HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eddie@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Eddie Rooney)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Question about ASCII IPA
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:00:22 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research, Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug20.031154.15582@news.eng.convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
|> .... But do we really want to get into phonologic [ do you mean "phonetic" ? ER]
|> distinctions instead  of merely phonemic one in IPA?  If we do that, then
|> we'll start distinguishing between dental and alveolar t's.
|> 

The IPA alphabet is *intended* to be a phonetic one:
(Principle 1: " ... It is designed primarily to meet practical linguistic needs,
such as putting on record the phonetic or phonological structure of languages ..." etc.;
Journal of the IPA 19 (1989), 67).  Any ASCII version of it should be based on the
same principles.

=========================================================================

Edmund Rooney					email:eddie@cstr.ed.ac.uk

Centre for Speech Technology Research
University of Edinburgh
80, South Bridge,
Edinburgh EH1 1HN
Scotland

=========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:34:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.030923.15319@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid):
>:Oh, I could care less.
>I'm sorry you care so much.  You should perhaps work on caring 
>less that you might lead a less stressful life.

Lordy, lordy... two months ago I get grizzled at by an American
correspondent for using the (to me, usual) "I couldn't care less",
and now the same happens when I try to accomodate to their usage.

OK: "flocci non facio".  Verb. sap. suff.?

>For the humor-impaired, I'm commenting that she said "could" when 
>it would appear that she meant "couldn't".

"She"?  Mind your genders, Tom.  You'll be styling me "Mrs" next.

			Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: questions questions
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:48:06 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <9208181722.AA13431@sumac09.cray.com> jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond) writes:
>
>>"Often" with the t is pompous and inappropriate for the language we speak.
>>You don't pronounce the t in listen or soften, and besides.  If you pronounce
>>the t, then the gag in Pirates of Penzance doesn't work.
>
>Speak for yourself, please.  I pronounce the `t' in often and consider it
>neither pompous nor inappropriate.  I also pronounce the `t' in eaten,
>marten, shorten and whiten.

Do you also pronounce the t in "soften" ?  If not, why not?


--
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: GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu (Callec Dradja)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Yall
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:56:07 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

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.

                                  Gregson Vaux

********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die,           *  Gregson Vaux          *
* then tell me about the birds that fly.  *  Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live,         *  Semitics & English    *
* would springtime be there to forgive?   *  GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu  *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:10:30 GMT

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.

Please note that I'm not condemning such usage, but rather providing 
data about how widespread it is.  By the way, how widespread does a
usage have to be before it's considered good grammar?

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang)
Subject: Madam // Cut your head hair
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:44:58 GMT

Two questions for 
alt.usage.english readers, 

1) What is the word to use to address a married ( elderly ) woman ?
   I used to use Madam as I learned from my home country. But I was
   told that Madam means also a woman who manages a brothel. I am confused
   why quiet opposite meanings are assigned to the same word. 
   I am told that 'Mam' is the proper word, but I failed to find it from
   my American Heritage Dictionary. 

2) I saw a sign here in Buffalo 'cut your head hair'. I wonder if this
   is considered by the alt.usage.english readers as redundancy. 
   ( For people who live in Buffalo, it is on the corner of Eggert and
   Bailey. )
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Goes, Like, and Descriptive Dictionaries
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:15:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug21.014712.933@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>In article <170mn7INN7cn@agate.berkeley.edu> windsor@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Katherine Windsor) writes:

>>Better still is the use of "like," as in:  "Well, I was like 'no way,'
>>but it didn't matter.  He was like 'you've just gotta.'"  
>	[...]
>>Golly.  I'm frightened.

>Incidentally, some new dictionaries claim to be "descriptive" of what 
>current usage is, without making judgments as to the correctness of these
>usages.  

Nothing new about that.  Dr. Johnson did one that was descriptive.

>In particular, I'm thinking of Random House's
>"Webster's College Dictionary," which came out about a year ago.

>But this dictionary omits reference to the usage of "go" discussed 
>in this thread ("and I go, 'Whaddya talkin' about?'") or the usage of
>"like" mentioned above [aside: although used in discussing past events,
>both this "go" and this "like" are used in the context of the present
>tense quite frequently, as in "Last night he goes, 'Get outta here,' 
>and I'm like, 'Whaddya talkin' about?'"] entirely.  As well as omitting
>(for which I am thankful) the confusion of "its" with "it's,"
>"there" with their", ekc.

>To be fair, I should mention that this dictionary does include
>the usage of "go" as in "The gun goes bang."  But this is a clearly 
>distinct nuance, IMHO.  

Not so clear to me.  Both imply more than mere quotation of words.  They
include the actual sound, inflection, etc.  But, yes, there's an
evolution taking place.

>However, I think these major omissions give the lie to the pretense
>that this dictionary is making a sincere effort to be descriptive.

Alternately, the dictionary is making a sincere effort to be a college
dictionary, i.e., desk-sized.  They can;t include everything, and they
can't include every recent spoken trend.  A college dictionary is likely
to focus on the written idiom.

Roger
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6677 sci.lang:6579
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:54:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: hplabsz.1992Aug19.185431.18577
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <1992Aug18.194238.5320@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.052700.13587@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>Poor elephant was stripped off of his TUX !
>>
>>Don't walk there after DUCKS !
>
>That's nothing.  If we really subscribe to metathesis, we then have to
>discuss computer teminology:  Floppy dicks and hard dicks.  And for
>audiophile, compact dicks.  

How could I have forgotten that one?  I hear "disk" pronounced /dIks/
every day.  Well, ok, every weekday:  one of my co-workers
pronounces it that way.  His first language is, I believe, Cantonese.

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: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:54:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.081030.9888@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>Please note that I'm not condemning such usage, but rather providing 
>data about how widespread it is.  By the way, how widespread does a
>usage have to be before it's considered good grammar?

By whom?  Some people won't accept usages with six centuries of history
behind them.  

Actually, grammar and usage are two entirely different things.  Many
things are *not* common usages, nor have they ever been; but they are
quite grammatical.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Can I axe you a question?
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:36:35 GMT

Can anyone shed some light on how the dreadful usage of the word "axe" in
place of "ask" ever got started?  Is there any linguistin explanation as
to why the s and k sounds get reversed in many inner-city dialects?


--
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: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 12:19:40 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <Bsvv1C.EwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, shair@barolo.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Shair) writes:
|>Is it time to give up on the distinction between "less" and "fewer?"

No!

|>Statements such as this one, excerpted from the formal IBM Announcement
|>Letter for a new display, sound wrong to me:     
|>
|>          BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
|>
|>           The PS/2 8511 Color Display has far less components than the IBM 
|>           8512, contributing to higher reliability for the customer.

I guess this will demonstrate which side of the prescriptive/descriptive
fence I'm on, but I just hate this.

In every grocery store in the country:

"Express line - 12 items or less"

Yeesh.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|The meaning of the complement form of a switch    |
|can be determined by complementing the meaning    |
|of the switch.                                    |
|                     --Ada Reference Manual       |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From: ted@physics2 (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Puns
Date: 14 Aug 1992 18:25:07 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu

In article <pjh.713788281@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>
>>Could anybody help me with the correct female form of "punster" -
>>is it "punstress" (or "pun-stress"), or perhaps "pundette"?
>
>What is wrong with punster? I am female and used that term to describe
>myself. I find it unnecessary and even somewhat annoying when people
>contrive to invent "feminine" forms for words which don't have them.

(Stuff deleted.)

Didn't somebody assert in this group recently that the suffix -ster is
historically feminine anyway?  I'm just repeating what I remember; I
don't have independent knowledge that it is correct.

-Ted

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock)
Subject: Re: Spanish pronouns
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
 
 
   Thanks for the correction. I forgot about the accented mi'.
 
          An error is the more dangerous the more truth it contains.
                                  - Henri-Frederic Amiel (1821-1881)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:29:25 GMT

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6480 soc.culture.british:11581
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Name for Brits and Irish?
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:05:05 GMT
Distribution: eunet
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <1992Aug16.222313.14707@Princeton.EDU>, by kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey):
>> I believe it was fashionable at one time (and may still be in
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
 >>certain circles) to call the Irish "West Britons"

This was phrased this way for a purpose. If you're going to be touchy
(it's getting a bit like the Balkan groups around here) please read what
I say first.

 
> Anyway, I was expecting a :) by your "West Briton" remark, so since I don't see one, I must respond.

See above.

>"West Briton"  or "West Brit" is in fact a grevious insult in Ireland. It is used, to
> denote someone who lacks or who denies any Irish identity, and derive all
> their habits, culture and outlook from Britain (or really England).

Could be the case in general, which is why I qualified my statement.
However I was led by a UCD graduate to believe that some old
Anglo-Irish families, and other "right-wing" elements as he put it still use
it as a positive term. Comments anyone?

>This usage is not recent - I think it sprang up in the late 19th cent when
> the Home Rule struggle was in full swing. 

True, I didn't say otherwise, North British for Scottish (as in the
North British Railway) was enjoyed a vogue at the same time. If any one has evidence for
West British being used by the Unionist side of the argument at any time in any
part of Ireland I'd be very interested. 

"Britain really England" seems to sum up the crux of theis argument. I
wonder why this equation is so common in Ireland, as in "Brits out", when after all Britain
denotes a Celtic entity. I've always found this mildly ironic in the NI
context. This is all the more curious as in the UK, "England" is frequently used
to mean the entire Kingdom much to the chagrin of the Scots and Welsh
(and Cornish if you will...). You'd have thought that Irish grievances
were directed against the English and so that would have been the 
Can anyone offer a plausible explanation?

Andy
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,talk.bizarre.rabbit
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:48:17 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

In article 66cFPB12w165w@xocolatl.com, ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
>crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

>> Anybody out there aware of a net group that deals with terrible
>> English translations?  I collect mangled English and would love
>> to find such a group.
> [...]
>Reminds me of the Chevy Nova...No va meaning "doesn't go" in Spanish.
>[...]
>I, too, collect mangled English and would also love to find such a
>group!
>Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolatl.com

I'll stick a hand up for such a group. Is anyone keen enough to figure out
how to start one?

-michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au




Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: total PC for English
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: gender, personal pronouns
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:00:20 GMT

In article <tony.714543327@helios.llnl.gov> tony@iti.org (Anthony Skjellum) writes:
>My friends and I have followed the removal of 'him', 'his', 'he', 'man',
>'son' from terminology with great interest.

>I accept that there is a reasonable basis for 'his and hers' or 'he and she'.
>I wonder how we are going to fix words like 

>	manpower, manyear, chairman

>Here's why:  We change 'man' to 'person.'  Person contains 'son'.
>So, what do we end up with?  perpower, peryears, chairper (chair
>is a piece of furniture)?

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.  (It was funny 20 years ago,  too!)

For the record, a chair is a piece of furniture, but also an office, and
also the holder of that office.  (See _Pickwick Papers_, for example.)

Oh, and we say Humanpower, human-year.  Yeah, I know...

On the other hand, our mailman is now a personperson.  

>Also, I need to rewrite all the words in the dictionary like manual,
>mandible, amanuensis, etc.  What should we do?  Is it OK if the
>roots don't mean 'man' even if they sound like it?

Is it OK with you?

>Ideas?

No thanks.  I'm trying to quit.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey)
Subject: Re: Name for Brits and Irish?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: eunet
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:23:13 GMT

In article <3808@keele.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>From article <1992Aug15.185424.12447@Princeton.EDU>, by kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey):
>
>> 1. Ireland is not part of Britain.
>
>Yes it is - it's just not part of the United Kingdom of *Great* Britain
>and Northern Ireland. Britain is composed of the British Isles - all the
>islands. I believe it was fashionable at one time (and may still be in
>certain circles) to call the Irish "West Britons"
>
>Andy

I used to junk all the stuff about the correct names, but now I'm being
sucked into the vortex. Anyway, I was expecting a :) by your "West
Briton" remark, so since I don't see one, I must respond. "West Briton"
or "West Brit" is in fact a grevious insult in Ireland. It is used, to
denote someone who lacks or who denies any Irish identity, and derive all
their habits, culture and outlook from Britain (or really England).This
usage is not recent - I think it sprang up in the late 19th cent when
the Home Rule struggle was in full swing. 
As for the other points, I'll just wait for somebody to upload the
definitive account (as someone did very recently).
---- Kevin
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:54:00 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois

My favorite less/fewer incident was the time one of our local
grammar vigilantes took a magic marker and changed the Express
Lane sign in a grocery store near campus from "8 items or less"
to "8 items or fewer."

It didn't help a bit.  People with 10 items still lined up in the
lane and tried to pay by check.

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                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: Writing
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:10:24 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <1992Aug17.125155.18123@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
|> In article <3812@keele.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
|> >When reading a translated novel yesterday I came across the Americanism
|> >"x writes y" and sighed as is my wont. On the next page though to my
|> >surprise I found "x writing TO y".
|> >Is the translator being inconsistent, or does American
|> >usage really differ with the form of the verb like this? If so can
|> >anyone explain why?
|> 
|> 
|> In USAn usage, I find both "x writes y" and "x writes to y" patterns.
|> If anything -- and I don't have the data to back up the assertion -- it is
|> non-USAn usage that seems to hearken to one pattern: the latter.
|> 
|> I don't think the form of the verb has anything to do with it.
|> 
|> I can't explain why, nor am I sure that the question of why is meaningful.

Astounding.  This from the most prolific generator of questions in this
group, many of which could be construed as much less than meaningful, not
to mention a response to nearly every post that every other inhabitant
of this group sends, many of which could be construed as less than 
meaningful.

Maybe it's just me, but that last sentence sounds completely and totally
condescending.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Despite decades of market research, markets       |
|proliferate and there's no cure in sight.         |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From: bck1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Brian Kelk)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:05:05 GMT
Reply-To: bck1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Brian Kelk)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK

In article <1992Aug20.232033.42474@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <57560033@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
>
>>  Is rational thinking possible without language?
>

I have always boggled at the suggestion that language is
necessary for thought. Penrose (of The Emperor's New Mind fame)
has something interesting to say on this one. He points out the
different sorts of mental process undertaken by, say, a
mathematician and a lawyer. Perhaps it is the 'lawyer types'
who put about the idea of the necessity of language because it
is necessary for them.

Was the invention of language a thoughtless act?


Brian Kelk
Cambridge
England
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6508 sci.lang:6479