HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:39:52 GMT

(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>Can't you see that I did it deliberately? I proclaimed that the American
>language isn't English so that I would get people strongly affirming
>the fact that they *do* speak English. 

And you needed a few hundred posts before you were satisfied? Or did the
fact that not a single English poster backed you up finally get
through to you.

>Well then, if you *do* speak
>English then why do you defy standard English? (No....the argument
>"there is no standard English, isn't good enough.")

It's good enough for the British, so it ought to be good enough
for you.

Werner
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: They (was Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language))
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:56:27 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <12176@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

# Besides, this entertaining and instructive discussion wouldn't be
# going on now if a netter hadn't said that singular "they" doesn't
# suit his net.ear, so it ought to be obvious that it makes no sense
# to deny that such speakers exist.

The more interesting question is whether such speakers grew up with
this distaste or acquired it as adults.  This bears heavily on the
issue of "naturalness".

David Johns

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante)
Subject: Re: Skid Road (was Re: K Street
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 06:17:35 GMT

In article 13775 of alt.usage.english, dant@techbook.com
(Dan Tilque) says:

>Originally, it was Skid Road, a street in Seattle.  It was called that
>because it started off as a skidway.  A skidway is a track used to move
>logs.  The Skid Road area in Seattle became an area of cheap taverns,
>flop houses and other places of low repute.  The rest (outside the
>northwest US) of the world changed it to Skid Row.


Absolutely right; and today the old Skid Road is called Yesler Way.
I thought only people in Seattle knew that, Dan.  Where are you?

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:22:30 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <92358.155839HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>In article <Bzon6A.764@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>>
>>
>
>(Evidence that Mandar actually went and looked something up when
>challenged to do so deleted. That is, a brief etymology of "woman",
>showing its true relation to "wife" and "man", rather than the
>nonsense he had posted earlier about "wife of man".)
>
>>      The etymologists on this group will indeed confirm the fact
>>that "woman" evolved from "wifman" which itself evolved from "man".
>
>"Wifman" didn't evolve from "man", as you yourself showed; it evolved
>from a compound of "wif" and "man".
>

It DID evolve from man. "Man" was gender neutral previously. "wif"
was used as a suffix to denote gender.

>>(as a means of specifying the gender). Now, according to you, if
>>"man" is sexist, and so is "hostess", then "woman" itself should
>>be sexist.
>
>Now this is pretty stupid, don't you think? Is your claim really
>what it seems to be? Let me restate it for you: People claim that
>to use the word "man" as if it includes women is or can be sexist
>or can have the effect of reinforcing sexist patterns of thought.
>Many hundreds of years ago, the word "woman" evolved from "wif"
>and "man", the latter word at the time carrying no gender information.
>Therefore logical consistency requires that we now consider the
>word "woman" sexist when applied to women. This is what you're
>saying, and it sure sounds dumb to me.
>
>H.
>

If you find it *so* dumb, find a flaw in my argument.

                                                         Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's 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 I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 15:10:02 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Radical feminists

In article <1992Dec24.032915.12400@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
says:
>
>In article <92358.154429HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
>writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.195637.8547@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal      )
>Nadeau
>>says:
>>>
>>> ("Gay", after all, is a euphemism coined
>>>by people who couldn't face the reality of "homosexual".)
>>>
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
>Then please enlighten me, Herschel.  What is the origin of "gay" to mean
>"homosexual"?  And is there a distinction I'm missing between "gay" and
>"homosexual"?  (A serious query!)

"Gay" or "the gay life" or just "the life" were terms once applied
to persons of questionable sexual practices, particularly, and
indiscriminately, to prostitutes and ...er...sodomites. Way back
behind that usage there probably is a euphemism. At any rate, as
I understand the story, the innocuous sense of "gay" was gradually
developed as a code, a sort of sexual-underground cant. This was
often made necessary by the legal persecution of queers, which made
trying to pick someone up in a bar potentially a trip to the
slammer. So in the barroom cant, one could say to another in whom
one was interested "this is a really gay place, isn't it?" which
signaled interest without being an actual come-on. This could
be apocryphal, of course. At any rate, during the liberation
wars of the sixties it was picked up as a self-identification
by many. In recent years, a lot of folks, especially the more
radical, have preferred "queer" which has the advantage of not
sounding so stupid when used as a noun. But believe me, "queer"
is not a euphemism for "gay".

>
>BTW, I meant nothing derogatory - however, euphemisms are commonly
>used to avoid "unspeakable" words - words that shock either the
>speaker, or the society the speaker lives in.

Oh, I didn't imagine you were being derogatory; if I had thought
that I would probably have borrowed from another thread and
said "horseshit" rather than "nonsense". At any rate, it's
merely common courtesy to call people by names they don't
dislike. Few of us queers are actually *offended* by "gay"; many
are offended by "homosexual", a term that arose in 19th-c. medicine,
which in turn implies a way of thinking about sexuality that is
distasteful, to me and to many others. Ultimately, of course, you
can call me anything but late for dinner.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Standards
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:41:44 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1231@dsbc.icl.co.uk> jjf@dsbc.icl.co.uk (J J Farrell) writes:
>
>I'm glad to say that the correct standard within England is not up
>for debate since most English people accept that there is no such thing.

Results of a statistical survey, please. Have these people been
questioned about their  opinion on the Queen's English and BBC
English ?

                                                            Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's 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 I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:51:21 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1hnr3hINNga1@shelley.u.washington.edu> lukoff@stein.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff) writes:

# -Men is *not* a masculine suffix.

Trying to be purely descriptive for a moment, I find I react
differently to different instances of "-man".

For instance, I don't even notice if someone refers to a female as a
"freshman".  With "chairman" I always notice, and there is something a
little jarring about it.  With "mailman" and "weatherman", I get quite
a jolt.

One factor here is the stress pattern, but that doesn't seem to
account for the whole range of different reactions.  I pronounce
"mailman" and "weatherman" with a definite secondary stress on the
second syllable, so the pronunciation of "man" is clear.  But I
pronounce "chairman" and "freshman" with no secondary stress, so that
the "man" part is very indistinct.

Yet "freshman" and "chairman" don't seem equally natural in reference
to a woman.  Go figure!

David Johns
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: uhde@ollie.jsc.nasa.gov (Jo Uhde)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists 
Organization: NASA/ Johnson Space Center
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:05:58 GMT

In article <Bzqu43.L33@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

> Whatever gives you the idea that I am humour impaired
                                        ^^^^^^
Now, we just _knew_ he would take that bait! ;-)

>I appreciate a good joke when I see one.

Aww, come on Mandar.  It might not be as good as David Letterman, but its
better than your average Aggie joke.

> Could someone please explain?

Sigh ... How could we ever begin to explain?

> 
>                                               Thanks,
> 
>                                                         Mandar.

Should we put rec.humor onto Mandar?  There's a fellow there collecting Indian
jokes.

HO! HO! HO! MERRY CHRISTMAS Y'ALL!
THE ROCKET SCIENTISTS AND SPACE CADETS ARE READY TO BLAST OUT OF HERE.
HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY!

DrJo  ***   uhde@ollie.jsc.nasa.gov
-- Not much of a sig, but it _is_ my NASA nickname.
-- Please, apply all of the usual disclaimers.  I don't want to be sent
-- into orbit in the (unpressurized) cargo bay of the Orbiter.


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:11:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.034321.14286@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi):
>:>It's good enough for the British, so it ought to be good enough
>:>for you.
>
>Are people from Scotland British?  

Yes.  Scotland is located on the island of Great Britain.

>
>:It isn't. Prove to me that most Englishmen find American English to
>:be as good as English English.
>:
>:                                                         Mandar.
>
>Prove that it matters.
>

Can't be done.  :-)
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:07:21 GMT

In article <BzMzC5.Inq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>    Just how far should we allow this assault on the English language
>
>      Clearly, words such as "mankind" weren't deemed to be sexist by
>most women, before these radical feminists started their tirade. Stop
>misguiding people, you chauvinists!
>
>                                                             Mandar.
>-- 

	You engage in the fallacy that most people mean what they say
and say what they mean, which implies that most people don't always
know what they think and think what they know.
	On a side note, what do you mean by "Clearly?"  Should I take
it that you didn't have the intention of being precise but wanted to
convey a certain tone by the usage of "Clearly?"  You know, if someone
argues with your logic, then it cannot be clear enough.  Or perhaps I
should read something extra into your usage of the word "Clearly" by 
saying that your tone is one of angry frustration and the metaphor
"Clearly" is intended to put down the opposing side by making them
look stupid for not seeing what is clearly so clear to you?
	Similarly, am I trying to mock you by my usage of the word
"clearly" or am I just trying to show you how slippery language]
can be?  Let's say I tell you that my intention is the latter, but
you're in a bad mood and refuse to believe that it isn't the former,
does that mean that I've insulted you?  You discussed something about
a put down--forgot exactly so I chose a mild example--being a put
down only if the woman feels it is a put down in a part of your post
which I--unfortunately--deleted.

	You really don't seem to understand the value of feminism--radical
or not.  Like all good literary theories: deconstruction, Saussurean
linguistics, reader response criticism, marxism, structuralism, formalism,
or hermeneuitics, feminism opens the way for all of us to view things in
another different and new way.  Your reaction, I sense, is not against
the feminist movement itself but, perhaps, to the threat you feel at
having heretofore open space closed to you.  That is, you may be reacting
out of personal inadequacies.  Now, this analysis of mine is NOT meant
to be some deep psychoanalysis of any kind.  Rather, what I just did is
to ask a question that leads to a questioning of the self and the seeking
of the motives that drive the self.  In this vein, one can use the question
and learn how and why one reacts to whatever and perhaps even learn to
live with ideas/things previously viewed as threats.  In a very important
way, feminism is making us question what we do or have done, or what
others do or have done.  The detached questioning one takes to approach
such new information as feminism helps one integrate that new information.

blah, blah, blah ... 

wing
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: _1984_ and "they"
Date: 26 Dec 92 12:25:20 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK


I have just finished reading _Nineteen Eighty-Four_.  The book is
written in "he"-English, from cover to cover, except for _one_
occurrence of singular "they".  It is in Part 3, Chapter 6, where
Julia says:

  `You _want_ it to happen to the other person.
   You don't give a damn what they suffer.'

I'm pretty sure this is the only one (I've been reading very closely).
I haven't read anything else by G Orwell, so I don't know what happens
in his other books, though I intend to find out in the very near future.
In the meantime I invite comments from the group.

-- 
 `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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: excrement/secretion diversity
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.163959.6337@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu
writes:

>In the spirit of the "seize-on," with its oh-too-many holidays, I would suggest
>that we be ecumenical in our choice of excrement.  Rat shit was a good'un,
>but in general I prefer more evocative terms such as...
>
>pissing contest (much like debates on a.u.e.!)

   Never get into a pissin' match with a polecat.

as the saying goes.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: mckeonj@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake!
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:11:34 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

In article <1992Dec16.174031.18814@pixel.kodak.com>, john@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com (John Hall) writes:
> Why the convention is to serve from the left and remove from the right is 
> still a mystery to me.
Two waiters? (one taking, followed by one putting)
-- 
"If England sleeps, shall Ireland dream?" : Se/an macEoin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: pukka sahib English (Re: Standards)
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:14:59 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <C01vJ6.CCK@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>Prince Philip [...] speaks English amazingly well for a Greek,
>don't you think?

I dinnae ken.  I've never heard him.  He does visit the University
occasionally, but I've never been particularly anxious to meet him.

I wonder what he'll be a Duke of after the proclamation of the
sovereign Republic of Scotland.

I don't mind having him set as The Standard, though, to be upheld by
public-school-educated Indians.  (You can see how much I care.)

-- 
 `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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: An apology
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:16:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.070305.26332@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
:Oh Roger, come on.  You know better than that.  Mandar has given us
:three standards already in descending order of preference:
:
:	- The "common elements" of an English accent
:	- The English spoken by the Queen
:	- The English spoken by the BBC
:
:If England were to disappear, you can bet he'd make up another.

I suspect what he really considers 'proper English' is that spoken by
public-school-educated Indians, and probably thinks the Queen and the
(old-style) BBC offer a sufficiently close approximation to be acceptable.

G
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:38:29 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Dec29.192539.8424@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:

# In article <38070@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu
# (David A. Johns ) writes:
# >[...]
# >
# >Since "wif" meant "woman", and "man" meant "person", "wif-man"
# >meant "woman-person".  "Wife of man" would be something like
# >"weras wif".
#
# I'm just trying to follow this, so don't anyone think I'm working
# an agenda here.  It doesn't make sense to me to have "wif-man" mean
# "woman-person".  Woman to me means "female human", and I imagined
# that "wif-man" meant the same thing.  In other words, wouldn't
# "wif" just equate to "female", and not "woman"?

Well, I don't know the exact sequence of changes in meaning, but the
basic problem is that the words meant different things at different
times.

In Old English there was "wif" (woman), "wer" (man), and "man"
(person).  At some point "wif" started to become specialized to mean
wife, "man" started to be restricted to the modern meaning of "man",
and "wer" slid into oblivion (except in "werewolf", of course).  The
French borrowing "person" replaced the old "man", but instead of
borrowing a word to fill the empty spot left by "wif", the English
formed a compound, out of old parts lying around, it seems.

Another interesting related word is modern "husband", which derives
from OE "husbanda", which meant something like master of the house. On
the other hand, the OE "huswif", which looks like it should have given
"housewife", actually turned into "hussy"!  Our "housewife" is a
reinvention of the same compound after phonological and semantic
changes had obscured the original one.

In any case, you're right that there doesn't seem to be a stage at
which "wif" meant female independently of personhood, but that might
be too much to expect.  After all, what's the sense of "boychild" and
"girlchild" (to say nothing of "manchild")?

David Johns

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:06:18 GMT

In article <Bzqry0.JBH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.235322.14850@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>In article <Bzoo4r.830@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>>>The motive which drives me is the prevention of wicked assaults carried
>>>out by misguided, radical feminists on the English language.
>>language to help reduce its inherent sexism.  So you can't say you
>>haven't called me a "misguided, radical feminist", as you claimed in
>>another post.  You've made it very clear what you think of people who
>>don't share your views on language.

>I would consider you to be a person who's misguided by radical feminists.

How the hell would you know that?  You don't know anything *about*
radical feminists, and you've done a good job of proving that.

>[...lines where she calls me a prescriptivist, deleted....]

>    I am not a prescriptivist. 

Huh?  You insist on an artificial standard for the language and you're
not a prescriptivist?  You insist on some artificial standard for the
generic singular and you're not a prescriptivist?  

I think you don't know what "prescriptivist" means.  

Especially since you told us you were changing Lennon's words to make
them more "correct."\

>But I am against "artificially" 
>reforming language. Let the language take its own course. Let the
>speakers use it as they would wish to. We don't need any radical
>feminists to brainwash us into thinking that some word is sexist,
>and some other isn't, and so, the latter should be used instead
>of the former. 

How do you know they don't have some truth in some of their arguments?

You *can't* know that if you don't know their arguments, which you
have amply demonstrated that you don't.  

Moreover, they don't claim that words are sexist, but that certain USES
of those words are sexist.  Uses of words are ACTS -- and there are 
certainly sexist acts, including speech acts.

>As long as there are people who don't find these
>words sexist, nor have any intention of using them to demean
>women, there is no justification for dropping the use of these
>words.

Fine.  So if there are some people out there who don't mean anything
derogatory in calling you a wog, or an African-American a nigger, it's 
OK to use those words?

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: K Street
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:45:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.055157.29196@microsoft.com> frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney) writes:
:But is this Whitehall the (former) palace or the thoroughfare? I had
:always assumed the former, in which case it would not qualify.

Isn't it the long lane behind the Admiralty building?

G

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english