HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jim_may@msmailgw.csuchico.edu (Jim May)
Subject: Re: English Orthography (was "easy to learn?")
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:43:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.141030.11222@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> pjt@newton.cs.jhu.edu 
(Paul Tanenbaum) writes:
> In a nutshell, whose pronunciation should our orthography encode?

I think this argument is made too much and is, for much of English, 
irrelevant because the language is remarkably uniform.  Compare, for 
example, the dialects of German which vary greatly.  Yet, high German is 
used for writing and intercommunication and is much more phonetic than 
English.  For the most part, English pronunciation differences follow 
relatively simply patterns that can be address.  Some simplification would 
be simple and bother no one, such as replacing the "ough" with simple 
vowels, or expanding rules like silent "e" for long vowels and double 
consonents for short vowels to the exceptions.

> While
> the sound of a word is a good thing for its written form to capture, it 
is
> not the only feature of the word worth capturing.  Another very valuable
> thing to be ascertained from the spelling of a word is the word's origins
> and meaning.

We determine meaning strictly from sound all the time in day to day 
conversation so your argument that odd spelling is essential falls flat.  
As for word origins, who cares except for linguists?
From: R.S.Hunt@newcastle.ac.uk (R.S. Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: inclusive/exclusive
Date: 21 Aug 1992 03:44:30 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
X-Unparseable-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 9:42:58 WET DST

gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes (20 Aug 92 20:42:42 GMT):


> Can any linguists out there tell me which languages (if any) make the
> distinction between:
>
>               the inclusive and exclusive "we"
>               	 and
>               the inclusive and exclusive "or"

The Maori language has *four* ways of translating English "we" :

Dual:  non-inclusive 'maua'  = "he and I"
Dual:  inclusive     'taua'  = "thou and I"
Plural: non-inclusive 'matou' = "these people and I (but not you)"
Plural:  inclusive    'tatou' = "you and I (and others)"

Latin has an exclusive "or" - 'aut' and an inclusive "or" - 'vel' :

Aut hoc aut illud = Either this or that.

Hoc vel illud = This and/or that.

I would be pretty interested to know about other languages with an
inclusive and exclusive "we" distinction.   I assume that other Polynesian
languages will behave like Maori;  the differences between them are little
more than between dialects of a single language.   I first came across this
distinction when I started studying Maori; up till then, having only met
Indo-European languages, none of which as far as I know make it, I was
blissfully unaware that it was even there to be made.   Shows how language
moulds your thought-patterns, doesn't it? 

Richard.
-- 
Richard Hunt                                JANET : R.S.Hunt@uk.ac.newcastle
MSc Course in Computing Science
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
UK

               "Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto."
                     - Terence, c.190-159 B.C. -
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: [pronoun] Re: Gender-neutral pronouns
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:18:26 GMT
Reply-To: chungdan@leland.stanford.edu
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.


     [C^i tiu artikolo estas en Anglo-lingvo, sed Esperanta traduko estas
havebla.]

     I was posting to "Sci.Lang" to ask about an old form of ta1 (he/she),
whether we can use it for neutre sex.  However, I have seen the pre-sex-split
form of ta1, now used for "male" and "other", being used as the both-sexed ta1,
in television program subtitles, e.g. "Zhang3 Guan1 Hao3" ("Hello, Master!"),
and "Jing1 Cheng2 Si'4 Shao4" ("Fouth Son in the Capital"), being shown
in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Common acceptable usage of ta1?
 /  |
/|| |
 |+-+-+
 || | /
 ||
 ||   |
 |+---+
      I tried using this, because it was in used before the sex-split,
but I find it inconvenient.  I would like to hear opinion from females.

					*Zhong* Qi-Iao, Hong Kong/U.S.A.
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6449 soc.culture.esperanto:1418
From: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Jelenc)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Re: [Anglolingvo/English] easy to learn English?
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:42:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Aug16.144232.26671
Reply-To: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Jelenc)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <64114@cup.portal.com> EZ-as-pi@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Gilson) writes:
>Pierre Jelenc says "Ido is dead/"
>Then how come I get Ido-Vivo in the
>mail three times a year?

For the same reason that I find Latin in my crossword puzzles much more
than three times a year. 

Pierre

Pierre Jelenc                        pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu 
                                    Columbia University, New York
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: pjt@newton.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Tanenbaum)
Subject: Re: English Orthography (was "easy to learn?")
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:53:47 GMT

In article <2A89587A.9876@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>... I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY KIND OF SPELLING REFORM WHATSOEVER...
>Please stop lecturing me.

This being the case, I am sorry to have preached to the choir.  But it would
have been hard for me to infer this attitude from your contention that English
suffers from "monumentally stupid spelling".  It seems to me like concluding
that the U.S. has a monumentally stupid economy since I cannot rake in $100,000
a year while sittting leisurely at home.  You can't have it both ways, not
because the change to such a spelling system would be burdensome but because
a system that encodes both pronunciation and origin is not even theoretically
possible.  This Fact of Nature does not doom every human spelling system to
monumental stupidity.  Perhaps we really agree, and all my words are only
in reaction to a monumental hyperbole?
     +++paul

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller)
Subject: Re: ethymology of foobar
Organization: Center for Information and Language Studies / University of
	Chicago
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:17:12 GMT

There are many stories, but the one which seems most
plausible is that it is an acronym for

Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition

with the U from up rewritten as "oo"

Eric Schiller
University of Chicago
.
From: popineau@pelletier.loria.fr (Popineau Fabrice)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Middle English
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:47:20 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: CRIN, Nancy, France


Hi netters !

Do  you have   any   information  concerning Middle   English  for the
reflexive pronoun self ? I am working on reflexive verbs and I can not
find bibliographical references   of  a grammar  of  Middle   English.
Thanks in advance.  I am  looking  for  the  same kind of  information
concerning Mittelhochdeutsch for the reflexive pronoun sich.

As I'm posting this from a friend's account, please reply me
by e-mail to : joelle@ese-metz.fr .

Thanks in advance,

Joelle Lauvray

--
e-mail       : popineau@loria.crin.fr, pop@ese-metz.fr
phone-mail   : (+33) 87 74 99 38 ext: 320
surface-mail : Ecole Superieure d'Electricite
	       2 rue E. Belin
	       F-57078 METZ Cedex 3
	       FRANCE
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6629 alt.usage.english:6797
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:54:15 GMT

In article <10455@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.160932.7499@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>>
>>Thought readers here might appreciate these old notes, posted 6 years ago
>>on the singular use of "they" in English. This usage dates from 1526, 
>>according to the OED.
>>
>>I hope that this will establish in everyone's minds that the use of 
>>singular "they" is as correct as anything can be in English.
>
>The use of singular "they" is as correct as anything can be because it
>dates from 1526?  Possibly, but then the use of gender-neutral "he" is
>a zillion times more correct, because it dates from the Tower of Babel.

What is your cutoff for things being "correct," or have we stepped into
that nebulous nether world called "proscriptive linguistics?"  (Or is
that "prescriptive?"  Oh, well.  Don't have a dictionary handy . . . ) 

Besides, although I do not have the book handy at the moment, Dale
Spender's _Man Made Language_ specifies that the use of "he" to include
"she" WAS a proscriptive maneuver within historical times.  It was done
explicitly because "the masculine is *more inclusive* (her italics) than
the feminine."

But, I guess since it was written by a woman investigating sexism in
language, that makes it totally stupid and invalidates it completely,
huh . . . ? 

You might not like it much, Ivan, but people are using "they" as a
gender neutral singular.  If it bothers you THAT much, stop speaking
English, or correct everyone you hear saying it; I guarantee you'll make
lots of friends.  

Regards,
Janis C.
From: lucas@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Bruce Lucas")
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: axe
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:46:16 GMT

I'm somewhat surprised at the knee-jerk arguments apparently from
political correctness against the explanation of laziness for
the substitution of "axe" for "ask".  If we take "lazy" to mean
"tending to do what is easy rather than what is right", then laziness
explains the metathesis if

1. /sk#/ is more difficult to produce than /ks#/ (I'm not a linguist -
   did I get the notation right?), and

2. The accepted norm where the subject learned to speak ("what is right"
   in the definition above) is "ask" rather than "axe".

Now, either of these could be wrong on technical linguistic grounds:
point one if /sk#/ is not in fact easier to produce than /ks#/ (although
introspection and observation of children having difficulty producing
this combination leads me to suspect otherwise), and point two would
be wrong if the subject was raised in an environment where "axe" was
the norm rather than "ask" (which in fact I could believe is true).

However, I don't see how either of these two technical issues could
justify the flames directed at the poster who innocently hypothesized
that laziness accounts for the observed behavior.  Note for example
that (assuming for the sake of this argument that the metathesis
is an innovation) there must have been a time when "ask" was the norm
and the easier "axe" was spoken only by a few speakers; wouldn't these
speakers qualify as lazy under the above definition?  (The alternative
would be that suddenly all at once an entire population began to
say "axe" rather than "ask", which I find a little hard to swallow.)

In short, what's wrong with the notion of laziness, that is saying
something in a way that's easier rather than in the way that is accepted
as correct, as a force for linguistic change?  (Hint: no flames, please;
if my naive views of how linguistic change works are incorrect, reasoned
corrections would be welcome.)

Bruce Lucas
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami)
Subject: Re: *** QUESTION ***
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:38:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.150547.23732@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Here home in Sweden where we don't have any redskins except maybe a
>few immigrants, we simply say "indian" without any qualification
>with "American". The guys from Asia? Oh, they are "indier".

In Hebrew we call the Native Americans (or whatever is the name 
you use for the red colored people in N. America) "Indianim" 
while the guys from India are called "Hodim". This is since "indian"
is borrowed from European Languages and the Hebrew name for India
"Hodu" which come from the persian "Hind" is still in use.

>--
>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
>Life is wonderful when the wonderlife is full

David.

-- 
=============================================================================
  David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but Temptation"
  s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
  davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Karandash/Caran d'Ache
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:18:09 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK


hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:
<In article <4212@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> djbpitt+@pitt.edu (David J Birnbaum) writes:
<
<Adash== from ad=name and dash=meaning [having the property of/having in
<common], thus meaning someone who has the same name is you.
<
<yoldash ==sharing the same road [=yol], fellow traveler.

Also used in the meaning `comrade'.

<arkadash==having in common the same back, i.e. one who shares/protects
<your back. In other words, friend.
<
<Kara [=black], thus karanlik [darkness], karangi [ignorant].

Er, wait a minute, Mark.  Surely _karanl1k_ is derived from _kara_,
not from _karan_, by means of the suffix _-l1k_.  Where did the
_-n-_ come from?  What does _karan_ alone mean?  (Too lazy to go to
the library to look it up myself.)

<Karandash means something like having the property of blackening,
<i.e. a blackening agent.

No, it can't mean that.  What happened to the cooperativity element
inherent to the suffix _-da,s_?  It is present in all of your examples
above, and also in other words such as _karde,s_ < _kar1nda,s_
`sibling' (`co-womber').  _Karanda,s_ would have to mean `relating to
the same "karan"' (if "karan" is a noun), or maybe `equally "karan"'
(if it is an adjective), but not a blackening agent.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Gender neutral pronouns
Date: 16 Aug 92 09:04:40 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <BsI9r4.58I@newcastle.ac.uk> R.S.Hunt@newcastle.ac.uk (R.S. Hunt) writes:
<
<>In article <EUGENE.92Jul25231756@ra.cs.umb.edu> eugene@cs.umb.edu
<(Eugene O'Neil) writes:
<>
<>I think it's a bummer that English (and most languages) lack a
<>gender neutral singular pronoun.  (Finnish has one!)

(Finnish has no gender-sensitive pronouns, though.  I still haven't
heard of a natural language which would have both a set of
gender-sensitive pronouns and a gender-neutral one.)

<Persian (Farsi) is the only Indo-European language apart from English to
<have no grammatical genders;

Wrong.  I don't even think it is the only Iranian language to have no
grammatical gender, and anyway this leaves Armenian in the cold.

<it has taken this a stage further than English
<as its 3rd person singular pronoun does not even make the residual gender
<distinction forced upon English speakers.

("Forced upon".  Ugh.  How many such distinctions are forced upon poor
English speakers?  There is number distinction, tense distinction, ...)

<Sorry, I don't know what the pronoun actually is!

The pronoun is _u_ (or _wei_) for persons, _an_ for things.  (The
latter means actually `that one'.)

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:24:01 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <AA01895.199208210842.ttypd@turing.ncl.ac.uk> R.S.Hunt@newcastle.ac.uk (R.S. Hunt) writes:
>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes (20 Aug 92 20:42:42 GMT):
>
>> Can any linguists out there tell me which languages (if any) make the
>> distinction between:
>>
>>               the inclusive and exclusive "we"
<...>
>I would be pretty interested to know about other languages [_sc._
>apart from Maori_] with an inclusive and exclusive "we" distinction.
>I assume that other Polynesian languages will behave like Maori;

I believe they do.

The same distinction exists in the following languages:

  Nivkh.
  Quechua.
  (I think) Ainu.  (I'm not sure, though.)

and in the following groups of languages:

  Nakh.  (That is Chechen, Ingush, and Batzbi.)
  Dravidian.
  Algonquian.  (And surely some other groups of North American tongues.)

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: English Orthography (was "easy to learn?")
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:10:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.164030.25947@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>
>I agree with you that any major spelling reform now, will utterly fail.
>However, reasonable spelling is possible with reserving all the above 
>advantages. see the languages I mentioned (German,Italian).
>
>David.
>-- 

But there is a bigger problem. English has a very different set of sounds.

Anyway, what is really so wrong with English spelling? Apart from rare 
exceptions, like "yacht" or "aisle", I don't see any problems.

Sven

Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.esperanto
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: [Anglolingvo/English] easy to learn English?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 07:10:08 GMT

In article <2A885C3B.10024@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug11.171521.1149@efi.com> dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung) writes:
|> >
|> >     C^i tiu artikolo nur havas Usona dissendo.  Se estos respondo,
|> >bonvolu larg^igi al monda dissendo.
...
|> All natural languages have irregularities; English isn't so bad on this.
|> It's worst characteristic is monumentally stupid spelling.
|> 
|> And I'd rather not speak a language that classifies my mom as a female
|> father, thank you.

As a language with few irregularities, I'd like to recommend Japanese.  There's
a lot to be said for a language where the verb 'to be' is regular.

Just look out for the writing system, _ne_.


--Rich Wingerter
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: thomask@cae.wisc.edu (Krajewski Thomas)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a (sikth) question?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:35:40 CDT

In article <frank2.21@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za> frank2@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (FRANK D N) writes:
>Do people in country's other than South Africa have great difficulty 
>pronouncing the words *fiFth* and *siXth* correctly? These words are 
>commonly pronounced *fith* and *sikth* here.	
>
>I'd guess this has something to do with them phonotactics thingies.
>
>--
>David Frank       <frank2@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
>University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

hmm... when i am speaking quickly i say "fith"  when i speak more slowly
i say "fifth"  i am from the midwest US, cant say about the other dialects

i would hazard a guess that the two fricatives in a row generate the problem,
tho id have no real idea why this is so.  as for six/th it is probably
that ks/sk thing again, i think that i sometimes just say "siks" (e.g "the
siks one", but i've been saying it too many times the last couple of minutes
and i'm not sure anymore

also would somebody please correct me on the proper way to indicate pronun-
ciation when writing to the net, i thing that it goes between slashes but
im not sure

nathan wagner (email to thomask@cae.wisc.edu)
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Chomsky's 'Minimalist' paper
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:18:50 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug18.205014.17021@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.191135.20858@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.033810.23837@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>>Is there anyone here who has read Chomsky's new "minimalist" paper and
>>>would care to comment on it?
>>>
>>But your query now leads me to suspect that my remarks never made it out
>>of MIT (unlike the Minimalist paper itself). Is this the case?
>
>Hmmm, they may have appeared during a time when I wasn't reading sci.lang.
>(3 weeks ago I was in a work crunch, finishing a book.)  Care to repost?

This site doesn't have them any more.  If someone else has them, feel
free.  But do edit out the remarks at the end about the Russian dative.
We've done that one.

-David Pesetsky
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6476 soc.culture.turkish:9020
From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Word Matching Problem
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:19:34 GMT
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



For those interested:

As I was attempting to compute some sums of factorials for
the word matching problem, I started to look at textbooks
for hints on various sums and in Donald Knuth's book
on Concrete Mathematics, I found a solution to the problem.

He calls it the Hat Matching problem. Bunch of football
fans throw up their hats. What are the number of ways
in which k fans could get their own hats ?

The method, as is his custom,is  brilliant. Define h(n,k) as
the number of ways in which k out of n fans get their own
hats back. The recursion is;

     h(n,k) = C(n,k)h(n-k,0)

where C(n,k) is the combinatorial. ONe can then use the recurrence
for increasing powers of n to compute the h(n,k).


It starts on page 193.


Follow ups go to sci.lang.
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: alufml@purple.fnma.com (Francois-Michel Lang)
Subject: English wordlist
Organization: Fannie Mae, Washington, DC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:59:47 GMT


I'm looking for an online English-language wordlist.
No definitions, pronunciation, etymologies, or anything.
I have /usr/dict/words, of course, but I'd like something
similar with an order of magnitude more words in the list.
Is there such a beast available, and free somewhere?

Many thanks.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Francois-Michel Lang          (202) 752-6067   FAX: (202) 752-4463
alufml@fnma.com ............. Fannie Mae; Asset/Liability Strategy
lang@linc.cis.upenn.edu ..... Dept of Comp & Info Science, U of PA
From: komives@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Robert Komives)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: English Orthography (was "easy to learn?")
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:54:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Aug18.150433.13794@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> dgary@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (D Gary Grady) writes:
>...... who regularly hear spoken English have heard the
>conventionally silent H in "vehicle" and "forehead" pronounced. .... 

My forehead is marked by a very loud H, but I would not all one into
my VEhICLE.
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6404 soc.culture.esperanto:1372