HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:38:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Sep7.154658.8704@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.212544.5046@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>> 1 fag n 1 chiefly Brit : TOIL, DRUDGERY  2 a: an English public-school
>>      boy who acts as servant to an older schoolmate.
>
>1 is correct but not that common; 2a is almost certainly archaic by
>now as the public schools become more liberal. It doesn't even
>mention the most common British meaning: slang for a cigarette.

Note that this dictionary orders meanings historically with the oldest
first.  "Fag" meaning "cigarette" is a whole 'nother entry with a
different etymology.  It's also not marked as being necessarily British.

>
>> public school n 1: an endowed secondary boarding school in Great
>>      Britain offering a classical curriculum and preparation for the
>>      universities or public service.

>Exceedingly out of date. A Public School is not necessarily boarding
>(although most of them are partly), often offers a more scientific
>curriculum than a state school and has no special place in
>preparation for university. The only thing that sets a public school
>apart these days is the fact that it is independent of the local
>education authority and the government department for education.

Ok, I'll buy that the definition is a bit out of date (the dictionary
was printed in 1981, though).

>> Doesn't look *too* bad, especially for a dictionary aimed at
>> American college students.  How much space do student dictionaries
>> on the other side of the Atlantic devote to American usage?

>I'm not sure that there is a direct equivalent. Those students who
>have dictionaries would probably use something like the Concise
>Oxford, which is a more-or-less comprehensive dictionary of written
>English and includes many Americanisms ("sox" as a plural for "sock"
>for instance.)

The only place you see "sox" for "socks" (outside of "cute"
advertising) is in the names of two baseball teams: the Chicago White
Sox and the Boston Red Sox.  Both of these names date back to the last
century when presumably the spelling was more common.

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: garfinkeling ( and farnarkeling)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:46:03 GMT

In article <16260@bcars664.bnr.ca>, baril@bnr.ca writes:
> I am Usenet neophyte and I think I've just found my favo(u)rite 'rec'
> newsgroup!  Gender neutral pronouns, will vs would, have went... I must _of_
> :-) died and gone to heaven!
> 
> I've used the word 'garfink(e)ling' for years to describe various rhetorical
> tactics used to evade difficult questions, especially those which attempt to
> avoid a specific answer by moving the discussion to a more general theoretical
> level.  For example, the question "Do you love me?"  might be answered, "What
> is love?" [Sound familiar?]
> 
> I've yet to find it in any dictionary.  Any suggestions?
> 
> David Baril             "Expect the worst and you won't be disappointed"
> baril@bnr.ca
> Ottawa                    It's not their fault!                               
-- 
This contribution reminded me of `farnarkeling'.

To quote from the `Macquarie Dictionary':

_farnekeling_ n. Colloq. activity which creates an appearance of productivity
but which has no substance to it. [name coined by comedian John Clarke for a
ficticious team sport for which he acted as sports commentator in the 1980s
television series `The Gillies Report']


John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
From: long@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Literafisms
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:59:02 EST
Organization: Queensland University of Technology


sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA) writes:
 
>> A literafism is an adjective created in a piece of literature.  An
>>eponym has a much more general definition.  Sort of like the
>>difference between describing you as a dullard and describing you as a
>>tedious, nitpicky little fuck.

Ah, I get it now. Sort of like describing you as overreactive and describing
you as overreactive.

Geoff Long, QUT, Brisbane, Australia. Email: g.long@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: 'Taking silk'
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:46:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep05.062532.4028@rose.com> greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger) writes:
>From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
>Subject: Re: 'Taking silk'
>Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:25:30 GMT


>Date Entered: 09-05-92 02:17
>On Sept. 4, Lauren Crawford wrote:

>CR>I'm plowing through a British mystery novel right now and have gotten to
>CR>a passage that describes a character as having "taken silk" and now
>CR>operating a thriving law practice.  I assume the phrase means the
>CR>equivalent of our "passing the bar" -- true?  Where does it come
>CR>from?

>If I remember right, it refers to a sort of higher-ranking or more
>prestigious position in the legal profession, possibly Q.C. - Queen's
>Council.

>It comes from the black silk robes worn by both counsel and judges in
>British (and Canadian and Australian) courts, even today.

>Hint - you might run across the expression, 'my friend' - in British (and
>Canadian and Australian) courtroom usage, opposing counsel is referred to
>as 'my learned friend'. Much more civilized.

>There IS a difference between 'barrister' and 'solicitor'.


>                                                Cheers,
>                                                Greg.


>Greg Grainger
>Toronto, Ontario.
>11:03:26 pm, Fri 09-04-1992.
>greg.grainger@rose.com

>------------------

>Personal policy statement:
>Neither flames nor flame-bait will be responded to.
>---
>   OLX 2.2   Join army: travel, meet interesting people & kill them!
>   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
If a lady barrister drops her briefs, does that make her a solicitor ? :-)
-------- PAUL R OSBORN, Research Scientist, Sensing Technology --- /\/\ --
                BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia  / / /\
Snail   :       P.O. Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287                 / / /  \
Tel     :       +61 49 51-0605  Fax : +61 49 50-2126            / / / /\ \
Telex   :       AA 28768                                        \ \/ / / /
Internet:       pel@resntl.bhp.com.au                            \  / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Improper spellingscreen
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:41:58 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep8.024228.1306@guvax.georgetown.edu> aroshwald@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:
>In article <10611@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>> <...>  apart from "weird", there is "(a)theism"/"(a)theist",
>> "deity", "foreign", "their" (which many people can't distinguish
>> from "there" anyway), all of which I have seen misspelt with "ie"
>> more than once.  <...>  Not what I would call a reasonable rule.
>
>Yes, but 'weird' is the only one of these words in which the vowel
>combination in question is pronounced as a single long E.

Single long "e", that is, [i:]?  I'll be damned if I don't hear [I@]
there (that is, [wI@d]).

So that rule only caters for "ie"/"ei" sequences with a phonetic value
of [i:]?  Is there a separate rule for the rest, or are they simply
supposed to be memorised?  My guess is that people simply apply the
`"i" before "e" unless after "c"' half of the rule, ignoring the
second half about the pronunciation.

>> And I once saw "who's" (for "whose") on a plate.  Yes, it had been
>> produced that way.  Sigh.
>
>Hooz plate was that?

It belonged to an Edinburgh University student, in whose home I was
having tea one evening.  It was used for biscuits.  You may have come
across about a story about four fellows styled Everybody, Somebody,
Anybody, and Nobody--how there was a job that Everybody could have
done, and Everybody thought Somebody would, and Somebody thought
Anybody could, so finally Nobody did it--so this instructive story was
told on the plate, and the title was (in large letters):

     W h o ' s   J o b ?

I don't think I enjoyed the biscuits that evening.

I seem to remember that the plate was made in England.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au
Subject: "the" (and "a")
Organization: BHP Research, Newcastle Laboratories
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:58:38 GMT

I have a question, especially for those taught English as a second language,
regarding the pronunciation of "the". A usage I have noticed is to pronounce
"the" with the indeterminate vowel (approximately "thuh") in normal speech and
to use an emphasised "e" (approximately "thee") to indicate special emphasis.
For example, "this is 'thuh' way" indicating that this is an efficient path to
use to reach your objective (as opposed to "this is a way", which is generally
non-committal about its efficiency), and "this is 'thee' way" indicating that
this is the *only* path that will take you to your objective.

I have just noticed while writing this (and rehearsing the phrases in my mind)
that a similar thing could be said of "a"; ie. "this is 'uh' way" - I offer
this path for your consideration, "this is 'ay' way" - I offer this path for
your consideration but bear in mind it may not be the best.

Are these usages common? More particularly, was anyone *taught* them?

Andrew
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:38:12 GMT
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1992Sep8.071409.21537@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
writes:
>                        [...deleted...]
> I believe Oxford is a trademark for the Oxford University Press.  So if
> something is titled "The Oxford <whatever>", it's from them.  And they
> did publish an Oxford American Dictionary.  I'm not sure what it's like,
> I've just seen it on the shelf.
> 
                          [...deleted...]

I have a copy.  It's not very good.  It doesn't give any etymology, and
I frequently can't find the word I want.

Marie Coffin
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Brit. vs. Amer. spelling, was: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:41:39 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <6sxnjrp@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:

>I still can't come up with an explanation for the Brittish _centre_, _metre_
>and others instead of the _center_, _meter_, et al. that are used here in
>the US.

Still? Just how much research have you actually done on this, if you
haven't even got as far as opening an etymological dictionary?

>Does anyone know why this difference exists?

Look up any etymological dictionary.

>Eliminating one, two, or three letters from common words will save money.

Not as much money as would by saved if every posting that could be
answered by looking up a dictionary was removed from the net!
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: avoiding sexist language (was Re: Less versus Fewer)
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:06:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep9.111231.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>> 
>> Oooh!  Free food in Australia!  
>
>OK, Lauren, I caught the implied smiley; but just in case anyone
>missed the point: an Australian "cashier" has slightly higher status
>than a check-out operator.  I'm not sure precisely where to draw
>the line, but a cashier is certainly too important to be confined to
>duties like counting groceries and handing out change.


Rats!  Guess I'll take the money I saved on airfare and spend it
at Safeway.  No vegemite there, though.  Sigh.




-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

I believe we are on the irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy -- but that could change.   -- J. Danforth Quayle
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Brit. vs. Amer. spelling, was: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:16:08 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <6sxnjrp@lynx.unm.edu>, jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
> 
> I still can't come up with an explanation for the Brittish _centre_, _metre_
> and others instead of the _center_, _meter_, et al. that are used here in
> the US.  Does anyone know why this difference exists?
> 

It exists because these -er spellings seem as strange to some
of us as spelling 'apple' as 'appel'.

-- 
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: andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au
Subject: Re: What is a GAROTTE?
Organization: BHP Research, Newcastle Laboratories
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:07:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.025134.1307@guvax.georgetown.edu>, aroshwald@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:
> In article <Bu7wv3.51L@ibmpcug.co.uk>, object@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ken Tough) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep07.094229.8276@raet-sh.UUCP> 
>> richard@raet-sh.UUCP (Richard van Denzel) writes:
>>>
>>>Is there someone who knows what kind of weapon a GAROTTE is?
>>>
>> 
>> A favourite of the mafia, a garotte is a piece of strong cord (preferably
>> a piece of piano wire), with some sort of handle or grip on each end.
>> 
>> You simply wrap the cord or wire around the victim's neck (from behind)
>> and pull the ends.  Quick and easy, although the victim tends to
>> empty his/her bowels all over your feet.
> Was it not the Inquisition (the Spanish Inquisition perhaps) which
> invented  -- or at least first employed -- this lovely device? 
> (Let us give credit where it is due.) 
> 
I don't know about originating with the Inquisition but I believe it was used
for quite some time by the Spanish as an official form of capital punishment.

Andrew
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: euphemistically constructed acronym
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:35:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <18nhcjINNs49@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis) writes:

>And just when did the venerable 'fubar' get changed to 'foobar?'

<Sigh!> Some people can't even spell acronyms :-)
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Hard-to-Spell Words / Spelling Bees for Adults???
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 20:25:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.165833.3880@cas.org> zfs60@cas.org () writes:
>i am looking for a list of english words that are hard to spell, and a
>guy (fellow, chap,...) like me would be spelling it wrong most of the
>time.  i would appreciate it if anyone has such a list online could
>send it to me.  any pointers to books on this subject are welcome as
>well.
>
	[...]
>
>thanks a zillion,
>
>--john


I don't know if this is what you have in mind, but...
near the end of Eugene Maleska's rather enjoyable book, 
"A Pleaure in Words," there is a list of common but oft-
misspelled words.  Some are correct in the list and some not;
you are supposed to decide which are which.  (Answers are on
a separate page.)

By the way, does anyone know of opportunities for adults to
engage in the silliness of a spelling bee?  They used to a lot
of fun for me when I was in public school, so many years ago...

--Daz
End of article 11723 (:
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What is a GAROTTE?
Date: 9 Sep 1992 13:19:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


[stuff deleted]

>Is there someone who knows what kind of weapon a GAROTTE is?

[stuff deleted]

My Webster's II (New Riverside Dictionary, Office Edition) defines
garrote (or garrotte) as:  1a. A method of execution by strangulation with
an iron collar.  b. The collar used.
   ^^^^ ^^^^^^

-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: pjl@sparc6.cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Lucas)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "cannot" or "can not?"
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:18:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In <1992Sep12.134105.15656@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.041110.13990@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> pjl@sparc10.cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Lucas) writes:
>>	First, are they interchangeable?  If not, what's the difference?
>>	If so, which is preferred (more formal) if either?  Thanks in
>>	advance.

>I've always used "cannot" in even the most formal of writing.  I don't think
>you'd find too many occurances of "can not" anymore.

>The "all right" vs. "alright" situation is a different story though.  For
>some reason that one has been taking its time at gaining universal acceptance.

	Thanks for your reply.

	Ah, but I've always considered "alright" an abomination--it makes
	my eyes water just to look at it.  After all "all wrong" is two
	words, hence "all right."
-- 
	- Paul J. Lucas				University of Illinois	
	  AT&T Bell Laboratories		at Urbana-Champaign
	  Naperville, IL			pjl@cs.uiuc.edu
From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Phobia
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:11:23 GMT
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

Hello netters.

  As I understand it, the word "xenophobia" means "fear or distaste against
something different." Therefore, "People of <some country> are not
friendly to foreign visitors because they are xenophobic" is a correct
sentence.

  Then, how can I describe those who have a repulsive feeling against his/her
own culture or fellow citizens. Is there any good noun/adjective?
I once wrote the following sentence and put myself into, ah, an embarrassing
situation.

"When I walk on the street of Washington D.C., I often come across Japanese 
tourists, but they seem to try to neglect me (I'm Japanese). When they
_mistakingly_ have an eye contact with me, I usually smile back. Then
suddenly, they avert their eyes as if they saw something disgusting.
Maybe, they are just homophobic in a foreign country."

   I'm not homosexual if I should mention it, and if I had known the meaning
of "homophobic", I wouldn't have used that word. But then, what can I use?

Michiaki Masuda
From: aroshwald@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What is a GAROTTE?
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:51:34 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <Bu7wv3.51L@ibmpcug.co.uk>, object@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ken Tough) writes:
> 	alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.
> 
> In article <1992Sep07.094229.8276@raet-sh.UUCP> 
> richard@raet-sh.UUCP (Richard van Denzel) writes:
>>
>>Is there someone who knows what kind of weapon a GAROTTE is?
>>
>>Please e-mail me directly, because I am not a subscriber to this newsgroup.
>>
>>Richard.
> 
> 
> A favourite of the mafia, a garotte is a piece of strong cord (preferably
> a piece of piano wire), with some sort of handle or grip on each end.
> 
> You simply wrap the cord or wire around the victim's neck (from behind)
> and pull the ends.  Quick and easy, although the victim tends to
> empty his/her bowels all over your feet.
Was it not the Inquisition (the Spanish Inquisition perhaps) which
invented  -- or at least first employed -- this lovely device? 
(Let us give credit where it is due.)
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 5 Sep 1992 10:17:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu () says:

>In article <92246.155543IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, <IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>
>Re poor spellers:
>
>[deletions]
>
>> What is the connection between these errors and the fact that people don't
>> read books nowadays (almost) and that the overall cultural level tends if
>> not to decrease, then at least to shift to a non-praiseworthy state.


>
>After years of teaching college I am still puzzled by this very
>question.  For a long time I thought that poor spelling was due to
>little reading: not so.  I've had brilliant and well-read students who
>wrote well-thought-out stuff, but had trouble spelling.  I don't think
>it has anything to do with how much one reads--but then what does it
>have to do with?-- 
>

I'd love to see a study or two done on the subject.  It's my strong
impression that the ability to spell well is inborn, a genetic difference,
like the ability to smell certain chemicals. 

In my writer's workshop, I've seen poor spelling in well-read, and even
erudite, people.  And in my own family, poor spelling seems to follow a
vaguely Mendelian pattern. 

It may be that anyone can memorize words to pass a spelling test, but only
some people just "naturally" spell correctly in daily writing.  Of course,
good spellers are largely readers (because non-readers don't have the
opportunity to demonstrate their ability in this direction), but not all
readers are good spellers. 

Bonita Kale
From: hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Why don't you re-write this . . .
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:38:11
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
	<1992Sep2.140827.11164@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com's message of Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.140827.11164@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange) writes:
|maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
|: 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 like your forcefulness.  May I suggest that you use
|"s/he"?  This bastardization is _really_ ugly and 
|almost androgynous. Besides, it'll completely grab
|your reader's attention when s/he stumbles over it.

NO NO NOOOO!!!!  "s/he" means "s or he," which is *not* the same as
"she/he," which means "she or he."  PLEASE don't encourage that
terrible bastardization of the trusty slash.