HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:33:11 GMT

In article <93001.132520HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>In article <1i04t7INNlvn@uwm.edu>, jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) says:
>>
>>Unfortunately, the radical feminists _don't_ acknowledge that.
>>At least, not those that I've seen quoted.   Sigh....  :-(
>
>Sometimes I suspect "the radical feminists" have the same
>ontological status as Mrs. Harris.
>

'The' Radical feminists come from certain types of dried grain.

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:33:24 GMT

In article <C0o7x2.7Iq@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
:Yes.  I'm told by an English co-author that the way Americans use "quite"
:sounds silly in the U. K. so I must never use it in anything we write. It's
:the only word I'm not allowed to use.  I gather that "quite challenging"
:means not very challenging.

Indeed, that's an oldie.  "You are quite beautiful" has apocryphally
been the cause of fisticuffs fr years :-)

G
From: bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P. Chatterjee)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Is it proper to use CONTRACTIONS in letters,resumes,etc.?
Date: 9 Jan 1993 23:14:38 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

I had a question about whether it is proper to use contractions (that is
I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements, resumes
and other statements.

Would appreciate any input on this.
From: mckeonj@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Which is correct?
Date: 7 Jan 93 11:35:42 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

In article <1993Jan7.044510.11211@csi.uottawa.ca>, misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
> In article <rbkatz-060193110949@128.96.93.74> rbkatz@cc.bellcore.com (Bob Katz) writes:
> 
>> Which is correct?:
>>
>>     One problem is customers using the wrong wording.
>>
>>     or
>>
>>     One problem is customers' using the wrong wording.  [note apostrophe]
> 
> What is the problem?  The customers or their wording?
This also is correct:
One problem is the using by customers of the wrong wording.
Similarly:
Do you object to my having a smoke?
Strikes a bit odd, but its quite legal, the use of the participle
as a noun.
-- 
"Ich am of Irlonde" (medieval fragment used by Yeats)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: srinivas@bombay.Princeton.EDU (Santhanam Srinivasan)
Subject: Which one is correct?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:48:41 GMT

(I tried posting this before, but it doesn't seem to have reached.)

Which of the following, if any, is correct?  Is there a better way
of expressing this?

--> The British Labour Party has not even had the time to start their
                                                                ~~~~~
    annual conference, now that their divisions are already bursting
                       ---      ~~~~~ 
    out in the open.

--> The British Labour Party has not even had the time to start its
                                                                ~~~
    annual conference, now that its divisions are already bursting
                       ---      ~~~
    out in the open.

Is the "now" correct/neccesary? Any suggestions would be appreciated. 
Advance thanks.

-S.S.

-- 
Dept. of EE, Computer Engg. group,      | (r) 400 D Devereux Avenue 
Princeton University                    |     Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (o)609-258-4108,(r)609-252-0743  | (o) 223B Engg. Quadrangle
Internet: srinivas@ee.princeton.edu     |     Princeton, NJ 08544
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: 'Unauthenticity'?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:25:08 GMT

In article <1itn0qINN155@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> caedmon@cats.ucsc.edu (Axeman) writes:

>I always have to poke fun at something.  There's a command on my Athena
>system (Glorified UNIX) similar to 'write'.  There's some big hang-up
>about security and 'authentic' messages.  It's really kind of silly, since
>there's a command-line flag to approve or negate the authenticity of a message.
>I changed it to always negate authenticity, so all my messages to other
>people are as such:

>UNAUTHENTIC Personal message at 21:59:20 on Mon Jan 11 1993
>  From: Master of Unauthenticity <caedmon>

>I'm just curious if 'Unauthenticity' is a real word.  I'm sure I can look
>for better usage in thesaurii, but the whole silly point of my game is
>to keep intact 'authentic.'  Can anybody site this word in a familiar
>dictionary?

Sited and cited!  OED has five citations for "unauthentic", dating from
1631-1852.  "Inauthentic" seems to be newer, with 2 entries, 1860 and
1972.  "Inauthenticity" has five citations, 1885-1930.  

So your form would seem to be the older one.  I tend to find and use
"inauthentic."  But don't let that stop you.

Roger


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:21:11 GMT

In article <8207@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>>"Functionality" is merely the noun form of the adjective "functional."
>
>And what ever happened to "function"? Is that an outdated modality?

What is the function of this device?  [What does it do?]
What is the functionality of this device? [How well does it do it?  How
	functional is it?


--
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: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Mark & pole
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:52:01 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <20251.2b4e9675@ul.ie>, mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
> The same
> sport also gives us another wonderful misuse: writers will refer
> to e.g. Nigel Mansell as holding the "pole" position, meaning
> that he is in the lead. They have misheard the word "poll",
> meaning head.

Ah no. In the olden days, before such things as electronically controlled
starting lights, the cars were held back by a man with a long stick, or pole, 
which was raised to signify the start of the race and to allow the cars to
proceed. Hence `In pole position' means `starting at the head of the field'. It
is not used to mean `In first place' during the race, however.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Which is correct?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:22:36 GMT

In article <20241.2b4c158e@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.044510.11211@csi.uottawa.ca>, misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>> In article <rbkatz-060193110949@128.96.93.74> rbkatz@cc.bellcore.com (Bob Katz) writes:
>> 
>>> Which is correct?:

>>>     One problem is customers using the wrong wording.

>>>     or

>>>     One problem is customers' using the wrong wording.  [note apostrophe]

>> What is the problem?  The customers or their wording?

Both, obviously.  If the customers go away, the problem resolves itself,
just as it does if they learn the right words.

>This also is correct:
>One problem is the using by customers of the wrong wording.

Clunky, though.

>Similarly:
>Do you object to my having a smoke?
>Strikes a bit odd, but its quite legal, the use of the participle
>as a noun. 

Well, that's what participles are for!  e.g., "the wearing of the green".

Back to the sentence above: I'd probably say, "One problem is that
customers use the wrong wording."  This simplifies things, though it
does not tell us whether we're upset at the customers or the miswording.

Roger
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Distribution: alt
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>"Functionality" is merely the noun form of the adjective "functional."

And what ever happened to "function"? Is that an outdated modality?

--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
From: Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 11 Jan 93 11:06:01
Organization: Konrad Zuse Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: borodin.zib-berlin.de
In-reply-to: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:07:01 GMT


In article <1993Jan11.020701.9391@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

   c) "Store" vs "Shop"

[...]

   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..."

This probably means they were department stores.  You do get `general
store and off licence'-type shops, which can be quite small, but
usually a shop is a shop unless it's a big one.

   d) The word "quite"

[...]

   I would say that something "quite challenging" is more challenging
   than something "challenging," and something "quite easy" is easier
   than something "easy."

But you do get `oh, *quite*' as an interjection to show complete
agreement, and in the north east of England (which is where I come
from) you get `fairly' used colloquially something like the US
`quite'.  ("It's fairly difficult" -> "It's very difficult")

							Chris

--

           on sighting mathematicians it should unhook the algebra from their
           minds and replace it with with poetry; on sighting poets it should
               unhook poetry from their minds and replace it with algebra
From: nrr@med.unc.edu (Nancy Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: might/may/would? HELP!
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:16:02 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Originator: nrr@pelham

Could someone help me with a grammar problem?  I am writing
a survey and I am having a problem deciding whether to use
might, may or would in the following statements:

Please indicate your experience with each of the following items and then
rate each item based on how useful you think each one was or
**would/might/may*** be in helping you to use the system effectively?

and
These are not available.  Please rate how useful you feel each
**might/may/would** be in helping you to use the system effectively.


any opinions?
Thank you, nancy nrr@med.unc.edu
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 3 Jan 93 16:51:44 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Dec31.055157.29196@microsoft.com>, frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney) writes:
>>> News reports seem to me to use just the street name, but political dramas
>>> always use `number ten' to distinguish it from number 11 (The Chancellor of the
>>> Exchequer) and number 12 (the whips' office).
>>> 
>>Another one which has just sprung too mind:
>>
>>Whitehall for the British civil service.
>>
> 
> But is this Whitehall the (former) palace or the thoroughfare? I had
> always assumed the former, in which case it would not qualify.

I didn't now there was ever a Whitehall palace; since most government offices
are on Whitehall, I suspect it's the road.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:03:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.154547.23531@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes:
:shat - (verb; past tense of "to shit") as in, "A bird shat on my computer". 
:	And one did as well a couple of months ago. 

:jobbie - the "s" word, of Scottish origin

Actually, 'shat' in scotland is the past tense of 'to shite'.  'shit'
is terribly English.

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Any Special Dictionary Just For Verbs' Usages
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:45:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.233623.25506@seas.smu.edu>, kayaalp@seas.smu.edu (Mehmet M. Kayaalp MD) says:

> I am looking for a work (dictionary?) which is  solely  dedicated
> on  usage  of  verbs.  I  am particularly interested in detailed,
> comprehensive (as far as possible) list of prepositions used with
> every  particular  verb. 

A. P. Cowrie and Ronald Mackin, _Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic
English: Verbs with Prepositions and Particles, Vol. I_, Oxford 
Univeristy Press, 1975.  ISBN 0-19-431145-7

Rosemary Courtney, _Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs_, Longman, 1983.
ISBN 0-582-55530-2

F. T. Wood, _English Verbal Idioms_, London: Macmillan, 1966.
ISBN 0-333-09673-8

F. T. Wood, _English Prepositional Idioms_, London: Macmillan, 1969.
ISBN 0-333-10391-2

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Speaking of mathematics...
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 04:25:10 GMT

> Norman E. Steenrod, Paul R. Halmos, Menahem M. Schiffer, Jean A. Dieudonne.
> How to Write Mathematics.
> Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1973.
>
> This is an essential usage guide for writers of mathematics.  It should go
> in the FAQ with the other usage guides.

   Thank you; I will mention this in the FAQ.

> Where is the FAQ anyway?  How long have we been hearing about it?

   Too long, and I'm sorry.

   Speaking of mathematics, why is a Fast Fourier Transform not called a
"Fast Fourier Transformation"?  Is not a "transform" usually the *result*
of a "transformation"?

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Any Special Dictionary Just For Verbs' Usages
Date: 10 Jan 1993 05:40:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kayaalp@seas.smu.edu (Mehmet M. Kayaalp MD) says:

>I am looking for a work (dictionary?) which is  solely  dedicated
>on  usage  of  verbs.  I  am particularly interested in detailed,
>comprehensive (as far as possible) list of prepositions used with
>every  particular  verb. 

I haven't seen one, but if I remember correctly, the book _Words into
Type_, which should be available in (or through) most libraries, has a
comprehensive list of correct prepositions to use with specific verbs.

Linda Zinn
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:14:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <726176160snz@panache.demon.co.uk> raph@panache.demon.co.uk writes:

>What do you call a man who delivers a baby? He is still a mid*wife*.

Usually, though, he's called an obstetrician and gets sued a lot.


-- 
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: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: A letter to Sue
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:25:51 GMT

In article <1ikjmrINNl80@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca writes:
:Actually I goofed a bit on my earlier post. I should have mentioned that my
:analysis of 'Mahalingam' was for the benefit of netters who may have missed
:the connection between Mahalingam and magnificent (and if everyone who read
:that article knew it already, I'm bloody glad that Indian languages are
:getting around).

Oh yes, we got the joke.  Hence the reference to Melvile.  (Moby Dick)

G
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 4 Jan 93 09:53:07 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1i04t7INNlvn@uwm.edu> jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:

# >>Riddle me this:  The word "person" contains the word "son".
# >
# > No it doesn't. It does contain the letters S-O-N, but not the
# > word "son", neither etymologically nor phonetically. Consult
# > a dictionary.
#
# Unfortunately, the radical feminists _don't_ acknowledge that. At
# least, not those that I've seen quoted.   Sigh....  :-(

It seems to me that a lot of people in the neo-Whorfian camp have lost
the boundary between symbol and reality.

Is this a consequence of reading too much literature?

David JOhns
From: jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:33:50 GMT
Organization: Evolving Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

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
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them ..."  And the 13th Amendment (1865) "within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
-- 
Fr. John Woolley (jww@evolving.com); vastly enthusiastic about Augustine,
Austen, babies, Bach, backgammon, baseball, beer, the Bible, Botticelli, Burke,
Chesterton, Dante, Dixieland, hardboiled, Hitchcock, Dr Johnson, Latin, Mozart,
Shakespeare/de Vere, St Teresa, Tolkien, Trollope, Fats Waller, and Washington
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Which is correct?
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:17:12 EST
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization:  Wright State University 



BK> Which is correct?:
> 
>      One problem is customers using the wrong wording.

Democracy time: I vote for this option.  Reason: the sentence could be
rewritten this way:

	One problem is that customers use the wrong wording.

No possessive is implied or stated.  Thus your original sentence is fine.

>      One problem is customers' using the wrong wording.  [note apostrophe]

Someone out there will analyze this sentence better than I, but there seems to
be no object possessed by the customers here.  A twisted rewrite would be:

      One problem is the customers' uses of the wrong wording.

I prefer the original sentence.  Sounds better, looks better.

-----ted hayes
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Instore
Date: 13 Jan 93 11:33:31 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

NZ advertisers on radio and TV seem to have come up with a
new word 'instore' as used in

'Plenty of bargains instore'.

How widespread is this usage?
-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
__________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:01:28 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois

In article <103720@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>Path: news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!ben.dev.upenn.edu!crawford
>From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>Subject: Re: American English
>Message-ID: <103720@netnews.upenn.edu>
>Date: 5 Jan 93 15:14:41 GMT
>References: <1i04t7INNlvn@uwm.edu> <726176160snz@panache.demon.co.uk>
>Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
>Organization: University of Pennsylvania
>Lines: 12
>Nntp-Posting-Host: ben.dev.upenn.edu
>In article <726176160snz@panache.demon.co.uk> raph@panache.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>>What do you call a man who delivers a baby? He is still a mid*wife*.
>
>Usually, though, he's called an obstetrician and gets sued a lot.
>
>
>-- 
>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

Midwife = person accompanying a woman, literally; sex of person is
not specified in the etymology

whereas 

obstetrician < Latin obstetrix, a feminine form, which means literally
something like she who stands in the way (ie, to catch the baby)

nihil obstat?

Dennis

--

debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
Subject: Re: Collecting Funny Mistranslations
Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space, Sunnyvale CA USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 13:37:08 GMT

crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
: In article <1ish91INNnv8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
: >
: >Hope this is the appropriate place to post. If not, I'm sure someone will
: >be *glad* to let me know.
: 
: A *most* appropriate place to post!

My succinct favorite is the "mistranslation" of an admonition to
take thought for the future:

                          TINK!

That this was painted on a ceramic cup made the misspelling
doubly poignant.

Alex Lange
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english