HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 12:31:41 GMT


In article <34413@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@soldev.tti.com
(Dick Jackson) writes:

>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".

Not to suggest that all these word mavens are culinary
clods, but doth it seem to any but your scribe that there
are major gustatory deficiencies in this discussion?

"Spaghetti" is a *shape* of pasta, one of dozens the words
for which constantly delight the ear of this non-Italian.
What goes *on* the pasta is "sauce," any of hundreds that
might please the palates of Italians and non-Italians alike.
Some sauces are red (tomatoes), some are white (bechamel or
cream), some are clear (oil, butter).  No matter which of
these many marvels you put on it, you're still "having
spaghetti" if that's the pasta under the sauce.  It has no
*necessary* connection with red, or meat, or any other one
color, spice, flavor, or ingredient (other than cheese, in
my opinion).

NB I'm talking ordinary "American" here, not some fancy
gastronomical linguini, er, lingo.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: wcsjc@alfred.carleton.ca (John Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Wogs (was Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:56:31 GMT

In <1992Apr16.170428.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

>It's a natural mistake, and I imagine that (b) is the answer.  I've
>heard the "worthy oriental gentleman" explanation from many sources
>(though never the "wealthy" variant).  It seems very likely to me that
>somebody first said this as a joke, and the joke spread.

Hmmm... I once read that "wog" derives from the name of a type of rag
doll with a black face which was popular in Britain almost a century
ago.  Unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of the doll.  Can
anybody confirm/deny/expand on this ?
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (P.J. Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: P's and q's
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:04:52 GMT
Distribution: alt.usage.english
Organization: cam.eng

pete@btcase.bt.co.uk (Pete Harris) writes:

>Please could someone enlighten me as to the origin of the phrase ...

>mind one's p's and q's

I heard is was probably from:

"Mind one's pieds (feet) and queues (wigs???)"

from the last century I think when the upper social classes went to
balls etc and had to be nimble on their feet.  (Not that my history is
very good.)

Anyone else???

Philippa Hogben

pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (reverse if posting from Janet)
From: rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Missing syllables in place names
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:01:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

And there is the story of the English newlyweds who came to the States
to visit New York and Washington and to see the classic honeymooners'
stop on the Canada/New York border--Niffles.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bryan@netcom.com (Bryan Higgins)
Subject: Re: P's and q's
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 07:55:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>>> pete@btcase.bt.co.uk (Pete Harris) writes:
>>>> Please could someone enlighten me as to the origin of the phrase ...
>>>> mind one's p's and q's

>The story *I* always heard (maybe I should take this to
>alt.folklore.urban) is that it was a phrase used in printing houses,
>where the boxes for "p" and "q" type, being right next to one another,
>frequently got confused.

Especially since they are being viewed backwards.
-- 
Bryan Higgins, Berkeley, California  (bryan@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu ()
Subject: Re: Fastest-growing segment ...
Organization: clearer than blir
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 11:45:25 GMT

In article <s511mINNeu4@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
>One frequently sees sentences in newspaper articles of the form "X is the
>fastest-growing segment of the population to have property P."  For example,
>The April 9 New York Times contains a letter to the editor with a sentence 
>like the following:  "Women now constitute the fastest-growing segment of 
>the US prison population."
>
>[digression on faster deleted]
>
>The way I interpret the statement is this.  There is a set of agreed-upon 
>"segments" of our population, which undoubtedly includes the sets of
>men, women, blacks, and whites, and may include others.  Given such a 
>convention, the phrase "fastest-growing segment" is perfectly meaningful.  
>The problem I have is this:  How am I to know which segments are included 
>in this convention?  Does the letter-writer's statement imply that the female 
>prison population is growing faster than the Korean prison population?  
>than the dentist prison population?  than the Korean dentist prison 
>population?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this choice of words seems to be based on the
metaphore of a pie graph. The person is internally visualizing the
situation in their head this way and, perhaps incorrectly, assuming
you are visualizing it the same way. The groups commonly used in such
pie graphs are perhaps the convention you are looking for. I don't
defend the construction mind you; I'm just offering a possible
explanation of it's quite common usage. The wording certainly seems
sensationalistic, which is probably why it was chosen over other
alternatives. It also seems sloppy if you ask me... And you did.

-- Tad Perry   Internet:    tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu
               CompuServe:  70402,3020
               NIFTY-Serve: GBG01266
From: kirk@cs.duke.edu (Scooter Corleone)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Go figure
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:22:17 GMT
Organization: The Zymurgy Institute

In article <20082@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1216@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:
>: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.)
>:
>It means 'Go figure it out for yourself' which in turn means
>'Go work it out for yourself' ('figure' is being used figuratively,
>unless the postings were on sci.maths :-) )
>
>It is, of course, American, and fairly standard off-net idiom.
>
I think the meaning would be closer to an imperative use of "ponder". It's
usually used in a situation where the speaker is puzzled about what they're
talking about, and doesn't expect the listener to understand it either. The
most common use is when the motives of a third party aren't understood:

And the she peed all over the bus--go figure.
(Taken from a recent real-life incident.)

No worries,

Scooter Corleone

--
This has been a test of the emergency butthead system.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bayla@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Bayla Singer)
Subject: Re: Fastest-growing segment ...
Organization: Independent scholar
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:51:52 GMT


The 'fastest-growing' locution troubles me for a different reason: it is
misleading.  I hear it frequently as "the fastest-growing car dealership in
<region>", usually in a context which implies that "the reason" for the
"fast growth" is outstanding value delivered.  I growl in reply, "Right --
last year they sold one car, this year it was two!"  

--bayla
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Wogs (was Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:27:27 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr16.062147.9354@CS.ORST.EDU> smithj@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes:
>When I was a kid the general folklore was that it stood for Wiley Oriental Gentleman.
>It was applied to black people and  was as derogatory as nigger.  I later
>discovered it was also applied to Arabs, Indians and generally any dark skinned
>folks.
>Partridge (in Dictionary of Historical Slang) says it applies to Indians

In England (not Britain) there's a phrase "Wogs begin at Calais", and
it refers to any foreign-language speaking people.

I'm rather embarrassed I started this thread.

Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:41:58 GMT

In article <204469@unix.cis.pitt.edu>,
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>   Postfix "not" (which *I* happen to think is rather amusing, not
>>loathsome) owes its current popularity to its use in the "Wayne's World" 
>>sketches.  If a couple of actors can influence the language, then so can
>>we.
>
>Sure, if you manage to obtain repeated exposure to millions of admiring fans.
>Until that happens, I'll put my money on Wayne and Garth.


I'm not sure I want to get involved in this little discussion, but I do want
to point out that the last two lines quoted above constitute a self-fulfilling
prophecy.



>[...] worrying about whether
>"hopefully" should be allowed as a sentence modifier is like worrying about
>whether the Normans should be allowed to take England.


Apparently, you haven't spoken to la Thatcher lately.



Cheers!
Dhanesh
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Go figure
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:42:47 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr13.062954.1848@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Hmmm -- just curious -- why do you this is "of course, American"?

because 'figure', like 'reckon' used in a non-numeric context
is typically American.  Although we Brits have been picking up
'reckon' for a long time, we haven't latched on to 'figure'
much at all yet.

Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:18:17 GMT

In article <chris.702711118@rufus>, chris@state.COM.AU (Chris Keane) writes:
> 
> No, dago (pronounced day-go) is, in a strict interpretation, a spaniard.
> However, it is also often used to descibe wogs and people of other
> Mediterranean countries.
> 
Confusion alert: "wog" is an Australian corruption of "wop".
To the best of my knowledge, "wog" does not mean "Italian" outside Australia.

Peter.
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Comma splices?
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:56:26 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.

In article <43656@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ballardk@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kim Ballard) writes:
>a graduate school writing competency exam. I happened to never rate
>any British-educated writer's essay, but I heard my fellow staff
>members discuss that there are differences.  
>
>Can any of you help me? 
This is from a 1717 family history:

  ''The ministers serving the edict, knowing the badness of their
cause, and the evil part they were acting, thought not fit to do
it until they got a troop of Dragoons to be a guard to them, and
accordingly on 17th November 1717, being approaching the town, they
caused beat their drums, and draw their swords, and in this position
came riding through the town, guarding the ministers into the
church, riding and striking with their naked swords, at the women
and others standing by the wayside, which was a melancholy Sabbath
in Bathgate, the Sabbath day being much profaned.''

Is that the sort of comma use you mean?  We don't go quite as
overboard nowadays, but your British-educated student is completely
in the right.  (Scottish, by any chance?)  The lecturer who has
been marking this down should try not to be so parochial.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,rec.humor,soc.culture.british
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
Subject: pronunciation of British names
Followup-To: alt.usage.english 
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:31:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.143452.76@mtechca.uucp>, foster@mtechca.uucp (Jeff "Foucester") writes:

> When I went to London in 1986, the locals flamed me greatly for
> pronouncing the name Leicester (as in Square, the one with six
> six PizzaLand restaurants within two minutes stroll of each 
> other) with three syllables.

   Well, if it makes you feel any better, even the English sometimes
have trouble with English names.

   The journalist Horatio Bottomley (1860-1933) once called at the 
residence of an English nobleman.  A butler answered the door.  
Bottomley asked, "Is Lord Cholmondeley at home?"

   "Begging your pardon, sir," said the butler, "but the name is 
pronounced 'Chumly'."

   "Oh, I see", said Bottomley.  "Well, could you tell him that Horatio
Bumly is here to see him?"

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: usage
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:00:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr6.154808.10983@news.cs.brandeis.edu> murray@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Is assertion followed by negative over the course of the assertion
>in fact, as asserted, a recent American neologism?   NOT!  The pattern
>has existed in much Elizabethan poetry and drama, occurs in Shakes-
>peare, and can be found as recently as e. e. Cummings who advised
>us to "Pity this poor monster manunkind, not."

But this is not an example of the Wayne&Garth formula.  "Pity this poor
monster, manunkind" is an imperative, not a declarative sentence.  You
would have to say something like:

	I pity this poor monster, manunkind.  Not!

I see this as a significant difference.

-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2986 soc.culture.british:6177
From: ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 12:36:11 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Amethyst Systems

johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) writes:

> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
> >
> >"Rooting" for a political candidate would be anything that could be
> >metaphorically construed as cheering him or her on.
> 
> Judging by what I see of American political campaign coverage
> (Gary Hart four years ago, Bill Clinton now, Ted Kennedy every year)
> the American usage would appear to be close to the Australian . . .

Except as applied to journalists, where it more closely approximates
the British . . .

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolotl.com
From: kmuch@prg.ox.ac.uk (Kathleen Much)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: momentarily
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:01:55 GMT
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

In article <1992Apr13.051753.1131@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU> ken@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Ken Yap) writes:
>Does anybody else wince like I do when I hear momentarily used in:
>
>I'll be with you momentarily.
>
>instead of
>
>I'll be with you shortly. or
>I'll be with you in a moment. or
>I'll be with you in a while.
>
>or a host of other alternatives?

Yes. A few years ago my 10-year-old son heard the airline pilot say,
"We'll be landing momentarily." He rang for the steward and told him
he hoped we'd STAY on the ground when we touched down. Probably didn't
change the pilot's usage, though. (As for your original example, there
are a number of people I would prefer to be with momentarily--for as
short a time as possible.)

Kathleen Much
kmuch@comlab.oxford.ac.uk
also reachable at kathleen@casbs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu ()
Subject: Re: a fight to the death between our champions?
Organization: clearer than blir
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:32:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.154700.7584@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.235329.6845@Csli.Stanford.EDU> scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>>The two warring factions --- the 'there is such a thing as good usage'
>>and the 'que sera sera descriptivists' --- avoided war in the late
>>twentieth century by sending their champions into battle to the
>>death. Both sides chose 'hopefully'. The winner?
>
>But if the descriptivists are so bloody nonchalant, why don't they just
>ignore everyone else and let peace ring out?

Good question. I think the problem relates to what someone thinks this
newsgroup is for when they first subscribe to it. I thought it would
be about how English is actually used by native speakers and possible
explanations for it (descriptionist drivel). In the group I
envisioned, no one would argue that "Hopefully,..." was a terrible
choice for a sentence modifier.  I'm not talking about convenience or
anything else; there are times when this construction and only this
construction (not it's paraphrases) right to me.

On the other hand, there are a lot of subscribers, who obviously
thought it meant discussions concerning the way the English *should be
used* (prescriptionist pedantry).  To them it's a matter of logic and
style.  As a writer, I'm also interested in this aspect of usage so I
wasn't particularly disappointed to find it.  The name of this
newsgroup is ambiguous and itself exhibits sloppy usage.  I haven't
read the charter, so someone tell me. Which of these, if either, was
the original intent of this group?

-- Tad Perry   Internet:    tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu
               CompuServe:  70402,3020
               NIFTY-Serve: GBG01266
From: dant@logos.wr.tek.com (Dan Tilque)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Wogs (was Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:49:29 GMT
Organization: Upper Left Coast Liberation Army

howard@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Howard Ross) writes:
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>
>>In many parts of the former British empire, "wog" is a 
>>derogatory term referring to a member of the native population.
>
>WOG must certainly have first stood for Wealthy Oriental Gentleman, before the
>British began applying it to all and sundry.

I'm curious, where did you learn this interesting etymology?

  a. Made it up yourself
  b. Heard it from a friend
  c. Looked it up in a dictionary
  d. Don't know
  e. Same place you heard posh comes from "Port out, starboard home"

Somehow I doubt that (c) is your answer.

---
Dan Tilque	--	dant@logos.WR.TEK.COM
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:56:32 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <8163@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) writes:
:The Czar of All the Russias ruled by decrees, which were calles ukases. It's
:a perfectly normal Russian word, and used in many other countries for
:decrees imposed by authority (with a connotation of insufficient democracy).
:I don't see any reason to view it as a particularly *American* introduction
:into the language, and I'm surprised if it's not known in Britain.

Might just be me that's ignorant of it.  I would have used 'fiat' for
that concept.  Thanks for the explanation.

G
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: usage
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:12:39 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <SLAGLE.92Apr13111637@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
:   :peare, and can be found as recently as e. e. Cummings who advised
:   :us to "Pity this poor monster manunkind, not."
:   Yeah!  Another one for the FAQ file!
:Not so fast.  This one is not an assertion.  It is an
:imperative command.  The Wayne&Garth form that is the

Beg pardon - my exclamation was ambiguous.  I didn't mean the ee cummings
quotation was a definitive answer; I meant that the "Not!" topic was one
that could usefully be FAQ'd, after several discussions here.  If any, the
F Scott Fitzgerald quotation is more apporpriate than this one, though I
still have vague doubts about it.

Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: a fight to the death between our champions?
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 03:44:38 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.235329.6845@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:

>The two warring factions --- the 'there is such a thing as good usage'
>and the 'que sera sera descriptivists' --- avoided war in the late
>twentieth century by sending their champions into battle to the
>death. Both sides chose 'hopefully'. The winner?

Before beating our plowshares into swords, perhaps we should
consider whether those two classes are mutually exclusive.
I don't think they are.  We who live on the middle ground
(which is most of the ground) suggest such contests are
important but pointless, therefore only talked about rather
than acted upon.

Yours for flexible orthodoxy and unfettered innovation in
matters of language,

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
From: howard@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Howard Ross)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:19:42 GMT
 fus> <1992Apr9.111817.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> <SLAGLE.92Apr10183824@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

>In many parts of the former British empire, "wog" is a 
>derogatory term referring to a member of the native population.

WOG must certainly have first stood for Wealthy Oriental Gentleman, before the
British began applying it to all and sundry.

-- 
+  Howard Ross,                                                      +
+  Computer Centre, University of Auckland,                          +
+  Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand      FAX: +64 9 373-7425 +
+  e-mail : HA.Ross@aukuni.ac.nz    Phone : +64 9 373-7999 ext. 5830 +
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english