HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aek@cs.man.ac.uk (Alan Knowles)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:42:46 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science,University of Manchester,U.K.

In article <1992Aug13.123519.17827@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:

|> 
|> By the way, in my original post that raised the question of how "route"
|> is nowadays pronounced, I asked particularly for responses from England.
|> Alas, I haven't seen any yet.  Silence is all very well at times, proud
|> English, but at the moment I need your help!  Speak up, won't you, please?
|> 
|> 
|> Dhanesh
|> 
|> [This post is dedicated to the memory of John Cage.]


OK. Here's your English reply.

Until reading this discussion, I was under, what has now been shown to be a
misapprehension, that you could tell an American from a Brit by the way he
pronounced 'route'. If it rhymed with 'tout' he was from across the pond; if it
rhymed with 'toot' he was local. Being an electronics engineer, I was naturally
concerned with PCB layout and the difficulties encountered in 'routeing' tracks
(traces to the other team) from pin to pin. (Note the spelling of this meaning
has an 'e' according to my OED (it's the present participle/gerund of the verb to 
route))

The algorithm for determining from where a person came seemed simple.
BUT
I had completely ignored the fact that, in carpentry, we use 'routers' which rhyme
with 'touter's. We would also pronounce 'routing' to rhyme with 'touting' when
it was used to refer to the removal of the enemy from a site in a military
operation. (Note no 'e' 'cos it's from the verb to rout)
AND
I had forgotten that 'route' had been heard to rhyme with 'toot' when sung by an
American in 'Route 66'.

I draw no conclusions. The British way, naturally, seems correct and logical to me.

PS I speak only as a Mancunian. I ain't go# a clew wot them dahn sarf tork like.
(Note the guttural glottal stop in "go# a clew"?)
===========================================================================
Dr. Alan Knowles, Department of Computer Science,
The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

Tel:    +44 61 275 6185 
Fax:    +44 61 275 6236

email address:-
        aek@cs.man.ac.uk
or (if the above fails to work):-
        aek%cs.man.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tcg@mayo.edu (Thomas Gerber,A1 Plummer,4-9470)
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Reply-To: tcg@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Graduate School / Mayo Foundation Rochester MN
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:34:11 GMT

In article 3379@desire.wright.edu, thayes@desire.wright.edu () writes:
>In article <85890@netnews.upenn.edu>, 
>crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>> Anybody out there aware of a net group that deals with terrible
>> English translations?  I collect mangled English and would love
>> to find such a group.
>> 
>> (The subject line refers to the "Coke adds life" campaign
>> that was supposedly translated in China as "Coke brings
>> back your ancestors from the dead."  Probably an urban legend,
>> but a good one.)                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>And this is exactly the group you should go to for that translation, Lauren!  
>They had a lengthy thread about this in alt.folklore.urban several months 
>ago.  I recall that eventually people decided that it translated to "Bite 
>the wax tadpole" or something like that.  It may even be on their FAQ list.
>
>But there's probably a way to fit the entire translation into one
>German word...
>
>-----ted hayes
>

Now, which German word could that possibly be?
Waiting excitedly

-tcg (German)

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock)
Subject: Spanish pronouns
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
 
   Spanish prepositions take "yo" rather than "me." The constructions
   "conmigo" and "contigo" are special. The Spanish "yo" acts rather
   like the French "moi" in this respect. "Me" is a verbal object:
   direct, indirect, or reflexive. "Mi" is a possessive adjective.
 
   Corrections by native Spanish speakers welcome.
 
 
          A silly remark can be made in Latin as well as in Spanish.
                                      - Miguel Cervantes (1547-1616)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:47:15 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:28:09 GMT

cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

>Sloppy language produces sloppy thinking....

You forgot the smileys.  I know many engineers whose grammar is execrable,
by Miss Thistlebottom's standards, but who think far more clearly than any
English major.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: The pundettes are coming...
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 01:40:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.124934.13855@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>>
>>If gratuitous feminization is to be avoided (and I think I agree
>>that gratuitous references to a person's sex are good things to avoid)
>>then....
>>
>>	Why do we refer to people all the time by their sex?  As in
>
>Because, despite the wishes of the PC-mongers, a person's sex is one of
>the most important...pieces of information that we have about other people.
>
>To put it more concretely, it doesn't matter if a stock broker is a man
>or a woman.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone who talks
>with their broker knows which sex they are.  It's one of the first
>things you figure out when you meet another person.  You can often tell
>the sex of a person seen at a distance.
>
>Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would agree that there are many, many occasions when I care passionately
about which sex is the person being discussed.

However, why don't we try the following experiment: over the course of a 
single day, take note of all the times that a person's sex is evident
in conversation where it is ***not the least bit relevant to what is being 
discussed.***  (I will hazard the guess that this is a large majority of the 
time, but the proof of the pudding, etc.)

In fact I usually think it is cute and a bit quaint that many other languages
have genders for most or all of their nouns, when it is hard for me to see the 
point of designating houses as female, tables as male, etc.  I wonder if,
similarly, future beings will think it cute and quaint that we made a point of 
always referring to a person's sex regardless of its relevance to a given 
discussion...

--Daz
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:28:13 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>In article <14048@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> s913606@yallara.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (Mab) writes:
>>We were discussing the use of the term 'you and I' as opposed to 'you
>>and me' the other day... as in:

>>'You and I can go now' (pretend there's no such word as 'we' okay?)

>>and

>>'He called you and me'

>>I figure that both of these are correct, as you use the 'I' when you
>>would use it normally ('I can go now') and the same with the 'me'
>>('He called me'). What does everybody think? A friend of mine thinks
>>that it should be 'He called you and I'... is this right?

>Yes and no.  "you-and-I" has been an immutable (i.e., non-declinable)
>piece of English for about 7 centuries.  Especially when preceded by the
>word "between," it's found everywhere.  (As in Shakespeare, _Merchant of
>Venice_, Act III, Sc. 1: "All debts are cleered betweene you and I.")

>But of course we usually say "me" when the pronoun comes after the verb,
>in other situations.  Besides, "me" is used for direct and indirect
>objects, so, analogous to Latin and other heavily
>inflected languages, we would use it in "He called me."  

>So an English teacher would say that "He called you and me" is correct.
>But the glue that holds "you-and-I" together is very strong, and this
>has led to "you-and-I" being common in colloquial speech.  


I would say that the first writer is correct w.r.t the formal usage of
English. The second writer appears to be correct in identifying the
common colloquial usage. 

A thought has just struck me that many people seem to defend what may
otherwise be classed as incorrect English by saying "Well, Shakespeare
wrote that". Does this mean that Shakespeare always wrote gramatically
correct English? Or did he use colloquial constructs that he knew his
audience would identify with? (Not forgetting that English has changed
since his days.) It was once pointed out to me that Shakespeare wrote
to get "bums on seats" (to use another colloquialism) and that he
would often rewrite his plays to get the reactions he was looking for.
Again, there are instances of authors/playwrights who appear to
deliberately use the language incorrectly to provide dramiatic effect.
Shakespeare (again) has somebody "take arms against a sea of troubles".
Surely a mixed metaphor? Shouldn't you take arms against a _host_ of 
troubles?

Philippa

--
Philippa Hogben   pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if mailing from Janet)
Any mistakes are mine, all mnie.

I am not a .sig virus. I am a free bug.
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: questions questions
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:49:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <9208181722.AA13431@sumac09.cray.com> jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond) writes:
>
>Speak for yourself, please.  I pronounce the `t' in often and consider it
>neither pompous nor inappropriate.  I also pronounce the `t' in eaten,
> shorten and whiten.
>
I imagine you also eat, shorten, and whiten periodically, or you might
know people who do.  But who ofts these days?
  


-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and as far as I'm
concerned, happy campers you will always be."
                  --J. Danforth Quayle in American Samoa
From: shaevel@Apple.COM (Jeff Shaevel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Are you busy?" or "Are you free?"
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:34:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:

>                        Q1:    "Are you busy?"
>                        Q2:    "Are you free?"

If anyone asked me Q2, I would answer with my very best Mr. Humphries
impression ("Are You Being Served?")...

-- 
Jeff Shaevel        :-)-: (comedy/tragedy)    Love may be blind, 
shaevel@apple.com                             but lust is autistic.

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Usage: 'goes' for 'said'
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:39:45 GMT

I'm reminded of a Peanuts comic strip which I saw a few years ago.
One of the regular characters, probably Sally, recounts some event to
Charlie Brown, or to a friend of hers in his presence.  She constantly
introduces dialogue with "he goes" or "she goes".  In the last panel,
Sally has left and Charlie is alone.  He turns to the readers and asks,
"What ever happened to the word 'said'?"
-- 
Mark Brader			"People with whole brains, however, dispute
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto		 this claim, and are generally more articulate
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com	 in expressing their views."	-- Gary Larson

This article is in the public domain.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6652 sci.lang:6565
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Question about ASCII IPA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:36:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.231944.28751@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of stu5s14@bcrka287.bnr.ca (James Cherry):
>:I noticed in Tom Christiansen's post the following IPA symbols and his
>:descriptions of them:
>:
>:    M) labio-dental nasal
>:
>:Can someone give me examples of English words that these sounds are found
>:in?  
>
>Some of these don't exist in English.
>
>The /V/ is the sound in Spanish "uva" /'u Va/ or cabe /'ka Ve/.  You can
>think of it as a cross between a "b" and "v".  These things aren't too
>hard to decode: use both lips (bilabial), blow air through without
>stopping (fricative), and rattle your vocal cords (voiced).  Remove the
>last trait for the /F/.  I'm sure there are some languages with an /F/ but 
>I can't remember any right now.
>
>I'm not sure of a good one for /M/, but you can decode it similarly:
>use your teeth and your lips and nasalize it.

When you say the word "emphasize," stop right before you get to the /f/.
Chances are, you'll be making the /m/ with your upper teeth and lower
lip.

Regards,
Janis C.
 

From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:30:01 GMT
Subject: Re: GAZETTE: THE WORLD 'REMARKS' OUR FRENCH-INFLUENCED ENGLISH
Organization: Hewlett-Packard ISG-SBU-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
>Someone suggested I repost this newspaper article to
>alt.usage.english.  Enjoy.
> (a fascinating article on Quebec English deleted)

Just to comment on some of the terms that would be understood in the UK:

>- AUTOROUTE: highway
This is not used in the UK, but would be well understood as it is used on
radio and TV travel programmes referring to road conditions on the Continent.

>- DOSSIER: file.  "I was seized with the dossier" means "I was given
>  the file."
Dossier is used in the UK, usually in an official context, e.g. Police
dossier.

>- REMARK (TO): to notice, as in "Did you remark the way he was
>  carrying on?"
This just sounds old-fashioned to me, like something out of Jane Austen;
no-one would use this meaning, but it is still the second definition given in
my dictionary.

>- SUBVENTION: grant, subsidy
This is probably going to become more widely known in the UK.  I have heard
it used on farming programmes, talking about EC subventions; more Eurospeak,
likely sheep-meat and set-aside.

>   The interplay of English and French is hardly new -- they have been
>rubbing off on one another since the Normans sang the Chandon de
>Roland at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.  
I guess that is a typo for the Chanson de Roland, or had they been at the
bubbly? :0)

Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Victory at NPR!
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:41:03 GMT

thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>Hey!  I think we won one, finally!
               ^^
Who is "we"?

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pundette
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:47:28 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug11234521@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <Bsrs1A.9w6@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
>padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
>
>> "Waitron" sounds positively robotic to me. Can't we at least keep
>> "waiter" and "waitress"?  And couldn't the sign simply read "Now Hiring"?
>
>Hiring what?  Dishwasherettes?  Buspersons?  Or would it be
>people to wait on the customers?  If the last, why not just
>waiters, i.e. those who wait and serve (no, I don't accept
>"server").

Why not "stander"?


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to John Milton, 1608-1674, R. I. P.]
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pundette ... & puntron!
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:00:07 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Aug10.112029.8144@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, 
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

[Dennis Baron's comments deleted]

> By the way, can someone explain why "waitron" was
> coined and not a different word. It is *hideously* ugly. I continue to use
> "waiter" and "waitress", partly because I can't think of anything else.
   *********************************************************************

Well, Mr. Wilcox, I would note that you chided me in a quite recent posting
about gals/girls/wimmin/ & ice cream and suggested that one just say "you"!
So why not be consistent and just call them "wait staff" or "waitrons"?
Or, as happens more often in practice, "Hey you" or "Excuse me"!

Besides, as I opined earlier, "waitron" has that automaton-like look that
so aptly describes the duties of the job.

Boffins unite OK!

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.canada
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: GAZETTE: THE WORLD 'REMARKS' OUR FRENCH-INFLUENCED ENGLISH
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:58:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.123334.10197@waikato.ac.nz>, maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
> I confess that it was me who made that suggestion. Readers may
> also be interested in the views expressed in a response by
> Thomas Hood.
> 
> <begin quote>
> 
> Group: soc.culture.canada, Item 9452   (Current Item Range #9249 - #9498)
> Subject: Re: GAZETTE: THE WORLD 'REMARKS' OUR FRENCH-INFLUENCED ENGLISH
> From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood), Matrox Ltd.
> Date: 18 Aug 92 05:43:18 +1200
> 
> govax@wam.umd.edu (Seigneur Tenebreux) writes:
> 
> >Please be very careful about calling variations in relationships between
> >words in a language "errors."  They may be "errors" according to your own
> >personal internalised grammar, but may make perfect sense in the context of
> >another person's grammatical sense.

In fact I found this article most amusing as virtually all the 'errors'
made by the English speaking Quebequois are exactly the same as those of
my French friends whose command of the English language is, umm, less
than perfect.

Just a comment, no inferrence.

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: riggsby@utkvx1.utk.edu (STUART)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:11:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


> 
>An example: I consider "more unique" to be an abomination, on the
>grounds that it destroys a useful distinction.  (Yes, I know I can't
>hold back the tide, but that won't stop me from sighing inwardly.)
>If we lose the old meaning of "unique", we don't have anything
>with which to replace it.  On the other hand, the use of "would of"
>instead of "would have" is a minor issue; it looks strange to me,
>and therefore looks wrong, but it doesn't involve any loss of meaning.
>The less/fewer distinction falls, I think, into this latter category.
> 
>Peter

I share your attitude about "unique".  I have a well-meaning friend who does
not, and urges that if I *really* mean "unique", then I should say "really
unique".

Stuart
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock)
Subject: Bill, him and me's arthurs.
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
 
     As discussion is going on about lapses of public figures:
     Dan Quayl(e), Bill Clinton (and I), Mrs. Gore (Bing-zero),
     I checked through Shakespeare and could only find one
     reference to the construction "you and I" as a prepositional
     object or as a verbal object. The oft-quoted letter read
     by Bassinio is it. In all other cases, the phrase "you and I"
     is used as a subject or a predicate complement of some sort.
     The phrase "you and me" occurs as either a verbal object
     or as a prepositional object, never as a subject. Of course,
     "thee and me," "thou and I," "the crown and I," also occur.
     In all cases but Bassinio's letter, the "usual" usage stands.
 
     Finding an unusual construction in Shakespeare doesn't mean
     that it is "standard" English (whatever THAT is.) It may
     mean that the character who says it is intended to seem unusual.
 
     Shakespeare does often start a sentence with "And." In all cases
     the sentence is a connecting thought. It reads well as dialogue.
     I do not do this usually in normal writing but I do it in speaking.
 
     Later I shall check up on Shakespeare's use of "they" or "them"
     as as singular. I so far have found no places where these are
     used as singluar unless there is an indefinite antecedent such
     as "no one," "nobody," "anyone," etc.
 
 
 
             And they shall hear and judge 'twixt you and me:
                                                       "Hamlet"
                              - William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:32:12 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Out of Place
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:53:21 GMT

Anyone know if there is a word that means something that is in the wrong
place or is out of place, like anachronism is for time. Like a fireplace
in a house in a climate in which you would clearly never light a fire.

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: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: GAZETTE: THE WORLD 'REMARKS' OUR FRENCH-INFLUENCED ENGLISH
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:08:54 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Aug19.020744.1751@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood), Matrox Ltd.
>>Date: 18 Aug 92 05:43:18 +1200
>
>>(eg. "demand" for "ask") should be rejected because it does not
>>add a new concept to the language; it only sows confusion.
>
>Try this on for size: in Quebec, "demand" means "ask."  In Ontario, it
>doesn't.
>
I think we're arguing over a straw man.  In Quebec, demand does *NOT*
mean "ask."  IMO, the Gazette article which started this thread
was a mixture of truth and exaggeration.  In my experience,
English-speaking Quebecers *DO* say "autoroute" for "freeway",
"caisse populaire" for "credit union", "depanneur" for "convenience
store", and "CEGEP" for an educational institution wedged in between
high school and university.

But we *DON'T* say "demand" for "ask".  English-speaking Quebecers
distinguish between these words, and use them in the same way as
the rest of the English-speaking world.  (I'm generalizing here, of
course.  I'm sure you can find cases of people who do use "demand"
in the sense of "ask".  But they are unusual.)

If a francophone with a shaky command of English told me that
"I have been seized of the dossier," I wouldn't be surprised,
but I would be astonished to hear this from someone of English
mother tongue, except as a joke.  We just don't talk that way.
Nor do I hear anglo-Quebecers talking about "scholarity" for
"schooling", "syndicates" for "unions", "to remark" for "to notice",
or "conferences" for "lectures".  There are differences between the
English spoken in Quebec and in the rest of North America, but they
are quite small.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA