HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA)
Subject: A Neologism
Organization: WHorshipers of Lady LibertY (WHoLLY)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:31:18 GMT



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


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

pollyanna
quixotic
lilliputian
pecksniffian
panglossian
herculean
narcissism
pandoras box
hermetic
faustian

--

"Life is like a big C program with no documentation"  - Ted Slater

	\\\\\sean/////
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: fsbrn12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Andrew Hsu)
Subject: Re: Ships and countries
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: alt
Date:  3 Sep 1992 12:16 EDT  

>In article <57560035@hpscit.sc.hp.com> fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
> 
>   I recall a discussion in a class in college, lo these many years ago, on
>   this subject.  We were told that all peoples in the world, save one,
>   refer to their countries as either mother or father (i.e. Mother Russia,
>   the Fatherland - Germany).  The one exception... the U.S.A.  Our only
>   [...]
> 

That is not entirely true. In Chinese, the word translate into 
"ancestor-country" or "country of the ancestor's."

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: This usage, it makes me wince (was: Another Americanism?)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.114714.25710@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.193831.13522@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>|> Well, that colleague of mine who makes me wince -- HE SAYS THIS TOO!

>Totally off the subject that was being discussed, but the additional pronoun
>in the above sentence makes me wince when I sound it out.  Do the hyphens
>in it (as opposed to the comma that I put in the subject), make it an
>acceptable usage?

In informal speech (which is what I was imitating, emphases and all),
sure.  Suppose I'd moved the "well" from the beginning to the spot
after "wince,"; now you see that it's actually two sentences stuck 
together informally.  I suppose I elided "Do you remember my mentioning
[that colleague]."  

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: What does this mean?
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:20:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.135224.6800@gov.on.ca> diamong@gov.on.ca (Gerald Diamond) writes:
>From: diamong@gov.on.ca (Gerald Diamond)
>Subject: What does this mean?
>Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:52:24 GMT
>I saw an ad in the subway (Toronto) yesterday that said
>
>"All flavours not available in all provinces"
>in reference to a certain line of coolers  (i.e. fruit, alcohol, and
>water mixtures)
>
>I assume the company meant 
>
>"Some flavours may not be be available in certain provinces"
>
>but I think it might be interpreted as 
>
>"No flavours available anywhere!"
>Am I way off on this?
>
>
> 
>-- 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>diamong@gov.on.ca          | There's never enough time  |  \ 
>I spoke only for myself    | to do all the nothing you  |    \ 
>and my bike !              | want.  -  Calvin           |      \ ^. .>


A common enough "error," though not one likely to be misinterpreted
(what motivation would there be to advertise a product and then say
it isn't available?).  Those who catch the logical misalignment will
smile but still know what was meant; those who don't won't miss a
beat.  Perhaps some readers will be confused, but most won't pay enough
attention anyway.

Dennis

__

debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: ---istocracy ???
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:33:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.154357.8473@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <25090@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>> In article <Aug.19.21.56.34.1992.16942@pilot.njin.net> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:
>>>Kakistocracy is governance by the worst.  I take this to mean the most
>>>evil, degraded, despicable, or the like.
>> What's the etymology of this? Looks to me like it means "ruled by
>> shits" which is pretty common these days.
>Surely that's "Koprocracy"---or "Coprocracy" once the Anglicisation has
>happened. A descriptive term for a police state?

And, therefore, presumably the inspiration for that *delightful* American
TV series, "Cop Rock"? :)

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 01:54:26 GMT

In article <20AUG199215114128@utkvx1.utk.edu>, riggsby@utkvx1.utk.edu (STUART) writes:
> 
> I share your attitude about "unique".  I have a well-meaning friend who does
> not, and urges that if I *really* mean "unique", then I should say "really
> unique".

A well-meaning friend, or a really well-meaning friend?

Peter
From: hermit@am.ucsc.edu (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: did vs. done
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:12:16 GMT
	<1992Aug22.170117.29729@reed.edu>
Reply-To: hermit@bayview.com
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: bcushman@bagpipe.reed.edu's message of 22 Aug 92 17:01:17 GMT

bcushman@bagpipe.reed.edu (Ben Cushman) writes:
>	The rule for commas and "and" is that when "and" used to connect  
>clauses with the same subject (as in the above sentence) no comma should  
>be used, but if "and" is used to connect clauses that could be independent  
>sentences (have different subjects), then a comma should be used.

Another situation where a comma precedes "and" is in lists of more
than two things:

  I like apples, bananas, and oranges.
  I went to the store, did my homework, and played basketball yesterday.

Some schools of thought omit the comma before "and" but I always
thought that was confusing, because in some contexts it looks like the
last two items are a compound phrase by themselves, and in some
situations the meaning might be different depending on how you parse
the sentence.  Unfortunately my example-producing neurons have gone to
sleep, since it is now 5:00 AM and the rest of me should be sleeping
as well.
From: cindyd@paradise.Eng.Sun.COM (Cindy Derafshan)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: >Re:Petrified of ...
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:55:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: cindyd@paradise.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: paradise
Keywords: Petrified of/by

>I doubt that you'd find any native speaker of English
>saying "petrified of", even when speaking informally.

Kirshenbaum, you are not alone. I majored in English and am now entering a master's program in Linguistics, so I certainly don't consider myself illiterate. Moylan's comment that he "doubt[s] that you'd find any native speaker of English
saying "petrified of", even when speaking informally" surprised me.
"Petrified of" actually sounds preferable to me. The connotation is that one is so scared they are "turned to stone"--frozen with fear. They are scared of or frightened of something--not literally turned to stone. If one uses the word "by" with petrified, then it sounds to me as though they are taking the literal meaning. E.g.: The wood was petrified by the natural geologic occurences over time. 
 



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: What does this mean?
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:47:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.135224.6800@gov.on.ca> diamong@gov.on.ca (Gerald Diamond) writes:
>I saw an ad in the subway (Toronto) yesterday that said
>
>"All flavours not available in all provinces"
>in reference to a certain line of coolers  (i.e. fruit, alcohol, and
>water mixtures)
>
>I assume the company meant 
>
>"Some flavours may not be be available in certain provinces"
>
>but I think it might be interpreted as 
>
>"No flavours available anywhere!"
>Am I way off on this?

>diamong@gov.on.ca          | There's never enough time  |  \ 
----------------------------------------------------------------

This must be the same thing going on in the phrase
	
	"All that glitters is not gold."

It works fine in a poetic context, anyway!

--Daz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au
Subject: Re: Usage: 'goes' for 'said'
Organization: BHP Research, Newcastle Laboratories
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:49:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.080536.18866@rdg.dec.com>, jch@rdg.dec.com (John Haxby) writes:
> `Goes' instead of `said' is common in spoken (British) English, although it
> has a tendency to be used by the educationally-impared.  As a result, you
> often hear `goes' instead of `said' for humourous effect.  Probably insulting
> as well....
> 
Just a point: I have often heard "goes" or "went" used when intonation was an
important part of the narative, eg. "and she went, `reeelly, Daaaahling!'".

Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Another Americanism?
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: for in
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:52:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.142909.43428@uvmark.uucp> roger@uvmark.uucp (Roger MacNicol) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.102006.3065@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>>In article <j-cn8jd.henry@netcom.com>, henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard) writes:
>>> This may be a Beebism, but on the BBC I keep hearing sentences like:

>>> 	This is the first time this has happened for thirty years.
>>> 	                                         ^^^
>>The use of "for" here is perfectly correct to these British ears. The US 
>>version using "in" always jars slightly. My trusty OED that I have in the
>>office says that "for" means (amongst other things) "during". I could not
>>find an equivalent for "in" but it is an _old_ and trusty OED.

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

>	She was named for a flower

>"for"?  Did the flower benefit?

For.  As in spelling over the telephone.  A for Alice, B for boy, and so
on.  That happens to be the British way; in the US we say A as in Alice,
etc.

(There are some nice alphabets out there, btw, like the British punning
one: A for ism, B for mutton, L for leather, etc.  Also the nightmare
one, with things like P as in pheasant.  Anyone have these on line?)

>The English is:

>	She was named after a flower

>which at least has the correct precedence.

That's life.  I don't know why you think Alice will benefit from       
all those A's piling up in her mailbox...  8-)

Roger


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: Puns
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 11:50:40 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <1992Aug26.221505.983@dragon.com>, cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith)) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug17.145056.4010@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> 
|> > In article <pjh.714048816@nessi>, pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
|> > |> 
|> > |>>In article <1992Aug15.040735.26043@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> > |>>> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes: 
|> 
|> [snip]
|> 
|> > |> BTW, A. Jing Hippy(*) you are welcome to call me Philippa, but please,
|> > |> please, please _don't_ call me Phillipa. Yup, yet another thing I am
|> > |> overly fussy about.
|> > |> [Written with toungue most firmly in cheek]
|> > 
|> > :-)
|> > Now it's my turn to apologize.  I had your name right there in front of
|> > me and *still* managed to botch it up.  You have every right to expect your
|> > name to be spelled properly.  I guess I was just hung up in Phillipians 
|> > or something with all of this Bible/God/Atheist/Agnostic/quote/misquote
|> > traffic in this group.  Sorry 'bout that.
|> 
|>  Actually, Philippians is spelled with one "l" also.  Even in the 
|> Greek, there is only one lambda.  Perhaps this is where Philippa's 
|> name comes from?

Oh sure. Take away my rationalizations. See if I care.

|> > |> * 1) I hope I hope got the number of follow-ups correct here and am
|> > |>      addressing the correct person.
|> 
|>  Ditto.

Surprisingly, I think we've gotten it all right so far Cinnndy.

|> > |Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|> > |cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
|> 
|> Cindy Smith
|> cms@dragon.com

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Any closet is a walk-in closet if you try hard    |
|enough.                                           |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Article on BBC Pronunciation Bureau in Today's NY Times
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:05:22 GMT

Apropos a recent skein on pronunciation, you may enjoy reading
the article in today's NY Times (at least in the national edition)
about the office the BBC has maintained for many years, whose
job is to supply correct pronunciation for announcers who request
it (and sometimes who don't).

--Daz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: A Neologism
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:07:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.134834.9755@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> lange@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep1.233118.15985@nmsu.edu> sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA) writes:
>: 
>: >Literatify - to create an adjective from a literary character or
>: >object.
>: 
>: >Here are literafisms I have collected, can anyone think of others?
>: 
>: >pollyanna
>: >quixotic
>: >lilliputian
>: >pecksniffian
>: >panglossian
>: >herculean
>: >narcissism
>: >pandoras box
>: >hermetic
>: >faustian
>: 
>: Not that all of these are adjectives, but anyway,...
>: 
>: shylock.
>: Heepish.
>: jovial.
>: mercurial.
>: dionysian, apollinian/apollonian.
>: oedipal.
>: furious.
>: harping.
>: panic.
>: Brobdignagian.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^      
>: sibylline.
>: musical/mosaic (from Mousa = muse)
>
>mosaic is from Moses, as in "mosaic law."
>
>: solomonic.
>: orphic.  
>: 
>: Roger
>: 
>
>And 11 more...
>
>Arthurian
>Gargantuan
>Gorgonian
>Mephistophelean
>Pantagruelian
>martial
>medusan
>procrustean
>satanic
>tantalizing
>vulcanized
>
>Alex
----------------------------------------------

Let me add "Barmecide," and the correct spelling of
"Brobdingnagian"  (I think).

--Daz
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:59:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <1992Aug25.112046.28182@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes:

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

I started thinking about this after my original reply.  "petrified of"
sounds right to me.  For some reason (probably analogy) it seems that
all (well, many, at least) words for the state of fear take "of":

	afraid of
	frightened of
	scared of
	terrified of
	petrified of

All of these describe a condition of "having a fear of" something.
All of these words (with the exception of "afraid", which is an
adjective rather than a past participle) can also take "by":

	*afraid by
	frightened by
	scared by
	terrified by
	petrified by

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

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

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?READ/NEW
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.095508.10385@waikato.ac.nz>, maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
> How should we decline singular 'they' ?
> 
> I address this question to those who, like me, would
> like to substitute a singular 'they' for 'he/she' and
> similar constructions, and to those who are willing to
> think themselves into this position for the sake of
> the discussion.
> 
> Consider the sentence :
> 
>   'The reader will find it easier to understand C
>   declarations and definitions if he/she keeps in 
>   perspective that an object declaration or definition
>   looks very much like the way the object will be
>   referenced in an expression.'
> 
> If we could treat 'they' as singular we would replace
> 'he/she keeps' with 'they keeps'. If we use 'they keep'
> it sounds better but clashes in number with 'the reader'.
> 
> Do you think that if we grit our teeth, get ready for
> flack and condescension, and go on saying 'they keeps'
> it will come to sound better in time ?
> 
> This problem does not arise with singular and plural
> 'you' because there is no difference in inflection.
> Which raises another option: should we instead attack
> our last remaining inflection and start saying 'he keep'
> and 'she keep' ?
> 
> -- 
> Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
> Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
-- 
I have absolutely no problem with `they keep' in this example.
In human languages, grammar is an attempt to describe the way language works,
not a set of rules which determine how the language is to be spoken/written.
The codified grammar _may_ be used as a guide; it may be used to help
understand why one phrase `sounds right' and another wrong. But, in the end, if
the formal text-book grammar says one thing and the native users of the
language another, then it is the grammar which is wrong.
 
John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
Phone National        (049)21 5750    Fax National       (049) 21 6910
      International +61 49 21 5750        International +61 49 21 6910
VAXPSI  PSI%0505249626002::CCJAL      AARNet  ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:48:36 GMT

In article <PREECE.92Aug25094837@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com> preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.163634.11026@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>| (And I'm *still* waiting for a cogent explanation of the utility of the
>| "less/fewer" distinction...)

>| That's *utility*. I know what the distinction is supposed to be (and in
>| actual practice isn't always); I want to know what good it is.  We don't
>| have a distinction between the comparatives of "much" and "many," and
>| manage just fine.  Why enforce a distinction here that's at variance
>| with actual usage, and always has been?

>What has need or utility got to do with it?  The language has never been
>constrained by utility or minimalism.  

Well, that's my point exactly!  Trouble is, people *were* arguing as
though there were a need for the distinction in question, aside from the
need to be "correct."

>Sometimes unnecessary distinctions evolve away over time 

as in this case

>and sometimes new ones are created
>for no particular reason.  People who care about language tend to
>husband endangered usage and tend also to embrace new forms, where those
>new forms don't conflict with established ones, just because they have
>the turn of mind that enjoys using words in exactly the way they mean.

Ah, but there's the problem! *How* do these words mean?

>If you choose to ignore the "less" v. "fewer" distinction, the great
>majority of people won't even notice.  If the people who *do* notice are
>the people whose approval matters to you, then you have made a poor
>choice.

Also true.  However, that's not where the discussion started.  We began
with people telling of actually going and complaining to those "in charge"
--i.e., some poor assistant manager who can be easily buffaloed.

And the love of language doesn't need that sort of propaganda.

Roger
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ---istocracy ???
Date: 24 Aug 92 14:43:57 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <25090@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
> In article <Aug.19.21.56.34.1992.16942@pilot.njin.net> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:
> 
>>Kakistocracy is governance by the worst.  I take this to mean the most
>>evil, degraded, despicable, or the like.
> 
> What's the etymology of this? Looks to me like it means "ruled by
> shits" which is pretty common these days.

Surely that's "Koprocracy"---or "Coprocracy" once the Anglicisation has
happened. A descriptive term for a police state?
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
From: henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: P as in Phonetic (was Another Americanism?)
Summary: /mnev/bdull
Keywords: for in
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:09:40 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <dian.714959991@egg.gg.caltech.edu> dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha) writes:
>In <1992Aug27.175200.23040@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>
>>  Also the nightmare 
>>one [alphabet], with things like P as in pheasant.  Anyone have these on line?)
>
>
>Please!  If it exists, I would love to see it; if not, I'd love to start one.
>Let's see:
>
>P as in Pneumonia
>P as in Ptomaine
>P as in Phone
>K as in Knife
>G as in Gnu
>H as in Honesty 
>M as in Mnemonic
>O as in 'Possum
>X as in Xylophone
>C as in Czar
>C as in cuckoo }these are a bit dubious, since C does not have its own
>C as in cereal }sound but is either "S" or "K" unless paired with H to be "CH"
There are bunch of examples in the book "Science Made Supid." Here are some
oldies:
A as in aye
B as in bdellium
C as in cthonian
O as in oedipal
W as in write

Are we going to go for a net.Canonical_List?
-- 
 ________________________________________________________
/ Henry  || We are such stuffe as dreames are made on;   \
\ Polard || and our little life is rounded with a sleepe /
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english