HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:36:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.232902.4718@Csli.Stanford.EDU> scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>
>
>If it is so awful for one individual in many to try to change the
>language of the many, why is it acceptable for one nation in many
>to do it? 

           Because that is the original nation, which used the language
in the first place! Hence, it alone has the right to set standards for
the language.
 
>"English" is not the property of the English, nor even 
>that minority of them who speak standard English as their native
>language. It belongs to all of us who speak it.
>-- 
>James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150, USA
>                  scobbie@csli.stanford.edu

           Agreed as far as colloquial language usage is concerned....but
if in the near future,every person comes up with  different spellings
for the same set of words, there would be chaos.. no one would be able
to understand the other person, and the language would lose the primary
motive for which it had evolved - communication.
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:04:14 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Originator: tchrist@pixel.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):
:This is what makes English so unique! So lay off Americans!

How unique is it?

Why don't you lay off Americans?  

I know, because you wouldn't hire one.

--tom

-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

	    Though the differences seem little,
	    We say actual but victual.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:00:00 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>
>      But I digress......all Americans reading this post...OPEN YOUR
>EYES...follow the true English and atone for your sins.  

Thanks.  I needed a good laugh.  This one almost had me rolling on the
floor.

>The beauty
>of the English language lies in the fact that words ARE NOT ALWAYS
>spelt the way they are pronounced. If you go around trimming words
>to suit your needs, you simply deface this language. What is the
>next Americanism? knife to nife? enough to enuff? Bunch of idiots!

You know, there's several groups of people, some of them in England,
who want to do this exact thing.  George Bernard Shaw, the person who
came up with the ghoti == fish scheme, was prominent among them.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com

PS Are any of the following words misspelled (or misspelt):
		gaol, waggon, oeconomist
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:55:24 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>          I am exhausted.......I must have posted at least 25 articles
>today!

Mandar, give it a rest.  You don't have to reply to every article that
replies to yours.  Many of them are making the same points and you're
certainly repeating yourself.  Pick and choose which articles would be
best to followup to make your points.  

One point you made about how, if everyone spelled things as they
pleased, communication would be impossible.

You may not realize it, but about 250 years ago and before that, people
did mostly spell as they pleased.  Communication did not break down,
although it wasn't quite as facile as it is today.  Right now, English
speakers from all countries, including the US, spell much more
consistently than the people of London did just 200 years ago.

The history of English spelling has been one of continuous
standardization, starting roughly 100 years before the printing press
was introduced to English by William Caxton.  The printing press helped,
but each printer had his own idea of how to spell (and often changed the
spelling from the manuscript).  Dictionaries did more, but even there,
people sometimes ignored them (the first Webster dictionary had a number
of spellings that no one adopted).

The process of standardization continues today.  As I said in another
post, the British and others now use the American spellings of jail,
wagon, and economy.  I don't know of any cases where most Americans
have adopted a British spelling, although a sizable minority spell
theater with -re.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More unique?  polique!
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <1992Jul24.165403@IASTATE.EDU>,
mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
> ... it is going to take more than the AH to convince me
> to say "pol-ee-nome-ee-ul".   

ObPeeve: the use of "convince" to mean "persuade".

> ... I checked several dictionaries yesterday,
> to see which pronunciation they preferred.
> ... Funk and Wagnall and the OED do not list "polystyrene"
> but give the short i pronunciation for polynomial

OED2 has "polystyrene", with the short i sound.

> and apparently for all other words in which poly
> is followed by a consonant.

It appears to me that the OED (at least) gives the same short i sound
for vowel-followed poly's, such as "polyandry".

To my untrained eye, this seems to imply a pronunciation of
"poli'andry" (with either a glottal stop or an awkward glide),
rather than the probably intended "poliyandry".
What am I doing wrong?
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"Pooter, n. a petit bourgeois, conventional and unimaginative."
-- Chambers English Dictionary (1988)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: college/university
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:38:21 GMT

Another US/UK difference worthy of discussion is the use of the word
"university."  I notice the expression "in university" used a lot in
this group by people from the UK and Australia.  This would not be
said in America, where "in college" or "at college" would be used,
no matter whether or not the school was a college or a full university.

In American usage:

	"I'm at college."	(Any college or university)
	"I'm at the college."	(Some specific college...that oen)
	"I'm at the university." (same as above...I used this as I
				   recall, speaking to an old friend
				   while standing across the street
				   from the University)
	"I'm at university."	(Never used in America)


--
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: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:35:34 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:



>Ah, Mandar, Mandar.  How much you have to learn.  You remind me of my
>recent visit to India, where I was informed that I had to adopt Indian
>customs if I was to survive with any degree of success.  This meant,
>as a woman, I had to cover my terribly seductive upper arms, legs (right
>down to the ankle), and overall shape.  But I _could_, if I so
>chose, expose my midriff.  Naturally, my first instinct was to balk
>at such patently _ridiculous_ and, may I say, medieval and arbitrary
>restrictions.  Doggone it, I _would so_ wear dresses that ended just
>below the knee and I would do it with verve!  

>Alas, after tolerating many rude advances and various forms of blatant
>harassment I succombed and, when in India, did as the Indians did.
>I also started nodding my head when I meant "no" and shaking my head
>when I meant "yes."  I learned to do a whole host of things that
>were, of course, totally ridiculous and incorrect but those sadly
>ignorant and misinformed Indians hadn't yet been enlightened, and
>I did want to enjoy my stay.

>You say that we can't just drop letters and change things around, but
>the fact is, Mandar, that we _have_ done it, and like it or not, you're
>here and you get to lump it.  Granted, if you don't you probably won't
>have to put up with unwanted advances from horny members of the
>opposite sex (quite the opposite, in fact); you'll just get ulcers.

     Hey......I DID NOT intend to start an India vs US customs war! That
has NEVER been my intention. What you relate, is something totally out
of context. I have no objections to the different mores adopted in
different countries, nor do I mind adjusting to them. But you seem to
confuse language with customs. English is a language and there are certain  
standards to which a language should conform to. As I pointed out, new
words are constantly being coined and old ones fading out....But only the
Americans seem to have defaced the existing words. I haven't observed
contorted spellings in the written English of any other country (although
now, a lot of countries may have started following the US spellings).
     If you tell me what is not socially acceptable out here, I will
willingly avoid it...just as you did it when you were in India. BUT....
this is a different issue. I don't even mind cultivating the American
accent. In fact I am trying to maintain 2 accents...the Indian one and
the American one. Perhaps one day I'll be blessed enough to learn the
standard English accent as spoken in Britain. What I am against is the
corruption of word spellings! That is certainly a most shameful act, IMHO.
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: right time
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:17:32 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept

wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>In article <glen.712359608@cs.wisc.edu>, glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) writes:
>> Also note that in the U.S. we always use a colon, e.g. "6:45", never "6.45".
>> I understand that both are used Down Under.  Is that right?
>> The period makes it look decimal to me.

>Hmmmm..... Always? That looks like a sweeping generalisation to me.
>FWIW, the following are all used in the UK:


>6:45      6.45          6 45           6-45          0645  

Well, 0645 would be used for a 24-hour clock, but only in certain groups,
like the military, or computer people.  Most people wouldn't be familiar
with it.
-- 
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund             glen@cs.wisc.edu          (608) 262-5084
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St.
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,connect.audit
From: object@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ken Tough)
Subject: Re: What is a "Homie" or a "Homeboy" ???
X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author
	alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:09:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.030832.3510@disk.uucp> tony@disk.uucp (tony) writes:
>	For the past year or two I have heard the words "homie" (homey,
>homeie?) and "homeboy" on television, in conversations of others, and I have
>read grafitti that contains that word.  What does it mean?  Is it deroggatory
>or should it be considered a complement?  

 
 I always assumed it was a term derived from "hombre", which is spanish
 for "man".  I figure it's like referring to someone as "guy" or, indeed,
 "man".
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lmf@gtech.com (Linda M. Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:19:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.172825@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>I can't remember if someone else already used this as a "word that peeves"; if
>so, I apologize.  I heard it on National Public Radio this morning:  "fraction"
>used to mean "very small fraction".  The announcer said that X million dollars
>has been ear-marked for AIDS research, "but only a fraction of it will be used
>in the developing world".  Well, naturally!  The only alternative would be to
>use ALL of it in the developing world.  
>
My own pet peeve -- 'weight proportional to height' ??  
Usually intended to mean someone who is slim, but 10 pounds per inch of height
is a proportion, but would be 600 pounds for a 5 foot woman!
-- 
lmf@soft.gtech.com          GTECH Corporation        ... But don't blame
                               55 Plan Way           GTECH for my thoughts,
Linda M. Fitzpatick      West Greenwich, RI 02817         or lack of!)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:27:07 GMT
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.

Hey, guys, did you know that only people residing in Spain speak Spanish?
After all, those silly Mexicans still have archaic x's in that country's
name, a name they mangled from that lovely spelling employed by the only
true speakers, Spaniards, which is of course "Mejico". :-)

Sorry, I don't buy it.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

	    Though the differences seem little,
	    We say actual but victual.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:51:42 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) by chance utters
the following coherent words:

>>My, but this boy is hopelessly confused.  There's a reason we say "apple"
>>with an "ae" sound instead of an "ah" -- because that's how the English
>>spoke when they came here.  We still speak that language -- as native
>>speakers.
>
>               Ha ha ha...that's a laugh...you pick up ONE word and
>claim that you are native speakers, just because the English and the
>Americans pronounce it the same way?? Heh heh heh....bless my soul!
>I too pronounce it the same way, because the English who came to my
>country pronounced it the same way too! But I repeat, neither me nor
>you are native speakers of the language.....simply poor facsmisiles.

This is too much fun.  And Mandar doesn't seem to realize why.

Mandar, if you had and English father and mother, and if English were
the language spoken in your home from the time you first popped out of
your mum's womb, then you *would* be a native speaker.  Your dialect
of English would be a direct, lineal descendent of a parent dialect-
group we call "English."  The same would be true of any group of people
who maintained English in their households.

Probably the smaller the community of speakers, the more likely that
language interference would creep in, i.e. that developments would
occur via contact with other languages.

Is this what you are arguing happened in the US?  If so, then prove
it by sound argument.  Which, for instance, is more innovatory:  To
pronounce a postvocalic "r", or to drop it?  Which is more innovatory,
to spell Greek -izdo: endings as -ise or -ize?  Which is more inno-
vatory, to pronounce dictionary with an elided a-vowel or to keep the
vowel?

I suppose you are not concerned with originality, though.  Your cri-
terion seems to be whatever is spoken in English public schools.  Where
*did* you take on this obsession?  I suppose you haven't heard:  The
English spoken in public schools has to be taught to many of the chil-
dren.  They, as native speakers, speak different dialects.  I suppose
you'll say that they aren't native speakers, either?  Or will you emu-
late Cockney for us?  If not, then you must admit that you are excluding
legitimate English dialects indigenous to England.

In fact, public-school English is just a dialect.  The rich and well-
educated speak it.  Is this your criterion for making it the superior
dialect?  Because it is upper-crusty and English (and, to some extent,
artificial)?

God (or in your case, the Gods) help us!

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: SB
Subject: Re: one more follow-up on the great debate
Originator: ac05@sol
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:40:46 GMT

michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel) writes:


[in response to Mandar Mukund's bilge, deleted]

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

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

Yes, saar!  We all laike to spik that vay in India, saar -- but it is so vary
kind ov you, saar, to aapreciate our hamble efforts in spiking your
laanguage.  Vell, saar, as I was saying, saar, ve laike to spik that way so
ve are sounding jaast laike you, don't you think so, Sahib?  

SB 


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu's message of 29 Jul 92 20:55:18 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul29.200521.23765@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
	<84773@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 01:59:51 GMT

In article <84773@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

> In article <1992Jul29.200521.23765@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

>> All you Amercians out there....do not spoil the
>>English language (in other words, lay off! Keep away!, etc.)

> O.K.  Let's all speak French now.

Shall we see if we can find interesting ways to 
mutilate that one, too?  Let's start by changing
all the "s" letters in "vous" to "z".
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: tins & iron
From: howard@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Howard Ross)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:18:42 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Here, in New Zealand, I've discovered some new names for baking dishes, and I
wonder how widely they are known. In Canada we had muffin tins, which were
precast or molded trays with rows of circular depressions to take the muffin
batter. You make bran muffins not English muffins in these. NZers call these
same items 'patty pans', but they call the baked food 'muffins'. The other
baking item with a curious name is the 'gem iron'. Gem irons are made of cast
iron and have two rows of half-cylindrical depressions - the long axis of the
cylindrical depression running across the pan. Gems are made in gem irons. Gems
are made from a batter similar to what's locally called pikelets, which are not
unlike American pancake, but are served cold with jam and whipped cream.


-- 
+  Howard Ross,                                                      +
+  Computer Centre, University of Auckland,                          +
+  Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand      FAX: +64 9 373-7425 +
+  e-mail : HA.Ross@aukuni.ac.nz    Phone : +64 9 373-7999 ext. 5830 +
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:04:47 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <ceRq00i00awQ8CfEVU@andrew.cmu.edu> "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>	I realise you were not making the GHOTI point LITERALLY.......but it's
>>Well then, can you tell me who on earth gave you chaps the authority to
>>change the spellings?
>
>	"Authority"? Who the hell needs authority to change spelling? This
>isn't France, you know.
>
>Ben Lukoff

But there is a certain standard to be followed....the right standard is
the English English......if every Tom, Dick and Harry would come up
with his own spellings for the same set of words, there would be total
chaos. People wouldn't understands each other, and the language would
lose the very purpose for which it evolved - communication!
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:30:34 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> Contributions are encouraged.

"Roast beef with au jus" in menus.  In cafeterias the server will ask,
"Would you like au jus with that?"

Lorne Epp
epp@mala.bc.ca