HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: duncan@unisup1.uucp (Duncan Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: South African English
Summary: english usage peculiar to South Africa
Keywords: english dialect
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:27:11 GMT
Organization: Lasernet (pty) Ltd.

I have been reading the various postings relating to the dichotomy
between "English" English and American English. 

We have some interesting dialectal variants here in South Africa too.

Generally speaking, South African English is fairly close to British
English, or rather, I should say, to BBC English or the "Queen's English".
(Of course, the pronunciation is rather different sometimes!)

Anyway, here are some "South Africanisms":

English English				South African English
---------------                         ---------------------
traffic light                           robot
in a short while                        just now
Is that so?                             Is it? (pron: Izzert?)
yes                                     ya/ja  (pron: yar)
Tsk					Ag (pron: ach where "ch" is like "loch")
That is your business.                  That's your own indaba. (from Zulu)
All right                               No fine

There are many more, but I can't think of any of them right now.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Duncan Anderson                           ||+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lasernet (Pty) Ltd                        ||+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
phone: +27 11 8874220                     ||******************+++++++++++++++
email: duncan@unisup1.UUCP                ||+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
       uunet!m2xenix!tabbs!unisup1!duncan || L   A   S   E   R   N   E   T
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: cow's tail
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:23:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Apr6.152348.11134
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota


  Colleague: I need those grades from you two.
         Me: Sorry.  Are we the cows' tails?

This got a bewildered look.  My colleague had never heard the expression.
It just means the last ones.  I got it from my mother, who was from Texas
and all over (an Army brat).  Has anyone else heard of it?

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:26:02 GMT

Daan Sandee writes:

	Is the word "czar" pronounced wrongly, i.e. "zar", in Britain, 
	as it is in America ?

In Britain Czar is pronounced Zar. Correctly. This is not, of course, how
the Ruassians pronounce it, but why should we be so constrained? In any 
case, "right" and "wring" have moral connotations that are out of place
in  this kind of discuassion. So there.

F
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:11:01 GMT

David Brooks writes:

	Another other writes:

		A. N. Other writes:

			diner, like a transport cafe - cheap & 
			cheerful.  "yo! 2 easy-over!"

		Yep, but that's "Yo! 2 over-easy!"

	But the most important part of the phrase is the missing part:
	"50's-diner".  To eat in a diner is to be transported back 35 
	cultural years, or it's not the real thing.  It is best made 
	from aluminium.

Gotcha! A true diner is just that: an immobilized railroad dining car.
Not to be confused with the franchised (BritSpeak also?) chain of
*Victoria Station* restaurants. It should also be pointed out that 
"over easy" is only one of many possibilities, but the only one which
seems to have entered the British conscious state. Oh yes, I'm not
quite correct. "Sunny side up" is well-known to the British, but I
cannot recall ever having heard it over here. "Up" is the phrase.

						Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2830 soc.culture.british:5852
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:14:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: morrow.1992Apr7.131411.6994
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project

D. Gerdemann writes:

	...it is therefore rather intolerant of you to blatantly declare 
	it wrong.

Should that not be "blatantly to declare"? Oh hell, I'm feeling pretty
tolerant this morning...

TTFN

Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More importantly, ...
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:11:10 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Mar30.174547.9517@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU
(Jim Scobbie) writes:
> 
> In <22131@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
> 
> [re hopefully]
> 
> >The problem is that it offends many careful speakers of English.  This fact
> >alone suffices to make it bad usage, regardless of how it can be analyzed, or
> >justified, or understood, and regardless of the need it may be serving.
> 
> Many careful speakers of English are not offended by 'hopefully'. 
> Whether it is good or bad usage, of course, depends on which group of
> careful speakers own the language.

I think not.  It depends, rather, on whether the usefulness, or beauty, or wit,
or other desirable quality of this usage outweighs the annoyance caused to *any*
set of owners of the language (and *all* we who speak it are, of course,
owners).  If you want to make any sort of distinction between good and bad
usage, I think it must be based either on this or on the much less interesting
issue of "efficient communication."

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Different Strokes
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 14:31:42 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.134317.12368@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
goyal@mansci1.uwaterloo.ca (sameer goyal) writes,
much too lower-casedly for my taste:

>[of "hopefully"]

>reproduced shamelessly from strunk & white, the elements of style, 3rd
>ed

>this [...]
>offends the ear of many others, who do not like to
>see words dulled or eroded, particularly when the erosion leads to
>ambiguity, softness, or nonsense.

Though I for one am bored to death with the over-majusculing
of Practically Everything, especially in spaceless
ProductNames (most of all those with PunctuationMarks!), and
though a very well-known linguist who is a good friend of
mine also has this (putatively bad) habit (as with those who
overuse parentheses, he would say, "Get used to it!"), I've
always thought e.e. cummings used up the entire world supply
of tolerance for the complete absence of those often elegant
letterforms (letter forms? letter-forms?), the Big Ones, the
capital capitals.  Call it a mark of bias on my part, if you
like, but relentless resort to caplessness strikes me as
jarringly jejeune (my linguist friend is no spring chicken,
be it remarked).

To paraphrase S&W, "EoS," 3rd Ed:

It offends the eye of many others, who do not like to see
words dulled or eroded, particularly when the erosion leads
to ambiguity, softness, or nonsense.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Believe ye there be an English subjunctive?
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:03:25 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of oliver@oak.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver):
:In my Italian class, we have been studying the "congiuntivo," translated
:"subjunctive," and I have been having a running argument with my TA, who
:claims that there is no subjunctive in English.  I have given examples
:like "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener" and "It is better that the
:class be held on Thursday" but she is unmoved; she claims that the
:"were" is the "second form of the imperfect of 'to be' " and that
:the "be" in the second sentence is just the infinitive without the
:"to."

She's wrong.

That's like saying that there's no past participle for verbs like `study'
(as in "I've studied it more.") Simply because it has no morphological
changes between the simple past and the past participle.

Unless she were to present you with documented scholarly evidence
supporting her claim, I'd ignore her, especially since you can 
easily produce plenty of evidence to the contrary.

--tom
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bryan@netcom.com (Bryan Higgins)
Subject: Ralph
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 07:59:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


Where did the bizarre British pronunciation of Ralph as "rafe" (rhymes
with "safe") come from?  There's that ignored L, and just why is the A long?
-- 
Bryan Higgins, Berkeley, California  (bryan@netcom.com)
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2846 sci.bio:1722 bionet.general:904
From: rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.bio,bionet.general
Subject: -ine suffix
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:47:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Distribution: inet
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Can anyone point me to a list of biological adjectives (generic)
that end in "-ine," like lupine, vulpine, murine, canine, etc.?

I'd be much obliged.  
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: origin of word "okay"?
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:54:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.073640.11355@athena.mit.edu>, jmnjeru@athena.mit.edu (James M Njeru) writes:

> What is the origin of the word "okay" or "O.K."?

From the forthcoming FAQ file:

#    The origin of "O.K." was definitively investigated as the 
# result of a British court case in 1935 (see MEU2).  A vogue for
# comically misspelled abbreviations began in Boston in the summer of
# 1838, and spread to New York and New Orleans in 1839.  They used 
# "K.G." for "know go", "K.Y." for "know yuse", "N.S." for "nuff
# said", and "O.K." for "oll korrect".  "O.K." gained national
# currency in 1840 as the slogan of the "O.K. club", a club of
# supporters of then President Martin Van Buren, in allusion to
# his nickname, "Old Kinderhook" -- Van Buren was born in the 
# village of Kinderhook, N.Y.
#    Many other origins have been postulated for "O.K.", including
# the Choctaw Indian "okeh" (= "May it be so") and the Scots "och
# aye".

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:53:53 GMT

In article <204657@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

> [...] this is a weaker sense of "prescriptive" than I'm used to,

   Ask the linguists in sci.lang whether they would call a grammarian who
makes recommendations (e.g., my hero, H. W. Fowler) a "prescriptive"
grammarian.  I think they'll all say yes.

> and a weaker one than (say) Gary Merrill seems to be using.  He, for 
> example, speaks openly of "enforcement" of prescriptions as an inherent
> part of the process.

   Please correct me if I'm wrong, Gary, but I believe Gary uses 
"prescription" in much the same sense I do.  And Jon Alan Conrad and I
mean the same thing by "vibrato". :-)

> [...] if it's a word that people use, then the way they use it is (by 
> definition) correct usage.

   Not by *my* definition of "correct".  "Correct" means "in accordance
with a particular set of rules".  What set of rules I have in mind varies
according to context.  For instance, when I talk about the "correct" use
of "who" and "whom", I mean "correct" according to Latin-derived 
grammar -- certainly not according to what's currently popular!  If you're
in doubt as to what I mean by "correct" in a particular context, ask me!

   (Comments about poetry and ambiguity deleted, because they deserve a
thread of their own.)

>>> If you're only making suggestions, and I'm only concerned with usage 
>>> (and not style), then perhaps we can take off our gloves and part 
>>> amicably.
>>
>> Certainly!  Just retract your "Noble efforts? Please." and "Get used
>> to it." statements and we can do just that.
>
> Actually, you've been misquoting me all along.  My original sentence was
> "Get used to it :-)." 

   I did notice the smiley; I think it makes no difference.  If you told
a black man, "The word 'nigger' is here to stay; get used to it", I doubt
that smiling while you said it would redeem you in his eyes.  And there
was no smiley after "Noble efforts? Please."  I still want a retraction
of both statements.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Believe ye there be an English subjunctive?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:09:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.183346.15702@math.ucla.edu>, oliver@oak.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver) writes:
> 
> She claims that this is what she was taught in an English class here
> at UCLA.  Is this possible?  Does anyone currently teach that there
> is no English subjunctive?

Have you considered leaving UCLA?

Peter.
From: richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: `alternately' vs `alternatively' and also `momentarily'
         `regular' &c &c ad nauseam
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:31:39 GMT
	<3239@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England

rabson@oxford.ac.uk (David Rabson) wrote:

> The use of "alternate" for "alternative" is not American.  It is
> just wrong.

How, in general, do Americans indicate alternation as opposed to
choice if they have (mis)used the word `alternately' to indicate the
latter?

Similarly, how does an American say `for a moment' rather than `in a
moment' if not using `momentarily'?  Does `momentary' retain its
original meaning?  If so, how do Americans feel about the discrepancy
between `momentary' and `momentarily'?

How does an American indicate regularity as opposed to normality.  To
me `regular' means at equal time spacing or with regular shape?  (I
can't think of another word for `regular' in the latter example, which
is partly why I'm asking!)

These are genuine queries.  I want to know how Americans express the
concepts of the words that they've lost.  Are there new words to take
the place of `alternate', `regular', and `momentarily'?
--
richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
Articles composed without care for punctuation and layout will be ignored.
If you share this sentiment please copy these lines into your signature.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Out of the closet
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 18:01:08 GMT


In article <20072@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk
(Graham Toal) writes:

>In article <x7tjtf+.sue@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue
>Miller) writes:

>>The US expression "coming out of the closet" means "coming
>>out of a small confining space", and is not taken to mean
>>"coming out of a WC".

>I got quite a lot of heated mail about this.  I thought that
>accusations of homophobia were quite funny considering my
>own sexuality...

We are everywhere.  Pay no attention to the sound of one
knee jerking.

But (a fact perhaps not readily recognized by the general
population) it *is* possible for a not-straight person to be
homophobic.  Not to say you are, of course, but I've known
plenty of LGB people who were.  This is not the place to
discuss all the ramifications of that, I suspect.

>Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd always assumed (and thought I'd
>always heard tell) that 'coming out of the closet' was from
>the practice of repressed gays meeting in public toilets - a
>practice known over here as 'closeting' -

I thought that was called "cottaging" over there; does
cottaging just refer to what we call highway rest stops?
Picking people up in toilets is called "doing the tearooms"
over here, which must give you a different sort of giggle.
Also, it isn't only repressed people who do it, as many who
do are anything *but* "in the closet."

>and that when someone 'came out of the closet' they did
>their chatting-up in more acceptable places, like everyone
>else.  Ie they no longer had to meet in secret in WCs.

Quite a lot of this (called "john sex") doesn't involve
leaving the WC; people get it on right there, especially if
there are booths.  The thrill of a deep, meaningless
quickie, absence of an alternative place, a desire for
anonymity, etc.: lots of reasons.

Acceptability is itself a sometimes hotly debated issue.
Over here (seems to happen around election time especially),
there are periodic efforts to "clean up" <snort> the
tearooms, often involving entrapment by the police and other
unpleasantries.  Even some LGB people think those arrested
are "getting what they deserve," though I find that a
lamentably benighted attitude.

>Has *anyone* else heard this or have I imagined the whole
>thing in my sleep some day?

We will not ask what you're doing with your nights! :-)

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
From: richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Comma splices?
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:28:52 GMT
Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England

bck1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Brian Kelk) wrote:

> I don't know about any British/American differences, but when I
> consulted a (British) reference it gave an example like the
> following
> 
>        It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

This is a `gnomic contrast' for which I would use a colon.  I can't
remember whence this rule comes, I'm afraid.  Here are two examples.

   It was the best of times : it was the worst of times.
                God creates : man destroys.

In the following case I would definitely use a colon.  The second
sentence qualifies the first.

  Mary was extremely nervous about the meeting: she knew that her
  whole future depended on its outcome.

There are few hard and fast rules for punctuation.
--
richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Question: Multiply or multiplication ?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:18:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.164136.941@alf.uib.no>, erikb@eik.ii.uib.no (Erik Boman) writes:
> 
> But in the context of linear algebra, the operation of 
> multiplying matrices is sometimes called 
>   "a matrix multiply"
> instead of
>   "a matrix multiplication".

My first reaction to this was to say that "a matrix multiply" is
sloppy English.  On reflection, I can see a distinction which
justifies having two separate terms.

Point 1: The distinction is, I believe, used only by computer
 programmers.  I don't think I've seen it in any other context.

Point 2: The distinction, as I see it, is similar to the distinction
we use between run-time and compile-time.  A matrix multiplication
is the operation of multiplying matrices.  A matrix multiply is an
operator, in some programming language, which signifies that the
multiplication should be performed at run-time.  A programmer
might say "If we insert a multiply at this point, then that section
of code there can be moved to a separate procedure."  This sentence
refers to manipulating the code; the program has not yet been run,
therefore the multiplication has not yet taken place.  At this
point in the discussion, symbols - not matrices - are being manipulated.

There you are: clear as mud!

Despite the above, I doubt that I would use "a matrix multiply"
in my own writing.  Justified or no, it still feels like sloppy
English to me.

> The following examples illustrate cases where I am in doubt 
> which term is most correct:
> 
>   "... vectorize the matrix multiply (-ication)" 

Multiply would be reasonable here, since you're talking about the
recipe for carrying out the intended future multiplication.  (I'd still
use multiplication, though.)

>   "... count the number of operations in the multiply (-ication)"

Multiplication.  No operations occur until the multiplication is
performed.

> I admit that "the number of multiplications in the (matrix) multiplication"
> doesn't sound very good. To use "multiply" to distinguish the higher-level 
> operation is possibly a good idea in this case.

I don't feel that it has anything to do with matrices.  I would re-write
the phrase as "the number of scalar multiplications in the matrix
multiplication".  Even better: "the number of scalar multiplications
needed to form the matrix product".

Peter.
(My opinions, as usual.  Someone is bound to disagree with me.)
From: rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "One less egg to fry"--Pedantry on 'less' and 'fewer'
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:12:40 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Sit back--relax.  Forget about the distinction.  There!  Now you have
one less thing to worry about.
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Missing syllables in place names
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:33:38 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <wcsjc.703444304@cunews> wcsjc@alfred.carleton.ca (John Coughlin) writes:
>How about Maryleborne(sp?) in London, pronounced "Marlybone".

Not Marlibun?  Have I been standing out as a tourist all these years?

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Ray.Nickson@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Ray Nickson)
Subject: Re: `alternately' vs `alternatively' and also `momentarily'`regular' &c &c ad nauseam
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
	<jwb.702255223@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au><3239@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
	<RICHARD.92Apr16133139@bilbo.harlqn.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:18:18 GMT

In article <RICHARD.92Apr16133139@bilbo.harlqn.co.uk> richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby) writes:

   How does an American indicate regularity as opposed to normality.  To
   me `regular' means at equal time spacing or with regular shape?  (I
   can't think of another word for `regular' in the latter example, which
   is partly why I'm asking!)

I'd only seen that used in MacDonalds (`regular fries' is their term
for `small box of chips'), until recently a television advertisement
(for insurance, if I remember correctly!) here appeared which claims
that they'd interviewed six regular people about their lifestyles.
I can just imagine the interviewers keeping their logbooks outside the
toilets for weeks beforehand ...