HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: A good dictionary?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:41:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.182414.7777@exu.ericsson.se> exucsge@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>Hello,
>Please excuse this post if this is not the right newsgroup. 
>
>I am looking for recommendations for a good English dictionary, desk size, either
>hardback or paperback.  I currently am using a 1989 paperback edition of 
>_The American Heritage Dictionary_, but I have been dismayed in the last few 
>months at how many words I have searched for are not included.

Until recently I would have not paused in recommending the Random
House II unabridged dictionary.  It's an excellent volume, and I still
use it regularly.  However, I think I would now recommend the new 3rd
edition of the American Heritage...a stunning work, thorough, complete,
and well-designed.  And from a practical point of view, the size and
shape of the volume is easier to handle than the Random House. 


--
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: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: An apology
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 07:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.053058.29564@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzMx61.HEq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>Great.  Now imagine there's no countries, and then tell us what one
>would have to do to resolve "interdialect conflicts" in the absence 
>of an automatic "superior" standard.  After all, if there were no 
>England, there would be no way of telling who spoke "superior"
>English.  

Oh Roger, come on.  You know better than that.  Mandar has given us
three standards already in descending order of preference:

	- The "common elements" of an English accent
	- The English spoken by the Queen
	- The English spoken by the BBC

If England were to disappear, you can bet he'd make up another.


--
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: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:20:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.002401.1938@ra.msstate.edu> wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu
 (Wing-Keong Loke the consummate chronic prevaricator) writes:

Tell me, are you *proud* of being a liar or are you one of that growing band
of ignoramuses who think 'prevaricator' means 'procrastinator'?

(And who was it was asking for a list of common solecisms?  This one has
to be near the top of the list - I've seen *all* the major 'quality' papers
in Britain use it now.  And politicians and interviewers.)

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Generals (was Re: 'Professor' in Ca)
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:31:54 GMT

In article <BzpB6n.Cx8@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>On Dec. 22, Graham Toal wrote:
>
>>Could anyone who understands what a Brit means by 'Professor' and who
>>knows why we sometimes have misunderstandings about visiting US academics,
>>please tell me what 'professor' means in Canada?  Is it closer to the
>>British status or the US one?  I'm trying to work out if a Canadian
>>I know who insists on putting Professor in his signature (in a group
>>of academics who normally eschew titles) is being more than normally
>>pretentious or not.
>
>'Professor' means the same in the US and Canada. Most people that
>join a university or college faculty, become assistant professor.
>The vast majority are eventually promoted to associate p. then
>professor. Many use the title 'professor' from the start, and in
>common usage, 'professor' means simply university teacher. 

In the US, anyway, the title "Professor" is like the title "General":
it can be applied to any grade, but is also the title for a specific
grade, the highest in the case of the professorships, and what used to
be the highest in the case of US ranks for general officers.

(General used to be the highest rank in the US Army, but that was
before Eisenhower had to be promoted to command Montgomery.  The
current highest US army rank, general of the army, is the military
equivalent of field marshall.)

A brigadier general (one star), a major general (two stars), a
lieutenant general (three stars), a general (four stars), and a general
of the army (five stars) are all called "generals" in the US.  Canada
too?  I know that a brigadier isn't a general officer in the UK, but
are the other general officers called "generals" in general?

-- 
Douglas Harper | harper@oracorp.com | +1 (607) 277-2020
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Radical feminists
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:12:02 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA


    Just how far should we allow this assault on the English language
by radical feminists? They claim "history" is sexist. Next, they'll
claim that "manager" is sexist. Finally, do we change "this" to "tits"?


      Let me quote Jacqueline Fortunata [The foll. excerpts are
from a paper she wrote criticising some of Lakoff's views. The
paper is entitled "Lakoff on Language and Women". Incidentally,
Lakoff is considered to be a pioneer in "non-sexist" language] :

"   People must, at least on some occassions, spontaneously recognise
that they are being demeaned, and/or that they are demeaning. This
elementary fact is generally overlooked and ignored by many who speak 
to the problem of verbal discrimination against women.

I have been arguing that "lady" and other suspect uses are demeaning
only if "lady" and other uses elicit feelings of being demeaned on
the part of those termed "lady". Because demeaning and feeling demeaned
are reciprocal socially-acquired linguistic acts, we can make an expression
a demeaning one if we convince enough people to feel demeaned. It
would seem that Lakoff's linguistic task must be secretive or self-
defeating (if you are an optimist) or self-confirming (if you are a
pessimist). Lakoff purports to describe, but the description influences
self-conscious people to feel demeaned at the sound of "lady".  WHAT MAY
ONCE HAVE BEEN NEUTRAL BECOMES DEMEANING. Her theory makes itself true
if published and taken seriously, but then the taboo was not successfully
described by the missionaries, for it was they who taught it to the natives."


      Clearly, words such as "mankind" weren't deemed to be sexist by
most women, before these radical feminists started their tirade. Stop
misguiding people, you chauvinists!

                                                             Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley)
Subject: Re: American English
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:42:48 GMT
Organization: Evolving Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
: But will you violently object if some people prefer to use a less
: ambiguous word, like "person"?

The theologians chime in now with the observation that, in their
discipline, "person" ("an individual substance of a rational nature"
-- Boethius) includes angels and God, and is therefore not synonymous
with "men".
-- 
Fr. John Woolley (jww@evolving.com); vastly enthusiastic about Augustine,
Austen, babies, Bach, backgammon, baseball, beer, the Bible, Botticelli, Burke,
Chesterton, Dante, Dixieland, hardboiled, Hitchcock, Dr Johnson, Latin, Mozart,
Shakespeare/de Vere, St Teresa, Tolkien, Trollope, Fats Waller, and Washington
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:43:44 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <BznotD.DJ6@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>"Amazing how the people who wish to avoid ambiguity defy the 
>>usage of the word programme in resolving ambiguities."         ;)
>
>[...]  I have never seen, and
>cannot imagine the program/me ambiguity actually occurring in a
>natural situation, and so I don't buy the claim that there is a need
>for 2 spellings.  I see the gender ambiguity all the time, and I hear
>people taking offense at it, and so I recognize a need for inclusive
>language (other than -man, he).

It happens that the English word "man", which (as a copy of the _OED_
somewhere near you ought to be able to confirm) has both `human being'
and `male human being' among its meanings, is spelt in the same way
throughout the English-speaking world.  If it were spelt in a
different way (eg "mann") in one of the countries of this community,
it might have been a good idea to take advantage of the distinction
and adopt "mann" for `male human being' while preserving "man" for the
generic `human being' in the remaining countries.

However, this is not the case; and since I don't buy the claim that
the polysemy of "man" (which doesn't make it any different from most
words anyway) could lead to significant loss of meaning in a natural
situation, I see no need for shunning one of the meanings in an
artificial manner, or any other similar major surgery.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: orourke@mtholyoke.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: a MST, or an MST?
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:19:51 GMT

Which is correct, "a MST," or "an MST"?  MST = Minimum Spanning Tree.
So if one imagines expanding the acronynm, it should be "a MST."
But the acronymn is used so frequently that readers will say
"em ess tee" in their heads, in which case "an MST" sounds better.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:04:49 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophe's - one more time

In article <C04pvE.FvE@world.std.com>, jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
says:
>
>jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes:
>
>>"National Review" uses the rule, better to my mind, that you write
>>another "s" only when you pronounce another "s".  Jones's car, Max's
>>bike, France's burden, Arkansas's (!) governor; but Goebbels' lies,
>>Dickens' novels, King Charles' head.
>
>For me, that rule would be the same as the Chicago Manual's, because I
>pronounce the extra syllable on *all* the examples you give.

And what about the Court of St. James's, nearly always so spelt,
very rarely with the extra syllable pronounced? (At least, that's
my impression from my perspective on the left side of the Atlantic.)
As for the examples above, I would certainly say King Charles's
head, would probably say and write "Dickens novels" with Dickens
as an ordinary adjective, unless the possessive were unavoidable,
when I'd probably say "his", having firmly established who "he"
is. "Goebbels's" sounds kind of silly though, doesn't it?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists 
Keywords: Moby Dick
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.183805.26052@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> uhde@ollie.jsc.nasa.gov (Jo Uhde) writes:
:feminist!  To show that all Indians are not as humor (humour?) impaired as
:Mandar is, I will relate the following exchange between Chucks, and another
:Indian friend, Vaman:

Don't worry, I knew Indians had a sense of humour since the day I discovered
the meaning of my friend Mahalingam's name...  I think it was chosen in
tribute to Melville's famous novel.

G
From: meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Meach)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:32:54 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <8048@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>>This is based on the mistaken notion that whale excrement settles to the
>>bottom of the ocean.
>>
>>Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
>
>Oh good, a *really* new topic. Tell us, Dan, where *DOES* whale shit go?
>
>(Seriously, I am now curious!)

Must admit. . . I'm kinda wondering myself!

>Ob ref to other english usage: In the book Texas Crude, the author mentions
>an expression "busier than a cat in a feedlot." This refers, apparently, to
>the fact that a cat would use all nine lives eating all that shit. Does this
>have something to do with a shit-eating grin? Beats me!

Actually, this simply refers to the fact that feedlots [where cattle/horse/pig
feed is stored/sold] are full of grains, and therefore *mice*. . .

--jm
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 27 Dec 92 00:40:39 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzMvK3.GD5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# Yes, there are local standards. But which standard should be used
# when resolving an inter-standard conflict? Obviously, it is the
# English English standard.

Ah, yes.  The answer to the question no one asked.

I understand "colour", you understand "color".  Tolerance is much
easier than conformity.

# >Anything else is to claim that, say, a Canadian English
# >dictionary is better or worse than, say, an Australian English
# >dictionary. Shall we rank all the variants? To whose standards?
# >
# English English.

Which English English?

If you could somehow assign a value to every dialect of English
in all English-speaking countries, such that the value reflected
its distance from "Obsolete BBC Standard" English, you might be
surprised to find out that all the dialects of the United
States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.,
would have values well within the range of dialects that exist
natively in England.  Probably only some Scottish and Irish
dialects would lie beyond that range.

# This is because while different races were born at the same time in
# different places, English was born in England.

Indulging your naive metaphor for the nonce, so were American English,
and Australian English, and ...

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.030111.25846@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
writes:
> 
> Sorry, Mandar, but such nonsense doesn't do your credibility any good.
> 
>        The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself


Oh, I don't know.  At this point, it could hardly do much harm.  ;)


Marie Coffin
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: "a" and sthenic
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:32:12 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <BzGMqn.x8@cs.umu.se> dvldbg@cs.umu.se (Daniel Brahneborg) writes:
>In article <BzDBvK.6IF@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.180607.10154@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>>>You need a new dictionary! :-)  From M/W NCD:
>
>Sigh. I thought this dictionary was good. I did a rough estimate, and I
>think it contains 20-30 thousand words. It is the "Penguin Concise
>English Dictionary".
>
>What is "M/W NCD"? I got one reply that suggested I'd take a look
>at rutgers, but unfortunately I can't do that.

Mirriam Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.  The Eighth edition,
which I have at work has 1355 pages in the general lexicon at about
50-60 items a page, so there are probably around eighty thousand words
(not that the number of words is the sole (or best) measure of a
dictionary).  I believe the Ninth edition is the one in the stores
these days.

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | It is a popular delusion that the
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | government wastes vast amounts of
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | money through inefficiency and sloth.
				       | Enormous effort and elaborate
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | planning are required to waste this
    (415)857-7572		       | much money
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rck@med.unc.edu (Ronald C. Knight)
Subject: Latin America
Originator: rck@maiden
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:52:08 GMT

I was surprised today to read in a magazine a reference to
Grenada (the island nation in the Caribbean, not the city
in Spain) as a "Latin American" country.  I served as a 
Peace Corps volunteer in Grenada for five years, and am on
pretty solid ground in asserting that the Grenadian people
do not regard themselves as Latin Americans.  Grenada is
an English-speaking nation, and a former British colony.

I have heard people from Belize and Guyana (former British
colonies and English-speaking countries in Central and South
America, respectively), and people from Suriname (former
Dutch colony in South America) protest the appellation
"Latin American", although it's more understandable that 
this term might naturally be used by those who think that 
all of the mainland countries south of the U.S. speak either 
Spanish or Portuguese.  But I have never heard of any countries 
in the English- or Dutch-speaking Caribbean islands referred 
to as Latin American before this.

I checked two dictionaries and found three definitions of
"Latin America", in order of increasing inclusion: 

(1)  "Spanish America & Brazil"

(2)  Those countries of the Americas and the Caribbean where
     a language descended from Latin is spoken, including
     Spanish, Portuguese, & French.

(3)  "All of the Americas south of the U.S."

Definition (1) corresponds to my own understanding of the 
term, while definition (3) corroborates the usage I read 
that started this whole train of thought in the first place.  
However, I don't even feel comfortable with definition (2),
which includes Haiti and the former French Guiana (not to
mention Saint Pierre and Miquelon and possibly in the future
Qubec).  So from the position that dictionaries should be
prescriptive, I consider definition (3) definitely wrong and
definition (2) suspect.

But from the position that dictionaries should be descriptive
of actual use by native speakers, I wonder how many readers
of this newsboard actually use the term "Latin America" in
either senses (2) or (3) above, or hear other educated speakers
do so.  ("Educated" of course excludes those who think people
speak Latin in Latin America.)  I would be especially interested
in responses from countries that fit all or some of the three
definitions above.

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:10115 alt.flame:17516
From: mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.flame
Subject: Mandar Mirashi
Keywords: Mandar Mirashi usage killfile thread fnord
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:28:19 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

Y'know, I'd killfile Mandar...
but then I wouldn't need to bother reading this
group.

Bleah.

Mitch Silverman                    | As Voltaire never said, "I
Student, New College of            | disagree with what you say,
the University of South Florida    | but will defend to the death
mitch@cfraix.cfr.usf.edu           | your right to say it."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:59:26 GMT

In article <BzpE0C.DDH@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
:(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
:>ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
:
:>>Amazing how the very people who embrace the program/me distinction to
:>>resolve an ambiguity that is trivial to avoid, and has never even been
:>>noticed on a continent with a significant fraction of the world's
:>>computer programmers, are the same people (2 of them anyway) that
:>>resist perfectly natural use of gender neutral language that resolves
:>>ambiguities that otherwise occur everyday.
:
:>In defence, I could use a circular argument :
:>"Amazing how the people who wish to avoid ambiguity defy the 
:>usage of the word programme in resolving ambiguities."         ;)
: ^^^^^
:You are amazed that I wear a coat when it is cold, but not when the
:weather is warm. I am amazed that you wear a coat when the weather is
:warm, but not when it's cold.

I'm amazed Mandar has found some useful distinction between use and usage
such that he must be using 'usage' here to resolve some ambiguity. 
Unfortunately I'm too dense to see what the ambiguity must be.

G
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Date: 31 Dec 92 10:33:11 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzqtAq.KB9@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

#          I think "persons" indicates a small group of people,
# whereas people encompasses everyone. I think the word "people" is
# more popular, though.

Yes, yes, but what does the queen think?

I suppose she's a bit too busy to ask this time of year.

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:22:24 GMT

(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:

>>Amazing how the very people who embrace the program/me distinction to
>>resolve an ambiguity that is trivial to avoid, and has never even been
>>noticed on a continent with a significant fraction of the world's
>>computer programmers, are the same people (2 of them anyway) that
>>resist perfectly natural use of gender neutral language that resolves
>>ambiguities that otherwise occur everyday.

>In defence, I could use a circular argument :
>"Amazing how the people who wish to avoid ambiguity defy the 
>usage of the word programme in resolving ambiguities."         ;)

I thought I had embedded the difference above: I have never seen, and
cannot imagine the program/me ambiguity actually occurring in a
natural situation, and so I don't buy the claim that there is a need
for 2 spellings. I see the gender ambiguity all the time, and I hear
people taking offense at it, and so I recognize a need for inclusive
language (other than -man, he).

>Seriously though, it is impossible to resolve all ambiguities. It
>is usually possible to guess the meaning of a word from its context.
>If it isn't, then it is the responsibility of the speaker/writer
>to make the context clear.

We can't invent a new word or spelling for every different shade of
meaning, but at the same time we can't use a single word for every
purpose. It would be possible to communicate with only one pronoun
used in all cases, singular and plural. But the difficulty in
constructing context to avoid ambiguity would be far greater than
the complexity introduced to the language by having a few different
pronouns. 

Werner

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english