HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Puns
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:32:21 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

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: 
> | TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
> | >In article <pjh.713703937@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
> | 
> | >>BTW I am well known around here for being a punster - I suppose the
> | >                                             ^^^^^^^
> | >Could anybody help me with the correct female form of "punster" -
> | >is it "punstress" (or "pun-stress"), or perhaps "pundette"?
> | 
> | [Entirely too serious rebuttal to the above question deleted.]
> | 
> | I apologise if this seems like a personal flame - it is not intended
> | as such. It is just my response to the whole thread I have been
> | reading over the past week and which I have so far not replied to.
> | Your question just pushed the button which motivated me to respond. I
> | apologise also for going off into a tirade about it.
> 
> Gosh, Phillipa (may I call you Phillipa?), *I* sort of took the question
> as a joke that was a reflection of the inanity of the whole discussion that 
> *has* been going on for the past week.  I mean, the guy even used the
> term "pundette" (which started the whole mess) to show how ludicrous it all 
> is.  I just don't see how any question about the proper feminine form of a 
> word like "punster" could be serious.
> 
> +--------------------------------------------------+
> |Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
> |cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
> +--------------------------------------------------+
> |The meaning of the complement form of a switch    |
> |can be determined by complementing the meaning    |
> |of the switch.                                    |
> |                     --Ada Reference Manual       |
> +--------------------------------------------------+
My goodness, I havn't been following this thread
really closely ! I thought 'pundette' was being 
proposed as a feminine form of 

pundit  learned Hindu; learned expert or teacher
        [NZ Pocket Oxford]
		  
rather than of 'punster'. Even as a joke-word it
doesn't seem to be useful.
        
-- 
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.'
From: asuncion@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: and - or - but
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:16:26 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


People who begin sentences with "And", "But", or "Or" should be slapped silly
by an English teacher. NEVER BEGIN A SENTENCE WITH and, or, but!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: froggy@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Robyn McNamara)
Subject: Re: "Route"
Organization: Monash General Access UNIX System
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:05:04 GMT

In article AA09133@MIT.EDU, dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
>
>All:
>
>Some USAns pronounce "route" to rhyme with "out," i.e., without
>reference to its origin.  Is there a geographic pattern to this
>"new" pronunciation or is it better correlated with something else?
>Has the innovation spread to non-USAns or, for that matter, did it
>arise outside the USA?  Is it used more with the verb form than it
>is with the noun form (or vice-versa)?  I'm particularly interested
>in responses from Merrie Englande, but I'll take anything.

In this part of Australia, most people say "rout".  This may be due to
the fact that the word "root" has certain connotations in Australian
slang - it's used as a synonym for another word with four letters.

(Australians sometimes titter when they hear about Americans "rooting"
for a football team.)
-- 
Robyn McNamara                                        The Cosmic Froggy
                     froggy@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
"Walk the lines of Nature's palm/Crossed with silver and with gold"-JT 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: "Route"
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:09:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.125206.3923@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
>In a previous article, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) says:
>> that you only ever encounter (and test) Brits and Americans.
>
>That's the third "only ever" in this thread.  When did that start?  Doesn't
>it sound odd to anyone but me?  (I would use "only".)

Good question.  Having been forced to think about it, I can confirm
that it doesn't sound odd to me (the perpetrator).  I can see that
the "ever" might be redundant, but when I remove it I find that a
certain emphasis is missing.  I wish I could be more precise, but all
I can say is that a redundant "ever" seems often to be used for emphasis.


>I've heard it in speech, but was under the impression that it was an Ohio
>thing--in fact, an Ohio -errror-.

You sly thing, you.


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to the first time ever I heard Roberta Flack sing.]
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Women Doctors
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:53:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug18.180938.5634@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:


>I'd like to know why we commonly see the word "woman" pluralized
>in phrases like "women doctors," "women scholars," or "women plumbers."
>No one would dream of pluralizing the adjective along with the noun in
>the phrases
>
>	boy wonders
>	girl athletes
>	male nurses
>	(ek cetera).
>
>Actually, I'm having trouble coming up with a familiar, similar
>phrase that starts with "man." 


Well, there's always "manhole."





-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and as far as I'm
concerned, happy campers you will always be."
                  --J. Danforth Quayle in American Samoa
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.canada
From: hillyer@rrc.chevron.com (Martin J. Hillyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Usage: 'goes' for 'said'
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:24:21 GMT
Reply-To: hillyer@rrc.chevron.com
Organization: Chevron, Richmond, California

store and I go, "How much is that doggie in the window?", and he goes, "$199.95 plus tax".  I seem to hear it all the time recently., even from educated people   Is it a Wast Coast usage (I presume it's at least US, not found in the UK yet)?

Just curious.

Martin
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:05:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <57560033@hpscit.sc.hp.com> fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
>
>
> Is rational thinking possible without language?



Well, babies (who presumably don't have language skills, at least before a
certain age) seem to be able to rationalize that dinner comes out of Mom
and not from chair legs ... though come to think of it, I have seen a few
chew on furniture.  

Maybe your first task is to define rational thinking.  I'm obviously not
up to it myself.

 
-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
            -- J. Danforth Quayle  
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: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:50:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.222809.705@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
> 
>>Sloppy language produces sloppy thinking....
> 
> You forgot the smileys.  I know many engineers whose grammar is execrable,
> by Miss Thistlebottom's standards, but who think far more clearly than any
> English major.

I'll agree with this, but only up to a point.  The qualification "by
Miss Thistlebottom's standards" is an essential part of Richard's
assertion.  Indeed, many engineers are poor stylists, and ignorant
of the finer nuances of writing and speaking skills, but still manage
to get their points across.  The fact that they do manage to get their
points across suggests that the fault might lie in Miss Thistlebottom's
standards.  (This might be one of those rare occasions where Richard
and I agree.)

But consider this.  (I threw that in to show that even we conservatives
don't mind beginning a sentence with "but".)  As an engineering
educator with many years' experience, I have observed that there is
a fairly strong correlation, among engineering students, between
language fluency and engineering skills.  I'm using "language fluency"
here in a less narrow sense than Miss Thistlebottom would; the test
I would apply is something like "could a reasonable reader discover,
without excessive effort, what the writer intended to say?"

The assertion that "Sloppy language produces sloppy thinking" misses
the mark slightly.  I would say, rather, that sloppy language reflects
sloppy thinking.  Many times I have had to ask "what did you intend
to say?" when trying to decipher a confused and rambling sentence,
or a poorly laid out circuit diagram, or a faulty piece of computer
program.  Almost invariably the response is a long pause, followed by
"I don't know".

Notice my hidden assumption, in the foregoing paragraph, that an
unreadable engineering diagram belongs to the same category as an
unreadable sentence.  Yes, I am indeed asserting that the skills in
these examples are related.  It is true that technical drawing and
technical writing involve some skills which are not language-related,
and this can mask the relationship.  Nevertheless, there is an
underlying "clear thinking" requirement which is the same whether
one is trying to present the results of an engineering design or
trying to write an essay on sociology.

Many of you will be familiar with Dijkstra's assertion that the
best predictor for success in computer programming is fluency in
one's native language.  (Was that Dijkstra?  I hope I'm not misquoting.)
I agree with that - based on my experience with a great many students
- and am inclined to extend the assertion to include any field of
study which requires one to represent one's ideas in any sort of
symbology, be it a computer program, a diagram, or whatever.

Peter

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Victory at NPR!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:44:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.044625.23826@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.165856.13240@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>No, you should have pointed out that "8 items or less" is flat-out
>>*correct.*  And idiomatic.  And long-standing usage.  And standard.

>.......NOT!

OK, Gabe: meet you at the OED, or the reference grammar of your choice.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Gender Benders!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:01:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.181135.10388@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@corsa
ir.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

>      It is time for me to plunge into the debate about gender specific
>words. Most of you seem to be in favour of dropping the usage of these
>words. However, I beg to differ. Aren't our prejudices a part of ourselves,

[coupe, coupe, coupe]

>would take place artificially). Why should the words such as "he"
>or "she" be considered discriminatory? The discrimination lies only in
>our minds! I am sure this provides food for thought......
>                                                        The one and only,
>                                                          Mandar.


Whatever they do in the United Kingdom is fine with me.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Women Doctors
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:41:34 EST
Organization: Wright State University 



Mr. DAZ has axed a very good question:

In article <1992Aug18.180938.5634@nas.nasa.gov>, 
asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
> I'd like to know why we commonly see the word "woman" pluralized
> in phrases like "women doctors," "women scholars," or "women plumbers."

I think there is room under the big language tent for both "female" and 
"women" doctors.  If we need to distinguish among MDs for some reason, 
I think female & male should be used as grouping terms.  Sociological 
discussion of women in their role as doctors, though, may allow for 
"women doctors." By analogy, would you say that "women engineers" and
"female engineers" are interchangeable terms?

> Actually, I'm having trouble coming up with a familiar, similar
> phrase that starts with "man."

Man-of-war / Men-of-war ; Man-about-town / Men-about-town.  But:
Manservant / Menservants!

And certainly we would say that one may belong to the *men's* volleyball
team or the *women's* volleyball team, not "male" or "female" teams.

> Or do I have it mixed up: is "women" the noun and "doctors" the
> adjective in this case???

Dunno.  Good question.

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:45:57 GMT

In article <pel.27.714101604@resntl.bhp.com.au> pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn) writes:
>In article <86205@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>>How about mangled English that isn't necessarily part of a screwed up
>>ad campaign?  Anybody seen any awful menu translations?  Signs?  
>>Operator manuals?  Stuff written on "Hello Kitty" lunch boxes?  

Sorry about having to Followup to Lauren via Paul's article, but his(her? not
familiar with the name) has expired here:

In the good old days we had a C ITOH lineprinter, the manual of which
was a scream of fractured English.  It referred to "that artificial
mammoth-creature, systematised information", and warned that "this
printer must only be embraced in ventilative circumstance".

After having puzzled as how to ensure that the operators only hugged
the printer while the wind was blowing, we decided merely to make sure
that there was adequate airflow round it :)

				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
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:33:32 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1969@sdrc.COM>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:

>Yes, that's obviously incorrect.  What they should of said is:
                                                    ^^

HAVE!  _Have!_  "What they should _have_ said!"  God, that bugs me!!!

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
How about we all do something reasonable?  I bet that'll confuse 'em!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: yholbroo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Yash Holbrook)
Subject: Re: Quote or simile for "success"?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 00:09:15 GMT


I've got your clincher sentence (hold on...):

"They donate significance on the phrase 'victory' ".  

Hope that helps.   :-)

Yash
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: parsons@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Parsons)
Subject: Re: use of generic terms
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:43:27 GMT

Sstevens@oregon.uoregon.edu (Shirien Stevens) writes:

>In article <baron.9.713202653@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:

>>So, if you can use `you guys,' can you use it for males only, males and
>>females, and, finally, females only?

	I think y'all is a beautiful solution to this problem,and I'm even a
Yankee.

	-m.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Whose Ox?
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:08:25 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug16.221455.14193@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.094945.18959@rose.com> bob.blackburn@rose.com (bob blackburn) writes:
>>
>>Can anyone tell me the origin of "it depends on whose ox is 
>>being gored"?
>>
>>My dim recollection is that it's the conclusion of a fable 
>>or parable or folk tale or some such.
>
>I suspect it comes from the Biblical laws regarding property rights.

I suspect it comes from the old oriental anecdote:

   Peasant (rushing into the judge's office):  "Kadi efendi, your ox
just gored mine to death!"

   Judge:  "Well, I'm afraid nothing can be done about it.  One can't
hold an animal responsible for its deeds."

   Peasant:  "Oh, I'm sorry, I got it wrong.  It was actually my ox
that gored yours."

   Judge:  "Wait a minute, this changes things completely.  Will you
just pass me that book with the black cover."

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Usage: 'go' for 'said' - second try
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:12:20 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

In article 6166@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com, hillyer@rrc.chevron.com (Martin J. Hillyer,50-1267,(510)242-3123) writes:

>Where did the usage `go' for 'said' come from?  Example I went into the store and I >go, "How much is that doggie in the window?", and he goes, "$199.95 plus tax."  I seem >to hear it all the time lately, even from educated people.  Is it a West Coast usage >(I presume it hasn't shown up in the UK, yet).

>Just curious.
>Martin

It's been in common colloquial usage in Aus for an awfully long time.

-m.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:02:09 GMT
	<1992Aug12.052915.14487@news.columbia.edu> <BsvF5x.DI@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU's message of 12 Aug 92 12:39:33 GMT

In article <BsvF5x.DI@wpi.WPI.EDU>, padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:

> (NOT "lawn guyland"!!! Never never never!!)

No, not if you mean with a voiced hard "g", but yes
if you mean with the nasal "ng".  But it is more
attached to the "lawn" than the "uyland".

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
Subject: "Are you busy?" or "Are you free?"
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 06:24:29 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA28467; Sun, 16 Aug 92 03:26:30 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA11452; Sun, 16 Aug 92 03:26:25 -0700
X-Received: from TMS-PORT-5.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTPid AA19862; Sun, 16 Aug 92 06:26:13 EDT
X-To: alt.usage.english.usenet
X-Command: Send_AEvt(doAutoForward)


                        Q1:    "Are you busy?"
                        Q2:    "Are you free?"

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

           Null hypothesis:    In the USA, people are
                               more likely to ask Q1 than they are Q2.

    Alternate hypothesis 1:    In the USA, people are
                               as likely to ask Q1 as they are Q2.

    Alternate hypothesis 2:    Outside the USA, people are
                               more likely to ask Q2 than they are Q1.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Data:    [Please!]



Thanks,
Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to all whose world is not <USA or not-USA>.]

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: total PC for English
Keywords: gender, personal pronouns
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:54:29 GMT

In article <tony.714543327@helios.llnl.gov> tony@iti.org (Anthony Skjellum) writes:
>I accept that there is a reasonable basis for 'his and hers' or 'he and she'.
>I wonder how we are going to fix words like 
>
>	manpower, manyear, chairman
>
>Here's why:  We change 'man' to 'person.'  Person contains 'son'.

So does sonic, arson, Songhai, lesson, seasonal, prisoner, and songbook.

Person comes from the Latin personare.  per = through, sonare = to sound,
thus, "to sound through," referring to the masks (personae) that ancient
actors wore.  It has nothing to do with the English word "son"

>So, what do we end up with?  perpower, peryears, chairper (chair
>is a piece of furniture)?

We end up with a pathetic joke.  The words are fine as they are, or if
people don't like them, there are other alternatives.  You can say
"She was asked to chair the meeting" or some such, and forget the
issue entirely.

Actually, "Chair" referring to the head of a meeting is a very old usage
and is quite a good one.  It's just metonymy, that's all.

>Also, I need to rewrite all the words in the dictionary like manual,
>mandible, amanuensis, etc.  What should we do? 

We should leave them alone. 

>Ideas?

Tell those concerned to read a good book on English etymology and spend
their time doing something more productive than trying to re-edit the
dictionary.  


--
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: dian@druggist.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:03:24 GMT

In <baron.24.714258287@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:


>forehead (is the rhyme, "and when he was bad he was horrid" or is it
>"horehead"?)

There was a little girl
and she had a little curl
right in the middle of her forehead.
And when she was good, she was very, very good;
and when she was bad, she was horrid*.


*alternate line:  and when she was bad, she was better.