HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:11:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.183632.2410@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>>I meant publicity in the most general sense, i.e., including public
>>usage, such as by the media, some of which are regarded as holding to
>>an approved standard of good usage.

>Well, some of the media uses phrases like "deja-vu all over again" and
>"not-so-great superstars".  (OK, these are typical of sports broadcasts,
>but that's still part of the media.  In fact, such broadcasts have much
>broader audiences than anything one could consider "an approved standard
>of good usage" - does this make them a greater authority on language?
>This is, after all, "usage" . . .)

Yes, of course -- this is a certain *kind* of usage.  It's a public, but
informal way of speaking, one that's full of irony and witticism.  "It's
deja vu all over again" is an alleged Yogi-ism, but one that reminds one
(with a laugh) of what deja vu is; "not-so-great superstars" is an
oxymoron, a standard rhetorical figure for three millennia.  In formal
American usage, one might shy away from this sort of thing, or at least
keep it down, but broadcast journalism intends to be entertaining (as
though you hadn't noticed) and thus uses certain figures and stock phrases
-- two examples of which you supply.


Roger
>
>The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:48:57 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
 <1992Nov19.232920.25852@Princeton.EDU> <98529@netnews.upenn.edu>

In article <98529@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L.
Crawford) says:
>
>Some of my best friends don't talk so good.  In fact, my dearly beloved
>flays the language daily.  But when he says, "She don't care," I don't
>correct him.  Fortunately, he doesn't say it too often.  Do I accept the
>usage of "don't" rather than "doesn't" as good English in that context?  NO.
>It's hideous, it grates on the ear, and it's wrong.

You say "in that context" and yet you don't really give any context.
At any rate, you don't *really* wish, do you, that the Beatles had
sung "She's got a ticket to ride but she doesn't care...my baby doesn't
care"? I venture to suggest that that would not have been an improvement
on their original lyric. What do you mean, "it's wrong"? Surely
Lennon and McCartney weren't wrong, considering they were more
popular than Jesus Christ.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Derivation of "wonk"
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.081549.20634@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth L. Blumberg) writes:
> Ted B Samsel writes:
>>I like this word WONK. As in  policy WONK. Any ideas on the
>>derivations thereof?
>>-- 
>>Ted....
> 
> Well, the Jargon File 2.9.10 gives it as originating from Australian slang.
> Any Aussies out there who can confirm or deny this?

Sounds implausible - unless it's supposed to be a variant of "wank".

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: j..barrett@madness.network23.com (J. Barrett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: i am expressing mysel
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Terminal Madness BBS - Newport, RI - 401-848-9069
Reply-To: j..barrett@madness.network23.com (J. Barrett) 

RZ>From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
RZ>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
RZ>Subject: Re: i am expressing myself in lower-caseDate: 17 Nov 1992 14:46:38
RZ>Message-ID: <1eb0keINN1q1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
RZ>Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)

RZ>In a previous article, jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)

RZ>>
RZ>>i have been hooked up to the internet for a few months now and i have
RZ>>noticed that more than a few people write exclusively in lower-
RZ>>case.
Hi Rich,
I use lower case and hardly any punctuation because I am
visually impaired and it makes things easier to read for me.
I also don't indent or use anything I should if I was working
I am a proofreader for some companies.

RZ>After programming in basic for years, I found it near impossible to
RZ>use a comma in my non-computer life.
my husband programs in 'c' and he can make the input switch or prompt
for lower or upper case letters or vice versa. That way no matter what
the person inputs it will switch it to something recognizable so that
the program can continue running.
        j.

---
 . SLMR 2.1a . I'm in shape ... round's a shape isn't it?
                                                                                                                 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:23:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.181046.21137@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>	[...]
>In scientific contexts, on the other hand, there would be no sense
>at all in trying, for example, to intensify "Two is the unique even
>prime number" with a comparative.
>
>--Daz 

Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:

a)	2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.

b)	1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.  

Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
than the number 2, in the above contexts.

--Daz
From: palepink@lily.arts.com (Suzii Abe)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: mnemonics in general
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 20:30:42 PST

eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> Most of the other mnemonics I've seen - usually in
> the form of complete sentences - have been quite useless to me
> because the only way I could reconstruct them was by using the
> original information as a mnemonic for the mnemonic.  They are
> interesting curios, but I wonder whether anyone has found them to
> have mnemonic value. 

I find that "Kings play cards; only fairies get sick" has been
genuinely useful, although I find I have to remember, since 1982,
to also remember (no, really, I'm not scrambling this sentence--I
*intend* to write this way!) not to share it with people.

--Suzii.
palepink@lily.arts.com

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:01:46 GMT

srinivas@lips.ecn.purdue.edu (The Abode of Wealth) writes:

>              Using the full form is not an alternative here because
> I am using abbreviations of long technical phrases and it is very tedious to
> use the full forms a hundred times.

In article <1992Nov18.141032.26433@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
lange@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

> That's the one most legitimate reason for acronyms.

No. It's not.  People managed perfectly well before acronyms to say what
they meant.  Even scientists managed.  The indigestible alphabet soup that
is much of today's scientific and technical writing is completely unnecessary.

From van Leunen's Handbook for Scholars

  Initialisms and Acronyms

  With initial mania everywhere, it would be surprising if no scholars
  were infected.  Treat the disease with a dose of plain old-fashioned
  words:

  [wrong] Negotiations then began between the Cooperative Wholesalers
          Society (CWS) and the Milk Producers Revenue Board (MPRB).
          The CWS wanted price supports; the MPRB wanted free competition.

  [right] Negotiations then began between the Cooperative Wholesalers
          Society and the Milk Producers Revenue Board.  The wholesalers
          wanted price supports; the producers wanted free competition.

One can do without acronyms if one tries, unless, of course, it is required
by government red tape, or unless the whole field has gone so bonkers about
initialisms that there's no hope left.  I confess that I wouldn't know what
to replace TCP/IP with, or AIDS.  The best one can to in a field where the
disease is epidemic is to avoid it as much as one can.

I confess I use them myself, but never more than two or three distinct
initialisms in a single paper, and usually ones that will be familiar
to most of my readers (DNA, CLT, MLE).

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:25:08 GMT

In <1992Nov16.192525.27740@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>I believe we should only use "quite" if we can use "not quite" in the
>same place.  We can, for example, say that someone is "not quite dead",
>meaning "barely alive".  This makes sense because dying is a process,
>and one can well advanced in this process without yet being dead.

>But what would "not quite unique" mean?

Two of a kind?
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:28:54 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <By2MLx.Ey2@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>
>I certainly think it's fair to set a much higher standard and expect
>Standard English in written language.
>_____                                __
>\\ // Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk /o \/
> \X/  "I'm the boy without a sole"  \__/\

I mildly disagree with you Paul. It is certainly fair to set a standard
in *formal* written English, but it is impossible to set a standard in
informal writing.
      
                                                              Mandar.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                         - The Beatles
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:13:09 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov16.182859.25273@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>I say that a word means what LOTS OF PEOPLE say it means -- namely those
>who use it.  I say that there is no other standard for determining meaning
>of words.  

>And I would love to hear of any other standard, any other way aside
>from actual usage, of determining what a word means.

There is more in question than this.

A person is free to form their own judgement, to approve or disapprove
of some new trend in usage, or even to suggest a new coinage (such as
"hir"). If their arguments & publicity work, then in time they may
influence enough language users for their view to become first an
accepted usage, and ultimately perhaps even the proper usage.

It is also the duty of every language user to consider which side to
take on any developing usage -- to condone or condemn. If enough
language users care enough about the language this should result in
improvements. If too many language users are simply sheep who
thoughtlessly propagate every fresh mistake and confusion, then the
language will degenerate.

I am disappointed to see so much discussion in this group polarised
between naive prescriptivists who think they know how it ought to be,
and sheep who suppose that any usage employed by some people somewhere
is by that fact alone justified as a usage which cannot be criticised.
-- 
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: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: i am expressing myself in lower-case
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:52:39 GMT



i have been hooked up to the internet for a few months now and i have
noticed that more than a few people write exclusively in lower-
case.  this has been my first exposure (outside of poetry) to
correspondence and composition of this sort; none of my family or
friends has ever written exclusively in lower-case.  i wonder why
people do this?  is it a matter of being able to type quicker?
is it that (nb: didn't use "because") people feel this kind of prose
looks better?  i will admit to finding it a little grating, but not
even close to being as annoying as ALL CAPS EXPRESSION.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: claudiak@i88.isc.com (Claudia Kale (STG))
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:02:52 GMT

In article <-278349990@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>>idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>>In article <1e83k0INN7tn@uranium.sto.pdb.sni.de> sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
>>>And in spain:   UNIX is a brand of fire-extinguishers
>>
>>And, in the UK, at least, VAX make carpet cleaners.
>...which they advertise with the slogan "Nothing sucks like a VAX" (I kid you
>not).
>
>Andrew

If memory serves, those advertisements ran about 2 years ago, and they
were "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux!". VAX carpet cleaners run
adverts which are somewhat less memorable.

Cheers,
Claudia


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: last,latest,latter
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:18:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.111738.21414@di.unipi.it>, Nico Tranquilli <ntranqu@caticsuf.cati.csufresno.edu> writes:
> Could anyone please tell me the differences between
> LAST, LATEST(?), LATTER ?
> 
> It's an ignorant question, I know and I also know that the last time I
> posted here I had no replies, so I wonder if this newgroup is "reserved"
> for native english speakers only...)

Not at all; some of our most interesting contributions have been from
people for whom English is a second language.

Here's a rough answer:

Last: the very final one.
  "I'm giving up betting.  My horse came last again."
  "The very last thought that crossed his mind, before he died, was ..."
  "The last thing I do before going to bed is to wind the clock."
Sometimes a broader meaning is permitted:
  "The weather has been bad for the last few days."
  "I was speaking to her last week."
  "The last news I've had is that he still plans to come, but we
   won't know for sure until he telephones tomorrow."
  (In this third example, some people would prefer to say
   "the latest news ... ".)


Latest: the most recent, with the suggestion that there's more still
  to come.  Most commonly used in the sense "latest in time".
  "The latest fashion."

Latter: generally used only in reference to the second of two things
  (in contrast to "the former"), when talking about something 
  mentioned in, for example, the preceding sentence.
  "You can pay in cash or by credit card.  Most people seem to
   prefer the latter option."

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: marder@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Stephen Marder)
Subject: Paintball/Coloured-ball war games (?)
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
Keywords: names for a popular style of war game
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:12:53 GMT

   This is an appeal to anyone with any knowledge of what is, evidently, a
very popular form of activity/recreation called 'coloured-ball war games'.
According to a local source, 'the game originated in the mid-1970s in
Canada, where some farmers hit on the idea of using special dye-firing
guns fired from helicopters to mark their cattle herds, which were spread
across huge areas... The game gradually spread to the US and Britain.
Today, it is more widespread in Britain than elsewhere, and the country
boasts more than 200 clubs.

   'Players are divided into two competing teams -- attackers and
defenders. The battlefield and the objective are determined before the
game begins. The objective for the attacking team is usually to gain
control of the defending team's flag or fuel barrels. When the start
signal is given, attackers advance on the position of the enemy. A player
hit by a coloured ball is knocked out of competition. Because it is easy
to remove the colour that sticks to the player when he is hit, players are
required to call out that they have been hit and to wear yellow bands
around their arms so that enemy soldiers do not shoot at them as they
leave the battlefield for the resting camp to await the end of the battle.'

   A local informant has offered the term 'tag warfare' and 'paintball' in
addition to 'coloured-ball war games' already referred to. Can anyone
confirm the validity of these names? Does anyone know any other, regional
varieties of the game, as well as other ways of referring to it?

-- 
Stephen Marder 			    P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Russian Section 		    Email:Stephen.Marder@vuw.ac.nz
School of European Languages        Telephone: +64 4 472-1000 x8824
Victoria University of Wellington
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:42:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.180410.20206@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu
(Roger Lustig) writes (flaming Gabe Wiener):

> I take it, then, that you've actually looked up "quite" and "unique"
> in a dictionary or similar?  Again, I refer you to Evans and Evans,
> who address the issue directly.
>
> Now, having said that, what does "quite unique" have to do with the
> "either/or" issue?  As I said (and you chose to delete), "quite
> unique" can mean: not only unique, but also unapproached.  People
> don't just use the word "unique" to mean "one-of-a-kind", simply
> because such distinctions aren't made often.  Teh *degree* of
> difference is also of interest in many cases.

Having once written dictionaries for a living, I don't believe them
to be gospel, just the attempts of harmless drudges to get fairly
accurate descriptions of what words mean.

Does anyone really use "quite unique" (or "really unique", "truly unique",
and so forth) except when trying to hype something?  No doubt the pages of
Vogue and House Beautiful are full of such usages.

Pardon me if I don't want to sound like that.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:14:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.181046.21137@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>>	[...]
>>In scientific contexts, on the other hand, there would be no sense
>>at all in trying, for example, to intensify "Two is the unique even
>>prime number" with a comparative.
>>
>>--Daz 
>
>Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:
>
>a)	2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.
>
>b)	1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.  
>
>Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
>perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
>than the number 2, in the above contexts.

Wrong - there are not infinitely more real numbers than integers.  If I
had my university notes, I could trot out the proof, but in the
meantime:  there are infinite numbers of integers and of real numbers.
"Infinite" being an absolute term, you can't say that one infinite set
is larger than the other (and certainly not infinitely larger).

Hmm, is Roger now going to argue that "quite infinite" and "more
infinite" are legitimate?  :-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:32:11 GMT

Since the takeover of 2 pers. sg. function by *you* and its forms, many
speakers of English have felt the need to differentiate sg. and plu.
in the 2 pers. by resorting to constructions like *ya'll*, *youse*,
and most recently, *you guys* to reinforce the plural.

Dennis

--

debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tdlg9831@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tracey Dianne Layng)
Subject: Re: pop &c.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:11:05 GMT

[stuff deleted]

I read somewhere that Kleenex used to pay writers who remembered to note
that Kleenex is a trademark. 

Tracey
From: meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Meach)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:58:50 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <TSOS.180.722166015@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:

>I *do* hope that next spring, when the "unique" discussion has calmed
>down (*) and is almost forgotten, some innocent person new to this group
>will come up and ask the magic question again. (I even consider to hire
>someone to do this ...)
>
>--
>(*) "hopefully" 

On the other hand, it might be just as entertaining to segue into a civilised
discussion of the use/abuse of the word "hopefully"!  [Hopefully, you don't
expect *me* to start it!]

--jm
meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: dassn't
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:49:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov14.190523.16065@rose.com>, greg.grainger@rose.com (greg
grainger) wrote:
> 
> 
> Date Entered: 11-14-92 14:00
> On Nov. 12, chantal@osf.org (Chantal Eide) wrote:
> 
> C(>I heard a very old lady use the word "dassn't."
> C(>"I dassn't miss another day."  Sort of like dare not
> C(>or ought not.  Does anyone know something about this
> C(>word?  Where it originated?  If it's a contraction?
> 
> It's a contraction of 'dare not' - I have always had the idea that it is a
> dialect variant from the American South.

I have heard (or at least read) "dast" as a colloquial equivalent of "dare"
in the Southern states.  It would be derived from "durst" or "darest,"
originally past-tense forms or 2nd-person singular present, but I think
"dast" can fit most any tense or person.  "Dassn't," I think, must be a
contraction of "dast not."

I looked for "dast" in the OED, finding "darest" and "dar'st" and "durst"
under "dare" -- along with lots of other forms and the fact that our
present tense forms for this verb come from the original preterite tense. 
I had thought it would turn out to be a subjunctive form, but no.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english