HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peterw@spider.co.uk (Peter Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: questions questions
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:36:07 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug19.121233.7289@spider.co.uk> peterw@spider.co.uk (Peter Woodhouse) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.194806.5503@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>In article <9208181722.AA13431@sumac09.cray.com> jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond) writes:
>>>
>>>>"Often" with the t is pompous and inappropriate for the language we speak.
>>>>You don't pronounce the t in listen or soften, and besides.  If you pronounce
>>>>the t, then the gag in Pirates of Penzance doesn't work.
>>>
>>>Speak for yourself, please.  I pronounce the `t' in often and consider it
>>>neither pompous nor inappropriate.  I also pronounce the `t' in eaten,
>>>marten, shorten and whiten.
>>
>I agree with Jeff here.  Some people do, some people don't. It's one way of
>helping determine which part of the UK you are from.
>
>>Do you also pronounce the t in "soften" ?  If not, why not?
>Yes.  If you pronounced it without the t wher I come from, everyone would 
>think you mean soft one.
>>
>>--
>>Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
>
>Peter "You should speak proper, like what I does" Woodhouse

As a follow-up to my own message, the word often can be pronounced 3 ways
(excuse my phonetic English!)

1) offen - as if the t didn't exist

2) ORf-en - (or maybe AWFen) the pompous (or as we would say posh) way, with
	    a long first syllable.

3) off-ten - both syllables are about the same length

I hasten (pronounced with a t) to say, I use the third method

Peter

-- 
Spider Software                                 E-mail:  peterw@spider.co.uk
Spider Park, Stanwell Street                    Phone :  +44 31 555 5166
Edinburgh, Scotland
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dian@druggist.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha)
Subject: Re: "Route"
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:32:32 GMT

In <1992Aug11.235503.26716@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:

>1. I think the "r-out" pronunciation is native to these United States.
>   For example, I've never heard "paper route" pronounced in any other way.

Well, I, for one, had a paper "r-oote" in my youth, in California.  However,
I find that I use both "r-out" and "r-oote." 

In general usage, for me, "r-out" serves more often as a verb ("How do you 
want this shipment r-outed?") and "r-oote" more often as the noun ("What 
r-oote do you suggest I take?")  Of course, the tool that does the "r-outing" 
is called a "r-outer," but that is a slightly different case.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Someone kicked my Donkey...
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:09:56 GMT
	<SLAGLE.92Aug11235329@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<86008@netnews.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu's message of 12 Aug 92 18:27:07 GMT

In article <86008@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.92Aug11235329@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>>In article <1992Aug10.135851.27740@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:

>>> I recall that my dad once used the term "bitch", in context, to refer to
>>> a female dog, and my mother dressed him down for it pretty severely. In
>>> her mind, it was a "bad" word and should never be used at all.  

>>Bitched him out good, did she?

> What an asinine thing to say. 

Et too, brute, doggoneit?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:56:19 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>(And I'm *still* waiting for a cogent explanation of the utility of the
>"less/fewer" distinction...)

How about: less refers to an amount, fewer to a number.

>But "ten items or less" *is* standard grammar, bubbeleh.  By any
>reasonable definition of "standard grammar."  Historical, current
>practice, or linguistically informed prescription.  Take your pick.
>People say it, people have always said it; in fact, *most* people say it
>and write it that way.  It's one of a class of expressions that
>basically *needs* less rather than fewer.  

If you are talking about a number of items (as in this case) you must
have fewer than a certain number not less than a certain amount.
[Sometimes I think that "10 items or less" means "10 items or 10
'parts of items less than a complete item'". Silly I know but this is
what it (literally) means.)

>I've posted a few examples before, and I'll post them again:

>"Dinner will cost twenty dollars, more or less."

"more or less" is a standard phrase which means "roughly". The "more"
and the "less" do not apply as such to the 20 dollars. {Besides which,
you can have "an amount of a dollar not equal to a whole dollar".}

>"I'll pay a hundred for that bicycle, not a penny more, not a penny
>less."

I think I'd classify this as above -a a standard phrase which means
something in its entirety which. Also this is talking about an amount
of money, not a number of pennies.
 
>"Complete this sentence in 25 words or less."

I would say this ought to be fewer.

>"The baby is less than six months old."

Less than a certain age.

>"The building is eight stories high, one less than the NYC average."

Again I would think it ought to be fewer.

>"Six is one less than seven." 

Pass. Mathmospeak?

>"Write 'I love grammar' on the blackboard a hundred times--and not one
>time less."

"One time fewer.

>Put "fewer" in any of these sentences and it will sound awkward. 

Not all of them. Those that _do_ need "less" are talking about amounts
of time/money etc. not numbers of months/dollars etc.

> Do so
>when you're speaking and you will sound stilted.  This is simply *not*
>usage--people generally use, and always have used, "less" for these
>uses; i.e., with numbers used as upper bounds.    

I say it depends on the situation. I distinguish between less and fewer.

Philippa
--
Philippa Hogben   pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if mailing from Janet)
Any mistakes are mine, all mnie.

I am not a .sig virus. I am a free bug. 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: The Great Debate : Clarifications (LONG)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 11:27:17 GMT






In article <1992Aug18.224525.13872@mlacus.oz.au>, ash@mlacus.oz.au (Ash
Nallawalla) writes:
> Sad to say but the form I hear more often is "kiLOM-eter". My preference
> is kilo-MEter.  I didn't understand what you meant by Gough's pronunciation
> being French style because I'd expect the French to say "KI-lo-metr".


I never heard anything but kil-OM-e-ter until my kids started getting
metric in school.  Then they were told to pronounce it KIL-o-meet-er. 
Sounds very weird to me.

Bonita
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:12:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <1992Aug18.033717.13510@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug17.004116.42389@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
|> >
|> >The form pronounced "axe" for "ask" is the original form.  Cf. Old
|> >English _acsian_, i.e. /aksjan/ 'to ask.'  As often happens, an early
|> >form remains here in the dialects.  It is the standard variants that
|> >underwent the metathesis, or reversal, of the two consonants.
|> 
|> I really have to wonder if the "axe" in Black English Vernacular is really
|> derived from _acsian_ or if it's just laziness in pronouncing "ask."

You're limiting it pretty severely when you call it "Black English 
Vernacular". I've heard it from Cajuns (white ones), and from some New
York accents as well.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Despite decades of market research, markets       |
|proliferate and there's no cure in sight.         |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6583 sci.lang:6526
From: alex@phobos.math.ucla.edu (Alex Langley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:40:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In article <1992Aug18.194238.5320@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.052700.13587@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>Poor elephant was stripped off of his TUX !
>>
>>Don't walk there after DUCKS !
>
>That's nothing.  If we really subscribe to metathesis, we then have to
>discuss computer teminology:  Floppy dicks and hard dicks.  And for
>audiophile, compact dicks.  
>
>Time to add alt.sex to the crosspost.

Tiks Tiks Tiks

>
>
>--
>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: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: ---istocracy ???
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:56:35 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



Kakistocracy is governance by the worst.  I take this to mean the most
evil, degraded, despicable, or the like.  What is the form of
governance that is by the least able or competent...as in the
administration of a university...is this also kakistocracy?

Jim Green
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Name:  James M. Green                         )*(     
Email: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net                (***)         "The Lord may be
Smail: Stockton State College NAMS          )*(*)*(       subtle, but
       Pomona, NJ  08240-9988              (* (*) *)           he is not mean."
ICBM:  39.49333 N  74.53083 W               )*(*)*(               
FAX:   609/652-4958                          (***)               A. Einstein
Voice: 609/652-4558                           )*(     
_______________________________________________|_______________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Puns and more puns
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:24:51 GMT
Organization: Wright State University


Maybe I'm missing something about this discussion, but ...

In article <pjh.713788281@nessi>, 
pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:

> What is wrong with punster? I am female and used that term to describe
> myself. I find it unnecessary and even somewhat annoying when people
> contrive to invent "feminine" forms for words which don't have them.

Umm, I thought the whole idea of this thread was to (a) poke phun at 
"genderised" nouns -- regardless of *which sex* made them up -- and 
(b) to get a little learnin'.  For example, Dennis reminded me that I
surely know that many feminine forms of nouns started life with -ster
as the suffix.  So your self-reference as a 'punster' is okey-dokey in 
more ways than you thought!


> Similarly, I find it a little silly when people try to coin
> "non-gender specific" terms for things for which there are pefrectly
> addequate names already as in the waiter/waitress/waitron discussion.

And here is a nice anthro-linguistic observation gone awry.  *We* didn't
start this "waitron" business on a.u.e. (amazing as that seems!).  Both
Dennis and I have reported hearing waiters/tresses refer to themselves as
waitrons.  Dennis offered alternatives, such as waitri; I offered a possible
etymology (waiter/tress + automaton).  The intent of waitron is not
asexuality, it is to emphasize the dehumanization of making nice to yuppies
who tote their tots along for din-din out-out.  No matter *what* Dhanesh
says. (ObSmly) (and pardon the spelling -- I've got a meeting in 2 minutes)

Oh well.

> I apologise also for going off into a tirade about it.

As we say here in America, Philippa, Tirades 'R' (backwards) Us.  Now fly
over and spend all your money in our economy to make up and we'll forget the
*whole thing*!  (ObWnkSmly)

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: amconn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: X-ray or X-Ray
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:52:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.091217.3865@fys.ruu.nl>, johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.185339.7299@news.iastate.edu>, lsiwek@ref1.cnde.iastate.edu (elizabeth siwek) writes:
> |> What is the proper way to refer to x-rays?
> |> 
> |> Do you capitalize the word, X-ray or X-Ray?
> |> Should X always be capitalized?
> |> Is there a difference (in capitalization of X), if you are refering to an x-ray
> |> beam or an X-ray (film/radiograph)?
> |> It is an x-ray, not a x-ray, right?
> |> 
> |> Thanks.
> |> Elizabeth
> 
> Well, I can answer for astronomers at least: the convention is to always use
> "X-ray", capitalising the "X" but not the "r". I can't tell you about usage for 
> the film/radiograph, as I only deal with the photons! And yes, it's "an
> X-ray".
> 
> -- 
> Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
> johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman


It should be noted that X ray (no hyphen) is the noun form, X-ray is the
adjective, and x-ray (no capital) is the verb, although the verb usage varies
between x-ray and X-ray.

Connor/Castigat ridendo mores
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:38:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

How about mangled English that isn't necessarily part of a screwed up
ad campaign?  Anybody seen any awful menu translations?  Signs?  
Operator manuals?  Stuff written on "Hello Kitty" lunch boxes?  

I once saw a t-shirt in Thailand that said: "Verily, verily, he
sees the level."  It was very attractive, done in pastels.  Or the
ashtray, also in Thailand (a cornucopia of mangled English), with a
picture of a man in overalls, standing in a field, and the words:
"Standing in field, the breeze blowing, the sun shine and in the
distance only sobbing, sobbing."  I can't believe I didn't buy it.


-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and as far as I'm
concerned, happy campers you will always be."
                  --J. Danforth Quayle in American Samoa
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:23:43 GMT
Organization: Wright State University



In article <57560033@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, 
fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
> 
> Coming upon phrases in this group such as, "Sloppy language leads to
> sloppy thinking," leads me to pose the question to the group:
> 
>  Is rational thinking possible without language?
> 
> I don't think this is quite a "chicken and the egg" type question...

Did pre-lingual people eons (OK Mandar, "aeons") ago act rationally?  Sure! 
(I'm sure Ronald Reagan would suport this contention.) Do chimps, apes,
dolphins, rats, etc. act "rationally?" If you mean, "Do they apply judg(e)ment
processes to think about a problem and weigh consequences?", then maybe not. 
But if you mean "Does the outcome of their behavior make sense at some level?",
then sure again.

And before you point out to me that apes ekcetera don't "think," I should tell
you that KoKo the Gorilla [tm] scored an IQ of 85 once on a human intelligence
test.  Which is higher than most Howard Stern fans.

-----ted hayes
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Usage: 'go' for 'said' - second try
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:03:58 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <6166@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com>, hillyer@rrc.chevron.com (Martin J. Hillyer,50-1267,(510)242-3123) writes:
> 
> The first try was garbled, so here is a second try.
> 
> Where did the usage `go' for 'said' come from?  Example I went into the 
> store and I go, "How much is that doggie in the window?", and he goes, 
> "$199.95 plus tax."  I seem to hear it all the time lately, even from 
> educated people.  Is it a West Coast usage (I presume it hasn't shown up 
> in the UK, yet).
> 
I think "go" for "say" must have come from the earlier use of "go"
to mean something like, but not the same as, "say."  When I was a boy 
(mid-sixties) "go" meant "make the sound", as in "the cow goes moooo."  
In an example like this you would actually try to imitate the sound, 
rather than say a word that represents the sound.  Maybe it would be 
better to write it as, "the cow goes [simulate sound of cow]".  

A similar use of the word "go" is "The song goes like this," followed
by humming or singing.  That has been common usage for as long as
I remember, and I *think* I've seen it in written material from
earlier centuries, although I can't come up with an example offhand.

The difference between these examples and the current use of "go" to
mean "say" is that, in the examples, you are concerned with the sound
rather than just the words.

It has just occurred to me that when you hear someone say "he goes
'$199.95 plus tax,'" they try to reproduce the intonation of the orig-
inal speaker, so maybe the two usages are not so far apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
From: takoosma@utkvx1.utk.edu (Toby Koosman)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:36:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.033717.13510@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.
edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes...
>I really have to wonder if the "axe" in Black English Vernacular is really
>derived from _acsian_ or if it's just laziness in pronouncing "ask."

Whereas the "axe" in white dialects is the result of familiarity with Chaucer?

A lot of the features of Black English are also found in white Southern
dialects.  I haven't heard it, but my cohabitor (who has relatives there)
claims that everyone on the North Carolina Piedmont sounds black.

Toby Koosman
University of Tennessee   Knoxville, Tennessee  USA
Internet: koosman@utkvx.utk.edu     Bitnet: koosman@utkvx
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tomj@monster.saic.com (Tom Johnson)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Reply-To: tomj@monster.saic.com (Tom Johnson)
Organization: SAIC, McLean, VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 12:25:39 GMT

Dare we bring up the ubiquitous "noo-cue-lar"???

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: Asses & Tongue in cheek
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:31:31 GMT


Did I stumble into alt.sex.anal by mistake?

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com

P.S. No doubt only an American would have this reaction.
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Route"
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:45:09 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article AA09133@MIT.EDU, dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
>
>All:
>
>Some USAns pronounce "route" to rhyme with "out," i.e., without
>reference to its origin.  Is there a geographic pattern to this
>"new" pronunciation or is it better correlated with something else?
>Has the innovation spread to non-USAns or, for that matter, did it
>arise outside the USA?  Is it used more with the verb form than it
>is with the noun form (or vice-versa)?  I'm particularly interested
>in responses from Merrie Englande, but I'll take anything.

There is part of Ohio where "route" is pronounced like "root".  Both
are pronounce like "ruit".  I think it is midlands accent.

I have heard three distinct pronounciations for route:  root, rowt, ruit.
I've even heard someone who pronounced it different depending on whether
it was a 'paper route' (root) or a 'main route' (rowt).

---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:21:49 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R) writes:

>In article <pjh.714232717@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>
>>>False dichotomy.  A thing can be colloquial *and* correct.
>>
>>Can it? According to my dictionary colloquial means:
>>
>>denoting or characterised by informal or conversational idiom or
>>vocabulary.
>>
>>I would say that a thing which is "correct" was therefore not
>>colloquial. That does not mean to say that it would necessarily be
>>uncommon.
>>

>I won't pretend that I can make any sense of all this talk about correctness
>coz I can't, but the claim here is outrageous.  No matter what I do
>with Philippa Hogben's claim I cannot get the deduction that she appears to.
>First a question, surely colloquial does not *mean* `denoting or characterised
>by...', that is the definition.  When I say something is colloquial I do not
>claim that that something denotes anything!

1) Maybe I should have said "According to my dictionary the definition
of colloquial is:" When I use a dictionary I always say **** means
......... Maybe this is shorthand. Maybe just sloppy thinking/writing.
I'm not sure I can see much difference between "means" and "the
definition is" in this context.

2) The word "denotes" was quoted directly from the dictionary.


>Now for the reasoning:
>all colloquial speech is informal or in conversational idiom or vocabulary
>this particular speech sample is correct
>therefore:
>this speech sample is not colloquial
>Nope, I just can't get this conclusion.  Now, if I add a premise or two, say
>no correct speech is informal or in conversational idiom or vocabulary
    ^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^

So what do you see as the distinction or otherwise of correct/incorrect 
formal/informal speech?

>I get
>this speech sample is colloquial XOR this speech sample is correct,
>ie that it is one or the other but not both, which seems to be the result
>you want, but there is no point in reasoning to this conclusion since it
>has been smuggled into the premises.
>My own speech is consistently informal, in coversational idiom and vocabulary
>and correct all of the day and most of the night.

While I have been learning foreign languages, certain constructions
and words have been picked out and being colloquiallisms. The
implication being that they are not totally "correct", would only be
used (by native speakers) in certain informal situations and should
not be used by us (i.e. those of us in the class learning the
language) at all.

Philippa

--
Philippa Hogben   pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if mailing from Janet)
Any mistakes are mine, all mnie.

I am not a .sig virus. I am a free bug.