HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: thumbing one's nose
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:27:51 GMT
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden

John Helm) writes:
>> I have heard the expression "thumbing one's nose at"
>> meaning "showing a lack of respect for " for as long
>> as remember, but I have never seen anyone perform the
>> gesture referred to in this expression.
>>    Is there a place where people actually thumb their
>> noses to show disrespect?  If so, how is it done, exactly,
>> and how much disrespect does it show, compared  to
>> other gestures of disrespect such as sticking out one's
>> tongue. 

Lorne Epp responds:
>This gesture is also known as "cocking a snook" (anybody know why?).
>To thumb your nose, splay the fingers and thumb of one hand, touch the tip
>of the thumb to the tip of your nose, and wiggle the fingers. The hand
>should be held so that the fingers are vertical and the palm faces sideways.
>Emphasis can be added by including the other hand, with its thumb touching
>the little finger of the first hand.

Oh, now I know what you mean! I did this as a kid in Germany. It is a
very childish gesture, usually enforced by singing: Aetschibaetsch! in
a spiteful manner. I used to do it to my sister when she was told by
our mother that she wasn't allowed to wear that dress/get a new
painting pad/eat sweets before lunch or something similar. Here in
Sweden people seem to understand the gesture, but not the accompanying
expression (Aetschibaetsch!). 

If you use it, be aware that it is even more childish than sticking
out your tongue.

--Ceci
--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"Vorbedingung des kuenstlerischen Schaffens ist nicht, ein Ereignis
oder ein Motiv so "rein" anzuschauen, dass es auf das betrachtende
Subjekt gar keine Wirkung hat." Hermann Leber: Aquarellieren lernen
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:36:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.173820.2549@col.hp.com>, lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson) writes:
<jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
<> 
<> My Merkan wife is wont to say "I'm going to make spaghetti tonight". What
<> she actually does is to concoct a sauce with minced beef and a tomato
<> base.(Its very good.) Then she boils some noodles for a while, we put
<> the one on the other and eat. I believe and therefore claim authoritatively
<> that in standard American "spaghetti" means a particular kind of sauce.
<
<Nope. The pasta is "spaghetti."

Correct.  (The entire dish of noodles and sauce is also called `spaghetti',
as you said.)  Proof:  Some people eat spaghetti with no sauce at all (perhaps
just some melted cheese or butter).  (I can't imagine how they can find
such bland noodles palatable.)  More proof:  Grocery stores sell "spaghetti
sauce" in jars.

					--Scott

-- 
Scott Horne                               ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu      SnailMail:  Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT   06520
203 436-1848                Residence:  Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
ZANG4 HAN4 YI4 JIA1 / GONG4 JIAN4 ZHONG1HUA2!
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Go figure
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:34:47 GMT
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden

Recently I have seen the expression _Go figure_ in many places. It
seems to be a preferred way to end postings in rec.pets.cats for
instance. What does it mean, what is its style worth and where does it
come from? (Not geography-wise, but rather full sentence-wise.)

--Ceci, dabbling along in English

--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"Vorbedingung des kuenstlerischen Schaffens ist nicht, ein Ereignis
oder ein Motiv so "rein" anzuschauen, dass es auf das betrachtende
Subjekt gar keine Wirkung hat." Hermann Leber: Aquarellieren lernen
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Loaded language in the abortion debate
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:20:26 GMT
    <ku6e80INNj9l@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2834

In article <ku6e80INNj9l@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
|> How about 'liberal'? The believe that people are free to define their own
|> lives? (The American use of 'liberal' puzzles me, by the way. In the Netherlands
|> where I'm from the liberals are right-wing -- free enterprise and that
|> sort of thing -- as opposed to the socialists who think that everyone
|> is equal.)

The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have shifted in meaning so
much over the years, and are used so frequently for merely rhetorical
purposes, that they have virtually no value any more.  I think one
of the funniest illustrations of this was during the height of the
breakup of the Soviet Union.  In the U.S., 'liberal' tends to get
applied by commentators to those who lean (if not lunge) to the
left.  Yet the news people found it necessary to characterize the
old-guard communists (certainly fairly far to the "left") in the
Soviet Union as 'conservative', while those pressing for personal
freedoms and a free-market economy were deemed 'liberal'.  Perhaps
for many purposes it's all relative:  those in power are conservatives
and those who aren't are liberals.  But this makes the distinction
useless for most purposes.  It's just too easy to equivocate with
such terms.

In my view, and I think a good general case can be made for this,
there is not too much difference between the fundamental beliefs
of a true liberal and a true conservative.  Jesse Helms is a genuine
conservative isn't he?  Not from my (and I think a solid historical)
point of view.  A true conservative should value individual liberty
(and its preservation) above all else.  This is the basis for the
minimalist view of government traditionally taken by "conservatives".
It is interesting that it is just this meaning you want to give
to 'liberal'.  However, many of those currently called 'liberal'
(in the U.S.) in fact strive to interfere in the free choices people
would make and instead take a "we know what's best for you" paternalistic
view (implemented via seatbelt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc.).
Socialists, by the way, do not so much think that everyone *is*
equal as they think that it is the job of government to *make*
everyone functionally equal in some odd sense.  They are therefore,
in a classical sense, neither liberal nor conservative but simply
oppressive.

The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are simply too carelessly
and imprecisely used to be of any value -- particularly in the
area of abortion where one finds people on both sides of the issue
willing to profess either their liberalism or conservatism.





-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2957 soc.culture.british:6115
From: kmuch@prg.ox.ac.uk (Kathleen Much)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:13:01 GMT
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

In article <1992Apr7.131411.6994@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>D. Gerdemann writes:
>
>	...it is therefore rather intolerant of you to blatantly declare 
>	it wrong.
>
>Should that not be "blatantly to declare"? Oh hell, I'm feeling pretty
>tolerant this morning...

Or "brazenly to declare"? Unless your computer has a voice
synthesizer, of course.
Kathleen Much
kmuch@comlab.oxford.ac.uk
also reachable at kathleen@casbs.stanford.edu
From: richard@brion.cs.colorado.edu (Richard Byrd)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:07:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr13.160749.14097
Organization: Universtiy of Coloardo, Boulder

In this discussion, it has been pointed out that many sentence adverbs can 
be explained by the
pattern: {x-ly S: -> It is x that S,}, but that this does not work so well for
"hopefully". Now while I agree that language does not always follow
a pattern, there does appear to be a pattern here that works for "hopefully",
"truthfully" and a few other cases.

When one says "Truthfully, there is a serious problem here", the sentence 
might be viewed as equivalent to "I am being truthful in saying that there
is a serious problem here." 
Similarly, the sentence "Frankly, I don't give a damn" amounts to "I am
being frank in saying that I  don't give a damn", or maybe "If you want me to
be frank, well I don't give a damn".
Along the same lines, consider:

"Honestly, I cannot put up with this any more."
"Candidly, I don't think we have a chance."
"Thankfully, we didn't have another breakdown."
"Conservatively, we get about sixty such cases in a year."
"Optimistically, we can get it done in about a week."
and
"Hopefully, it will not rain tomoorrow."

In all these cases the adjective to which "-ly" is added can be viewed as
modifying the attitude of the speaker, and possibly in addition some consensus 
attitude. Thus, the pattern might be viewed as
{x-ly S} -> {I am  x in saying S}. 
Alternatively, the pattern might be viewed as {x-ly S}->{x-ly I would say S},
where "x-ly" modifies "say". This seems essentially the same idea, but seems
closer for "conservatively: 
"Conservatively, I would say we get about sixty such cases a year" leads
easily to the above sentence. 

I think that when a sentence begins with an adverb, (and in many other
situations) one cannot expect to deduce what is going structurally
in a sentence from the arrangement of parts of speech alone. One must
take the meaning of the words into account to decide whether the
the adverb modifies the verb, the sentence, or the attitude of the speaker.
For example:
Frantically, I got out the mine before the explosion.
Fortunately, I got out the mine before the explosion.
Thankfully, I got out the mine before the explosion.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Pleonasm
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:41:45 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.084617.1755@vixvax.mgi.com>
carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com writes:

>, while the "I heard it with my own ears" example seems to be
>"I heard it" with the addition of "Surely you don't expect me to doubt my
>own senses".

Another data point in the discussion:

I saw it with my own eyes.

An ideal case would be the Grand Canyon.  I believe anyone
who *has* seen it with their own eyes will tell you that
they *must* use this phrase.  No still photo, no film, not
even 360-degree movies of it (which I have seen) begins to
convey what the Grand Canyon looks like.  No matter how big
you think it is, it is *much* bigger than that, an
impression that is instantly obvious when you see it with
your own eyes.

So in this case, I would say it goes beyond not doubting
your own senses; it's a matter of revealing for the first
time what your senses *are*, where sensing "big" is
concerned.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
From: Dieter.Waeltermann@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: billion/milliard, was: English OR Esperanto?
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:09:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.oduP8rG00W0HQU8F4K
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In article <1992Apr12.014952.22066@cs.tu-berlin.de>
wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:

>At school I was taught the same distinction between US and UK usage,
>and my dictionary states it too:
>
>             US              UK            Ger             Fre
>10**6        million         million       Million         million
>10**9        billion         milliard      Milliarde      
milliard/billion
>10**12       trillion        billion       Billion         trillion
>10**15       quadrillion     trillion      Trillion        mille
trillions (?)
                              ^^^^^^^^
As far as the German terms are concerned, your dictionary needs to be
updated: 1 Trillion is 10**18 (10**15 is 1 Billiarde).

Dieter
From: eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Loaded language in the abortion debate
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:18:40 GMT
Reply-To: eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennesee, Knoxville
NNTP-Posting-Host: cupid.cs.utk.edu

In article <1992Apr8.093136.1748@vixvax.mgi.com>, carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com writes:
|> It strikes me that if the people who call themselves "pro-life" were really
|> that, they'd be active in a lot more ways.  They'd be working to restrict
|> tobacco and alcohol use.  They'd be active in preventing drug abuse. They'd
|> be trying to get food to starving people.  They'd be posting crossing guards
|> at street corners.  But the only issue on which they're really active is
|> the abortion one, so I feel it's more appropriate to refer to them as "anti-
|> abortion".

A while ago some (Catholic?) church-related organisation did research
on the voting behaviour of congressfolk who were known to be pro-life.
Issues such as welfare/health-care were investigated,
and in general these people voted definitely anti-life.

|> Likewise, the people on the other side, who call themselves "pro-choice"
|> aren't really active in all the areas where free choice is being infringed
|> upon.  There's really only one particular choice that they're working to
|> preserve.  On the other hand, they're not "pro-abortion", either, since
|> that would imply that, in all cases of pregnancy, their preferred course
|> of action would be an abortion.  I have not been able to think of a succint
|> name for this group.

How about 'liberal'? The believe that people are free to define their own
lives? (The American use of 'liberal' puzzles me, by the way. In the Netherlands
where I'm from the liberals are right-wing -- free enterprise and that
sort of thing -- as opposed to the socialists who think that everyone
is equal.)

|> Dave Carpenter 

Victor.
From: bohm@acsu.buffalo.edu (Eric J. Bohm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: thumbing one's nose
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:28:54 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Apr12.001417.302@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.150524.3367@rucs.faculty.cs.runet.edu>, jhelm@rucs.faculty.cs.runet.edu (John Helm) writes:
>> 
>>[original inquiry about "thumbing one's nose at" deleted for brevity]
>
>This gesture is also known as "cocking a snook" (anybody know why?).
>To thumb your nose, splay the fingers and thumb of one hand, touch the tip
>of the thumb to the tip of your nose, and wiggle the fingers. The hand
>should be held so that the fingers are vertical and the palm faces sideways.
>Emphasis can be added by including the other hand, with its thumb touching
>the little finger of the first hand.
>
>I don't know how old the gesture is, but it is described by Mark Twain in
>a short piece that has 'Petrified Man' in the title (sorry, that's all
>I remember).

	My guess: It stems from a time when nose tissues were less common
(or not in existence) when a person would cleanse their nasal passages by
performing a very similar gesture. However, they would apply enough pressure
with the thumb to block one side of the nose, and splay the fingers to
clear them out of the expected trajectory, or perhaps use them to confine
the outgoing flow.

>
>My impression is that thumbing one's nose is fairly mild, playful gesture
>of defiance or disrespect, but I suppose that could depend on the facial
>expression worn while doing it.

	Given my speculated derivation, I would expect it to be a bit more
serious a gesture. Although, not as strong as actually expectorating at
someone, but expressing the same contempt.

-- 
Gothmog AKA Eric Bohm
[ It can be shown that a neat .sig file can be created and that there exists  ]
[ a valid address for this user. (the proof is left as an exercise for the    ]
[ student)							              ]
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:33:49 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr10.130545.20298@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dhubin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Donald C Hubin) writes:
:Graham Toal is a bit to terse for me here.  If anything, his
:paraphrase of the sentence Gary Merrill gives suggests that there is a
:parallel between 'truthfully' and 'hopefully'.  If we are allowed to
:have 'truthfully' describe the state of the speaker (being full of
:truth), why can't 'hopefully' do the same.  So, 'hopefully, it will

That's what I was saying I think.  We seem to be at cross purposes.
The first person suggested that 'truthfully, ...' was just like the
German-like use of 'hopefully, ...'.  I was trying to show that it
wasn't, and was in fact exactly analogous to the old-fashion meaning
of 'hopefully' which was that the speaker was full of hope.

So yes, the two are the same, but only if you use the old style
of 'hopefully'.

Graham
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2909 soc.culture.british:6015
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:34:32 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <TkgXiB1w164w@xocolatl.com> ssmith@eoin.net.netcom.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
>Interesting.  Among my children's father's family, who are English,
>the elder refer to the stuff that goes on hamburgers as tomato(e?)
>sauce, the younger as catsup/ketchup.  The stuff that goes on
>spaghetti is spaghetti sauce to the elder, and tomato sauce to the
>younger.

My Merkan wife is wont to say "I'm going to make spaghetti tonight". What
she actually does is to concoct a sauce with minced beef and a tomato
base.(Its very good.) Then she boils some noodles for a while, we put
the one on the other and eat. I believe and therefore claim authoritatively
that in standard American "spaghetti" means a particular kind of sauce.
The pasta would most likely be referred to as "spaghetti noodles".

When I make spaghetti I get out my pasta machine, chalk 10 points on the
pad I use to keep score, mix the dough and extrude the noodles. Then I
make some sauce that is as unlike the American spaghetti sauce as I can,
just to make a point. (Its usually not as good as the one my wife makes,
but principle is everything.)

What is the standard British usage? My mum used to make a meat/tomato
sauce and claim it was Bolognaise, is this common?

Dick Jackson
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: nnsge01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (D. Gerdemann)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Organization: Comp. Center (ZDV) U of Tuebingen, FRG
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:15:45 GMT

In <3239@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> rabson@oxford.ac.uk (David Rabson) writes:

>Some comments from a very cursory scan of a useful article and one
>of the follow-ups --

>The use of "alternate" for "alternative" is not American.  It is just wrong.

If it's "wrong" then still it's an "error" that gets made a lot more
in the US than in the UK. In fact though, I recall reading once an
historical explanation for this US usage. I think it had something to
do with the so called "altenate system" in American politics. The
usage thus has something to do with the traditions of the country and
it is therefore rather intolerant of you to blatantly declare it
wrong.

Dale Gerdemann
From: nnsge01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (D. Gerdemann)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: `alternately' vs `alternatively' and also `momentarily' `regular' &c &c ad nauseam
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:01:21 GMT
Organization: Comp. Center (ZDV) U of Tuebingen, FRG

In <RICHARD.92Apr16133139@bilbo.harlqn.co.uk> richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby) writes:

>rabson@oxford.ac.uk (David Rabson) wrote:

>> The use of "alternate" for "alternative" is not American.  It is
>> just wrong.

>How, in general, do Americans indicate alternation as opposed to
>choice if they have (mis)used the word `alternately' to indicate the
>latter?

I think that these two concepts are significantly distinct that, in a
given context, there is little room for confusion. Maybe you should
supply a context in which you think confusion would arise. 

>Similarly, how does an American say `for a moment' rather than `in a
>moment' if not using `momentarily'?  Does `momentary' retain its
>original meaning?  If so, how do Americans feel about the discrepancy
>between `momentary' and `momentarily'?

I think that 'momentarily' means 'for a moment' in American. There are
plenty of other expressions for 'in a moment', so there's really no
problem.  I think the difference between 'momentary' and 'momentarily'
is that the first is an adjective and the second is an adverb.

>How does an American indicate regularity as opposed to normality.  To
>me `regular' means at equal time spacing or with regular shape?  (I
>can't think of another word for `regular' in the latter example, which
>is partly why I'm asking!)

Americans also speak of regular patterns, regular intervals etc, so
it's not the case that any meaning has been lost. I think the use of
'regular' for 'normal' is somewhat informal. Context should normally
(regularly?) distinguish the two. 

>These are genuine queries.  I want to know how Americans express the
>concepts of the words that they've lost.  Are there new words to take
>the place of `alternate', `regular', and `momentarily'?
>--

Speaking of confusing concepts, I confess that I always trip over the
British use of 'should' (also used by William F. Buckley): 'I should
like to know', 'I should be interested' etc. It sounds like the
speaker/writer has some obligation to be interested. Of course context
makes it clear, but I find myself momentarily thrown off by this
usage. (By the way, here's an example of the American usage of
'momentarily'.)

>richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
>RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
>Articles composed without care for punctuation and layout will be ignored.
>If you share this sentiment please copy these lines into your signature.

Dale Gerdemann
University of Tuebingen