HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:59:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <HERMIT.92Sep9035320@am.ucsc.edu> hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward) writes:
>In article <25472@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>|In article <1992Sep2.225412.9559@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>|>"draft" is already the usual spelling of the British "draught".
>
>|In the UK the distinction is drawn between "draft" as in version and
>|"draught" as in liquid measure or small breeze. Using "draft" for the
>|lot seems just a foolish confusion leading to ambiguity.

I personally have a lot more faith in context than spelling
to disambiguate homophones. If I were to saw (or write) "I
feel a draft" few would be the auditors or readers who
would think I was testing the texture of an early version of
my first novel.

And in any case, even if draft and draught were justifiable
on the grounds of disambiguation, the effect would still be
quite limited; a liquid measure and a small breeze do not,
superficially at least, appear to have a lot of meaning in
common.

>
>Well, that's how we do things over on this side of the pond... The
>spelling "draught" is *never* seen in America, and when it is seen
>people sometimes pronounce it to rhyme with "not," not knowing what to
>do with that "aught" business.
>

Allow me to point out a style problem in the above that I
find to be both common and vexing. You say

 "draught" is *never* seen in America"

And then you write "and when it is". This is neither good
style or good logic.

In point of fact, "draught" is seen in the U.S. usually
being used in a pretentious way by some beer putting on
airs.

>But then, the word is (I believe) used a lot less.  As a measure of
>liquid, the word is only used to refer to the depth of a boat's keel;
>for most other measuring-of-liquids, "depth" would be used.  For a
>small breeze, the word is "draft"; same for version--but again, it's
>not used that often.  When you write an essay you have "first draft,"
>"second draft," etc., and formal documents might use the word to refer
>to versions.  However, I believe "version" and "revision" are used
>more often in situations where you might use "draft."

Do the British still refer the game Americans call checkers
as draughts?

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Short question on word sequence
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:38:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep7.143543.28795@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>[some of my text deleted without notice -- Gabe, this is beneath you!]

>Why, Gabe, what makes you say that?  Do you have any evidence that
>leads you to say that?  What does "wrong" mean in this context?  
>


Oh, *no* ...



-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Guys stink! (was Re: Boy/Girlfriend)
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 13 Sep 92 13:53:35 EST
Organization: Wright State University 




>>I hear from time to time female students say, for example, 
>>"I went shopping with a girlfriend yesterday", but I have never 
>>heard a male student say I did so and so with a boyfriend. 
>>Why do women call their female friends girlfriends but men don't 
>>call their male friends boyfriends?

PAD> [edited] You know, that bugs me as well. Why not just "friend" instead of
> "girlfriend". The only explanation that I can think of is that a 
> woman's "girlfriend"
> is a slightly better friend than just a "friend", perhaps an adult 
> form of the elementary school "best friend" (ever notice that it is
> much more important for elementary school girls than it is for
> elementary school boys to have one Best Friend?)

Women get all the linguistic fun.  I read a deodorant ad today wherein a 
comely lass says "When I get close to a guy and he smells -- that's a real
turn-off."

Does this mean that women don't prefer men with their olfactory sense intact?
I think that stinks!

Isn't there some historical apocryphal story relating stinking, smelling, 
Johnson, and a punchline of "On the contrary, Madam.  I stink.  You smell"?

-----ted hayes
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "the" (and "a")
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:31:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep4.145838.1@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au> andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au writes:

[questions about "thee" and "thuh" deleted]
>
>Are these usages common? More particularly, was anyone *taught* them?

Yes, they're common.  Another common usage:  saying "thee" when the word
that follows begins with a vowel ("thee" apple, vs. "thuh" apple).  It's
just easier to say.  

I did teach English as a second language, but we never covered this.  None
of my students were advanced enough.  



-- 
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: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Hedgehog vs Porcupine
Date: 9 Sep 1992 10:32:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, lawe@enea.se (Lars Westin) says:

>
>My American friend and I are having a dispute about hedge-
>hogs and  porcupines. 
>...
>She claims that "hedgehog" is an archaic word not used in USA,
>and furthermore that the little fellow (which I call a hedge-
>hog) is called a "porcupine" where she comes from (Tarzana, CA). 
>
>Now, do Americans really use the same name for these quite
>different animals? Do hedgehogs even exist in some part of USA,
>outside of zoological gardens? Here in Sweden they are quite
>common. My friend says she hasn't seen a wild one before she
>came to live here. 
>


My boss (a librarian) and I were discussing this issue last week.  A new
children's picture book came in, an English book.  As is frequently the
case (and usually necessary), some of the language had been Americanized. 
BUT, where the original book MUST have used "hedgehog" to refer to a cute,
bristly little thing, the Americanizer had put "porcupine".

Both of us American library workers were incensed.  To us, a hedgehog is
a European animal, different altogether from a porcupine.

We checked a handy dictionary, and it did say that "hedgehog" can be used
to mean "porcupine", but neither of us had ever heard that usage.  Anyway,
this was a picture book, and that was certainly no porcupine!  You don't
leave milk for a cute little porcupine in the garden!

Maybe the Americanizer didn't get to see the book, and came from the same
area as your friend.

Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:34:11 GMT

In article <88232@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
>Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
>Date: 8 Sep 92 20:20:51 GMT

>Re: "fag" and "faggot":

>During a visit to London a few years ago, my friends took me to the
>supermarket.  I was perusing the frozen foods when I came upon a TV-
>dinner-size box with the words "Three frozen faggots in gravy" on it.
>It took me a while to calm down.  


>-- 
>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  

In an Australian supermarket I once noticed, in the frozen fish department, 
some 'Whiting Pieces', some 'Bream Pieces' and some 'Cod Portions'.
-------- 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: henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: colloquialism?
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:06:21 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep1.1466.6675@dosgate> "ernest blaschke" <ernest.blaschke@canrem.com> writes:
>While talking to one of my Canadian friends the other day I had this
>vision of a wire being aglow inside a light bulb, shining its light
>onto a man admiring a Rembrandt painting. Then my friend seemed to
>offer I some beer ("I?").............. and I came back to reality.
>
>He had said : " I took a fillam to the artic and brought the pitchers
>for you and I to look at!"
>
>English is not my native tongue. Can the above be ascribed to
>colloquialism or is it just plain poor English?
>
Your friend was speaking a dialect that I heard often while I
lived in Toronto. Does anyone know if it occurs elesewhere?

I think your friend or his ancestors came from a Gaelic-speaking area
of Scotland or Nova Scotia. By Gaelic I mean the Celtic language,
not the variety of English that I have heard called Gaelic.

Ihe second vowel in "fillam" is inserted between between clusters
such as lm in Gaelic; linguists call this an epenthetic vowel; I remember one
Gaelic grammar calling it a svarabhakti (the term being borrowed
from Sanscrit garammarians) vowel. I forget the other clusters that
get epenthetic vowels in Gaelic.

In many dialects of English, phonetic [kt] gets reduced to [t].
I often (pronounced "offen") say and hear pitcher for picture.

But I never hear "atual"for actual or "striture" for stricture. 
Are there any net.phonologists who can tell us what's going on
here?
-- 
 ________________________________________________________
/ Henry  || We are such stuffe as dreames are made on;   \
\ Polard || and our little life is rounded with a sleepe /
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 18:35:59 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

| > 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.
| > Let the flame war start!
| > Dragomir (non-native speaker).
| 
| 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 believe that it simply has the most to do with what one is "good at".
Some people are mathematicians, some are very good at mathematics, and
some have no aptitude for it.  I have a talent for science, for programming
computers, and I can read upside down.  I am hopeless at calculus,
geography, and simple accounting.  I can add and subtract columns of figures
in my head, calculate percentages, etc., but I simply can't grasp accounting
rules and principles.

Spelling has always come very easily to me.  For many years, I equated 
spelling with intelligence, because I thought that it was just so *easy*
that anyone who couldn't do it must be just stupid.  Fortunately, as I
grew older, I began to notice people like my older brother, who is a very
intelligent person, but can't spell well at all.  I have since met many,
many people who were well-read, intelligent, and were adept in many 
disciplines that I am not, and they simply can't spell.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dr. Pavlov's distinguished career came to an      |
|abrupt end one day when the doorbell rang and the |
|dog ate the Avon lady.                            |
+--------------------------------------------------+
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 20:10:17 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep9.144921.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) writes:
>-- 
>No we just don't have cashiers in supermarkets. We have checkout operators (or
>checkouts) or, if you don't mind being accused of sexism `checkout chicks'
>(except that they are of both sexes).

Would we refer to the women as "chicklets," then?  

                                                 

-- 
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: cen@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Brit. vs. Amer. spelling, was: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:14:59 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


 jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
> Eliminating one, two, or three letters from common words will save money.

but also writes:

> I still can't come up with an explanation for the Brittish _centre_, _metre_

Hah! That extra "t" in "British", has propagated all across the Net, costing
hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. But that means... oops, time to stop

Tanaqui (who considered leaving out all the vowels in this post)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: "less" vs "fewer"
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:20:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.134021.27477@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>> I think it's valuable to distinguish "less intelligent people" from
>> "fewer intelligent people".  "More intelligent people" is ambiguous.
>
> Really?  Even in a sentence?

   Sure!  If someone says "We need more intelligent people in the 
government", I don't know whether or not he's satisfied with the 
intelligence of anyone currently in the government.

> I've never been hampered by any ambiguities from such constructions in
> actual contexts.

   I have.

> PS for Gabe Wiener: Don't go to work for the NY Times.  The "one fewer
> car" you insist is correct is explicitly prohibited in their style 
> book.

   Why shouldn't he work for them in the capacity of stylebook editor?

In article <1992Sep7.143543.28795@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <1992Sep7.042541.26561@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>> Both are quite common.  One is wrong, however.
>
> Why, Gabe, what makes you say that?  Do you have any evidence that
> leads you to say that?

   What Gabe meant is that one violates a prescriptive rule that he
happens to favour.  ("'Less' is the comparative of 'little'; 'fewer' is
the comparative of 'few'.")  Given that the rule is prescriptive rather
than descriptive, what sort of "evidence" do you want?

> What does "wrong" mean in this context?  

   Hmmm.  How about:

wrong, adj.  any construction that Roger Lustig feels the need to defend
at great length.

:-)

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Short question on word sequence
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:40:21 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep8.030507.24355@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <25611@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>> If this distinction between "less" and "fewer" is important, i.e., it
>> would be a loss to the language to treat as a silly distinction and
>> simply drop it, what is the corresponding distinction for "more"? My
>> suggestion is that since there isn't one, this is a silly distinction
>> which English is better off without.

>   I think it's valuable to distinguish "less intelligent people" from
>"fewer intelligent people".  "More intelligent people" is ambiguous.

Really?  Even in a sentence? I've never been hampered by any ambiguities
from such constructions in actual contexts.

Roger

PS for Gabe Wiener: Don't go to work for the NY Times.  The "one fewer
car" you insist is correct is explicitly prohibited in their style book.

>misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
>Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: Re: Hedgehog vs Porcu
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:21:52 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 09-09-92 10:17
On Sept. 8, Lars Westin wrote:

L(W>My American friend and I are having a dispute about hedge-
L(W>hogs and  porcupines.

L(W>The following excerpt from "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary"

L(W>        Hedgehog: any of a genus (Erinaceus) of Old World nocturnal
L(W>        insectivorous mammals having both hair and spines that they
L(W>        present outwardly by rolling themselves up.

L(W>        Porcupine: any of various relatively large rodents having
L(W>        stiff sharp erectile bristles mingled with the hair and
L(W>        constituting an Old World terrestrial family (Hystricidae)
L(W>        and a New World arboreal family (Erethizontidae).

Just to be difficult - let's not forget the *echidna*! (Also called the
spiny anteater.)

                                                Cheers,
                                                Greg.

Greg Grainger in Toronto, Ontario.
9:47:31 am on Wed 09-09-1992.
greg.grainger@rose.com
greg.grainger@bville.gts.org

Personal policy statement:
Neither flames nor flame-bait will be be responded to.
---
   OLX 2.2   'Men, in general, are but great great children.' Napoleon
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:10:30 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep9.093309.1@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au> andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au writes:
<In article <1992Sep8.065535.21046@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
<> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
<> }
<> }Hear, hear.  And it's me who agrees that that's what a grammar is for.
<> 
<> Ya mean "it's me whom...".  Sheesh!  Can't even getcher grammer
<> straight on the PedantNet.
<> 
<I can't see any reason to use the objective case here

Anyone for "it's I whom agrees <...>"?  :-)

<- you would be
<better off jumping on him for ending a sentence with a preposition. ;-)

Speaking of which, how would one rearrange this sentence so that it
won't end with a preposition?  "<...> that for that's what a grammar is"?

-- 
 `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: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: Re: Improper spellingscreen
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:06:11 GMT

In article <18kk9sINN8bk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
> 
> References: <57560037@hpscit.sc.hp.com> <92246.155543IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
> 
> 
> In a previous article, fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) says:
> 
>>
>>I can't speak for the world of poor spellers, but I *can* speak for one
>>of them... me.  I am a poor speller because I put very little effort
> 
> Intelligent, sure.  Not lazy, because for those with the Spelling Gene,
> there is little effort involved.  It doesn't take any more effort for a
> 
> Bonita Kale
-- 
Can I give my support to Bonita. Some people (and I'm one of them usually pick
up mis-spellings because they `look wrong'.  I may then have to turn to various
`rules', the Macquarie dictionary, or to a spelling checker (not a spell
checker -- that's what the Sorcerer's Apprentice needed).

Other people, equally or more intelligent, just don't see words in the same way
and finding spelling errors is much more laborious for them.

[Of course, many spelling errors hide themselves for a while and only reveal
themselves (with flashing lights and loud orchestration) after the material has
been actually printed.  But that's anther story.]
 
John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: "the" (and "a")
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 03:40:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.145838.1@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au>, andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au writes:

> I have a question, especially for those taught English as a second language,

   English is my first (and only fluent) language, but I was taught (and have 
taught) English diction for singing.

> 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.

   We sing "th@" (where "@" is the indeterminate vowel) before consonants; 
"thee" before vowels.

> 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.

   We never sing "ay".  If the syllable is held too long for "@", we sing "ah".

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english