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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:07:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.152451.15203@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <Bxuw7t.GGr@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>In article <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.

>>Why?

>Because a qualifier points to one possibility out of a set; if it
>doesn't narrow the set of possible interpretations, it's just useless
>weight.

Well, what if "quite" isn't a qualifier, but an intensifier?

And if you claim that that's a kind of qualifier, too, then why
*can't* we say "not quite unique"?  

As someone else pointed out, "quite" and "not quite" are not opposites;
they used "dead" to make the point.  We don't say it that way, but the
opposite of "quite dead/unique/funny/whatever" is "quite not dead/etc.",
or, more properly, "Quite alive/common/unfunny/etc."

And, of course, there are the obvious examples of "not quite unique":
they mean "yes, there's another example somewhere, but this is rare
enough for our purposes."

>If a qualifier produces a smaller set of meanings, then that leaves
>another set - the meaning or meanings that were excluded - the "not"
>set.  

Not.  See above.  8-)  The complement of "quite" is "not at all," 
not "not quite."

>shapes.  But if I say "a round circle", what am I excluding -
>"not-round circles"?)

Sure.  Sewing circles, for instance.  8-)

>So if I quality "unique" with "quite", what meanings am I excluding,
>if not "not quite unique"?

"Quite un-unique."

>>>But what would "not quite unique" mean?

>>"It's not quite unique -- there's a machine in Colorado that does much
>>the same thing -- but it's not exactly commonplace, all the same."

>Why is this better than "It's not unique"?  You've just added a
>useless word, just weighed down your text unnecessarily.  I'd say

Not so: the nuance that "not quite" adds actually makes the rest of
the sentence unnecessary, or at the very least explains it.

>something like:  "It's uncommon, but not unique; there's a machine
>in Colorado that does much the same thing."

"It's uncommon but not unique" is longer than "it's not quite unique."
Your point?

>Too many people today think adding words indiscriminately makes their
>text look more important (look at standard bureaucratese!).  But all it

Irrelevant.  Have you any evidence that the centuries-old idiom "quite
unique" came about through a desire to seem important?

>does is dilute the meaning - at the extreme, to incomprehensibility.

Not in this case, though.  "Quite unique" has a commonly understood
meaning.

>(And, in fact, this technique is often used to deceive - look at the
>advertising industry .  .  .)

Irrelevant.  "Quite unique" is not used this way.

Roger
From: igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp ("Yoshiyuki Igarashi")
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Q about the usage of but and though
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:06:16 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Centre for Informatics, WASEDA University
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: wucc.cfi.waseda.ac.jp

I'd like to know the acceptability of the following sentences with
_but_/_though_:

(1) Congressmen, but not the general public, can propose a bill.
(2) Congressmen(,) though not the general public(,) can propose a bill.

Would you be kind enough to let me know how good they sound to you?
(Please don't care about the correctness of the content.  Just think
about the grammatical forms of the sentences.)
--
Yoshiyuki Igarashi @ Tokyo International University  (~~T~~) T T  T
E-mail: igarashi@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp                I    I I  I
        igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp                       U    U  UU
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: i am expressing myself in lower-case
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:24:11 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <1992Nov16.195239.19831@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
|> 
|> 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.

Oh come on.  One can type quicker in lower case, upper case or in mixed 
case.  Are you trying to say quicker can only be typed in lower case?

I suspect that people type in lower case because it allows them to type
more quickly.

Sorry, but this *is* alt.usage.english.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|"With just enough of learning to misquote."       |
|                                   --Lord Byron   |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:09:18 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu

Quoting "kirschenbaum" at a remove or two:
>>From the Oxford Companion to the English Language ("Trademark"):
>>
>>      Everyday words of English that were once trademarks (some now
>>      universal, some more common in one variety of English than
>>      another, some dated, all commonly written without an initial
>>      capital) include aspirin, band-aid, cellophane, celluloid,
[...]
>>      Trademarks facing difficulties include Astroturf, Dacron,
[...]

Let's not forget yo-yo and X-acto knife.

--------------------- 
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |  
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: How's it hanging? (was Re: What's cooking?)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.170942.15605@oracorp.com>, harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper) writes:
> 
> Seriously though, back to the past participle.  The rule is a little
> more complicated, the way I understand it.  An animate being was hanged
> if its death came by hanging.  An inanimate object was hung when it was
> dangled somewhere.  So it's proper to say (apologies to Mel Brooks):
> 
> 	The cowboy and his horse were hanged at dawn.  Their corpses
> 	were hung in the public square afterwards.
> 
> -- Doug (never hanged like a horsethief) Harper
> 
> P.S.  It may even be more complicated.  The corpse of Cromwell was
> disinterred and then (hanged/hung) for a traitor and regicide.  Which
> is it?  I'd say "hanged" there because the intent was to treat the
> corpse as though it were animate and could suffer punishment.  The same
> way, you might say that an effigy of <choose a politician or sports
> official> was hanged.

I prefer a simpler rule.  Forget about the animate/inanimate distinction.
"Hung" refers to all forms of dangling, but "hanged" refers to a
very specific procedure which involves putting a rope around the neck
and then letting the victim drop.  From this point of view, there's
no doubt that the corpse of Cromwell was hanged.
-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: mnemonics in general
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:28:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.111927.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> 
> Observation: while trying to reconstruct these mnenomics, I found
> myself trying to find words which would fit the digits, which
> rather defeats the point.  I find the numbers easy to remember,
> but not the words, and was trying to use the digits of pi as a
> mnemonic for the original quotations.  Is this just me, or have
> others noticed the same thing?
---
I have no difficulty remembering pi to 20 decimal places but have never
remembered any mnemonic therefor.

I also have no trouble quoting my Amex or Mastercard number. 

I imagine some people have the sort of memory which makes this easy; others
don't.
-----
> About thirty years ago, telephone numbers in large Australian cities
> consisted of two letters followed by four digits.  This was
> replaced by an all-digit system, and I believe that the reason for
> the change was that digits were easier to remember than letters.
----
I think there were a couple of reasons for the change in Australian phone 
numbers to digits only.

The leters used were only a limited set of: A B F J L M U W X Y. Once you gor
to 7-digit numbers, representing the first three digits by letters ruled some
combinations out as being `unsuitable'.

More importantly, various (Latin alphabet using) countries had different
letters and differing letter assignments for the 10 digits on the dial.
Hence, to allow IDD numbers needed to be given in a form which would not be
confusing to diallers in another country.

I believe all countries gave up using letters as part of phone numbers for this
reason.
 -- 

John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
Phone National        (049)21 5751    Fax National       (049) 21 6910
      International +61 49 21 5751        International +61 49 21 6910
VAXPSI  PSI%0505249626002::CCJAL      AARNet  ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: mnemonics in general
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:07:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)

PM>In a similar vein, the mnemonics I learnt in high school for the
  >colours of the rainbow and for the planets were the names
  >"Roy Gbiv" and "Mvem Jsunp".

I remember it as "Roy G. Biv", but that's okay.  <G>

Somehow those names remind me of ETOAIN SHRDLU - remember _that_ one?
<G>

---
 . OLX 3.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
From: anno4000@zrz.tu-berlin.de (Anno Siegel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Strange negation
Date: 23 Nov 1992 15:21:09 GMT
Organization: tu-berlin
NNTP-Posting-Host: w172zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de

I keep finding sentences (mostly in informal writing, such as newsgroups)
like "All cats aren't grey.", where the writer clearly intends to say, that
there are cats, that aren't grey. To me (a native speaker of german) it seems
that the literal meaning of this sentence is: There are no grey cats. If I
were to express the intended meaning, I'd say: Not all cats are gray.
If that's a germanism, how should I put it? Or am I right?

Replies by email please; I can't afford to follow yet another newsgroup
closely but I will summarize if appropriate.
Thanks,
-- 
Anno Siegel             Tel.:  +49 30 314 24398
c/o TU-Berlin/ZRZ       s=siegel ou=zrz p=tu-berlin a=dbp c=de 
Einsteinufer 17         siegel@zrz.tu-berlin.de 
D 1000 Berlin 12
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
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: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:23:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.044517.15622@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Roger, a question.

>If you use "unique" to mean "rare" or "unusual" or "a nice knockdown
>argument", then what word will you use when you really mean "unique"?

Why, "unique" of course.  (Note that "unique" *really* means "singular,"
"rare," etc. as well as "one-of-a-kind.")  I use "unique" to mean 
"one-of-a-kind" when the context makes that meaning clear.  I'm also
pretty good at fashioning appropriate contexts, they tell me.  

btw, I don't use "unique" to mean anything other than what my 
dictionary gives as its meanings.  That's not *because* the dictionary
says that; just happens to be that way.   

Roger
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Things go better with
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)

GMW>Apparently in the late 19th century, it became quite common to call a
   >portable camera a "Kodak," or at least ie was popular until Eastman Kodak
   >ran an ad compaign that went something like, "If it isn't an Eastman, it
   >isn't a Kodak."

Somehow this reminds me of the story about the Benz motor car company,
which named an entire production run after a young lady named Mercedes,
the daughter of a major customer.  The name stuck, and now almost nobody
remembers that the car company was Benz, not Mercedes.

---
 . OLX 3.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Xcultural, Xtian, Xlation
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085

TO: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu

M>I'm trying to assemble all the uses of "X" I can find along the lines

M>      Xcultural       (trans-, cross-, inter-cultural)
 >      Xtian           (Christian)
 >      Xlation         (translation)

Xformer or Xfrmr for an electrical transformer
Xfer for Transfer

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                                                                                                   
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:38:52 GMT

kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>
>From the Oxford Companion to the English Language ("Trademark"):
>
>      Everyday words of English that were once trademarks (some now
>      universal, some more common in one variety of English than
>      another, some dated, all commonly written without an initial
>      capital) include aspirin, band-aid, cellophane, celluloid,
>      cornflakes, dictaphone, escalator, granola, hoover, kerosene,
>      lanolin, mimeograph, nylon, phonograph, shredded wheat, zipper.

A few notes here and I could be wrong and request correction if anyone
knows for sure.

1. Aspirin has only lost its tm status in the US.  In other countries
it's still a trademark.

2. M-W says that dictaphone is still a trademark in the 1987 printing of
the 9th New Collegiate.  Of course, it could be wrong or the status
changed since then.

3. My understanding is that nylon was never a trademark, but was coined
to be a generic.

4. Has Hoover lost its tm status?  The 9th Collegiate doesn't even have
the term, my somewhat old Collins says it hasn't, and Chambers doesn't
say.

>      Trademarks facing difficulties include Astroturf, Dacron,
>      Formica, Frisbee, Hovercraft, Jacuzzi, Laundromat, Mace, Muzak,
>      Q-Tips, Scotch Tape, Styrofoam, Teflon, Vaseline, Xerox.

This list could easily be made ten times as long.  My favorite is
Velcro.


---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pop &c.
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:25:59 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

In article <baron.58.721929582@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>Trademark law, by the way, is insane, and trademark decisions in the
>courts often seem whimsical, as the above should demonstrate.

So when people say "Xerox" or "Sellotape" or "Hoover" they're referring
to a brand name, but when they say "Webster's" they mean "dictionary".
As you say, insane and whimsical.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:45:56 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Nov18.221451.14168@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>>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).

Sigh.

Please be gentle with him; he often says things I agree with :-).

Rheal-

  There really are infinitely more real numbers than integers.  The
classic proof is Cantor's diagonalization argument.  The set of
integers has countably many elements (its cardinality is generally
notated by the Hebrew letter aleph subscript zero [pronounced "aleph
null"]).  The set of real numbers has uncountably many elements and
its cardinality is equal to that of the set of sets of integers or two
to the aleph null which is strictly greater.  There exist higher order
infinities as well.
  The set of rational numbers *is* countable and therefore there are
as many integers as rationals.

  It's usually wise to make sure that you're right before you correct
someone.  [Ok, everybody point out all of the mistakes in my
correction! :-)]

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | Ye know eek, that in forme of speech
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U |    is chaunge
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | Within a thousand year; and wordes
				       |    tho
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | That hadden price, now wonder nice
    (415)857-7572		       |    and straunge.
				       | Us thinketh hem. And yet they spake
				       |    hem so.
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique, infinite food
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:28:58 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


[Marie's razor-quick exposition deleted nevertheless]

MC>(T)here are degrees of infinity.
> In the same sense, some food is cooked and some is raw, but "cooked" is not
> an absolute term:  some food is cooked more and some less.  
> 
> I added that example for Ted, who was probably wondering how long it would
> take me to start talking about food.  


Ah, but to sup upon the unique digestive biscuits of the Isles!  How infinitely
raw, yet cooked!

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Reply-To: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: Indexed; Access: Random.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:34:14 +0000

In article <1992Nov17.152451.15203@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>>"It's not quite unique -- there's a machine in Colorado that does much
>>the same thing -- but it's not exactly commonplace, all the same."
>
>Why is this better than "It's not unique"?  You've just added a
>useless word, just weighed down your text unnecessarily.  I'd say
>something like:  "It's uncommon, but not unique; there's a machine
>in Colorado that does much the same thing."

I see a qualifier such as "not quite unique" or "almost unique" as being
different from a qualifier such as "relatively", "partially", or
"totally" unique. The first two examples do not imply degrees of
uniqueness - I have no quibble with "unique"  being only a two-state
toggle :-) Their place comes in discussion or denial of the subject's
uniqueness, as in the example given.

"It's almost unique" is a simple and clear way of saying that "it's one
of perhaps only two or three but certainly very few that are the same".
This usage doesn't dilute the meaning of the word "unique" itself. Were
he alive today I would call Fowler as expert witness :-), with reference
to the many other usages which he justified on the grounds of usefulness
as long as they were neither cumbersome, pretentious nor malformed.

Nick.                                                           {{jm,rn}}
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Help: problematic, self-evident, object and more
Keywords: problematic,abstract,self-evident,object,adaptability
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:29:34 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>"self-evidence"
>    I need a *noun* meaning the quality of being self-evident (not
>    necessarily always positive).  Maybe there isn't one, and I
>    need to just rephrase, but it's also used as a criteria or
>    category.  The context is adaptable features: how self-evident
>    are the effects of a function, before and after use, and the
>    use of the function itself.  I'm not satisfied with visibility,
>    transparency, or obviousness.

Something that is intrinsically true through self-verifying logic is a
tautology. Don't know if that's precisely what you're looking for.

--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english