HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:51:02 GMT

In article <1ec3g6INNrep@agate.berkeley.edu> dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum) writes:
>Jin-Yuan Wu writes:

>>I read a food ad and found two sentances which I don't understand.
>>(1) Not all the Italian masterpieces are hanging in museums.
>>(2) So come see what's cooking at Applebee's Festa Italiana.
>>English is not my native language. I asked some American and English guys
>>and they told me that these two sentances are acceptable. Could any one
>>tell me why they are accepted grammartically? I thought they should be:
>>(1) Not all ... are HUNG in museums.

>The verb "to hang" in English can be transitive or intransitive--that
>means, it can take an object or not.  If you use "hang" transitively,
>you can say, for example, "I hang an Italian masterpiece in a museum."
>Turning this sentence around, you would get, "An Italian masterpiece
>is HUNG in a museum."  But if you use "to hang" intransitively,
>you can say "An Italian masterpiece hangs in a museum," or, as the
>ad says, "An Italian masterpiece IS HANGING in a museum."  (Note
>that for human beings, the past participle is not hung, but hanged:
>"He was hanged at dawn.")

Note also that "hanging" introduces the present (continuous) tense,
which leads to the second sentence -- or, rather, the rest of the ad,
which is talking about things going on right now, not in general (as 
Italian paintings are hung in museums for decades and centuries).

But you could also say "Not all my shirts are hanging in the closet;
one just fell down."

>>(2) So come see WHO'S cooking ...
>>or So come see what's cooked ...

>This is an idiomatic expression.  "What's cooking?", like "What's
>up?", is not meant to be taken literally.  It means, "what's going
>on, what's happening," or sometimes, "what is developing, what is
>about to happen".  The ad uses the expression in order to make a joke
>on the word "cooking".

Right.  You might walk into a lab or a discussion and ask "what's cooking?"
in the sense of "what's happening?  What are you planning?"  (Another
idiom that means the same thing is "what's up?"

Of course, one could say it that way even if it weren't an idiom.
Come see what's happening.  Look in the sky and see the storm brewing.
(See what's brewing.)
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Take a shave
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

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


LLC>But will you take a powder?

LLC>Anybody know where that phrase came from?

From the "powder", or dust, left billowing in one's wake when
one speedily departs?  My 2. worth....

---
 . OLX 3.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                            
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:12:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.194221.19793@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.180410.20206@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu
>(Roger Lustig) writes (flaming Gabe Wiener):

>> I take it, then, that you've actually looked up "quite" and "unique"
>> in a dictionary or similar?  Again, I refer you to Evans and Evans,
>> who address the issue directly.

>> Now, having said that, what does "quite unique" have to do with the
>> "either/or" issue?  As I said (and you chose to delete), "quite
>> unique" can mean: not only unique, but also unapproached.  People
>> don't just use the word "unique" to mean "one-of-a-kind", simply
>> because such distinctions aren't made often.  Teh *degree* of
>> difference is also of interest in many cases.

>Having once written dictionaries for a living, I don't believe them
>to be gospel, just the attempts of harmless drudges to get fairly
>accurate descriptions of what words mean.

Absolutely.  But this work should not be discounted, especially with
dictionaries that involve the fruits of some research into how words
are actually used.  I believe that dictionaries are good sources of 
information when one is wondering about a usage.  In any case, dictionary
data should hardly be discounted automatically.

>Does anyone really use "quite unique" (or "really unique", "truly unique",
>and so forth) except when trying to hype something?  No doubt the pages of
>Vogue and House Beautiful are full of such usages.

 I wouldn't know about those magazines, but I've heard the expression
any number of times.  And, as both Evans*2 and AHD make clear, the 
expression is common enough for certain purists to have made a fetish
out of.

>Pardon me if I don't want to sound like that.

OK:

1) You don't know where the expression is used.

2) You think certain gushy magazines might use it.

3) On that basis, you decide you don't want to use it, because you'd
sound like those magazines you don't read.

Is that it?  Or is there something else you're worried about?

Roger


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Re: Names for Nodes?
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.221326.2420@igor.tamri.com> viviana@igor.tamri.com (Vivian Aldridge) writes:
>Gangsters

Butch	(Butch Cassidy)
Clyde	(of Bonnie and Clyde)
Floyd	(Pretty Boy Floyd.  Well...almost a gangster)
Frank	(Frank James)
Gallo	(Joey Gallo)
Jesse	(Jesse James)
Kelly	(Machine Gun Kelly)
Moran	(Bugs Moran)
-- 
Douglas Harper | harper@oracorp.com | +1 (607) 277-2020
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
Subject: Bailey's 1736 dictionary [002]: Tower, Towers, etc.
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:22:34 GMT

Here follows a 1736 definitions for
	Tower
	Towers [probably the most amusing to modern readers!!]
	Hollow Tower
	Tow'ering long sought
[is sci.lang appropriate?]

Since I got some hate mail about posting SGML, I'm sending only ASCII now.
I am currently turning the SGML dictionary entries into ASCII by hand,
which is a little error prone; when the SGML DTD settles down I'll write a
little script to do it.  In the mean-time, I am omitting the Etymology and
any Greek words or phrases.  Also, I am actually using ISO 8859-1 rather than
ASCII; when I write the script I'll try and convert to TeX notation or
something.  Omissions are marked as [...].

Lee


Tower [...] a place of defence.

Hollow Tower, [in _Fortification_] a rounding made of the remainder of a
_Brisure_ to join the _Courtin_ to the _Orillon_.

Towers [in _Coat Armour_] being parts of cities and castles plac'd within
walls may represent the constancy, magnanimity and generosity of men who
freely expose their bodies for the defence of their country.

Tow'ering long sought [in _Cattle_] a disease which proceeds from leanness.


Lee

-- 
lee@sq.com (Liam Quin) the barefoot programmer; SoftQuad Inc +1 416 239 4801
 OPEN LOOK UI FAQ; Metafont list; HexSweeper NeWS game; lq-text text retrieval
 `The priestes boy came, whyle the flesh was seething' [lq-text-request@sq.com
 1 Sam II:13/Miles Coverdale/1535
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:40:15 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

In article <1e9610INNca6@agate.berkeley.edu> dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum) writes:

>I have read all I want to read on the question of the modifiability
>or lack thereof of the word "unique".  PLEASE can't we talk about
>something else?

I must say that I enjoy this thread wholeheartedly. My only problem is
that it takes too much time reading; but I simply cannot skip any
part of it.

I *do* hope that next spring, when the "unique" discussion has calmed
down (*) and is almost forgotten, some innocent person new to this group
will come up and ask the magic question again. (I even consider to hire
someone to do this ...)

--
(*) "hopefully" 
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: yan@mercury.cs.uregina.ca (Yongfei Yan)
Subject: You experts, could you please help me ?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:02:06 GMT
Organization: University of Regina, SK, Canada
Keywords: personal statement

Hi, experts:
	
		The following is my personal statement. Could you guys please
		go through the passage and e-mail me the problems (grammatical
		errors, spell errors, etc) with it?

		Don't be shocked if you find anything wrong since my mother
		language is not English.

		You may reply personally or through the english group.

		Thank you in advance.

					John Yan

-------------------------------------------------------------

Organic chemistry has been my interest since I started my chemistry
career in 1980.  As computer science knowledge was needed for my
master's thesis supervised under Dr. xxxx and Dr. xxxx at
the University of Regina, I took several computer science classes. After
finishing my thesis in chemistry, I realized that computer science
knowledge is not only a very important tool to solve chemistry problem,
but it also provides an ability to view chemistry problem from different
angles. I decided to spent a couple of years to solidify my computer
science knowledge by working for a master's degree in computer science.
Friends suggested me to stay in computer science for a Ph.D degree, but I
have determined to come back to chemistry. I have confidence that I will
do a very good work in organic chemistry by the application of my computer
science knowledge.
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Take a shave
Date: 16 Nov 1992 14:16:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In the morning, I will go and shave (unless it's Saturday).  My 
father-in-law, on the other hand, will be heard saying, "I think
I will go and take a shave."

I will go and take a shower, or I will shower, but to take a shave?

Any comments?
-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:59:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov20.232609.12872@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>Heck, you've got me all wrong.  People *should* learn to write formally.
>BUT THEY SHOULD ALSO LEARN THAT THEY ARE LEARNING FORMAL WRITING, and 
>that this has a special relationship to their speech.

I just asked another gentleman this question, so I'll ask you:  why should
people learn to write formally?  Why not just write in dialect?

>Writing is taught badly.  Many teachers can't teach people to write good
>sentences -- which are basically sentences that sound good.  Most people
>at Penn *speak* in complete sentences, after all.  No?  

Actually, no.  It's interesting to read direct tape transcriptions from
interviews; there are loads of fragments.  Not many people actually speak
in complete sentences most of the time.  One of the things I do (when not
haggling on the net) is write speeches, and I've been taught to use
fragments.    

>But instead, 
>they teach abstract rules of grammar, and lose the habit of listening
>to what one writes.

I completely agree with you (and this is frightening).

>If you think that I consider errors to be part of English, you've 
>misunderstood everything I said.  There *is* a formal dialect,
>and knowing it is important.  

Again, why?




-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:17:22 GMT

In <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
[...]
>The specialisation of originally synonymous terms to express finer
>distinctions, or to remove ambiguity, for example. An instance of this
>is the British adoption of the US spelling "program" to designate a
>computer program, and the specialisation of "programme" for such cases
>as "programme of research". 

'Program' is not just the US spelling; it was the regular British
spelling until the 19th century.

In any case the word has pretty much the same meaning in both cases.
Would you consider it an improvement to adopt yet another spelling for
a TV programn? The possibility for ambiguity between a computer
program and a program of research is negligible, certainly too small
to require separate spellings. Or perhaps the British should introduce
schematic 'diagramme' for use in the electronics industry.

>Another improvement is the adoption in
>Britain of the US meaning of "billion", rather than fostering
>ambiguity by continuing to fight a losing battle in favour of the
>British "billion".

At last! Before you know it, we'll have you spelling 'favor' correctly.

>[...]I challenge you to cite a history of the English language which does
>not think that the efforts of Johnson have had a considerable
>influence. Most, for example, blame Johnson and his ilk for the silly
>"don't split infinitives" rule which still bedevils English -- and
>discussions on this group.

So his influence was negative.

>[...]Not only
>were there many well-educated word-coiners at work in the literary
>arena of [Shakespeare's] time, the common people of the time were capable of
>understanding much more complex language than they are today, and the
>arts of story-telling, repartee, witticism, and general word-play were
>much more widespread, and of a much higher standard, among ordinary
>people, than they are today. The modern Irish "gift of the gab" is a
>archaic survival from times of much greater linguistic skills in the
>common people.

I don't know your source for these bold claims, but if your comparing
the repartee and witticisms from literature of an earlier time with
the repartee you hear in your local pub, you should apply a correction
factor. (They're probably too busy arguing about split infinitives
to be witty.)

Werner
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:05:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Distribution: alt
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov15.002848.15750@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU
(Roger Lustig) wrote:
> 
> Evans and Evans (1957) on "unique":
> 
> "Unique" once meant "only," as in "his unique son."  It can no longer be
> used in this sense.  Today "unique" may mean "in a class by itself," but
> it more often means "unparalleled" or simply "remarkable."  In this, it
> is following the pattern of "singular."  In all its current senses "unique"
> may be used with words that imply degrees, such as "more unique" and
> "quite unique."  Some people believe that there is something about the meaning
> of "unique" that makes expressions of this kind "illogical" or "improper" 
> but these expressions are used freely by outstanding writers and educators
> today.  One grammarian, commenting on the much condemned "quite unique"
> points out that the word here means "unparalleled" and that we certainly
> do say "quite unparalleled."  He then says of the word "unique" itself:
> "I don't see anything quite unique in it."  (p.529)

Mmmmmmffff.  I happen to have a friend who has been quite nonlinear about
this issue for many years.  And *he* has a cousin (I make this not up) who
has for years been compiling a book of alleged illogicalities like this
one, to be titles "The Most Unique."  Really.

So you see, I have been reminded of this debate on a very considerable
number of occasions and have considered it with some care, and I have to
agree with Evans and Evans.

And yet... "quite unique" is pretty harmless, but also unnecessary and IMHO
unattractive.  How about "the most unique"?  Worse, I think.  Sooner or
later we arrive at my own favorite example:

         "unique, certainly, but not at all unusual."

I swear to god I didn't make that up.  I didn't see it in print either,
damn it, but another friend of mine did, aren't we scientific.  It wasn't
meant as a joke, either.  Is it illogical?  No, but it's... it's... what is
that word I'm groping for?


--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:32:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.012752.47158@evolving.com> jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes:

>Notice here, by the way, another good useful word, "literally", that's
>used now as a kind of general intensifier.  "Literally unique" seems to
>mean (to most hearers) "real good".  Ugh.  These examples argue most
>strongly for keeping hyperbolic and non-literal meanings secondary and
>little-used for as long as possible.  It's too late to save "fabulous",
>"terrible", "discriminate", and "lousy".  Let's try to preserve "unique",
>"literally", "convince", "home", and all the other endangered words and
>senses that make (or made) English such a fine, flexible, precise tongue.

It's too late for "literally," same as for "unique."  I refer you to
the first line of "The Dead" by James Joyce, one of the great stories in
our language.

Let's face it: words with strong meanings will be used hyperbolically.
It's as ingrained a language habit as we have; to your list of "too late"
words you might want to add "Awful" and "awesome" and "horrible" and
"Dreadful" and so on as well.  

Roger
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:44:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <By2MLx.Ey2@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:

>I certainly think it's fair to set a much higher standard and expect
>Standard English in written language.

Why?



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: What's cooking?
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:06:16 GMT
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics

Hi Dear Netters:

I read a food ad and found two sentances which I don't understand.

(1) Not all the Italian masterpieces are hanging in museums.

(2) So come see what's cooking at Applebee's Festa Italiana.

English is not my native language. I asked some American and English guys
and they told me that these two sentances are acceptable. Could any one
tell me why they are accepted grammartically? I thought they should be:

(1) Not all ... are HUNG in museums.

(2) So come see WHO'S cooking ...
or So come see what's cooked ...

Thank you.
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:32:47 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa

In article <1992Nov16.052332.20190@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.044517.15622@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>Roger, a question.
>
>>If you use "unique" to mean "rare" or "unusual" or "a nice knockdown
>>argument", then what word will you use when you really mean "unique"?
>
>Why, "unique" of course.  (Note that "unique" *really* means "singular,"
>"rare," etc. as well as "one-of-a-kind.")  I use "unique" to mean 
>"one-of-a-kind" when the context makes that meaning clear.  I'm also
>pretty good at fashioning appropriate contexts, they tell me.  

So you're relying on the intelligence of your reader to guess what you
mean when you say "unique" - this from the man who has peppered his
posts with "Can't you read?"  complaints.

Of course, of course, your readers will always know exactly what you
mean, even if you don't bother using the best word for the job.  And if
they don't, it must be because they can't read - it couldn't possibly be
that you were less than 100% clear.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:8607 alt.sex:36548
From: ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Date: 18 Nov 1992 06:57:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu

In article <722057498@ptero.cs.duke.edu> dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:
(Objecting to the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun)

>"Oh, someone will be coming by with the Harrison transcripts.  Send them
> to Joe in room 405."
>
>Now, does the 'them' in that sentence refer to the transcripts or to the
>person bringing them?
>
>See the problem?

Oh come now.  Surely you're not suggesting that the fact that you can 
construct an ambiguous sentence with a particular word renders that word
invalid.  The ambiguity in that sentence has nothing to do with the fact
that the word "them" has both singular and plural usages; I can perform
the same trick with the word "it":

"A truck will be arriving with my baobab tree.  Send it to LeConte Hall."

Does the "it" refer to the truck or the tree?  I don't know.  But I don't
imagine we should stop using the word "it" for that reason.

-Ted
From: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: I palindrome I
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:03:52 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu

The other day, I was listening to They Might Be Giants' song "I
Palindrome I" and a question occurred to me.  The song doesn't have
much in the way of "standard" palindromes ("mom" and "dad" are about
the most impressive), but it does have the following passage:
  "Son, I am able," she said, "though you scare me."  "Watch," said
  I; "Beloved," I said, "watch me scare you, though."  Said she:
  "Able am I, son."
So. Two questions: 1) Is this a palindrome, or does it have another name?
And 2) Are there other passages like this that you folks know?

---------------------
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: One Who Loves to Travel
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:16:21 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG, Paderborn, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de


Tourist ?       ;)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english