HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake! 
Distribution: world
Organization: Data Strike Computers Ltd
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:53:21 +0000

In article <baron.86.724440604@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>In article <glen.724433823@cs.wisc.edu> glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
> writes:
>>
>>briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm) writes:
>>
>>>[There is precedent for this last comment. Europeans ridicule American table
>>>manners, where the fork *must* be transferred from left hand to right after
>>>cutting meat and before moving it to the mouth. However, this was instituted
> in
>>>colonial times because the colonists were afraid (I don't know if they were
>>>justified) that if they didn't have table manners *better* than the
> motherland,
>>>they would be looked down upon as uncultured rustics, half reverted to Indian
>>>savagery.]
>>
>>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.  Is that a reaction against switching?
>>Is it the Euro-norm?

In the UK, table manners dictate that a right-handed person should hold
the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right.  The fork should 
*not* be used in the right hand.  And yes, it is also considered bad 
manners to use the fork the right way up, that is, with the concave side
uppermost.  As in the US, forks are decorated on the concave side, with
a manufacturer's name on the convex side.  No, I don't know why we use
forks that way.  In addition, it is considered good manners to put the
knife (at least and preferably the fork also) down while chewing.  Not many
people do however.  Furthermore, people put the knife and fork parallel to
one another with the ends in the middle of the plate when they have finished
eating.  This I do do, even if I am eating alone, for some unknown reason.

>
>At least Americans don't feel compelled to peel everything, including
>grapes.

I don't peel grapes.  Some people might if they were part of a fresh
fruit salad desert or something.

At least we don't go round shooting each other.... ;->

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Adams                  |   dadams@dstrike.demon.co.uk   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:09:26 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

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.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:22:56 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>
>"Horse shit" and "Bull shit" are nouns and adjectives meaning "extreme
>falsehood".
>
>"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".
>
>"Chicken shit" is an adjective meaning "insignificant".

Or "inconsistent," or "insufficient," or "cowardly."

Also, "rat shit" and "lizard shit" seem to be roughly synonymous with "chicken
shit" in the first sense, though not in the others.  I think.  (I've only ever
heard them used by forrunners, i.e., people from the Southwest.)

And what about "pig shit"? I *think* it's an adjective indicating disrespect
("...that pig-shit boyfriend of hers...."), but I'm not sure.

Also, I've only ever seen "bullshit" and "chickenshit" written as single
words; "ape shit" is sometimes separated and sometimes combined.

Related topic: the phrase "to have a shit fit," roughly synonymous with "to go
apeshit" as defined, always brings a smile to my lips, largely because of an
incident in my childhood in which I was forced by urgent necessity to use a
bathroom in which it was clear that someone had recently had a *literal* shit
fit.  The ceiling was spattered with brown....  Note that "shit fit" is also
sometimes fused into one word ("shitfit"), and that a euphemism "hissy-fit"
exists, though the etymological processes at work in the evolution from "shit
fit" to "hissy-fit" are unclear to me.

Seth L. Blumberg          \ Warning: This posting has been determined to cause
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ cancer in laboratory animals.  Please make sure
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \ that no white mice are allowed to read it.  
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
From: prochnpd@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Freshman thing...
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:58:46 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

Forget the Freshman thing...

They are:

	People that haven't met the requirements to be a sophmore...

Try to ryhme that on a Hallmark...:)

How about little people who(whom) don't know much...
                             |
                            doesn't really matter much to me...

                         Prochnpd@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Subject: Re: plural of AIRCRAFT?
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:33:57 GMT

watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC) writes:

>Sorry if this has been asked before ...

Funny -- it has.  The preceding article, in fact.  And by the same writer.
> 
>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?
> 
>While I'm at it ... is there any good reference books
>for these sort of questions?  

Well, the one I use is a dictionary.  My big one is Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, 1976.  It doesn't specify a plural under "aircraft",
but, under "craft":
    6 pl usu craft 
       a:  a boat ...
       b:  AIRCRAFT ...

My paperback American Heritage says
    aircraft n., pl. -craft

I've never heard "aircrafts", or, if I did, I discounted it as lack of fluency.
-- 
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Note to Mandar
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:55:10 GMT

In article <RINGO.92Dec10121835@grand-cayman.icad.com> ringo@icad.com (Amy Gorin) writes:
>In article <1fpdsbINNf3s@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell) writes:

>   cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>   ... Stuff on BBC accents ...  ... Stuff on Australian accents ...
>On a related note, does anyone know how many USan news anchors are
>canadian?  When I was studying journalism it was pointed out that
>they have an advantage over folks from the US, because to a USan ear, 
>educated canadians sound like they "come from nowhere".

>(Ted Koppel comes to mind, and also Dan Rather, I think).

Rather not, thanks.  He's from Texas, and still sounds it, despite all
efforts.

You must mean Peter Jennings.

Roger

(Tom Brokaw's from *mumble*...)
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:18:03 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec16.184833.3595@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzBw0p.At5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.192716.1855@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>>Mandar M. Mirashi burbles:
>>>>
>>>> [ other attributions deleted cuz Mandar hosed them ]
>
>>>As far as the discussion regarding "native speakers" and what
>>>constitutes same, it is worth noting that I completely reject
>>>your opinions regarding this topic as well.  I come a lot closer
>>>to concurring with Roger's viewpoint than yours, especially
>>>since I think he has a far more informed point of view.
>
>>>In the snippet above I was saying that anyone who speaks intelligible
>>>English is an English speaker, and s/he has an effect on the
>>>language through interactions with other English speakers.  Probably
>>>a proportionally greater effect than native speakers (as in, those
>>>who have spoken the language from birth).  There is nothing the
>>>matter with such innovations, although only a tiny few will be deemed
>>>useful by a majority of English speakers and adopted.  This opinion
>>>flies directly in the face of your adamant belief that we should
>>>all be looking up to a small subset of English speakers as the
>>>Keepers of the True English.
>
>>Yes it does; but it also flies in the face of Roger's definition of
>>"native" speaker (Look up your article where you asserted that the
>>word "native" doesn't count anyway). 
>
>Still can't read, eh, Mandar?  
>
>She said that anyone who can speak the language is a *speaker,*
>not a *native* speaker.  She and I agree on what a *native* speaker
>is -- and so does everyone else except Mandar.  
>
>Nor did she say that the *word* "native" doesn't count -- you really
>*do* need some remedial written-comprehension training.  She said
>that one shouldn't restrict oneself to polling native speakers when 
>studying the language.  "Native" doesn't count when choosing people
>for a language study, she said.
>
>Roger
>
>

I concede that I misunderstood. Sorry about that. Anyway, NOT
everyone follows your definition of native speaker.

                                                       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.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: PBS (was who or whom)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:20:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.193508.6138@desire.wright.edu>, thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
> DB>Nobody would watch a television
>>show whose title began with whom, not even on public television.
>> 
> KD> Public television?  This puzzles me: I guess perhaps it's a special usage,
>> since I would have thought that television was pretty much a public
>> service.  Is there such a thing as 'private television' (apart from the
>> obvious situations like surveillance, teleconferencing, and so forth)?
> 
> Actually this is a more curious reference than you think, Kay.  First off, in
> the US "public television" has traditionally meant that which is broadcast by
> the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).  It consists mostly of fund raising
> pleas, Monty Python reruns, National Geographic shows, fund raising again, and
> the general gamut of "sophisticated" or "educational" shows (e.g., Sesame
> Street).  And lots more fund raising.  This is in contrast to (a) network TV,
> which is ABC, CBS, NBC, and maybe an independent or two -- they sell commercial
> time and hardly ever show Monty Python -- and (b) cable or pay-per-view TV.
> 
> But the interesting question here, for those of us *slightly* younger than
> Dennis:  was Johnny Carson on PBS?
> 
> -----ted hayes
-- 
In Australian radio & television we have 

Public broadcasting (until recently known as National) funded mainly from tax
dollars -- this is run by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) anf the
Special Broadcasting System (SBS). Up to half of SBS is in languages other than
English, on TV usually with English subtitles. SBS has commercial sponsorship
for some programs. (Corresponds very roughly to BBC in UK.) ABC and SBS each
have one nation-wide TV channel.

Commercial broadcasting funded by selling time for commercials ( and in recent
years often by using shareholders' or banks' funds). There are essentially
three nation-wide Commercial TV networks, referred to commonly as Seven, Nine,
and Ten after the VHF channels used in the state capitals. (Corresponds
roughly to commercial in US.) 

Community broadcasting (until recently called Public) usually run by a 
university or some community group and dependent on the university or whatever,
listeners' subscriptions, annual fund-raising efforts, and some
commercial sponsorship (not commercials). (Corresponds roughly to Public
broadcasting in the USA.) There is little community TV.
   
John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: I'm back!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 18:20:14 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

In article <BzAH4o.6CE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

|>     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.

Oh, no.  And I'd hoped that Roger, Dennis, et al. had intimidated
Mr. Mirashi into silence while he rethought his line of argument.

Let's not rerun this debate over and over again...

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist Language
Date: 18 Dec 92 07:00:54 GMT
Followup-To: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA



In article <101955@netnews.upenn.edu> pezzillo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.163456.9037@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>WRONG!!!!!  He *is * sexist when used to denote both genders, because
>it indicates only ONE -- the male.  Seriously, when you hear "he," do
>you EVER  think of a woman?  NO!!!  Consider the following statement:
>"Every person is entitled to his right to have an abortion."  You

To tell the truth (and I'm not just saying this), the 'his' in that sentence
did not conjure up an image of men.  When I read a pronoun like 'his' or 'he'
which has no antecedent, I don't really pay attention to the fact that
'his' is usually used to denote someone of the male gender.  I think of it
as referencing anyone.  (By the way, 'his' is not a correct word to use
in that sentence, because 'his' is for either gender, and obviously the
persons referenced by 'his' must be women, and cannot be men.)  It seems
kind of strange that I, a male, would be so "non-sexist" (I know, it's not
a word, but don't flame me over it).  I think that's the way everyone thinks
about these kinds of words (like 'his'), and if you had not called attention
to it before hand and made is look for the incorrect usage of the pronoun,
no one agree with you that that sounded strange.  In fact, if someone used
that sentence in real life almost no one would notice.

>thought that sounded strange, because "he" automatically brought up
>the image of men.  The only reason that "he" was ever
>accepted as denoting everyone was because males USED to be in charge.
>Well, no more baby. Women are waking up and realizing that we have a
>right to be included in those non-gender neutral terms.  So we're
>using TRULY gender neutral terms wherever possible, "she or he" where
>appropriate, and just plain old "she" once in a while to shake you all
>up.  And you know what?  I don't CARE if you don't like hearing it.  I
>never liked hearing about "forefathers" and "mankind" and
>"brotherhood" and feeling totally excluded by these terms either.

If you want to use 'she or he', go ahead.  And even 'she' is fine with me,
even though 'she' brings up images of females (unlike 'he').  But I don't
really see how 'she' is truly gender-neutral.  For that matter, 'she or he',
'he or she', and 'he' aren't either.  The only ones, however, that are
correct language for denote people of either gender, are 'he' or 'he or she'.

--
\_\_\_\_  \_\_\_\_  \_    \_  \_    \_      |     Kristofor A. Varhus 
 \_    \_  \_        \_\_  \_  \_\_  \_     |  varhus@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
  \_\_\_\_  \_\_\_\_  \_ \_ \_  \_ \_ \_    |
   \_        \_        \_  \_\_  \_  \_\_   |   University of Pennsylvania
    \_        \_\_\_\_  \_    \_  \_    \_  | Engineering and Applied Science
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Knives and forks
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:01:33 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:

>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). 

But which side are you calling the back?  The convex side?  Then you eat
with the back of the fork.

>> 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?

I guess I failed to remove the ambiguity, after all.  Make that parallel
to a line between the shoulders.
-- 
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Some clarifications - Please read!!!
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:50:14 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <723810096snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz> hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:
<In article <1992Dec7.100526.15348@news.cs.brandeis.edu> iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu writes:
<
<  > >> You are tormenting the a.u.e readership
<  > >> (composed as it is of both American and European netters)
<  > >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<  > >Typical hemispherism!
<  [...] 
<  > I hereby apologise to the Australian a.u.e'ers for leaving them out.
<
<Keep apologising... you've got more countries to go.

Continents, not countries.  Let's make that "the a.u.e readership
(composed as it is of American and non-American netters)".

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Note to Mandar
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:12:14 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <RINGO.92Dec10121835@grand-cayman.icad.com> ringo@icad.com (Amy Gorin) writes:
>In article <BzAFMJ.5LH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>When I was studying journalism it was pointed out that
>>they have an advantage over folks from the US, because to a USan ear, 
>>educated canadians sound like they "come from nowhere".

Get out, eh?

Someone was pulling your leg.

The proper "come from nowhere" accent belongs to the
peoples of the American midwest (Iowa through Kansas).
Unfortunately, they've lost it since the 60's, and now all
seem to speak like they're from either Ohio or Oklahoma.
One must blame television; the medium which relies on that
font of plainness and normalcy has, ironically, destroyed its
provincial perfection.

Jennings, especially when it's late and he's bored or
trying to be familiar with a guest, has a definite Canadian
lilt.  He's obviously had to un-learn that, since he's got
none of it when he's reading news.

Brokaw's got other plobrems, and Rather I'd rather not
discuss so soon before before eating.

>Btw, who's Ted Koppel?   :)

Jeff Greenfield's alter-ego.

				--Blair
				  "It'll play in Peoria, but only
				   if we add sex and violence..."
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 11:12:45 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Herstory

In article <1992Dec19.213634.19440@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Ted Frank) says:
>
>English is full of words that are plays on other words -- take the recent
>(last twenty years) habit of adding "-gate" to indicate a scandal in the
>executive branch: Billygate, Irangate, Iraqgate.

Or my favorite, which was in the legislative branch, actually, and
involved members of congress boinking congressional pages. They
called it "Tailgate".

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 12:55:51 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Spelling differences (was Re: Reading (was Re: program__ (Re: quit

In article <TSOS.222.723895705@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de
(Detlef Lannert) says:
>
>I'm still waiting for someone (from the US, perhaps?) to explain why
>in the example I quoted (`bow' vs. `bough') a different spelling is
>useful while the pronunciation is the same and both words have the same
>origin.

It isn't useful. It also isn't an innovation.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University