HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kathleen@casbs.Stanford.EDU (Kathleen Much)
Subject: Re: What is a GAROTTE?
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.025134.1307@guvax.georgetown.edu> aroshwald@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:
>>>Is there someone who knows what kind of weapon a GAROTTE is?
>> A favourite of the mafia, a garotte is a piece of strong cord (preferably
>> a piece of piano wire), with some sort of handle or grip on each end.
>Was it not the Inquisition (the Spanish Inquisition perhaps) which
>invented  -- or at least first employed -- this lovely device? 
>(Let us give credit where it is due.) 

More commonly spelled "garrotte", it was used long before the
Inquisition.  Lindow Man, the bog body dated to about the Roman period
in England (1st-4th century A.D.) was garrotted with a piece of
braided sinew neatly knotted on both ends and probably tightened with
a stick.  He was also hit on the back of the head, knifed, and
probably drowned as a ritual sacrifice to three important Celtic gods
(each one preferred a different form of sacrifice, so killing the
victim three ways presumably satisfied all of them--the blow to the
head was to knock him out first).  As I recall, the Inquisitors used a
metal collar, gradually tightened to give the victim time to recant
his heresy.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Much, Editor		|E-mail: kathleen@casbs.stanford.EDU
CASBS, 202 Junipero Serra Blvd.	|Phone: (415) 321-2052
Stanford, CA  94305		|Fax: (415) 321-1192
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: The Great Debate: Re: Brit. vs. Amer. spelling, was: Re: Improper spelling
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:05:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.193227.25028@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
(Simon Read) writes:
>             [...previous poster's nonsensical argument deleted...]
> Haven't we all heard this before?
> 
> There isn't really a big problem with the odd spelling differences, surely?
> Most people don't even notice them, their spelling's that bad.
> 
> More importantly for us in GB is the loss of distinction in what we write
> (though not necessarily what we say). This is illustrated above, there *IS*
> a difference between draft and draught (at least in my English). There are
> some more illustrations of the differences below; the first word of each
> pair is the only one in use in the US:
> 
> draft      A rough copy of a document.
> draught    An indoor breeze (and a checker).
> 
> check      Ensure (q.v.) that everything is okay.
> cheque     A bankers draft.
> 
> insure     Pay a premium to Lloyds in case you have an accident.
> ensure     Make certain.
> 
> I also use:
> 
> Program    Software for a computer.
> Programme  On TV, or a collection of projects.
> 
> Disk       Magnetic media for storing information.
> Disc       A round shape.
> 
> 
> Simon Read
> ----------
> Simon.Read@umist.ac.uk

Now just a damned minute!  I use "ensure" to mean "make certain", 
and "insure" for "buy an insurance policy"  (although I don't use 
Lloyds...lucky for them).

I also use both "disk" and "disc".  Where did you get your 
information, Simon?

Marie Coffin
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "cannot" or "can not?"
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:41:05 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep12.041110.13990@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> pjl@sparc10.cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Lucas) writes:
>	First, are they interchangeable?  If not, what's the difference?
>	If so, which is preferred (more formal) if either?  Thanks in
>	advance.

I've always used "cannot" in even the most formal of writing.  I don't think
you'd find too many occurances of "can not" anymore.

The "all right" vs. "alright" situation is a different story though.  For
some reason that one has been taking its time at gaining universal acceptance.


--
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
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:53:50 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <18a1f0INNr8i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
> 
> References: <1992Sep3.215637.42770@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <92246.155543IO11412@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
> 
> 
> In a previous article, miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu () says:

>>After years of teaching college I am still puzzled by this very
>>question.  For a long time I thought that poor spelling was due to
>>little reading: not so.  I've had brilliant and well-read students who
>>wrote well-thought-out stuff, but had trouble spelling.  I don't think
>>it has anything to do with how much one reads--but then what does it
>>have to do with?-- 

> I'd love to see a study or two done on the subject.  It's my strong
> impression that the ability to spell well is inborn, a genetic difference,
> like the ability to smell certain chemicals. 
> 
> In my writer's workshop, I've seen poor spelling in well-read, and even
> erudite, people.  And in my own family, poor spelling seems to follow a
> vaguely Mendelian pattern. 
> 
> It may be that anyone can memorize words to pass a spelling test, but only
> some people just "naturally" spell correctly in daily writing.  Of course,
> good spellers are largely readers (because non-readers don't have the
> opportunity to demonstrate their ability in this direction), but not all
> readers are good spellers. 

Genetic theory or something like it is tempting; trouble is spelling
is only the problem that it is in English and a few other languages.

I spell English well because I had four years of Latin and a summer of
Greek.  So there's another predictor, though not one of much value today.

I've always felt uneasy about considering spelling a value because
as we know, there has been a standard spelling in English only from
about the 18th century on; before that one spelled as one pleased and
obviously some of our best thought & literature was produced that way.
In some ways I envy that earlier period.

********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Articles and acronyms (was re: University)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:59:48 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

In article <HERMIT.92Sep9042843@am.ucsc.edu> hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward) writes:

> [...]
>
>Some people prefer to think of it as a bunch of letters, in this case
>"N. A. F. T. A.," rather than a single word, "NAFTA."  Still others,
>think of it as the words it represents, "North American Free Trade
>Agreement."

I've always been wondering in which category "FAQ" might fall: would
you, native speakers, pronounce it like (a) "eff-ay-queue", (b) "fack",
or (c) "frequently asked question[s]"? 

(Whenever this acronym is pronounced in the (b) way by a German I find
myself associating a certain four-letter word rather than Usenet
activities. But please, dear psychologists - amateurs and pros -,
don't tell me what you *think* that it means ...)
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"No news is good news - not at all if the news system is broken."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
From: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:57:54 GMT
 <Bu0JLK.4u0@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk><1992Sep3.212544.5046@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com><1992Sep7.154658.8704@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center

In article <1992Sep7.154658.8704@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
|
|
| > 1 fag n 1 chiefly Brit : TOIL, DRUDGERY  2 a: an English public-school
| >      boy who acts as servant to an older schoolmate.
|
| 1 is correct but not that common; 2a is almost certainly archaic by now as
| the public schools become more liberal. It doesn't even mention the most common
| British meaning: slang for a cigarette.
---
While that usage isn't in the quoted definition, the quoted definition
is only one of four entries.  The cigarette meaning *is* given, and not
tagged as being especially British.
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:	uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,	 arpa:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
Date: 11 Sep 1992 15:28:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn) says:
>
>In an Australian supermarket I once noticed, in the frozen fish department, 
>some 'Whiting Pieces', some 'Bream Pieces' and some 'Cod Portions'.


Years ago, in, I think, a book of -New Yorker- cartoons, I saw one of an
executive who was being given some bad news by an underling--something
like, "I'm afraid we' ve run into a problem." They were surrounded by the
stuff of a huge advertising campaign--posters, magazines, etc.--all touting
the new product: "Cod Pieces."


Bonita Kale
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: No smegma please, we're American
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:46:58 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Sep3.212544.5046@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>>Peeve time.  I've noticed a remarkable correlation among net posters
>>between making pig-ignorant statements about English usage and citing
>>the Webster's Collegiate as a source... for a start, it seems to be
>>unique among dictionaries in its market niche in *only* citing usages
>>from one side of the Atlantic.

> Let's see:
> 
> bonnet ... 2 b Brit : an automobile hood
> pavement ... 1 b chiefly Brit : SIDEWALK

Fine.

> 1 fag n 1 chiefly Brit : TOIL, DRUDGERY  2 a: an English public-school
>      boy who acts as servant to an older schoolmate.

1 is correct but not that common; 2a is almost certainly archaic by now as
the public schools become more liberal. It doesn't even mention the most common
British meaning: slang for a cigarette.

> public school n 1: an endowed secondary boarding school in Great
>      Britain offering a classical curriculum and preparation for the
>      universities or public service.
> 
Exceedingly out of date. A Public School is not necessarily boarding (although
most of them are partly), often offers a more scientific curriculum than a
state school and has no special place in preparation for university. The only
thing that sets a public school apart these days is the fact that it is
independent of the local education authority and the government department for
education.

> Doesn't look *too* bad, especially for a dictionary aimed at American
> college students.  How much space do student dictionaries on the other
> side of the Atlantic devote to American usage?
> 
I'm not sure that there is a direct equivalent. Those students who have
dictionaries would probably use something like the Concise Oxford, which is a
more-or-less comprehensive dictionary of written English and includes many
Americanisms ("sox" as a plural for "sock" for instance.)

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: Brit. vs. Amer. spelling, was: Re: Improper spelling
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:01:03 GMT

In article <129.5277@incc.com> jerry@incc.com (Jerry Rocteur) writes:
> Hands up everyone who has an etymological dictionary.

Hmmm... I've got an etymological dictionary (several, in fact), and I'm
now quite worried that people in this group will heed your injunction
and attempt to put their hands up me, along with anyone else who owns
an etymological dictionary...  Short nails, please, and plenty of lube.

> I don't have an etymological dictionary, if we were all experts we
> would not be asking questions and there would be no need for News.

May I suggest the Oxford Etymological Dictionary, edited by C T Onions?
It's not expensive, and is excellent.

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: euphemistically constructed acronym
Date: 11 Sep 1992 15:45:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rhemler@ems.cdc.com (Bob Hemler) says:

>In article <18nhcjINNs49@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis) writes:
>|> 
>|> Who's been mucking about with the acronyms?
>|> 
>|> And just when did the venerable 'fubar' get changed to 'foobar?'
>|>
>	About the time 'fubar' got *FUBAR* and became 'foobar'.  But
>	then 'DILLIGAF' is still not *FUBAR* and still applies.

From the wais client (jargon) at UNC at CH, FUBAR "is generally traced to 
the WWII era [as] Army slang.  FUBAR was later bowdlerized to foobar."

That comment aside, Bob, just what is "DILLIGAF?"
-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au
Subject: Re: <None> or Re: Correction
Organization: BHP Research, Newcastle Laboratories
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:52:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.091312.19521@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
> andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au writes:
> }dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
> }> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
> }> }
> }> }Hear, hear.  And it's me who agrees that that's what a grammar is for.
> }> 
> }> Ya mean "it's me whom...".  Sheesh!  Can't even getcher grammer
> }> straight on the PedantNet.
> }> 
> }I can't see any reason to use the objective case here - you would be better off
> }jumping on him for ending a sentence with a preposition. ;-)
> 
> Course there is.  It gots to agree with the "me".
> 
OK, if you want to force "who" into the objective case through some attraction
to the case of "me", what is the subject of "agrees"? Yes, I know you can
invoke the mighty Shakespearian Sanction on this one but really...

Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au
Subject: Re: Improper spelling
Organization: BHP Research, Newcastle Laboratories
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:33:40 GMT

In article <HERMIT.92Sep9035320@am.ucsc.edu>, hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward) writes:
[discussion of "draught" (v. "draft") deleted]
> 
> But then, the word is (I believe) used a lot less.  As a measure of
> liquid, the word is only used to refer to the depth of a boat's keel;
> for most other measuring-of-liquids, "depth" would be used.

Except that in its measuring-of-liquids incarnation it refers to a liquid
volume, not some linear dimension thereof.

Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: avoiding sexist language (was Re: Less versus Fewer)
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:56:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.144921.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) writes:
>From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
>Subject: Re: avoiding sexist language (was Re: Less versus Fewer)
>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:49:21 GMT

>In article <88183@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep7.161944.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>>>
>>>Note that the original poster was not from the U.S.  I'm not sure
>>>about Britain, but Australian supermarkets don't have cashiers.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Oooh!  Free food in Australia!  
>> 
>-- 
>No we just don't have cashiers in supermarkets. We have checkout operators (or
>checkouts) or, if you don't mind being accused of sexism `checkout chicks'
>(except that they are of both sexes).

Sometimes they are both sexes at the one time, but mostly, just one at a 
time.
 
-------- PAUL R OSBORN, Research Scientist, Sensing Technology --- /\/\ --
                BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia  / / /\
Snail   :       P.O. Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287                 / / /  \
Tel     :       +61 49 51-0605  Fax : +61 49 50-2126            / / / /\ \
Telex   :       AA 28768                                        \ \/ / / /
Internet:       pel@resntl.bhp.com.au                            \  / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Short question on word sequence
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:25:35 GMT

In article <HERMIT.92Sep6182056@am.ucsc.edu> hermit@bayview.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.121538.28437@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de (Frerk Meyer) writes:
>|What is correct:
>|1. "One less car", or
>|2. "One car less" ?
>
>"One fewer car," of course!

Or -- of course not, according to some.  

Several experts on usage have noted that "one fewer" -- unlike "two
fewer" or larger numbers -- is *not* usually used.  "One less" is 
indeed the idiomatic form for countable things.  "One car fewer" is,
however, a little more common/acceptable/whatever.  

(Source: Bernstein, _The Careful Writer_; cited approvingly in
Claiborne, _Saying What You Mean_)

In other words, it depends.  I wouldn't worry about either 1. or 2.;
both are quite common.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Correction  (was Re: How should we decline singular 'they' ?READ/NEW
Summary: Pedants backwards 'R' Us
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:55:35 GMT

msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
}
}> The codified grammar _may_ be used as a guide; it may be used to help
}> understand why one phrase `sounds right' and another wrong. But, in the end,
}> if the formal text-book grammar says one thing and the native users of the
}> language another, then it is the grammar which is wrong.
}
}Hear, hear.  And it's me who agrees that that's what a grammar is for.

Ya mean "it's me whom...".  Sheesh!  Can't even getcher grammer
straight on the PedantNet.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: euphemistically constructed acronym
Date: 12 Sep 92 11:41:22 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <630.716210367.kbss.bt.co.uk> raph@kbss.bt.co.uk (Raphael Mankin) writes:
>BTW why is "etymology" so often mis-spelled as "entymology"?
>Is it a bug in people's brains?

Much worse.  It is not a single bug, it is an entire field of study,
called "entomology".  It is all about bugs.  Millions of them.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Articles and acronyms (was re: University)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<HERMIT.92Sep9042843@am.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Sep10.175157.1@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:45:04 GMT

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:51:57 GMT, andrew@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au said:

A> Another interesting quandry arises if the first letter's name starts with a
A> vowel when it isn't, as it were. For example, a SAC, or a Strategic Air
A> Command but an "es" "ay" "see". (Though this goes away if you insist an
A> acronym must be a word, and presumably pronounceable.)

The predecessor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) was the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA).
It's very interesting to me that NASA is pronounced as a word, but
NACA is always spelled out.  This leads to "a NASA engineer" but "an
NACA engineer".  (I think that the difference is because NACA was
constituted long before acronyms became really populard.  The
transition to NASA happened in the late 50s, by which time acronyms
were more wholeheartedly embraced and pronounced.)

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Head of a Native American tribe
Date: 13 Sep 92 08:22:54 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep13.024715.17930@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, mjm@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Mike McBain) writes:
> Never mind the daughter of a marquess, how should one address
> the head of a Native American tribe, like the Lakota or
> Cherokee? Try looking that one up!
> -- 
> ---
> Mike McBain                                 David Syme Faculty of Business
> mjm@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au                  Monash University - Caulfield
> +61 3 573 2646                              Australia    3145

You just use "Mr." or "Ms." -- tribes usually have chairpersons or
heads of business committees, etc. 
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Pommies
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:36:10 GMT

In article <97N7PB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, murray.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
> I've often wondered about the name Australians have for the English: 
> Pommies. It usually modifys another noun, but that's another story.
> Does anyone know the etymology?

Two widely-held theories were:
1. The name comes from the letters POME, standing for "Prisoner of
   Mother England", these presumably being written on the clothing of
   involuntary migrants.
2. The idea that the English had ruddy cheeks, like a pomegranate.

The Macquarie Dictionary denounces both of these as being invented
etymology after the fact, and claims that the name actually comes
from rhyming slang:
     immigrant => Jimmie Grant => pomegranate
(That sounds far-fetched, I know; but rhyming slang was once a lot more
popular than it is now.)  I don't have my Macquarie with me right now,
but from memory I think this was traced to a newspaper editorial.
-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au