HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:42:15 GMT

>>Most lyricists I know are not the most grammatical people...
>
>Really?  When people can hear the words
>(which is the case in country music), they generally don't succeed
>if they violate accepted usage.  Moreover, if they have a hit, they can
>contribute to *defining* usage -- certainly with far more effectiveness
>than any writer of rulebooks ever will.  They make language by using
>language powerfully, not by drawing lines in the sand.

Ah, so suddenly bad grammar becomes "powerful" and creative.  Gimme a break.
There is one thing knowing the rules well enough that you can bend them with
creative license.  It's quite another to not know what you are bending.

I remember in high school, someone played me Jackson Browne's "For America."
There's this line..."as if freedom was a question of might...as if loyalty
was black and white...."  From the context of the song, you *knew* he was
talking hypothetically and not about the past.  Too bad he didn't use "were."
Would've sounded a lot better and made the meaning of his lyric a lot better.

Jackson Browne wasn't making some thought-out creative choice there.  He
simply made an *error*.


--
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: and - or - but
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:14:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug12.211626.6941@ac.dal.ca> asuncion@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>People who begin sentences with "And", "But", or "Or" should be slapped silly
>by an English teacher. NEVER BEGIN A SENTENCE WITH and, or, but!


But why not?



-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: "Route"
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:25:25 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
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 padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton):
:
:>In article <9208111732.AA09133@MIT.EDU>, dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
:>> 
:>> 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?
:
:"Route" is always pronounced "root" as in "hoot", not "foot". For that
:matter, "root" and "roof" are NOT pronounced "rut" and "ruff". "Aunt"
:is pronounced "ant", not "ont", and "large sandwich using Italian 
:bread" is pronounced "hero".

I have never heard anyone pronounce "root" as though it were "rut".
You don't pronounce "foot" as though it were "fut", now do you?
Don't confuse the "short oo" sound with the "short u" sound (God, 
I loathe the phonetics taught in grade school.  Permanent brain damage.)
But from Austin to Duluth (and I've checked!), farmers and dentists
alike rhyme "root", "foot", and "soot", employing a vowel quite similar
to that of "would".

    
    word	meaning		rhymes with

    root	radix		foot	
    root	cheer		hoot
    route	path		pout
    rout	make flee	pout
    rut		furrow		cut

NB: we do not change the vowel sound when adding -ing.  Thus "rooting"
with a short oo is digging around, but with a long oo is cheering 
somebody on.

The thing I just noticed is that not only do some folks rhyme "woof"
and "roof" (I do; same vowel as my radical root about), but they also
make "woof" and "wolf" the same word!  (I don't.)

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
	Zounds!  I was never so bethumped with words
	since I first called my brother's father dad.
			-- William Shakespeare, "King John"
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: did vs. done
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.083524.3482@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> roddi@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Roddi Walker) writes:
>
>(a) I did my homework.
>(b) I done my homework.  (Personally, I would say "I have done my
>homework" - but people often just say "I done my homework").

"I did" is past tense, indicating a discrete, completed action.

"I have done" is present perfect, indivating completion, but at a more
		indefinite time.

"I done" is ungrammatical.

>And ANOTHER thing that bugs me (hell, while I'm here :-) - I was told in
>primary school not to put "and" after a punctuation mark (especially a
>comma).  But I often find myself doing so - for example:

I've never heard this prescription.  There are many cases where the comma
adds to the clarity of the sentence.  Although you'd probably want to write:

	I went home and got my pencil.
	I filled out the form and returned it.

You probably would want a comma if you wrote:

	I went home, and later that day I went out again.
	I filled out the form, and I got the job!

>PS: ONE more thing :-)  Anyone got a simple (we weren't taught grammar
>in my day :-) definition of a split infinitive?  For "simple" read:
>"jargon free" (ie. nothing like "past participle" etc).

No jargon needed.  An infinitive is one of the principal forms of a verb.
the "to" form....to go, to write, to eat, etc.  A split infinitive means
only that you put an adverb between the "to" and the verb, such as in
"to boldly go where no man has gone before."
 ^^^^^^^^^


--
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:45:21 GMT

In article <sav.713786936@nanette> sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
>
>Well, Rolls-Royce tried to sell their "Silver Mist" in germany
>without realising that "Mist" means an(im)al-shit.

What happened?  Did they rename it and try again or did they just
give up and settle for the 'Gentleman Farmer' market?


>Ciao,
>     Ctyapt Cabopu      (.sig in russian, today       ;)

Beregis avtomobiliya!


Dhanesh
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Meaning of gunder, eejit
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:00:44 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug11.200549.29316@microsoft.com>, georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly) writes:
> dewi@bnr.ca (Dewi Williams) writes:
> ) In the play "The Communication Cord" by Brian Friel, which is
> ) set in present-day Ireland, two words are used which are not in
> ) my Concise OED:
> )    verb:  to gunder
> )    noun:  eejit
> ) What are their meanings? Are they specifcally Irish-English?
> 
> "Eejit" is a dialect form of "idiot", but both "idiot" and
> "eejit" are in common use in Ireland.  I think "eejit" is
> fairly specific to Ireland.  I know of some Americans who
> use "idjit".
> 
> I have no idea what "to gunder" means.  Perhaps if you provided
> some context, I might be able to guess.
> 
I think 'gunder' should be 'chunder' which means to puke, vomit,
throw up, barf, . . .

This usage is common in Australasia amongst those who do it most,
ie males aged between 18 to 25.

-- 
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.'
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: viviana@igor.tamri.com (Vivian Aldridge)
Subject: Quote or simile for "success"?
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:23:28 GMT


Hello everyone,

I'm having trouble writing the closing remarks to a speech
I'm giving at work next Thursday. I'd like this speech to
end with a bang, but somehow it falls short.

This is my last paragraph:

	In closing this is a wonderful group, a group of
	caring, fun loving, intelligent, and determined
	people who are willing to get things done. 
	They give meaning to the word "success."

Yawn-"they give meaning to the word "success."

I need a quote or maybe a simile. I haven't found one that
fits however. Can you help?

Thanks!

Vivian

viviana@tamri.com
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Solutions (was Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:07:52 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

>          BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

(Shout if this is a worn thread.)
As the GM at a company I was working for pointed out about
the time it became trendy to sell "Total Business Solutions",
a business requirement is not a problem, therefore doesn't
need to be solved, it needs to be fulfilled. Unfortunately,
"Business Fulfillments" would only appeal to New Age clients.
(He was a pretty New Age sorta guy.)

-m.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Toeing Victory!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: all
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:25:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.121329.3648@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:

>Here's the "more" I mentioned earlier. (I bet you couldn't wait!)

Actually, I'm still waiting.  You asserted that I make _prima facie_
rejections of authorities I don't like.  In the stuff you qoute below, I
cite two authorities, but I don't reject anything, whether out of hand
or otherwise.

>TH>but on the other you want to make sure we toe the rules you seem partial to. 
>                                             ^^^
>Question>I have always been curious (sorry if it has already
>question>been hashed out in this group) whether this is from 
>question>"tow the line," as in pulling a barge along, or "toe the line," 
>question>as in everyone getting themselves aligned so that a race can 
>question>start fairly.

>Roger> "toe the mark" or "toe the line" refers to the runner's adherence to the
>Roger> rules at the start of the race.
>Roger> SOURCES:  AHD, Evans and Evans.

>I learned the phrase "toe the line" as a description of what happened in 
>Parliament.  That is, one would "toe the line" -- anybody know whether there
>is a physical line involved? -- of one's political party to identify oneself
>with the party's views, etc.  

Right; that's called the party line.  (So is a phone with extensions in
several homes; I wonder which came first.  Don't have an OED around.)

But which came first?  Did "Toe the (party) line" derive metaphorically
from "toe the (starting) line"?  Or punningly, as the case may be? I bet
it is, because there's no reason for MP's to put their toes on anything
in particular, is there?

>Sort of like supporting the (Democratic,
>Republican) Party's plank on abortion in the election platform.  Thus the
>derivative American idiom may be "to finger the splinters." 
>Alternatives welcome.

Yes, please!  8-)

>For Roger's benefit, here are my "authorities": OED mentions both the racer and
>politico connotations, while the *Oxford dictionary of current idiomatic
>English* mentions only the political toeing.

Right, because racers now put their hands behind the line, or at least
the sprinters do.  But which came first, I wonder?  The OED might have
an early citation.  Is it running or voting?

At any rate, it's nothing to do with barges.

>Who's "right," then?  Well, since I'm posting this...

indeed.  Since you're posting it, tell usthe dates of the OED examples,
hm?
>(ObSmly)
8-) yerself!

Roger

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6587 sci.lang:6534
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:10:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

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."
>
Laziness?  My, aren't *we* just the moralist.  

Try: variant.  Dialects have them, doncha know.  Probably comes from the
interface of W. African speech patterns with the Southern States English
of a couple-three centuries ago.

Or is it, like, laziness that we say "beef" instead of "boeuf" the way
the Anglo-Normans did in the 11th C or so? 

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cliff@demon.co.uk (Cliff Stanford)
Subject: Re: questions questions
Organization: Demon Systems Ltd.
Distribution: all
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 10:37:58 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

dian@druggist.gg.caltech.edu (Dian  De Sha) writes:
: 
: *alternate line:  and when she was bad, she was better.
: 
	What is the origin of this US use of "alternate" to mean
"alternative"?  Is it considered correct use of the American language?
		Cliff.

--
Cliff Stanford				Demon Systems Limited
Demon Internet Services			42 Hendon Lane
***********************			London  N3 1TT  England
THE INTERNET FOR A TENNER-A-MONTH	081 349 0063
From: shaevel@Apple.COM (Jeff Shaevel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:32:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

esr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Edwin S. Russell) writes:

>In article <86205@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L.  
>Crawford) writes:
>> Anybody seen any awful menu translations?  ...

>Someone posted this list about a year ago:

>"Potatoes au gratin with cheese"

According to my copy of "The Joy of Cooking", "au gratin" does not refer
to the use of cheese, but to the use of bread crumbs to form a light crust
over the top of the food.  It need not include cheese.

On the other hand, the book is a few years old.  Perhaps the usage has
shifted so that the cheese is required (at least in America).
-- 
Jeff Shaevel        :-)-: (comedy/tragedy)    Love may be blind, 
shaevel@apple.com                             but lust is autistic.
From: maynor@Ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:47:12 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:

>>Why *not* say "usage" when we mean usage?

>Yeah, Roger...and why not say "me" when we mean "me" and not "I"?

Is the referent for "me" different from that of "I"?  I didn't realize
that.
--
   Natalie (maynor@ra.msstate.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: ASCII IPA (was Re: "Route")
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:40:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <1992Aug19.133308.10938@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:

[ASCII IPA chart deleted]

>That means that "root" can be pronounced /rut/ or /rUt/.  "route"
>can be pronounced uther /rut/ or /raut/, although from the German
>example, one might construe they mean /raUt/.  Now, what the 
>devil is "ruit"?  

I would write the "rhymes with 'out'" pronunciation of "route" as
/rAUt/ or possibly /rAut/.  One of the failings of this notation
scheme is that some symbols (/a/, /A/, /r/, and /R/ in particular) are
language dependent.  For German, it probably would be /raUt/.  For
English, /a/ is IPA ash (midwestern American "man": /man/) and /A/ is the
inverted script "a" (midwestern American "hot": /hAt/).  I confess
that this seems exactly backward to me.

We could use a clean system, but last time I suggested working on one,
the response was underwhelming (I'm not about to do it myself).

On the other hand ISO 10646 and Unicode both have IPA as a subset, so
if we wait long enough, the problem will go away.

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Toeing Victory!
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:13:28 EST
 <1992Aug19.180224.18049@Princeton.EDU> <dian.714260521@egg.gg.caltech.edu> <1992Aug20.050516.658@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: all
Organization: Wright State University 


Here's the "more" I mentioned earlier. (I bet you couldn't wait!)

TH>but on the other you want to make sure we toe the rules you seem partial to. 
                                             ^^^
Question>I have always been curious (sorry if it has already
question>been hashed out in this group) whether this is from 
question>"tow the line," as in pulling a barge along, or "toe the line," 
question>as in everyone getting themselves aligned so that a race can 
question>start fairly.
 
Roger> "toe the mark" or "toe the line" refers to the runner's adherence to the
Roger> rules at the start of the race.
Roger> SOURCES:  AHD, Evans and Evans.

I learned the phrase "toe the line" as a description of what happened in 
Parliament.  That is, one would "toe the line" -- anybody know whether there
is a physical line involved? -- of one's political party to identify oneself
with the party's views, etc.  Sort of like supporting the (Democratic,
Republican) Party's plank on abortion in the election platform.  Thus the
derivative American idiom may be "to finger the splinters." 
Alternatives welcome.

For Roger's benefit, here are my "authorities": OED mentions both the racer and
politico connotations, while the *Oxford dictionary of current idiomatic
English* mentions only the political toeing.

Who's "right," then?  Well, since I'm posting this...

(ObSmly)

-----ted hayes

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.112747.10157@waikato.ac.nz>, maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:

[In response to something I wrote]

> I think that '12 items or less' is OK because I see it as short
> for '12 items, or a lesser amount' . It is clearly wrong to write
> '12 or less items' because in this form the 'less' clearly refers
> to the 'items'. That is not so clear with '12 items or less'.

A good point.  By coincidence, I have just come around to withdrawing
my objection to "12 items or less", on the grounds that

 - It's not entirely clear that it's wrong.  Saying "12 or less items"
   definitely does involve a less/fewer confusion, but there is a
   legitimate interpretation for "12 items or less".

 - The less/fewer distinction is, in any case, an artefact of how our
   language evolved, and does not fully qualify as an essential
   distinction.  If we lost this distinction, we would probably not
   be much poorer as a result.  I shall continue to make the
   distinction, but it's a waste of effort to complain about those
   who don't.

This second point raises the whole issue of conservatism in language.
Many of us - including me - complain bitterly about changes which
"debase" the language, but we need to be clear about why we are
complaining.  It's very easy to slip into a position of "that's how
it used to be, so that's how it should stay"; but that's not good
enough.  It means that we end up being associated with those who
complain about split infinitives, or ending a sentence with a 
preposition, or starting a sentence with a conjunction.  (With friends
like that, who needs an enema?)  It's important, I think, to confine
our objections to those issues which really matter.

An example: I consider "more unique" to be an abomination, on the
grounds that it destroys a useful distinction.  (Yes, I know I can't
hold back the tide, but that won't stop me from sighing inwardly.)
If we lose the old meaning of "unique", we don't have anything
with which to replace it.  On the other hand, the use of "would of"
instead of "would have" is a minor issue; it looks strange to me,
and therefore looks wrong, but it doesn't involve any loss of meaning.
The less/fewer distinction falls, I think, into this latter category.

Peter
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Victory?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:02:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.092539.3607@desire.wright.edu> 
thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.165856.13240@Princeton.EDU>, 
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug18.163433.6659@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>RG> I vote that we just let the checkout lines be, and keep it our 
>RG>little secret.
>TH>          !!!!!!!!!                                         !!!!!
>TH>Why Richard, who *are* these "we" & "our" you refer to?
>RG>Do you think I should have added smileys?

>RL> No, you should have pointed out that "8 items or less" is flat-out
>RL> *correct.*  And idiomatic.  And long-standing usage.  And standard.

>Pardon me, sir, but you seem to have missed the point of this exchange.  I
>had posted that "we had won" because NPR had used "fewer." Then Richard had
>teased me about "we." Then he used "we" (see above) and I teased him for that
>in return.

Fine, but none of this is relevant to my point, which applies to both of
you: the "less" usage was quie appropriate as it stood, and required no
teasing, secrets, complaints, or victories.

>Now you have been quite busy excoriating those who would expect "that" instead
>of "which," and other conventions.  So on the one hand you want to lay claim to
>using English any way you please, 

I have said nothing of the sort.  I have argued only against the
invention of bogus standards and the enforcement of non-existent
distinctions.  I have said that correcting people's grammar is rude --
especially when they had made no mistake in the first place.  I am very
much in favor of standards -- but also of understanding what those
standards are, what they represent, and what they
do and do not apply to.

>but on the other you want to make sure we toe
>the rules you seem partial to. 

Wrong again.  I'm unhappy with incorrect claims about what the language
is and how it works.  

> Will you soon be publishing a list of
>acceptable rules we may follow, or will you just let us know what you approve
>of as we go?

Well, ain't this the darndest thing!  I'm just about the *only* person
here who has gone so far as to cite an authority on language.  Where are
*your* standards, I wonder?  Mine are easily obtained: from the OED,
from Jespersen's English Grammar, from more recent grammars, and from
linguistically informed books on usage and style.  (Fowler is usually
good for the English written dialect, Evans and Evans for the American.
The latter, alas, has never seen a second edition.)


Roger