HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lukoff@carson.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff)
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:14:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.104350.10831@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <BzAGFo.5y8@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>> Amazing how the very Americans who shouted down the program/me
>> distinction, applaud the freshman/first-year distinction!
>That, my dear Mandar, is because `freshman' excludes half the freshers whereas
>`first-year' excludes no-one. 
>-- 
>
>Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
>wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: American English
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:48:02 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <BzpE0C.DDH@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>
>>>Amazing how the very people who embrace the program/me distinction to
>>>resolve an ambiguity that is trivial to avoid, and has never even been
>>>noticed on a continent with a significant fraction of the world's
>>>computer programmers, are the same people (2 of them anyway) that
>>>resist perfectly natural use of gender neutral language that resolves
>>>ambiguities that otherwise occur everyday.
>
>>In defence, I could use a circular argument :
>>"Amazing how the people who wish to avoid ambiguity defy the 
>>usage of the word programme in resolving ambiguities."         ;)
>
>You are amazed that I wear a coat when it is cold, but not when the
>weather is warm. I am amazed that you wear a coat when the weather is
>warm, but not when it's cold.
>
>Werner

And I am amazed that you are humour impaired.    ;)



                                                          Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Organization: Not Philips.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:23:23 GMT

In refd article, slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser") writes:
>gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>>Could anyone who understands what a Brit means by 'Professor' and who
>>knows why we sometimes have misunderstandings about visiting US academics,
>>please tell me what 'professor' means in Canada?
>
>Yes, and could someone please tell those of us who don't understand this
>difference (who, in fact, weren't aware of it) just what it is? What *is* a
>British "professor"?

The Canadian meaning of "professor" is exactly the same as the American
one, i.e. equivalent to "lecturer" in British academic hierarchy.

In Britain, "Professor" is the highest academic rank and implies the holder
is, or has been, the head of a department.

Now the interesting question.  Is Graham's correspondent pretentious in
using the title (quite a lowly one in Canada) or is Graham overreacting
because to his ears the title is much more prestigious.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  ray@cam.org           |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:13:25 GMT

In article <BzqsMF.Jnv@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>we need a standard to resolve interdialect conflicts.

What the hell is an "interdialect conflict" anyway?  I've never heard of
such a thing.  One dialect says X, another says Y.  Big deal.

>Because it is spoken in England - the mother country of English.

Nope.  Germany, France, Italy, and the Northern countries are the mother
countries of English.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:53:48 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <BzMzC5.Inq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>    Just how far should we allow this assault on the English language
>by radical feminists? They claim "history" is sexist.

No, they don't.  Certainly the ones you've cited don't.  Try reading
a little more carefully.  

> Next, they'll
>claim that "manager" is sexist. Finally, do we change "this" to "tits"?

Why not change yourself into a real live human being with a life?  This
is pathetic.

>      Let me quote Jacqueline Fortunata [The foll. excerpts are
>from a paper she wrote criticising some of Lakoff's views. The
>paper is entitled "Lakoff on Language and Women". Incidentally,
>Lakoff is considered to be a pioneer in "non-sexist" language] :

>"   People must, at least on some occassions, spontaneously recognise
>that they are being demeaned, and/or that they are demeaning. This
>elementary fact is generally overlooked and ignored by many who speak 
>to the problem of verbal discrimination against women.

>I have been arguing that "lady" and other suspect uses are demeaning
>only if "lady" and other uses elicit feelings of being demeaned on
>the part of those termed "lady". Because demeaning and feeling demeaned
>are reciprocal socially-acquired linguistic acts, we can make an expression
>a demeaning one if we convince enough people to feel demeaned. It
>would seem that Lakoff's linguistic task must be secretive or self-
>defeating (if you are an optimist) or self-confirming (if you are a
>pessimist). Lakoff purports to describe, but the description influences
>self-conscious people to feel demeaned at the sound of "lady".  WHAT MAY
>ONCE HAVE BEEN NEUTRAL BECOMES DEMEANING. Her theory makes itself true
>if published and taken seriously, but then the taboo was not successfully
>described by the missionaries, for it was they who taught it to the natives."

Which says what about Lakoff's discussion of "history"?

>      Clearly, words such as "mankind" weren't deemed to be sexist by
> most women, before these radical feminists started their tirade. Stop

Do you call everything you don't understand a tirade?

>misguiding people, you chauvinists!

As I've pointed out before, YOU are a chauvinist of a particularly 
weird stripe.  Complaining about Lakoff on grounds of chauvinism is
hypocrisy, and pretty sad, to boot.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: Apostrophe's - one more time
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:04:26 GMT

jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes:

>"National Review" uses the rule, better to my mind, that you write
>another "s" only when you pronounce another "s".  Jones's car, Max's
>bike, France's burden, Arkansas's (!) governor; but Goebbels' lies,
>Dickens' novels, King Charles' head.

For me, that rule would be the same as the Chicago Manual's, because I
pronounce the extra syllable on *all* the examples you give.  To make
the National Review's rule general, however, would be to infect
orthography with the variety (not to say chaos) of spoken usage.  The
usual attitude, which has its advantages, is that there should be one
spelling, which people are free to mutter in their own dialects.  I
say tomayto, you say tomahto, but we both write tomato.  So also, one
might hope, with Charles's etc.
-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:22:47 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec22.235322.14850@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <Bzoo4r.830@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>The motive which drives me is the prevention of wicked assaults carried
>>out by misguided, radical feminists on the English language.
>
>Mandar, I'm one of the people who wishes to "reform" the English
>language to help reduce its inherent sexism.  So you can't say you
>haven't called me a "misguided, radical feminist", as you claimed in
>another post.  You've made it very clear what you think of people who
>don't share your views on language.
>

I would consider you to be a person who's misguided by radical feminists.


[...lines where she calls me a prescriptivist, deleted....]


    I am not a prescriptivist. But I am against "artificially" 
reforming language. Let the language take its own course. Let the
speakers use it as they would wish to. We don't need any radical
feminists to brainwash us into thinking that some word is sexist,
and some other isn't, and so, the latter should be used instead
of the former. As long as there are people who don't find these
words sexist, nor have any intention of using them to demean
women, there is no justification for dropping the use of these
words.

>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

                                                       Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophe's - one more time
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:29:48 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes:

>jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:
>: Many people write Jones'
>: for the singular possessive -- even if they pronounce it with two
>: syllables!  The Chicago Manual, however, recommends -- I think
>: sensibly -- adding 's to *all* singulars except for classical names
>: like Socrates & Jesus.

>"National Review" uses the rule, better to my mind, that you write
>another "s" only when you pronounce another "s".  Jones's car, Max's
>bike, France's burden, Arkansas's (!) governor; but Goebbels' lies,
>Dickens' novels, King Charles' head.

But why Dickens' but Jones's?  I think I would pronounce 2 s's in the Dickens
possessive, too, which would make it Dickens's.
-- 
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:12:15 GMT

In article <725097282snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz> hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec22.030111.25846@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca writes:
>
>  > branded a "radical feminist" for preferring "persons" to "men (including
>
>Time for another thread. Why is it that "persons" seems to be rising 
>in popularity at the expense of "people"? To me it seems much more 
>impersonal, treating people as mere population units.

Why indeed?  I'm still working on that one.

Checking my dictionary (MW-NCD) I find that "person" is defined as
"human being, individual - sometimes used in combinations esp.  by those
who prefer to avoid _man_ in compounds applicable to both sexes".
"People" does have the same meaning, but it has other meanings such as
"human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common
interest" and "the members of a family or kinship".

Since I was thinking of "All X are created equal", I prefered to use
"All persons", because I wanted to convey clearly that the equality is
vested in the individuals, not in the groups to which they belong.  Now,
"All people" could have the same meaning, but it could also mean that it
is the groups that are equal, not the individuals.

Since my goal is to reduce ambiguity, I used "persons".

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:44:31 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <92356.234919HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>>
>>Those who oppose words such as "stewardess", "heroine", "hostess" are
>>hypocrites. Their explanation  is that these words further the notion that
>>being a man is the norm and being a woman is a deviant. i.e. there
>>aren't different words for the male *and* the female. Yet, they
>>accept the word "woman". The word "woman" comes from "man". (wif-man or
>>literally "wife of man")
>
[..lines where he/she disputes the etymology of "woman" deleted...]

In Old English, the word "man" meant "person" or "human being" and
when used of an individual was equally applicable to either sex. It
was parallel to the the Latin "homo", "a member of the human species",
not "vir", "an adult male of the species". English at the time of
Ercongota had separate words to distinguish the sexes : "wer" (
equivalent to Latin "vir") meant "adult male", and "wif" meant 
"adult female". The combined forms "waepman" and "wifman" meant,
respectively, "adult male person" and "adult female person".
     
   In the course of time "wifman" evolved into the modern word woman,
and "wif" narrowed in meaning to become "wife" as we use the word today.
"Man" eventually ceased to be used of individual women and replaced
"wer" and "waepman" as a specific term distinguishing an adult male
from an adult female. But "man" continued to be used in generalisations
about both sexes.

      The etymologists on this group will indeed confirm the fact
that "woman" evolved from "wifman" which itself evolved from "man".
(as a means of specifying the gender). Now, according to you, if
"man" is sexist, and so is "hostess", then "woman" itself should 
be sexist.


>
>Love,
>Herschel

                                                     Lots of love,

                                                        Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:45:33 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa

In article <Bzqry0.JBH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>[...lines where she calls me a prescriptivist, deleted....]

Out of curiosity - what made you decide I'm a "she"?  I've been careful
to be gender-neutral in references to myself, just to see what people
would assume . . .  :-)

As to whether the assumption is true or not, does it really matter?

>    I am not a prescriptivist. But I am against "artificially" 
>reforming language. Let the language take its own course. Let the
>speakers use it as they would wish to. We don't need any radical
>feminists to brainwash us into thinking that some word is sexist,
>and some other isn't, and so, the latter should be used instead
>of the former. As long as there are people who don't find these
>words sexist, nor have any intention of using them to demean
>women, there is no justification for dropping the use of these
>words.

As long as there are how many people who don't find certain uses
sexist, Mandar?  There are also people who do find these uses
sexist (and some of them are men).

As for "artificially" reforming language - what's so "artificial"
about using "persons" or "people" or generic "they" - all usages
that go back hundreds of years?  English offers a number of options,
so why make a point of using the option you know will offend some
people, just because there are others who won't be offended?

Some people don't find "nigger" racist.  "It's just a word!" they
say.  "It's only derogatory if it's used that way!".  And "nigger"
certainly has a longer history than it's current replacement.  I'm
sure you would still hesitate to use the word . . .  (And this
word was the source of some heated language debates of its own.)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: mckeonj@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: chaps,lads
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:19:20 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

In article <baron.92.724957187@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
> Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
> or elsewhere has met any resistance?  The analogous use of *guy* or
> *guys* in the US has had a split reception, some people arguing that
> it is perfectly neutral, others saying it is yet one more example of
> a masculine doubling as a generic.
I caan tell you that in Ireland, the term "lads" is gender-neutral,
and has been for about two decades now.
-- 
"If England sleeps, shall Ireland dream?" : Se/an macEoin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More English Excrement
Date: 26 Dec 92 03:17:53 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <92355.212038HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:

# By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite
# understood, and maybe someone with more reference materials or a
# deeper understanding of slang than I have can enlighten me. The
# expression is "shit-eating grin". I've never really understood what
# particular sort of grin this is, nor why someone eating shit would
# be grinning. Any thoughts?

My guess is that it comes from the expression "happier than a possum
eating shit".

By the way, a couple of more animal shit expressions:

        Lower than whale shit at the bottom of the ocean.
        The eagle shits today (it's payday -- military).

and as an answer to a silly question:

        Does a bear shit in the woods?


David Johns
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:26:40 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: _1984_ and "they"

In article <12215@kesson.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
says:
>
>I haven't read anything else by G Orwell, so I don't know what happens
>in his other books, though I intend to find out in the very near future.

Orwell was among the best writers of the 20th c. Reading him is never
a mistake. Among his novels, after _1984_, the best is probably _Coming
Up for Air_. But most of his best stuff is not in his novels. _Homage
to Catalonia_, _The Road to Wigan Pier_, _Down and Out in Paris and
London_ are all really well worth reading, whether all of them are
literal reportage or not. And he was one of the best essayists in
our language: check out the four-volume _Collected Essays, Journalism,
and Letters_.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Men & maids
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:04:45 GMT

In article <20199.2b383628@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
:In article <1992Dec16.190121.4710@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
:> Yes, foot*men*.  It's that old.
:What about handmaidens?
:Which reminds me - has the PC movement got to work on maidens yet?

Well bowl me over - I had a batman once who was a woman.

G
(I bet that's stumped you)
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:56:23 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Dec29.200007.2635@microsoft.com>, frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney) writes:
> Here you can include Red Square, Times Square, and Pioneer Square (to
> throw in a Pacific Northwest reference to go with Skid Road). Also
> Tienanmen Square, of course. Others?
> 
Smith Square (Conservative party HQ), Walworth Road (Labour party HQ).

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:13:39 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement

In article <hayesstw.154.725822187@risc1.unisa.ac.za>,
hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) says:
>
>Of course Americans always seem to use "among" when they mean "between"...
>

We do? I thought Americans used "between" when they meant "among".
"This is just among you and me, okay?"  "In 1870 there was a war
among Prussia and France." "My apartment is among Dupont Circle and
Logan Circle."  Nope, I just can't feature these.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: K Street
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:59:54 GMT

I ran across a reference to K Street in a recent Economist.  The exact
context was that Capitol Hill and K Street would be pleased with
Bentsen's appointment as Treasury Secretary.

Oviously this is metonomy, but for what?  I assume that this is refering
to K Street in Washington, D.C., but what's on K Street.  My guess is
that it's the headquarters of the Treasury Dept. and that this is
refering to the rank and file Treasury bureaucrats.

This also reminded me of a short list that I have of streets that have
become metonyms or toponyms.

    Wall St.
    Madison Ave.
    Fleet St.
    Skid Road  an actual road in Seattle
    Grub Street  my dictionary tells me that this referes to literary
	    hacks, but I've never heard it used.
    
Any additions?

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:33:48 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>This is based on the mistaken notion that whale excrement settles to the
>bottom of the ocean.
>
>Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com

Oh good, a *really* new topic. Tell us, Dan, where *DOES* whale shit go?

(Seriously, I am now curious!)

-Brian

Ob ref to other english usage: In the book Texas Crude, the author mentions
an expression "busier than a cat in a feedlot." This refers, apparently, to
the fact that a cat would use all nine lives eating all that shit. Does this
have something to do with a shit-eating grin? Beats me!

-Brian
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077