HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@luna.math.ucla.edu (Alex Langley)
Subject: Re: What for?
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 21:58:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.011921.13585@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>
>
>     Something seems to be odd with the expression "what for?"  While it
>does often mean "why, for what reason, for what cause," it seems not to
>be acceptable idiomatically in certain sentences.  We might well say, for
>example, "Why don't you write me?" but probably wouldn't say, "What don't
>you write me for?"  When I thought of other instances where the what-for
>construction sounded odd, I noticed the sentences were all negative ones.
>
>     Ideas?  Comments?
>
>
>John Rickert					...up with which I will
>rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		not put.
>							Churchill				

Maybe it would help to take the phrase "what for?" more literally, as in
"what is the purpose of...?"  For example, "What's he bothering you for?" is 
not negative.  Ah--"What's she gone to the store for?"--this could
be a good example of semantic crossover: a "why" and an NP-wh question
at the same time.


Another such phrase is "how come"..."How come you don't write me?" is
acceptable.  "How come she went to the store?"

Does anyone know why/how_come/what...for "why" replaced "wherefore"?
Isn't "why" Old English "hwy", the dative case form of "hwaem" (Mod. Eng.
"whom") or something like that?  (My OE book isn't present, sorry.)

Alex Langley
alex@math.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: ddailey@williams.edu
Subject: Alphabetic Aphorisms
Reply-To: ddailey@williams.edu
Organization: williams college
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:33:59 GMT

Alphabetic Aphorisms

copyright David Dailey, 1986. Feel free to re-distribute, but, please maintain
attribution of authorship -- dd.

Suggestions for replacements for any of the following are welcome.
(ddailey@williams.edu)

The four criteria in effect are:

1. The words should form an understandable sentence.
2. The sentence should be true in the majority of possible worlds (i.e., should
be aphorisms).
3. The words chosen should be as common within the language (English, in this
case) as possible.
4.  Each word of a sentence should begin with the same letter.

Apology: not all of the following aphorisms obey all four criteria.

A  -  An amusing analysis actually alleviates anxiety.
B  -  By building barriers, beliefs become betrayed.
C  -  Casual candor can create catastrophes.
D  -  Dangerous dealings demand discretion.
E  -  Every earnest endeavor eliminates emptiness.
F  -  Fanciful feuds follow from familiar foundations.
G  -  Grand goals gather glorious gains.
H  -  Hurrying hastens heartache.
I  -  In ignoring imagination, industry is intolerant.
J  -  Jaded judgments justify jealous jabbering.
K  -  Kindness keeps knowledge's keys.
L  -  Laziness leaves little latitude.
M  -  Mentioning mistakes may make more misunderstandings.
N  -  Not noticing new nuances neglects nature's novelty.
O  -  Overlooking old obstacles often obscures opportunity.
P  -  Pompous policies poison potential partnerships.
Q  -  Quiet quests quicken queasiness.
R  -  Reason rarely regulates real randomness.
S  -  Suspicion seldom satisfies sensuality.
T  -  Trying to trivialize tenderness, the technocrat tarnishes the truth.
U  -  Utter ugliness unfolds under unjustness.
V  -  Violence voices very vacuous virtue.
W  -  While we welcome wisdom, we want warmth.
X  -  Xenophobia xeroxes Xanadu?
Y  -  Yesterday's yearnings yielded your youth.
Z  -  Zaniness zaps zealotry.


Author's note: I'm not particularly happy with 'g' , 'm',  and, of course, 'x'
-- but what is one to do?
From: matsuda@linc.cis.upenn.edu (N o s t a l g i a)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Possible irregularity of [Tokyo] Japanese _iru_
Keywords: Japanese, irregularity
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:49:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Just a brief note on a possible irregularity of the verb _iru_ in Tokyo
Japanese which I found while looking at a corpus of naturally occurring data.
In the dialect, there is a variation in the potential suffix for the vowel-stem
verbs, so that we have such co-existing forms as:

	mi-ru 'to look at':  mi-rare-ru, mi-re-ru 'can look at'
	
	ki-ru  'to wear': ki-rare-ru, ki-reru 'can wear'

	tabe-ru 'to eat': tabe-rare-ru, tabe-re-ru 'can eat'


This variation -- which is actually a synchronic reflex of change in progress
from _rare_ suffix to _re_ suffix -- is mostly limited to verbs with stems of
one- or two-mora length (so that osie-rare-ru, ?osie-re-ru, sinji-rare-ru,
?sinji-re-ru). And the variation is more visible when the stem belongs to
the upper-grade cojugation type (kamiichidan katsuyoo). 

Now, if you look at natural speech data, you would find that the above
description is mostly true -- except for the verb _iru_, which almost never
shows up as _ireru_ (that is, it almost always shows up as _i-rare-ru). Note
that the stem is one-mora in length, and it is kamiichidan katsuyoo.  One might
use a possible homonym clash with another verb _ire-ru_ 'to enter (something),'
as a cause for its exceptional behavior, but such functional explanation is
rather weak at best in view of the numerous examples of changes that
obliterated such distinctions.  Thus, there is at least one small case from
variation phenomonon where _iru_ shows its irregularity.


[For more details, please see my paper "Constraints on Analogical Leveling" in
_CLS_ 27 (is it still forthcoming?)].


Ken Matsuda
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Pennsylvania
matsuda@linc.cis.upenn.edu


	
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:35:58 GMT

In article <baron.32.714761339@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>In article <BtIBDA.9y2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v106lr4h@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric T Sasse) writes:
>>From: v106lr4h@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric T Sasse)
>>Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
>>Date: 24 Aug 92 22:22:00 GMT
>>In article <baron.30.714685399@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes...
[I wrote the piece of tripe that follows:]

>>>>English doesn't *have* linguistic genders, except for a grand total of
>>>>six (6) words.  And it lacks a generic singular other than "they."  

>>  OK, I'll bite. What were the ones you were thinking of? I came up with 11,
>>but I will admit to possibly 9. They are:
>>          Mas.     Fem.    Neut.                Mas./Fem.     Neut.
>>Nom.      he       she     it                      who        what
>>Gen.      his      her(s)             and        
>>Acc.      him      her                             whom 

>> I am thinking of the fem. gen. as possibly 2 different words, as well as a
>>distinction between the fem gen. and acc. to account for the 11, but "her"
>>gen. and "her" acc. could be just one word. And, am I just completely wrong
>>with thw who/what relation? Seems correct to me.

>Eric,
>This is my second reply.  I didn't claim 6 pronouns, it was the person I
>was responding to who did.  My comment was about legal interpretations
>of generic masculine/nongeneric masculine.  Sorry about the confusion.

Mea culpa.  (That's Latin for: I'm guilty of liking "I Spy.")

I dipped into the wrong stock answer; of course, I meant that only third-
person personal pronouns get gender-inflected.  

These same personal pronouns are part of the small set -- six, to be
exact -- that inflects between subjective and objective case.  That's
the six I was thinking of, and entirely irrelevant to the topic.  Sorry.

At any rate, we only gender-inflect to describe sexed things: humans,
animals.

Roger (note new address)
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: die  Palatschinke
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:48:39 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Aug31.204243.28379@leland.Stanford.EDU>, mrmu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marianne Mueller) writes:
> According to the Wahrig Deutsches Woerterbuch, 
> 
> Palatschinke (feminine) (Oesterreichisch) 
>                         (auf Deutsch, gefuellter Eierkuchen)
> 
>    comes from the Romanian: placinta
> 
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> this is in reference to some debate that was going on a hundred
> million years ago about the origins of Palatschinke.  Which by
> the way are totally great to eat!  And recommended! 

Indeed they are.  But as I pointed out in that debate, although the
*ultimate* source is Rumanian, Hungarian and Slavic mediation must
be assumed.  Hungarian inserted the _a_ to break the "illegal"
initial pl- cluster, and some Slavic tongue replaced original _nt_
with _nk_.  But since all of Central Europe eats the things, why
shouldn't they all get credit?  It's only fair!

--Leo Connolly (my information comes from Kluge)
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Rechtschreibereform
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:29:32 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug29.223621.3147@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Ich habe nicht behauptet, dass die Grossschreibung konsequent
>durchgefuehrt werde, sondern nur, dass sie nuetzlich sei.  Sprachreformer,
>die nichts anderes (wieso nicht _Anderes_?) zu tun haben, sollten die
>schlimmsten Unkonsequenzen beseitigen, was in den meisten Faellen darauf
>hinausliefe, dass *mehr* Woerter grossgeschrieben wuerden.

Anschlag neben der Tuer unserer Mensa, die waehrend der Ferien als
Restaurant benutzt wird:

  "Waehlen sie Entweder Ein Warm s Essen Oder Einen Salatteller Nur
   Eine Vor peise Und Einen Nach isch"

Keine Ahnung, warum man "sie" klein geschrieben hat ...

-- 
 `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
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6930 sci.cognitive:388
From: vanhoek@bend.ucsd.edu (Karen van Hoek)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Cognitive linguistics [was Re: Prototypes]
Date: 2 Sep 1992 01:14:16 GMT
Organization: Linguistics Department, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: bend.ucsd.edu


A poster recently asked what the difference is between cognitive and
linguistics and other linguistics (i.e. generative linguistics).  The
most salient difference is in the kinds of grammatical theories being
developed by the two schools.  Cognitive linguists generally eschew
theories involving autonomous syntactic components, considering the
constructs of autonomous syntax as unnecessary.  Langacker's theory
of Cognitive Grammar includes as its guiding principle the Content
Requirement, which essentially states that an analysis cannot posit
grammatical elements which have neither semantic content nor
phonological content (this is a very abbreviated statement, of course).
This rules out devices such as autonomous syntactic tree structures,
syntactic indexing (i.e. indexing which has no intrinsic semantic
content), meaningless diacritics, and so forth.  

Cognitive Grammar proceeds from the position that only three kinds of
units are needed to describe grammatical phenomena -- semantic units,
phonological units, and _symbolic_ units, which consist of pairings of
the first two (i.e. a meaning paired with a phonological form).  There
is no separate vocabulary or set of theoretical constructs for doing
syntax; syntax, morphology, etc. are all handled by means of these units.
The theory has been applied to a number of central syntactic phenomena.
To take just two examples, there's Langacker's paper "Space Grammar,
Analysability and the English Passive" in _Language_ 1982.  And there's
my recent dissertation ("Paths Through Conceptual Structure: Constraints
on Pronominal Anaphora"), which provides an account of coreference
restrictions in English without using tree structures (i.e. without
c-command).  

David Pesetsky asked about arguments for cognitive linguistics.  In the
case of Cognitive Grammar, one of the most obvious arguments is parsimony.
It is indisputable that a theory of language must include semantic constructs
and phonological constructs.  Generative grammar claims further that it
must include autonomous syntactic constructs which are not reducible to
either semantic or phonological representations.  Generative grammar 
therefore posits an entire component which Cognitive Grammar does without.
It seems to me that we should be asking what the arguments are that such a
component is necessary.



Karen van Hoek 


Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: What for?
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 01:19:21 GMT



     Something seems to be odd with the expression "what for?"  While it
does often mean "why, for what reason, for what cause," it seems not to
be acceptable idiomatically in certain sentences.  We might well say, for
example, "Why don't you write me?" but probably wouldn't say, "What don't
you write me for?"  When I thought of other instances where the what-for
construction sounded odd, I noticed the sentences were all negative ones.

     Ideas?  Comments?


John Rickert					...up with which I will
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		not put.
							Churchill				
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: [pronoun] Re: gender neutral pronouns in Chinese
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:24:45 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong,sci.lang
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.


     There are many responses to sex-neutral pronouns in English
and Esperanto, but not yet recently in Chinese.  Spoken, there is only one:
 -+- \ /    
  /   |     
 --|  |     
However, written, there two for people, a male/neutral and a female.

     Looking at the fact of reviving "ci" for Esperanto (c^u ci konsentas?),
it would be suggest-worthy to revive <below> for Chinese:
 /  \
/|+---+
 ||   |
 | | /
 | |/
 | |
 | +---
					*Zhong* Qi-Iao, U.S.A.
 				||| \ /  /       /   |  \/   |  / / /  
 				|+|  X  /       <    |       |  \/     
 				--- / \ ---      \   |       |  --|    
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6858 alt.usage.english:7036
From: mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:34:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug30.173343.24488@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Roger Lustig (roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) writes:
>>gal2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>* Every good chef knows their ingredients.
>>>  Everyone in the kitchen knows their ingredients.
>>
>>The former sentence is used less often, and criticized more often; but
>>it's certainly acceptable in informal usage. (See Urdang, for instance.)
>>In formal usage, many people nowadays recast it with "All chefs..."
>
>Yes, recasting to all plural is often a good idea. However, consider
>an instruction: "When the operator sees the red light blink he must 
>press the blue button." We can probably make some good recasting,
>but not to "all".


"When the red light blinks, press the blue button."  Is there any
information lost in this rephrasing?  I find the longer sentence almost
awkward; without "the operator sees" and "he must", this simple
instruction seems easier to follow.


-Margaret
mikulska@astro.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:31:32 GMT

In article <92Aug27.115008edt.47520@neat.cs.toronto.edu> mstede@cs.toronto.edu (Manfred Stede) writes:
>
>Personally, if I travelled to Boston tomorrow, I would have no idea
>where the 'official' city limits are, and moreover I wouldn't care at all.
>So let's assume I walk/drive in the area and at some point am inclined to
>make a decision on whether I'm in Boston or not, for whichever reason.
>As opposed to experiencing the same situation in Toronto, which I know,
>in Boston I will probably spend that extra milisecond you mention for 
>arriving at a judgement.  So how do I judge?  Maybe an hour ago I
>passed by city hall which I take to be in Boston proper, and if I haven't
>moved too far since then, I conclude "yes".  It's this kind of fuzzy
>reasoning that leads me to my personal answer, and not the evaluation
>of a perfect category definition---the god-given, one and only conditions 
>for being in Boston.  
>While the Bostonians may have such a definition at their disposal, I
>don't and for most practical purposes I don't need it.  Reverse situation
>when the Bostonians come visiting Toronto.
>
>So I claim it's not context that occasionally softens the "real",
>context-independent definition; instead, with very many categories we 
>reason without having that "real" definition to begin with.
> 
>-manfred  

Again, that doesn't seem right.  You have a real definition of Boston in
mind, not the one a cartographer or Boston native might have, but
something intensional, e.g. "the area within legally established city
limits" in the scenario you outline (not the only possible definition,
or even the most likely one for a non-resident, perhaps).  You just
don't know how to apply the definition to a case at hand -- not because
the definition is fuzzy -- but because you have imperfect information.
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6861 alt.usage.english:7040
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:58:21 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Tom Christiansen (tchrist@convex.COM) writes:
>From the keyboard of sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog):
>:Neither can we use "they" instead of "he", particularly
>:is the instruction is to be read by non-native speakers.
>
>Hogwash.  This usage should simply be included in lessons
>on English.  It's used so much that not doing so leaves
>non-native speakers handicapped.

Drivel (to answer in the same manner). It's possible that
it should be mentioned, but it's not up to you decide. And
it is definitely not up to you say: "OK, I'm using this
expression in this text which is to be read by non-native
speakers, although this is a text where understanding is
crucial, and I know that this expression will be confusing
for them, because I think they should learn it in school."
If your job is to write an operator's instruction it is
your job to tell what the operator is to do, not that he
can be of both sexes. Or, if he is supposed to work alone,
all of a sudden give the impression that there should be
more than one of them at a time.

The fact that it is not taught, maybe gives a clue that the
usage is not so spread as you like to imagine, by the way.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
F|rst till kvarn f}r f|rst vankiva
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.portuguese
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: Nasalisation
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:38:31 GMT

amblard@imag.fr (Paul Amblard) writes:

>In article <jsoares.715213145@dxcoms> jsoares@dxcoms.cern.ch (Joaquim Soares) writes:
>>>Nasalisation only occurs in Portuguese and in French (that is, when
>	       ====
>No. There are nasal voyels in breton (celtic language) .
>And (I am not sure) in polish. And probably in others...

Oops... Putting the record straight: Joaquim was talking about Romance lgs
only. Which means he was right (if at least nasal vowels are separate 
phonemes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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,sci.cognitive
From: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami)
Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:40:58 GMT

In article <Aug.21.01.38.23.1992.3016@pilot.njin.net> hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.204242.5942@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>
>> Can any linguists out there tell me which languages (if any) make the
>> distinction between:
>>
>> 		the inclusive and exclusive "we"
>
>Turkic, with a little cheating :-). In Turkish/Turkic phrases like
>'all of us' or 'some of us' are one word e.g.
>
>Hepimiz, [all of us/we] or Baribiz [ditto], Bazimiz [some of us/we]
>
>This is prety close although they're not probably considered
>pronouns in languages like English where they are whole phrases.

This state is also present in Hebrew. Kulanu (all of us) vs. Chelkenu
(some of us). But I don't think this counts because it is due to the
tendency to join the morpheme 'nu' to other words including quantifiers
to relate it to 'we'. This creates one word indeed but this is not a
"pure" word - just a combination. Since I know Turkish is aglutinative
language this might well be the case with it too.

David.
-- 
=============================================================================
  David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but Temptation"
  s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
  davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Latin 'x'
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:31:14 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Sven Hauptfeld (hau4@midway.uchicago.edu) writes:
>Also note that the Latin 'x' became 'ss' in Italian

Did it? Always? My Latin is not very good, but didn't "x" in Latin
in many cases evolve to something else? "Felix" and "pax" are
"felice" and "pace" in Italian. In French "felix" does not
seem to exist as such, but well "felicitation" and others.
"Pax" is "paix", but it still "pacificer". As I really don't
know what I am talking about, anyone care to fill in?

As for stop + consonant in Italian, all such in combinations
in inter-vocalic position has killed the stop, often in favour 
of a prolongation of the latter, with the exception of /ts/, 
/dz/, /tS/ and /dZ/.

>and is (almost?) never pronounced /ks/ in French

Well it's /gz/ in "examiner". Generally to know when /kt/
etc is still /kt/ or have become only /t/ in French is
something I haven't grasped whether there is a system for.


-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
F|rst till kvarn f}r f|rst vankiva
From: jamiller@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan
Subject: Re: Boston Carrer Forum's changed rembursment policy!
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:39:49 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Aug24.214539.42537@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, jamiller@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> _osore irimasu..._
> 
> For all those going to the Boston Carrer Forum being put on thorugh
> the Disco people and advertised by the magazine _shushoku joho_ be
> prepared for the new reimbursment policy.  
> 
> As of a call tonight to them they will only reimburse for plane
> tickets purchased through their backscratcher travel agency SEIL.
> Seil quoted a price of $275 rd/trip from KCI for me, but mentioned
> that the price would be __$380__! after next Monday.  So anyone who's
> going had better jump on this QUICK!!
>      <stuff deleted> 
> _shushoku joho's Carreer Forum == 1(800) 999-0179
> SEIL Travel Services == 1(800) 262-7345
> 
> Adapt Carreer Services == 1(800) 537-2186
 
Monday is the day the prices are going up so be careful to make your
reservations _soon_ or risk the price shock!
-- 
jamiller@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
James Miller

_chicchai .sig no ho ga ichiban iin janai ka..._
             Life Happens?