HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Ships and countries
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:23:25 GMT
Reply-To: mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep1.004314.18499@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>> Many (if not most) programmers that I encounter in the US refer to
>> their programs, or maybe to the computer itself, as "he" almost
>> universally.  I find it a rather annoying anthropomorphism ...
>
>Well, I don't draw any conclusions from them, but the following remarks
>in the Jargon File (version 2.9.10) seem apropos:
>
>|  :Anthromorphization: [... deleted ...]
>|  What *is* common is to hear hardware or software talked about
>|  as though it has homunculi talking to each other inside it, with
>|  intentions and desires.  Thus, one hears "The protocol handler got
>|  confused", or that programs "are trying" to do things, or one may say of
>|  a routine that "its goal in life is to X".  One even hears explanations
>|  like "...  and its poor little brain couldn't understand X, and it
>|  died."  Sometimes modelling things this way actually seems to make them
>|  easier to understand, perhaps because it's instinctively natural to
>|  think of anything with a really complex behavioral repertoire as `like a
>|  person' rather than `like a thing'.
>
>I suspect that the tendency of the homunculi to be referred to in the
>masculine simply reflects the masculine majority in programming.

This is inconsistent with the observation that most sailors are male,
and yet ships are referred to in the feminine.

Second, in the quotation above the homunculi are referred to in the
neuter, not masculine.

Third, female programmers and sysadmins also tend to anthropomorphize
hardware and software.

-Margaret
mikulska@astro.princeton.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Is anyone interested in creating a subgroup?
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:53:33 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep2.154340.9014@unixg.ubc.ca> turkel@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Turkel) writes:
>It seems like a lot of the discussion on this group is about usage,

Maybe people ought to be reminded of the existence of alt.usage.english
(and some other groups) from time to time.

Btw, what happened to the FAQ list?  Did the group decide to abolish it?
We could do with an updated one.  "Does sci.lang need splitting?" is one
of the most FAQ here.  :-)

>or aspects of language in general.

Right, that's what the group is for.  What else does the "lang" stand for?

>Is it worth having an RFD to discuss a subgroup for
>theoretical issues in a particular framework?

I say no.  Not with the current low sci.lang traffic.  But I am in
favour of more meaningful subject lines.

-- 
 `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
From: matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Matt Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Keywords: prescriptive, proscriptive
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:25:41 GMT
Organization: U.S. ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY (AMSAA), APG, MD.

In article <baron.33.714839098@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu 
(Dennis Baron) writes:

>Data shows (sic) that many young women today use Ms. as the equivalent of
>Miss, a yuppified term that will become Mrs. when they marry (it remains
>to be seen whether they in fact do change titles).  And another signiifcant
>number of young women associate Ms. only with unmarried (divorced, widowed)
>women of their mothers' generation.   [Dennis Baron]

I've noticed the restriction of "Ms." to unmarried women, too.  
However, the widows I know keep using "Mrs."; it's only the divorcees 
who have taken to using "Ms."

The old usage was:

      Never-married                Miss
      Married                      Mrs.
      Widowed                      Mrs.
      Divorced                     Mrs.

This categorized women by marital status in a way that men are not
categorized.  The emerging usage seems to be:

      Never-married                Ms.  (or Miss)
      Married                      Mrs.
      Widowed                      Mrs.
      Divorced                     Ms.

Once again, women are categorized by marital status in a way that
men are not.  It's sorta like jiu-jitsu: use the opponent's own
strength against him in such a way that his attack on you gains
him no benefit.

>That being said, the issue is further complicated by the fact that the
>sex-neutralization of written English tends to be accomplished by fiat
>(pre and proscription) rather than by some more random process (it's not
>clear that language change can be random, anyway, instead of a response to
>some social pressure).  Linguistic edicts engender resentment, whether
>they tell you to use he for all persons, or to avoid the generalization.
. . .
>More interesting, they frequently tend to backfire (as, for
>example, the new direction being taken by _Ms._), since linguistic control
>can never be complete or absolute, or maybe even barely effective.
>[Dennis Baron]

I agree with Mr. Baron's fine article.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
					(matt@amsaa.brl.mil)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:19:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.170847.19803@ils.nwu.edu> pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.235218.10576@athena.mit.edu>, pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
> [burthen omitted]
> [...]
>> >I think I've shown that the commonly given alternatives to the prototype
>> >account, like those David Pesetsky has given, can't account for the difference
>> >in categorizations.
>> 
>> I don't see where you've done that, frankly.
>
>I suspected you felt that way, and I've been waiting for you to address my
>counterarguments.
>

You have presented a counter-scenario (a plausible one, perhaps), but
(as far as I can tell) no counterargument.  Saying that one has a
feeling that judgments about inclusion in Boston city limits and
judgments about distance from Boston are somehow inseparable is not an
argument, merely a statement of your hunch.  I, of course, am just
stating my hunch, but I was looking for more.  I don't know what more I
can say, except that this is where sci.lang ends and real life begins.

-David Pesetsky
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6804 soc.culture.celtic:5674
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: [pronouns] Re: Other properties of pronoun usage
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:12:21 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England


In article <1992Aug28.160024.19136@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes...
>In article <7sH7PB5w164w@kryton.UUCP> ace@kryton.UUCP (Catherine Beckstead) writes:
>>It is interesting that English, for the most part, dropped the
>>familiar in favor of calling everyone "you", the formal address.  So,
>>as the feudal system went by the wayside, the common folk, wanting
>>more respect, went with the more noble address of "you".
> 
>If I remember my high school Spanish correctly, most dialects did the
>same thing with the second person plural (the formal "ustedes"
>supplanting the familiar "vosotros").
> 

Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic seem to have undergone this change 
very recently, and it is probably still happening. The 2nd person
plural form "sibh" was reserved as a polite form, but these days
both languages are losing the polite form rapidly and replacing it
with "thu","tu/" for singular and "sibh" for plural. 

Research by Dr Kenneth MacKinnon in 1973 showed the following:
(Scottish Gaelic, Harris)

Age group     Husband using SIBH     Wives using SIBH      total
              to wife		     to Husband 

18-39            0.0%                   28.6%		   22.2%
40-59		50.0%			33.3%		   40.0%
60+		61.5%			55.5%		   59.1%

Total	        52.2%			39.3%		   45.1%

From "Language, Education and Social Processes in a Gaelic community"
by Kenneth MacKinnon, Hatfield Polytechnic (Dept of Psychological and 
Social Studies). Published by Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Probably out of print now. (first published 1977)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com                           leis
  UUCP:..!decwrl!edieng.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      a'
                                                                   Gha\idhlig!
  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: Nasalisation 
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:45:21 GMT

In <peeters.714973846> peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters) writes:

>>Nasalisation only occurs in Portuguese and in French (that is, when
>>one limits oneself to the five main Romance languages).

In <jsoares.715213145> jsoares@dxcoms.cern.ch (Joaquim Soares) replies:

>I would say nasalisation in Spanish is even more proeminent than in
>French and Portuguese... How do you pronounce "nin~o", "Espan~a", etc?

Quite, but I was referring to nasalisation as a distinctive feature, not
as something caused by the presence of a following or preceding nasal
consonant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bert Peeters                         Tel: +61 02 202344
Department of Modern Languages               002 202344
University of Tasmania at Hobart        Fax: 002 207813
GPO Box 252C                            Bert.Peeters@modlang.utas.edu.au
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 00:33:29 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug27.141918.8820@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>In any case, I've been assuming that Cognitive linguistics is
>"mentalist", not behaviorist.  That is the only way I could interpret
>the claim that people's categories "are" prototypes.  If my assumption
>is right, there is a difference between categorization behavior and the
>mental categories this behavior touches upon, and my questions are
>relevant: are the mental categories discussed by Lakoff prototypes or
>not, and how can we tell?

One more time, Lakoff doesn't (nor does anyone else of *any* persuasion 
I know of) claim that "categories 'are' prototypes".  That's a scarlet
herring.  The claim is that categories (or at least some or most categories)
include prototypes (and relations to prototypes, among other relations) as
part of their structure.  For me (and, I suspect many "Cognitive 
Linguists"), the more interesting claim about categories is the more
general one that they have structure at all (apart from the attribute
lists which, in "classical" theories, define them).

> If Cognitive linguists assume a priori that
>there is no *conceivable* gap between categories and categorization
>behavior (the issue of an *actual* gap being the point I am raising),
>then there's little point in the discussion.  Cognitive linguistics then
>doesn't even touch upon the stuff of traditional/generative linguistics,
>and any debate between them is like arguing whether a car is a machine
>or a mode of transportation.

I confess I'm not *quite* sure just what you mean by a gap.  If you mean
they are not the same things, then I agree.  If you mean that categories
are "prior" to categorization in the sense that categorization depends
on (existing) categories *but not vice-versa*, then I disagree and ask
how categories are claimed to come into existence in the first place 
and to change their characteristics (as surely they do throughout an
individual's life) if they are unaffected by categorization?  What
*evidence* supports at all a classical view of the nature of categories
other than a (mostly hopeful in my view) possibility that they can be
"made to work" with some help from external machinery -- i.e. what
evidence supports them *over alternative accounts*?
From: EZ-as-pi@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Gilson)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Agglutinative languages
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 04:37:12 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <8781@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>

Matt Rosenblatt says: "'Course,
Korean is an Altaic language" as if
everyone accepts this thesis. As far
as I ubderstand, considering the
Uralic languages, the Altaic languages,
Japanese, and Korean, there are quite
a few ways these have been interrela-
ted. Nobody to my knowledge puts all
4 together, but while the hypothesis
that the last three are related is
certainly one that is seriously
maintained (see Miller, "Japanese and
the Other Altaic Languages") I do not
believe this is universally accepted.
Of course, I am only a well-read
amateur in comparative linguistics, 
with my PhD in an entirely different
specialty and my employment in a yet
different one, so I may not be up on
the latest consensus, but I believe I
am correct here.
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular comm
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:07:18 GMT

In article <8807@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>, matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Matt Rosenblatt) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.164355.9089@bsu-ucs.uucp> 
> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
> 
> 
>>We are trying [to] change how people use language.  [Herb Stahlke]
> 
>Who are the "we" to whom Mr. Stahlke is referring, who are trying to 
>change how other people use language?

That was the g-s "we", differing from the g-s "they" by the feature
[+condescending].

Herb Stahlke
From: v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I took a course a few years ago on Language and Cognition, in which we used
part of Lakoff's book.  An example the professor used to illustrate prototypes
was a parallelagram.  For him and most of the students, the 'best' shape was
/=/ (hope you get the idea), with equal sides.  If it was oriented with two of
the points lined up vertically, it was a diamond, _not_ a parallelagram.  For
anyone with a background in math (like me), though, it was a parallelagram no
matter what its shape or orientation.
	Thus, for them there is a prototype, while for me there is not.  Who,
then, is right?  Is there a prototypical parallelagram inherent in the human
subconscious, or is this an example of weak training in thinking mathematically?

Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
If you claim my views reflect the opinions of my department, you'll be laughed
out of acedemia.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Rechtschreibereform
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:16:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

Also sprach connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu:
<In article <1992Aug26.124356.17419@coli.uni-sb.de>, simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon) writes:
<> Was soll denn uebrigens das "unnuetze v" sein? Ist damit gemeint, dass man
<> in Zukunft da, wo f gesprochen wird, auch f schreiben soll, <...>
<
<In der Tat.  Daher: fater, aber uniwersitaet.  Und moeglicherweise
<(aber hoffentlich nicht): roemisch I, I, III, IW, W, ...

Oder vielleicht "I, II, III, IF, F, ..."?  In "V" wird ja immer /f/
gesprochen ("f-au" als Buchstabe, "f-uenf" als Zahlzeichen).

Eigentlich sollte "W" 10 bedeuten, nicht wahr?  ("W" <- "VV".)

-- 
 `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: sci.lang
From: lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 13:44:36 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug28.104842.4943@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>	Is there real evidence that categories ever include prototypes,
>	or is the appearance of prototype an artifact of 
>	categorization-behavior?
>
>	If the answer to the first question is yes,  do we have any
>	warrant to conclude that structural linguistoic notions like
>	"noun" includes a prototype?

[various discussion omitted...]

>In any case, contrary to appearances, I'm not prejudging the issue of
>categorization, except where it touches on things I have real expertise
>about, e.g. syntax, where I'm understandably hesitant to throw away all
>the great work I read and teach because of shaky conclusions concerning
>how people categorize Popes.  So I want to see some argumentation.

As would I.  What evidence supports the claim that syntactic categories are 
"classical" even in the senses (a) that they have sharp boundaries (in
the minds of single speakers -- variation is not the issue here); and 
(b) that they are simple sets -- i.e. without internal structure and
particularly without differentiation in category membership among members?
To the extent that your answer is based on "the great work I read and teach",
what insightful generalizations in syntax do you believe hinge critically
on the "classical" nature of syntactic categories?  Presumably only those
could support (indirectly) a claim that syntax has (only) "classical"
categories.  This question is not intended to be snide in any way -- there
are important insights gained and being gained by linguists working in
frameworks that assume classical categories (including various generative
ones), and I assume, with (I hope) most of my "Cognitive" colleagues, that
ultimately we must account for those generalizations which hold up as 
well as those who sought to incorporate them in other frameworks.

BTW, if anyone out there is considering looking into some of the work
that Langacker and his colleagues have done in one Cognitive Grammatical
framework, I would recommend that you tackle _Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar, *Vol. 2*_, rather than Volume 1.  Especially if you're reasonably
sophisticated in syntax.  Volume 1 spends a lot of time on philosophical
and methodological preliminaries.  Volume 2 has *a lot* more actual analysis
and is certainly manageable without Vol. 1.  I suspect it would require
less patience from the unconvinced.  IMHO.

Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
From: siobhan@microsoft.com (Siobhan Harper)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 03 Sep 92 21:51:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep2.160536.28325@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
>press sex uncertainty either.  German has a neuter, but it's a gender
>in its own right.  You can't switch from masculine or feminine to neuter
>to express sex uncertainty.
>
>     Does anyone know of a language that has a "apparently gramatical"
>way of expressing sex uncertainty?  By "apparently gramatical" I mean
>a way that does not appear to conflict with any other grammar rules of
>the language.

This may be a tangent, but what the hell...when I was studying Icelandic
eons ago, I remember being impressed by how they handled mixed groups.
Instead of going to the generic male plural (e.g. French: 5 billion
females + 1 male => "ils"), Icelandic immediately switches to the
neuter plural. I really liked that--consideration AND grammatical rigor;
enough to warm the cockles of my heart ;).

Like I said, though, it's only marginally related to your question.

--Siobhan



Xref: sparky sci.lang:6934 sci.cognitive:389
From: mcke@unixg.ubc.ca (William McKellin )
Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Cognitive linguistics [was Re: Prototypes]
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:06:46 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada


Bill McKellin                             mcke@unixg.ubc.ca
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C. 
V6T 1Z1 
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: [pronunciation] the translated-name character jia1 [resend attempt]
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:58:57 GMT
Reply-To: chungdan@leland.stanford.edu
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.


     The character <sound below> for "plus" is usually used to translate
 | |  |  \ /    
 +-|  |   |     
   |  |   |     
sounds in names sounding like "ga", e.g. *Ca*-nada.  However, the original
sound is more like "ga", instead of "jia".  So, perhaps we should actually
pronounce the translated name word as <below>, e.g. Ga1 Na2 Da4.
  // \ /    
 <<   |     
  \\  |    
Of course, jia1 jian3 cheng2 chu2 remains the same.

					Zhong1 Qi3 Iao2, U.S.A.

[Replies go to "Sci.Lang".]
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Problems with hurricane names
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:47:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug27.194135.3784@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>
>Hurricanes used to have only female's names.  Then they got in touch with their
>masculine sides.  We'll all be in trouble with the first "Hurricane Butch." Or
>maybe something more fitting yet Biblical, like "Joshua."
>

Or "Andrew."


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

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
            -- J. Danforth Quayle
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Latin x again
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:17:22 -0500
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman

Do not quite a few words that have an x in the Latin root evolve into French
without the conscious borrowing as in Mexique?  Example: rixe < rixa.
Furthermore, could one not point out that almost all Latin nouns pass into
modern Italian from oblique forms that lack the s of the nominative?  Do not
pac- and felic- comprise the roots of pax and felix?  In the syntax of the
vernacular how fould there even have been a question of having the s ingredient
of the x appear at all?
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: k and s
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:44:27 GMT

In article <81732@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
}
}...  A good example of palatalization is "dija" for "did ya..." ...

Not good.  That's y -> zh.  Obstruentization; not palatalization at all.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa