HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de (Frerk Meyer)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Reply-To: frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: AG Telematik
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:09:14 GMT

In article <1825p7INNj7t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
> 
> A lot of people, especially older ones, call cats "she" and dogs "he". 
> Odd.
>
That correlates with German. A cat is feminine "die Katze" and a dog is masculine "der Hund".
A tom cat is "der Kater" but a female cat remains "die Katze".
A she-dog is "die Huendin" and a male dog is "der Ruede".

Another observation:
Most Germans refer to their computer as 'he' because it's "der Rechner".
But some refer to it as 'she' because it's "die Maschine" (the machine).

A huge computer is more likely to be refered to as 'she'.

-- 
Frerk Meyer                 Who was the most successful athlete    __o 
frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de  of the Olympic Games in Barcelona?   _`\<,_
IRCNICK = Portnoy           Ms. Anna Bolica !                   (_)/ (_)
From: scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Asses
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:19:48 GMT

In article <6734@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
> scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
> >> Oh, and off the subject, thank you *so* much for spelling "piqued" properly.
> >> I get so weary of reading about people who have had their curiosity "peeked"
> >> or "peaked".
> 
> >Don't let it get you down, it's a mute point, anyway.
> >
> MUTE POINT??!! It's a basic tenant of my philosophy.

You have those, too?  I'm trying to have mine evicted, but it's been a very
frustrating experience so far, running the gauntlet of the legal system.

[OK, OK, put down that rotten fruit and I'll stop now.]
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: lawrence.jones@sdrc.com               IBMMAIL: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL
Life's a lot more fun when you're not responsible for your actions. -- Calvin
From: tim@crash.canon.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What does this mean?
Date: 29 Aug 92 11:07:03 GMT
Organization: me myself and i

diamong@gov.on.ca (Gerald Diamond) writes:
:
|I saw an ad in the subway (Toronto) yesterday that said
|
|"All flavours not available in all provinces"
:
|
|I assume the company meant 
|
|"Some flavours may not be be available in certain provinces"
|
|but I think it might be interpreted as 
|
|"No flavours available anywhere!"

Agree. I guess they got the "not" in the wrong place. They really
wanted "Not all flavors are available in all provinces". However, your
paraphrase has a better ring to it. Have you considered becoming a copy
writer?

Tx.
--
check my header - "when the time runs out... when the money runs out..."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:18:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.180405.2141@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
> In article <1992Aug23.221020.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) writes:
>>A Nissan commercial which has been shown recently on TV here includes the line
>>`The opposition are petrified of Nissan' (or roughly that).
>>
>>Does this sound odd to ears other than mine.
> 
> Oh, definitely.  I would have expected "is" rather than "are". :-)
> 
> "Petrified" (as in "petrified with fear") is a common intensive
> synonym for "scared" in the US.  It's roughly equivalent to
> "terrified".

But is "petrified of" a common intensive synonym for "scared of"?
I suspect not.  "Petrified by" sounds more likely.

Peter
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: diamong@gov.on.ca (Gerald Diamond)
Subject: What does this mean?
Organization: Government of Ontario
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:52:24 GMT

I saw an ad in the subway (Toronto) yesterday that said

"All flavours not available in all provinces"
in reference to a certain line of coolers  (i.e. fruit, alcohol, and
water mixtures)

I assume the company meant 

"Some flavours may not be be available in certain provinces"

but I think it might be interpreted as 

"No flavours available anywhere!"
Am I way off on this?


 
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
diamong@gov.on.ca          | There's never enough time  |  \ 
I spoke only for myself    | to do all the nothing you  |    \ 
and my bike !              | want.  -  Calvin           |      \ ^. .>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:55:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.023329.11376@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>ONLY if one interprets the song in the wrong dialect: Formal English.
>As Brahms would have said, any ass can see that the song is in the colloquial 
>idiom, and *there* one simply doesn't have to use "as if it were" to
>signal the subjunctive.  

But it would sure sound a lot better.

>>People still say
>>"If I were you" and not "if I was you" unless they're talking about past
>>lives.  
>
>Indeed.  That phrase has idiom status.  Many people only use a very few,
>clicheed phrases that have subjunctive formulations.  In general,
>however, they don't use subjunctive inflections.

And many would say "As if freedom were a question of might..." if they *were*
discussing the issue.  That's why the lyric sounds so odd.

>Why?  What have we lost?  Your'e the only person I've ever encountered
>who didn't get the song...

Nice try.  I "got" the song fine.  I would've gotten it if it had contained
a "me and my friends...." or a "me am here."  None of those two errors
would've hindered my comprehension of the subtext of the song, nor did the
"as if freedom was..."

That doesn't mean that I didn't take notice of it, however.


--
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: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Why don't you re-write this . . .
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:40:45 GMT
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Almost every suggestion for replacement of
generic 'he' 'his' etc seems to reach the 
point of saying 

How about re-writing . . . .


Re-writing sucks ! I want something to do
what we used to be able to do with the
former conventional use of 'he'. Sure, we can
always re-write and circumlocute but there
are times when things are best said directly.

I'm going to use he/she and his/her a lot
more. Yes it's ugly, but that very ugliness
reflects accurately the present tension
between the sexes. I think that we will all
just have to live with it.
-- 
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: "ernest blaschke" <ernest.blaschke@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: colloquialism?
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:50:43 EST
Reply-To: "ernest blaschke" <ernest.blaschke@canrem.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

While talking to one of my Canadian friends the other day I had this
vision of a wire being aglow inside a light bulb, shining its light
onto a man admiring a Rembrandt painting. Then my friend seemed to
offer I some beer ("I?").............. and I came back to reality.

He had said : " I took a fillam to the artic and brought the pitchers
for you and I to look at!"

English is not my native tongue. Can the above be ascribed to
colloquialism or is it just plain poor English?

Any comments?

Ernest.

 ====================================================================
    Ernest Blaschke            # UUCP    : canrem!ernest.blaschke
    Toronto                    # Internet: ernest.blaschke@canrem.com
    CANADA                     # RelayNet: ->CRS
 ====================================================================
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: rhemler@ems.cdc.com (Bob Hemler)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:01:50 GMT
Reply-To: rhemler@ems.cdc.com
Distribution: alt
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Sep3.123520.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.851.6301@channel1>, "raun kupiec" <raun.kupiec@channel1.com> writes:
|> >> In article <86205@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L.
|> >>    Crawford) writes:
|> >> Anybody seen any awful menu translations?  ...
|> > 
|> >> In article <86205@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> esr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU
|> >>    (Edwin S. Russell) writes:
|> > 
|> >> Someone posted this list about a year ago:
|> > 
|> >> "Roast beef with au jus sauce"
|> >> "Today's soup du jour"
|> >> "Enchilada with Salsa sauce"
|> >> "Potatoes au gratin with cheese"
|> > 
|> > A similar effect is "the La Brea Tar Pits" (the the Tar Tar Pits)
|> 
|> I would maintain that "today's soup du jour" is not redundant.  After all, it
|> could be yesterday's soup du jour (and frequently is) or even next Thursday's.
|> The phrase would have to read "Today's soup d'aujourd'hui" to be redundant.
|> The others phrases are abominations which I have never seen, except for "with
|> au jus sauce," which is all-too-common.
|> 
|> Peter Hoogenboom
|> phoogenb@ucs.indiana.edu

Another common one is "the hoi polloi".  Hoi polloi don't realise
that this means "the the many".

Bob Hemler
From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: did vs. done
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:56:09 GMT
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT

In article <1992Aug22.083524.3482@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
roddi@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Roddi Walker) writes:
>
>Consider the following:
>
>(a) I did my homework.
>(b) I done my homework.

Are there dialects that use both of these?  (I mean both of "did" and
"done" rather than "did" and "have done.")

-David
--
============================================================================
David Wald                                           wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu
   "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God"
             -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0
============================================================================
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: P as in Phonetic (was Another Americanism?)
Keywords: for in
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:49:42 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

>>>>  Also the nightmare 
>>>>one [alphabet], with things like P as in pheasant.  Anyone have these on line?)
>>>Please!  If it exists, I would love to see it; if not, I'd love to start one.
>>>Let's see:
>>>P as in Pneumonia
>>>P as in Ptomaine
>>>P as in Phone
>>>K as in Knife
>>>G as in Gnu
>>>H as in Honesty 
>>>M as in Mnemonic
>>>O as in 'Possum
>>>X as in Xylophone
>>>C as in Czar
>>>C as in cuckoo these are a bit dubious, since C does not have its own
>>>C as in cereal sound but is either "S" or "K" unless paired with H to be "CH"
>>A as in aye
>>B as in bdellium
>>C as in cthonian
>>O as in oedipal
>>W as in write

Why not:
T as in Tsunami
K as in Knock (alternatively Know)
Q as in Quoran
From: smk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stefan Kahrs)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Ships and countries
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:24:33 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Edinburgh, LFCS
In-reply-to: fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com's message of 31 Aug 92 20:50:40 GMT

In article <57560035@hpscit.sc.hp.com> fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:

   I recall a discussion in a class in college, lo these many years ago, on
   this subject.  We were told that all peoples in the world, save one,
   refer to their countries as either mother or father (i.e. Mother Russia,
   the Fatherland - Germany).  The one exception... the U.S.A.  Our only
   [...]

This is a myth.
The use of "the fatherland" as synonym for Germany exists in english,
but not in German.  The German "Vaterland" is nothing else than a
translation of the Latin "patria", it simply relates a person (or a
group of persons) to his/her home country.
[BTW "Vaterland" does not refer to the country as a father,
it simply means father's country.]
In a few contexts, it is (was) understood to which people "Vaterland"
refers to, this applies in particular for "Deutsches Vaterland".

After WWII, the word became extremely unpopular, it almost vanished.
There were several reasons:
- it is emotional, pompous, impassioned
- its misuse by the nazis
- the split of Germany -- what was it supposed to mean 1949-1989?

I am quite sure, I heard/read "fatherland" more often in English
than "Vaterland" in German.
--
Stefan Kahrs
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: To look for (German: suchen)
From: phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:43:27 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep1.062445.3555@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>, RAHLFS@BEATE.RZ.FH-ULM.DE (RZ D. Rahlfs) writes:
> Is someone able to explain the difference between:
> 
> -----------------
to look for s.th. -- etwas suchen
to search s.th. -- to examine s.th. (for the presence of s.th. else)
to search for s.th. -- etwas suchen (but you are perhaps expending more
energy)
to seek s.th. -- etwas suchen (not colloquial, perhaps obsolete, at least in
the USA)
to seek for s.th. -- I do not believe this usage is correct.
to seek after s.th. -- This is more subtle -- a famous performer may be "sought
after."  Perhaps it would be accurate to say that this expresses desire.

Examples:  I have lost my watch.

I am looking for my watch.
I am searching the desk.
I am searching for my watch.
I seek my watch.

This response came off of the top of my head, without reference material. 
Flames and or corrections are welcomed.

Peter Hoogenboom
phoogenb@ucs.indiana.edu
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Names (Was Re: Puns)
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:57:17 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith)) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.145056.4010@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:

>> In article <pjh.714048816@nessi>, pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>> |> 
>> |>>In article <1992Aug15.040735.26043@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>> |>>> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes: 

>[snip]

>> |> BTW, A. Jing Hippy(*) you are welcome to call me Philippa, but please,
>> |> please, please _don't_ call me Phillipa. Yup, yet another thing I am
>> |> overly fussy about.
>> |> [Written with toungue most firmly in cheek]
>> 
>> :-)
>> Now it's my turn to apologize.  I had your name right there in front of
>> me and *still* managed to botch it up.  You have every right to expect your
>> name to be spelled properly.  I guess I was just hung up in Phillipians 
>> or something with all of this Bible/God/Atheist/Agnostic/quote/misquote
>> traffic in this group.  Sorry 'bout that.

'Sok

> Actually, Philippians is spelled with one "l" also.  Even in the 
>Greek, there is only one lambda.  Perhaps this is where Philippa's 
>name comes from?

As far as I know, my name is the feminine form of Philip which (again,
as far as I know) is almost always spelt with one 'l'.

Having said this, in Britain there are two "correct" spellings of
Philippa. In the south (where I originally come from), my version
tends to be correct. In the north (where I lived for a long while) the
spelling "Phillipa" tends to be correct. (There are exceptions to both
of these.) I do not know the reason for this difference.


Philippa

--
Philippa Hogben   pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if mailing from Janet)
Any mistakes are mine, all mnie.

I am not a .sig virus. I am a free bug.
From: sgr@alden.UUCP (Stan Ryckman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Petrified of ... (A False Accusation?)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:17:27 GMT
Organization: Alden Electronics, Westboro, MA

In article <1992Aug29.171003.22074@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes:
 >Hey guys (gender neutral implied here), am I being accused of a "holier than
 >though" - I'm British *therefore* my English is perfect attitude?
 >
 >Read this and see, taken from <1992Aug28.163843@IASTATE.EDU>:
 >
 >In article <1992Aug28.014216.1868@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan
 >Kirshenbaum) writes:
 >> In article <1992Aug27.101346.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
 >eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
 >> >In article <1992Aug25.112046.28182@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
 >(Simon Read) writes:
 >> >.  I doubt that you'd find any native speaker of English
 >> >saying "petrified of", even when speaking informally.
 >> 
 >> And now I'm not even a native speaker!  Listen, I've gotten used to
 >> the British with their "we spoke it first, so don't tell us how it's
 >> supposed to go", but, I do believe that the American variety *is*
 >> slightly older than the Australian. :-)
 >> 
 >
 >Look back over the posts, I didn't write any of the above!

This is true.  Note that if you had said what the above seems to
say that you said, there would be one more ">" prefixing those lines.
(Subtle, but often a clue as to who said what in the Usenet language
[which I believe may be slightly related to English, but I'm
not sure.])

You are a victim of sloppy trimming.  It would be nice if people
carefully cut articles for quoting so that the attributions were
correct and obvious.  Those who don't deserve many flames!  :-)

Here's how this happens:
 X wrote:
 >Y wrote:
 >>Z wrote:
 >>>This would be written by Z
 >>This would be written by Y
 >This would be written by X
 This would be written by the poster.

Now consider deleting what Z wrote but leave the reference in:
 X wrote:
 >Y wrote:
 >>Z wrote:
 >>This would be written by Y
 >This would be written by X
 This would be written by the poster.

Suddenly, it appears to the casual glance that Z wrote whatever
Y actually wrote.
--
X-Obligatory-.sig
    Stan Ryckman   sgr@alden.UUCP
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:7038 dc.dining:635
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Petrified of ...
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:38:43 GMT
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1992Aug28.014216.1868@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan
Kirshenbaum) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.101346.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug25.112046.28182@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
(Simon Read) writes:
> >.  I doubt that you'd find any native speaker of English
> >saying "petrified of", even when speaking informally.
> 
> And now I'm not even a native speaker!  Listen, I've gotten used to
> the British with their "we spoke it first, so don't tell us how it's
> supposed to go", but, I do believe that the American variety *is*
> slightly older than the Australian. :-)
> 
> To reiterate.  Here is a native speaker for whom "petrified of" sounds
> at least as good as "petrified by".  I'm beginning to think I may be
> the only such one on the net, but I really would say it, and I'm sure
> I've heard it.
> 
> Evan Kirshenbaum
>     HP Laboratories
>     3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
>     Palo Alto, CA  94304
> 
>     kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
>     (415)857-7572
> 
> 

It doesn't sound "just as good" to me:  in fact, it sounds wrong.  But
"petrified of" is commonly used around here.  I always thought it was
used by people who didn't really know (or didn't stop to think) what
"petrified" really meant, and just used it as a synonym for "afraid".

Marie Coffin
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: Names (Was Re: Puns)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:04:43 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <pjh.714913037@nessi>, pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug17.145056.4010@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> 
|> >> In article <pjh.714048816@nessi>, pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
|> >> |> 
|> >> |>>In article <1992Aug15.040735.26043@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> >> 
|> >> :-)
|> >> Now it's my turn to apologize.  I had your name right there in front of
|> >> me and *still* managed to botch it up.  You have every right to expect your
|> >> name to be spelled properly.  I guess I was just hung up in Phillipians 
|> >> or something with all of this Bible/God/Atheist/Agnostic/quote/misquote
|> >> traffic in this group.  Sorry 'bout that.
|> 
|> 'Sok
|> 
|> As far as I know, my name is the feminine form of Philip which (again,
|> as far as I know) is almost always spelt with one 'l'.
|> 
|> Having said this, in Britain there are two "correct" spellings of
|> Philippa. In the south (where I originally come from), my version
|> tends to be correct. In the north (where I lived for a long while) the
|> spelling "Phillipa" tends to be correct. (There are exceptions to both
|> of these.) I do not know the reason for this difference.

I suppose that the wise thing to do at this point would be to simply avoid
any "spelled/spelt" discussions in this group, huh?

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Any closet is a walk-in closet if you try hard    |
|enough.                                           |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From: dian@arpeggio.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: Reporting Speeches
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:47:26 GMT

In <1992Aug31.135405.26180@nuscc.nus.sg> isc30001@nusunix3.nus.sg (WONG KIN HONG) writes:

>	I have never been clear which tenses to use when reporting
>	speeches. Am I right to say that both the following two
>	structures are grammatically correct ?

>	He said that he would start working on Monday.
>	
>	He said that he will start working on Monday.

>	What the guy said was: " I will start working on Monday."

>	If both are correct, when do we use which or are they simply
>	inter-changeable? Thanks.

Perhaps these examples would help:

    He said that he would start working on Monday.  But here it is,
    Tuesday, and he still isn't here.

    He said that he will start working on Monday.  We have been without
    someone for so long that Monday cannot arrive soon enough to suit me.
____
Dian