HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bayla@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Bayla Singer)
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:15:34 GMT

In <1992Jul24.172825@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:

  I heard it on National Public Radio this morning:  "fraction"
>used to mean "very small fraction".  

--and how about bargain sales, where goods may had for "a fraction of the
origianl price" or "pennies on the dollar" -- proportions unspecified, of
course.  

--bayla
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shrew, as in taming of...
From: howard@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Howard Ross)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:05:53 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

The Shrew that Bill referred to was of course the shrew, a small mouse-sized
mammal (genus Sorex and relatives) with a frenetic lifestyle.  The only way to
tame these little beasties might be to withhold food and drink for short
periods of time.  The very high metabolic rate which shrews enjoy condemns them
to an endless search for food and makes them sharper and more vicious than
their size might suggest.

-- 
+  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 +
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dewi@bnr.ca (Dewi Williams)
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Originator: dewi@bcrks78
Reply-To: dewi@bnr.ca (Dewi Williams)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:03:40 GMT


Concerning "Tuesday week" and "a week Tuesday" and similar constructs:

in Sheridan's "The Rivals" (1775) there is this:

   "There was this time month, how she did chirrup at Mrs. Piano's concert!"

... Dewi
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: "French" spacing (was: How many spaces after a period?)
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au's message of Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:50:11 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.92Jul13125749@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<JHEIKKIL.92Jul14133927@utrio.helsinki.fi>
	<1992Jul20.040503.3353@news.columbia.edu>
	<james.711768891@cs.anu.edu.au>
	<1992Jul23.105011.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:38:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.105011.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

> One which has always amused me is "filet americain": American fillet.
> This refers to a dish made with uncooked ground beef.  (Not just lightly
> cooked, but completely uncooked.)  How did this ever get to be thought
> of as an American recipe?  Most Americans I know use the term "rare"
> (in reference to a steak, for example) to mean what I would call
> "well done", so I find it hard to imagine that raw meat would be a
> popular dish in the US.

It's popular with me in several forms, and I'm fully qualified as
a USAmerican.  And by rare I always mean seared on the outside
but with a purple, cold center.  But to me the generic phrase for
raw beef dishes is steak tartare, the tartare deriving from the
French.  I have usually seen it served in restaurants with a
least a pretension to "continental" cuisine.

My favorite version by far, though, is the "kibbe" dish at a local
(Sunnyvale, California) place called "The Armenian Gourmet".
Wonderful flavors and textures.  The meat mixture is pressed onto
the middle of the plate and seems to nestle against a shore of
yoghurt and is accompanied usually by various bits of feta
cheese, pickled hot peppers, spiced raw onion slivers, and
something resembling the Italian capicola.  They lead into it
with some hummus drizzled with oil with fresh baked pita, then a
marvelous salad that is very much like Greek but more subtle and
smooth and mixed.  The owners are always there, so their hours
are limited.  He is the chef and she takes care of the money
and making the customers feel welcome.  Great stuff.

Oh ... isn't this rec.food... Never mind then.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: smk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stefan Kahrs)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: right time
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:04:48 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Edinburgh, LFCS
In-reply-to: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 21 Jul 92 19:14:49 GMT

In article <Brr6t4.83F@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
[...]
DB>   But Josephine Turck Baker about the same time announced that
DB>   `a quarter to seven' literally meant 6:15, one quarter of an
DB>   hour toward seven on the clock dial.  She argued that only
DB>   `a quarter to seven' was correct.

Interesting -- this is just the way it works in German, although the
preposition in between has been dropped: "viertel sieben"
(literally: quarter seven) means 6:15 etc.  
My grandma used it a lot, but this kind of
usage seems to die out -- except for the form "halb sieben"
(half seven) which is still frequently used (and always means 6:30).
A collegue -- not a native German -- told me that this usage/meaning
caused him to miss his first appointment in Germany.
--
Stefan Kahrs
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:11:48 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <1992Jul30.044152.27117@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
> Hey all you guys who follow the English English, I
> could do with some help out here. (It's a pity that 90% of the readers
> of this article would be from the US). 

I'm from New Zealand and have lived in the UK for ten years,
which in your taxonomy makes me a "follower of English English",
rather than a "native speaker".
You'll get no support from me in your crusade for linguistic purity.

We're here; we're diverse; get used to it!
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"poot, (Scot.) v.i. to shoot at young partridges or young grouse."
-- Chambers English Dictionary (1988)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: "French" spacing (was: How many spaces after a period?)
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:52:02 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.

From the keyboard of futor@llnl.gov (randy j futor):
: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
:> What's a fillet?
:It's a boneless section of a fish, Tom.

I'm going to hate myself for quoting them, but MacDonald's sells
filets of fish, not fillets thereof.

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

	    Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
	    And enamour rhyme with hammer.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: anymore unique
Keywords: anymore, unique, journal
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:20:11 GMT

In article <Brqw5C.Hrz@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
writes:
> The suggestion that unique can mean either `one of a kind' or
> `one of a small group approaching one of a kind', ie that it may
> be compared or noncomparable, comes close to claiming that a word
> can have but one meaning, which is of course arrant nonsense, 
> though quite a few well------------known (is that enough hyphens
> for ya?) usage critics have made just this claim.  

I'm sorry if I have been inclear on this.  I originally listed two
references that defined "unique" as "the only one of its kind".  Both
these sources stated that "more unique" was nonsense.  I also
listed a third reference that gave several definitions of "unique".  One
of these was "the only one of its kind", and another was "unusual".  So
two sources reject "more unique" and one does not.  I certainly never 
intended to imply that a word can only have one meaning.  I was trying to say 
that the sources contradict each other, and the correctness of "more unique"
depends on one's choice of authority.  To simply say "language is not
logical" (as was said, but I don't remember by whom) does not really get
the discussion further forward.  After all, words *do* have meanings, and
for communication to take place, we have to agree on what the meanings are.

>                          [...deleted...] 
> But of course words are leaky things; they don't do what we tell 
> them to, we resist other people's strictures, we reject language
> authority at the same time we seek to know what's right, and where
> to put the commas.

Huh?

> 
> Sure there are conventions of usage.  But like most conventions,
> they drink too much and walk a less than steady line.  To insist
> on rigor from a flabby system, which is what language is, means
> you will always be disappointed, and usage critics are always
> disappointed.
>                           [...deleted...]
> Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________

This disagreement is not between those who expect language to be logical
and those who don't.  It is between those who accept a particular definition
of a particular word and those who don't.  Therefore, discussions about rigor,
flabbiness, and logical systems are beside the point.  

Marie Coffin
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:15:10 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) insults most of the
poulation of the UK:
> 
> Sorry about that....I mean English specifically when I say British. 
> 
In which case you should learn the correct meanings of the words you use.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Jewelry
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:58:44 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <1992Jul24.143323.18706@news.columbia.edu>,
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> I'm curious to know how people tend to pronounce the word "jewelry."
> I tend to say eithere "jule-ree" or "juwul-ree," though I hear many
> people, especially here in New York, saying "ju-luh-ree."

I say "jooelry" if I'm being careful.
Sometimes I hear myself saying "joolery".

> I don't know if it's that they get jewelry (what a jeweller makes)
> mixed up with jewellery (the craft of a jeweller), but still, many
> people, I believe, would pronounce the words the same.

I'm not aware of this (plausible) distinction.
In my experience (backed up by Chambers, by the way),
"jewelry" and "jewellery" both mean "jewels in general".

It doesn't seem much of a stretch for someone who pronounces
"jewel" "jool" to pronounce "jewellery" "joolery".

> I wonder
> what we would get if we asked a random sampling of Americans to
> say:
>         "The jewellery on this jewelry is exquisite."

Who cares what Americans say? :-)
In Foley's in downtown Houston Texas this afternoon,
I saw a card with "jewerly" written on it.  So there.
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"pooter, n. an entomological collecting bottle into which small
arthropods are introduced by suction." -- Chambers English Dictionary
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Use of generic terms that exclude women
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: kcj@vulcan.anu.edu.au's message of Wed, 29 Jul 92 01:26:10 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 02:13:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.012610.20259@newshost.anu.edu.au>, kcj@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Kate Juliff) writes:

> Some time ago, someone posted an article with an extract from
> a piece of work that used the word "white" where "men" would normally
> appear, in order to illustrate the effect of using the word "men" to
> include women.

The piece is called "A Person Paper on Purity in Language",
by Douglas R. Hofstadter.  It appears in his collection of
essays _Metamagical_Themas_, copyright 1985 by Basic Books,
Incorporated (NY).  As it is copyrighted material, reproducing
it without the permission of the author would be improper.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:18:49 GMT

In article <oeQibGu00awAQ6jEwK@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I always thought everyone understood the distinction between 'this'
> weekend, meaning this upcoming weekend, and 'next' weekend, meaning the
> one after that. Is that really used more often by non-American speakers?

To this non-American, "this weekend" means the coming weekend, and
"next weekend" is ambiguous.  "Last weekend" is also ambiguous, but
only because today is a Monday.  Thinking about this, I've just
realised that to me "this Saturday" is ambiguous when I'm speaking
on a Monday, but that "this weekend" almost always refers to the future.
(Exception: "What did you do this weekend?")

Usually I try to avoid the ambiguity by using phrases like:
     this coming Saturday (the very next Saturday to arrive)
     Saturday week        (about a week and a half from now)
Is the construct "Saturday week" used outside Australia?
-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
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: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:06:53 GMT

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

>Gidday. Now there's this bloke wants to know if this
>whole "English versus American" thing has bin done before.
>Done?, I sez, Done, mate? Done to bloody death, I told him
>ya bloody galah, look, yer floggin' a dead 'orse, mate, I sez
>This topic? Jeez, it's bin hangin' around like bush flies on
>a wombat carcass.

>-m.

>(sorry, not very good at Strine, but it had to be done)

Heh he he......that's a good one, mate!
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:26:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul29.195833.23239@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>If it wasn't  ---->  I have no repeat NO grudge against Americans, in fact
>                     I find most of them very very friendly. Besides I 
>                    usually never look at what country, race, etc. an
>                     individual belongs to, when I make friends. The same
>                     would hold true if I ever found myself in the position
>                     of hiring a new worker in the US. I would evaluate him
>                     for his qualities, not for his nationality, race. etc.


But God help him if he misspelt his resume!  

You know, Mandar, you'd like our Vice President.  Now, that's a man
who can spell.



-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind.  Or not to have a mind.  How true  
that is." -- J. Danforth Quayle at United Negro College Fund luncheon
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: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu's message of Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:13:46 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:13:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.061346.4093@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

> I hope that someday you will remember what I said. 

Yeah, for a New York minute.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
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 04:43:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.234925.2439@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>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.
>
>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: scotty@netcom.com (J Scott Peter)
Subject: Re: dundancy
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 01:56:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul24.104611.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>Not long ago I went into something called "The Boutique Shop" and
>tried to buy a boutique.  They didn't know what it was, but offered
>to check their catalogues.

That reminds me of something a few years back called "The GTE Phone Center
Store".  I always wanted to go there and look at their phone centers.
-- 
J Scott Peter XXXIII  // "Instantiating new solutions in the emerging arena
scotty@netcom.com    // of transcending the de-facto horizons of industry-
Las Anjealous       // standard open paradigms."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: tie one on
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:47:54 GMT


does anybody know where this expression comes from? "tie one on?" i've 
looked in several books of cliche's and idioms, but i cannot find a 
reference. what exactly is being tied and how? the obvious usage is to 
overindulge in alcohol, but what does it mean?
From: smawer@datlog.co.uk (Steve Mawer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: right time
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:24:39 GMT
Organization: Data Logic Limited

glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) writes:
>The period makes it look decimal to me.

What?  You mean you still only have 60 minutes in your hour?  :-)
-- 
Steve C. Mawer       < smawer@datlog.co.uk> or < {backbone}!ukc!datlog!smawer >
		       Voice:  +44 81 863 0383 (x2139)
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: I'm so gay
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:20:41 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

>>  Is the original meaning of "gay" lost forever? Would it be futile
>>  to wrestle it back from oblivion? 

You can use it with much of its original meaning.
You just need to do it with a gay smirk.

>important to you to have a word, have silly on me.  See if you 
>can make do with its orignal meaning, because, of course, I don't
>intend its contemporary meaning.

Indeed, a word with a silly history. (thinks: this should appease both Camps)

-m.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Originator: tchrist@convex.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:25:40 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.

From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
:In article <1992Jul29.235833.6853@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
:>From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
:>> Besides I usually never look at what country, race, etc. an individual
:>> belongs to, when I make friends. The same would hold true if I ever found
:>> myself in the position of hiring a new worker in the US. I would evaluate
:>> him for his qualities, not for his nationality, race. etc.
:>
:>Notice MMM didn't name gender as something not to discrimate against, and
:>has chosen to evaluate HIM for HIS qualities.  Women, don your veils!
:>
:>--tom
:      
:There are so many discriminating factors, that it would be impossible to
:state all of them. That is why I chose to use "etc.". For your clarification
:"etc." contains
:1. Gender
:2. Religion
:3. Caste
:4. Sub caste
:5. native tongue spoken
:6. economic background
:7. State
:8. County
:9. City
:10. Suburb
:11. need I go on?

Yes, you should probably include political affiliation, accent, 
and sexual orientation.

:       I meant "his", in the general sense (as is used frequently) ,
:and that includes "her" too. 

That one isn't going to get your very far in this country, Mandar.
It sure sounds like you're being a sexist pig when you assume 
that he includes she, and that men includes women.

--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
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: words that peeve me
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:51:19 GMT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


  GHW> shrimp scampi

On the same idea:

bulkie roll
rice pilaf


... Ad astra per aspera (or, I'll never get off the ground)
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                                                                                                          
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Originator: tchrist@convex.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:45:45 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.

Mandar Mukund Mirashi writes all kinds of overrighteous drivel unfounded
in anything resembling sound linguistic theory.  Come on, guys, lay off.
It's not fair to engage unarmed opponents in a battle of wits.

--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: bayla@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Bayla Singer)
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:35:23 GMT

Larry Cambell writes:


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



--Also on a HJ menu, circa 1979 -- "Pancakes with mounted butter."  Sounded
awfully kinky, to me.

--bayla
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english