HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 23:53:22 GMT

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.

Mandar, I'm one of the people who wishes to "reform" the English
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.

"wicked assaults on the English language"?  How does one assault a
language?  A language is a tool, and an intangible, ever-evolving one.
(How old is the word "feminist", anyway?)  No, Mandar, I don't "assault"
the English language - I just choose to use it differently than you do.
It is, after all, a language that is very rich in possibilities, in
flexibility - if anything, it is your attempts to lock up the language
to fit your views that is an "assault".

Let English live, Mandar, let it breathe, and grow, as all living things
live and grow.  Don't try to freeze it into one particular dialect,
because this happened to be the dialect of a particularly effective band
of conquerors . . .

(Let's ignore, for now, the fact that the dialect of the conquerors was
itself evolving while they went about on their conquests . . .)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:01:49 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake!

In article <1992Dec20.061608.20205@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>,
slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser") says:
>
>
>I *know* that.  My question was, why do *copy editors* routinely insist that a
>double hyphen is not the correct symbol for an em dash when it's what the
>typesetters prefer?

There are still typesetters?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:41:30 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec22.030111.25846@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>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
>>by radical feminists? They claim "history" is sexist. Next, they'll
>>claim that "manager" is sexist. Finally, do we change "this" to "tits"?
>
>What big works you use Mandar - "assault", "radical feminists", "they
>claim" - you've not proven "they" condemn "history" as sexist, and you
>can't prove it, because "they" don't.  

What can I say to a person who hasn't taken the trouble to read the
references I provided to support this claim?


(It really amuses me to be
>branded a "radical feminist" for preferring "persons" to "men (including
>women)".)
>

*I* didn't specifically brand you a "radical feminist", did I?

I find those feminists who wish to change all words which contain
"his", "man", etc. radical.

>Then to cap it, an absurd example - an argument used by those who defend
>sexist usage, attributed to those who oppose it.  

I didn't attribute the example to either "defenders" or "opposers".
I simply quoted a person's view on the subject.


>Putting words in
>people's mouth is not considered cricket, Mandar.
>
But the "googly" *is*!     ;)

>Sorry, Mandar, but such nonsense doesn't do your credibility any good.
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

Offended because not ALL people concur with you? I can hardly blame
you. It isn't "nonsense", btw. I have quoted published references.

                                                        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: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:33:37 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <38018@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>In article <12151@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
># Given that "they" is rejected by many native speakers, it is bloody
># obvious that it is not at all perfectly fine.  It beats me how
># anyone can state the opposite.
>
>Well, to begin with, you have to define a range of contexts.  As far
>as I can tell, most English speakers accept -- and produce --
>sentences where "they" refers to an indefinite pronoun.

I have the same impression, although I haven't been counting.

>A somewhat smaller number accepts "they" referring to a category noun used
>generically ("person", "doctor", etc.), with a gradation of acceptance
>roughly proportional to the specificity of the noun.

Yes.  Context influences acceptability.  Which becomes evident when people
give two or three examples, all taken from one end of the scale, and
claim that they show that singular "they" is always/never acceptable.
Even I occasionally use "they" with "everybody" as antecedent.

>If you're claiming that "many" native speakers reject *all* use of
>singular "they",

I can't make such a strong claim, but recall that the current rebirth
of this eternal discussion was provoked by a netter objecting against
a certain use of singular "they" in I don't remember what context.

>well, I'd have to point out that "many" native
>speakers also reject stranded prepositions and split infinitives,

It may be the case that those speakers actually speak a Latinised
variety of English which always keeps prepositions immediately before
their objects and "to"s immediately before the verbs.  That should be
their right, although I find both stranded prepositions and split
"infinitives" charming.

>and maybe I'd suggest that you are surrounded by a higher percentage of
>pedants there at Edinburgh than are generally extant in the population.

Actually, I meant mostly people whom I meet on the net, not in person.
Most Edinburgh people, pedants or otherwise, use singular "they".  (I
socialise mostly within the University, where 60% of the people are
English, mostly belonging to the middle/upper-middle class -- and few
of them are linguists.)

-- 
 `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
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:49:19 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites

In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>
>Those who oppose words such as "stewardess", "heroine", "hostess" are
>hypocrites. Their explanation  is that these words further the notion that
>being a man is the norm and being a woman is a deviant. i.e. there
>aren't different words for the male *and* the female. Yet, they
>accept the word "woman". The word "woman" comes from "man". (wif-man or
>literally "wife of man")

Did you decide that you already knew this, or did you make it up?
It certainly isn't..oh...*true* or anything. It's not something
that you'll find in a *book* or anything. What it is is something
that you'll find if you look in a book that Mandar wrote, which
he made up. Perhaps those of us capable of looking things up will
actually find, when we look things up, that "wif-man" actually
does not mean "wife of man", and, in fact, that "wif-man" never
came close to meaning that, and that no one EVER  THOUGHT that
it meant that. Maybe if you bothered to *look it up* you would
KNOW that it doesn't mean "wife of man". But of course you know
much better than looking it up, because you just *know*, eh?

Hint to you, Mandar: Look it up. Go find an Oxford English
Dictionary. Find the entry for "Woman"; then find the entry for
"wife"; then find the entry for "man". Then maybe you'll have
some idea of what you're talking about, although I doubt it.
Then you can report back to us. Maybe.

Love,
Herschel
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: chaps
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:41:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.125948.10966@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <baron.92.724957187@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>> Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
>> or elsewhere has met any resistance? 
>
>I suspect it is a lot less widespread than people have been making out.
>Speaking as a Public-School-and-Oxbridge educated man it conjures up thoughts
>of terribly clubby Public-School-and-Oxbridge educated men with jobs in Daddy's
>company and blonde bombshell girlfriends with brains almost as small as their
>inamorati's guzzling champagne in fashionable wine bars. (Cultural
>stereotyping? Surely not!) I certainly don't hear it used non-gender-
>specifically, and I hear it used to men very rarely.
>-- 
>


This whole thread started because I complained to Mandar when he
referred to me as a "chap" (singular).  I love the way threads
get spun off, because it wasn't a plural usage of chaps that I
was protesting.  Not that I've ever heard the words "chaps" or
"lads" used for mixed groups of males and females anyway.  Must
be something outside the social groups with which I have contact.

It really chaps my hide.    :-)
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Standards
Date: 1 Jan 93 04:37:07 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <12223@kesson.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

# In article <38068@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu
# (David A. Johns ) writes:
# >Mandar, you aren't really naive enough to think that "The Queen's
# >English" means English as spoken by the queen, are you?
#
# It may very well be the same thing.  I've heard Mrs Elizabeth Windsor
# on the radio, and she certainly sounds as though she has been
# trained to speak the Queen's English.

But I'd bet she wouldn't know where to put the who's and whom's in all
those sentences we posted.

# >The "common characteristics of the English accent" wouldn't fit in
# >a thimble.
#
# Of course they would.  Do you mean that they wouldn't fill a
# thimble?

Eek!

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.urban
From: godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Twatology (was Andy the Canadian twat)
Followup-To: alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.155859.23475@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In: <102586@netnews.upenn.edu>
>>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Andy the Canadian twat
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec18.044635.18892@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, ecl@cbnewsj (Evelyn C.
>>>>As a woman reader of s.c.j, I find the use of the word "twat" in this
>>>>context (and indeed, in any context) offensive, and would ask that
>>>>posters refrain from using it.
>>>
>>>It's also atrocious grammar.  The masculine is twit.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just falling for the bait here, but I don't believe the two words
> to be related.  "Twit" comes from the Old English "witan," meaning "to
> reproach," with the noun eventually developing from the verb "to twit."
> -- 
> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
> standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
> the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
I am inclined to agree with Ted - twat can be applied to a male or female,
just as the harsher word for the female genitalia may be applied to either,
but in practise is more commonly applied to males.

Laurence
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Who are `we'? (was: Comments in source code)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:13:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Dec29.060209.17732@g2syd.genasys.com.au>  
roberts@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Robert Swan) writes:
> However, in the newer code, comments tend to be complete sentences and
> (here's the part that interests me) speak in terms of the 1st person
> plural ...  `We need to get the filename', `We can't proceed unless it's
> the right type'.  Reading the source code has taken on an us and them
> aspect.
> 
> Who are `we'.  Me and my program?  Me and the other programmers?
> The royal we (since I am creator of the universe in my program,
> I suppose I could put on royal airs)?

This is very common in mathematical writing.  I use `we' to refer to the reader  
and me.  Paul R. Halmos discusses this in his book on mathematical exposition.   
(I don't recall the exact title, but I think he was one of four co-authors.)
--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.... Love your
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       |  enemies."--Jesus of Nazareth
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:06:31 GMT

(Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
[...]
>Besides, singular "they" is frequently being sold side by side with
>such obvious FemiNewspeak artifacts as "E(m/ir)", "hir" and the like.
[...]
>Sometimes marketing matters more than origin. [...]
>In the same way, the effort that the PC people put
>into selling singular "they" has the power to make it, for all
>practical purposes, a PC word.

Isn't it just as mindless to _resist_ singular 'they' because it is PC
as it is to _accept_ it for the same reason?

Werner
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton)
Subject: Re: who or whom (The Series.)
Reply-To: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: Indexed; Access: Random.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:14:33 +0000

In article <12064@scott.ed.ac.uk> jim@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jim  Scobbie) writes:
>Who only England know (1943)    [not sure about this, maybe odd wordorder?]

It's Kipling, I think (confirmation delayed pending Santa Claus bringing
me a nice new ODQ :-)), which would put it somewhat older than 1943.

"What do they know of England, who only England know ?"

Nick.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists 
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:09:36 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec23.183805.26052@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> uhde@ollie.jsc.nasa.gov (Jo Uhde) writes:
>In article <725097282snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz>, hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> In article <1992Dec22.030111.25846@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca writes:
>> 
>>   > branded a "radical feminist" for preferring "persons" to "men (including
>
>I can't _wait_ to tell my friend Chakravarthi (Chucks) that he is a radical
>feminist!  To show that all Indians are not as humor (humour?) impaired as
>Mandar is, 

Whatever gives you the idea that I am humour impaired? I appreciate a
good joke when I see one. But these "radical feminists" aren't joking!
And from the foll. passage, I don't consider Chakravarthi to be a 
radical feminist, I simply find him to be a person *misguided* by
these feminists.

I will relate the following exchange between Chucks, and another
>Indian friend, Vaman:
>
>CHUCKS: Vaman, you must change your name in order to be PC.
>
          [..rest deleted...]

What is PC???
All I can think of is "personal computer".

Could someone please explain?

                                              Thanks,

                                                        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.
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 05:58:51 GMT

In article <BzoK98.521@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.030111.25846@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>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
>>>by radical feminists? They claim "history" is sexist. Next, they'll
>>>claim that "manager" is sexist. Finally, do we change "this" to "tits"?

>>What big works you use Mandar - "assault", "radical feminists", "they
>>claim" - you've not proven "they" condemn "history" as sexist, and you
>>can't prove it, because "they" don't.  

>What can I say to a person who hasn't taken the trouble to read the
>references I provided to support this claim?

The references you posted didn't support your claim.  Not by a long
shot.  Some of them undermined it.

>(It really amuses me to be
>>branded a "radical feminist" for preferring "persons" to "men (including
>>women)".)

>*I* didn't specifically brand you a "radical feminist", did I?

By now, it's hard to tell what you mean by your spew.

>I find those feminists who wish to change all words which contain
>"his", "man", etc. radical.

Name one such.  Can you show us that these people exist?  If not, 
tell us why you post indignantly about being "disgusted."  

>>Then to cap it, an absurd example - an argument used by those who defend
>>sexist usage, attributed to those who oppose it.  

>I didn't attribute the example to either "defenders" or "opposers".
>I simply quoted a person's view on the subject.

No, you quoted a view on a different subject.  Amazing, how one can
type without actually reading something.

>>Putting words in people's mouth is not considered cricket, Mandar.

>But the "googly" *is*!     ;)

Sorry, Mandar, but we're not laughing.  Your slimy argumentative style
is not excused by the occasional wisecrack-plus-smiley.  

>>Sorry, Mandar, but such nonsense doesn't do your credibility any good.

>>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

>Offended because not ALL people concur with you? I can hardly blame
>you. It isn't "nonsense", btw. I have quoted published references.

No, you haven't.  You've quoted things, but they don't refer to the 
things you claim they do.

Roger

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:10221 rec.arts.books:23741 talk.philosophy.misc:3129
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:43:56 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Epiphany, Reincarnation

Epiphany (Three Kings) is just three days away, but I've already had
my epiphany for 1993. I've never believed in reincarnation, but....Over
the course of the last two years, reading articles posted by someone
calling himself either Mikhail or Michael Zeleny, I've had this nagging
feeling that I had *heard this voice before*. There was this familiarity
that I couldn't quite place. Last night it came to me. It's Thomas
Carlyle! His style has been vulgarized even further since the reincarnation,
but Carlyle he very clearly is. I'm glad I'm finally able to clear this up.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University, use-ta
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Xmas in Beijing
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:35:45 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <20200.2b383abb@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
<Just for fun at Xmas time, a definition:
<A native English speaker is one who cannot, or will not,
<pronounce the guttural H.

This can't be richt.  It leaves out a bonny number of Scots.

-- 
 `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: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: An apology
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:18:48 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec29.053058.29564@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzMx61.HEq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>My sincere apologies for misquoting John Lennon.
>
>Great.  Now imagine there's no countries,

I just tried to imagine this, and failed.  J Lennon says it isn't hard
to do, but for me it suddenly turned out to be impossible.  Did he mean
the easier task of imagining there's no states?

>After all, if there were no England, there would be no way of telling
>who spoke "superior" English.  

Of course there would.  The superior version of English would be the
English spoken in SE Scotland, near the Scottish Channel, also known
as La Manche.

-- 
 `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: rhonda@cc.usu.edu (Tye McQueen, E.)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More English Excrement
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:40:34 MDT
Reply-To: tye@spillman.com
Organization: Spillman Data Systems

In <92355.212038HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>, <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
> By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite understood,
> and maybe someone with more reference materials or a deeper understanding
> of slang than I have can enlighten me. The expression is "shit-eating
> grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
> is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

Akin to "You look like the cat that just swallowed the canary."

An extreme form of grin of someone (suspected of or) caught in the middle
of doing something they didn't want to be caught doing.  I guess eating
shit could fall under that category.

Hearing it explained doesn't make much sense.  But it made a lot of sense
to me the first time I heard it used in context.

Tye
From: madhusudanan@akocoa.enet.dec.com (MADHUSUDANAN)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Correct Usage
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:31:29 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


My friend and I had an argument over the correctness of the following expression
   "I'll press your bell or XXX's bell"

The above expression occurred in a conversation over the telephone between two
persons. "Bell" actually means the doorbell and "XXX" means another person who
lives in the same apartment building.

Madhu