HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Which is correct?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 04:45:10 GMT

In article <rbkatz-060193110949@128.96.93.74> rbkatz@cc.bellcore.com (Bob Katz) writes:

> Which is correct?:
>
>     One problem is customers using the wrong wording.
>
>     or
>
>     One problem is customers' using the wrong wording.  [note apostrophe]

What is the problem?  The customers or their wording?

	Customers using the wrong wording are the problem.  Let's get rid
	of those customers.

	Customers' using the wrong wording is the problem.  Let's emphasize
	the correct wording in our ads.

See the article "Fused Participle" in H. W. Fowler's _Modern English Usage_.

> Thanks.

My pleasure.

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: A letter to Mandar
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:26:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.070903.4962@midway.uchicago.edu> moksha@fakevm.tifr.edu (Virupaksha Mokshagundam) writes:
:But the magnitude of this lie is even at this point remaining largely
:uncovered, like that of a buffalo arranging the major part of his physique
:to lie in water. V Mahalingam in fact falls far short of being the same
:person as even Virupaksha Mokshagundam! Mr Toal in a (one sincerely hopes!)
:momentary attack of delirium chooses to equate the most diverse entities.

Ah, my dear Virupaksha, how fine it is to hear from you again.  I trust
your esteemed pachyderm Kuvalayaapeeda remains also in good health?

My apologies for conflating you with your colleague Mahalingam; I suspect
it was the family resemblance which caused my confusion.

Regards

Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: Dictionaries
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:18:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.041156.62316@cc.usu.edu>, rhonda@cc.usu.edu (Tye McQueen, E.) writes:
> In <1992Dec28.002712.2129@>, wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator) writes:
>> In <5597@daily-planet> mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay) writes:
>>>
>>>I have a theory of change which is that dictionaries serve two purposes:
>>>they record usage - correct and incorrect - and they also act as a resource
>>>in that the presence of a word and its meaning in a dictionary will often
>>>be interpreted as authoritative. It is not hard to see that these two
>>>interpretations lend themselves to propagating change, sometimes 
>>>unnecessarily.
>> 
>> 	Could be.  But I've heard of people say that the pronounciation
>> of a word in the dictionary is wrong, and they have got it right!  We
>> get all kinds, all kinds ... .
> 
> Exactly!  There's an L in "almond" and it is there for a reason!
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> My dictionary doesn't even list the use of an "L" sound as an
> accepted alternate pronounciation.  We'll we all don't eat no
> ahmonds around here, no matter what some dumb book says!
-- 
The reason is (like much English spelling) is that the current English word
`almond' is derived from older words which contained the letter `l'.
It certainly isn't there _because_ there is an `l' sound.

However, there are many words whose pronunciation has changed in recent times
_because_ of the spelling. This reflects thae fact that with near universal 
literacy we meet the majority of words new to our personal vocabularies
through the written word and persist in the belief that English spelling
is closely related to English pronunciation (in spite of all the evidence 
that the connection is not very strong).

For example, I was brought up to pronounce `falcon' as 'fawk'n', but find that
most people nowadays, round here pronounce it more-or-less as it is spelt (or
spelled).

John A Lambert
Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing
The University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: might/may/would? HELP!
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:56:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.141602.27573@samba.oit.unc.edu> nrr@med.unc.edu (Nancy Ryan) writes:
>Could someone help me with a grammar problem?  I am writing
>a survey and I am having a problem deciding whether to use
>might, may or would in the following statements:

>Please indicate your experience with each of the following items and then
>rate each item based on how useful you think each one was or
>**would/might/may*** be in helping you to use the system effectively?

Well, first I'd get rid of the question mark.  8-)

Would is fine here.  May suggests the present tense, and you've already
said "was."  This seems to be a sort of exit interview you're conducting,
right?

>and
>These are not available.  Please rate how useful you feel each
>**might/may/would** be in helping you to use the system effectively.

Would.  In both cases you want the people to speak their minds as 
directly as possible, so don't ask them to consider things that are
very conditional.  And you've already introduced the subjective "you
feel".

You've touched on a flashpoint of current usage, btw.  "may have" seems
to be replacing "might have" as a past conditional in all cases, including
those contrary to fact.  I've seen this in USA Today and the NYT in the
past three months.

But then, all the other inflections of "may" have disappeared, and there
have been enough of them in the past that they fill an entire column of
the OED.
>
>
>any opinions?
>Thank you, nancy nrr@med.unc.edu


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Which one is correct?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 05:00:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.204841.8545@Princeton.EDU>, srinivas@bombay.Princeton.EDU (Santhanam Srinivasan) writes:

> (I tried posting this before, but it doesn't seem to have reached.)
>
> Which of the following, if any, is correct?  Is there a better way
> of expressing this?
>
> --> The British Labour Party has not even had the time to start their
>                                                                 ~~~~~
>     annual conference, now that their divisions are already bursting
>                        ---      ~~~~~ 
>     out in the open.
>
> --> The British Labour Party has not even had the time to start its
>                                                                 ~~~
>     annual conference, now that its divisions are already bursting
>                        ---      ~~~
>     out in the open.

   Either singular or plural is correct.  Britons use the plural more than
Americans.  

> Is the "now" correct/necessary?

   No.  

   "A now that B" means "Before event B, situation A did not obtain, but 
since (i.e. after) B, A."  In *this* case, the Labour Party *never* had time
to start this year's conference, so "now that" is incorrect.

   You can't just delete the "now", though; you have to use a different
construction.

> Any suggestions would be appreciated. 
 
   "The British Labour Party's divisions are bursting out into the open, 
before they've even had time to start their annual conference."

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Person
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:14:39 GMT

In article <hayesstw.161.726389345@risc1.unisa.ac.za> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
>In article <20218.2b495516@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
[we know what he wrote...]
>Actually "persona" is from Latin. The Greek word "prosopon", which is often 
>translated into Latin as "persona" means "face towards", and is therefore 
>somewhat closer to the modern English meaning of "person". Another Greek 
>word sometimes translated as "person" is "ipostasis" (literally "
>understanding, what stands under"")

>But I too prefer MAN in general, and if I want to refer to a male human 
>being I use the word "male". If the inclusive use of "man" is prohibited by 
>the thought police of neo-fascist feminismn, 

McKeon seems to have taught you the conditional style!   

It's not.

Nor is stupid name-calling very helpful in this or any other discussion.
The realization that "man" doesn't always work well in the inclusive
sense is a very old one.  Nothing to do with "thought-police," "neo-
fascists," or even feminism, when you get right down to it.  

OK: "Persona" is not Greek, and "man" is neither prohibited by anyone
nor objected to only by feminists.  Got it?

>then I suggest that we use  
>"thpic" to replace it. It is an acronym for "the human person in community", 
>which is what I normally understand, and mean, by "man".

Yeah.  "A man walks down the street."  You don't think gender?  Most of
us do, and Paul Simon certainly expected us to.  

Roger
From: jim@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jim  Scobbie)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 's or s'
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:29:17 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

You'll all be delighted to hear that there are little poster frames
for sale with a card inside saying what they are and what they can be
used for, and, this is the point, they say "useful for framing
posters, photo's and cards" [sic] This is a mass marketed product, note.

I suspect it's a combination of plural, possessive and deleted-letters
usages. 

o o
 J
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:13:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.200804.8817@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu
(Roger Lustig) writes:

> More snot, more ignorance.  Also an odd shift -- or are marketroids 
> suddenly postmodern?  

You got me, Roger.  I admit I don't know what "postmodern" means.  Nor do
I care.  I put it in strictly for laughs.

> Wrong.  That is *not* what the word means, is *not* how the word is
> used.
>
> "Functionality" is merely the noun form of the adjective "functional."
>
> And "functional" has several meanings, the most important one wrt its
> noun form being "designed with function in mind" or similar  (as opposed
> to design with decoration or some other attribute in mind).

Oh my.  How could I not have known what "functional" means and how good of
you to enlighten me.  However, I beg to differ.  That is one meaning of
"functional", but it is not the one most closely associated with
"functionality".

A very common meaning of "functional" is "able to function", "not broken".
And "functionality" means "the quality of being able to perform some
function".  Something can have "a high degree of functionality" meaning
(to the extent that such nonsense means anything at all) that it does lots
of things or does what ever it is supposed to do well.

Tell me, on your thesis, what does "functionality" mean?  Have you ever
heard someone say a thing "has functionality" rather than "is functional"
to mean "not merely decorative"?

BTW, Webster's 3rd International gives "utility" as a synonym for
"functionality" which seems to support my view.  It also provides a possible
answer to the original question, though it's still abstract.  I prefer to
say that a scale "weighs things" rather than that it has "weight measurement
functionality".

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: Re: scut work
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:26:24 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-09-93 19:20

JONATHAN@JSPC.WIMSEY.BC.CA asked:

> I understood "scut work" to be small jobs that have to be done, but that
> folk would just as soon not do themselves.  Recently, though, I thought to
> look this up in the dictionary and found that it isn't there!  Not in
> Oxford's Concise, nor in the original OED.  Possibly, it is related to
> "short work", but this is not clear.
> 
> So, can anyone supply an authoritative definition and origin?  
 
I found the word in the Houghton Mifflin Canadian Dict. (our version of the 
AHD but I don't think it's going to shed much light on your usage:

   scut n. A stubby, erect tail, such as that of a hare, rabbit or deer.
   [ME _scut_, hare]

And, having just written this, I was about to sign off when my eye fell on 
John Ciardi's "A Browser's Dict." wherein is found:

   scut book  _In hospital shop talk_ The daybook in which senior doctors 
   list "dirty work" for intern, as urinalysis, stool tests and other 
   disagreeable work ... [At root: "shit book." Prob. most immediately
   < Sc. _scuttal_, a pool of filthy water (urine related at base); and to
   _scutter_, to make a mess of, to botch, to smear (feces related at 
   base). So to Eng. _scut_ the stubby erect tail of a rabbit or deer 
   (anus-related).  The _scut_ root, along with the _skate_ in _cheapskate_
   ... all derive < OE _scittan_, to shit...

I am now not sure whether this etymological foray has been scut work or 
not, but there it is...

Regards: *PC* <peter.churchill@rose.com> --just far enough out of Toronto

                                                        
---
   RoseReader 2.00 P001013
   RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Roger the permissivist
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 05:05:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.235159.6508@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

> Calling me a "permissivist" with all its aura of Dr. Spock is 
> nonsense, as I espouse no such attitude.

   You're not a permissivist?  What are you not in favour of permitting?

   Was Dr. Spock a permissivist?  Or did he condemn them?

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:44:50
Organization: Konrad Zuse Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin
Distribution: alt
	<1993Jan12.043809.7417@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <8217@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: borodin.zib-berlin.de
In-reply-to: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com's message of 12 Jan 93 19:17:24 GMT


In article <8217@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian
D Diehm) writes:

   Yes, functionality does have a slightly different meaning from function.
   But, can the meaning be better expressed (more simply) using existing terms?


Funnily enough, this is exactly the question I asked in my posting at
the start of this thread.  Have we (re)invented Usenet ping-pong yet?

							Chris

--

           on sighting mathematicians it should unhook the algebra from their
           minds and replace it with with poetry; on sighting poets it should
               unhook poetry from their minds and replace it with algebra
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:46:49 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan11.020701.9391@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>b) "Toilet"
>
>Britons tend to use this word as a substitute for what Americans would call
>the "bathroom" or the "restroom" or (I hear, in some parts of the country)
>the "washroom."  

I thought it was the Yanks who tended to use "bathroom" and "restroom"
as substitutes to what the British would call the "toilet", the "WC",
the "lavatory" or the "loo".

I was really close to being astonished when I joined a tour of the
Science Library during my first week at Brandeis and the guide
mentioned that there were bathrooms available on the lower ground.
Needless to say, I actually believed for the moment that Americans
were in the habit of taking showers in the library, and I salted it
away as yet another interesting feature of theirs.

And then there were those arrows pointing to some mysterious
restrooms, which to my mind were probably equipped with sofas or the
like and intended for working people to take occasional naps.  I don't
remember how many weeks it took me to find out the truth about them.

-- 
 `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: pwhitman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Philip N Whitman)
Subject: history's bogus etymology
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:32:01 GMT

Oh, great.  Just last quarter I found myself writing a letter to the editor of 
the campus newspaper, pointing out the error of the columnist who said, "It 
doesn't take a genius to figure out where this word [history] came from," and 
proceeded to imply that it was a running together of "his story."  I should 
have known that this was an idea too ignorant for just one person to believe 
it.  I watched, disgusted, as the character M. O'Connell on _Northern Exposure_
indignantly told TV watchers all across the country that "It doesn't take a
college degree to figure out where that word came from!"  (I was struck by the
similarity in prefacing; maybe I should cross post this to alt.folklore.urban 
and see if this assertion always is preceded by "It doesn't take a ... to ...")
I wonder how many million people were gullible enough to buy it, and of them,
how many will spread it around to others.

-Neal Whitman
From: mckeonj@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Person
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:29:58 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

The word "person" derives from the Greek "PERSONA", being
the megaphone mask used by actors in the drama to disguise
their real faces and amplify their voices, and meaning
"sound-through".
I suppose "person" would be an apt word for those who insist,
loudly, on using it to mask their own and others' humanity.
Myself, I prefer MAN in general and WOMAN in particular.
-- 
"Ich am of Irlonde" (medieval fragment used by Yeats)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:55:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.232823.4210@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders) writes:
>roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>Perhaps you could make the effort just *once*, Charles, to discuss
>>a word without being insulting.  Many people who are not marketroids--
>>whatever that is--use the word plainly and with a specific meaning. 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Your rage has obviously kept you from thinking clearly about what 
>>the word means, and what its contexts suggest.

>You asked for a definition of "marketroid" . . . here it is!  I took it
>from the Jargon File v2.9.9 (also referred to as "The Hacker's 
>Dictionary").  I have also included the definition of "droid" for your
>edification.

>: marketroid: /mar'k*-troyd/ alt. 'marketing slime',
>   'marketing droid', 'marketeer' n. A member of a company's
>   marketing department, esp. one who promises users that the next
>   version of a product will have features that are not actually
>   scheduled for inclusion, are extremely difficult to implement,
>   and/or are in violation of the laws of physics; and/or one who
>   describes existing features (and misfeatures) in ebullient,
>   buzzword-laden adspeak.  Derogatory.  Compare {droid}.

[rest of enlightening info deleted]

>You may not agree with these definitions, but they are generally agreed
>upon by those of us who write programs for a living (hence, their 
>inclusion in the Jargon File). 

Well, who would have guessed that Charles would avail himself of 
such a jargon-bound word?  Surely you don't want us to think that 
you're one of *them,* now, do you?

Roger
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: 's or s'
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:59:31 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

I saw a commercial on TV recently (I forgot exactly what it said) but
it said something to the effect of "kid's colds."  Hmmm.... who was the
proofreader for this commercial.

--
If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because 
maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you 
because, hey, free dummy.

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:13:57 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1993Jan2.012826.27985@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

# I remember seeing the musical "Chess" in the West End some years
# back and I was quite struck by the following song lyric:
#
#         We wish, no, must make our disgust
#         For this abuse perfectly clear.
#         We're here for chess.  Are the U.S.?
#         If so, why foul the atmosphere.
#
# I was quite taken aback by the "are the US?" business.  "Is the US"
# would have worked just fine w/o ruining the meter of the song.

But it was the U.S. *team*, right?  Not the country.

The only time I've ever heard the plural after "United States" is when
the demonstrative "these" precedes it, and that usage is a bit
politico-poetic.

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Collecting Funny Mistranslations
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:14:14 GMT

In article <1ish91INNnv8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
>
>Does anyone have similar examples to post or e-mail to me? B

One year I was covering the Consumer Electronics Show (a large trade show
of manufacturers) for a magazine.  I stumbled upon a taiwanese company
selling a telephone gadget that did things like voice/fax switching,
password protection from crank callers, etc.  Ad went something like this.

	Is apply a telephone line very difficult and expensive?
	Buy this new autolink switcher!  Will make you feel so
	convenient!  Have a quite night but no missing of important
	phone calls.  

In describing the plastic case, they said the unit had a "delicate outlook."


--
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