HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Multimeter / Multi-meter
Date: 9 Oct 1992 05:07:12 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <14896@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>, by s913606@yallara.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (Mab):
> 
> Just how do _you_ pronounce "multimeter"???
> 
> ps. I pronounce it muTImeter. Just to piss people off with the above argument.

Well, that *should* "piss people off" because it's wrong, wrong, wrong.  (I
would guess that your scheme is working well.  It annoyed me. :-) )

   MUL-ti-ME-ter, as in multiple use meter.

   [Aside: Isn't this a trademark?]

$0.02
-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Peeve Time (was airline language)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:09:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Distribution: alt
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.2040.70@ALMAC>, shakib.otaqui@almac.co.uk wrote:
> 
> ...my favourite bit of airline speak is "We shall be
>   taking off momentarily."
> 
>   I'd much rather the flight lasts a bit longer.

Me too.  Hey, we haven't had a pet peeve session for while here!  Here's
one of mine: "cohort" misused to mean "crony," as in "Bebe Robozo was one
of Richard Nixon's cohorts."

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: bicycle scenery adjective/cog. diss.
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:09:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.163010.4749@desire.wright.edu>, thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> TH> What's so deadly about the term cognitive dissonance? 
>> 
>>DC> I think it sounds wrong.
>>
>> To each his/her/its own.

At the risk of receiving yet another verbose rebuke from Mr. Hayes, may I 
humbly point out that he missed the pun.

David Chorley.
From: eade@advtech.uswest.com (Elizabeth Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Possessives, Contractions, & Apostrophes
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:58:20 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Originator: eade@yuppieio


Can anyone supply a simply formulated set of rules for the use of
apostrophes?  My husband is woefully ignorant on the subject, and believes
that "it doesn't matter anyway, no one else knows how to use them, either".
This drives me nuts.

I've noticed in grading my students' papers (these are undergrads in info
systems management) that they, too, have difficulty deciding how to use
apostrophes.  It drives me crazy, but I can't think of all the proper
examples to use.  "It's" and "its" as well as using apostrophes for plurals
(how is it possible to make a mistake like "all of the red one's"?) --
does anyone have a BRIEF set of rules?

Thanks,

Elizabeth Erickson
eade@advtech.uswest.com
From: eade@yuppieio (Elizabeth Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Possessives, Contractions, & Apostrophes
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:51:13 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

In article <718630413snx@warren.demon.co.uk> leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton) writes:
>In article <1992Oct08.140845.12970@uvmark.uucp> roger@uvmark.uucp (Roger MacNicol) writes:
>
>>OK, but on an invoice is it:
>>
>>	Two day's consultancy @ $...
>>or
>>	Two days consultancy @ $...
>>
>>In other words does one say x day's worth of consultancy or has days become 
>>part of the number?
>
>IMHO it's definitely not a possessive - you are saying "Two days of
>consultancy at such-a-rate". Nothing belongs to the days. You wouldn't
>say "day's" any more than you, assuming you are not a greengrocer, would
>say "two melon's for a pound".

Well, in my opinion, it's "two days' worth of consultancy" or "two days of
consultancy", but leaving out the preposition makes the choice more difficult.
The "two melon's for a pound" example is exactly the kind of problem that
prompted me to post for rules in the first place.

Now that I think about it, I would say "two days consulting" and leave it at
that.

Elizabeth Erickson
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton)
ReplyTo: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Adjective needed for the following scene.
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.18 $
Organization: Indexed; Access: Random.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:09:06 +0000

In article <Bvu41o.IB4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> harkema@phil.indiana.edu
(Henk Harkema) answers me:

>> No, definitely not 'symbiotic'. Symbiotic refers to two organisms which
>> both depend on each other for their very existence. The situation here
>> is rather the opposite ...
>
>A contradistinction exists by the grace of the opposite nature of
>both its parts. The two scenes described here are certainly not
>organisms, but what keeps us from using the word `symbiotic'
>metaphorically?

How about the fact that the metaphor is the opposite of that we're
trying to convey ? :-) The scenes are, as you say, in conflict rather
than co-operation. IMHO far too many scientific words have been taken
into common usage with meanings which contradict their true meanings -
drat, my Fowler is at home :-( - so one should depracate the introduction
of new ones as far as possible.

Nick Leverton
-- 
"Politician! Where's your credibility ?
Little did we know you were only into money and publicity"  -  Hugh Masekela.
From: aroshwald@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Is "meaningfully" a word?
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:09:52 GMT
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <57560039@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
> phil@iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) writes:
> 
>>Is "meaningfully" a word?
>>
>>I have checked several dictionarys but I cannot find it.
>>
>>Phil.
> 
> From Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition:
> "mean*ing*ful adj. full of meaning; having significance or purpose."
> 
> 
> John Fisher at Hewlett-Packard |
> in Santa Clara, CA             |  This is as bad as it can get,
> fish@sc.hp.com                 |  but don't bet on it.
Well that doesn't help much, does it? It's the adverbial form
that Phil seems to have been after. In any case the Pocket Oxford
Dictionary indicates that `meaningfully' is indeed meaningful.
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Adjective needed for the following scene.
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:03:03 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, yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) says:

>Describe the following scene with a one word adjective:
>==========
>You are riding your bicycle along a country dirt road and up ahead you
>see the massive concrete pillars  and steel girders of a interstate highway
>bridge. At that moment, enormous tractor-trailers are passing overhead.  
>The stench and the roar of the highway is overwhelming.
>
>Then, suddenly, out of the corner of your eye, you notice cattle peacefully
>grazing in a meadow not too far from the road.
>===========
>
>You want a word that describes the rider's bewilderment at the striking
>contrast of the peaceful nature scene juxtaposed with the tumult of the
>industrial age.
>
>Some of the words that I am considering are: anachronous, paradoxical,
>contradictory.
>
>Can someone come up with a better word to describe the situation?
>
>-- 
>Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
>From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
>


dichotomous.

But the term is not very user friendly.

-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: "eliot gelwan" <eliot.gelwan@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: more like?
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:01:02 EST
Reply-To: "eliot gelwan" <eliot.gelwan@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

On 10-07-92 ROGER LUSTIG wrote:

RL>>  "We believe it would be more like trying to fly a RLjumbo
RLjet by letting everybody on board operate the >> controls at
RLthe same time
                               ....

RLAs it is used? Ralph left off the context.  Clearly there
RLwas another (probably official) analogy preceding it.  "More
RLlike" means the writer feels that this analogy is closer.

RL>Anyone who wants to write and tell me to stop applying
RLlogic to the English >language:  please don't bother.  I've
RLheard it before, and I'm still not >convinced.

Maybe it's reasonable to continue to try to apply logic to the
English language, but to try to apply it to *George Bush's*
language is a different matter. And if there's a correlation
between semantic/syntactic illogic and illogic of thought, we'd
better elect Clinton next month, IMHO!

                   |
...eliot          -*-              Postlink: ->CHANNEL1 [R/O okay]
                   |               Internet: eliot.gelwan@channel1.com

---
EZ 1.39 #178 [in Brookline MA 10:05 am, Wednesday 10/07/92]
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Possessives, Contractions, & Apostrophes
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:06:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct7.155820.29454@advtech.uswest.com> eade@advtech.uswest.com (Elizabeth Erickson) writes:
>
>I've noticed in grading my students' papers (these are undergrads in info
>systems management) that they, too, have difficulty deciding how to use
>apostrophes.  It drives me crazy, but I can't think of all the proper
>examples to use.  "It's" and "its" as well as using apostrophes for plurals
>(how is it possible to make a mistake like "all of the red one's"?) --
>does anyone have a BRIEF set of rules?


1.  Use an apostrophe to indicate that a noun is possessive.
	--If the noun does not end in -s, add -'s.
	--If the noun is singular and ends in -s, add -'s.
	  (exception:  if pronounciation becomes awkward.  Example:
	   "Lois's" is OK; "Euripides's" is awkward)
  	--If the noun is plural and ends in -s, add only an apostrophe.
	--To show joint possession, use an apostrophe with the last noun 
	  only; to show individual possession, make all nouns possessive
	  ("John's and Marie's expectations of marriage couldn't be more 
           different."  "John and Marie's car is on the fritz.")
	--If a noun is hyphenated or compound, use an apostrophe with
 	  the last element.  ("Her father-in-law's sculpture won a prize.")

2.  Use an apostrophe to indicate that an indefinite pronoun is possessive.
    (Example:  "Everyone's vote counts in a tight election.")

3.  Use an apostrophe to mark contractions.  The apostrophe takes the place
    of a missing letter.
    (Example:  "Don't you know any better?"  The apostrophe replaces the 
     "o" in "not".)

4.  Use an apostrophe to pluralize numbers mentioned as numbers, letters
    mentioned as letters, words mentioned as words, and abbreviations.
    (Examples:  "Peggy skated nearly perfect figure 8's."  "We've heard
     enough maybe's."  "You must ask to see their I.D.'s."  "Mind your
     P's and Q's.")

I got these out of Diana Hacker's excellent "Rules for Writers."  Number 4
has fallen out of favor in some circles, but the rest still hold.


	 


-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Cats'n'Dogs
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:42:41 GMT

geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

>food server or waitperson     waitress (otherwise simply "waiter")

Around here we call them 'waitrons.'  

(This usage is found in the most recent 
 Random House _Webster's College Dictionary_.)

I don't know its etymology, alas.

I do know the etymology of another new word. 

'Touron' comes from a combination of 'tourist' and 'moron.'

-- 
 From the corrections column in a July Fresno, CA _Bee_:
 
"An item in Thursday's [issue] about the Massachusetts budget crisis
 made reference to new taxes that will help put Massachusetts 
'back in the African-American.' The item should have said 
'back in the black.'"
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: a good dictionary
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:23:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <Bw4MLr.156@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>
>I wasn't playing Dump The Yank <sigh>, really.  But I'm astonished to
>discover that "Webster's" is a public-domain term: poor old Noah must
>be spinning in his grave.  I don't have the thing to hand, but I do
>believe that I was referring to something labelled "Merriam-Webster",
>3rd edition.  Is that sufficient?
>

Probably. Merriam-Webster is the publisher of a large number of
reference works, including the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate, a
desktop model, that is something of a standard for my documentation
group, not because of its completeness, but because of its breadth and
general reliability.

>Mais, revenons a nos moutons: *is* there an American dictionary of
>equivalent quality to the OED, or even the SOD?  If so, I'll buy it
>when I visit...
>

In a word, no. The OED is sui generis on both sides of the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge. However, another U.S. dictionary that is widely used, also a
desktop type, is the American Heritage, which was the first dictionary
I owned that listed all those icky words we never used to see in
print.  (See Cole Porter's "Anything Goes" for more details on the
decline in literary standards.) The AH is quite good on the American
language.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton)
ReplyTo: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: bicycle scenery adjective
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.18 $
Organization: Indexed; Access: Random.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:32:06 +0000

In article <BvruuG.CKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Meach) writes:

>>How about incongruous or discord.  Dissonance could be used but it's
>>mainly reserved for sounds rather than images.
>
>I beg to differ here. . .  dissonance is frequently used for sounds,
>as well as images; discord(ant) is much more frequently applied to
>sounds.  I feel that both of these two words have a slight negative 
>connotation which would override the possibility of pleasure at the
>sight of the more pastoral scene.  Anachronous works, if you want
>to imply that the bewilderment is a time-related sensation, so might
>be too limiting; paradoxical is excellent, really. . . I don't *feel*
>anything from contradictory.  The same goes for contrasting (Sorry,
>Rheal!). . . it doesn't make me understand 'bewilderment'. . . 
>incongruous does. . . paradoxical does. . . and, for my own humble
>offering: divergent.  Like incongruous and paradoxical, it gives me
>a sense of being pulled in two directions.

I have to admit, Jo, I've never heard dissonant used for an image; that
said, the negative implications of both words seem to be justifiable
considering the (presumably) negative feelings which the noisy, smelly
traffic would induce, and being borrowed from a different metaphor they
do make one stop and think about the contrast. Two otherwise pleasant
sounds can form a discord or dissonance if they're not in harmony.

Alternatively "jarring" is a short simple adjective; might that serve
the writer's purpose ? Or how about "disconcerting" - I think that's
probably one of the best I can think of quickly!

Nick Leverton
-- 
"Politician! Where's your credibility ?
Little did we know you were only into money and publicity"  -  Hugh Masekela.
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: a good dictionary
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:26 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <mcnair.38.719163207@slab.unt.edu> mcnair@slab.unt.edu (SEAN MCNAIR) writes:
>Random House is OK, but American Heritage SUCKS. Try a Webster's, for Christ 
>Sake!

>    Webster's, The Superior American Dictionary

>(I've studied English since I was knee high to a grass hopper, just a pint 
>sized mite! My father writes poetry, and I have a Master's in English. 
>Please trust me on this!)

OK, but remember that "grasshopper" is a single word.  8-)

>               Sean Jeffers Mc Nair

>P.S. American Heritage is a NEW AGE dictionary. It's full of COSMIC CRAP!

Could you refer us to some examples?  Enquiring minds want to know!

Roger (who writes for pay, and who likes the AHD, and whose father-in-law
writes poetry, too, so there!)
From: mcnair@slab.unt.edu (SEAN MCNAIR)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: re: a good dictionary
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:54:40 GMT
Organization: School of Library & Info Sci, UNT


      I too prefer the OED for etymological research, or anytime I want a 
complete definitive definition of a word. This can be found in a two volume 
set (with a magnifying glass) for around $250 dollars. If you are willing to 
buy this set, I suggest that you get the necessary companions to go with 
it - The Oxford Companion to English Literature, The Oxford Illustrated 
History of the English Language, The Oxford Concise Dicitionary of Literary 
Terms, and The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (paraphrase, I don't remmeber 
if this is the exact title.) These are completely neceassary to any serious 
literary scholar, entymologist, or philologist. Anyone well versed in 
English should have these as references. (or who wants to be well versed) 
    For a dictionary for everyday use, I suggest the Webster's Collegiate 
current edition. This is a VERY fine little dictionary. It has precisely 
what is needed for brief look up: 1) A fine, concise etymological tracing of 
the word. 2) Concise, correct definitions of the word in question, with 
pronunciation and alternatives, and definitions and alternatives. 3) 
Synonyms when appropriate, and sometimes, common antonyms.
       This dictionary has very little of the junk commonly found in other 
dictionaries, and a long, very proud tradition of lexicography behind it. 
Other dictionaries pale beside it.
      I would also suggest a nice thesaurus as a companion to your 
dictionaries. Don't cheat yourself and buy a Roget's, this is really a 
mistake. Not only is it useless, but it is completely misleading. Buy a 
decent thesaurus, such as a Webster's or a Random House. The Webster's is a 
little better than the Random House, but my father uses the Random House, 
and he's a published Poet.


                              Sean Jeffers Mc Nair
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Adjective needed for the following scene.
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:02:45 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Yozzo>Describe the following scene with a one word adjective:
>You are riding your bicycle along a country dirt road and up ahead you
>see the massive concrete pillars  and steel girders of a interstate highway
>bridge. At that moment, enormous tractor-trailers are passing overhead.  
>The stench and the roar of the highway is overwhelming.
>Then, suddenly, out of the corner of your eye, you notice cattle peacefully
>grazing in a meadow not too far from the road.
>You want a word that describes the rider's bewilderment at the striking
>contrast of the peaceful nature scene juxtaposed with the tumult of the
>industrial age.
>Some of the words that I am considering are: anachronous, paradoxical,
>contradictory.

>>

>"jarring"?
>"discordant".  Or possibly "incongruous" [.]

A few months ago someone posted a lovely word for this situation.  I believe
it was "anachorism," though my spelling is off due to immediate lack of
OED right here.

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Meet with?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:09:18 GMT

In article <9210150447.AA11019@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu> B536HIND@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (C. S. Sudarshana bhat) writes:
>One American usage which has been bothering me is 'meet with'.  Is it
>common in any other country to say 'meet with somebody'?  Previously,
>the only place where I had come across 'meet with' was in 'someone
>met with an accident' (so it seems that it ought to be connected with
>an event).  What is the opinion of net.folk?

Well, in Texas, one "visits with" someone.  OF course, one can "visit 
with" someone over the phone in TExas, too...

>Is it "made in USA" or "made in THE USA"?  

Either one, I suppose, not that I read labels much.  Of course, when
Japan was still producing second-rate consumer goods, they built a
small industrial town called Usa...

>I believe I read somewhere
>that the former is correct since it is one country, but it doesn't
>*sound* right to me.

Well, it's an abbreviation, and we don't always put articles in front
of abbreviations.

>How should 'lest' be used?  I was under the impression that the word
>'should' *must* follow 'lest'.  However, I am coming across a lot of instances
>where 'lest' had been used without 'should'.

Lest I forget, I'll look this up right now!

Lest generally takes a subjunctive, that's all.

>How many periods need to follow 'etc' if it is the last word in a sentence?

One.



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: a good dictionary
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:26:46 GMT

In article <Bw4MLr.156@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:

>I wasn't playing Dump The Yank <sigh>, really.  But I'm astonished to
>discover that "Webster's" is a public-domain term: poor old Noah must
>be spinning in his grave.  I don't have the thing to hand, but I do
>believe that I was referring to something labelled "Merriam-Webster",
>3rd edition.  Is that sufficient?

Webster's Third New International is the one.  30 years old, but very
good.  Huge single vol.

>Mais, revenons a nos moutons: *is* there an American dictionary of
>equivalent quality to the OED, or even the SOD?  If so, I'll buy it
>when I visit...

There's nothing like the OED, especially as the OED has made such an
effort to include American.  For most purposes, the new American Heritage
Dictionary is an excellent choice, and cheap, too.  Lists at $40, but
I've seen it for as little as $33.  Well-informed about national and
regional differences; interesting words are given "notes" pertaining
to usage, etymology, regionalism, etc.  Linguists will dig the 
Proto-Indo-European dictionary in the back...

Look up "kludge" to get an instant feel for the style of the book.

Roger
>
>
>				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