HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in possessive forms
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:45:00 GMT

In article <seses@vadier.gr.osf.org>, emcmanus@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus) writes:
> ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:
>>Strunk and White say that the bare approstrophe is correct for a fixed
>>set of historical figures (I remember Jesus' and Moses').
> 
> The rule I learnt was that the S could (should) be omitted if the last
> syllable ends in "ses" or something similar, to avoid having three
> similar sounds in a row.  This applies to Jesus and Moses, and also to
> Isis and perhaps Sid Vicious.
> 
Thanks to the many people who gave me feedback on this.  (It will be a
while before I reply, because of a huge backlog of mail.)  Indeed, I
oversimplified the rule for nouns whose singular ends in "s", and I've
now made substantial modifications to that section of the article for
the FAQ file.

Nobody who wrote to me had anything to say about the history of why
we use -s' for the possessive plural.  Since what I wrote was pure
conjecture, I'd dearly like to see a confirmation or rebuttal.  Is
there no expert out there who knows the true story?

Peter.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:43:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: unix.204768
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <SLAGLE.92Apr8223955@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>The acceptability of "Truthfully, ..." rests on its ambiguity.

>Does the meaning of the 
>sentence change if we just drop it?  If anything it adds only
>emphasis, not content.

Are you saying that added emphasis doesn't change the meaning of the 
sentence?  This may be true of mathematical formulae, but not of utterances
in practical discourse.

Emphasis is part of content.  That's why the written language includes a '!'.


-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Liberals
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:45:05 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca

In article <ku6e80INNj9l@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:

> The American use of 'liberal' puzzles me, by the way. In the Netherlands
> where I'm from the liberals are right-wing -- free enterprise and that
> sort of thing -- as opposed to the socialists who think that everyone
> is equal.

   Liberal political parties originated in the 19th century, representing
the interests of the bourgeoisie (middle class).  Conservatives 
represented the interests of the aristocracy (upper class); socialists
represented the interests of the proletariat (working class).

   I don't know how the Liberals got their name.  Maybe it was because
they wanted to "liberate" the middle class from the tyrannical 
aristocracy.  Maybe it was because they had open-minded ("liberal") 
attitudes towards change.  Gladstone produced surplus budgets (his wife 
urged him to spend the surplus before Disraeli could get his hands on it),
so I doubt it was that they believed in generous ("liberal") use of the
government purse.

   Socialism never caught on in the U.S., so "liberal" is as left-wing as 
you can get there.  Maybe in the Netherlands, conservatism vanished, so
"liberal" is as right-wing as you can get!

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:27:11 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> >closet,
> Toilet rather than clothes cupboard. Also used in 'coming out of the ...'

Nobody caught this yet?? As far as I know 'closet' NEVER means toilet
or bathroom in the U.S. It's the little room where the clothes are. Not
a cupboard, because that would be an add-on cabinet kind of thing, rather
than a little room. (Actually 'clothes cupboard' doesn't parse too well
in USAn.)

>  yard,
> back garden

Or front, or side. 'Yard' is the whole area around the house; 'back yard'
and 'front yard' are commonly heard. (Especially back yard, sometimes
written backyard as in 'backyard barbeque'.)

> 
> How did I do?
> 
> G
> -- 

Pretty good!

-LJ.
-- 
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2803 soc.culture.british:5795
From: rabson@oxford.ac.uk (David Rabson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:53:05 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, U

Some comments from a very cursory scan of a useful article and one
of the follow-ups --

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

Some Oxford guide to English variants asserts with the original poster that
Americans pronounce "Mary," "merry," and "marry" all the same, but it isn't
true.  The first two are fairly close, but the third is completely different,
at least as I and all the other Americans I know pronounce it.

Somehow "chemist" found itself repeated on the wrong side.

This and other such lists would do well to distinguish those pairs of words
now used interchangably in both countries, whatever the national differences
may have been fifty years ago (e.g., luggage and baggage), those words
more common on one side or the other but understood perfectly well on both
(e.g., lavatory), words that make the listener think but which are understood
(e.g., dust bin and trash can), words that may not be understood (e.g.,
chemist, hob, aubergine, eggplant), and words that can get the speaker
in trouble (e.g., knickers, napkin).  Also many of the words on both sides
are regional or informal.  Many of the suposed Americanisms were completely
new to me.

David Rabson
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3041 soc.culture.british:6383
From: kmuch@prg.ox.ac.uk (Kathleen Much)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:24:02 GMT
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

In article <1992Apr13.142550.22630@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>
>|> >  valedictorian,
>|> > Dux of the school
>|>    Dunno what a dux is--valedictorian is the top student by GPA.
>
>Who delivers an address on behalf of the seniors at graduation.
>Incidentally, I didn't "graduate" from high school; I left.  And I still
>don't fully comprehend a GPA.

Grade Point Average is a rather artificial calculation of a student's
performance. One takes the number of "hours" or "units" allocated to
each course (often 3, with extra hours added for especially difficult
courses or ones with extra laboratory sessions), multiplies by the
grade earned (usually but not always on a scale of A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1,
F=0, where A is the highest mark), adds them all together, and then
divides by the total number of units. Theoretically, 4.0 is the
highest GPA possible, but when extra credits are added for "advanced
placement" or "honors" courses, or extra points are added for A+
grades, some students can end up with a 4.2 GPA, for example. There's
been a lot of grade inflation in the US. By the way, GPA is used for
both high school and university calculations. It's especially
important for candidates for medical or law schools.


Kathleen Much
kmuch@comlab.oxford.ac.uk
also reachable at kathleen@casbs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: pronunciation of British names
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 10:37:17 GMT


In article <1992Apr15.043110.28091@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca writes:

>   The journalist Horatio Bottomley (1860-1933) once called at the 
>residence of an English nobleman.  A butler answered the door.  
>Bottomley asked, "Is Lord Cholmondeley at home?"

>   "Begging your pardon, sir," said the butler, "but the name is 
>pronounced 'Chumly'."

>   "Oh, I see", said Bottomley.  "Well, could you tell him that Horatio
>Bumly is here to see him?"

Lovely.  Reminds me that when I was in college, a neighbor had
a parakeet named Daphis Featherstonehaugh Bird-Cholmondeley =
daphnee fanshaw bird-chumly.

-- 
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: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:44:02 GMT
    <1992Apr3.184410.20647@unx.sas.com> <1992Apr07.224100.22106@robobar.co.uk> 
    <1992Apr10.130545.20298@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 548

In article <1992Apr10.130545.20298@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dhubin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Donald C Hubin) writes:
|> Gary Merrill suggests that this sort of case might soften him up a bit
|> on the controversial use of 'hopefully'.  Are you feeling any softer,
|> Gary?  :-)

Not since the posting out of Strunk & White! Eat adverbs and die, Philistines!
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 13:05:40 GMT


In article <3239@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> rabson@oxford.ac.uk
(David Rabson) writes:

>Some Oxford guide to English variants asserts with the original poster that
>Americans pronounce "Mary," "merry," and "marry" all the same, but it isn't
>true.  The first two are fairly close, but the third is completely different,
>at least as I and all the other Americans I know pronounce it.

I don't think you know enough Americans, then.  For millions
of Americans, the three words are pronounced *identically*.
In other parts of the country, there are two pronunciations,
in still other parts, three distinct pronunciations.  Like
you, I pronounce "marry" differently from the other two,
which I pronounce the same.

-- 
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,soc.culture.british
From: preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com (Ian Preece)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Reply-To: preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:51:36 GMT


>
>In article <1992Apr13.142550.22630@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David
>Brooks) writes:
>>
>>|> >  valedictorian,
>>|> > Dux of the school
>>|>    Dunno what a dux is--valedictorian is the top student by GPA.
>>


'sall down to yer Latin, innit ?

"Dux" is "a leader", from the verb "duco" = I lead.

A valedictorian is a bastard word, which is, I imagine, loosely derived from
"valediction" "valedictor" or "valedictory", which come, in turn, from "vale", 
= farewell, goodbye  and "dicto" =I speak....hence, one who says goodbye.


Jeez, it's how many years ago...??  ;-)
Oh, the *hours* I spent in a hot, drowsy classroom, terrified of falling
asleep,
trying to commit all that stuff to memory.  I knew it would have some
value one day !!!

Ian

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ObDisclaimer:

       "I wouldn't *work* for a company that held opinions like mine."      

Ian Preece,                                         Digital Equipment, UK. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 22540KSS@MSU
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Hilarious analysis of WAYNE'S WORLD (long)
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:24:08 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Xref: msuinfo rec.arts.movies:84562 alt.usage.english:7792
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Definition of prefix wanted
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:44:44 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.

In article <ETHANB.92Apr2212559@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu> ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:
:In article <1992Apr3.002117.9237@ugle.unit.no> omk@Lise.Unit.NO (Ole Martin Kristensen) writes:
:
:   I've been looking in my dictionary for definitions/usage information on the
:   prefix 'int' - as in 'int-rude' or 'int-ravenous', but have found nothing so
:   far. Any suggestions?
:
:"Int" is not the prefix.

Ethan, I think he was joking.

G
--
From: agoyo1@hagbard-celine.MIT.EDU (acee agoyo)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: origin of word "okay"?
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:28:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Apr16.232814.11411
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

James M Njeru writes:
>What is the origin of the word "okay" or "O.K."?
The dictionary says it is 'all correct' or something like that. 
I read a book called _Native Roots_ (author, I forget) which said that the word
was probably derived from a Native American language (again, I forget which).

I will look at the book again and see what it says.  I would recommend the book
anyone who wants to learn about the impact of Native Americans on American
society.  It talks about food, language, and other stuff.

acee agoyo
agoyo1, once again back is the incredible
From: verbum@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Neal Whitman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "The exact same" vs. its opposite
Keywords: a whole 'nother story
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:13:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

>"sleeping late" in other posts) is "the exact same", as in "It's
>the exact same thing" instead of "It's exactly the same thing".
>
This reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask about.
Is the expression, "That's a whole 'nother story," a Texasism?
I analyze it as a combination of the two sentences, "That's
another story," and, "That's a whole different thing/story."
The "whole" in contact with "another" causes the recutting
evident in the expression.  The reason I think it's a merging
of the two expressions is that you (or at least _I_) never hear,
"That's a whole other story."*

On a related subject, how many think the members of Pink Floyd
would transcribe the line sung as, "All in all you're just a 
[pause] nother brick in the wall," dividing the word "another"?
Do they pronounce it that way just for some effect, or do they 
consider "nother" to be a word in its own right?

-verbum

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com (Ian Preece)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Reply-To: preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:18:58 GMT


In article <1992Apr14.024728.5536@news2.cis.umn.edu>,
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:


>>>"Sunny side up" is well-known to the British, but I
>>>cannot recall ever having heard it over here. "Up" is the phrase.


Mostly from imported movies (sorry, films !)and TV.  I don't think it's
a native
term.

Now, my favourite question around the subject of eggs......(maybe I can get 
a definitive answer at last....)

I like my eggs fried, then turned so that the yolk breaks and cooks hard.

I'm familiar with the expression "over easy", but that doesn't fit,
obviously, so I've experimented, in various bits of the US, with "over hard",
and "over easy but let it cook all the way through..."


A simple "Eggs over" seemed to work in California, but got me blank looks in 
New England....

So, what's the range of descriptives for fried-eggery, anyone ?


Ian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ObDisclaimer:

       "I wouldn't *work* for a company that held opinions like mine."      

Ian Preece,                                         Digital Equipment, UK. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:40:00 GMT
	<1992Apr3.160736.17790@unx.sas.com> <1992Apr3.184410.20647@unx.sas.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com's message of Fri, 3 Apr 1992 18:44:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.184410.20647@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
   Are there any *other* adverbs ending in "fully" that people want
   to use (or are using) in the same way that is being discussed
   with respect to "hopefully"?  If there are, and the uses of these
   seem to make sense, then I might well be convinced that such a
   use of "hopefully" is such a deviation.

   The only candidate I have for such adverbs is "truthfully," as in

	   Truthfully, it's been a long week.

   But in this case I'm not sure that the analogy to "hopefully" is
   close enough to sway me.  For one thing, this statement seems to
   make sense to me because a *statement* (sentence, if you will) is
   the sort of thing that can be true -- perhaps can even be truthful
   in the sense of "full of truth."  Yet in

	   Hopefully, I'll go home soon.

   I don't think I am saying that the sentence "I'll go home soon"
   is full of hope.

----
The acceptability of "Truthfully, ..." rests on its ambiguity.
Is it the speaker or the statement that is full of truth?  The
form says that it is the statement, but many people probably
mean to describe the speaker or at least the speaking as in
something like "Speaking truthfully..." or something equally
contorted.  Maybe the word "truly" should be used, but in any
case it just seems like padding.  Does the meaning of the 
sentence change if we just drop it?  If anything it adds only
emphasis, not content.

The usage seems to be one of the cases that form a bridge to the
"Hopefully, ..." abomination.  Notice that if you really stretch
you can maintain that it is the statement that is being described
as hopeful, not the speaker, but that isn't what people usually
mean when they use it.  So, I don't like to use truthfully
because it has no clear meaning, but I cringe at hearing hopefully
because it clearly means the wrong thing.  And I wish people 
would stop using both because they are messy and unnecessary.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: usage
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:16:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: sgi417.SLAGLE.92Apr13111637
	<1992Apr08.020248.25977@robobar.co.uk>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: gtoal@robobar.co.uk's message of 8 Apr 92 02:02:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.020248.25977@robobar.co.uk> gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
   In article <1992Apr6.154808.10983@news.cs.brandeis.edu> murray@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
   :Is assertion followed by negative over the course of the assertion
   :in fact, as asserted, a recent American neologism?   NOT!  The pattern
   :has existed in much Elizabethan poetry and drama, occurs in Shakes-
   :peare, and can be found as recently as e. e. Cummings who advised
   :us to "Pity this poor monster manunkind, not."

   Yeah!  Another one for the FAQ file!

----
Not so fast.  This one is not an assertion.  It is an
imperative command.  The Wayne&Garth form that is the
subject of discussion requires a declarative assertion,
as in "You're the best guitarist living.  NOT!"

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (G Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in possessive forms
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:36:12 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr13.094500.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
:Nobody who wrote to me had anything to say about the history of why
:we use -s' for the possessive plural.  Since what I wrote was pure
:conjecture, I'd dearly like to see a confirmation or rebuttal.  Is
:there no expert out there who knows the true story?

I always assumed that (say) "The cars' horns" was from an omitted
possessive -es, ie "The carses horns".  Seeing it written down I'm
having second thoughts, but that was my assumption anyway...

Graham
From: sds@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Sherwood Daniel Silliman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:30:06 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr10.023453.4489@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.231413.22903@robobar.co.uk> gtoal@robobar.co.uk
>(Graham Toal) takes an Americanisms test posed in article
><1992Apr5.174521.25924@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks).
>
>The ones I think need correction are
>
[...]
>
>> half-bath,
>>?
>
>A bathroom with only a shower, no bathtub.

Or no shower at all -- only a toilet and sink.  Usually only seen in
a realtor's (q.v.) listing of a house: 2BR, 1 1/2 bath.

>> mobile home,
>> dormobile or equivalent.  Not a caravan - has an engine. Big. (RV?)
>
>Big, but no engine.  Towed, if moved.

To me, that's a trailer, and the place where Grandma lives in one
is a trailer park.  A mobile home is a little more mobile.


>-- 
>Charles Geyer
>School of Statistics
>University of Minnesota
>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu

-- 
Sherwood D. Silliman         "When I give food to the poor, they call me a
                              saint.  When I ask why the poor have no food,
                              they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english