HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 2 Apr 92 22:53:43 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.

smithj@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes:
>  The
>Dictionary
>    of
>American and British
>      Usage

>For English Speaking People

A laudable effort. A few minor corrections:

>       surprize (a US alternate), realise (a GB alternate) and realize.
                       ^^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^^^

In English the word is alternative. (US) alternate = (Eng) alternative.

>alfalfa n : lucern

More often spelt lucerne.

>buck for v : root for

Tsk, tsk. "Root" in English means either rummage around, or have sexual
intercourse. The correct translation is "cheer" or "barrack"

>catsup n : tomatoe ketchup

More often tomato sauce. Ketchup sounds US to me.

>   [Aus] bloody Queenslander

Love it.

>high school n : grades 9-12 (ages ~15-18)
>high school diploma n : high school graduating certificate
>high (school), senior n : grades 10-12 (ages ~16-18)

Called "Forms 1 - 6" in the UK?

-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2745  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au  
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: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:01:53 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.153036.17567@sun.pcl.ac.uk>
marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk (Marcus Harvey) writes:

>And I still don't think "rooting" and "cheering" are the same.

I'd say they are strongly related but nothing like the same.

You might root silently, at an event that isn't (yet) going
on.  You and a friend are at a sports event that hasn't
started; you might be rooting for the home team, your friend
for the visitors.  One of you might ask the other: "Who ya
rootin' for?"  It means, "Who do you want to win?"  It
suggests being enthusiastic about one outcome, rather than
another.

Cheering, by contrast, is a little hard to envision at an
event that isn't currently under way.  I don't think one
would normally think of it as other than vocal; one cheers
aloud.  It suggests enthusiasm that is literally expressed,
and usually in exclamations of the "Hurray!" sort.

-- 
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
From: "Andrew C. Aiken" <aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:11:12 -0500

In <204469@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>   What we conservative prescriptivists *do* say is that *some* language 
>>changes are good (and ought to be encouraged), while *other* language 
>>changes are bad (and out to be resisted).  *That* is a different 
>>proposition entirely from the one you attribute to us.

>I don't think so.  I just think that your *basis* for deciding which changes
>are "good" and which are "bad" is somewhat arbitrary.  Personal aesthetics
>are wonderful and necessary, but it's not very friendly to enforce them on
>other people.

	Perhaps it seems arbitrary, just as the conventions of language seem
arbitrary.  The prescriptivist argues against change in the language, 
and does not believe that every change for the worse is necessarily a lost
cause.  We man the ramparts because language must have at least some fixity
to be able to convey precise meanings.  If usage is in constant flux, then 
so is the meaning of a particular sentence or paragraph.  
	It may not be "friendly" to enforce usage preferences upon others.
Yet, do we not need judges to enforce our laws?  If there we no judges, then
law would be entirely arbitrary, and society would cease to exist.  Similarly,
usage judges are necessary so that meaning does not become arbitrary.  Whether
or not you agree with a particular judge is irrelevant.  A usage judge has no
legitimate power to enforce his principles.  He has only the power of 
persuasion.  If he is successful in persuading others to adhere to certain
conventions, then why should you complain?  

>Besides, unlike most areas of human endeavor, in language it is far easier
>to create than to destroy.  Once the djinn is out of the bottle...

	I disagree entirely.  It is far easier to imitate than create.


>Look, I wince as much as any of you when my colleagues use "input" as a verb,
>or "data" as a singular noun, or (gack) "conferencing" as a gerund.  But I
>consider those words to be "the front" in this battle; worrying about whether
>"hopefully" should be allowed as a sentence modifier is like worrying about
>whether the Normans should be allowed to take England.

	Our language is kept vital by age-old arguments such as the one
concerning the usage of "hopefully."


Andrew Aiken
"Ideology: the science of idiocy."
		- John Adams

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie A Coffin)
Subject: Re: Go figure
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie A Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:27:56 GMT

In article <20082@castle.ed.ac.uk>, gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> In article <1216@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
writes:
> :Recently I have seen the expression _Go figure_ in many places. It
> :seems to be a preferred way to end postings in rec.pets.cats for
> :instance. What does it mean, what is its style worth and where does it
> :come from? (Not geography-wise, but rather full sentence-wise.)
> :
> :--Ceci, dabbling along in English
> 
> It means 'Go figure it out for yourself' which in turn means
> 'Go work it out for yourself' ('figure' is being used figuratively,
> unless the postings were on sci.maths :-) )
> 
> It is, of course, American, and fairly standard off-net idiom.
> 
> Regards
>    Graham

I think this expression carries the connotation that the speaker is himself
unable to explain the phenomenon in question.  Anyone agree with me on this?

Marie
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: billion/milliard, was: English OR Esperanto?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:48:04 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <oduP8rG00W0HQU8F4K@cs.cmu.edu>, Dieter.Waeltermann@cs.cmu.edu writes:
> In article <1992Apr12.014952.22066@cs.tu-berlin.de>
> wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:
> 
>>At school I was taught the same distinction between US and UK usage,
>>and my dictionary states it too:
>>
>>             US              UK            Ger             Fre
>>10**6        million         million       Million         million
>>10**9        billion         milliard      Milliarde      
> milliard/billion
>>10**12       trillion        billion       Billion         trillion
>>10**15       quadrillion     trillion      Trillion        mille
> trillions (?)
>                               ^^^^^^^^
> As far as the German terms are concerned, your dictionary needs to be
> updated: 1 Trillion is 10**18 (10**15 is 1 Billiarde).
> 
> Dieter

I always thought that the 'official' British usage was like the German and
Dutch, at least for the steps of 10**6:

10**6 = Million,  10**12 = Billion, 10**18 = Trillion, etc with no name but
Thousand Million, Thousand Billion, etc for the intermediate numbers. As
such it is more 'logical' than the US system, but suffers from the problem
that steps of 10**6 are too long to wait for a new name.

The reality is that this logical system is a dead letter, and I doubt that
*any* English speaker uses 'Billion' without comment for 10**12. The US usage
of 'Billion' is widespread except among pedants because modern financial
discourse requires a convenient name for 10**9.
-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen                       internet: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     phone: +64-7 856 2889
University of Waikato                          fax: +64-7 838 4155
Hamilton, New Zealand      [Venue for IBC 92, 7-11 December, 1992]
______________________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:25:50 GMT

As the originator of this quiz, I think I've made my point.  Britons may
think they are so inundated with American culture, through TV shows and
other artifacts, that they (a) understand the vocabulary and (b) will be
taking the same way soon.  This is untrue, as living in the US for a while
will prove.  A number of the words on the list have overtones beyond their
literal meaning, also.

ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
|> >  backlog,
|> > Opposite way round from us!
|>    ???

An American businessman will speak with pleasure of a backlog: a book full
of orders which he is happily processing within the 30-day delivery
promise.  A backlog in Britain is something out of control and causing
trouble.

|> >  diner,
|> > Like a transport cafe - cheap & cheerful.  "yo! 2 easy-over!"
|>    Yep, but that's "Yo! 2 over-easy!"

But the most important part of the phrase is the missing part:
"50's-diner".  To eat in a diner is to be transported back 35 cultural
years, or it's not the real thing.  It is best made from aluminium.

|> >  half-bath,
|> > ?
|>    I'm not sure what's meant by this one either, unless it's used to
|>    describe the number of bathrooms a home has.

My house has Two And A Half Baths, although it has only one bath (there are
a total of 3 WC's, 5 handbasins, a shower and a combined bath/shower).  The
context is used to set the definition.

|> >  mobile home,
|> > dormobile or equivalent.  Not a caravan - has an engine. Big. (RV?)
|>    Not an RV--a mobile home is intended to be permanent housing, but
|>    can be moved (with difficulty) when necessary.  Typically one
|>    makes arrangements to own the home and rent the plot it sits upon.

That's the irony: a mobile home doesn't move.  It's the archetype of a poor
rural home, and often found in parks with common facilities.

|> > >sophomore,
|> > 2nd-year student

But remember also the tinge of meaning that comes from "sophomoric":
immature and overconfident.  The word itself is a Greek oxymoron.

|> >  ukase,
|> > Thought this was an enzyme like luciferin? :-)
|> > Something political I think.  Need context.
|>    I'm stumped, too.

Probably the most obscure word, but I see it in hifalutin political
writing.  An edict.

|> >  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.

All 25 words were culled from the American-British side of Moss, first
edition.
-- 
David Brooks				dbrooks@osf.org
Systems Engineering, OSF		uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:46:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.181330.27707@hplabs.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>In article <20038@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10.023453.4489@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>>> letter (school sports),
>>>> Note from mum to get off games
>>>
>>>Not hardly.  A big felt letter sewn on a sweater that says one "lettered"
>>>in a varsity sport (essentially, was on the team and really played).
>>
>>Oh you mean a *blue* :-)
>
>What happens when they're not blue?  (My high school's colors were red
>and gray.)
>
>
Well, both Oxford and Cambridge employ the color Blue, so no problem
there.  Back when anyone cared, UK High Schools (term taken to include
Grammar Schools etc) would award "colours" which in our case meant the
right to sew a small cloth tab under the badge on your Official School
Jacket.  The tab usually sported a set of initials indicating the 
team (e.g. AHGSCC = Acklam Hall Grammar School Cricket Club) and the
year.  Extreme cases of this had tabs all the way down from the breast
pocket to the side pocket.  This is why the UK fails in sports: we make
successful sporting types look ridiculous.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Birth, n.:
	The first and direst of all disasters.
		-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)    ||-------------------------------|
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
|| If Unix is a computer system            ||-------------------------------|
|| then a pile of bricks is a house        ||-------------------------------|
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3025 soc.bi:4469
From: kdc5072@cs.rit.edu (Kevin D Colagio)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.bi
Subject: Wayne...
Keywords: different definition
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:00:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY

My recomendation?  Relax, enjoy, and experiment.  Things will come (snicker) up
as things do, an tastes may change.  I know that I enjoy just being with
someone, and while this is not always climatic, it is enjoyable.

Another thing is giving massages and/or full body rub downs....FUN!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-  Kevin Colagio...student at large -  I am looking   - In Gods we trust,      =
=               aka                 =  for something  - All others pay cash.   -
-         KDC5072@cs.rit.edu        -   to put here.  -      -Vladimir Taltos  =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:55:58 GMT

In article <204851@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
= In article <1992Apr13.151101.5158@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
= 
= >"Sunny side up" is well-known to the British, but I
= >cannot recall ever having heard it over here. "Up" is the phrase.
= 
= Where is "over here"?  California?
= 
= I've never heard sunny-side-up eggs referred to any other way; I grew up in
= southern Illinois, Nebraska, and Maryland.

As the old cowboy said, I like my eggs dirty on both sides...

-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2921 soc.culture.british:6084
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:00:49 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

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.
>
Nope.  A half-bathroom is not a bathroom at all.  It has just a toilet
and sink.  I build one a few years ago.

I'm not sure, but I think the one with a shower is a 3/4 bath.
-- 
Glen Ecklund             glen@cs.wisc.edu          (608) 262-5084
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St.
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3010 soc.bi:4464
From: kdc5072@cs.rit.edu (Kevin D Colagio)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.bi
Subject: Re: Out of the closet
Keywords: different definition
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:57:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY

My understanding was the following...
Homosexuals would have sex in "closets" or other places where hetrosexual could
not see (the closet is a room with no windows, so when the door is closed, no
one can see what is inside...) what was going on.  Therefore, "coming out of
the closet" refers to the act of not hiding what you are doing (or being open
and letting others know that you don't care that they know this about you).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-  Kevin Colagio...student at large -  I am looking   - In Gods we trust,      =
=               aka                 =  for something  - All others pay cash.   -
-         KDC5072@cs.rit.edu        -   to put here.  -      -Vladimir Taltos  =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: smithj@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith)
Subject: Re: Wogs (was Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Organization: CS Dept. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:21:47 GMT

In article <9487@wrgate.wr.tek.com> dant@logos.wr.tek.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>howard@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Howard Ross) writes:
>>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>>
>>>In many parts of the former British empire, "wog" is a 
>>>derogatory term referring to a member of the native population.
>>
>>WOG must certainly have first stood for Wealthy Oriental Gentleman, before the
>>British began applying it to all and sundry.
>
>I'm curious, where did you learn this interesting etymology?
>
>  a. Made it up yourself
>  b. Heard it from a friend
>  c. Looked it up in a dictionary
>  d. Don't know
>  e. Same place you heard posh comes from "Port out, starboard home"
>
>Somehow I doubt that (c) is your answer.
>
>---
>Dan Tilque	--	dant@logos.WR.TEK.COM

When I was a kid the general folklore was that it stood for Wiley Oriental Gentleman.
It was applied to black people and  was as derogatory as nigger.  I later
discovered it was also applied to Arabs, Indians and generally any dark skinned
folks.
Partridge (in Dictionary of Historical Slang) says it applies to Indians
and Arabs, and that perhaps it comes from golliwog.
I wish I had access  to some OLD English dictionaries.  Current versions
list the origin as unknown.


-- 
Jeremy |-) Smith	The Tao of Wayne and Garth: "Way!"
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: "Andrew C. Aiken" <aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Different Strokes
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:10:09 -0500


	A few years back, the Dept. of Energy came up with a slogan:

		SavEnergy.

	Get it?  They saved an entire letter, and in doing so, helped
the cause of illiteracy immeasurably.


Andrew Aiken

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2810 sci.lang:3730
From: steinmet@Oswego.EDU (Roy Steinmetz)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Usage of "Why" and "Howcome"
Date: 4 Apr 92 02:44:14 GMT
Reply-To: steinmet@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Roy Steinmetz)
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY

>Actually, here in the USA loads of people use "how come" (I don't know
>how many folks in Britain use it), and I don't see any reason why it
>should disappear. 
>
>-Carl

There is another for you, "loads" to mean a large number of.
-Roy
From: ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Fastest-growing segment ...
Date: 10 Apr 1992 21:24:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu

One frequently sees sentences in newspaper articles of the form "X is the
fastest-growing segment of the population to have property P."  For example,
The April 9 New York Times contains a letter to the editor with a sentence 
like the following:  "Women now constitute the fastest-growing segment of 
the US prison population."

This locution troubles me, as I am not sure what is meant by a "segment."  
Does the above sentence mean simply that the female prison population is 
growing faster than the male prison population?  It seems to me that the 
author means a stronger statement than this.  (Digressively, if this is what 
the author means, then the word "fastest" is wrong, as only two entities are 
being compared.)

The way I interpret the statement is this.  There is a set of agreed-upon 
"segments" of our population, which undoubtedly includes the sets of
men, women, blacks, and whites, and may include others.  Given such a 
convention, the phrase "fastest-growing segment" is perfectly meaningful.  
The problem I have is this:  How am I to know which segments are included 
in this convention?  Does the letter-writer's statement imply that the female 
prison population is growing faster than the Korean prison population?  
than the dentist prison population?  than the Korean dentist prison 
population?

This may seem like pedantry (a vice to which I freely confess), but it seems
to me that this usage, which is fairly common, really is objectionably vague.
When a datum like the above example is being used to convince me of 
something, I want to know what that datum actually states.

What does the Net think about this?  Am I being thick-headed in my inability
to interpret this sort of statement?  Is there a consensus on which segments 
of the population are presumed to be included in such statements?

-Ted
From: munoz@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Augustin Munoz)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: pronounciation!
Date: 11 Apr 1992 01:27:40 GMT
Organization: School of Education, U.C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
Originator: munoz@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu





I have been reading this news group from time to time for a couple of
months.I am from Spain  and I have found some of the discussions very
helpful,specialy those related to pronounciation matters.This posting
follow that line.I apologize in advance for the tons of grammatical errors
in this posting,also I hope won't mismatch the flavor of the newsgroup(if
does,please tell me)

  
   After hanging out on one of local book stores in Berkeley looking for a
dictionary I decided to buy WEbster New World Dictionary for I thouht the
syllabification of the words migth help me understand better the
pronounciation(for a non-native speaker from Spain 'agape' would be
syllabified as a-ga-pe instead of ag-a-pe and this makes some
difference when pronouncing the word,doesn't it?).However the phonetic
symbols of this dictionary were  strange to me accostumed to the U.I.P.A. (
I think)ones that other dictionaries use(OID for instance).Here follow the
questions:

  1.-Is the syllabication the way kids in U.S.A. are taught to pronounce
slow motion at school?Are there any coherent set of rules for this
syllabification?(sometimes almost equal words split in very diffferent
ways)(In spanish as happend with the pronounciation,there is no ambiguity
here either.Both things I think are related ,I think).


  2.-Webster doesn't distinguish between the sound "o" in  "dog" and the
sound"a" in "all".Moreover it offfers as an alternative pronounciation the
sound "a" in "car".In all dictionaries and book on english pronounciation
I have seen these are three different sounds.Why aren't in Webster ?
 


  Thank you for sharing this.



            Agustin Mu~oz.