HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:44:45 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language

In article <1992Dec17.194237.2190@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan
Kirshenbaum) says:
>
>"Horse shit" and "Bull shit" are nouns and adjectives meaning "extreme
>falsehood".

"Bullshit" is also used as a verb, meaning to distort the truth,
to deceive, to pull the leg. Approximately equivalent is the
simple "to shit", found almost exclusively in the phrase "you're
shitting me", that is, "you're pulling my leg" or "get out of here".
A friend of mine long ago would invariably respond to "you're shitting
me" with "I wouldn't shit you, you're my favorite turd" -- I have
no idea if that was original with him.

>
>"Ape shit" and "Bat shit" are adverbs(?) meaning roughly "irrational",
>"non-linear", possibly "crazy".  They seem to only be found as the
>object of the verb "go".

I don't think I ever encountered "bat shit" before. Is this a non-U.S.
term, perhaps? I would give the sense of "to go ape-shit" as something
more like "to become unreasonably and extremely angry" -- sort of
like the increasingly annoying "to go ballistic". I have also heard
"to go bullshit" used in this way.

Another "shit" locution that I haven't heard much lately is "No shit,
Sherlock", said when someone has just stated the very obvious as if
it weren't.

Then there's "built like a brick shithouse", said of a person with
an impressive physique.

Which puts me in mind of "to shit bricks", which has approximately
the same sense as "to have a cow" in some contexts, and perhaps
"to be paralyzed with fear, to be in a blue funk" ("die Hose voll
haben" in the delightful German phrase) in some others.

"Not to know shit from shinola" -- to be clueless.

"To have shit for brains" or, alternatively, the vocative
"Shit-for-Brains" -- approximately ditto.

"Shit or get off the pot" -- fish or cut bait.

"He thinks he's hot shit" -- he has an exaggerated notion of
his own worth.

"He thinks his shit don't stink" -- ditto.

A colleague chimes in: "She thinks her shit's ice-cream" -- ditto.
(I'd never heard that before, but I like it.)

"To be shitfaced" -- to be very drunk.

"To be in deep shit" -- to be in a parlous predicament.

"To be up shit creek without a paddle" -- ditto.

"To be *bodysurfing* on shit creek" -- ditto.

"You're full of shit" -- many nuances of meaning, among them,
you don't know what you're talking about, and sometimes, further,
you're a worthless person, an asshole.

"You're so full of shit your eyes are brown" -- a jocular expansion
of the preceding.

"To shoot the shit" -- to shoot the breeze, to converse informally
and, perhaps, idly.

And finally, "Holy Shit!!" -- wow!!

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: who or whom (The Series.)
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:03:22 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <12064@scott.ed.ac.uk>, jim@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jim  Scobbie) writes:
> 
> Well, I thought of 'for whom the bell tolls', but to take the cases of
> title  that *begin* with who/whom, I had a quick check of Edinburgh
> University Library and came up with>>>
> 
For what it's worth, I did a very quick bibliographical search of the Bodleian
Library, which obtains a copy of every book published in the UK and many
published elsewhere. It is only catalogued completely in an electronic form
since about 1988: they reckon that the rest of the library will take another 20
or so years to complete (it'll be like the Forth Road Bridge.) 

I found:

44 entries with `whom' in the title, of which
about 4 had `whom' as the first word in the title,
1 was called `WHOM' (enigmatically)
about 7 were quotes: whom God hath joined; for whom the bell tolls; to whom it
may concern.

So there are at least 37 books published recently with `whom' used gramatically
and non-quotationally in the title.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:00:52 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzBs7x.97G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> You let your prejudice that men includes men only, and not women,
> when used in this context, override your ability to make logical
> decisions.

And if I may say so, you let *your* prejudice that "men" includes men as well
as women in this context override your ability to make logical decisions.
Still, I suppose that we are at least aware of your inability to make logical
decisions and your continual prejudice against American English.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: plural of AIRCRAFT?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:11:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.183729.18462@news.arc.nasa.gov> watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC) writes:
>We got into a debate over this at lunch yesterday:
>What is the plural of the word "aircraft"? 
>Is it "aircraft" or "aircrafts" or both?

Aircraft.  Likewise, hovercraft, and craft-meaning-boat(s).

>While I'm at it ... is there any good reference books
>for these sort of questions?  

[!]

Any decent dictionary.  Get yourself an American Heritage Dictionary,
3rd Edn., or ask Santa for one.  Brand new, and on discount at Encore
and other chains.  A fine book, and fun to use!

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: "a" and sthenic
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:06:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.180607.10154@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>In article <BzAyrC.58v@cs.umu.se> dvldbg@cs.umu.se (Daniel Brahneborg) writes:
>>In a book I have about Natural Language Processing they mention the
>>word "sthenic", and say that "no self-respecting native speaker of
>>English would dream of using it". Unfortunately neither I nor my
>>850-pages english dictionary have ever heard of the word.
>>Anybody have any ideas?
>
>You need a new dictionary! :-)  From M/W NCD:
>
>   sthen-ic /'sTEn Ik/ adj [NL 'sthenicus', fr. Gk 'sthenos' strength]
>    1 : notably or excessively vigorous or energetic <~ fever> <~
>    emotions>  2 : PYKNIC
>No, I'd never heard of either of them either.

Oh, surely you've heard of "neurasthenia", that curse of 19th-century
masturbators?  From the Gk "neuro(n)", nerve (literally "thread") +
"a", privative + "sthen(os)", strength + "ia", (condition).

I don't have any problem with "sthenic" (nor "pycnik", either, though
p'raps it ought to be a barbarian's de'jeuner sur l'herbe ?:)), but
then I *did* do the "dead tongues" (necroglossia?  Ewww...) at school.
And I am a native speaker of (British) English and still have some
self-respect to boot.

Who wrote the book?  I'd like to take issue with them.

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Who vs. Whom (FAQ?)ex
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:54:51 GMT

In article <37904@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.143433.60325@qut.edu.au> heard@qut.edu.au writes:

># A couple of people have given gramatical rules to work
># out whether to say "who" or "whom". I would like to
># pass on a method I learnt from my fifth grade teacher
># (Thankyou Mr Tonkin).

># Re-cast the sentence so that it is no longer a
># question, and to use the singular masculine pronoun.

># If you would use "he", in the re-cast sentence the
># sentence needs "who".

># If you would use "him", in the re-cast sentence the
># sentence needs "whom".

># Thus:
># "Who* did you invite?" becomes
># "Did you invite him?"
>#                         and therefore demands "whom".

># "Who* cares?" becomes
># "He cares."
>#                         and therefore demands "who"

>Good approximation, but it doesn't always work.  For instance:

>"I don't know who* bought the cheese"
>"I don't know him"
>        but "I don't know whom bought the cheese" is wrong.

Well, is it a question?  The above was for interrogative sentences,
as noted.  Your sentence can be analyzed that way too, but it 
requires more subtlety.  If you wish to phrase it as a question,
the answer is obvious, because the question is: Who bought the cheese?

>"Give one to who*ever comes through the door"
>"Give one to him"
>        but "Give one to whomever comes through the door" is wrong.

But "Who/he came through the door?/." is the operative question/answer.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Knives and forks
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:34:13 GMT

In article <glen.724521676@cs.wisc.edu>, glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) writes:
> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
> 
> >In article <92350.145832HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>, <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
> 
> >UK cutlery (in my experience) have the manufacturers name on the stem or
> >the back of the part in your hand. Both the convex and concave side at the
> >business end may be decorated but is not necessaarily so.
> 
> In the US, the name is on the convex side, which is hidden when the fork
> is placed on the table or plate, right-side up.  Are UK forks placed
> name-side up?  My guess is that I would have noticed if they were.

Not that this has anything to do with a.e.u. No we are canny enough to put
the names on the back of the stem of the fork, or the back of the base
(ie the bit in your hand). 

> my thumb is pulled back toward the end of the handle).  Also, the most
> comfortable angle has the fork approximately parallel to my body, i.e.
> both ends of the fork equidistant from my body.

Doesn't that make it rather difficult to balance peas on it?

Simon.

-- 
  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: I'm back!
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:07:28 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Hi!

    I am back!!   My wretched finals are finally over and I can now
devote my energies to establishing the superiority of English English
over its variants. Those who do not wish to follow the debate can
add me to their kill file.

    I have saved most of your earlier responses and I guarantee a
reply to each post, soon.

                          
                                                      Bye,
                                                               Mandar.                                             
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 20 Dec 92 05:53:18 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.150926.10889@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <BzBxxG.BL1@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>> Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men. 
>Tell me, is that men as in men or men as in men and women? It's not entirely
>clear from your context.
>> The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>> its own.
>But until it does it is better to avoid prejudice clearly in one's writing than
>to provide ammunition for those who seek to perpetuate it.
>-- 

Exactly! Make the context clear.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:58:32 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Knives and forks

In article <glen.724433823@cs.wisc.edu>, glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
says:
>
>So how did the Europeans come to use the backs of their forks?  (Or is it
>ethnocentric of me to think that the convex side is the back?   Are European
>forks decorated on the convex side?  US forks are pretty on the concave side,
>and the convex side often has the name of the manufacturer.)
>When I eat peas or mashed potatoes, I use the fork in my right hand, like a
>spoon.  But I've seen Europeans mash peas onto the backs of their forks with
>a knife.  Now that strikes me as odd.

It strikes me as odd, too. But you go too far in imputing this behavior
to "Europeans". It is my observation that the English do indeed wield
their cutlery in this manner, but that continental Europeans do not,
holding the fork concave-side upwards during mouthful preparation and
plate-to-mouth transfer operations. I intend no insult to the English,
or at least none beyond their manner of table-implement manipulation,
but I find the way they eat bizarre. Not only do they hold their
forks upside down, not only do they mash peas on to the backsides
of their forks with a knife, but I've observed many who will mash
or spear a bit of every item on the plate for a single mouthful --
perhaps a bite of beefsteak, some peas, some mashed potatoes, and
a bit of salad.

I don't know whether non-English inhabitants of the British Isles
do the same thing; if they do, consider this taunt directed at
them as well :-)

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: smk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stefan Kahrs)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:31:09 GMT
	<1992Dec15.160035.6467@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<BzBs7x.97G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
	<1992Dec16.151519.3485@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Edinburgh, LFCS

In article <1992Dec16.151519.3485@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

[...]
   In the sentence "men includes men and women", does the second "men" also
   include women?  "Men includes men (and women) and women".

   (Apply some set theory to THAT, Mandar!  Set A is composed of distinct
   sets A and B - the corollary of course is that B is and is not a member
   of A - presto, proof by contradiction!  While doing math, you would
   resolve the problem by changing your notation:  Set C is composed of
   distinct sets A and B.  The set "people" is made up of distinct sets
   "men" and "women".)

I cannot let this stand.

From a set-theoretic point of view, there is no problem with the
sentence "men includes men and women",
it is indeed equivalent to "men includes women".
If we interpret the "and" not as set union but as disjoint set union
(making the strong assumption that no person can be a man and a woman),
then the sentence becomes indeed a little problematic; it would have
no interpretation in ordinary set theory (but it still has in domain
theory or non-well-founded set theory), at least if we use the
standard definition of disjoint union.

(Rheal confused the important distinction between
"includes" (\subseteq) and "member" (\in).)

Perhaps I should add that my personal view to this matter should not
be inferred from the above remarks, they are purely technical.
--
Stefan Kahrs
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: streater@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Subject: Re: Note to Mandar
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:26:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.021703.5108@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>
>I thought Ted Koppel was originally from the UK.
>
With an accent like his? Come come come!

"Ted Koppel" is only a pseudonym, anyway. His real name is Alfred E. Nueman.

Tim.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of the apostrophe, or not, with decades
Date: 17 Dec 1992 01:28:24 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <724481764snx@warren.demon.co.uk> leveret@warren.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <BzAG6x.5sG@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>accepted practice.  (Potato's is not the plural of potatoe.)
>>>                                                   ^^^^^^^
>>Is that a typo, or is potato spelled potatoe Down Under?
>
>Someone posting from Dan Quayle's Own Country has to ask ??

Anyone not posting from Dan Quayle's Own Country Club has to ask.

				--Blair
				  "It's a matter of style."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rbrown@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rich Brown -- Neither)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Originator: rbrown@troon.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Summary: Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one.
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:41:03 GMT
Keywords: Arse, Hole

Hahahaha.  It is to laugh, when
In article <BzDLxF.I1M@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>themselves from men.

This must be an "English English" use of the word "race".  I am not hearing it
before until now.  Is this the same Mandar who chided someone for using the
word "chauvinism" in its recent meaning of pigginess (as opposed to its earlier
usage to mean overly patriotic).  Yet "race" means whatever Mandar intends it
to mean...  Maybe he can't bring himself to say "sex"?

You do realize that there are idiots who believe the English race is superior
to the American race, don't you?  Not just that, they allow this prejudice to
distance themselves from Americans.

Of all the arrogant, hypocritcal bullshit I've seen on the net, this Mandar guy
takes the cake, isn't it?  Hahahahaha!

Get lost, bozo!  This group used to be entertaining and informative before you
came along.  You have singlehandedly ruined it, so please to be fucking your-
self greatly, as well as the horse upon which you rode. In.

I'm usually much nicer than this, really!  But I'm hoping that if enough
people point out Mandar's guilt in being an ignorant hypocritical jerk, he
will be ashamed enough of his stupid arrogant blindness to quit posting.

I used to be able to read this group for postings on etymology, usage, dialect,
and *FACTS* about the English language as it is spoken and as it used to be, in
its many interesting varieties.  Now all I see are Mandar's asshole opinions.

I apologize to anyone _else_ this may have offended.  And I am also sorry that
this posting has no *FACTS* about the English language as it is spoken and as
it used to be, in its many interesting varieties.  God, am I ashamed of myself!

The last time I posted about Mandar, I said I felt sorry for him, especially
since he had to put up with the Oklahoma dialect spoken where he is.  I've
changed my sentiments:  Now I feel sorry for the Oklahomans!

Rich Brown
-- 
Rich Brown (Neither)
rbrown@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: who or whom (The Series.)
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:18:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.025221.16976@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>Path: news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!boole.mitre.org!crawford
>From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
>Subject: Re: who or whom (The Series.)
>Message-ID: <1992Dec12.025221.16976@linus.mitre.org>
>Sender: news@linus.mitre.org (News Service)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: boole.mitre.org
>Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
>References: <baron.76.723764449@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:52:21 GMT
>Lines: 12
>In article <baron.76.723764449@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>>Nobody would watch a television show whose title began with whom, 
>>not even on public television.
>
>You mean like `Doctor Whom'?  
>
>Yuck.  I think you're right.
>-- 
>
>| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
>|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
>| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102

And don't forget that when English teachers form rock groups they
call themselves names like *The Whom*

--
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: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Who vs. Whom (FAQ?)ex
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 20:52:01 GMT

In article <37904@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.143433.60325@qut.edu.au> heard@qut.edu.au writes:
>
># Re-cast the sentence so that it is no longer a
># question, and to use the singular masculine pronoun.
>#
># If you would use "he", in the re-cast sentence the
># sentence needs "who".
>#
># If you would use "him", in the re-cast sentence the
># sentence needs "whom".
>
>Good approximation, but it doesn't always work.  For instance:
>
>"I don't know who* bought the cheese"
>"I don't know him"
>        but "I don't know whom bought the cheese" is wrong.

You are changing the sentence structure.  A better sentence would
be "I didn't know *he* bought the cheese".

>"Give one to who*ever comes through the door"
>"Give one to him"
>        but "Give one to whomever comes through the door" is wrong.

Same thing - try "Give one to he who first comes through the door".

In both cases, "who" is appropriate because this is the subject of
the phrase you dropped.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english