HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake! 
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:40:31 GMT

In article <724481601snz@dstrike.demon.co.uk> dadams@dstrike.demon.co.uk ("David Adams") writes:
>.... Furthermore people put the knife and fork parallel to
>one another with the ends in the middle of the plate when they have finished

That's a custom that has a good, practical origin.  Placing the knife and
fork parallel on the right side of the plate is a signal that you have
finished with the plate and it may be removed.  The person removing it can, 
standing to your right, easily grasp the plate and the silverware with the 
right hand.  If you left the silverware on the plate willy-nilly, it could 
take two hands to remove safely.  You run a greater risk of getting a 
dirty knife or fork dropped in your lap.

Why the convention is to serve from the left and remove from the right is 
still a mystery to me.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hall, Product Software Engineering, EASTMAN KODAK CO., Rochester NY
716 253 7446   john@kodak.COM   ...!rochester!kodak!ektools!john
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: some questions 
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:15:46 GMT

I tried mailing this but it bounced. User unknown, hmmm.

> If you would permit, I would like to have some intuitive responses whether 
> the following sentences are acceptable or not from English native speaker's 
> point of view. Also, I would appreciate if you can have some comments on the 
> context, whether they are okey or not, and some reasons why they are so. 

For context I am a Briton but I have lived in the US for a number of years
and have not lived in Britain for more.

> 1)  Ann shrieked that there were cockroaches in the caviar.

This is fine but she would have actually had to have utterred "There are
cockroaches in the caviar" to make it correct.

> 2)  Tom shouted that the orange was poisonous.

As above but it sounds a little odd in that oranges in general are not
poisonous. Are you sure that you don't mean poisoned?

> 3)  John mumbled that he was a genius in mathematics, but he actually 
>     isn't.

I would replace the "but he actually isn't" with "but actually he wasn't".
The isn't -> wasn't is to agree with the past tense in first part of the
sentence and I have no idea why I want to move "actually" but it sounds 
better to me.

> 4)  Mrs. Farmer grunted that Mary broke the window.

Fine.

> 5)  John grunted that this window is stuck.

Tense agreeement again. is -> was.

> 6)  I didn't know that cooking requires this much of time and energy!

Tense problem and superfluous "of". I would write 
	I didn't know that cooking required this much time and energy!

> 7)  I didn't know you have 3 kids.

Tense problem again. have -> had.

> p.s.  I posted same message in soc.culture.japan and fj.life.in-japan.
> I got some intrenting replies, but I need more.

A summary would be interesting.

Simon.

-- 
  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:50:15 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes:

>In <BzGIz2.Lv@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:


>>Keech (Scottish 'ch') is common though as in "Don't talk keech'
>>Means rubbish in that phrase but it also has an excremental meaning.


>Yes I've heard it being used in Scotland by native Scots (some with red hair
>incidentally). As for Keech isn't that something you have for breakfast ? :)

Not unless you have a bizarre taste in food!! 
On the other hand some types of food might be aptly named as keech, such as
a Big Mac :-)

>Don't you mean Keekh ?

No. Without the 'h' it means to grab a quick look as in "Keek through the letter
box"
Never seen it with an "h". Think this one might also be used in the north
of England too.

> OK, I know what you mean the Scottish 'ch' as in loch.

That's the one, just watch you don't spit on anyone when you demonstrate it!!

Dave

--
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Note to Mandar
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:17:03 GMT
 <1fpdsbINNf3s@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> 
 <RINGO.92Dec10121835@grand-cayman.icad.com>  
 <1992Dec14.215510.5974@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I thought Ted Koppel was originally from the UK.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
From: jim@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jim  Scobbie)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: who or whom (The Series.)
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:05:19 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:

>In article <baron.76.723764449@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>>Nobody would watch a television show whose title began with whom, 
>>not even on public television.

>You mean like `Doctor Whom'?  

>Yuck.  I think you're right.

Well, I thought of 'for whom the bell tolls', but to take the cases of
title  that *begin* with who/whom, I had a quick check of Edinburgh
University Library and came up with>>>

whoever, whomever, whosoever, whomsoever: not a sausage.

who:(a whole bunch where "who" is nominative, and the following)

Who do we house (1987)
Who only England know (1943)    [not sure about this, maybe odd wordorder?]
Who to ask about developing countries (1982)
Who played who on the screen (1988) [ok, so this wouldn't begin whom anyway]

whom: 

Whom god hath joined: a book of christian marriage (1953)

Now, when it come to the copula, usually you find the  nominative following
it: "who is she", "she is who?", but when that copula is embedded it gets
a little more confusing*, giving the only other example of 'whom'

Whom do men say that I am (1932) (a book about  jesus)

Now the rule about case in personal pronoun = case in relative pronoun
works fine for normal verbs, lets say.

                   "who ate it"            "he ate it", 
                   "whoM did she eat"      "did she eat hiM"

But not for copular sentences:
		"who is she"	*"who is her"
		"you are she"	 "you are her"

contrast "who is it?" "It's me" vs. "Whom is it?" "It's me"

Now, you might argue that correct usage demands "it is I", but my point
is that real speakers who the difference between "Who am me" and "it
is me". One is not English at all, the other a nonstandard form. This
gets harder for people trying to cope when embedded contexts come
around. Like the "whom do men say that I am" which I think most people
who think about it nalytically would rule out.

So we have one or two more embedded "who" titles:

Who do Americans say that I am (1986) (by George Gallup)
Who do you think you are (1980)
Who do you think you are (1976)
Who do you say that I am (1974)

So, there's only *one* title beginning 'whom' though 2 or 3 others could do
for those heavily into the use of whom. And those heavily into the use
of whom would probably rule that one book's title ungrammatical anyway.

Jim

so, 2 'whom' titles, one 'wrong' and 2 using 'who' which would be surely
'whom's if they hadn't been written in 1982 & 1987.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:42:43 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Spelling differences (was Re: Reading (was Re: program__ (Re: quit

In article <TSOS.235.724426794@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de
(Detlef Lannert) says:
>
>In article <92346.125552HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
>writes:
(of bough/bow)
>
>>It isn't useful. It also isn't an innovation.
>
>According to my sources, it used to be one. Centuries ago.
>

So? It isn't now.

>[So why keep it if it isn't useful? -- If spelling differences weren't
>useful at all, they would've been ironed out, I suppose.]
>--

Hoo-boy. You think English is burdened with all its bizarre ortho-
graphical quirks because they're useful? I think you should seek
another explanation.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Spelling differences (was Re: Reading (was Re: program__ (Re: quite unique)))
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:22:44 GMT

In <TSOS.222.723895705@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>I'm still waiting for someone (from the US, perhaps?) to explain why 
>in the example I quoted (`bow' vs. `bough') a different spelling is 
>useful while the pronunciation is the same and both words have the same 
>origin. Isn't this an artificial distinction which has been kept for "no" 
>reason?? And I'm sure there are a lot more.

It's been kept because people use it. That's reason enough, even if
there are others. Same for program/me and draught/draft. But the
fact that the distictions exist is not proof that they're useful,
or that they were introduced because of a need. 

btw, the spellings 'draught' and 'bough' are not used (useful) in the US.

Werner
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bck1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Brian Kelk)
Subject: Re: Everyone ... they ...
Reply-To: bck1@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:38:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.181436.22190@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <12144@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.172421.2007@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>Since the referent of "everyone" is really plural (_cf._ German "alle",
>>French "tous", Russian _vse_, all of which are grammatically plural),
>>"they" with "everyone" as antecedent seems to work much better than
>>"they" referring to a single person of unspecified sex, for speakers
>>of the variety of English which used "he" as generic singular.
>
>"Everyone" is *semantically* plural, but grammatically it is singular as
 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>evidenced by the verb form following:
>
>    Everyone is looking forward to the holidays.
>   *Everyone are looking forward to the holidays.


Er, not really. You can choose whether to say "All are agreed"
or "Everyone is agreed". They amount to the same thing but
they're not semantically identical. It's important to be able
to refer to the individual as well as the group - consider:

     Each sphere touches twelve others

The language differences referred to above are differences
of idiom rather than of fundamental concept.


Brian Kelk
Cambridge
U.K.
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:43:49 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzAGFo.5y8@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> Amazing how the very Americans who shouted down the program/me
> distinction, applaud the freshman/first-year distinction!
That, my dear Mandar, is because `freshman' excludes half the freshers whereas
`first-year' excludes no-one. 
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 20 Dec 92 05:44:12 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.150052.10887@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <BzBs7x.97G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>> You let your prejudice that men includes men only, and not women,
>> when used in this context, override your ability to make logical
>> decisions.
>
>And if I may say so, you let *your* prejudice that "men" includes men as well
>as women in this context override your ability to make logical decisions.
>Still, I suppose that we are at least aware of your inability to make logical
>decisions and your continual prejudice against American English.
>

Alas! You have sadly misunderstood me. First of all, I did not state that
"men" ALWAYS includes men AND women. It is just that sometimes it does
and sometimes it doesn't (depending upon the context). It isn't any
kind of prejudice, it's a fact.

      Secondly, I am NOT prejudiced against American English. I see 
nothing wrong with this variant, just as I see nothing wrong with
Indian English; but I am humble enough to accept a standard English,
the very existence of which you deny.

                                                                Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are 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 that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: me@vikings.austin.ibm.com (Michael E)
Subject: Re: Knives and forks >Reference for data
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:09:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: No! "o-r-g-a-n-i-s-a-t-i-o-n"! No, wait...
Keywords: Margaret Visser, "The Rituals of Dinner"

*** my opin only ***

Refer to Margaret Visser's fine work, "The Rituals of Dinner" for a discussion on the background of forks and knives. She wrote a wonderful book- very entertaining. This book covers far more than utensils. The section on Mayan sacrafice....yum!!!! :)

Please accept my apologies if someone mentioned this book earlier in the thread...
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake! 
From: hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 23:11:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Lethargy Inc.


In article <1992Dec17.155731.12123@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> 
slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu writes:

  > ObUsage: Why are there two different and incompatible ways of indicating a
  > full dash in typed copy ("--" and " - ")? Why do copy-editors insist on the
  > latter when typesetters insist on the former?

A couple of points:

1) Typesetters probably want the double dash as opposed to the single 
so they can unambiguously differentiate em dashes from hyphens.

2) Em dashes may have no space on either side, as in your "--", or 
they may have narrow spaces, depending on house style. Lack of 
standards isn't confined to the field of computers...

Phil

 ----------------------------------------------
 Phil Anderson  ***  hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
 ----------------------------------------------
       "No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: trk@palm15.cray.com (Tim Kirby)
Subject: Re: Knives and forks
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:56:04 CST

Glen Ecklund (glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
                        :
: When I eat peas or mashed potatoes, I use the fork in my right hand, like a
: spoon.  But I've seen Europeans mash peas onto the backs of their forks with
: a knife.  Now that strikes me as odd.  Is that a reaction against switching?
: Is it the Euro-norm?
: 
: Personally, while I grew up as a US fork-switcher, I'm now a vegetarian and
: rarely use a knife, meaning that I almost always hold my fork in my right hand.
: I cut most things with the side of my fork, which I suppose is not done
: much outside the US (and maybe Canada?).  When I do use my knife, I often
: eat Euro-style while cutting, then switch back.  I should also mention that
: I'm right-handed.

As an Ex-Pat Brit living in the US my principle thought on the matter is that
switching hands seems so ... well, awkward. 

My personal curiosity on this subject is ... why has the fork in the US not
'evolved' into an implement better suited to cutting as well as spearing ?
I can understand why it wouldn't have a *really* sharp edge on it but some
change ought to have come about by now. I've watched numerous attempts by
"the locals" at cutting things as improbable as steaks with the edge of the
fork, something it always seemed (to me) to be singularly ill suited for ...

?

Tim

--
Tim Kirby --------- Cray Research Inc., Eagan, MN, USA ----------- trk@cray.com
Disclaimer: I disclaim, therefore I am. Cray Research is not responsible for me,
my views or anything I say ............... They do, however, pay my mortgage ;-)
When all else fails, Immortality may always be assured by spectacular error(JKG)
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake! 
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:15:43 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

JH> Why the convention is to serve from the left and remove from the right is 
> still a mystery to me.

This gives the clumsy but mannerful host a chance to produce symetrical stains.

-----ted hayes
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: About FAQs
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:12:15 GMT
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <baron.85.724435018@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
(Dennis Baron) offers a quiz:

>--why do we feel compelled to fight language all the time?

Because it's hard?  Too hard for most people in this age of laze.

>--why do we prefer knee-jerk responses (tongue-flap?) to questions
>like generic masculines, rather than looking at language in all its
>contextual complexities?  

Because that's much harder still?

>--how frequently do usage-book answers fail us when we are really churning 
>out prose? 

Rarely.  I can't remember the last time I was prevented from saying what
I meant by following a usage book.

>--why, when we are reading, does the author's status condition us to search
>for language errors when we have determined the author is not an authority
>(eg, is a student, a member of the lay publiic, a dabbler) but if we assess
>the writer to be a pro, an expert, or someone with whom we are disposed to
>agree, we never even notice so-called deviations from the norms we apply to
>suspect writers?

Because we are gullible fools?  Like sharks we only gather when there's
blood in the water?  I see very little writing today that is not full of
"deviations from the norms" not to mention pure bullshit.

>--usage guides may be useful for copyeditors, who need quick formulas for
>consistency in prose, and they are certainly fun to argue over, but I don't
>think many people use them very much, when they are writing or reading, 
>except when they are predisposed to carp or fear the response of some
>more authoritative reader.

No good usage guide ever supported the dictatorial small mindedness of
a bad copy editor.  Good copy editors don't let "quick formulas" do their
thinking for them.

Reading usage guides makes one sensitive to wording.  That's their real
value.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: program__ (Re: quite unique)
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:37:00 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <Bz11p2.LLv@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
<In <11872@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
<>Since C Malcolm and I aren't atempting to sell anything, we've been only
<>telling you how it is useful to us.
<
<It sounded like you were trying to sell the idea that 2 spellings
<of program were adopted because of usefulness, as opposed to
<simple conforming to the US spelling.

I am not selling this idea, but I subscribe to it.  I haven't
witnessed the birth of the distinction, but I am told by someone who
has done (and whom I know as highly sensitive to language matters)
that usefulness has been an issue, and I find this quite plausible.

<>What has already been in use for some time and is being used now is
<>_a` priori_ not something that nobody would actually use.
<
<The word is spelled in 2 different ways, yes. But is the spelling
<_distinction_ used to avoid ambiguity.

No, but so what.  Writing makes an enormous number of distinctions
that speaking doesn't, and the vast majority of them don't prevent
ambiguity, just make reading a trifle easier.

<>Taking advantage of
<>a generally unfortunate fact is frequently a good idea, though.
<>I'd rather not have that big ugly nail in my wall, but since it is
<>already there, I may as well make it work for me by hanging my hat on it.
<
<A hat hook is a logical improvement; you just agreed 2 spellings of
<program isn't.

It is at least as much of a logical improvement as my decision to use
the nail in question as an impromptu hat hook.

<Capitalization seems more like punctuation than spelling to me
<though.

But it is the same argument, more or less.  Both are sets of
artificial conventions aimed at conveying some extra meaning, even
though no ambiguity would necessarily arise without it.

-- 
 `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: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:22:16 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <724568836snx@warren.demon.co.uk> leveret@warren.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <BzBvMn.AnC@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>... If there is a inter-dialect
>>conflict over the word "freshman", the correct meaning should be decided
>>by comparing it against English English.
>
>Even, apparently, when it isn't an English English word ...
>
>N.


Who says it isn't? The meaning conveyed is different, that's all.
The word should be found in all dictionaries.

                                                        Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are 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 that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: D_NIBBY@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Dana   Nibby)
Newsgroups: alt.mindcontrol
Subject: buddha...book...mindmachines
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:50:52 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

********************************
********************************
For sale: "Would the Buddha Wear a Walkman?" book by Judith
Hopper and Dick Teresi. This book is a good intro to mind
machines, brain toys, and other methods of consciousness 
alteration. 8 1/2 X 11, 255 pages. I want to sell the rest
of my copies (all brand new). Cover price is $16.95.
I'm selling them for $10 postpaid in the U.S. only. To reserve
a copy, send e-mail to: d_nibby@unhh.unh.edu
I'll send you a table of contents and ordering info.

* No overseas orders, U.S. only.
* To the person from INDIA who ordered the book: I NEED YOUR
  MAILING ADDRESS
From: Johnnie.Lynes@iphase.infoserv.com (Johnnie Lynes)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.infoserv.com