HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Fastest-growing segment ...
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:15:37 GMT

In article <s511mINNeu4@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:

> One frequently sees sentences in newspaper articles of the form "X is the
> fastest-growing segment of the population to have property P."  For example,
> The April 9 New York Times contains a letter to the editor with a sentence 
> like the following:  "Women now constitute the fastest-growing segment of 
> the US prison population."
>
> This locution troubles me, as I am not sure what is meant by a "segment."  

Doesn't mean anything, of course.  It's just the latest in journalese,
a mere marker of hack writing.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:21:01 GMT
	<204469@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
	<1992Apr8.032457.26425@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca's message of 8 Apr 92 03:24:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.032457.26425@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
   "I input 'Helo there, world' to my spelling checker; when it flagged 
   'Helo', I put in the missing 'l'."

   "I conferred with my sysadmin about the best teleconferencing software
   to get."   

----
The first one has several hopeless features, but without
a complete overhaul:

  "I typed 'Helo there, world'; when my spelling checker flagged
  'Helo', I supplied the missing 'l'."

The second one doesn't really say what I take it to mean, so:

  "I asked my sysadmin what software should be bought 
  for teleconferencing."

I had a strong urge to do something with the words 'flagged'
and 'teleconferencing', but I resisted the impulse.  Despite
all arguments, including my own, I still like the use of
'hopeless' to refer to the object in my sentence above.

Your article was generally a fine rebuttal to an inducement
to language chaos.  I applaud your efforts.

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Go figure
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:28:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: sgi417.SLAGLE.92Apr13172828
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk's message of 12 Apr 92 11:45:54 GMT

In article <20082@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
   In article <1216@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:
   :Recently I have seen the expression _Go figure_ in many places. It
   :seems to be a preferred way to end postings in rec.pets.cats for
   :instance. What does it mean, what is its style worth and where does it
   :come from? (Not geography-wise, but rather full sentence-wise.)
   :
   :--Ceci, dabbling along in English

   It means 'Go figure it out for yourself' which in turn means
   'Go work it out for yourself' ('figure' is being used figuratively,
   unless the postings were on sci.maths :-) )

----
Not very close.  It is rhetorical flourish, usually delivered
with a bemused expression.  It means something more like, 
"Can you figure that?" or "Who would ever have thought that?"
I have always thought of it as a decidely east-coast kind of
expression, particularly the New York City area or maybe
Boston, but that may just be a matter of timing.  In any case,
it indicates a state of surprise or wonder in the speaker.

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bayla@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Bayla Singer)
Subject: Re: Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian (was Loaded language)
Organization: Independent scholar
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:19:50 GMT

David Brooks quotes a classification:

>> Dividing people who are for more, or less, government intervention on
>> economic matters, and those who are more more, or less, government
>> intervention on social matters (and to the extent to which the issues can
>> be separated), we have:
>> 
>> 		Social intervention		Social nonintervention
>> 
>> Economic	    Populists			    Liberals
>> intervention
>> 
>> Economic	    Conservatives		    Libertarians
>> nonintervention

--I think the first line is incorrect.  American liberals have demanded
economic as well as social intervention: see the New Deal and its
descendants, not to mention the concept of the income tax as a means of
redistributing wealth (not just of paying for the legitimate functions of
government [whatever they may be]).

--bayla
     Dort, wo man Bucher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.
     Wherever books are burned men also, in the end, are burned.
                               Heinrich Heine [1797-1856]



Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3024 soc.culture.british:6290
From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:55:57 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Apr13.142550.22630@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
= 
= |> >  diner,
= |> > Like a transport cafe - cheap & cheerful.  "yo! 2 easy-over!"
= |>    Yep, but that's "Yo! 2 over-easy!"
= 
= But the most important part of the phrase is the missing part:
= "50's-diner".  To eat in a diner is to be transported back 35 cultural
= years, or it's not the real thing.  It is best made from aluminium.

Nonsense!  The *best* were made from streetcars that were made well
before use of aluminum became common.  I don't suppose there are
any of those left...



-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 18:13:30 GMT

In article <20038@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.023453.4489@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>> letter (school sports),
>>> Note from mum to get off games
>>
>>Not hardly.  A big felt letter sewn on a sweater that says one "lettered"
>>in a varsity sport (essentially, was on the team and really played).
>
>Oh you mean a *blue* :-)

What happens when they're not blue?  (My high school's colors were red
and gray.)  Note that "letter" in the sense of "received a varsity
letter" is a verb as well:

	He lettered in football for three years.
	He lettered two years in baseball and one in track.

>Thanks for all the edification.  Maybe I should do a Britquiz for
>*your* enjoyment.  That was fun.

Go for it.  But remember, none of us (that I've seen) have made the
silly claim that we understant *your* language :-).

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

    kirshenbaum@hplabs.hp.com
    (415)857-7572


Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2906 soc.culture.british:6001
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:34:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Apr10.023453.4489
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <1992Apr07.231413.22903@robobar.co.uk> gtoal@robobar.co.uk
(Graham Toal) takes an Americanisms test posed in article
<1992Apr5.174521.25924@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks).

The ones I think need correction are

> diner,
> Like a transport cafe - cheap & cheerful.  "yo! 2 easy-over!"

That's two over easy.

> half-bath,
>?

A bathroom with only a shower, no bathtub.

>>John Hancock,
>?

A signature.  After the first signer of the Declaration of Independence

> letter (school sports),
> Note from mum to get off games

Not hardly.  A big felt letter sewn on a sweater that says one "lettered"
in a varsity sport (essentially, was on the team and really played).

> mobile home,
> dormobile or equivalent.  Not a caravan - has an engine. Big. (RV?)

Big, but no engine.  Towed, if moved.

> quarterback (Monday Morning),
> ?

Second guesser -- A fan who knows on Monday morning all of the plays the
quarterback should have called on Sunday afternoon (this ancient expression
dates back to before Monday night football when quaterbacks called their
own plays)

>How did I do?

Not bad.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: Go figure
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:29:54 GMT

In <20082@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>In article <1216@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:
>:Recently I have seen the expression _Go figure_ in many places. It
>:seems to be a preferred way to end postings in rec.pets.cats for
>:instance. What does it mean, what is its style worth and where does it
>:come from? (Not geography-wise, but rather full sentence-wise.)
>:
>:--Ceci, dabbling along in English
>
>It means 'Go figure it out for yourself' which in turn means
>'Go work it out for yourself' ('figure' is being used figuratively,
>unless the postings were on sci.maths :-) )

While I don't know exactly where the expression "go figure" came from
(so I can't comment on the above in that respect), the full sentences
given above do not really capture the meaning of it.  The connotation
is that whatever was just described before the "go figure" was
somewhat surprising, as if you would not have been able to figure it
out by analyzing the situation or going by prior expectations (so
"going to figure it out yourself" would've done no good).  In this
sense, it's similar to expressions like "who would've guessed?", or
"who could've known?".  I picture it being said in a surprised tone
and with a shrug of the shoulders.


>It is, of course, American, and fairly standard off-net idiom.

Hmmm -- just curious -- why do you this is "of course, American"?

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Loaded language
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu's message of 8 Apr 92 18:18:40 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 21:55:19 GMT

In article <ku6e80INNj9l@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
   How about 'liberal'? The believe that people are free to define their own
   lives? (The American use of 'liberal' puzzles me, by the way. In the Netherlands
   where I'm from the liberals are right-wing -- free enterprise and that
   sort of thing -- as opposed to the socialists who think that everyone
   is equal.)

----
The term liberal, in this country, has been usurped by the
group that you might call social democrats.  The rough 
equivalent of what you refer to as liberal would be
libertartian in the US.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More FAQ fodder
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:15:41 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Yo!  Tmesis, synecdoche, and their ilk are rhetorical figures, not
parts of speech.
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Wogs (was Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:23:34 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr16.170428.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>It's a natural mistake, and I imagine that (b) is the answer.  I've
>heard the "worthy oriental gentleman" explanation from many sources
>(though never the "wealthy" variant).  It seems very likely to me that
>somebody first said this as a joke, and the joke spread.

Add to that "Western ...", heard from my Dad as a kid when asking
why golliwogs were called golliwogs.

Graham
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Definition of prefix wanted
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:38:56 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.

In article <1992Apr3.002117.9237@ugle.unit.no> omk@Lise.Unit.NO (Ole Martin Kristensen) writes:
:I've been looking in my dictionary for definitions/usage information on the
:prefix 'int' - as in 'int-rude' or 'int-ravenous', but have found nothing so
:far. Any suggestions?

Don't tell me - you posted whilst int-oxicated?

G :-)
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2901 soc.culture.british:5993
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:14:13 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.

In article <1992Apr5.174521.25924@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>This double assertion -- that Britons understand most Americanisms
>(presumably through TV), and that they will soon be in common use --
>doesn't really stand scrutiny.  Even excluding strongly culture-specific

Understand: yes.
Adopt: less so for oldies like me, but more so for kids.  We had some
       brats doing 'trick or treat' this year instead of 'please help
       the guyser'.


>terms, things have really changed a lot in the last ten years if Britons
>understand the full American semantics of:

Let's see.  No dictionaries...

 audit (a course),
To sit in on a course but not take the exam?
 backlog,
Opposite way round from us!
>closet,
Toilet rather than clothes cupboard. Also used in 'coming out of the ...'
 diner,
Like a transport cafe - cheap & cheerful.  "yo! 2 easy-over!"
 english,
Spin on a cue ball
 flophouse,
tramps hostel
 gondola,
Thing you sit in on the ski run, - no water involved
 half-bath,
?
 iceberg lettuce,
just a variety of lettuce; we don't get them here I think.
>John Hancock,
?
 kettle,
Do you mean a pot rather than a water-boiling jug?  Or some special US meaning?
 letter (school sports),
Note from mum to get off games
 mobile home,
dormobile or equivalent.  Not a caravan - has an engine. Big. (RV?)
 nipple,
teat? (dummy, for kids)
>orchestra (seats),
Front stalls
 paddle,
punishment for kids.  skelping with a bat, eg ping-pong bat.
 quarterback (Monday Morning),
?
 realtor,
estate agent
>sophomore,
2nd-year student
 table (verb),
Opposite of ours.  Put motion aside.
 ukase,
Thought this was an enzyme like luciferin? :-)
Something political I think.  Need context.
 valedictorian,
Dux of the school
 wire,
to send a telegram
 (ummm),
?
 yard,
back garden
 zipgun.
home made gun from strong spring - used in prison

>David Brooks				dbrooks@osf.org

How did I do?

G
--
From: vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: therefore
Date: 17 Apr 92 08:12:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

Hi,



Once in a while, I have to write a long letter or memo. I like to
insert commas in places where I would pause if I were talking instead
of writing. I also like to leave out commas where one would think they
ordinarily belong. I received this criticism from my wife.
"Too many commas." Etc. 

Is this usage improper? Too informal? If it is, please let me know.


Also, I have a hard time differentiating between the use of "therefor"
and "therefore". Could someone help me with that, please?

One more thing: In the above paragraph, I stated that, "...I would
pause if I were talking". That's exactly what I meant. I did not mean
"...I would pause as if I were talking". Is that another infraction?

One more other thing: 

What is the difference between saying, "I think he should go" and
"I think that he should go"? Is either way optional?

Please let me know either by email or posting, otherwise I may have
to do something drastic and take remedial English!


Thanks

NicK
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:00:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <SLAGLE.92Apr10193909@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>In article <204657@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>   Are certain words *incorrect* usage, regardless of context and form of the
>   utterance in which they occur?  I don't think so; if it's a word that people
>   use, then the way they use it is (by definition) correct usage.  Not proper
>   style, perhaps; not desirable speech, perhaps; correct usage nevertheless.

>But according to your statement, the modifier "correct" has
>been stripped of all meaning.  If someone uses a word then
>we can say, tautologically, "it is usage", but it is nonsense
>to say it is automatically "correct" usage.  Or is correctness
>just a matter of enlisting enough adherents?

Right.  I apologize if that was unclear from my comments above; I was using
"people" in a collective sense.  A more precise statement might be something
akin to "If enough people use a word routinely in a particular way, and 
understand what the intended meaning of such usage is, then the usage is
correct for them."  

I wouldn't dream of claiming that any old usage I make up out of my head is
"correct" by virtue of having been used by me.  I couldn't say, offhand, how
many people must routinely use a word in a particular way in order for it to
qualify as a correct usage; that's even more fuzzy than the line between slang
and non-slang.  I think case-by-case consideration would be necessary before
drawing any conclusions.

>I grant that
>there will be times, in front of some audiences, where it will
>be appropriate for you to use the construction.  This does not
>make it correct.  The rules of grammar are not an assertion 
>that you may not break them, simply that it is not a good idea
>to do so without reason.  

But you've just asserted that it's still "incorrect" to break them when
there *is* a good reason.  Even a reason such as "No one will understand
what I mean if I *don't* use this construction."

>Most of the time doing so will just make you seem stupid.
>If that's OK with you then go with it.

Actually, I think I'm much more likely (in everyday life) to be subjected
to derision for overly-pedantic circumlocutions than for substandard usage.
All in all, I think it's hard to beat the simple rule of matching one's
diction and usage to that of one's audience.


-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
From: murray@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: usage
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:48:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr6.154808.10983
Reply-To: murray@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

Is assertion followed by negative over the course of the assertion
in fact, as asserted, a recent American neologism?   NOT!  The pattern
has existed in much Elizabethan poetry and drama, occurs in Shakes-
peare, and can be found as recently as e. e. Cummings who advised
us to "Pity this poor monster manunkind, not."
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3028 soc.culture.british:6310
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:04:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr13.151101.5158@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>"Sunny side up" is well-known to the British, but I
>cannot recall ever having heard it over here. "Up" is the phrase.

Where is "over here"?  California?

I've never heard sunny-side-up eggs referred to any other way; I grew up in
southern Illinois, Nebraska, and Maryland.

-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3066 soc.culture.british:6500
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:13:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr14.101858.18650@rdg.dec.com> preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com writes:
>Now, my favourite question around the subject of eggs......(maybe I can get 
>a definitive answer at last....)

>I like my eggs fried, then turned so that the yolk breaks and cooks hard.

In my family, this is "hard-cooked", or "a sandwich egg".


-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2880 soc.culture.british:5962
From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:40:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.1992Apr9.174022.6005
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>
>"Rooting" for a political candidate would be anything that could be
>metaphorically construed as cheering him or her on.

Judging by what I see of American political campaign coverage
(Gary Hart four years ago, Bill Clinton now, Ted Kennedy every year)
the American usage would appear to be close to the Australian . . .