HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: Guesstimates
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:21:09 GMT

In <1992Aug15.214316.679@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:


A portmanteau word in the spirit of "guesstimate" is "absitively",
a blend of "absolutely" and "positively."


As I started following this thread, I kept trying to remember the cutesy phrase
an ex-boss' wife used to plague me with, and this posting brought it back:
"absitively posolutely," which still puts my teeth on edge.  

I question whether these are portmanteau words; instead, I hear them rather as 
too-cute idiodditities. 

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:42:58 GMT

In article <9208181722.AA13431@sumac09.cray.com> jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond) writes:

>I suppose using four syllables for `vegetable' is not Phonetically Correct
>either?  *Sigh*

Only in Chinese restaurants.  (Where they *still* euphemize cabbage by
calling it Chinese Vegetabah instead of using the snappy, fashionable,
and well-enough-understood Bok Choy.)

Roger
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6421 soc.culture.british:11561
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Name for Brits and Irish?
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:09:10 GMT
Distribution: eunet
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <sav.713787181@nanette>, by sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory):
> In <1992Aug12.115613.21356@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
> 
>>Anyone know if there is a collective name for people from the British
>>Isles? British doesn't cut it as that excludes the Irish (at least those
>>from the Republic) and Anglo-Saxon misses the Celts. Any ideas?


Since all of the island of Ireland is part of Britain, I think British
still works. However if you don't like it the late John Biggs-Davidson proposed a union between UK
and Eire with the proposed name of IONA (Isles Of the North Atlantic) so
I suppose Ionians might work - don't any one tell the Greek government
though as if current policies are anything to go by they'd sulk like
mad.


Andy
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: amlogan@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Adam M. Logan)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a (sikth) question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:47:41 GMT

In article <maynor.714312243@Ra.MsState.Edu> maynor@Ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor) writes:
>I'm trying to think whether I've ever heard anybody include the second [f]
>in "fifth."  

I recall one high-school math teacher who consistently said "fift".

Adam
From: lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 17 Aug 92 03:47:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug17.013531.18483@leland.Stanford.EDU> alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.203635.3839@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>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?
>
>The process is called metathesis.  It is a living process in human phonology;
>it is as well a historical fact in many languages.
>
>There aren't many examples of /sk#/ in English, while /ks#/ is very common.
>Thus, the metathesis produces a more common sequence, and is therefore more
>acceptable to the ears of the listeners.  Thus, it stays on as a lexical item.

This plausible functional explanation has one problem:  the English verb _ask_
had /ks#/ *before* it had /sk#/.  I believe the spelling of the infinitive
in Old English was _acsian_ (a quick trip to the only reference at hand,
Websters 3rd Int'l Dictionary, shows that and _ascian_, so the alternation
is very old indeed.
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:19:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.164215.11501@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>"In general, use fewer for individual items, less for bulk or quantity.
>
>>Wrong:  The trend is toward more machines and less people. (People, in this
>>case, refers to individuals.)
>
>Yet this usage has been found among the best speakers and writers for
>centuries.  

Wow.  Chaucerian spelling was found among the best speakers and writers for
centuries too.

>>Wrong:  She was fewer than 60 years old. (Years, in this instance, refers
>>to a period of time, not individual years.)
>
>"not a penny less" gets this explanation into trouble.

Not really.  "Less" in "not a penny less" refers to amounts of money, namely
the amount of money you are willing to pay for your bicycle. 

	"I'll pay $300 for the bike.  Not a penny more, not a penny less."

However, if you were talking about the actual _number_ of pennies, you'd
use "fewer."

	"He paid for his bike with $300 in *pennies*!  We brought them
	 to the bank to be counted and rolled.  The teller put them in the
	 machine and there were exactly 30,000!  Not a penny more, not
	 a penny fewer....exactly 30,000."

>>Right:  Not fewer than 10 applicants called. (Individuals.)
>
>Stilted.  Try speaking this!

I did.  Sounds fine.  Though I would say "No fewer than 10 applicants
called."  I wouldn't say "No less than 10 applicants called."

>These guides are mainly useful to editors, as they make their work
>easier and more regular.

No, these guides are mainly used to correct grammatical errors....

Are we having fun yet?


--
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: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 11:11:31 GMT




In a previous article, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) says:

>In article <1992Aug18.223433.10095@math.ucla.edu> alex@phobos.math.ucla.edu (Alex Langley) writes:
>
>[someone writes:]
>>>I really have to wonder if the "axe" in Black English Vernacular is really
>>>derived from _acsian_ or if it's just laziness in pronouncing "ask."
>>
>>I doubt it's laziness, just a widespread case of metathesis.  
>
>Anyhow, calling it "laziness" does not explain _why_ it's "easier" to
>pronounce "axe" than "ask".  The linguistic question here is why
>speakers would find one of them easier than the other.


By the way, I know I've heard "axe" at least as much from white people as
from black people.  In fact, I don't remember hearing it from anyone -but-
white people.  And I've read it in what is supposed to be uneducated
western or southern dialect, from people of (I think) western European
descent. 

How about "escape"?  Little kids seem to pronounce it "ec-scape" and quite
a few of them continue doing so in adult life.  It isn't easier for the
tongue, but it must sound more regular to them, somehow, as if it matches
all the words beginning with "ex".

By the way, do non US kids do that, too?  Or is it only part of US
childspeak?  Does anybody know of any studies in the differences, if any,
in baby talk among children brought up in different dialects of English? 


Bonita Kale

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.055312.2636@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> sds@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Sherwood Daniel Silliman) writes:

>In the debate about "good grammar" referring really to appropriate style,
>usage, et cetera, and not really a grammar of the English language,
>it seems to me that this sense of the word "grammar" is well enough
>understood to become a valid meaning for this expression.

Here's where *I* stand up for a distinction.  To be sure, issues of
usage are often referred to colloquially as "grammar."  In fact, I've
seen the distinction between em-dashes and en-dashes referred to as a
point of grammar around here!  (I'd file that one under typesetting and
house style myself...)

However, "ungrammatical" is a word with a cachet.  To be accused of this
is to be accused of something pretty bad; "ignorant" lurks just
around the corner, arm in arm with "iiliterate."  Don't think so?
Consider all the insults that get hurled in this newsgroup at people who
don't toe the line with regard to this or that distinction.

Indeed, now that I look it up, the AHD gives "a normative or
prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage
for pedagogical or reference purposes" as its third definition of
"Grammar."  I suppose that anyone wishing to be normative or
prescriptive for the sake of pedagogy around here is welcome to call the
rules they make "grammar," but keep in mind, y'all, this is a discussion
group, and other sets of rules may be set up against yours.

Otherwise, how about we look at the top of each posting and note the
name of the newsgroup.  alt.grammar.english it ain't.

Why *not* say "usage" when we mean usage?  

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.053835.7320@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>And it hasn't hurt the language one bit.  Browne didn't invent that
>usage, nor did he abuse it.
>
>In his (very colloquial) context, "were" sounds affected.  In that
>sense, it's *wrong.*

Nope.  It isn't wrong, and here's why:

	- The song contrasts two periods...vietnam, and the 1980's.
	- In the verse in question, it becomes apparent by the *end* of
	  it that he was talking about the 1980's.
	- By saying "as if freedom was...." one gets the impression that
	  he was talking about the 1960's, instead of the 1980's, or
	  talking generally.

The use of the subjunctive would have clarified that a good deal.

As for the subjunctive's dying out, I'm unconvinced.  People still say
"If I were you" and not "if I was you" unless they're talking about past
lives.  People say "It's important that he be here" and not "It's important
that he is here."

>>Would've sounded a lot better and made the meaning of his lyric a lot better.
>
>Bullshit.  His lyric means exactly the same either way.  If you can't
>understand the subjunctive meaning from the "as if," you've got bigger
>problems than I can help you with.

I didn't ask for your help.  But "if" in this context could mean either the
hypothetical or the past.  Browne intended it to mean the hypothetical, and
he instead used an expression that indicated otherwise.

>In his context, "were" would have been the error.  People just don't say
>that in the context of a popular song anymore.

too bad


--
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: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: LESS v FEWER - SAINSBURY'S GUILTY
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:51:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.103657.9578@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:

>References: <baron.23.714075943@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <3813@keele.keele.ac.uk>

>In a previous article, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) says:

>>In article <3813@keele.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

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

>>The problem with the express lane is not whether they use less or
>>fewer, it's that it takes longer to buy something in the express
>>lane than in the regular lanes.

>"X items or less" doesn't bother me, and I can't figure out why.  (No, I
>don't think it's because I'm only semiliterate and have no respect for the
>language.)  Two possibilities:

>1. Any supermarket is so full of misspelled signs ("Marshmellows", "Iceburg
>Lettuce") that a simple error of grammar, spelled correctly, is almost a
>relief.

No, that's not it.

>2. I'm thinking of "X items or less [stuff than that]." 

BINGO!

>3. I was brainwashed by contests that asked for your answer in "25 words or
>less."  (Which doesn't bother me either.  I think vaguely of "25 words or
>less writing."

DOUBLE BINGO!  That's *exactly* what it means.  

So does "$50, not a penny more, not a penny less."

So does "$50, more or less."  

The "no 'less' with numbers" rule is bogus.  You *can* use 'less' when
the number represents an upper bound.  You might not want to say "less
men" (though many educated people do); but 8 items or less is *not* an
error, and, quite frankly, I'm embarrassed by the number of people in
this group who get their jollies from intimidating supermarket managers
with trivia and bullshit.

>By the way, publishers seem to avoid the whole less/fewer problem by
>saying, "3,000 words maximum," or "under 10,000 words."

I should have limits like that.  If only....

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bcushman@bagpipe.reed.edu (Ben Cushman)
Subject: Re: did vs. done
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.083524.3482@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>  
roddi@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Roddi Walker) writes:
> And ANOTHER thing that bugs me (hell, while I'm here :-) - I was told in
> primary school not to put "and" after a punctuation mark (especially a
> comma).  But I often find myself doing so - for example:
> 
> She had not heard me come in, and continued washing the dishes.
> 
> The above sentence seems fine to me, but the grim spectre of Mrs.
> Treadwell from Grade 2 lurks behind it :-)

	The rule for commas and "and" is that when "and" used to connect  
clauses with the same subject (as in the above sentence) no comma should  
be used, but if "and" is used to connect clauses that could be independent  
sentences (have different subjects), then a comma should be used.

She had not heard me and continued washing the dishes.
I came in very silently, and she continued washing the dishes.

						BC
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6541 soc.culture.british:11616
From: mark@cs.hw.ac.uk (Mark Riordan)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Name for Brits and Irish?
Date: 18 Aug 92 09:20:33 GMT
Distribution: eunet
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

As an Irish citizen who has lived in Britain for several years I
have often had to address this issue. I use the following:

These islands			

This part of the world

Britain and Ireland

It is easy to put "The people of" in front of all these. The idea
that there should be any specific name to descibe the people of
both Ireland and Britain seems odd considering that the people of
the UK are not even in full agreement that they all want to be
described as British. 

I would be interested to know if the term British was ever in 
accepted use by Irish people to describe themselves as it
certainly is not in use now and anyone using that term to include 
the Irish would certainly be presumed either to  have an axe to 
grind or to be ignorant.

MARK






-- 
| JANET:    mark@uk.ac.hw.cs   Mark Riordan, Rm G21, Computer Science Dept  |
| Internet: mark@cs.hw.ac.uk   Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus,    |
|                              Edinburgh, Scotland.  (031)449-5111 x4172    |
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:53:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Asses & Tongue in cheek
Organization: Hewlett-Packard ISG-SBU-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>> Oh, and off the subject, thank you *so* much for spelling "piqued" properly.
>> I get so weary of reading about people who have had their curiosity "peeked"
>> or "peaked".
>
>Don't let it get you down, it's a mute point, anyway.

I try to restrain my urges towards pedantry, but that should be 'moot point'.
(I couldn't decide if that was a deliberate mistake to make a point; was it?)

Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: The subjunctive
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:27:36 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug11210527@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.105833.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> 
>> Aha!  At last I understand my vague unease at the American practice of
>> verbing nouns.  I shall be more tolerant now that I understand that
>> American English does not have any nouns.
> 
> If I nouned you, would you be a subjunctive object?

No, I would be an objecting subject.

> Or would it be imperative to change the subject?

I'm rather possessive about this.  I would not be instrumental in
subjecting anyone to such a change.  In other words, I decline
the suggestion.

> Would you object?

I would be tense; I'm not perfect.  The object of our discussion,
in conjunction with other factors, is indicative of an imperfect
understanding by many.


Peter
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: and - or - but
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:49:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug17.004251.1@lure.latrobe.edu.au> socwk@lure.latrobe.edu.au writes:
>They is conjunctions.  One does not begin a sentence with a conjunction except
>for the purposes of poetic license.

Well, I does.  


-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and as far as I'm
concerned, happy campers you will always be."
                  --J. Danforth Quayle in American Samoa
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:24:16 GMT

In article <71273@apple.Apple.COM> shaevel@Apple.COM (Jeff Shaevel) writes:
>crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>
>In the category of "operator manuals":  I'll never forget the first time I tried
>reading the instruction book for the DX7 synthesizer.  The translations was 
>almost artistic in it's mangling.  My favorite was the translation of the 
>concept of "modulation" as "tickling".  It took me a while to turn "operator 
>tickling" into "waveform modulation"...

When I was at the Consumer Elctronics show one year, I remember picking up
a brochure for some new telephone products.  They contained the following
gems:

For a fax/phone auto-switcher:

	If apply a telephone line is very difficult and expensive?

	Buy this new fax autolink and feel so convenient!

For a call-screener:

	Have a quite nite but no missing of important phone calls.

	Provides you with a more peaceful living.

But the kicker was when they described the enclosures as having
a "delicate outlook."


--
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: fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:58:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Taking Bush Apart
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:

>The following appears in this week's _Economist_ (Aug. 8-14).
>If you have any reaction whatsoever, I'd appreciate your
>sharing it.  If your reaction is such that you think it'd
>be out of place in a.u.e., please send it to <dks@mit.edu>.
>If you find that you have no reaction at all, I envy you.
>
>
>Dhanesh
>
>[This post is dedicated to Jacques Derrida, amateur philosopher.]

    [quote from _Economist_ deleted]                                 

I always manage to get into trouble responding to your posts, Dhanesh,
but here goes anyway.

I'm not sure what response you're looking for or expect.  I enjoyed the
piece as a "guilty pleasure."  By that I mean I chuckled, but feel it's
the kind of thing that plays right into his (Bush's) hands.  It draws
attention away from the things (crimes?) for which he should _really_ be
attacked.  I won't elaborate here because it's a political/legal
discussion belonging outside a.u.e.  I'd be glad to discuss those
aspects with you by email.


John Fisher at Hewlett-Packard |
in Santa Clara, CA             |  Insanity is just a state of mind.
fish@hpscit.hp.com             |  ...or perhaps "mind the state"?
From: "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: can i ask you a sixth
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:19:15 EST
Reply-To: "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

JA>From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU

JA>maynor@Ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor) writes:

JA>>
JA>>I'm trying to think whether I've ever heard anybody include the second [f]
JA>>in "fifth."  So far, I've come up with one possible person:  a colleague
JA>>of mine who seems to speak Broadcast English most of the time -- and is
JA>>looked upon as rather odd as a result.  I'll listen more closely today.
JA>>My reaction to hearing that second [f] pronounced (in normal conversation),
JA>>at least in the U.S. South, would probably be that the speaker suffers from
JA>>linguistic insecurity.
JA>>--
JA>>   Natalie (maynor@ra.msstate.edu)
JA>I have always pronounced the second [f] in 'fifth', and would find it odd
JA>to do otherwise.  It would, of course, be silly to pronounch the following
JA>interdental fricative.  Thus I say [fIf grejd], i.e. 'fifth grade'.

JA>Actually I also don't like clams.

JA>---
JA> * PCB/UseNet Gateway from Sparkware #3


What's going on here?  I would rather cut my throat than not pronounce
the second f in 'fifth', let alone the following interdental fricative.

I might add that I am very secure linguistically.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english