HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmunroe@vcd.hp.com (Dave Munroe)
Subject: Re: Collecting Funny Mistranslations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:11:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard / Vancouver Division

Linda Zinn writes:

>I collect printed examples of English (most commonly found on packaging,
>in instruction booklets) that has been literally translated from another 
>language by someone with no clue as to English idiomatic usage, must less
>basic grammar.

I'm also fascinated by this, not only for its amusing quality, but because
it reveals a totally different way of thinking about things.  For example,
an English instruction manual might begin with the words:

	"Congratulations on your purchase of our 9600 bps modem..."

the foreign translator, thinking in his own language, but using our words,
might begin with:

	"Please enjoy rapidly moving data with this modem..."


For the translator to be successful, he must learn not only the vocabulary
and the grammar - he has to learn the culture in order to know how they
think about things and how they talk about things.

I would expect American and Japanese instruction booklets to display a fair
amount of "mistranslation", because our cultures are so different.  To me,
the choice of words and usage by the Japanese is always polite and indirect.
I would imagine our words and usage to them would seem blunt and matter-of-fact.

-Dave
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: A letter to Mandar
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:12:31 GMT

In article <103658@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
:Not _all_ of us feel this way.  I've always enjoyed his postings, and I
:enjoy them all the more now that I know he's probably another alias of
:Mahalingam (magnificent name, that!).  
:
:The man is either nuts or royally putting us on.  Either way, it's more
:fun than talking about em-dashes.

Anyone who has an hour to spare for a good chuckle, ftp to ftp.msstate.edu
and fetch /pub/docs/words-l/List-Stuff/virupaksha, otherwise known as
'The Virupaksha Chronicles'.

G
(I don't *really* think Mandar was Virupaksha - the latter was much funnier)
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:38:25 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting ytsuji@cfi.waseda.ac.jp ("Y.Tsuji") in article <1993Jan12.002840.14123@wsdnws.waseda.ac.jp>:
>Oh please stop driving me mad. It took me years to learn that when 'quite'
>precedes an adjective of digital type (e.g. right, correct) it means
>completely and when it precedes one of analog type (e.g. good) it means
>'fairly' (i.e. your English is quite good is a very bad assessment).
> Now, 'fairly' means otherwise in some part of the country!! Learning
>English is either a torture or a fun. It is both to me.

Not quite correct.  If I say "Software patents are quite ridiculous"
it's emphatic, I think.  I don't think `quite' is a very well-behaved
word.
  __                                  _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing. \X/
From: mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re^2: Standards
Date: 2 Jan 93 06:49:06 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

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

>In article <1231@dsbc.icl.co.uk> jjf@dsbc.icl.co.uk (J J Farrell) writes:
>>
>>I'm glad to say that the correct standard within England is not up
>>for debate since most English people accept that there is no such thing.

>Results of a statistical survey, please. Have these people been
>questioned about their  opinion on the Queen's English and BBC
>English ?

Mandar, I believe that what Mr Farrell has done here is an attempt
to use humor to point out that ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM--claiming that
larger numbers of people support a particular view proves that view--
is fallacious reaoning.

However, you seem to be somewhat logically impaired as well as humorously-
challenged.  Ha ha, only serious.

Mitchell L. Silverman              | As Voltaire never said, "I
Student, New College of            | disagree with what you say,
the University of South Florida    | but will defend to the death
Reply-to: mitch@cfraix.cfr.usf.edu | your right to say it."
From: sav@nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What does bis mean? (was What does Mk II mean?)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:26:53 +0100
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG, Paderborn, Germany
Distribution: eunet
NNTP-Posting-Host: nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de

In <C0nLFv.IxL@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:

>>What does "bis" mean, as in "V.32 bis"?  From context it appears to mean
>>something like "Mk II".
>If the French put a house between Number 32 and Number 34, they call it
>32bis.
>By the way, what was this doing in alt.fan.douglas-adams?

Maybe because the number was not V32bis but 42 instead  ;)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: IPA/ascii (was Re: Who are `we'?)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:59:30 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <C03FB5.Kr3@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>Two years, I think.  Every now and then I ask for a copy of the IPA/ascii
>table that I saw a draft of about a year ago.  I could really use it now...
>
>Pretty Please?

Please! I know it took a long time to finish, but I didn't start work
on it until the end of August (of this year).

I posted the (hopefully) final draft on December 24th to sci.lang and
alt.usage.english.  HP then shut down for a week.  We reopened today,
and I haven't seen any responses, so I suppose it may not have made it
out.  If it hasn't, please let me know, and I'll repost it.

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | Feeling good about government is like
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | looking on the bright side of any
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | catastrophe.  When you quit looking
				       | on the bright side, the catastrophe
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | is still there.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: naomib@sco.COM (Mirabelle Severn & Thames)
Subject: Functionality
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:57:35 GMT


For the person who asked about alternatives to "functionality,"
and for the others who have commented on the word, here is a
discussion of a real-life example.  The following sentence
appeared as an item in a bullet list in a project plan:

   "Changing the scope or functionality of the mail client
   will change the time estimates."

Someone suggested (not in relation to this example) that "function"
was a noun, and ought to be able to replace "functionality".
In this example, that would obviously not work.  The function
of the client is to send, receive, and do a few other things to
mail, and will not change.  The functionality -- *how* it does
those things -- very well might.

We could change the sentence to:

   "Changing the scope of the mail client or changing the way it
   works will change the time estimates."

or:

   "Changing the scope, features, task paths, or screens of the
   mail client will change the time estimates."

I prefer the original sentence to either of these, and I believe
it's perfectly clear to anyone who is likely to read the project
plan.  But if you like one of the others, use it.  Or, if you have
a rewrite suggestion that you think tops them all, post it.  You'll
make your point much better than by insulting those of us who think
differently than you do.

Naomi

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dolonsgh@unix1.tcd.ie (D.)
Subject: Left field
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:41:00 GMT

What exactly does the expression "Out of left field" mean?
What is its origin?

Donal O Loingsigh
dolonsgh@unix1.tcd.ie

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:31:46 GMT
Organization: University of South Africa

In article <1993Jan05.213350.109962@evolving.com> jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes:
>From: jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley)
>Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
>Date: 5 Jan 93 21:33:50 GMT
>djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>: The only time I've ever heard the plural after "United States" is when
>: the demonstrative "these" precedes it, and that usage is a bit
>: politico-poetic.
>
>"United States" as a plural noun was current in England well into this
>century -- I found a journalistic example from 1935 the other day --
>and was standard in America in the 18th century and common certainly
>till the middle of the 19th.  In the Constitution (1783) we have

I'm sure I've seen a phrase "the United States or any of them" that looks 
like a legal formula that is commonly used.

Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Back from the UK
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:07:01 GMT

Just got back from London, among the goodies toted back this trip are some
more US/UK differences worthy of discussion:


a) "Scheme"

On the front of the VAT refund form, the header read:

			H.M. Customs and Excise
			 Retail Export Scheme

Generally in the US, a scheme is something at its best a little underhanded,
and at its worst a criminal offense.  A "retail export scheme" would be a 
smuggling operation.


b) "Toilet"

Britons tend to use this word as a substitute for what Americans would call
the "bathroom" or the "restroom" or (I hear, in some parts of the country)
the "washroom."  

I overheard the following at the V&A museum...

	Kid:	Where's Mummy?
	Daddy:	She's in the toilet.

This sounded a little crude to me.  The toilet to Americans refers strictly
to the physical apparatus.  The question "Where's the toilet?" would raise
some eyebrows stateside.  If you wanted to be midly risque, you could say
"she's on the toilet" but that would never be said in polite company.

Besides, "In the toilet" in American English means "out of luck" or "in very
bad condition" or something like that.  "His business is in the toilet."


c) "Store" vs "Shop"

In America, the standard terminology for a place of retail sales is a 
"store" wheres in the UK it's a "shop."  The most pronounced use of the
word "shop" in the US is in the phrase "coffee shop" which refers to a
small restaurant serving burgers, sandwiches, breakfast foods, and of
course, coffee.  "Bookstore" in the US becomes "Bookshop" in the UK, etc.

However, I did hear the following on Good Morning Britain:

	"The IRA placed incendiary devices into four stores in
	 central London.  The shops affected were..."


d) The word "quite"

I acquired a catalog of musical instrument kits (lutes, harpsichords, etc) and
it had a legend to show the level of difficulty of the kits.  The list read:

	* = Easy
       ** = Quite easy
      *** = Average
     **** = Quite Challenging
    ***** = Challenging

To my eyes this looked strange, as I would say that something "quite
challenging" is more challenging than something "challenging," and 
something "quite easy" is easier than something "easy."


Opinions, anyone?



--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Functionality
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:28:10 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) in article <C0q1v6.2v1@news2.cis.umn.edu>:
>In article <1993Jan11.195735.5070@sco.com> naomib@sco.COM
>(Mirabelle Severn & Thames) writes:
>
>>   "Changing the scope or functionality of the mail client
>>   will change the time estimates."
>
>I don't see why it couldn't have been said
>
>    Changing the mail client will change the time estimates.
>
>If "scope" or "functionality" do any work here, it escapes me.

This does, of course, mean something entirely different.  It means that
the estimates of the time that something-or-other will take will change
even if you do an optimisation you were planning on.  But it's
important to avoid words like "functionality" even if that means
replacing a true sentence with a false one.

>You may object that, now that the wooliness has been taken out, the
>sentence is obviously wrong.  If changes are made in the program, the
>time estimates *should* change, but needn't.  What was probably meant
>was that
>
>    If the specifications change, the time estimates should be
>    changed accordingly.
>
>but it doesn't say that at all.

Maybe what was meant was "Changing the scope or functionality of the
mail client will change the time estimates".  No-one mentioned the
existence of a specification; maybe the mail reader's functionality
wasn't specified in advance but like many programs "just growed".

There isn't another word for functionality, so it's good we have it.
  __                                  _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing. \X/ 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:15:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.205701.18405@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <1993Jan11.193906.7938@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>> (Remember the discussion of "men (including women)", and the example
>> brought up a couple of times of "nigger".  No doubt, some people find
>> "nigger" a useful word, or they wouldn't use it, but most of us would
>> add in the negative effect it's likely to have and judge its 
>> usefulness differently.  Now, "concertize" isn't as offensive as 
>> "nigger", but obviously some of us don't like it.)

   Well put, Rheal.

> It's also offensive for different -- in this case arcane -- reasons.
> Offense against real people is one thing; against an imagined standard
> of language, quite another.  

   In whose imaginations does an imagined standard of language exist?
Real people.

   Where does the distinction between "black" and "nigger" exist?  In
imagined standards of language.

   The best approximation we have to reality is a consensus of 
imaginations.

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: VIZspeak - What is frottage ?
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:13:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <C0FnMG.Fx0@demon.co.uk>, gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham
Toal) wrote:

> Oh - that reminds me.  What's the word for having sex with someone's
> (presumably someone *else*'s ;-) ) armpit?  [It sort of came up in
> conversation last night...]  It's more specific that just general
> frotteurism.

Axillagnia?

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: capitalization of fields of study
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:57:05 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

goer@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:

>When does one capitalize "Linguistics"?  What if I'm talking about a
>book that covers historical and comparative linguistics, phonology,
>syntax, semantics, etc.  Do I have to capitalize these words?  I have
>always thought that the rule was, capitalize them if they refer to a
>discipline as an entity (e.g. "his degree is in "Linguistics"), but
>not in cases like "he knows a lot about linguistics."

If neither is confusing, you should do whatever you consider more
beautiful: given your germanic name, you might decide that Capitals are
Beautiful; given my jolly old name, I say they are not.

-Rick Jelliffe

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: scut work
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 13:44:30 GMT

In article <130b/1323c@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca> jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca (Jonathan Story) writes:
:This is a case where I *thought* I knew a word but later discovered I
:didn't.  This word is "scut", and here's an example from Alexei Panshin's
:_The_Thurb_Revolution_:
:
:    "... No, you'll have to make your own notes.  I will make
:    an offer, though.  If you want to spend your time making
:    David a Big Beaver, I'll mind things here, do the cooking
:    and scut work."
:
:I understood "scut work" to be small jobs that have to be done, but that
:folk would just as soon not do themselves.  Recently, though, I thought to
:look this up in the dictionary and found that it isn't there!  Not in
:Oxford's Concise, nor in the original OED.  Possibly, it is related to
:"short work", but this is not clear.
:
:So, can anyone supply an authoritative definition and origin?  

Nope, sorry.  Want a guess instead?  Something to do with 'scuttle' as
in coal scuttle, or scuttling about?  Maybe in this case, stoking the
oven (is it a stovepipe oven by any chance?)

G
From: Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: ``Functionality''
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:12:00
Organization: Konrad Zuse Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: quattro.zib-berlin.de



Can anybody tell me why I find the jargon word `functionality'
so irritating?  To my ear (as a native British English speaker)
it sounds not only ugly but downright wrong.

Why?  And can anyone think of a more graceful alternative,
without losing the full extent of meaning behind the word?


					Chris
				       [cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de]

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: The Zeleny phenomenon  (Was Re: Fund raising at the FSF)
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:06:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.213759.18973@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu
(Michael Zeleny) writes:
> Listen, nitwit, try to get it straight: I am not complaining on my own
> behalf, but on behalf of the sorely abused English language.  There's
> free and there's proprietary; some programs, like TeX, get close
> enough to the former for all intents and purposes, without trumpeting
> the moral superiority of their creators.  With the GNU programs, in
> many important ways, it's just the opposite: not only are they
> proprietary by any reasonable standard, but they also have the effect
> of appropriating any program they participate in, regardless of the
> extent or ratio of such participation.

Ah, the sorely abused English language.  If English can survive being
defended by Zeleny, it's a tribute to the recuperative powers of the 
language.  And the fact that Stallman apparently gave this guy the 
finger years and years ago only increases my respect for Stallman, a 
phenomenon I would have thought impossible.  Thanks for the information,
Mikhail.  Truly, great minds think alike.

Does anyone else find it amusing that in the course of defending freedom
Mikhail is constantly telling others to shut up?  


Marie coffin
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: capitalization of fields of study
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:15:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.041522.11700@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:

> When does one capitalize "Linguistics"?  What if I'm talking about a
> book that covers historical and comparative linguistics, phonology,
> syntax, semantics, etc.  Do I have to capitalize these words?  I have
> always thought that the rule was, capitalize them if they refer to a
> discipline as an entity (e.g. "his degree is in "Linguistics"), but
> not in cases like "he knows a lot about linguistics."
>
> Is this correct?

   You have called the activity in a.u.e. "silly grammar-book 
discussions".

   If you think our advice is so "silly", you shouldn't ask us for
any, you hypocritical nincompoop!

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Skid Road (was Re: K Street
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:49:41 GMT

In article <hayesstw.164.726479721@risc1.unisa.ac.za> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
>In article <1ii29rEINNmue@uni-erlangen.de> sngoetze@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Sebastian Goetze) writes:

>>They told the story in "the american Top 40 countdown" some time back
>>because of the band "skid row". That show is broadcasted worldwide...

>Shouldn't that be "broadcast"?

>Or is "broadcasted" so common that it is becoming accepted usage?

OED has several cites for "broadcasted," all from the *early* days of
radio, i.e., 1921-24.  I don't know that this usage ever died out, or 
that "broadcast" (past tense) ever was the only accepted usage...

Roger
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Person
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:11:55 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan11.024948.19862@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <12283@sorley.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>You still don't think sex (I
>>take it that's what "gender" was meant to mean)?
>
>Sex is an activity, gender is an attribute . . .  :-)

I thought gender (masculine/feminine/neuter) was just an attribute of
nouns, while sex (male/female) was an attribute of animals.  (My use
of "animal" here includes our species.)

Then, of course, there was the Bulgarian who wrote "from time to time"
in the questionnaire he was given to fill out upon landing in England.

>>I mean, if I'm made
>>to visualise a (yet unspecified) human being (even if the word "man"
>>hasn't been used), I'll certainly have to attribute to him a sex, age,
>>skin colour, approximate appearance and much else.  I can't visualise
>>him otherwise.
>
>With "someone", you just might visualize a woman.

Highly unlikely.  If I get to the point of creating a more or less
definite mental image of the someone, it will almost certainly be one
of a man (a male), unless the context carries a very strong suggestion
of the contrary.

>With "man", you are guaranteed to visualize a male.

That's because in this case I'll expect "man" to have been used in the
sense of `adult male human being'.  In a different context I may
understand it as just `human being'.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* 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: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Spelling chequer
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:26:58 GMT

  Eye have a spelling chequer
     It came with my PC
It plainly marques for my revue
   Mistakes eye cannot sea.
  I've run this poem threw it
 Eye am sure your plea's to no
Its letter perfect in it's weigh
   My chequer tolled me sew.

       "The Australian" 28 Dec 1992.
-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english