HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Knives and forks
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:18:36 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <92350.145832HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:
>In article <glen.724433823@cs.wisc.edu>, glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
>says:

>>So how did the Europeans come to use the backs of their forks?

>>When I eat peas or mashed potatoes, I use the fork in my right hand, like a
>>spoon.  But I've seen Europeans mash peas onto the backs of their forks with
>>a knife.  Now that strikes me as odd.

>It strikes me as odd, too. But you go too far in imputing this behavior
>to "Europeans". It is my observation that the English do indeed wield
>their cutlery in this manner, but that continental Europeans do not,

There is a British class ranking in this fork use. The lowest classes
use forks with the handle exposed, and mostly like a spoon. The next
stage up to to conceal the handle in the grip when using it in the
left hand concave-down. The next stage up is to avoid using it like a
spoon in the right hand, mastering the miserable art of mashing peas
onto the back of the fork. The final stage of sophistication is to use
the fork in knife-and-fork dishes always in the left hand, but to
rotate it in the left hand between spoon handle-exposed grip and
spearing handle-concealed grip as required. The change of grip should
be accomplished dexterously and unobtrusively.  This permits the use
of the knife to push peas onto the fork; but this is only permitted if
you can avoid dropping peas on the way to the mouth (a steady hand or
an admixture of mash).

The general principle is that dexterous and efficient use of eating
tools is grown up and appropriate; inappropriate are childish
simplifications due to lack of dexterity. For example, it is better to
eat spaghetti with a fork only, if you can manage it neatly and
efficiently; but it is better to use a fork and spoon neatly than to
make a mess of trying to use a fork only. In general you can do
anything if it is neatly done, without risk of dropping anything, and
while keeping your elbows out of your neighbour's food.

A much worse class solecism than wrong-handed fork use is using a
knife or concave-down fork with the end of the handle exposed, rather
than concealed in the hand. Dropping food is the worst solecism of
all, hence the various rules about plate tipping and spoon filling.

These remarks only apply to the fork in knife-and-fork dishes. There
are different rules for fork-only or fork-and-spoon dishes.

-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Spelling differences (was Re: Reading (was Re: program__ (Re: quite unique)))
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:29:36 GMT

I wrote:

>btw, the spellings 'draught' and 'bough' are not used (useful) in the US.

Sorry, I'm mistaken about 'bough'. As many will no doubt write,
it is still 'when the bough breaks' in North America too.
Another example of North American illiteracy.

Werner

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,misc.test
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: A thorny question
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.192451.25941@hobbes.kzoo.edu>, k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu
(Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
> 
> I heard once that we have the "ye" in "Ye Olde Coffeee Shoppe" because,
> back in Olden Days, a character called the "thorn" was commonly used for
> "th."  It looked like "|>":  a vertical line with a triangle stuck to
> its side.  When the printing press became common, the story goes,
> printers would substitute a "y" for the thorn (don't ask me, er, why).
> 

Yes, this is correct.  "Thorn" was the letter that made the "th" sound, so
"Ye" as in "Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe" was simply the original spelling of "the",
and pronounced pretty much the same way.

Actually, "thorn" looks more like "p", except the spine extends above the 
body as well as below it.  Imagine superimposing "p" and "b" and you'll have
a pretty good idea of what it looks like.  


Marie Coffin
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Yes and No
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:36:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mckeonj@ul.ie () says:

>So what shall we say, in answer to such a question; and it is
>the nature of the human to pose such questions, the direct form
>seeming somehow hostile?

Instead of thinking the exchange as a question then answer, I would 
prefer to think of the exchange as a statement then statement.

"Is it not cold in here?"

"I'm freezing!  I was just going to get my sweater."


"Is it not cold in here?"

"I'm so warm that I was thinking of removing my clothing.  Is nudity at
the opera in bad form?"

My2
-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake!
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:41:28 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzAG2r.5qL@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> I must admit that I am stumped!  :)
> 
> I would  have used "has done so" in the original article, instead
> of "has done" alone.
> 
> But I would say :
> "He did the job much better than I might have done."
> 
> Unfortunately, my grammar hasn't withstood the onslaught of American
> usage *that* well!   :(
> 
> Could an Englishman please elaborate?

Certainly. I'm afraid there is no hope for you. You have proved beyond any
shadow of a doubt that you speak English with an American accent, that you use
American colloquialisms and you do not understand the true British way of
speaking. The original poster used `has done' to refer back to a different
verb: you merely used to refer back to `to do'. All is lost: it is time for
you to take the metaphorical plunge and confess to your sin of pride. True
forgiveness can be had with true contrition---and a promise that you won't
pollute the bandwidth with your idiosyncratic opinions again except it be in a
far gentler way.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bjones@denitqm.uswest.com (Brent Jones)
Subject: Re: Some clarifications - Please read!!!
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: U S WEST Information Technologies
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:12:45 GMT

In article <BzACDB.3oH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) wrote:
>
> How about 
> 
> (include 'universe *apology-list*)
> 
> You never know if English could span galaxies in the future.   :)
> 
> 
>                                                        Mandar.

Not sure about English, but American might. Haven't heard too much
lately about that British space program.....

(joke--don't flame me unless you do it well) :-)

--
Brent Jones, Lead Tech. Editor, U S WEST IT, bjones@denitqm.uswest.com
"of beautiful weeds that cannot hide from the farmer and helplessly have 
to watch the shadow of his simian stoop leave mangled flowers in its wake, 
as the monstrous darkness approaches."--V. Nabokov _Signs and Symbols_
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:20:38 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: More English Excrement

By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite understood,
and maybe someone with more reference materials or a deeper understanding
of slang than I have can enlighten me. The expression is "shit-eating
grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language 
Keywords: scatology
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:18:03 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:
>
>kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>
>  > "Ape shit" and "Bat shit" are adverbs(?) meaning roughly "irrational",
>  > "non-linear", possibly "crazy".  They seem to only be found as the
>
>"Ape shit" in my lexicon has at least a very strong implication of 
>strong anger, which isn't present in "bat shit" (which isn't a phrase 
>I actually use).

I have the opposite connotations for "apeshit" and "batshit," and I use
"batshit" slightly more often than "apeshit."

Seth L. Blumberg          \ Warning: This posting has been determined to cause
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ cancer in laboratory animals.  Please make sure
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \ that no white mice are allowed to read it.  
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dadams@dstrike.demon.co.uk ("David Adams")
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake! 
Distribution: world
Organization: Data Strike Computers Ltd
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:21:03 +0000

In article <BzAG2r.5qL@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu writes:

>In article <7940@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>>>I am not selling this idea, but I subscribe to it.  I haven't
>>>witnessed the birth of the distinction, but I am told by someone who
>>>has done (and whom I know as highly sensitive to language matters)
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>that usefulness has been an issue, and I find this quite plausible.
>>
>>As an American, I've found this use of the verb "to do" is extremely jarring
>>to my ear, though apparently it is common in the UK, if not the commonwealth.
>>
>>-Brian
>
>I must admit that I am stumped!  :)
>
>I would  have used "has done so" in the original article, instead
>of "has done" alone.
>
>But I would say :
>"He did the job much better than I might have done."
>
>Could an Englishman please elaborate?

"has done so" wouldn't sit well with me.  "has" or "has done" sound fine.
If I were writing the sentence I would use "has", why use two words when
you can use only one?

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Adams                  |   dadams@dstrike.demon.co.uk   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:19:05 GMT

Also

  Happy as a pig in shit.

  Where were you when the shit hit the fan?

  Up shit creek without a paddle.

  Deep shit.

  dipshit

And that marvelous recent innovation

  Shit happens.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:27:16 GMT

Mandar M. Mirashi burbles:
>
> [ other attributions deleted cuz Mandar hosed them ]

>>>>English is now an international language. Americans may form their own
>>>>special dialect group if they wish. If they think that weight of
>>>>numbers should have something to do with what becomes the standard,
>>>>then they should bow out in favour of the more numerous English
>>>>speakers of India and Pakistan.
>>>
>>>It isn't necessary for there to be a single standard of English, but
>>>if you're going to bestow favor on the standard of one region or
>>>another, some consideration should be given to whether or not English
>>>is the native language in the region.
>>>
>>
>>America won't win on this count.  We have a number of native languages
>>around here.  I say that "native" doesn't count anyway.  If you speak
>>and I (or an Englishperson, to appease Mandar the Great) can 
>>understand you, then you're an English speaker.  Cool, you count.
>>Don't see any value added in requiring the speakers to have used
>>the language from birth.
>>
>
>Hey Roger! Are you listening? Here's a chap who doesn't see "native"
>as you define it.
>
>                                                       Mandar.
>-- 

Mandar, you've really messed up the attributions here.  I am
the "chap" to which you refer above.  Thanks for removing all doubt 
that "male" is the default gender on the net & just about everywhere
else.

As far as the discussion regarding "native speakers" and what
constitutes same, it is worth noting that I completely reject
your opinions regarding this topic as well.  I come a lot closer
to concurring with Roger's viewpoint than yours, especially
since I think he has a far more informed point of view.

In the snippet above I was saying that anyone who speaks intelligible
English is an English speaker, and s/he has an effect on the
language through interactions with other English speakers.  Probably
a proportionally greater effect than native speakers (as in, those
who have spoken the language from birth).  There is nothing the
matter with such innovations, although only a tiny few will be deemed
useful by a majority of English speakers and adopted.  This opinion
flies directly in the face of your adamant belief that we should
all be looking up to a small subset of English speakers as the
Keepers of the True English.



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
Subject: A Modest Proposal: Killfile aid
Keywords: Mandar, joke
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:02:05 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

#include <grain-of-salt.h>

In order to help the non-Mandar-flamewar-oriented among us (such as myself) in
creating killfiles designed to junk a maximum of Mandar with a minimum of
effort, I suggest that all persons responding to or commenting on
Mandar-initiated threads put a flag word in the "Keywords:" header of their
posts.  The obvious choice is "Mandar".  Note that I have followed this
practice myself in composing this message.

By making this a standard practice, we can optimize the efficiency of
de-Mandarizing killfiles.

I thank you all in advance for your help in this matter.

Seth L. Blumberg          \ Warning: This posting has been determined to cause
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ cancer in laboratory animals.  Please make sure
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \ that no white mice are allowed to read it.  
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Grammartek Software
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:25:04 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.025336.12316@lunatix.uucp> chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger) writes:
>I'm posting this for a professor in Indiana.  He's looking for a program 
>called Grammartek (I think version 5 or 6?).  Can you let me know what type 
>of program it is (commercial/pd/shareware), also if it is a good program.  
>Thanks.  Email or follow-up is fine.  Thanks!
>
     I think that the software you're referring to is Grammatik 5. There
was a review of grammar checker software packages in a recent issue of
PC Sources. They published the results of a statistical comparison done
between Grammatik 5 and equivalent grammar checkers available currently.
In terms of "grammatical errors detected", Grammatik 5 ended up in the
2nd best position. However, Grammatik 5 had the highest "false alarm"
rate; i.e., it issued warnings for sentences which weren't really
incorrect. Besides, none of the grammar checkers could come up with
suggestions when "nose" was used instead of "knows". They only detected
an error in usage. I have seen Grammatik 4 (the earlier version), and
I feel that it is relatively easy to use and to master. It is a commercial
program.

    I'll try digging up the issue where the test results were performed.
The name of the s/w package which performed the best, escapes me. In
conclusion though, the article noted that even the best of the grammar
checkers currently available, performed *far* worse than a human expert
would have.

                                                         Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: j..barrett@madness.network23.com (J. Barrett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: balled and bagged
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:05:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Terminal Madness BBS - Newport, RI - 401-848-9069
Reply-To: j..barrett@madness.network23.com (J. Barrett) 

there is a phrase that describes my live xmas tree as b&b, meaning
balled and bagged. are there other things it describes as well that are
commonly used?
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . #FIRST@ doesn't do taglines, really!
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Note to Mandar
Date: 17 Dec 1992 01:20:43 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <724479609snx@warren.demon.co.uk> leveret@warren.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <BzAFMJ.5LH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>I made a note of the statement "Ted Koppel was originally from the UK".
>
>With a name like "Koppel", that's very unlikely to be true. Most people
>with German surnames anglicised them during one or other of the World
>Wars.

No, "originally from" as in "born in".  He lived there
until he was 8, or thereabouts.

				--Blair
				  "Spanner."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC)
Subject: plural of aircraft?
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:34:24 GMT


We got into a debate over this at lunch yesterday:
What is the plural or the word "aircraft"? 
Is it "aircraft" or "aircrafts" or both?

Thanks,
John

John S. Watson               watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov
#include <stddsclm.h>
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: who or whom (The Series.)
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:34:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec12.025221.16976@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:

>>Nobody would watch a television show whose title began with whom, 
>>not even on public television.

>You mean like `Doctor Whom'?  

>Yuck.  I think you're right.

>| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation

Boy, Randy.  This is just plain silly.  You should get back to work.



-- 
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: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Use of the apostrophe, or not, with decades
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:33:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.010437.26536@midway.uchicago.edu>, djb6@ellis.uchicago.edu (Dennis Brennan) writes:
> As I read my Political Science workload today a number of dates in the
> texts stood out to my eye.  In particular, written names for decades
> were given in this form:
> 
> 1980s     1950s
> 
> Is this standard form?  My first instinct would be to place an
> apostrophe between the last digit and the "s."

I don't see any good reason for an apostrophe here.  An apostrophe
would make it look like a possessive form, which would be confusing.

By the way, I've never before heard of anyone reading a workload.

> What about for abbreviated dates, such as '80s for the Nineteen-
> Eighties?  Is the form I used in the previous sentence correct?

It's always OK to use an apostrophe to indicate missing letters,
and the "1" and "9" here seem to qualify as missing letters, even
though they're not letters.

This presumes, of course, that we're talking about examples where
the omission of a letter or group of letters is part of standard
accepted practice.  (Potato's is not the plural of potatoe.)

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake!
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:44:48 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <7940@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>>I am not selling this idea, but I subscribe to it.  I haven't
>>witnessed the birth of the distinction, but I am told by someone who
>>has done (and whom I know as highly sensitive to language matters)
> ^^^^^^^^
>>that usefulness has been an issue, and I find this quite plausible.
>
>As an American, I've found this use of the verb "to do" is extremely jarring
>to my ear, though apparently it is common in the UK, if not the commonwealth.
>Can't forget the South Africans or New Zealanders on the net! Canadians (hi
>Rheal!) probably side with their southron neighbors on this issue, but I don't
>know for sure, eh?
>
>Americans would say "I might have" or "I might have done so," but they would
>never think to say "I might have done." It would definitely sound like an
>affectation, and would probably produce snickers among those who were aware of
>the British usage. To those who had never heard it, it would simply sound
>wrong or incomplete. "You might have done WHAT? Why'dja stop? Are you OK?
>Not choking, are you?" Well, I exaggerate, but this *is* the net. . .
>
>In America, the sentence cited would simply drop the "done," and the word
>"has" that precedes it would be accented, with a distinct pause after it.
>
>So, is this a British colloquialism that has become common over some recent
>span of time, or is this something the American colonists drubbed out of them-
>selves so they wouldn't appear to be bumpkins? Whence the divergence, and also
>we could use a ruling from Mandar here on what is "pure."   ;-}
>
>
>-Brian

I must admit that I am stumped!  :)

I would  have used "has done so" in the original article, instead
of "has done" alone.

But I would say :
"He did the job much better than I might have done."

Unfortunately, my grammar hasn't withstood the onslaught of American
usage *that* well!   :(

Could an Englishman please elaborate?

                                               Thanks,

                                                           Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton)