HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:03:58 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Originator: tchrist@convex.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 mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
:>   This is what makes English so unique! So lay off Americans!
:>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:>Lots of American companies have been doing this lately.  Actually they've
:>been laying off employees of every nationality.... 
:
:I do not know whether people reading my article have misunderstood that
:sentence intentionally or not. 

It would have helped if you had employed the proper placement of 
a comma, as we native speakers typically do to signal the pause
in our voices preceding a noun of direct address.1

--tom
-- 
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible
to accomplish complex actions."   --Doug Gwyn  (22/Jun/91 in comp.unix.wizards)

     Tom Christiansen           tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:26:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul30.040428.24810@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>     How many variants of spellings exist for commonly spelt English 
>words?? You ask why I am outraged by them....well, if there is no
>standard enforced, people will come up with  a whole variety of spellings
>for a single word, and insist that their version is the right one..just
>like you Americans have. Luckily, so far the phenomenon has confined itself to
>America and a few other countries. Imagine the day when every person (not
>just country) follows a different set of spellings...there would be total
>chaos.....no one would be able to understand the other person!

Just like England before the last century, huh?



-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind.  Or not to have a mind.  How true  
that is." -- J. Danforth Quayle at United Negro College Fund luncheon
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: right time
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:56:28 GMT
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.

"to" seems preferred: `quarter to seven' is most common to my ear.  But
"of" is a powerful second:: things like 10 of 7 (6:50) are still heard
frequently, much to the consternation and confusion of English visitors. :-)

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

	    Ear, but earn and wear and tear
	    Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: dundancy
Reply-To: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 12:55:44 GMT


In a previous article, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) says:
>
>Not long ago I went into something called "The Boutique Shop" and
>tried to buy a boutique.  They didn't know what it was, but offered
>to check their catalogues.


Heartless, heartless...

Slightly off the topic, around here, that's almost always pronounced
"bo-teek", first syllable like the bow on a package.

Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Subject: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:13:46 GMT

Dear a.u.e readers,
          I am exhausted.......I must have posted at least 25 articles
today! There are bound to be several typos in some of them.....it is
not my abject ignorance of the language (although I do acknowledge my
failings), but rather the result of answering to so many posts and my
not-so-good typing skills. I apologise for these unintentional errors.
I realise that not all of you will concur with my views, however
I hope that someday you will remember what I said. 
                                                             Mandar
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: french
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:05:35 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 02:27:28 GMT

In article <Brspxq.KDM@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:

> A New York minute seems to be a very brief time (< 60 secs.); is
> it negative?  I heard it during convention coverage, but since I
> am from New York I am not familiar with the term.

In my experience it carries a mildly negative connotation
(I am from UpstateNewYork, a different state, at least of
mind).  The implication of saying that such-and-so will 
happen in, or faster than, a New York minute is that the
event will occur before you can get your bearings or think
it through properly.  The sense is that everyone in NY
is in such a hurry that ordinary folks will have their
head spinning from the absurd pace and lack of courtesy.
Pausing for as long as an actual minute will result in
disaster, lost opportunity, or simply getting shoved out
of the way.  The impression is that everyone in NY is on
the hustle, the distinction between legitimate and dishonest
is lost, and if you're not hustling then you're going under.
Snooze, you lose.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gorokhovsky@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: "Standard" pronunciation
Reply-To: gorokhovsky@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:05:38 GMT

Sorry if this is not the right group to post this message.  Could someone,
please, recommend a book (possibly with tapes) teaching a "standard"
English pronunciation?  Any replies by e-mail or through this nesgroup
will be much appreciated.
 Thanks in advance.
 -Vadim Gorokhovsky                gorokhovsky@binah.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:37:25 GMT

dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>
>The process of standardization continues today.  As I said in another
>post, the British and others now use the American spellings of jail,
>wagon, and economy.  I don't know of any cases where most Americans
>have adopted a British spelling, although a sizable minority spell
>theater with -re.

I think we could be said to adopt British spelling in a number of
contexts.  Actually, what we're doing is adopting archaic spellings
which we've since simplified (this happens in all dialects).  For
instance, in 90% of the American wedding invitations I've seen, the
word "hono(u)r" is spell{ed,t} :-) with the "u."

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
From: cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith))
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:48:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul27152542@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> 
>> To this non-American, "this weekend" means the coming weekend, and
>> "next weekend" is ambiguous.  "Last weekend" is also ambiguous, but
>> only because today is a Monday.  Thinking about this, I've just
>> realised that to me "this Saturday" is ambiguous when I'm speaking
>> on a Monday, but that "this weekend" almost always refers to the future.
>> (Exception: "What did you do this weekend?")
> 
> To this USAmerican, "this weekend" and "next weekend" mean
> the same thing, except when spoken during the weekend.  If
> you say "next weekend" to me on Monday-Friday, it means the
> one immediately following this M-F work week.  If you say
> it to me on Saturday-Sunday, "this weekend" means the one
> ongoing, while "next weekend" means the one coming up in a
> week.
> 
>> Usually I try to avoid the ambiguity by using phrases like:
>> this coming Saturday (the very next Saturday to arrive)
>> Saturday week        (about a week and a half from now)
>> Is the construct "Saturday week" used outside Australia?
> 
> Couldn't say.  I'd never heard of it until now.  If I
> understand your definition correctly, I would refer to
> the day in question as "a week from Saturday".

 I say "Saturday Week" myself.  When I say "next Saturday" I mean the 
Saturday after the coming Saturday.  "This Saturday" is the first 
Saturday coming up.  I also say "Monday Week" or any other day of the 
week for that phrase.  If it's helpful, I'm a Southerner.

> Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
> 408-756-0895                                   USA

Cindy Smith
cms@dragon.com
Atlanta, Georgia
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:00:33 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <1992Jul28.185650.7149@news.eng.convex.com>, by tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen):
> What a miserable, misinformed, prescriptive soul this Indian must have.
> Language has a life of its own, not subject to petty pronouncements.

No he's dead right, and it's nice to see the sons of Empire rally to the
mother country. I can just about take American spelling, as long as it
stays in America, however the warping involved in the American use of
"momentarily" is quite beyond the pale.

I dedicate this posting to the memory of a true American patriot -
Benedict Arnold. 

Andy
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:58:33 GMT

Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:

>From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
>:This is what makes English so unique! So lay off Americans!

>How unique is it?

>Why don't you lay off Americans?  

>I know, because you wouldn't hire one.

>--tom

If that one was a joke --->   ha ha ha.....good one Tom!
If it wasn't  ---->  I have no repeat NO grudge against Americans, in fact
                     I find most of them very very friendly. Besides I 
                    usually never look at what country, race, etc. an
                     individual belongs to, when I make friends. The same
                     would hold true if I ever found myself in the position
                     of hiring a new worker in the US. I would evaluate him
                     for his qualities, not for his nationality, race. etc.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: More unique?  polique!
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: roger@quantime.co.uk's message of 29 Jul 92 14:32:00 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul24.165403@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Jul29.143200.637@quantime.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 02:37:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.143200.637@quantime.co.uk>, roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips) writes:

> In article <1992Jul24.165403@IASTATE.EDU>,
> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>> ... it is going to take more than the AH to convince me
>> to say "pol-ee-nome-ee-ul".   

I didn't get this article by Marie, so I'm responding to
this derivative of it (it's still a polynomial, though).
I would prefer a schwa in the off-accent syllable of 
polynomial, so I will agree that the American Heritage
doesn't correspond to my own pronunciation in this case.
I have often heard it pronounced as they specify, however.
I have never heard it pronounced with a short "i" that
is voiced enough to count, though.  Webster's doesn't
make that distinction at all.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution:  world
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:44:31 GMT

What has come to be called _American_ spelling (tho it is not universally
shared by Canadians, for example), is not an American innovation.  18th
century English spelling showed variations in or/our and -er/-re, as
well as gray/grey and so on.  The fact that American and British spellings
began to diverge at this time was partly coincidence, partly an
American reaction to the Revolutionary War and independence, and
partly the influence of Noah Webster, though it should be pointed
out that in his day Webster was considered a dangerous radical by
some, and a fatuous quack by most.  He advocated spelling _deaf_
as _deef_ to reflect its (New England) pronunciation, and was
lambasted in the press for his proposals.

Webster backed down from most of his radical spellings, and once
his dictionaries started selling in England as well as the US,
he took the line that there was no essential difference between
the English of the two groups.

Incidentally, spelling variation is far from dead, even within
varieties of English.  The National Council of Teachers of English
published a list some years ago of variants collected from current
dictionaries.


-- 
Dennis Baron                                         debaron@uiuc.edu 
University of Illinois at Urbana                     217-333-2392
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Take Back the Dildo
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:36:55 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <sav.712218520@nanette>,
sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
> I do not want to cant, or...
> how about       an  infinity, countable infinities, uncountable what(s)?

Infinitude?		:-)
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"poot, (Scot.) v.i. to shoot at young partridges or young grouse."
-- Chambers English Dictionary (1988)
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: At
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:51:28 GMT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


 -=> Quoting Bunweasel to All <=-

 Bu> Ending a sentence with a preposition is just not where it's at.

Reminds me of a line attributed to Winston Churchill.  He was annoyed
by somebody's carping about ending a sentence with a preposition, and
chastised the offender with, "That is the kind of arrant pedantry
up with which I will not put!"

"where it's at", of course, offends for its redundancy.


... Ad astra per aspera (or, I'll never get off the ground)
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                           
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: words that peeve me  
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: dand@buscard.fidonet.org's message of Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:33:22 EDT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:59:35 GMT

In article <gate.BmwFoB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org>, dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:

> -=> Quoting Morag Ni Shabhain to All <=-

>MNS> ... but the one that astonished me was a noun turned into a verb, used
>MNS> by  a telephone company representative, in discussing the problem with
>MNS> the  company's phone bill, when told me he'd be DIALOG-ING with me
>MNS> about it  soon !

> Then, what do you think of *verbs* such as "finalize", "destruct",
> "conference"... ?

His stand obligates him to disapprobate these, too.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:03:28 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: words that peeve me

>Then, what do you think of *verbs* such as 'finalize', 'destruct' and
>'conference'...?

I dislike the verb 'to destruct' as much as I dislike the verb 'to
dialog'. Especially when there is  the verb 'to destroy' readily
available for our use.

Ben Lukoff
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:04:14 GMT
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 slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com:
:In article <84773@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
:
:> In article <1992Jul29.200521.23765@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
:
:>> All you Amercians out there....do not spoil the
:>>English language (in other words, lay off! Keep away!, etc.)
:
:> O.K.  Let's all speak French now.
:
:Shall we see if we can find interesting ways to 
:mutilate that one, too?  Let's start by changing
:all the "s" letters in "vous" to "z".

Ay vooz avay kelka rezone poor nepah fair sa?

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

	    Finally, which rhymes with enough --
	    Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:11:54 GMT

cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

>From article <1992Jul28.185650.7149@news.eng.convex.com>, by tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen):
>> What a miserable, misinformed, prescriptive soul this Indian must have.
>> Language has a life of its own, not subject to petty pronouncements.

>No he's dead right, and it's nice to see the sons of Empire rally to the
>mother country. I can just about take American spelling, as long as it
>stays in America, however the warping involved in the American use of
>"momentarily" is quite beyond the pale.

>I dedicate this posting to the memory of a true American patriot -
>Benedict Arnold. 

>Andy

Thanks for the support...but you have misread my intentions.....I neither
a son of any Empire, nor am I rallying to any "mother" country. My only
contention is that English should be judged according to how the English
speak and write it. The same would hold true for French, for example.
Unfortunately I am not an expert in French, otherwise I could have argued
on the differences between Canadian French and the French French.

                                                              Mandy.

-----

"Get back to where you once belonged"  - Beatles.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: I'm in a comma.
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:21:16 GMT

In article <lannert.25.711814742@uni-duesseldorf.de>, lannert@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
> 
> 	I will have a minestrone, my favourite dish, and a pint of lager.
> 
> So how would you avoid this ambiguity? Or isn't it one at all?

      I'll have a minestrone - my favourite dish - and a pint of lager.
      I'll have a minestrone (my favourite dish) and a pint of lager.
      I'll have a minestrone, my favourite dish; and a pint of lager.

Note that these all have the same meaning.  If I wanted the other
meaning, I would probably re-cast the sentence to avoid ambiguity:

      I'll have a minestrone, a pint of lager, and my favourite dish.

Of course, I could say this only to someone who knew what my favourite
dish was.  Taking that into account, there never was an ambiguity in
the original example.

This last example becomes interesting if one omits the second comma:

      I'll have a minestrone, a pint of lager and my favourite dish.

To me, this looks like an unconventional definition of the word
"minestrone".

A minor point, unrelated to the original topic: the phrasing
"I will have ..." sounds impolite to me; it would be better to say
"I would like ...".  The abbreviated form "I'll have ..." is,
however, often heard.  I suppose that this is because the abbreviation
creates an informality which softens the impoliteness.

Peter.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:28:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <4799@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R) writes:
>
>Grow up the lot of you.
>

Mom!  How did _you_ get in here?



-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind.  Or not to have a mind.  How true  
that is." -- J. Danforth Quayle at United Negro College Fund luncheon
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:34:18 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29185751@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <keRU3yK00iUx07W1p6@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>> I know people have already written about this, but do you honestly
>> think a bunch of Americans sat around a table and said, "well, let's
>> switch around the r and e in 'theatre', that'll piss the British off"?
>
>That's why I do it.  Is there another reason?
>--
>----
>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
>408-756-0895                                   USA

Ha ha ha......the words right from the horse's mouth!
Isn't it demeaning to wage war against language?
what a pity!