say that "He called you and me" is correct.
> >But the glue that holds "you-and-I" together is very strong, and this
> >has led to "you-and-I" being common in colloquial speech.  
> 
> Here's two examples I've noticed in the past few weeks:
> 
> 1. A somewhat popular song (I've heard it twice on the radio) has it's
> refrain end in "for you and I".  I don't know the name or the artist.
> 
> 2. Bill Clinton used it in a speech.  I don't remember the exact
> context, but it was definitely where the objective case should have
> been used.  Since I'm leaning toward voting for Clinton, I probably
> shouldn't have mentioned this, because some of you may use grammar as a
> criterion in deciding who to vote for.  However, I figure the
> Republican ticket has already alienated such people beyond redemption.
> 

I feel this is the result of English teachers constantly correcting another
problem, that is, "Me and Tony went to the store."  We have become so
worried about making this mistake (and risk sounding uneducated) that we
carry the corrected form from the first sentence ("Tony and I") to the
latter part of another sentence and pat ourselves on the back for proper
usage.  Thus "...for Tony and me..." becomes "...for Tony and I."  Yet the
same people who make this mistake would never say "...for I" because,
"That's grammatically incorrect!"

Just my two cents worth.

Douglas Holyoak
Institute for the Learning Sciences
Northwestern University

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The most valuable result of all education is to make you do
the thing you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether
you like it or not."  - Thomas
Huxely
From: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A Neologism
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:48:34 GMT
Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Moving Finger Rights, Ltd.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
: In article <1992Sep1.233118.15985@nmsu.edu> sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA) writes:
: 
: >Literatify - to create an adjective from a literary character or
: >object.
: 
: >Here are literafisms I have collected, can anyone think of others?
: 
: >pollyanna
: >quixotic
: >lilliputian
: >pecksniffian
: >panglossian
: >herculean
: >narcissism
: >pandoras box
: >hermetic
: >faustian
: 
: Not that all of these are adjectives, but anyway,...
: 
: shylock.
: Heepish.
: jovial.
: mercurial.
: dionysian, apollinian/apollonian.
: oedipal.
: furious.
: harping.
: panic.
: Brobdignagian.
: sibylline.
: musical/mosaic (from Mousa = muse)

mosaic is from Moses, as in "mosaic law."

: solomonic.
: orphic.  
: 
: Roger
: 

And 11 more...

Arthurian
Gargantuan
Gorgonian
Mephistophelean
Pantagruelian
martial
medusan
procrustean
satanic
tantalizing
vulcanized

Alex
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 11:35:01 GMT




In a previous article, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) says:

>In article <10523@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>
>>
>>Fine.  "He" is masculine (implies maleness).  "They" is plural
>>(implies two or more of 'em).  Now let's suppose you know that you are
>>talking of only one person of unknown sex.  If you use "he", the odds
>>of your being right or wrong are about equal. 
>
>And if you use "she", you'd have the same odds.  So by this logic,
>why not just use "she"?  


And it is used, fairly often, in magazine articles, etc.  They will often
use "he" in one paragraph, "she" in a another.  I still tend to "notice"
it, but it's less striking (and a lot less annoying) than coming upon an
article written the old way with "he" all through.

Bonita Kale

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mikulska@crux.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Subject: Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?READ/NEW
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.054127.18659@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>Somebody else writes:
>>
>> The codified grammar _may_ be used as a guide; it may be used to help
>> understand why one phrase `sounds right' and another wrong. But, in the end,
>> if the formal text-book grammar says one thing and the native users of the
>> language another, then it is the grammar which is wrong.
>
>Hear, hear.  And it's me who agrees that that's what a grammar is for.

Nope, nobody is "wrong".  The _formal_ grammar is (usually) right about 
the usage in a formal context; the native users are (usually) right about 
the _colloquial_ usage.  The two don't have to be identical; the problem
starts when the formal rules are applied, and with a great zeal, to 
informal, colloquial language.

-Margaret

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Potatoe
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 10:21:32 GMT




In a previous article, klier@iscsvax.uni.edu () says:
>
>My grandmother, who taught in parochial schools of poor parishes in the
>1920's would have rapped your friend's knuckles with a ruler for
>mangling "potato" by adding an e.  
>
>Gerard's _Herball_ of 1597 captions the first printed illustration of
>the plant as "potato of Virginia".


On the other hand, the OED shows an "e" as late as 1881, obviously not as
the -only- choice, but as an alternative.	

Bonita Kale




Newsgroups: alt.usage.english