HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:50:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.192807.678@news2.cis.umn.edu>, charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
> 
> In fact that is what formality requires.  In replies to discussion of papers
> in UK journals one often finds something like
> 
>     The comments of Professor Jones [an Ass. Prof. at an American university]
>     and Dr. Smith [a Lecturer at a British university] are especially
>     welcome ...
> 
> everyone understands, if they look at the affiliations, that Jones's title
> is no more impressive than Smith's.

I'm not convinced that everyone does understand.  Back when I was
applying for a promotion to the rank of Senior Lecturer, there were
people who were impressed by the fact that I'd once been a
visiting professor.  In the other direction, I've come across
Americans who don't take my academic credentials seriously because
I'm only a lowly Associate Professor.

The lorry/truck example is different, for the following reason.  The
first time I came across the word "lorry" I was able to recognise it
as a word outside my dialect, and was therefore prompted to look in
a dictionary for the translation.  (At least, this is the way it
could have happened.  I must admit that I've been aware of the word
"lorry" for so many years that I can't remember how I first dealt
with it.)  The "professor" example is potentially a lot more confusing
because there are many people who aren't even aware that the word
has different meanings in different countries.

In response to somebody else's question: I'd say that Graham's
correspondent was being exceptionally pretentious.  How many of us
bother to put titles in our signatures?
-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
(who is known as "Professor Moylan" to people who delight in
playing with red tape; as "Doctor Moylan" to people who are trying to
sell me something; and as "Peter" to everyone else.)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Epiphany, Reincarnation
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:10:19 GMT

In <1993Jan3.180014.18966@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>In article <93003.164356HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
>HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes (Herschel Browne):

>>Epiphany (Three Kings) is just three days away, but I've already had
>>my epiphany for 1993. I've never believed in reincarnation, but....Over
>>the course of the last two years, reading articles posted by someone
>>calling himself either Mikhail or Michael Zeleny, I've had this nagging
>>feeling that I had *heard this voice before*. There was this familiarity
>>that I couldn't quite place. Last night it came to me. It's Thomas
>>Carlyle! His style has been vulgarized even further since the reincarnation,
>>but Carlyle he very clearly is. I'm glad I'm finally able to clear this up.

	A vain scribble that this fool makes, this mite upon a flea - he 
sits in a motley tunic on the throne, dreaming that he is the King.  Such
weak command of that harlot, language.  He dreams that epiphanies are like
New Year's Eve bacchanalia, insofar as they come yearly and with no spiritual
effort.  This small man compares himself to Kings, and to kings among men,
and yet where is his kingdom?
	He is also mistaken in believing that M. Zeleny is Carlyle, for I am 
Carlyle.  Zeleny visited my cottage once, and I sat with him and Rasputin
as the plotted, laughing at their bawdy humor.

	I, of course, brought the babes.

Andrew Aiken

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:30:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.002840.14123@wsdnws.waseda.ac.jp> ytsuji@cfi.waseda.ac.jp ("Y.Tsuji") writes:
>
>Oh please stop driving me mad. It took me years to learn that when 'quite'
>precedes an adjective of digital type (e.g. right, correct) it means
>completely and when it precedes one of analog type (e.g. good) it means
>'fairly' (i.e. your English is quite good is a very bad assessment).
> Now, 'fairly' means otherwise in some part of the country!! Learning
>English is either a torture or a fun. It is both to me.

In New York, if someone said "Your English is quite good!", you could take
that as a very fine compliment.  "Quite" meaning "fairly" seems to be a
British usage, as we're discovering.  I was quite surprised (meaning VERY
surprised :-) to encounter it in that list as I did.


--
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: ettamminen@cc.helsinki.fi (Tapio Tamminen)
Subject: Re: scut work
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:04:11 GMT

In article <130b/1323c@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca>, jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca 
(Jonathan Story) writes:

> This is a case where I *thought* I knew a word but later discovered I
> didn't.  This word is "scut", and here's an example from Alexei Panshin's
> _The_Thurb_Revolution_:
> 
>     "... No, you'll have to make your own notes.  I will make
>     an offer, though.  If you want to spend your time making
>     David a Big Beaver, I'll mind things here, do the cooking
>     and scut work."
> 
> I understood "scut work" to be small jobs that have to be done, but that
> folk would just as soon not do themselves.  Recently, though, I thought to
> look this up in the dictionary and found that it isn't there!  Not in
> Oxford's Concise, nor in the original OED.  Possibly, it is related to
> "short work", but this is not clear.
> 
> So, can anyone supply an authoritative definition and origin?  
> 

Would you consider 'New Dictionary of American Slang' by Robert L. Chapman to
be authoritative? Well, here's what it has to say about 'scut work':

  Menial work such as would be given to a novice.
  (Hospital) Routine and tedious medical procedures usually relegated to the
  least senior members of the staff.

And Webster's Third New International says:

  [perh. fr. E slang *scut* junior intern] Routine and often menial work.

-- 

          * Tapio Tamminen         *                           *
          * University of Helsinki * ettamminen@cc.helsinki.fi *
          * Finland                *                           *
From: pgarside@acorn.co.uk (Paul Garside)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re:K Street
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:04:52 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England



Has anyone mentioned Carey Street (= bankrupt, though I don't know why)?

Savi_l_e Row, Graham, just to be picky.

Sloane is another one, though I don't know whether this refers to Sloane
Street or Square. I'd back the Square.

--
Paul Garside                  
Acorn Computers 
Cambridge England.                           My opinions and not Acorn's
From: prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener)
Subject: Re: Is it proper to use CONTRACTIONS in letters,resumes,etc.?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:31:14 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, New York

In article <1iobbuINN1jd@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P. Chatterjee) writes:

> I had a question about whether it is proper to use contractions (that is
> I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements, resumes
> and other statements.

While contractions are not improper, they are best reserved for informal
communications.
--
                                   Dan Prener (prener@watson.ibm.com)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baril@bnr.ca (David Baril)
Subject: a.u.e. FAQ (was Re: Speaking of mathematics...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:29:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.042510.10712@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark
Israel) writes:
>
>   Thank you; I will mention this in the FAQ.
>
>> Where is the FAQ anyway?  How long have we been hearing about it?
>
>   Too long, and I'm sorry.
>
>
>misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
>Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
>

An "a.e.u" FAQ?  I've been reading the group off and on for a couple of
months now and this is the first I've heard of it.  Please advise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Baril                                  "Can we do it again in shapes?"
baril@bnr.ca                                    "It's not their fault!"
From: hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionaries (& nostalgia) 
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 09:02:38 GMT
Organization: Lethargy Inc.


In article <C0D25F.12o@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk writes:

  > OK, so time to start a list of words with historically interesting
  > pronunciations that are slowly being lost...  I'll kick it off with
  > waistcoat, or /weskit/...

Boatswain (bosun)
Forehead (forrid)

 ----------------------------------------------
 Phil Anderson  ***  hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
 ----------------------------------------------
       "No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:50:05 GMT

In France (and French Canada), even grade school teachers are called
"professeur"!  It must give Graham conniptions.

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rjtapp@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Riston Tapp)
Subject: Re: Left field
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:54:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.170008.319@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>abilities.  "Out of left field" means "from a remote, unexpected source."

I agree with your definition, but isn't it "out in left field" (which
would change the definition somewhat).

Riston
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Shop !
Date: 13 Jan 93 11:32:32 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

I seem to remember a time when it was quite common to shout
'Shop!' in an unattended shop/store/office/etc as a means of
getting attention. I now feel inhibited from doing this: is
it just that I have wimped out, or is the practice less
common ?
-- 
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: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Person
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 03:39:45 GMT

In article <12320@kesson.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.024948.19862@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>In article <12283@sorley.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>You still don't think sex (I
>>>take it that's what "gender" was meant to mean)?
>>
>>Sex is an activity, gender is an attribute . . .  :-)
>
>I thought gender (masculine/feminine/neuter) was just an attribute of
>nouns, while sex (male/female) was an attribute of animals.  (My use
>of "animal" here includes our species.)

In MW-NCD, the first definition of "gender" is "SEX".

>>With "someone", you just might visualize a woman.
>
>Highly unlikely.  If I get to the point of creating a more or less
>definite mental image of the someone, it will almost certainly be one
>of a man (a male), unless the context carries a very strong suggestion
>of the contrary.

In this case, understandable - a man listening to a man singing would
certainly be more likely to think of a man than a woman.  But what if
the song had been sung by Paula Simon?  What about a woman listener?  If
the image in those cases is still automatically of a male, then
something is seriously wrong!  (And in fact, something *is* wrong.  Just
a couple of hours ago, a woman told me something like "I don't know much
about cars - I'm a woman".  With such an attitude, how can someone
learn?  Hmm, Ivan - does *that* "someone" still evoke a male, or a
female?  Actually, I meant both - lack of confidence is an major
obstacle to learning and achieving for anyone, male or female.)

I certainly hope my daughters will be able to visualize a woman as
easily as a man in any context.  How many women have cut off their own
opportunities because the standard image of the role was male?

Certainly, reducing the bias in the English language is not a panacea.
Improving the language isn't meant as a solution, but as a way to help
reduce artificial barriers . . .

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Person
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:49:06 GMT
Organization: University of South Africa

In article <20218.2b495516@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:

>The word "person" derives from the Greek "PERSONA", being
>the megaphone mask used by actors in the drama to disguise
>their real faces and amplify their voices, and meaning
>"sound-through".
>I suppose "person" would be an apt word for those who insist,
>loudly, on using it to mask their own and others' humanity.
>Myself, I prefer MAN in general and WOMAN in particular.

Actually "persona" is from Latin. The Greek word "prosopon", which is often 
translated into Latin as "persona" means "face towards", and is therefore 
somewhat closer to the modern English meaning of "person". Another Greek 
word sometimes translated as "person" is "ipostasis" (literally "
understanding, what stands under"")

But I too prefer MAN in general, and if I want to refer to a male human 
being I use the word "male". If the inclusive use of "man" is prohibited by 
the thought police of neo-fascist feminismn, then I suggest that we use  
"thpic" to replace it. It is an acronym for "the human person in community", 
which is what I normally understand, and mean, by "man".

Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Which is correct?
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:40:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.191712.6450@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
:
:>      One problem is customers' using the wrong wording.  [note apostrophe]
:
:Someone out there will analyze this sentence better than I, but there seems to
:be no object possessed by the customers here.  A twisted rewrite would be:

I think that 'using' here is a gerund (verb used as a noun), but if you
assert that the object of the sentence is the <noun-phrase> "using the wrong
wording" then I'm still not entirely sure it parses OK.  Personally I
wouldn't spend too long working it out and just rewrite it more succinctly.

Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: K Street
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:09:50 GMT

In article <20928@acorn.co.uk> pgarside@acorn.co.uk (Paul Garside) writes:
:Has anyone mentioned Carey Street (= bankrupt, though I don't know why)?
:
:Savi_l_e Row, Graham, just to be picky.

Erk. I should have known that; I was round there just the other day.

:Sloane is another one, though I don't know whether this refers to Sloane
:Street or Square. I'd back the Square.

Ah yes, that famous footie team, the Sloane Rangers.

I also just remembered 'Hatton Garden'.

G

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 04:16:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.140753.11228@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>You could, of course, say that Americans are squeamish and use the word
>`bathroom' or `restroom' euphemistically for what we call the `toilet' or, more
>frequently, the `loo'.

You mean "toilet" and "loo" aren't themselves euphemisms?

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Collecting Funny Mistranslations
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:33:03 GMT

In article <1ish91INNnv8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
>
>I collect printed examples of English (most commonly found on packaging,
>in instruction booklets) that has been literally translated from another 
>language by someone with no clue as to English idiomatic usage, must less
>basic grammar.

Well, this is the other way around - from English to French . . .

In Canada, all packaging must be bilingual.  Often, the translations
into French leave much to be desired (I've gotten into the habit of
always checking the English instructions first, for this reason).

Some years ago, I found this on a package of toilet paper:

  "Safe for septic tanks - Sauf pour fausses sceptiques"

Which, of course, would translate back to "Except for false skeptics".

This adds up to three translation errors in four words!

  "sauf" means "safe from", not "safe for".  (It also means "except".)

  "septic tank" should be "fosse septique" - they managed to misspell
  both words!

The interesting thing is that the first of these is a dictionary lookup
problem, while the other is a spelling error - I'm still trying to
figure out how they managed that!

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: New light on the apostrophe
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:54:31 GMT

In article <20231.2b4aa5bc@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
>If the apostrophe ('s) is a contraction for "his", should it
>not be suppressed from written usage on sexist grounds?

It isn't.  People used to say that "John's book" was a contraction 
of "John-his-book,"  but there's no evidence of it, and much to the 
contrary.  Some grammar schools still teach this, though.

>Such a suppression would certainly make life easier for
>our less literate brothers.

And our discussion would be facilitated by your refraining from
such condescension, especially when you don't know what you're
talking about.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tylee@leety.austin.ibm.com (Ty Lee)
Subject: Re: Collecting Funny Mistranslations
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:47:44 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <1ish91INNnv8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
>
>I collect printed examples of English (most commonly found on packaging,
>in instruction booklets) that has been literally translated from another 
>language by someone with no clue as to English idiomatic usage, must less
>basic grammar.
>

What does the last clause mean?

-- 
 * The opinions are my own, not IBM's. Take care and have a nice day.        *
 *                                                                           *
 *               Ty Lee                                                      *
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: history's bogus etymology
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:19:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.203201.17215@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
pwhitman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Philip N Whitman) wrote:
> 
> Oh, great.  Just last quarter I found myself writing a letter to the editor of 
> the campus newspaper, pointing out the error of the columnist who said, "It 
> doesn't take a genius to figure out where this word [history] came from," and 
> proceeded to imply that it was a running together of "his story."  I should 
> have known that this was an idea too ignorant for just one person to believe 
> it.  I watched, disgusted, as the character M. O'Connell on _Northern Exposure_
> indignantly told TV watchers all across the country that "It doesn't take a
> college degree to figure out where that word came from!"  (I was struck by the
> similarity in prefacing; maybe I should cross post this to alt.folklore.urban 
> and see if this assertion always is preceded by "It doesn't take a ... to ...")
> I wonder how many million people were gullible enough to buy it, and of them,
> how many will spread it around to others.

Calm yourself.  It was satire.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Functionality
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:33:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.195735.5070@sco.com> naomib@sco.COM
(Mirabelle Severn & Thames) writes:

> For the person who asked about alternatives to "functionality,"
> and for the others who have commented on the word, here is a
> discussion of a real-life example.  The following sentence
> appeared as an item in a bullet list in a project plan:
>
>   "Changing the scope or functionality of the mail client
>   will change the time estimates."
>
> Someone suggested (not in relation to this example) that "function"
> was a noun, and ought to be able to replace "functionality".
> In this example, that would obviously not work.  The function
> of the client is to send, receive, and do a few other things to
> mail, and will not change.  The functionality -- *how* it does
> those things -- very well might.

It is not clear to me what "functionality" is supposed to mean here.
It is even less clear what "scope" is supposed to mean.  This seems
to be a puffed-up way of saying the blatantly obvious: if we change
what we plan to do (about anything whatsoever), our estimates of the
time required to do it will also change.

As far as I can tell "scope" here is unrelated to any technical use
of "scope" in computing.  It appears to mean simply "what the software
does", which in your interpretation is also what "functionality" is
supposed to mean here.  So the language is vague, wordy, and redundant,
a perfect example of business writing at its worst.

I don't see why it couldn't have been said

    Changing the mail client will change the time estimates.

If "scope" or "functionality" do any work here, it escapes me.

You may object that, now that the wooliness has been taken out, the
sentence is obviously wrong.  If changes are made in the program, the
time estimates *should* change, but needn't.  What was probably meant
was that

    If the specifications change, the time estimates should be
    changed accordingly.

but it doesn't say that at all.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Any Special Dictionary Just For Verbs' Usages 
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:27:55 GMT

In article <726701792snz@panache.demon.co.uk> raph@panache.demon.co.uk writes:
:There is a dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. I've seen it in the shops in London, 
:but I don't remember who publishes it.

Chambers

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english