HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: More (or less) Fewer violations
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:26:24 GMT

In article <Bt7Aw2.5MF@csn.org> dbeachle@teal.csn.org (Dave Beachley) writes:
[...deleted...]
>These were the words printed on the bag:  "You'll probably notice that
>our sandwiches now come served in paper wrapping instead of a box. 
>That's because we figure the world could probably use 15,000 *less*
>tons of trash a year.  And less trash means *less* trucks to carrry it.
>Which means less gas and a lot less air pollution...[rest not included].
[...deleted]
>Anyway, while I applaud BK's move to cleaner packaging, I found
>it necessary to call the printed 800-number customer relations 
>department(1 800 YES 1 800).  I told them that I was very
>supportive of their move, but found it disturbing that one of two
>things happened: 1) the big advertising consultants were 
>ignorant as to the difference between Less and Fewer; or 2) the
>big advertising consultants purposely used incorrect grammar to
>make some effect (making it seem more personal, for instance).

How about 

3) They used a common, colloquially correct usage that you had drilled
out of you in school?  The use of "less" above is in no way
grammatically incorrect.  It is not standard to some styles (e.g.,
business writing), but it is correct and has a long history in the
language.  As Evans and Evans (1957) note:

"Many grammarians claim that "less," being the comparative of "little"
in this sense, cannot be used to qualify a plural noun, as in "less
men, less complaints."  They say that the word "fewer" is required here.
Some go so far as to say that "less" should never be treated as a
plural, even when it is used with "than" and not with a plural noun, as
in "less than twenty were invited."  They claim that we must say "less
than twenty was" or "fewer than twenty were."  At one time "less" was
used freely as a plural.  So there is no question here of logic or
tradition.  It is simply a question of present-day usage.  And there is
no doubt that "less than" is treated as a plural in standard English
today.  "Less" before a plural noun, as in "less men," is not as widely
accepted.  A great many people object to it.  But a great many others,
whose education and position cannot be questioned, see nothing wrong in
it.  In the United states, a college president might speak of "less men"
or "less courses."

>I told the lady that, combined with the handwriting style, these
>misplaced lesses gave an effect to the text of a 1st-grader being
>the author.  

Well, I wish the lady had been up on her English usage; she'd have told
you that "less trucks" is just fine.

>If you get the same impression, give the number a calll.  The lady was
>friendly and took my name and number along with the
>notes I heard her taking.

What number do I call to give them the facts?  Especially after the time
it took to look in Evans*2 and the OED...

Roger



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:31:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.153627.23885@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>Here's where *I* stand up for a distinction.  To be sure, issues of
>usage are often referred to colloquially as "grammar."  

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

Because, as you yourself cited, there are multiple meanings to the word
grammar.  And someone may say grammar and mean grammar, but be using a
meaning different from yours.

One of the meanings of "grammar" as far as I recall is, "Knowledge and
usage of the preferred or prescribed forms in speaking or writing"
(RHD II).  As such I feel no compunction about calling something like
"10 items or less" or "me and my friends went to the store" ungrammatical.
Linguists would probably call it "colloquial usage."  They're welcome
to.  I call it ungrammatical.


--
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: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:33:24 GMT

In article <86205@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
>Subject: Re: Coke brings back ancestors ...
>Date: 14 Aug 92 17:38:46 GMT

>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

Two interesting mangled translations that I have seen recently arose from the
introduction of the metric system to Australia. 

The first describes a suitable size for an exercise yard for horses as 
'about 6.096 metre diameter'.

In the second case, a shop replaced advertising which had been nailed to 
trees at 1 mile intervals ( <name> shop, 2 miles ahead, etc.) with new signs 
in metric.They used the same trees for the new signs and rounded the 
conversions to the nearest kilometre. So now the 8 and 6 km signs are 1 mile 
apart as are the 6 and 5 km signs. There is no 4 km sign.

 
-------- PAUL R OSBORN, Research Scientist, Sensing Technology --- /\/\ --
                BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia  / / /\
Snail   :       P.O. Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287                 / / /  \
Tel     :       +61 49 51-0605  Fax : +61 49 50-2126            / / / /\ \
Telex   :       AA 28768                                        \ \/ / / /
Internet:       pel@resntl.bhp.com.au                            \  / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pundette
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:01:40 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <TSOS.49.713517609@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:

> PS: You'se English speaking folks, you don't know how lucky you are.
>     Words like "teacher", "customer", "assistant", etc etc are taken as
>     gender-neutral by (nearly) everyone, and problems only start when
>     you refer to them by "he" or "she". In many other languages like
>     German or French most of the endings that denote a profession, an
>     occupation, or a similar sort of role, are definitely gender-specific.
>     That leads to awkward constructions like "Lehrer/innen" or
>     "ArbeiterInnen" which are an eyesore and impossible to pronounce.

Awkward, perhaps, but do they lead to the questions of discrimination
which are so much of a problem in English?  I have the impression
that we have these problems in English precisely because English has,
to a large extent, lost the concept of noun gender.  This means that
those few words which have separate masculine and feminine forms
stand out as exceptions.  Is it not true that German speakers can,
because of the structure of their language, still understand the
distinction between discrimination based on gender and discrimination
based on sex?  This distinction has pretty well disappeared in English,
which means that arguments about terminology become confounded with
arguments about the underlying issues.

Take a look at the countries whose languages have never had the concept
of noun gender.  It is tempting to conclude that discrimination based
on sex is inversely related to discrimination based on gender.

Peter
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Smileys, gals, & guys
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:37:28 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug11223315@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.150800.21905@athena.mit.edu>,
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>
>> PS:  In the name of all that is holy to you,
>> do not take this post seriously (said the atheist).
>
>Damn, now that's a smiley.  Take it back you 
>anti-elitist scum, or get outa Dodge by sundown.


Hey, Toto!  I thought we weren't in Kansas any more...


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to everyone ahead of me on the yellow brick road.]
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Writing
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:42:17 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

When reading a translated novel yesterday I came across the Americanism
"x writes y" and sighed as is my wont. On the next page though to my
surprise I found "x
writing TO y". Is the translator being inconsistent, or does American
usage really differ with the form of the verb like this? If so can
anyone explain why?

Andy
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
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
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.162744.10677@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>But about 99% of language is learned via the spoken path; and that's how
>ecsetera gets into the language, along with thousands of other changes
>in pronunciation.  
>
>And it makes no difference at all to the language.

Maybe not, but it does make a difference to those who use the language.
Most people expect that the language as written will bear some relation
to how it is spoken.  If I write "asterisk" and decide to pronounce it
"saterisk" for no reason other than that it's comfortable to say, it
doesn't assume validity because I add it to my idiolect.  Believe it or
not, there are standards in a language of what's right and what's wrong.
We have copy editors, spell checkers, and english teachers for this reason.


>Yeesh!  What are *you* liberated from? Manners?  Sorry, but that is not
>only snotty in the extreme, but dead wrong.  Lots of very educated,
>thoughtful people use the same pronunciations you purport to use  as a
>shibboleth.  

Someone told me that Websters Ninth Collegiate states that the pronunciation
"Liberry" is heard from many college professors.  If so, I would speculate
on the credentials of the college at which they are employed or the ones that
they attended.

Most people assume that those who graduate from insitutions of higher learning
have some conception of how standard English is supposed to sound.

>Now, I ask you: what obligation do we have to some imagined "standard"
>form of the language?  Should we stop doing all the natural speaking we
>do, just because the "Standard" might be violated?  This is carrying the
>spirit of FORTRAN a bit far.  

Psychologists tell us that a child's communications skills are in place by
age 5, and after that, even if left alone, the child will develop usable
communications skills no matter what you do.  If what you say is so, if
standards are so unimportant, why bother teaching grammar?

There are still some people left who care about the integrity of the
language we speak.  Some folks think that "liberry" is wrong becuase we
don't have a silent "r" in the relevant phoneme.  Sadly, the number of
people with such concern for the language is decreasing.


--
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: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:31:27 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

In article 569@news.columbia.edu, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <wcsjc.714115057@cunews> wcsjc@alfred.carleton.ca (John Coughlin) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.215050.22371@nas.nasa.gov>,
>>asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>>How about nookeelur energy?

>Well, I don't know if the poster is referring to the same beastly
>mispronunciation I am all too familiar with, but the one that gest me
>is NOO-kyuh-lar.  I think it was Edwin Newman who said, "When the nuclear
>age began in 1945, so did the 'nucular' age."
> [Some text omitted to please my news reader]

>an "in-truh-gul."   Then there are "Ma-ra-SHEE-no" cherries and the
>"public liberry" and "endangered spee-seez" and probably lots more I'm
>forgetting.

The Aus equivalent is "I arkst him a question about nyoocyular reactors."
- Bleuch.

I'd been pronouncing "maraschino" that way all along (not that it's a
word I would frequently use anyway), because my parents said it that way.
My SOED has set me straight.
More frequently, I would eat "PEE-cans", or use "pa-PREEK-a" or "ora-GAR-no".
(All are common and accepted pronunciations here.)

The "spee-ceez" pronunciation is so common here that it has become
practically standard, hence acceptable.

-m.
From: jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:10:36 GMT

Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <57560033@hpscit.sc.hp.com> fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
>
>Pondering a question posed in misc.writing led me to the question, "Is
>rational thought possible without language?"  I've done a little
>research and discovered (what a surprise!) that it's an unresolved
>issue.  Currently, the dominant theory seems to be that language
>influences the thought process.  
>
>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?

You might want to consult some books by and about Helen Keller (and the
excellent movie _The_Miracle_Worker_ (now available in video).  There
are a few other examples of children who, through either neglect or
severe learning disability, were not able to learn to communicate
by any means.  It is my interpretation of these cases that rational
thinking is not possible without language.

>I don't think this is quite a "chicken and the egg" type question,

I think language is essential in developing referents and, thus, in
conceptualization.  I don't see how one could formulate and organize
abstractions without having names for them (hence, a language).

I think that it is interesting that attempts to determine if dolphins
and other mammals are intelligent (i.e., capable of rational thought)
usually begin by trying to understand if they have a language and how
they use it.  Language may not be a sufficient prove of intelligence,
but I think it is generally regarded as a necessary ingredient.

>John Fisher at Hewlett-Packard |
>in Santa Clara, CA             |  Insanity is just a state of mind.
>fish@hpscit.hp.com             | 
>although I could be wrong.  Any thoughts?     

-Jeff    jjd@cray.com
--
"You're not an intelligence until after you pass the Turing test."
-Solomon Short
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:35:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.125152.24611@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>Any natively bilingual people out there?  Is your thought process the same
>in one language as in another?

Hard to say.  When I'm speaking German, I'm either in Germany or on the
phone to Germany; and the things I do there are so different from my
daily life here that there's not much comparison.  Likewise, when I read
German, it's usually something about Germany.  (Exception: musicology.
There, however, the mindset of German musicologists is often so
different from the American one that again it's hard to compare.)

Roger
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Thought without language?
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:20:33 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <57560033@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:

[deletions]

>  Is rational thinking possible without language?

[deletions]

No one has mentioned this yet, so I will.  I attended a weekend
conference on deafness at Georgetown in 1985, where I learned among
other things that there are a great many people on this planet who
were born deaf or were deafened early in life and did not learn any
signing system due to isolation from other deaf persons.

A great many of these people live in the third world.

Here are people with no symbol-manipulating system: no spoken or
written language and no sign language system.  Now: they don't become
brain surgeons, but they get along.  I can't find any research on
these people, but my guess is they must do some thinking in order to
survive in human society.


-- 
- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
All opinions expressed herein are my own
and are not to be attributed to my 
employer
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton)
Subject: Re: pundette
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:42:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.153315.11686@microsoft.com> frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.112029.8144@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>[deletions]
>>
>>I would have thought so. By the way, can someone explain why "waitron" was
>>coined and not a different word. It is *hideously* ugly. I continue to use
>>"waiter" and "waitress", partly because I can't think of anything else.
>
>I was reading Julian May's "Jack the Bodiless" last night
>when I happened on the use of the "waitron"; this waitron
>was clearly contrasted to her patrons. Could this be the
>explanation of the waitron coinage: patron/waitron? If so, I
>like the neologism a little better, since it implies a kind
>of equality between the customer and the server; as an
>ex-bartender, ex-wine steward, ex-bar manager, who has served many
>[...]

Uh-oh. What about bartendron and managron? And ex-wine flight attendant
instead of ex-wine steward or ex-wine stewardess...

Your maitron-d for tonight,
Peter!

(By the way, I'd assume that "patron" is probably short for "patronizer"
as in "one who patronizes [the restaurant]". We do have a tendency
to shorten words.)





Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6745 soc.culture.canada:5956
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: GAZETTE: THE WORLD 'REMARKS' OUR FRENCH-INFLUENCED ENGLISH
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:50:44 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <19AUG92.10960417.0062@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) writes:
>I think we're arguing over a straw man.  In Quebec, demand does *NOT*
>mean "ask."  IMO, the Gazette article which started this thread
>was a mixture of truth and exaggeration.  In my experience,
>English-speaking Quebecers *DO* say "autoroute" for "freeway",
>"caisse populaire" for "credit union", "depanneur" for "convenience

In St.Marie (sic), Manchester, NH, there is building which has on one
side "Caisse Populaire St.Marie" and on the other "St.Marie Bank".

>store", and "CEGEP" for an educational institution wedged in between
>high school and university.
>
>If a francophone with a shaky command of English told me that
>"I have been seized of the dossier," I wouldn't be surprised,
>but I would be astonished to hear this from someone of English
>mother tongue, except as a joke.  We just don't talk that way.

This is a matter of influence and of the number of messages someone
said.  If a project leader is francophone and has to express because
(1992's reason) a few employees are anglophone, since he represents the
authority, he will influence others.

To see how a francophone can "hurt" the English language, you could
probably use my own messages as a reference ;^).
>
>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Asses
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:14:40 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.104329.9696@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
> References: <1970@sdrc.COM> <1992Aug11.185359.7097@rose.com> <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>
> In a previous article, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) says:
> 
>>In article <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>>> Oh, and off the subject, thank you *so* much for spelling "piqued" properly.
>>> I get so weary of reading about people who have had their curiosity "peeked"
>>> or "peaked".
>>
>>Don't let it get you down, it's a mute point, anyway.
> 
> I, too, hate to hear about someone whose "interest was peaked," but I've
> assumed it's the result of letting the computers do -all- the
> spell-checking.  Do you think actual, live copy editors are letting it slip
> by?  It's pretty extreme, after all. 

	Then there's the infamous "...is back in the African-American..." gaffe
by the Boston Globe who's politically correct context scanner automatically
replaced every occurance of "black" with "African-American".

	Or less.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Women Doctors
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:09:38 GMT

I'd like to know why we commonly see the word "woman" pluralized
in phrases like "women doctors," "women scholars," or "women plumbers."
No one would dream of pluralizing the adjective along with the noun in
the phrases

	boy wonders
	girl athletes
	male nurses
	(ek cetera).

Actually, I'm having trouble coming up with a familiar, similar
phrase that starts with "man."   (Perhaps the explanation of this
will shed light on my original question.)

Or do I have it mixed up: is "women" the noun and "doctors" the
adjective in this case???

--Daz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english