HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Words that peeve
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:11:47 GMT

dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:


>  => In a message to All on 07-26-92  16:48 Breadner Kenneth Cecil J said:

> BKCJ> --thusly (already mentioned)
> BKCJ> --hereinbefore (who coined this one?!)
> BKCJ> --likewise, "thereinafter"

> BKCJ> Why, oh why, can't lawyers use language the rest of us can wade
> BKCJ> through wihout the use of hip waders?

>You should know what you're in for when you see on the lawyers' door,
>"John Smith and Mary Jones, PC, Attorneys at Law".

>Can they be attorneys at anything else?

>                                                   -- Dan --

>                      +------------------------------+
>                      |   dand@buscard.fidonet.org   |
>                      +------------------------------+
>                      |       Dan Davidson           |
>                      +------------------------------+




>... THINK! or thwim.
>--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
>                                     
Yes, an attorney is someone who can take your place.  An attorney at
law represents you in your legal affairs, other sorts of attorney can
represent you in other activities.  Of course this is an older usage,
and now attorney in English basically means legal rep.  The redundancy
is in the ear of the behearer (sic) .

Dennis


-- 
Dennis Baron                                         debaron@uiuc.edu 
University of Illinois at Urbana                     217-333-2392
From: claudiak@spider.co.uk (Claudia Kale)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:04:41 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>In article <oeQibGu00awAQ6jEwK@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> I always thought everyone understood the distinction between 'this'
>> weekend, meaning this upcoming weekend, and 'next' weekend, meaning the
>> one after that. Is that really used more often by non-American speakers?
>
>To this non-American, "this weekend" means the coming weekend, and
>"next weekend" is ambiguous.  "Last weekend" is also ambiguous, but
>only because today is a Monday.  Thinking about this, I've just
>realised that to me "this Saturday" is ambiguous when I'm speaking
>on a Monday, but that "this weekend" almost always refers to the future.
>(Exception: "What did you do this weekend?")
>
>Usually I try to avoid the ambiguity by using phrases like:
>     this coming Saturday (the very next Saturday to arrive)
>     Saturday week        (about a week and a half from now)
>Is the construct "Saturday week" used outside Australia?
>-- 
>Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au

Yes, "[Some]day week" is used outside Australia; it's quite common
here.

Cheers,
Claudia (.sigless)
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *Indian* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:39:56 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

In article Ht3@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>English in India is as different from English in England as American
>English is.  Any claim to the contrary, even from one who may be
>England-returned, is wrong.  Braj Kachru has written extensively
>on the nature of South Asian English.  Indian English differs in
>phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and idiom from the other World
>Englishes, is neither more nor less correct than its peers, and
>is both extensively used and influential locally and internationally.

Also, I am finding those precise characteristics of the very beautiful
language which we are knowing as English, as she is spoken in fairest
India that differ in one way or another from the corresponding
characteristics of this language as she is spoken in the country of
our monarch to be something one can only put one's finger on with
great difficulty, don't you think so, babu?        :-)

(I must look up that reference. Indian English, even from writers who
don't display the obvious quirks seems very different in a nice kind of way.)

-m.
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:05:21 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

plu@math.psu.edu (T. Andrew Simpson) writes:


>American is still fairly beautiful by this standard....

       Not at all...it has already been mutilated.....

>   This is what makes English so unique! So lay off Americans!
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Lots of American companies have been doing this lately.  Actually they've
>been laying off employees of every nationality.... 

I do not know whether people reading my article have misunderstood that
sentence intentionally or not. Anyway, what I meant by that remark ("lay
off Americans") was : All you Amercians out there....do not spoil the
English language (in other words, lay off! Keep away!, etc.)

>Never cared much for smileys either.  But this is not a flame, as I can't
>take your article seriously.  Or did someone else hijack your terminal?

I did not think you would take it seriously right now...maybe someday, you
will. Nope.....nobody hijacked my terminal.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu's message of Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:19:55 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<keRU3yK00iUx07W1p6@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Jul29.191955.20099@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 02:03:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.191955.20099@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

> I did not make that point LITERALLY.......it is just that when
> you substitute letters for pronounciations, you can end up with funny
> results....that's all. I AM NOT proposing to change the spelling of
> fish to ghoti. I was just pointing out some of the language's 
> idiosyncracies, which make it quite unique. 

[In unison, please...]

How unique is it?  Is it more unique than Hindi?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:15:30 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Jul30.000358.3376@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
>:>   This is what makes English so unique! So lay off Americans!
>:>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>:>Lots of American companies have been doing this lately.  Actually they've
>:>been laying off employees of every nationality.... 
>:
>:I do not know whether people reading my article have misunderstood that
>:sentence intentionally or not. 
>
>It would have helped if you had employed the proper placement of 
>a comma, as we native speakers typically do to signal the pause
>in our voices preceding a noun of direct address.1
>
>--tom
        Is it proper netiquette to attack typos?? Alright, alright I
am sorry about that too!!!
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: ex-presidents' titles
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: dand@buscard.fidonet.org's message of Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:33:17 EDT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:57:25 GMT

In article <gate.7LwFoB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org>, dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:

> -=> Quoting Mark Slagle to All <=-

>> The time I was hurt at, doesn't matter to the insurance company.

>MS> The time at which I was hurt doesn't matter...

> I'd go for that one, only I druther not have to use "which".

Keep in mind what I said at the top of the posting where 
this was at.  The rewrites that I gave are first-order
only, they were not where it's really at.

See if this is more the way you like them at:

"The insurance company doesn't give a damn what the time
was when I was hurt" at.

See you later at.
Mark at.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: shrew, as in taming o
Date: 26 Jul 92 10:03:08 GMT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


  => In a message to All on 07-22-92  19:18 Joanne Eglash said:

 JE> What is the origin of the word "shrew," as in "The Taming of..."?
 JE> I have checked some references, and they seem to vary. 

A shrew is a small, rodent-like carnivore with a very high metabolic
rate and a nasty disposition, consequently not a likely pet.  In size
alone, it shoudn't be threatening, but don't try to make nice.

Calling Katherine a shrew is just using a nasty analogy on a virago.

Not to be confused with a tree shrew, which is a primitive species of
primate.

                                                   -- Dan --


... THINK! or thwim.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                                                                                                             
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: "French" spacing (was: How many spaces after a period?)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 07:08:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.105011.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

>One which has always amused me is "filet americain": American fillet.
>This refers to a dish made with uncooked ground beef.  (Not just lightly
>cooked, but completely uncooked.)  How did this ever get to be thought
>of as an American recipe?  Most Americans I know use the term "rare"
>(in reference to a steak, for example) to mean what I would call
>"well done", so I find it hard to imagine that raw meat would be a
>popular dish in the US.

It sounds as if I'd better retract this.  From all the responses I've
seen, I gather that raw beef is indeed eaten in the USA, and that rare
steak is available and appreciated.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Peter.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:46:26 GMT

In article <JAAPJL.92Jul23152543@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov>,
jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap) writes:
> I strongly agree that it's idiom, and arguing which is `right' is
> unfruitful.  However, comparing idioms can be very enlightening.

Agreed as ...

> For example, the following exchange sounds very natural to me:
> 
> a: Have you heard?  Jane's in the hospital.
> b: No.  Which hospital?

If I was a) then my response to that would then be "*The* hospital". The
fact that I had said "Jane's in _the_ hospital" would imply that there
could be no confusion as to which one. If I wanted to say that she was
hospitalised then I would have said "Jane's in hospital", and then b)
could legitimately respond in the manner above.
 
> The following phrases sound good to me also:
> in/at/to school

OK

> in/to elementary/middle/junior high/high school

I would still add at here too, probably.

> in/at/to college
> in/to jail/prison

OK

> at/to work

And in work, ie I am employed.

> but not (as I think the British say):
> in/at/to university

I don't know that I would ever say "in university", I can't think of an
example off hand.

> in/at academy

I would never use academy without an article. I would use in academia though.

> in hospital

In fact in/to/into hospital, and maybe at too, but I will have to think
about that one.

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: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: anymore unique
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:25:19 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 21 Jul 92 15:24:34 GMT

In article <Brqw5C.Hrz@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:

> But of course words are leaky things; they don't do what we tell 
> them to, we resist other people's strictures, we reject language
> authority at the same time we seek to know what's right, and where
> to put the commas.

Sometimes we resist other's strictures, and other times we resist
their incursions and their wanderings.  We can be both radical
and conservative.

> Sure there are conventions of usage.  But like most conventions,
> they drink too much and walk a less than steady line.

Nice metaphor.

> To insist
> on rigor from a flabby system, which is what language is, means
> you will always be disappointed, and usage critics are always
> disappointed.

I'm not disappointed, although I do get overly indignant at times.
I don't insist on rigor from the system, if by that you mean that
I insist on uniform agreement and universal conformance.  But I
will defend what I think is correct, and I think that there can
be meaning to the word.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: brea9430@mach4.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u)
Subject: Words that peeve
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:48:40 GMT

My list of words which annoy would have to include all the terms of
"legalese":

--thusly (already mentioned)
--hereinbefore (who coined this one?!)
--likewise, "thereinafter"

Why, oh why, can't lawyers use language the rest of us can wade through
wihout the use of hip waders?

Ken
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:56:47 EDT
From: Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: letter to Mandar

Date:    30 July 1992, 13:28:11 EDT
From:    Callec Dradja                              GRV101   at PSUVM
To:      mmmirash at midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English

Dear Mandar,

     I won't even try to convince of my point because I think
that it would fall of deaf ears but trust me about this one,
you are coming off in this group as being very ill informed.
I don't know your age but from your posting I would guess that
you are about seventeen. You are full of passion but very little
knowledge. You want Americans to speak correct English but you
don't recognise your own grammatical mistakes and some of them
are pretty bad, you don't even realize that Indian English as taught
in Indian schools is quite a bit different than British English.

     Mandar, other posters have pointed out to you that in many
ways, American English is more pure than British English in that
it has preserved forms that once existed in England but died
out.

     Lastly, I sugest that you read prescriptive articles written
in England. Very few people in England speak the way that YOU would
like them to. The prescriptive norm reflect the speech of the upper
class a hundred years ago. The royalty of England do not speak the
way that the grammar books would like them to.

     The fact is Mandar that you have come off as being very ill-
informed both about linguistics and about proper grammar in that you
have shown that you speak like an Indian using Indian grammar.
If you watch American films, you will sometimes see Indians made
fun off for the way they speak and you too have this pattern of
speech which can be seen in your writing. A classic example is when
you said, "hearing". This is not correct British English.

     If you want to see an example of Indian English which
Americans love to make fun of, just get a copy of the film
"Short Circut" on vidio tape. In this movie there is an Indian
character who is made fun of for the way he speaks and I mean
both his accent and his GRAMMAR. I would not be surprised if
you sound a lot like this character; your written grammar is the
same as his spoken.

                                sincerely,
                                Gregson Vaux.

********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die,           *  Gregson Vaux          *
* then tell me about the birds that fly.  *  Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live,         *  Semitics & English    *
* would springtime be there to forgive?   *  GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu  *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:56:01 GMT

In article <Bs5pKo.Ht3@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis
Baron) writes:
> The Indian community in the US adapts to American English in the
> second generation as quickly as any other immigrant group has done.
> The same, btw, is true for Pakistanis and Nigerians, not to mention
> Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians.  

And indeed the English.

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: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:18:13 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul25.151025.16685@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>I'm a native New Yorker, and I too will say "this weekend" for the
>weekend coming up, and "next weekend" to the weekend AFTER.  However,
>my usage is a little different.  On Monday morning, for instance, I would
>use "this weekend" to refer to the weekend that had just taken place,
>and would specify the approaching weekend with "this coming weekend."
>However, by tuesday or wednesday, "this weekend" means the coming weekend,
>and "next weekend" means the one after.

Hmmmmmmm.  On Long Island, it would be "this last weekend", "this coming
weekend" and "next weekend", respectively.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
From: esr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Edwin S. Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:57:21 GMT

> > Contributions are encouraged.
> 
> "Roast beef with au jus" in menus.  

Potatoes au gratin with cheese.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:37:31 GMT


In article <4821@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, esr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Edwin S. Russell) writes:
> > > Contributions are encouraged.
> > 
> > "Roast beef with au jus" in menus.  
> 
> Potatoes au gratin with cheese.

How about "Steak with smothered onions?"  (Howard Johnson's menu, circa 1976)

My heart goes out to those poor defenseless onions...
-- 
Larry Campbell             The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
campbell@redsox.bsw.com    Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: french
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:10:55 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <Brspxq.KDM@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>A New York minute seems to be a very brief time (< 60 secs.); is
>it negative?  I heard it during convention coverage, but since I
>am from New York I am not familiar with the term.

As a former NY'er, I can testify that a New York minute is less than one
second.  NY'ers talk fast and walk fast and often seem to more laid-back
citizens of the country to be in fast-forward.  I also think it derives
from the phrase "just a second", which I've heard more in NY than "just
a minute" which is seemingly more prevalent elsewhere.  I've also heard
"New York minute" defined as the amount of time which passes between the
time a traffic light turns green and the time the guy behind you blows his
horn.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.