HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space, Sunnyvale CA USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:10:32 GMT

srinivas@lips.ecn.purdue.edu (The Abode of Wealth) writes:
: 
: I have noticed that people use an apostrophe in writing "1960s". What is
: right, "1960s" or "1960's"?  I feel that the use of an apostrophe is 
: wrong because when the words are used instead of numbers, "sixties" 
: is the correct word and not "sixty's". The apostrophes also creep 
: into plurals of commonly used abbreviations. What is right - "IMHOs" 
: or "IMHO's"?

According to one widely accepted (in the US) reference work,
_The Chicago Manual of Style_, 13th ed., 1982, rule 6.9, p. 160,
the apostrophe should not be used:

  6.9 _Letters, noun coinages, numbers._ So far as it can be done
      without confusion, single or multiple letters used as words,
      hyphenated coinages used as nouns, and numbers (whether spelled
      out or in figures) form the plural by adding _s_ alone:

           the three Rs         several YMCAs and AYHs
           thank-you-ma'ams     CODs and IOUs
           in twos and threes   the early 1920s

"IMHOs" is correct, according to _Chicago_.

Some net-writers, however, might insist that "IMHOen" is best. Another
variation on your question is "Which is correct, 'VAXs' or 'VAXes'?"
This earth-shaking, cosmos-stopping question was settled humorously
by the coinage "VAXen," borrowing the Germanic plural suffix "en" (as in
"children," "oxen"). (See the JARGON file for more on "VAXen.")
_Chicago_ would insist that "VAXs" is the correct form.

:              Using the full form is not an alternative here because
: I am using abbreviations of long technical phrases and it is very tedious to
: use the full forms a hundred times.

That's the one most legitimate reason for acronyms.

Alex Lange
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:53:55 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <11636@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>>Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:
>>
>>a)	2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.
>>
>>b)	1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.  
>>
>>Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
>>perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
>>than the number 2, in the above contexts.
> 
> Not really.  We agree that "unique" means `only one [of a kind]', but
> why should something be called more or less unique just because it was
> selected from a larger or smaller set?
> 
> a) 2 is the only integer that is an even prime number.
> b) 1/3 is the only real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.
> 
> Is 1/3 onlier than 2, or what?  :-) (If "more unique" makes sense,
> then so does "onlier", since the two mean the same thing.)
> 
> -- 
>  `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (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

I agree with Ivan. If the size of the set we were selecting
from were relevant we would have to worry about whether the
real number 1/3 or the rational number 1/3 was intended. Or
whether the writer was intending to identify the two, or . . .

The difficulty with making sharp concepts vague is that there
is often more than one way of doing so. All the more reason to 
stay with the sharp concept.
-- 
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.'
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: "fred cummins" <fcummins@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: English adjectives in -ic and -ical
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:31:42 EST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Many English adjectives exist in two more or less synonymous 
forms, one ending in -ic, the other in -ical, e.g rhythmic/
rhythmical; dynamic/dynamical etc.  These are mostly derived
from greek forms (Latin words ending in -ic such as 'public'
behave differently).  Nouns which end in -ic usually form
their adjectives only with -al (music/musical), some
adjectives only exist in the -ic form (ectopic, anaesthetic).
The most confusing case I know of relates to adjectives formed
from 'episode', where we find episodal, episodic and
episodical (although I distrust the latter form).

Why should a language support this degree of apparant synonymy?

Which forms are older?  Are there nuances of meaning which
distinguish between apparantly similar forms?

I suspect that a lot of the confusion arises from attempts by
speakers to simplify the situation, thereby creating novel
forms by back formation, but I would be interested to hear
the opinions of others either here or by email.

Fred Cummins
fcummins@cs.indiana.edu
From: benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: quite unique (sorry!)
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:56:37 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Edinburgh University

Thanks everyone for helping to solve my original query - as some people
noted it was more to do with the usage of 'quite' than 'unique'. 

Perhaps the usage of 'quite' meaning 'truly' (as in the example 'he was
quite dead') is just British, but this is the meaning I want to pair
with unique.

Note: Someone would only accept 'quite' if you could also have 'not
quite', and accepted 'quite dead' on this basis. But I disagree with
this reasoning. 'Quite dead' and 'not quite dead' are not opposites.

Ben Hambidge.

P.S.  What is the FAQ and where do I get it?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley)
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:27:52 GMT
Organization: Evolving Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

An observation regarding "unique".

In situations where "a unique foobar" might very well mean "the only
foobar that exists", we seem to interpret the word without difficulty.
Thus we say, "The solution to this set of equations is unique", not
meaning that it's rare or unusual or strange -- we mean that it's, uh,
unique.  There's no other solution.  (We don't even have to know what
the solution is:  "This system of equations can be shown to have a unique
solution.")

Similarly, if in a discussion of a Latin passage, I say, "This use of 
'pervarie' is unique", most listeners -- at least most listeners with
whom I'm likely to be discussing Latin syntax -- will understand me to
be saying that no other example of the use exists.

(But it's not a bit clear to me that the primary meaning of "unique" is
the same for most "speakers of English" as it is for most readers of
alt.usage.english.  Maybe "unique" has lost much its sense of uniqueness,
much as "terrific" no longer carries overtones of terror or "fantastic"
of fantasy.  They all mean simply "good", "approved of by the speaker".
As "horrible" and "awful", divorced from horror and awe, mean simply
"bad".)

I think that when we hear "unique" bald and unmodified, we interpret it
strictly whenever a strict interpretation makes sense, and less strictly
only if it doesn't.  We can force the strict interpretation if we like,
at least among literate people, by saying "literally unique".

Notice here, by the way, another good useful word, "literally", that's
used now as a kind of general intensifier.  "Literally unique" seems to
mean (to most hearers) "real good".  Ugh.  These examples argue most
strongly for keeping hyperbolic and non-literal meanings secondary and
little-used for as long as possible.  It's too late to save "fabulous",
"terrible", "discriminate", and "lousy".  Let's try to preserve "unique",
"literally", "convince", "home", and all the other endangered words and
senses that make (or made) English such a fine, flexible, precise tongue.
-- 
Fr. John Woolley (jww@evolving.com); vastly enthusiastic about Augustine,
Austen, babies, Bach, backgammon, baseball, beer, the Bible, Botticelli, Burke,
Chesterton, Dante, Dixieland, hardboiled, Hitchcock, Dr Johnson, Latin, Mozart,
Shakespeare/de Vere, St Teresa, Tolkien, Trollope, Fats Waller, and Washington
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique research? (round 1)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:23:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.094020.5627@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Honestly, Roger, you have *completely* lost sight of the nature of this
>posting.  I tracked down the summary opinion of "experts" and usage
>guides and dictionaries.  I presented them in a responsible manner, making very
>few points based on my own opinions on the matter.  

Well, you may have presented their opinions, but you didn't give their 
reasons, which are ultimately the things that convince (or not).

>You seem to imply that I have invented these summary opinions to launch 
>an attack.  On the contrary, I think some of my findings support your
>claims *to a limited extent*.  But you seem as uninterested in this relatively
>non-partisan summary as you are in opinions that run contrary to Evans^^2. 

Actually, I was grateful for the work you did, and apologize for not being
explicit about that.  I did get suspicious, though, about your
categorization of the writers as "allowing modification" and "not allowing."
Seems to me that Fowler and Phythian do allow modification, incl. "quite,"
which is the crux of our argument, or was once.

>Sure, I could post every motherloving paragraph from each source -- I would note
>that Mr. Read has posted the Fowler's argument -- but so what?  They are 
>there, *you* can go look them up as I suggested if you don't believe me.  
>You already went overboard attacking *me* for the Webtster's usage guide 
>extract that I did post -- now why would I want you to attack me for *other* 
>opinions too?  That wouldn't be smart, Roger, you must admit.

Well, it was the only apple in the barrel I could actually taste, that's all.

>RL>Time for a reality check.  Are you *honestly* saying that any of the 
>> folks above disallow *all* modifiers for "unique"?  Including "really"
>> and "truly" and "more nearly" and "in some/every sense" and so on?
>> "Unique" can obviously be modified; the question is: how?

>See Roger?  I spent many, many lines of posting explaining the opinions of a
>usage guide that stated how the modification may or may not be justified, 
>but you have chosen to ignore that.  

Sorry, I must have missed that.

>In this matter, sir, you need the reality check.

Post it and I'll apologize most humbly.

Roger
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:28:24 GMT
Organization: Eris's Restaurant

In article <1992Nov21.044912.8966@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.230208.5596@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>>That is demonstrably not true.  It is purely a matter of modern style.
>>In medicine, for example, many diseases that had names are being renamed
>>alphabet soup style, e. g. erythroblastosis fetalis to hemolytic disease
>>of the newborn (HDN).
>
>Good for them.  Using more English in medical terminology is a good 
>idea, don't you think?  One shouldn't have to know Latin to know
>what one's doctor is saying.  As for the initialism, well, it saves
>time, and doctors like to do that.  Also, given their handwriting, I'd
>rather take my chances with three caps...

In which case, why stick with "haemolytic", which is as Greek as ever
"erythroblastosis" was?

No, I don't like the approach of Anglicising everything.  Look what happened
to the Germans, who, in a fit of nationalism, decided that good old
international (ie Greek and Latin) names for scientific matters wasn't good
enough, and Teutonified them.  Result?  No reasonably-educated person who
couldn't read German could understand what they were talking about.  You
wouldn't believe what they called "haemoglobin" (which, I admit, probably
should have been "haematoglobulin", but there you go...).

There's nothing wrong with "erythroblastosis fetalis"; if a patient
doesn't understand, they can ask or look it up.  I really do abhor this
idea that one must translate into the vulgar tongue in order that the
"ordinary person" should comprehend.  Hevens, if this proceeds further,
are we to expect "baby's bursting bloodcells" as the preferred term?

Ugh.
-- 
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: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Paintball/Coloured-ball war games (?)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 11:24 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

You can even read "rec.sport.paintball" if your system administrator
can be persuaded to add yet another rec group to the usual overburdened
news server...

Joe
"The pallid pimp of the dead-line/The enervate of the pen" --Robert Service
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tdlg9831@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tracey Dianne Layng)
Subject: Re: last,latest,latter
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:16:04 GMT

Nico Tranquilli <ntranqu@caticsuf.cati.csufresno.edu> writes:

>Could anyone please tell me the differences between
>LAST, LATEST(?), LATTER ?

>It's an ignorant question, I know and I also know that the last time I
>posted here I had no replies, so I wonder if this newgroup is "reserved"
>for native english speakers only...)


Last- the final one. "That was the last cookie, and you ate it."

Latest - newest.  "That is the latest edition of _Webster's Dictionary_."

Latter - used when choosing the second of two things.  "If I had a choice of 
  pork chops or lobster, I would choose the latter." (lobster)

I hope this helps.

Tracey
From: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:06:24 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu
Summary: ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

I have read all I want to read on the question of the modifiability
or lack thereof of the word "unique".  PLEASE can't we talk about
something else?

---------------------  
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |      
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
From: kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Gender-neutral pronoun
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:01:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I think that people who use s/he are on the right track in their
attempt to rectify the sexist bias that's undeniably built into the
language.  The problem with s/he, however, is that it doesn't go far
enough.  Although it does address the gender bias, it does nothing
about the inherent HUMAN bias that leaves everything non-human
(bunnies, nuclear reactors, forests, starry nights, etc.) out in the cold.

As an advocate of inanimate rights, I propose a new pronoun:
s/h/it, which should cover just about everything if we push hard
enough.
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: i am expressing myself in lower-case
Date: 17 Nov 1992 14:46:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) says:

>
>
>i have been hooked up to the internet for a few months now and i have
>noticed that more than a few people write exclusively in lower-
>case.  this has been my first exposure (outside of poetry) to
>correspondence and composition of this sort; none of my family or
>friends has ever written exclusively in lower-case.  i wonder why
>people do this?  is it a matter of being able to type quicker?
>is it that (nb: didn't use "because") people feel this kind of prose
>looks better?  i will admit to finding it a little grating, but not
>even close to being as annoying as ALL CAPS EXPRESSION.
>

It is a habit formed by those who work in the computer industry.
That is to say, case gets in the way (as does errant punctuation).

After programming in basic for years, I found it near impossible to 
use a comma in my non-computer life.
-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: 21 Nov 92 14:51:32 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

Quoting crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) in article <98529@netnews.upenn.edu>:
>I see your point that belittling or sneering at _people_ who use
>"non-standard" (isn't that a lovely PC word) English is small-minded
>and uncool.

Well, non-standard is the right word.  If you ignore written language
and examine only spoken, there's no *inherent* difference between
Standard English and any given dialect, any more than there's a
difference between Received Prononciation and a Newcastle accent.  It's
just that one is well thought of and the other isn't.  If Glasgow took
over the world, those of us who use "doesn't" would get corrected, and
told to use "disnae".  And double negatives would be mandatory.

For my part, I don't get particularly wound up by expressions like "She
don't care."  All I ask of people in spoken language is that they make
themselves clear and know the meaning of the words they use.

I certainly think it's fair to set a much higher standard and expect
Standard English in written language.
_____                                __
\\ // Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk /o \/
 \X/  "I'm the boy without a sole"  \__/\
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@uvmark.uucp (Roger MacNicol)
Subject: Re: Let's Kodak it
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:22:31 GMT
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1992Nov18.043206.16232@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>
>Apparently in the late 19th century, it became quite common to call a 
>portable camera a "Kodak," or at least ie was popular until Eastman Kodak
>ran an ad compaign that went something like, "If it isn't an Eastman, it
>isn't a Kodak."
>

An interesting use of "Kodak" exists in recording studios.  I was 
working in Solid State Logic's demonstration studio one day and an 
engineer said "Are you planning to Kodak it or milk it?"  meaning are 
you planning to put the mikes back to get the big picture or put the 
mikes close in to hear the musicians breath.


- Roger


-- 
******************************************************************
* Roger MacNicol, Snr. Software Engineer
* VMark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701-1800
* email: uvmark%roger@merk.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: last,latest,latter
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:46:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.111738.21414@di.unipi.it> Nico Tranquilli <ntranqu@caticsuf.cati.csufresno.edu> writes:
>Could anyone please tell me the differences between
>LAST, LATEST(?), LATTER ?

>It's an ignorant question, I know and I also know that the last time I
>posted here I had no replies, so I wonder if this newgroup is "reserved"
>for native english speakers only...)

OK.  First of all, a good dictionary will give you what you need, plus some
helpful examples.  The AHD III is probably a good choice.

Last: final one in a series.  Or, in contrast to "current" or "this":
     previous.  The Last of the Mohicans means there won't be any more.

      Last week was the week before this one.

Latest: most recent in a series that may continue.  The latest issue of
the New Yorker is this week's issue.  The latest issue of New Times was
also its last.

Latter: the second (in terms of time) of two things.  Its opposite is
"former."  You probably don't need this word much.

Anyone care to add?

Roger
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Things go better with
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>DT>3. My understanding is that nylon was never a trademark, but was coined
>  >to be a generic.
>
>My understanding, too.  du Pont's polyamide was a made-up term, but not
>a copyright.

I don't know about the trademark status, but the etymology of Nylon is very
amusing.

Usually such a name would come from the dweebs in marketing or PR. In this
case, the chemical engineers came up with the name, and they presented it
ready-made to management; management never thought of it other than by its
"scientific" name. A fait accompli.

However, that "scientific" name that the engineers presented management with
was an invented name just like any other. In the case of Nylon, it was a
collection of the first initials of the inventor's wives: Nancy, Yvette,
Linda, and I forget the last two.

Cute, eh? Good work, guys!

-Brian
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: axe (was Re: quite unique
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:07:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)

RN>Pardon me, I just got here.  But what is supposed to be wrong
  >with the word "axe" ?   I've always understood it to be
  >a perfectly good alternate spelling of "ax".

...but _not_ as an alternative pronunciation of "ask".  <G>

---
 . OLX 3.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                      
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english