HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:13:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.063613.2724@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>And when there is a clear subtext to their assertions -- namely that
>they are in tune with those old standards, and that they can identify
>the barbarians by this or that shibboleth  [I know, I know] -- I
>have no compunctions about pointing out their agenda.

Oh please.  Gimme a break.

>But if they use their argument as a stick to beat on some social
>group they don't care much for -- as usually happens in such situations --
>I shall stand up to defend people who are using the language as they
>know how.  

I don't recall *anyone* in recent months picking on any particular
social group.  Gaffes of grammar and usage tend to permeate all social
groups.  No one gets discriminated against.

>I shall also stand up to challenge the misinformation that
>usually accompanies the "decline" arguments. 

With all this standing up you're doing, you might as well just mount
your computer terminal at chest level and be done with it.

>But we don't always speak formal written prose.  We speak this or that
>dialect -- always -- and in *some* settings, *some* situations, they
>are perfectly acceptable.  

Yes, indeed.  And there are certain things which one does in informal
speaking or writing that one would not do in formal prose.  There are
other things that one would never do in either.  We seem to disagree on
the latter category.

>Well, I usually get angry when the implications of the argument involve
>*my* inferiority of linguistic use.  And since such arguments are
>usually based on prejudice of the Edwin-Newmanesque sort, I don't
>take them lying down.

Uh huh.  Somehow I suspect that most of the characteristics we are talking
about aren't readily found in your idiolect.


--
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: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Date: 18 Nov 1992 19:20:23 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu

I'm going to regret this...
John Wexler writes:
>Example: Fred is the only person known to me who has converted from the
>Orthodox Church to Judaism. Fred is unique.  Bert is the only person
>known to anybody reading this newsgroup who has converted from the
>Orthodox Chuch to Zoroastrianism.  Bert is more unique than Fred.

Okay.  Mike Jacobs (made-up name) had a fatal heart attack last
Thursday and was buried on Sunday.  He is dead.  Steingrim Steinkirksson
(another made-up name) had his guts ventilated at the Battle of
Stamford Bridge in 1066 and his corpse was picked apart by ravens on
the battlefield.  Is Steingrim more dead than Mike?

---------------------  
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |  
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:19:19 GMT

In <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>... to some, using unique to mean "one of a kind" is wrong
>(not me me).  To others, using unique to mean something *other* than "one of
>a kind" is wrong.  

Often "one of a kind" doesn't even mean "one of a kind", as in 
colloquial descriptions of someone odd or perhaps special.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Nov14.213151.6354@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>There is a whole *list* of things that are used in everyday speech in
>various parts of the country that come from trademarks.  Some of them have
>been around so long that many people don't even recognize them as
>trademarks any more.
>
>ping-pong
>kleenex
>kotex
>xerox
>frigidaire (it is not uncommon to hear a refrigerator referred to using
>            this word in the southeastern U.S.)
>jello (as mentioned)
>band-aid (as mentioned)
>crisco

From the Oxford Companion to the English Language ("Trademark"):

      Everyday words of English that were once trademarks (some now
      universal, some more common in one variety of English than
      another, some dated, all commonly written without an initial
      capital) include aspirin, band-aid, cellophane, celluloid,
      cornflakes, dictaphone, escalator, granola, hoover, kerosene,
      lanolin, mimeograph, nylon, phonograph, shredded wheat, zipper.
      Trademarks facing difficulties include Astroturf, Dacron,
      Formica, Frisbee, Hovercraft, Jacuzzi, Laundromat, Mace, Muzak,
      Q-Tips, Scotch Tape, Styrofoam, Teflon, Vaseline, Xerox.

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | Never ascribe to malice that which
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | can adequately be explained by
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | stupidity.
				       | 
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | 
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:08:24 GMT

In <1992Nov15.045736.14307@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>Oh please, spare us Roger.  The point is that the word "unique" has a 
>meaning, namely "one of a kind."  By using the word improperly (such as
>in "more unique" and other beastly abuses), the weight of the word is
>lessened.

I don't see why the 'one of a kind' definition for 'unique' should
preclude the use of modifiers. 'one' is a well-defined concept but the
scope of 'a kind' depends on the context and can accept a modifier.
Something is only one of a kind within a certain class.  To be 'more
unique' is to be one of a kind in a larger class, or one of a kind in
more classes, or one of a kind in a more special class.

Tom is the only person in his class over 6 feet tall. That makes
him unique (but not unusual). Dick is the only person in his school
over 7 feet tall.  I would regard Dick as more unique than Tom.

My car is quite unique in that it is the only car in my lot painted
with 16 shades of purple. Another car in the lot is very unique in
that it has a working traffic-jam jumper (helicopter propellor on the
roof).

Werner
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: why wOn't for wIll not?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 07:12:59 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG, Paderborn, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de

In <761.18.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) writes:

>TO: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)


>DT>   If you read Lewis Carroll, you will see "won't" and "can't" written
>  >   with an extra apostrophe: wo'n't and ca'n't.

>So here's another question:  Where does the "O" in "will not = won't"
>come from?

Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)

            [What I tell you three times, is true!          ;-]

                                Stu Savory
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: kabel@jmpoff.enet.dec.com (Rik Kabel)
Subject: Re: I palindrome I
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:40:15 GMT


You write...
>The other day, I was listening to They Might Be Giants' song "I
>Palindrome I" and a question occurred to me.  The song doesn't have
>much in the way of "standard" palindromes ("mom" and "dad" are about
>the most impressive), but it does have the following passage:
>  "Son, I am able," she said, "though you scare me."  "Watch," said
>  I; "Beloved," I said, "watch me scare you, though."  Said she:
>  "Able am I, son."
>So. Two questions: 1) Is this a palindrome, or does it have another name?
>And 2) Are there other passages like this that you folks know?

This is an epanos, a phrase reversible by word (a palindrome being a word
reversible by letter). Two more examples are: 

Girl, bathing on Bikini, eyeing boy, finds boy, eyeing bikini, on bathing girl. 

So patient a doctor to doctor a patient so.

There is also chiasmus, which is a longer sequence reversible by phrase. If you
find one, send it to me for inclusion in my notebooks. 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:29:20 GMT

In article <98361@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.063613.2724@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>Words 
>>like donate, narrate, reliable, resurrect, greed, tireless, loan (as verb),
>>female, enviable -- all these were attacked with at least the venom 
>>we have seen spat at "pro-active" and "concertize" recently -- and
>>the misinformation in the arguments against these words was just 
>>the same sort.

>Roger, are you saying that no one has the right to dislike a particular
>word?  That we must warmly embrace them all, simply because other people
>are using them?  That if we dare to express an unfavorable opinion, we
>will -- at least in this discussion group -- be informed that we're full
>of, and I quote you here, "bullshit"?

You're welcome to like or dislike what you please, and to express your
dislikes and likes as strongly as you wish.  

However, that's a long way from saying that *other* people are doing something
bad by using this or that word.  People are generally doing the best they
can when they speak, and generally have good and sufficient reasons for
using the words they use, and avoiding the words they don't.  

If you wish to limit your speech and writing to a standard that satisfies
you -- *any* standard -- by all means do so.  Everyone has methods and 
pathways and rules that lead to means of expression they find satisfactory.
But do not insist that other people limit their speech to the same 
subset of the language that you have chosen, unless you can *demonstrate* 
that distinctions of great value are being lost by this or that usage.
(Saying "apple" for "banana" would be such a case.)  The English language
is bigger than your idiolect.

Roger
From: ettamminen@cc.helsinki.fi (Tapio Tamminen)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Panglossian?
Date: 22 Nov 92 12:29:21 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

>> Roger, you have this amazingly panglossian view of the world.  Anything
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^

> Can someone please tell me the meaning of this word? Unfortunately I
> do not have my Chambers dictionary with me :(  and the Websters
> (oh, how I hate even to look at it; but alas, I have no other option)
> doesn't list it. A previous article  mentioned that the on-line OED
> is inaccessible.
>
>
>                                                   Thanks,
>                                                            Mandar.

Webster's Third New International:
panglossian   adj, usu cap [Pangloss, optimistic tutor of Candide in the
satire Candide (1759) by Voltaire]: marked by the view that all is for the
best in this best of possible worlds <~ economists... who had not so much
predicted as seen the millenium>

                                                    You're welcome,
                                                             Tapio.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: mnemonics in general
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:19:27 GMT

In article <pqF=jL@engin.umich.edu>, cliff@engin.umich.edu (clifford  kaminsky) writes:

>>Again, it can't be a good mnemonic since I can't remember it, but isn't it
>>something like 
>>"God, I need a drink (alcoholic of course) after that heavy
>>lecture involving Quantum Mechanics?" 
>>(Would give 3.14159265457979... is that right, anyone?)
>>
>>Marc Read
> 
> Get ready for this:
> 
> 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937511
> 
> Now maybe someone can write a new mnemonic.

Having introduced pi into this conversation, I should apologise for
having suggested that there was a mnemonic for about 100 digits.
I've just tracked down one of my sources, and the mnemonic I had
had in mind turned out to be "How I need a drink (alcoholic, of
course) after the heavy chapters involving quantum mechanics",
attributed to the physicist James Jeans (dammit, I suspect I've just
got his name wrong; I need a mnemonic for that too).  Not quite
100 words.  I believe I've seen a longer version, but have been
unable to find it.

Many thanks to the person (whose name I've also forgotten - sorry)
who produced four such mnemonics, two of which were verses of
31 words each.  If anyone knows the missing French word, I'd love
to hear about it.

Observation: while trying to reconstruct these mnenomics, I found
myself trying to find words which would fit the digits, which
rather defeats the point.  I find the numbers easy to remember,
but not the words, and was trying to use the digits of pi as a
mnemonic for the original quotations.  Is this just me, or have
others noticed the same thing?

About thirty years ago, telephone numbers in large Australian cities
consisted of two letters followed by four digits.  This was
replaced by an all-digit system, and I believe that the reason for
the change was that digits were easier to remember than letters.

In a similar vein, the mnemonics I learnt in high school for the
colours of the rainbow and for the planets were the names
"Roy Gbiv" and "Mvem Jsunp".  These worked for me because they were
nice and short.  Most of the other mnemonics I've seen - usually in
the form of complete sentences - have been quite useless to me
because the only way I could reconstruct them was by using the
original information as a mnemonic for the mnemonic.  They are
interesting curios, but I wonder whether anyone has found them to
have any mnemonic value.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:48:39 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
Summary: Who's doing their best?

In article <1992Nov19.232920.25852@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

 [...]
>However, that's a long way from saying that *other* people are doing something
>bad by using this or that word.  People are generally doing the best they
>can when they speak, and generally have good and sufficient reasons for
>using the words they use, and avoiding the words they don't.  

Felix America!

I wish this were true for many speakers that I know. I'm sure that your
statement is simply wrong for a lot of (native) German speakers; my
impression is (and I ascertained this impression on frequent occasions)
that this isn't fundamentally different in Britain (contradictions
welcome!); and I honestly didn't notice this attitude of "doing the best
they can" -- wrt the language! -- when I was in the US. But then, my
insight is limited.

Or were you kidding, Roger?

I really wish people *would* do their best, take care of their language,
choose their words considerately. Someone -- not me, of course, and I'm
not going to put all the blame on the teachers -- should make the folks
aware of the subtleties of their language; then, if they still want to
violate the "traditional rules", that's fine by me. (Almost.) 
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
From: dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Source wanted for: "There is nothing so practical as a good theory"
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:25:59 GMT
Organization: UB

I have heard several times a quote that goes something like this:

   "There is nothing so practical as a good theory"

Can anyone tell me the source, and also the exact original wording if
that is not it?  We suspect that is was Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas
Edison or some such person.

Thanks in advance!

David Mark
dmark@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baril@bnr.ca (David Baril)
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:03:51 GMT

In article <Bxyp3q.GH3@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>Quoting kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com in article
<1992Nov19.005116.7236@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>:
>>
>>"Horny as Kay Dekker"?  I'm not familiar with that expression.
>
>You may be unique in that respect...
>
>[starts running away]
>  __                                ____
>\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
>/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
>

Thank you, Paul.  This one get my "favourite quote of the week" vote.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Baril                                  "Can we do it again in shapes?"
baril@bnr.ca                                    "It's not their fault!"

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:31:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
Organization: n. Arrangement in an orderly or logical fashion.  See "miracle".

From the Holy Book of <1992Nov18.100410.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
  as spake by ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) :
>To me this is proof positive that we already have [a gender-neutral
>pronoun]: `they'.

And it's an ex post facto usage of the word, with all the awkwardness
that implies.

>Even `grammarians' gave up long ago worrying about `you' being used for both
>singular and plural.

Wait, 'you' _is_ both a second-person singular pronoun and a
second-person plural pronoun.

>                     How come some people still get their knickers in a twist
>over the everyday use by millions of others of the singular `they'.

"Oh, someone will be coming by with the Harrison transcripts.  Send them
 to Joe in room 405."

Now, does the 'them' in that sentence refer to the transcripts or to the
person bringing them?

See the problem?

						-sbigham
-- 
Scott Bigham                   | The opinions expressed above are
dsb@romeo.cs.duke.edu          | fictitious.  Any similarity to actual
bigham@hercules.acpub.duke.edu | persons or opinions, living or dead, is
    (but not for long)         | coincidental.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:26:42 GMT

In article <1ee51nINN7j1@agate.berkeley.edu> dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum) writes:
>I'm going to regret this...
>John Wexler writes:
>>Example: Fred is the only person known to me who has converted from the
>>Orthodox Church to Judaism. Fred is unique.  Bert is the only person
>>known to anybody reading this newsgroup who has converted from the
>>Orthodox Chuch to Zoroastrianism.  Bert is more unique than Fred.

>Okay.  Mike Jacobs (made-up name) had a fatal heart attack last
>Thursday and was buried on Sunday.  He is dead.  Steingrim Steinkirksson
>(another made-up name) had his guts ventilated at the Battle of
>Stamford Bridge in 1066 and his corpse was picked apart by ravens on
>the battlefield.  Is Steingrim more dead than Mike?

Exactly--here's a distinction between an absolute like "Dead" and one
like "unique."

We all know what dead means, and know ehat it means in a given case.
Dead is dead.  But when you say that Bert is unique, you don't know anything
at all about Bert.  Is he bigger?  Fatter?  Smarter?  Does he have more
gall than anyone else?  Has he learned how to ski through a revolving
door?  Any or all of those things could make him unique; there are infinitely
many ways of being unique.  

And it's just too tempting to compare different ways.

Roger
From: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: last,latest,latter
Date: 18 Nov 1992 03:36:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Nico Tranquilli (ntranqu@caticsuf.cati.csufresno.edu) wrote:
: Could anyone please tell me the differences between
: LAST, LATEST(?), LATTER ?


LAST is used as an adjective
	e.g. He was the last person to finish the race.
It is used very similarly as a noun
	e.g. He came last in the race.
As you are probably aware, LAST in this sense means `after all others,
coming at the end'

LATEST is the superlative form of late. i.e. *The most late
but it is used far more often to mean The most recent. 
	e.g. Have you seen the latest newsgroup.
Notice that this means the newest newsgroup, the one most recently
started whereas the LAST newsgroup would be taken by most people to be
the newsgroup coming at the end (of a listing)

LATTER is only used when you are comparing two things. As one would
suspect then, it refers to the second of two things. The first is called
the former.
	e.g. Today I met Mr Jones and Mr Smith. The latter is a bank
manager while the former is a computer programmer.
Note that LATTER is actually an adjective but we tend to drop the noun
that it is qualifying. By `The latter is a bank manager' we mean `The
latter [man] is a bank manager'. Notice that latter takes the definite
article `THE' - always `the latter' and `the former'. Come to think of
it, all three (LAST, LATEST, LATTER) take the definite article when
adjectives. Can anyone out there find any exceptions?
 
: It's an ignorant question, I know and I also know that the last time I
: posted here I had no replies, so I wonder if this newgroup is "reserved"
: for native english speakers only...)

It's not an ignorant question. I know many native english speakers who
mix them up. It makes me wonder how English inflexions came about given
that most native speakers don't understand why they use them. I guess
most historical linguists would consider me ignorant...

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english