HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:58:29 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec22.235749.14921@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <12195@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>[...] and since I don't buy the claim that the polysemy of "man"
>>[...] could lead to significant loss of meaning in a natural
>>situation, I see no need for shunning one of the meanings in an
>>artificial manner, or any other similar major surgery.
>
>But will you violently object if some people prefer to use a less
>ambiguous word, like "person"?

Certainly not.  Neither would I expect anyone else to object,
violently or otherwise.  I use "person" myself, most of the time.
Sometimes I find it more appropriate to use "human being" instead.
And sometimes the first choice is "man".  It depends on many factors.
If someone is unhappy with my choice, I'll listen to him, but he ought
to be able to demostrate that there is a real danger of ambiguity.  It
is my opinion that this was not the case on the several occasions when
Mandar was asked whether he had used "men" as `men' or as `men and
women' in some context, although the intended meaning was quite clear.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 23:57:49 GMT

In article <12195@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>
>However, this is not the case; and since I don't buy the claim that
>the polysemy of "man" (which doesn't make it any different from most
>words anyway) could lead to significant loss of meaning in a natural
>situation, I see no need for shunning one of the meanings in an
>artificial manner, or any other similar major surgery.

But will you violently object if some people prefer to use a less
ambiguous word, like "person"?

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Simplified English
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:40:20 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <C03yA7.2oIx@austin.ibm.com> tylee@leety.austin.ibm.com (Ty Lee) writes:
>In the Chinese world, there has been a movement to promote the idea
>of simplifying the strokes in writing the Chinese characters.

Not the strokes.  The strokes are simple enough.  What is being
simplified are the characters themselves.

>Some argues that this will save time in coding the language into computer.

Oh?  It certainly will do nothing of the sort.  But it is reasonably
supposed to save time in coding the writing into the learner's head.

>Is there any similar movement going that will simplify the English language?

Hold it.  In what way would a movement to simplify the English
_language_ be similar to a movement to simplify the Chinese _script_?

Read Book 3 of J Swift's _Gulliver's Travels_.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:53:33 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzDw15.MnD@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> Who says it isn't? The meaning conveyed is different, that's all.
> The word should be found in all dictionaries.

You have misunderstood the nature of this debate. English and Americans alike
understand the same by the word, it's just that the word has dropped out of the
dialect of English spoken by most English people, as I am sure *you* are
aware, Mandar. I, and several others, are arguing that it conveys a misleading
impression of the first-year student: that he or she is necessarily male. THe
dictionary definition I have here (shorter OED, 1933) gives: A student during
*his* first year, esp. *his* first term at university (US school) [my emphasis]
and gives an original date of 1596 in this sense. I'm sure I need hardly remind
you that between 1596 and 1933 women were allowed to be students at a
university in Britain for all of ten years so the word was not inappropriate.
Now, however, that women make up nearly 50% of our university students, I think
you will agree that it is time for a change.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:11:02 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <12214@kesson.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

# In article <38043@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu
# (David A. Johns ) writes:
# >There is one contingent of anti-theys who claim (1) that the use
# >of a plural pronoun with a grammatically singular antecedent
# >introduces unnecessary ambiguity into the language and (2) that
# >this usage is linguistic engineering -- i.e., an unnatural
# >imposition for social purposes.  My "research" was meant to
# >counter these claims,
#
# So did you manage to counter the first claim?  Number agreement is
# one of the sources of information used for anaphora resolution.

It's an empirical issue.  What you'd have to do is collect a number
of sentences with "proper" anaphoric pronouns in situations where
"they" speakers would use they, substitute "they", and determine
whether there is any ambiguity.  My guess is that the amount of added
ambiguity would be miniscule.

One issue here -- ignored by the doomsayers who make up sentences with
ambiguous "they" -- is that "proper" sentences can be ambiguous as
well.  For instance:

        When the robot brings the report in, send it down to my
        office.

        When the secretaries finish typing the reports, send them down
        to my office.

Also, there are some sentences which might be *disambiguated* by
singular "they", because of the proviso that it refer to a generic
reference and not to a specific one:

        If anyone comes with your brother to the wedding, they'll have
        to leave.

So I'm afraid logical arguments (i.e., deduction) won't work.  It's
time to apply for a research grant!

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante)
Subject: mistakes?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:37:51 GMT

A request to all: please mail me your favorite examples of non-
standard English usages and other anomalies, particularly those
that you find either objectionable or particularly useful.  Possible
examples: nouns used as verbs and v.v.; apparent disagreement in
number ("there's some x"); the use of [modal plus "of"] where
[modal plus "have"] is indicated ("I would of done it"), etc.;
anything you've noticed that disturbs you or strikes you as
inventive.  I'm preparing a list of examples to demonstrate possible
origins of language change to ESL students.

I'll share a compiled list with any contributors who want one.

Thank you.

Kevin Giansante

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: History
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 05:20:37 GMT

In article <Bzqtw6.Ksx@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>Exactly, and feminists want to use "herstory" to make a point. And
>they want to use "people" instead of "man" to make a point; all of
>which seems pointless to people like me.

So, in the current context, what does "pointless" mean?

 (1)  there is no point.  The word "man" is always clear - only
      prejudiced people can fail to understand when it means "man"
      and when it means "man and/or woman".
 (2)  the point isn't valid.  It doesn't matter if "man" is
      misinterpreted - the wishes of woman to be treated as full
      partners in humanity are less important than protecting the
      sacred English language from assault.
 (3)  "people like Mandar" don't get the point.

So, Mandar, which is it, or did I miss a possibility (like "(4) Mandar
is pulling our leg.")

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Sexist hypocrites
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:38:43 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA


Those who oppose words such as "stewardess", "heroine", "hostess" are
hypocrites. Their explanation  is that these words further the notion that
being a man is the norm and being a woman is a deviant. i.e. there
aren't different words for the male *and* the female. Yet, they
accept the word "woman". The word "woman" comes from "man". (wif-man or
literally "wife of man")

       I feel disgusted.......Bah!



                                                         Mandar.

-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roberts@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Robert Swan)
Subject: Comments in source code
Organization: Genasys II, Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:02:09 GMT

I have noticed two principal commenting styles in code (C and FORTRAN)
that passes across my screen (when there are any comments to observe).

The first is to be found in older code (yep, the FORTRAN) and is
very impersonal.  It simply states in terse, not quite English, the
intent of some ensuing piece of gibberish `PROMPT FOR FILENAME', or
`CHECK RIGHT TYPE'.

However, in the newer code, comments tend to be complete sentences and
(here's the part that interests me) speak in terms of the 1st person
plural ...  `We need to get the filename', `We can't proceed unless it's
the right type'.  Reading the source code has taken on an us and them
aspect.  I used to catch myself writing comments like this, and change
it back to a more impersonal form.  Nowadays I don't bother, and quite
like the idiom.

Who are `we'.  Me and my program?  Me and the other programmers?
The royal we (since I am creator of the universe in my program,
I suppose I could put on royal airs)?

Has anyone else noticed anything similar?  Or am I just losing my
marbles?

Have fun,

Robert.
-- 
I used to be indecisive,   | Robert Swan, roberts@g2syd.genasys.com.au
but now I'm not so sure.   | Genasys II Pty. Ltd., North Sydney.
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A good dictionary?
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:09:30 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Dec29.182414.7777@exu.ericsson.se> exucsge@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>I am looking for recommendations for a good English dictionary, desk size, either
>hardback or paperback.  I currently am using a 1989 paperback edition of 
>_The American Heritage Dictionary_, but I have been dismayed in the last few 
>months at how many words I have searched for are not included.

>If this information is in a FAQ somewhere, I will appreciate a pointer in the
>right direction.

Depends on the size of your desk...paperback dictionaries tend to be very
abridged.  

If you have a bit of extra room, spring for the new AHD, 3rd. edn.  A bit
large (though not actually huge), extensive, fascinating.

If not, try one of the "College dictionaries."  Or take your list of
unlocated words to the local English bookstore and test-drive a few
of the dictionaries there.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: use of "in and of itself"
Keywords: itself
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:32:52 GMT

In article <podi.725135859@chamundi.NSD.3Com.COM> podi@ESD.3Com.COM (Podibanda Kuruppu) writes:
>Hello there,
>
>I would greatly appreciate it if some kind soul can explain to me - preferablywith a couple of examples - the meaning of the phrase "in and of itself".  I
>looked everywhere, including the 3 or so dictionaries that I have for its
>meaning with no success.  I can sort of guess its meaning, but I would like
>to know what it means exactly.

"In and of itself" means something like "examined by itself, without
looking at its relationship to anything else or putting it in any
context."

	"Writing in and of itself is not difficult, but writing well
	 is quite a challenge."

	"He always gets lost when he drives.  Driving in and of itself
	 is impossible for him, no matter where he's going."

	"The subject in and of itself is fascinating, but the teacher
	 was so boring that I fell asleep every day during the lecture."


--
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: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:39:19 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzMrE2.DMD@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# >Okay, here are my grammaticality judgements:
#                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# Hmmm....haven't heard *that* word before.

Well, well.  Live and learn.

# >>
# >>      "That employee should sign their form".
# >? awkward, again because of "that".  If it had "the" it would be
okay.
# >--
#
# I implore you to once again check with your friends. HOW MANY agree
# that the foll. sentence is grammatically correct :
#
# "The student should wipe their feet before entering."

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the language by not
being able to generate real examples.  Tsk, tsk.

English is a devilishly subtle language, isn't it, Mandar?

David Johns
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 29 Dec 92 04:35:27 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# The word "woman" comes from "man". (wif-man or literally "wife of
# man")

Sigh.

Now to your ignorance of language in general, and the English
language, and England, and the BBC, and the queen, we must add your 
ignorance of Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon).

Since "wif" meant "woman", and "man" meant "person", "wif-man" meant
"woman-person".  "Wife of man" would be something like "weras wif".

David Johns
From: solar@fsrg.fsrg.bear.com (William del Solar)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Latin America
Summary: Latin's grandchildren
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:12:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bear Stearns & Company, New York, NY

In article <1992Dec31.175208.12658@samba.oit.unc.edu> rck@med.unc.edu (Ronald C. Knight) writes:
>   .
>   .
>   .
>I checked two dictionaries and found three definitions of
>"Latin America", in order of increasing inclusion: 
>
>(1)  "Spanish America & Brazil"
>
>(2)  Those countries of the Americas and the Caribbean where
>     a language descended from Latin is spoken, including
>     Spanish, Portuguese, & French.
>
>(3)  "All of the Americas south of the U.S."
>   .
>   .
>   .
>prescriptive, I consider definition (3) definitely wrong and
>definition (2) suspect.

Suspect, but not wrong.

Under definition (2) include both the USA and Canada as well as
the English speaking countries in South America and the Caribbean
because of Latin's influence on English through the Norman invasion
and the Renaissance.

Note that that includes some non English speaking areas, e.g.
Puerto Rico, Quebec, and New York City. :)

Clearly, both the USA and Canada are not in Latin America; thus,
we should stop using the term "Latin America" when we really
mean "South America."

Wm. del Solar
_________________________________________________
My opinions are not my employer's and vice versa.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:11:26 GMT

(Steve Hayes) writes:
>(Joseph C Fineman) writes:
>>>(David A. Johns writes:

>>>>Yes, yes -- the government have decided -- a barbarism no American
>>>>would think of uttering.

>Not necessarily... there are collective nouns that can be singular or plural 
>depending on the context. 

>"The government has decided" means that the institution as a whole has 
>resolved on some course of action.

>"The government have decided" implies that the individual members of the 
>government were debating a point, and reached agreement.

I wouldn't infer a difference between the uses, and your expansions
don't seem very different. To my ears 'the government' is always
grammatically singular, 'the government members" plural.

>Do you say "This data is... " or "These data are ..."
>surely it depends on whether you are speaking of the collection as a unit, 
>or the collection as a collection.

In formal writing, singular 'data' is very rare, although it is not
uncommon in speech. In my experience, the meaning is not usually
affected by the grammatical treatment of 'data'. If it is really
necessary to refer to a singular collection of data (say in comparison
to another collection), 'data set' is often used.

Werner

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:48:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <1ht06pINNag@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.200007.2635@microsoft.com> frankm@microsoft.com (Frank  
>R.A.J. Maloney) writes:
>> I think Main Street does qualify. The reference has got to be the
>> Sinclair Lewis novel, the location being Gopher Prairie, Minnesota.
>> Fictional, yes, but also a powerful symbol, as powerful as any of the
>> "real" streets mentioned here.
>
>I think it's the other way around; Lewis used this phrase because it was a  
>powerful symbol.  Webster's dates the phrase to 1598.
>

Which Webster's are you using -- the name is a generic,
after all?

Second: does your dictionary entry say about how Main Street
was used in 1598, its meaning, its connotations, its symbolic
load?

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:48:56 GMT
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous

In article <1992Dec25.093839.22647@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser") writes:
:gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
:>
:>Could anyone who understands what a Brit means by 'Professor' and who
:>knows why we sometimes have misunderstandings about visiting US academics,
:>please tell me what 'professor' means in Canada?
:
:Yes, and could someone please tell those of us who don't understand this
:difference (who, in fact, weren't aware of it) just what it is? What *is* a
:British "professor"?

I think the equivalent in America is a personal chair.

Professor over here is the highest academic accolade - not just your
run of the mill PhD.  Professors are sometimes also Head of Department,
though it isn't a one-to-one correspondence.  A Professor here will
certainly be one of the leading people in any field, and has a high
chance of being someone with an international reputation. Stephen
Hawking is the sort of person we think of when we talk about a Professor.
Hence why it grates so badly when some visiting American professor
insists on using his title over here when we would title such a
person a 'lecturer'.  It's forgivable once or twice if done through
ignorance, but the reason I originally asked this question was because
some Canadian twit insisted on putting Professor of English in his
signature after it had been explained to him.  In the particular
group where it happened, you'd have to be someone like Noam Chomsky
to do that and get away with it...

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,bit.listserv.words-l
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:14:56 GMT

In article <38052@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
:In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
:#        I feel disgusted.......Bah!
:#                                                          Mandar.
:You're not just worried that someone might object to your name, are
:you, Mandar?

I think I've just worked it out... Mandar is really my old pal Tushar
who is famed for his spoof postings (this is the guy who invented the
archetypal mock-Indian character "Mahalingam"...)

Tushie, it was your "Bah!" that gave you away.  It's almost a trademark!

G
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:03:50 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <C00Mqw.MyL@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>(Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>[...]
>>Sometimes marketing matters more than origin.
>>[...] the effort that the PC people put into selling singular "they"
>>has the power to make it, for all practical purposes, a PC word.
>
>Isn't it just as mindless to _resist_ singular 'they' because it is PC
>as it is to _accept_ it for the same reason?

Yes, of course it is mindless, in so far as it is not a conscious choice.
People occasionally find themselves avoiding certain places or things
(food, clothes, books, tunes) which are connected in some way to, say, an
unpleasant event or period in their lives.  No reasoning goes into it,
just a subconscious negative association.  You are offered two glasses
of wine to choose from (two competing generic 3Sg pronouns, as it were).
You see a caterpillar floating in one of them, so you choose the other one.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english