HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Might-as-well'nt I
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: "Benjamin D. Lukoff"'s message of Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:56:45 -0400 
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
	<ceNsoIW00awGE0v1lM@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Jul22.093221.9524@waikato.ac.nz>
	<YePMIxC00awAQAV0p3@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 02:33:05 GMT

In article <YePMIxC00awAQAV0p3@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> "I might as well do that, mightn't I as well".....

> Actually, my second form would be the correct one, but I hope you
> resist the temptation to use either :)

Mightn't is a common usage in at least several areas
of the midwestern US.  The relatives of both of my 
father's parents, from Iowa and Missouri, make liberal
use of this contraction.  It seems perfectly natural
to me.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Subject: Re: The "right" time
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:52:37 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany

In <1992Jul11.031255.18564@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>While we're all taking about US/UK differences, I just remembered another
>one.  The last time I was in London, I remember sitting on the tube 
>and being asked by a fellow passenger pointing at my Breitling:

>	"Do you have the right time?"

>I don't know if there's some tradition in the U.K. about people giving
>others the _wrong_ time, but I remember being thrown for a loop by 
>someone asking me for the time and also wanting to know if it was right.

>Perhaps the timepieces in the U.S. are just that much more accurate that
>we can omit the "right" when we ask others if they "have the time."  

>Comments, anyone?


>--
>Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
>N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
>72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877


"Do you have the time?" was regarded by  the  London  (UK)  police  in  the
forties  and  fifties  as  "soliciting".  Thus anyone asking it could ;) be
charged for prostitution, and indeed were!  So to avoid  ambiguity,  double
entendre and others of that ilk, the adjective "right" was inserted.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:01:18 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Might-as-well'nt I
	<ceNsoIW00awGE0v1lM@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Jul22.093221.9524@waikato.ac.nz>
	<YePMIxC00awAQAV0p3@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<SLAGLE.92Jul22193302@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>

I realise "mightn't" is a common usage in all English-speaking
countries. But is the phrase "mightn't I as well" so common? I do not
believe I have ever heard that phrase used.

	Oh, well.


Benjamin Lukoff	bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Subject: Re: Ex-presidents' titles and adverbs of location
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:02:36 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany

In <1992Jul17.150134.2935@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:

>In article <1992Jul17.024432.4139@news.eng.convex.com>, 
>Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:

>> :Ex-president Reagan used to use this construction [anymore] also.  

>Tom is correct that The Hon. Mr. Reagan is still "President Reagan."

>However, Tom is incorrect when he [includes] 'anymore' above.  The 
>generational construction I referred to was " why, ..." (see my original
>post).

>(My bemoaning of "at" deleted)

>> Second, there's nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition.
>> We're not speaking Latin or its dialects, you know.  If this still bothers
>> you, cast it as the adverb of location that it is.

>Oh boy, here we go!  I abhor the use of "at" at the end of the sentence.
>It's not as if one ended a sentence in "to" or "from" -- those 
>I can stand as sentence completions.  Completing one's sentences in "at" is
>simply unnecessary at least 99.999% of the time.  I defy you to come up with
>*three* sentences that are *improved* (by appeal to reasonable criteria)
>by including "at" as the final word of the sentence over & above the
>sentence's meaning, sound, etc. without the "at" as the final word in the
>sentence.

>BTW: since you are probably wondering what the .001% of the cases would be
>that I think are fine with "at", they result from one of your least favorite
>constructions -- the passive:  "I was shot at", "I was thrown at." (And these
>two don't count toward your three sentences!  My challenge to you is to come
>up sentences improved by a final "at" for the other 99.999% of the time.)

>> 	    Hiccough has the sound of cup.
>> 	    My advice is to give up!!!

>Surely you're not saying we should stop arguing in a.u.e.?

>Have a good day, but it's optional!

>-----ted hayes

Jane, whose house I was sick at.

The burglary you were caught at.

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

Cockney haccent: Wheres me bleedin' 'at?              ;)

How's 'at?
		Stu(pid) Savory
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re:  Tree Structures
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:00:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.123155.970@dragon.com>, cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a
Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith)) writes:
>  Hi, I'm trying to diagram a sentence using tree-structures and I 
> haven't quite gotten the hang of it yet.  Here's a sentence I'm 
> working on:
> 
> 	He was extremely polite to Lavinia, scrupulously, formally 
> 	polite; and she had never seen him in anger but once in her 
> 	life, when he lost his temper in a theological discussion with 
> 	her late husband.

Well I know this has nothing to do with the question but..

I interpreted "she had never seen him in anger but once in her life" to
mean she had only ever seen him once when he wasn't angry, which I don't
think is the intention. I would have written either 
	she had never seen him in anger except once in her life
or
	she had seen him in anger but once in her life

Am I alone in this or do others find it odd?

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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: would
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: Tom Christiansen's message of Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:07:49 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:46:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.030749.21961@news.eng.convex.com>, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:

> All of a sudden I'm noticing people stating things with "would"
> that I've also heard in the indicative, as in:

> While this sort of thing has always been around a little, it seems 
> a new thing to use it as frequently as I've heard of late.

I would think so.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:49:25 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Originator: tchrist@convex.convex.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
:Perhaps one day I'll be blessed enough to learn the
:standard English accent as spoken in Britain. 

Britain?  You mean like Scotland, Wales, or Cornwall?  Perhaps
you've mistaken synthetic RP with native accents.

Come on, guys, just READ that sentence, and put him in your killfile.
He's either pulling our chains, or is both clueless and arrogant.


:What I am against is the
:corruption of word spellings! That is certainly a most shameful act, IMHO.

Ooh, shame, shame.  Ashes and sackcloth for all of you.  and s/H/A/.

--tom
-- 
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible
to accomplish complex actions."   --Doug Gwyn  (22/Jun/91 in comp.unix.wizards)

     Tom Christiansen           tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:42:08 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

>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.

>>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.  

>>Dennis (Denesh) Baron

>Could you please give me a more detailed reference on the book written
>by Braj Kachru (

first time I am hearing about him..) 

***first time I am hearing about him is Indian English.  It is not
"English English" or "American English."

Kachru has written _The Alchemy of English_, which won the Prince
of Wales Prize a couple of years ago.  He is also the author of
_The Indianization of English_.  South Asian English is his 
term, not mine.

Dennis (Denesh)
-- 
Dennis Baron                                         debaron@uiuc.edu 
University of Illinois at Urbana                     217-333-2392
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: howell@blegga.u.washington.edu (David Howell)
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:55:37 GMT

The use of ``this'' to refer to the coming weekend isn't
consistent with the use of the word in other circumstances.

``This week'' and ``last week'' and ``next week'' are always
easy because you are always *inside* a week: this week. 
You aren't always inside a weekend, sometimes you're between.
I use ``this weekend'' and ``next weekend'' interchangably, and
on those rare occasions when I need to refer to the 2nd
weekend from now, I'll say ``10 days from now,'' or 
``the weekend of the 17th,'' or ``weekend after next.''


The next right turn down the road will be the first one you 
come to, since `this right turn' only applies if you're at a 
crossroad or intersection. Also, ``next weekend,'' or ``two
weekends from now.''

By the way, I'm also from Seattle. :)
From: govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za (Govender)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:00:20 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand

i'm entering this thread far too late to be able to say who said what.....

my advice to m.m. murushi would be to read wittgenstein's "blue book". i've
not read it myself but some years ago i read a quote from it : "the meaning
of a word is the meaning given to it by society". i'm sure old ludwig would
extend this to spelling and pronunciation. ever since then i've stopped 
sneering at people who talk of "prestigious cars" or "nice days"

besides think of all the ink those efficient americans have saved by using
"-or" instead of "-our".

morgan govender
govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:59:52 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

Larry Cambell writes:

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

Could be correct.  I suppose it depends on exactly how the onions met
their demise, doesn't it?    ;)

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.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Ex-presidents' titles and adverbs of location
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: tchrist@convex.COM's message of 23 Jul 92 22:39:56 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.92Jul23140228@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul23.223956.19890@news.eng.convex.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 00:49:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.223956.19890@news.eng.convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:

> Sorry, but there's absolutely reason to rearrange those sentences, 

Yes, you're right.  There is absolutely reason to rearrange
those sentences.  But that's not even the point.  They were
adduced as evidence of the superiority or necessity of ending
a sentence with at.

There, I got another one into the discussion at.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jeremy@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.075601.5381@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
>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.
>

I am 100% English and my daughter is technically 50/50 UK/US but she does,
indeed, speak 100% American (except for two words: porridge instead of
oatmeal and herb, pronouncing the h)


-- 
jeremy@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Jeremy |-) Smith)
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that... well, yes I can!
SGNTR VRS VRSN 3.1B: Strppd nd cmprssd fr qckr trnsmssn! nfct yrs tdy!
From: ted@physics1 (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Date: 23 Jul 1992 23:34:49 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics1.berkeley.edu

I've just been reading a book in which the plural of "apparatus" is consistently
taken to be "apparata."  The book consists of essays by several authors, and at
least two of them do this.

This annoys me terribly.  After all, if you insist on using Latin plurals for Latin
words, the plural should be apparatus.  Even if you don't know Latin and are just
guessing, "apparata" is a totally unreasonable guess.  ("Apparati" would at least
be a sensible guess.)

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

-Ted
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:17:24 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

>Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
>
>PS Are any of the following words misspelled (or misspelt):
>		gaol, waggon, oeconomist

I do not claim that I am a whiz at spellings Dan, however I do accept my
faults, when someone points them out....I would spell those words as
follows :
gaol - correct (I presume you are referring to prison)
waggon - wagon
oeconomist - economist
     Perhaps the last two were the old spellings......maybe not. I presume
you are from England...could you please enlighten me?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Keywords: missing article
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:57:53 GMT

> ...
> >In Britain you can use
> >	He went to hospital
> >	He went to  a hospital
> >	He went to the hospital
> >	He went into hospital
> >	He went into a hopsital
> >	He went into the hospital
> >
> >all with slightly different meanings. It seems that American had lost
> >this ability.
> 
> Misleading semblance, I think.  In my experience, American English is
> just as expressive as any form of British English.  Explicate the
> nuances above that you think American English can't express, and I
> imagine you'll be proved wrong in this forum in short order.

Well I only said "seems to have lost" rather than asserting that is was
lost. I am more than happy to be proven wrong. Anyway, as requested;

He went to hospital
	He visited a medical establishement, probably for treatment, but not as
	an inpatient. The hospital is unidentified.
He went to a hospital
	He visited a medical establishement, maybe for treatment but maybe 
	visiting. The hospital is unidentified.
He went to the hospital
	He visited a medical establishement, maybe for treatment but maybe 
	visiting. The hospital is known.
He went into hospital
	He was hospitalised as an inpatient. The hospital is unidentified.
He went into a hospital
	He entered into an unidentified building used for housing patients.
He went into the hospital
	He entered into known building used for housing patients.

However I am sure that now we are going to have loads of Brits disagreeing.

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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: For instance/for example
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: clauct@uts.uni-c.dk's message of 28 Jul 92 21:25:44 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 02:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.212544.9065@uts.uni-c.dk>, clauct@uts.uni-c.dk (Claus Tondering) writes:

> I am not a native speaker of English. I have been trying with the
> help of various dictionaries to find out what the difference between
> "for instance" and "for example" is, all to no avail. The Oxford
> Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English explains "for instance"
> as "by way of example", so that does not make me any wiser. Nor
> do other dictionaries help me.

> Is there any difference?

I don't think that there is much difference in common usage.  But
there may be a slight distinction in some cases.  "For example"
can be used to introduce an example that serves to illustrate a
general rule, while admitting the possibility of exceptions.
"For instance" can be used to introduce something that follows
from a rule, an instance of it, but that does not necessarily
serve well as a general example of the rule.  

The distinction is that an instance may not embody an implication
of generality.  Two instances might be different in most
respects, except for conforming to the rule, so that generalizing
from an instance would be hazardous.  In contrast, the whole
point of the example is that generalizations may be made from it
in so far as it exemplifies the rule.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: International English/Englishes
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:06:33 GMT


WILL YOU PEOPLE CUT IT OUT?  IF YOU WISH TO HUMILIATE EACH OTHER, PLEASE
TAKE IT OFF THE AIR.  CHILDREN SHOULD BE SEEN AND NOT HEARD.


Dhanesh

PS: And if you're going to correct mistakes in public, make sure your
    corrections need no editing, please.


In article <1992Jul30.162036.13799@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
>:    Thanks for pointing out my mistake.....however I tend to write
>:English as I speak it.....I accept that "I have heard" is the correct
>:alternative....I'll try to be more precise in my syntax, henceforth.
>                                   do you really pause? ^???
>:Please do not hesitate to correct me.....I am not like one of these
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>You will live to regret that statement.
>
>You mean "try to commit", and you don't a comma there, since

                                       ^^^ WORD MISSING!

>there's no independent clause.
>
>Your usage of punctuation is abominable.  The first issue is that
>you seem to have forgotted that sentences end with periods, or 

                  ^^^^^^^^^ NOT A WORD!
From: hillyer@rrc.chevron.com (Martin J. Hillyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* Engli
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:28:55 GMT
Reply-To: hillyer@rrc.chevron.com
Organization: Chevron, Richmond, California

In article 204257@IASTATE.EDU, mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.234925.2439@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom
>Christiansen) writes:
>>                            [...deleted...]
>> Come on, guys, just READ that sentence, and put him in your killfile.
>> He's either pulling our chains, or is both clueless and arrogant.
>> 
>>                            [...deleted...]
>>      Tom Christiansen           tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
>
>Of course he's pulling our chains (although that doesn't preclude his being
>clueless and arrogant).  Don't encourage the child.
>
>Marie Coffin


Can anyone fill me in on how much this one post has cost, with its 100 or so replise/flames.  I mean the cost in $$, I can see the cost in bandwidth.  And who pays the bill?

Just curious.

Martin
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of "dereference"
Keywords: "dereference"
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:47:39 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <1887@sdrc.COM> scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes about
the use of "dereference":
>No, it's just a made-up inverse of the verb reference.


I can't let this go by without comment: the verb form is "refer."
Then again, I refuse to use "research" except as a noun, so what do I know?


Dhanesh
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english