HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: and - or - but
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:21:29 GMT
Reply-To: tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <1992Aug12.211626.6941@ac.dal.ca> asuncion@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>People who begin sentences with "And", "But", or "Or" should be slapped silly
>by an English teacher. NEVER BEGIN A SENTENCE WITH and, or, but!




But I like to.  And anyway, who made you God of English Usage with
slapping privileges?    Or do you have these silly notions
because *you* were slapped around by your English teacher?


Bah humbug!

Jim Tyson
From: jane@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jane Philcox)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: The pundettes are coming...
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:48:24 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

In article <1992Aug7.104328.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>In article <9208061219.AA29981@MIT.EDU>, dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
 
>> I just heard Catherine Crier refer to "pundettes."
 
>> Would it be reactionary of me to protest the further
>> corruption of yet another (Anglo-Indian) English word?

>It would be both reactionary and Politically Correct.
>Nevertheless, I support you.

Would it be too much to ask some bright person what this word _means_?  Then I
might be able to tell whether I think it an awful corruption, politically
incorrect, or anything at all.  A feminization of "pundit"  is the only thing 
I can think of.  (If it is that, I agree with Peter.)  What was the original 
context?

Regards, Jane.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
ABSURDITY: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: maynor@Ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:52:15 GMT

gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>>I'd be surprised to hear a radio announcer say "excape" (well, let's
>>say, one on WCBS or the like); but it's a colloquial pronunciation, and
>>all the tantrums in the worlds aren't going to make it go away.  In some
>>contexts it's shocking; in others, it's just fine.

>Why would you find it so shocking, Roger?  Everyone would understand what
>he meant.  Isn't *that* all that's important?

He would find it shocking because it was unexpected.  That's all.
--
   Natalie (maynor@ra.msstate.edu)
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:07:48 GMT
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute

In article <1992Aug13.123519.17827@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu
(dks) writes:
> By the way, in my original post that raised the question of how "route"
> is nowadays pronounced, I asked particularly for responses from England.
> Alas, I haven't seen any yet.  Silence is all very well at times, proud
> English, but at the moment I need your help!  Speak up, won't you, please?

Well, this response is not from England but I suppose as I am an English
Briton I guess it will do.

Route is pronounced root and not rout. I have only ever heard Americans
pronounce it as rout. 

Simon.

  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:09:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <92233.220039HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.153627.23885@Princeton.EDU>, roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(Roger Lustig) says:

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

>Yeah, Roger...and why not say "me" when we mean "me" and not "I"?
>Or why not say "fewer" when we mean fewer? You're always trotting
>out centuries of usage as documented in the OED or other sources
>as unanswerable justifications for whatever it is you seem to feel
>like justifying. But centuries of using "grammar" or "grammatical"
>in this way, which is understood by *everybody* who speaks English,
>somehow fails to make it all right? Why is that, dear?

For one thing, I'm not arguing that at all for the less/fewer
distinction, as a closer reading of my posting would show, so skip the
condescension for just a moment, OK?  In that case I am arguing for
correctness of grammar, usage, and style in all or almost all contexts.

Next, I am arguing against the use of "ungrammatical" as applied to
informal or colloquial speech because of its political content.  

That is, some people choose to lump usages they don't like -- but have
no good arguments against -- in with obvious errors of grammar such as
article-after-noun or "me am going to the store."  By doing so they can
call all who disagree with them illiterate or stupid or sixth-grade-like
or whatever.  I don't like that kind of intimidating tactic, especially
when it is based on the blurring of a distinction.

What distinction is that?  Why, the distinction between grammar and
syntax and style and usage, of course.  What?  We say "grammar" for all
of those things?  Yes, we do -- informally.  No, we don't -- the moment
we start talking seriously about language, which, they tell me, happens
in this newsgroup.  

Many people call spiders insects, which is OK if you're just using
"insects" to refer to creepy crawly things.  Likewise, they may call all
insects "bugs."  This would not play well in sci.entomology, though.

Got it?  Distinctions are or are not relevant, depending on the
situation in which they are used (or not).  

Now, if someone could finally tell me *why* we need the less/fewer
distinction, i.e., in what situation its absence might confuse or
obscure, I'll listen closely.  Until then, I'm going to go off and
ponder the miraculous situation by which the world was not pluged into
darkness by the horrible coincidence of the comparatives of "much" and
"many."

Roger
From: met@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Meteorology General)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer (supermarkets)
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:14:04 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne Dept of Meteorology

In article <baron.19.713717640@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>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.
>

My suggestion :   Up To ? items, where ? is (7,8,12,15) as suits the
store.  The reason? -- it is about as short and shouldn't upset grammarians.
Now to get stores WORLDWIDE to change, that is the challenge.  Perhaps if
we suggest some advertising coup involving local primary (public / grade /
you know 5-12 years) schools, the expense may be seen to be worthwhile.
Shall we start a mail campaign?

Mick

P.S. My second sentence looks wrong, suggestions (e-mail and restraint please)
     required.
mick@mullara.met.unimelb.edu.au         | Most people choose to be 
Michael Johnson                         | shaped by their past rather
Dept. of Meteorology, Univ. of Melbourne| than mould their future.
Parkville, Australia                    |
>

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: socwk@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: RE: and - or - but
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:42:51 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

They is conjunctions.  One does not begin a sentence with a conjunction except
for the purposes of poetic license.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:53:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.141903.896@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.111131.16541@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
>>
>>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".
>
>Ed Norton used to do that all the time.
>
>Another word that gets mangled by kids is "spaghetti," usually turning into
>"pasketti" or some such.  This one, thankfully, they tend to short out.
>
>Next thing you know, someone's going to be posting that "pasketti" is a 
>reasonable English pronunciation because one kid never managed to say it 
>right.

There is, in fact, a restaurant in Chicago called Busghetti.

But you've (willfully, I'm afraid) missed my point.  People do in fact
stop saying "busghetti" because their peers and elders don't say it.
But "excape" and the like are spoken by people of all ages in some
dialects.  It may not be easier, but it's surely a more common phonetic
pattern; most of the words that begin with 'e' like that are fairly
fancy, like emend, estoppel, evince, evict.  We learn the 'ex-' prefix
for 'out' first.

I'd be surprised to hear a radio announcer say "excape" (well, let's
say, one on WCBS or the like); but it's a colloquial pronunciation, and
all the tantrums in the worlds aren't going to make it go away.  In some
contexts it's shocking; in others, it's just fine.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:01:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.143914.1820@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> perry@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
>
>"To a large degree"
>	-or-
>"to a great degree"

I would say "to a great degree," but I see no ipso facto reason why large
degree is wrong.

>"I went to the store which sold bread."
>	-or-
>"I went to the store that sold bread."

Depends on what kind of store, and what the context is.  If you went to
a bakery, you'd say "I went to the store that sold bread," since "that"
restricts the class of stores to the one that sells bread.

If you went to the only store in town, and that store just happened to
sell bread, you'd say "I went to the store which sold bread," since the
class is already restricted to the only store you could have gone to.

	"The car, which is broken, is in the garage"

describes the state of a car which is already specified.

	"The car that is broken is in the garage."

Tells which car is broken.


>3) Which spelling is correct and from where did the phrase come?
>
>"Speak your piece."
>	-or-
>"Speak your peace."

Interesting question.  I've never written it out, but I'd use piece, since
I would think of it like a writing piece.

>4) Finally, is it (still?) incorrect to pronounce the 't' in often?

"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.


--
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: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Subject: Re: Asses & Tongue in cheek
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:00:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.114516.25099@eua.ericsson.se>,
euaneg@eua.ericsson.se (Nils-Erik.Gustafsson) writes:
> BBC broadcast with someone reading an episode of
> 'Don Quixote' in a very posh accent

I do not think that a BBC broadcaster with a "posh accent"
would say "ass" when he meant "arse".

> "I see that our time is running short, 
>  so there we leave Don Quixote, sitting
>  on his ass, until this time next week."
> 
> No telling if this was said as a Freudian
> slip or tongue in cheek...

Probably neither.  He probably just meant "ass" as in "donkey".

--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za             Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
From: tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:15:58 GMT
Reply-To: tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <pjh.714232717@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>False dichotomy.  A thing can be colloquial *and* correct.
>
>Can it? According to my dictionary colloquial means:
>
>denoting or characterised by informal or conversational idiom or
>vocabulary.
>
>I would say that a thing which is "correct" was therefore not
>colloquial. That does not mean to say that it would necessarily be
>uncommon.
>

I won't pretend that I can make any sense of all this talk about correctness
coz I can't, but the claim here is outrageous.  No matter what I do
with Philippa Hogben's claim I cannot get the deduction that she appears to.
First a question, surely colloquial does not *mean* `denoting or characterised
by...', that is the definition.  When I say something is colloquial I do not
claim that that something denotes anything!

Now for the reasoning:

all colloquial speech is informal or in conversational idiom or vocabulary

this particular speech sample is correct

therefore:

this speech sample is not colloquial

Nope, I just can't get this conclusion.  Now, if I add a premise or two, say

no correct speech is informal or in conversational idiom or vocabulary

I get

this speech sample is colloquial XOR this speech sample is correct,

ie that it is one or the other but not both, which seems to be the result
you want, but there is no point in reasoning to this conclusion since it
has been smuggled into the premises.

My own speech is consistently informal, in coversational idiom and vocabulary
and correct all of the day and most of the night.

Jim Tyson
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Mandar's point
Date: 16 Aug 92 23:09:48 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <92227.124937GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In a recent article, Mandar claimed that it might be possible that our
>gender prejudices exist seperate from the language. There may be
>evidence that backs him up. Farsi , which is spoken in Iran, is a genderless
>language, in fact you can talk all day about a person without revealing
>their gender. Still we should ask, does this genderless language produce
>an equal society? This sort of makes you question the Whorfian hypothesis.

You don't need Whorf to argue against sexist language, though.  And
Mandar is arguing that we should *not* meddle with the language under
any circumstances.  

Why, I don't know.  One *can* use language, including neologism, new
usage, and avoidance of old usages, to attempt social change, or at
least to draw attention to inequities, prejudices, and false assumptions.
Look at the change the "Ms." coinage has brought about!  Not only do
people no longer ask about a woman's marital status automatically (they
rarely did with men), but lots of people are aware that doing so is not
necessarily a good thing.  "Ms." didn't do it alone, but it sure helped;
and I doubt that many of us, men or women, would like to go back to the
"old days" --not all that old -- when a woman's marital status seemed to
be essential information in almost every circumstance.

Roger
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Smileys -- A matter of gender
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:55:35 GMT
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <Bsxoty.Er8@wpi.WPI.EDU>, padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.154957.10009@waikato.ac.nz> maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>>
>>By the way, in NZ we recently have started using the term 'blokess',
>>the problem seems to be that 'bloke' is irreparably masculine, but
>>we love to use it as a part of our linguistic heritage. We can't go
>>on calling the sheilas 'sheilas' so we seem to have gone into
>>constructions like 'all you blokes and blokesses'.
> 
> Assuming that "sheila" is a general term for woman, in much the same
> way I have learned that "bloke" is a general term for man, then why
> exactly can't you call women "sheilas"? Or is my assumption completely
> incorrect?
> 
> By the way - the comic strip "Brenda Starr" yesterday used the 
> term "reportress"!! (This was spoken by some psychaitress in the
> strip)
> 
> Peter! (feminine form, Petress! of course)
> 

Your assumption is correct. I would guess that the usage came
about via the parsing 

sheila  =  she + la

The answer to your second question is that we can't go on calling
women 'sheilas' because the sheilas don't like it !
-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
__________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: "Route" for yall!
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:59:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.162307.3404@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Subject: Re: "Route" for yall!
>From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
>Date: 12 Aug 92 16:23:07 EST
>In article <BsvFx2.28K@wpi.WPI.EDU>, 
>padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
>> I move we make "yall" the proper second-person plural pronoun and
>> be done with it.
>
>Seconded.  All of yall in favor, send yall's votes to Peter for tabulation!
>
>-----ted hayes


Ted, that's "all ya'll," to be precise.

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                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
From: euaneg@eua.ericsson.se (Nils-Erik.Gustafsson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Asses & Tongue in cheek
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:45:16 GMT
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill) writes:

(...)

>I have faint recollections of a snicker or two in Sunday School when 
>someone, sotto voce, mentioned JC riding into Jerusalem on his ass.

This reminds me of a "blooper" LP record I have
which contains a delightful BBC broadcast with
someone reading an episode of 'Don Quixote' in
a very posh accent, concluding thusly:

"I see that our time is running short, 
 so there we leave Don Quixote, sitting
 on his ass, until this time next week."

No telling if this was said as a Freudian
slip or tongue in cheek...

Incidentally, does anyone know the origin
of the expression "tongue in cheek"?
Any connection with just plain "cheek"?

Nils-Erik
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: hopkins@gvlf9-o.gvl.unisys.com (Bill Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Out of Place
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:21:03 GMT
Reply-To: hopkins@gvl.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems Corp (A Unisys Company), Great Valley Labs, PA

In article <1992Aug12.115321.21284@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
>Anyone know if there is a word that means something that is in the wrong
>place or is out of place, like anachronism is for time. Like a fireplace
>in a house in a climate in which you would clearly never light a fire.

Anomaly?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hopkins@GVL.Unisys.Com          Paramax Systems Corporation (A Unisys Company)
215-648-2854 or 363-7464        Great Valley Labs, PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
MXE 016 radial, 8 nmi              Opening my mouth is not company policy.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: The subjunctive
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:51:55 GMT

In article <BsvEqn.MrC@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
>Exactly. I assume that in the indicative we would say "God saves the queen",
>but the form of the verb seems to be a command as in "God clean Your
>room" or something.
>
>Of course, we seem to be missing commas.

As in "Here be dragons"?  [Sorry, Mark.]


>And exactly what are we saving the Queen from? ("Oh, no! The Queen's
>canoe is about to go over the falls! God, please save the Queen!!").
>What is the construction SUPPOSED to mean?

Oh, the treasonous images!  As for your question, think of the
phrase as:
		May God save the Queen.
	as in:
		May you live in interesting times.
	or:
		May your productivity grow and your carpal tunnels prosper.

Does that help?


>[...] for not knowing the proper terminology for "command form"

Lauren will call this tacky (or worse) but the word you want is "imperative."


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to (ha!) the House of Windsor.]
From: GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu (Callec Dradja)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Mandar's point
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:49:37 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In a recent article, Mandar claimed that it might be possible that our
gender prejudices exist seperate from the language. There may be
evidence that backs him up. Farsi , which is spoken in Iran, is a genderless
language, in fact you can talk all day about a person without revealing
their gender. Still we should ask, does this genderless language produce
an equal society? This sort of makes you question the Whorfian hypothesis.

                                    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