HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:03:19 GMT

In <1992Sep2.225412.9559@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:

>In article <92246.155543IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>>Why do so many people (especially native speakers of English) spell
>>incorrectly the following forms:

>>wierd    for      weird

>is probably due to people having internalized the rule "'I' before 'E'
>except after 'C' [unless sounded like 'ay' as in 'neighbor' and
>'weigh']". 

That's easy --- just remember that weird is . . . weird.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A Neologism
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:06:17 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep2.134834.9755@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> lange@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep1.233118.15985@nmsu.edu> sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA) writes:

>: >Literatify - to create an adjective from a literary character or
>: >object.

>: >Here are literafisms I have collected, can anyone think of others?

>: >pollyanna
[...]
>: Not that all of these are adjectives, but anyway,...

>: shylock.
[...]
>: musical/mosaic (from Mousa = muse)

>mosaic is from Moses, as in "mosaic law."

Not in the sense of a pattern of tiles, or at least, that's what my
AHD says.  Your source?

Roger
From: segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Date: 25 Aug 92 11:20:46 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Surely the phrase should read `The opposition IS petrified BY Nissan'.
Since petrified comes from being turned to stone (presumably from what one might
look like should one be scared witless).

Still that's just part of the evolving nature of English, or is it?

Simon Read
------
E-Mail: Simon.Read@umist.ac.uk
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer (supermarkets)
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:20:21 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <HERMIT.92Sep2044530@am.ucsc.edu>, hermit@am.ucsc.edu (William R. Ward) writes:
> |How about when you go to the check-out and hand the check-out
> |operator (avoiding use of sexist pronouns) a 10 thingummy note.
> |They reply "Have you got any less?", well they do around here,
> |as none of the supermarkets seem to know what float is!
> 
> Neither do I; is "float" a Britishism for some concept with which I am
> familiar?
> 
A "float" is that useful selection of coins which the till starts each day full
of, so that the first customers can be given the correct change, and ought to
be kept full of, so that the pound coins and 50p pieces don't run out 
mid-morning and everyone gets a handful of 10s and 20s instead.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6959 soc.culture.british:11928
From: src@jet.uk (Stephen R Cooper)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Name for Brits and Irish?
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:39:36 GMT
Distribution: eunet
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <1992Aug25.103423.14878@cs.hw.ac.uk> mark@cs.hw.ac.uk (Mark Riordan) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.091921.15977@jet.uk> src@jet.uk (Stephen R Cooper) writes:
>>
>>Yes but they would be more accurate to chant "United Kingdom Out". The
>>terms Britain and British include the Republic of Ireland and it's
>>nationals, what's missing is a term for nationals of the United Kingdom.
>>

>Not in popular usage in Ireland and rarely in popular usage in
>the UK is this the case.

>The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines British as

>"of or relating to GB or the UK, or to its people or language"

>among a few other options none of which make any reference to
>the people of the Republic of Ireland.

>MARK

I agree the common usage of the term British has come to mean just the
peoples of the British Isles who are natives of the United Kingdom.  I
also agree that "United Kingdom Out" is probably not the correct term
either as it, according to my Collins English Dictionary, refers to the
Island of Great Britain and Northern Island so "Brits Out" or "United
Kingdom Out" both are calling for the evacuation of Northern Island. So
I can I now change my mind, the chant should be "Great Brits Out".

>-- 
>| 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    |

	Stephen R Cooper
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:13:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.155914.19292@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
> In this case, what seems to be being described is an event rather than
> a state:  "I was scared by the lion's roar" vs. "I was scared of the
> lion's roar".  Interestingly, both of these seem to be the passive of
> (the ambiguous) "The lion's roar scared me".  (The ambiguity has to do
> with whether the subject is generic or specific.)  I can't off the top
> of my head come up with any other cases of "irregular passivization",
> but I'm sure they exist.

To me, "I was scared by the lion's roar" means the lion roared and it
scared me. "I was scared of the lion's roar" means that I hated that lions
roar, whether he had roared or not would be explained in the context.

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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: did vs. done
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:56:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Sep3.212451.10304@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.222056.7024@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com
>(Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.135609.22864@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
>>wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug22.083524.3482@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>>>roddi@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Roddi Walker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Consider the following:
>>>>
>>>>(a) I did my homework.
>>>>(b) I done my homework.
>>>
>>>Are there dialects that use both of these?  (I mean both of "did"
>>>and "done" rather than "did" and "have done.")
>>
>>Certainly.  They're generally basilectical (low status) dialects, but
>>I heard it all the time in Chicago and I'm sure I hear it around
>>here.  I'd be surprised if you couldn't find such dialects near MIT
>>(or anywhere else in the country--you hear it on TV a lot).
>
>I'm not sure I'm being understood.  I have frequently heard both (a)
>and (b).  I do not recall having heard both from the same person
>speaking in the same social situation.  Since the original post asked
>for the situations in which each should be used, I was wondering if
>there are actually any dialects that contain both of them, presumably
>with distinct connotations.

Sorry.  I guess I've heard "This sounds wrong to me, and Miss
Abernathy taught us that it was wrong, so I don't believe anybody
actually speaks this way" too many times recently and I've become
hypersensitive.  My apologies.

I don't have any good data on the question you actually asked.  I
would be unsurprised to hear both from the same speaker, but only
where (a) is being used as a "consciously correct" form.  (i.e., the
speaker has been told that their normal construction (b) is
"incorrect").  Arguably this is attempting to use a higher status
dialect (what's the a technical term for this?).

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: University
From: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:59:24 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


In article <1992Aug31.010002.9082@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
|> A few remarks/questions about the use of the word "university"
|> 
|> I notice that many people in the UK use expressions like "He's at
|> university" whereas an American would always say "He's at college,"
|> even if the college is a university.  Anyone have an explanation other
|> than just a basic US/UK difference?
|> 
|> Similarly, I often see Australians abbreviate the word university as
|> "Uni."  Americans would always write "Univ." (or sometimes just "U")
|> if they wanted to abbreviate it.  I've seen 'Uni" used in the midst of
|> written paragraphs, so I wonder...  is "Uni" an abbreviation used in
|> Australian speech, also?  What's the situation with the abbreviation
|> in the UK?

Here in New Zealand, the use in speech of "uni" is a mark of an Australian,
NZers say "varsity". This is a British term, which, I suspect, went out of use in
its homeland about 50 years ago.

BTW, here, "college" means "high school".

--brian




-- 
Internet: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Postal: Brian Boutel, Computer Science Dept, Victoria University of Wellington,
        PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Phone: +64 4 471-5328   Fax: +64 4 495-5232
From: roger@uvmark.uucp (Roger MacNicol)
Subject: Re: Another Americanism?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:29:09 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.
Keywords: for in

In article <1992Aug27.102006.3065@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>In article <j-cn8jd.henry@netcom.com>, henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard) writes:
>> This may be a Beebism, but on the BBC I keep hearing sentences like:
>> 
>> 	This is the first time this has happened for thirty years.
>> 	                                         ^^^
>The use of "for" here is perfectly correct to these British ears. The US 
>version using "in" always jars slightly. My trusty OED that I have in the
>office says that "for" means (amongst other things) "during". I could not
>find an equivalent for "in" but it is an _old_ and trusty OED.
>

There is an American use of "for" that always grates on my British ears:

	She was named for a flower

"for"?  Did the flower benefit?

The English is:

	She was named after a flower

which at least has the correct precedence.

- Roger

-
-- 
 Roger MacNicol, Software Engineer
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701
 email: uvmark%roger@merk.com
 Phone: (508) 879-3311, Fax: (508) 655-8395
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:13:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.112046.28182@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes:
> Surely the phrase should read `The opposition IS petrified BY Nissan'.
> Since petrified comes from being turned to stone (presumably from what one might
> look like should one be scared witless).
> 
> Still that's just part of the evolving nature of English, or is it?

Yes and no.  The is/are confusion is part of the evolving nature of
English, since there's disagreement among native speakers about how
to treat collective nouns.  Saying "petrified of" rather than
"petrified by" is a different case.  I had always assumed that this
was simply a consequence of a bad translation from Japanese into
English.  I doubt that you'd find any native speaker of English
saying "petrified of", even when speaking informally.

Peter
From: hermit@am.ucsc.edu (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Women Doctors
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:33:39
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
Reply-To: hermit@bayview.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: g92h7147@giraffe.ru.ac.za's message of Wed, 19 Aug 1992
	23:17:28 GMT

g92h7147@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GR HUTCHISON) writes:
>"Boy wonders" has me stumped! Perhaps it is just one of those stock 
>phrases...

Well, I think "boy wonder" is supposed to be an inverted form of
"wonder boy"; while this is still far from `correct' usage, I don't
think it is in the same category as "women drivers" et al.

Your mileage may vary, however.
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:02:52 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
Summary: A weird rule?

In article <10611@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.030319.23129@dsuvax.dsu.edu> rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>>In <1992Sep2.225412.9559@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>>>In article <92246.155543IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>>>>Why do so many people (especially native speakers of English) spell
>>>>incorrectly the following forms:
>>
>>>>wierd    for      weird
>>
>>>is probably due to people having internalized the rule "'I' before 'E'
>>>except after 'C' [unless sounded like 'ay' as in 'neighbor' and 'weigh']".
>>
>>That's easy --- just remember that weird is . . . weird.
>
>It is not weird.  It would be if it were the only exception from the
>weird `"i" before "e" except after "c"' rule.  But, apart from
>"weird", there is "(a)theism"/"(a)theist", "deity", "foreign", "their"
>(which many people can't distinguish from "there" anyway), all of
>which I have seen misspelt with "ie" more than once.  (See alt.atheism
>for many examples of this.)  Not what I would call a reasonable rule.

Maybe I get you wrong here, but my impression was that the i/e/c rule
only applied to words with the /i:/ sound. All the examples you give 
pronounce differently: "atheist" /-ii-/, "deity" /-i:i-/, "foreign"
/-I-/, "their" /-??-/ (I forget the suitable IPA-Ascii equivalents).
(Well, that's the way I learnt to pronounce them, ymmv.)

Are there any words with an /i:/ that are spelt "-cie-", or "-ei-"
after some other consonant than "c"? The only examples that I can
think of are proper names (like "Leigh", "O'Neill"), but I would
be very disappointed if there weren't some real counterexamples?!
(I'm not sure whether "seize" counts; "s" and "c" have the same
/s/ sound.)

>It is also weird that people insist on using "weird" in writing, even
>though they can't spell it.  They should substitute "strange", or
>"odd", or something that is easier to get right.

Perhaps it would be even weirder if some people *only* used the words
they can spell correctly ...
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"No news is good news - not at all if the news system is broken."
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Another Americanism?
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:33:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)




In a previous article, wes4@pyuxd.uucp (25854-stanley) says:

>
>	Has anyone noticed the common(in the U.S., that is) use of
>the incorrect tense when saying, for example:
>	"I should have went to the store..."
>instead of what should be:
>	"I should have gone to the store..."?
>It grates on my ears every time, and I even catch my 9 year old,
>on occasion, use it (he promptly gets a lecture on grammar for
>this offence).


That's "I should -of- went to the store," of course.

Kids say it a lot.  Adults say, "I shoulda gone".

(Mostly, anyway.  I'd have to listen a bit to be sure.)


Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.021636.9553@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>Fine.  If you want to make it "25 words or less <writing>," be my guest.
>
>A far more generous attitude than some people here have displayed.

Indeed, but you seem to have edited out the whole bit about numbers of
words, and *amounts* of "stuff" vs. *numbers* of items.

>What's "good" got to do with it? If enough people use it, it's what
>people use.  And the language is what people use, not some abstract
>code.

So why bother speaking well at all?  Why make the distinction between
the locker room and the seminar room?  If that's what people use, why
bother learning correct grammar?

>As usual, the standard is Gabe.  What Gabe likes is good and standard;
>what anyone else does, unless it's Gabe's way, is sloppy.  

Hardly.  If that were the case, I would never have to send my text to
editors before publication.  All writers (myself included) benefit from
having others read their text so as to check for grammatical gaffes,
awkward expressions, improper sentence structure, etc.  If I thought
that everything I did was so good and standard, I'd just send it all
right to the printer.

>>  - Although it could be said that, "Well, that's their culture, and
>>    they've been doing it that way for thousands of years, and who are
>>    we to change it?"
>
>Nu?  Do they say that?

I've heard such things in academia, just as I've heard such arguments
made about language...."That's what people use.  Why try to drum it out?"

>>But many people had to be taught that "me and my friends..." is wrong.
>
>Indeed, because it's a *dialect* issue.  In colloquial English, it's
>*not* wrong.  Say it on the street and it's fine.  Say it on the dais
>and it's wrong.  That distinction must indeed be learned.

Unconvincing.  From some daises it wouldn't be considered wrong by the
audience because they wouldn't recognize the error, just as on the street
some people might recognize the error.  Just because the people on the
supermarket line don't recognize that "10 or less" is wrong doesn't make
it right.

If you're still going to argue that it's not wrong, and ask us "tell us *why*
'less' is wrong," I'd direct you to the distinction between "stuff" (as you
dubbed it) and items which you have deleted.

>>>When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school...
>
>>Hope you're enjoying the retrospective
>
>In technicolor^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Kodachrome.

Care to scan some of them and upload them for all to enjoy?  perhaps it's
time for alt.usage.english.pictures.  


--
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: dian@druggist.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:43:11 GMT

In <1992Aug24.212808.27684@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.180405.2141@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>>
>	[...]
>>
>>"Petrified" (as in "petrified with fear") is a common intensive
>>synonym for "scared" in the US.  It's roughly equivalent to
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>"terrified".
>  ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Evan Kirshenbaum
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Roughly equivalent, yes.  But IMHO the rough edges are what the point
>is in this case.  One can be "terrified of" something, but to be 
>"petrified of" something sounds strange, indeed, to me.

>And the original meaning of "petrified" seems to support this:  it means
>"turned into stone."  

>"I'm petrified of public speaking" would then translate into
>"I'm turned into stone of public speaking."  Ugh.

>I'd rather hear 
>"I'm petrified at the prospect of public speaking" or the like.



For the most part I agree: "terrified of" and "petrified at the ...,"
but "petrified by" also sounds fine.

____
Dian
From: jane@bohra.cpg.oz.au (Jane Lean)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: University
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:05:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Power Software

In article <1992Aug31.010002.9082@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> A few remarks/questions about the use of the word "university"
>
> Similarly, I often see Australians abbreviate the word university as
> "Uni."  Americans would always write "Univ." (or sometimes just "U")
> if they wanted to abbreviate it.  I've seen 'Uni" used in the midst of
> written paragraphs, so I wonder...  is "Uni" an abbreviation used in
> Australian speech, also?  What's the situation with the abbreviation
> in the UK?

Most Australians would use "uni" in speech quite happily.  "When I was
at uni....", to tie in with your other question.  

Jane
>
> Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 


-- 
Jane Lean                                                 jane@bohra.cpg.oz.au
CP Software Export Pty Ltd                               Phone:  +61-3-8230213
ACN 006 640 133  (A Division         "They're gonna hang some new stars in the 
of the Computer Power Group)          heavens tonight."     -- Laurie Anderson
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Subject: /A/ as in Eighteen (was: Re: P as in Phonetic)
Reply-To: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:19:08 GMT

In article <dian.714959991@egg.gg.caltech.edu> dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu
(Dian  De Sha) writes: 
>In <1992Aug27.175200.23040@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU
>(Roger Lustig) writes: 
>>  Also the nightmare 
>>one [alphabet], with things like P as in pheasant.  Anyone have these
>>on line?) 
>Please!  If it exists, I would love to see it; if not, I'd love to start one.
>Let's see:
[much deleted]

I heard once the opposite case, the nightmare spoken alphabet:  it was
a song, a satire of the "A is for apple" type poem used to teach
children, wherein each letter was claimed to stand for a word which
phonetically either began with the letter's name or its conventional
sound, but which was not, in fact, spelled with that letter.

The only two examples I can remember, though, are
A is for Eighteen
and
V is for Wienerschnitzel

I can't remember where I heard this song, though.  Does anyone have a
copy of it, or, barring that, can the clever minds on this net come up
with good examples for each letter?  (Some letters are easy, some are
not.)

Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english