HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: fraction
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:25:34 GMT

Marie Coffin objects to the use of fraction to mean small
fraction, for example, `Only a fraction of the cost.'

Yes, well, that is a common objection to a common practice.  But
fraction means `a breaking' and was for some time a synonym of
fracture.  Fraction also meant something broken off, fragment,
scrap, small piece, and was so used (in the early 17th century)
by Shakespeare and has been used in that sense to this day.

Not that historical precedent, use by respected authors, or
anything else for that matter will stay those who object to
this usage from the swift completion of their appointed
rounds.


-- 
Dennis Baron                                         debaron@uiuc.edu 
University of Illinois at Urbana                     217-333-2392
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Subject: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:41:16 GMT

  I noticed recently in a conversation with someone a difference of
usage between different areas of the U.S.  I distinguish between
"this" weekend and "next" weekend, so that the former is the weekend
immediately following the time I am talking about, whereas the latter
is the weekend after that.  This similarly applies to days of the
week.

  However, I have run across many people who do not make this
distinction--both "this" weekend and "next" weekend refer to the one
directly following.  Needless to say, this has caused some confusion
when I am not thinking about my usage...

  I am from Massachusetts--I think the usage may be constrained to the
northeast U.S.  I know that it is not used in the Midwest.

  Any comments?  Is this distinction made anywhere else in the
English-speaking world?

Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:28:25 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>
>>	Hardly.  You wouldn't recogniZe "original" English.  And what makes
>>it "pure"?
>Because it is the one spoken and conformed to by the original speakers
>of the language.

Perhaps I shouldn't enjoy this so much.

Mandar, who are these original speakers?  Are they the Saxons?  Are they
the many Norse tribes that settled throughout England, and left a per-
manent linguistic mark on the countryside?  Are they the Normans who con-
tributed so mightily to our vocabulary, and who eventually adopted the
language in toto?

Mandar, you again have selective "hearing," ignoring many sensible things
that have been said, in efforts to preserve this preoccupation you have
with the Brits.  As one poster pointed out, spelling has fluctuated sub-
stantially throughout the last few centuries, and American conventions have
no more or less claim to "originality" than do British ones.  The American
dialect(s) are also no more or less "original" than the various British
dialects, and so the situation there is analogous.  In fact, you'll find
may archaic features of English preserved in American speech that are
being lost in Britain, and surely vice-versa as well.

Language is a glorious thing.

Personally, my guess is that all your life you've been taught to value
emulation of a specific English dialect, and that you find it hard to look
back on your conditioning, and do the right thing:  Laugh!

I can't wait until you travel to Australia.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
From: bwalsh@math.rutgers.edu (Bertram Walsh)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: I'm so gay
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:22:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

>> Is the original meaning of "gay" lost forever?

Hugh Rawson's _Dictionary of Euphemisms & Other Doubletalk_ -- which
is a dictionary only in that it is lexicographically ordered by
subject -- has an entertaining discussion of what happens to words
that become euphemisms for 'naughty' things [attn flame generators:
note the inverted commas].  He formulates a "Gresham's Law" according
to which these meanings drive out original meanings, and gives nu-
merous examples.  So there's no hope: e.g., the 1934 Fred Astaire
movie "Gay Divorcee'", whose title was itself bowdlerized from the
then-excessively-risque' "Gay Divorce," is doomed to a life of
perpetual smirk (for reasons its makers may even have contemplated:
Rawson, following the OED [I believe], traces the current meaning of
'gay' back to 1889 verbally and to 1935 in print).

BTW, Onions traced the original 'gay' back to the 13th c. and old
French, but its origins remained obscure.

Bertram Walsh  Mathematics Dep't  Rutgers University New Brunswick NJ 08903
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Motor bus (was Re: data)
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.102538.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>
>Could somebody please mail or post a copy of the "motor bus" poem?
>(It's been posted here before, but I neglected to take a copy.)  The
>version I have in mind has more than one verse, and I think the very
>last word is "bo".


			    THE MOTOR BUS

		   What is this that roareth thus?
			Can it be a Motor Bus?
		    Yes, the smell and hideous hum
			 Indicat Motorem Bum!
		     Implet in the Corn and High
			Terror me Motoris Bi:
			 Bo Motori clamitabo
		       Ne Motore caedar a Bo --
			Dative be or Ablative
		     So thou only let us live: --
		   Whither shall thy victims flee?
		    Spare us, spare us, Motor Be.
		     Thus I sang; and still anigh
		      Came in hordes Motores Bi,
		       Et complebat omne forum
			 Copia Motorum Borum.
		   How shall wretches live like us
			Cincti Bis Motoribus?
			 Domine, defende nos
		       Contra hos Motores Bos!

				-- A. D. Godley



--
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: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:33:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group
Keywords: missing article

In article <1992Jul21.083343.24845@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
[deletions]
>
>In Britain you can use
>	He went to hospital
>	He went to  a hospital
>	He went to the hospital
>	He went into hospital
>	He went into a hopsital
>	He went into the hospital
>
>all with slightly different meanings. It seems that American had lost
>this ability.
>

Quite true, Simon, as regards hospital, but we retain the
same flexibility with the words school and college (but not
with university).

I went to school. I went to a school. &c.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Only the mediocre can always be at their best." -- Mencken
For an average time write uunet!microsoft!frankm
For an even more mediocre time try frankm@microsoft.com
From: windsor@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Katherine Windsor)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "French" spacing (was: How many spaces after a period?)
Date: 23 Jul 1992 17:40:42 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul23.105011.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>One which has always amused me is "filet americain": American fillet.
>This refers to a dish made with uncooked ground beef.  (Not just lightly
>cooked, but completely uncooked.)  How did this ever get to be thought
>of as an American recipe?  Most Americans I know use the term "rare"
>(in reference to a steak, for example) to mean what I would call
>"well done", so I find it hard to imagine that raw meat would be a
>popular dish in the US.
>
>Peter.

I always thought this was "steak tartar."  Yes, it is a strange one,
once very popular at cocktail parties.  I don't know why it has become
so unpopular, unless it is the mere idea of what they put into cattle 
these days.  Myself, I like a juicy and very rare steak about once
a year.  It takes me 12 months to recover...
	-katherine



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: Q.E.D.
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:37:22 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 07-29-92 23:09

connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu comments:

| In article <1992Jul28.213433.13985@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
| > kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar) writes:
| >>
| >>I was disturbed to see how the language is used here in the USA.
| >>What I have really come to despise are expressions such as:
| >>
| >>"I did not get the invite."
| >>"Dont do drugs." (Seen on billboards all over the country.)
| >
| > When one learns a language in school that is not one's mother-tongue,
| > one has to memorize a lot of rules that come naturally to a native
| > speaker.  It is easy to get so wrapped up with these rules that one
| > begins to see the rules as the language itself, and not as abstrac-
| > tions from it.  It is also easy to superimpose the norms of standard
| > written English on living speech communities, forgetting that, be-
| > cause you are not part of a living community of first-language Eng-
| > lish speakers, you haven't had the opportunity to learn the various
| > subtleties - regionalisms, levels of formality, etc. - that charac-
| > terize British, American, Australian, South Afreican, Canadian (etc.)
| > speech.
| >
| > If you find colloquial dialects unbearable, given your background,
| > then try reading alt.usage.english.  You may find partial fulfillment
| > there....
|
| My, we are getting nasty, aren't we?  And xenophobic to boot.
|
| Come on.  Native speakers of English make all of the mistakes that
| Kartik complained about, and that you and others have found in his
| post.  We have plenty of natives who try to make us write the way
| Sister Porcupina wanted us to because she thought that was the only
| way.  Kartik didn't tell us anything we didn't already know: that
| American newspapers sometimes make dreadful mistakes, and that some
| speakers of English (both native and foreign) don't write so well.
| Read some of the posts by natives.  Some of you guys don't bother
| to capitalize, punctuate, or even try to spell correctly, and we have
| constant trouble with posts that simply don't say what the poster
| intended.  Even *I* don't always make myself too clear, as a recent
| exchange on Black English --> German dialects illustrated.  Let's
| just cool it, do lunch, and hope that Bush can be beat.
|
| --Leo Connolly

Q.E.D.

Luv it!

Regards: *PC* <peter.churchill@rose.com>   Toronto
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001013: (1) Open Mouth (2) Insert Foot....
   RoseMail 1.70: RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:46:43 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29190301@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.191955.20099@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>
>> I did not make that point LITERALLY.......it is just that when
>> you substitute letters for pronounciations, you can end up with funny
>> results....that's all. I AM NOT proposing to change the spelling of
>> fish to ghoti. I was just pointing out some of the language's 
>> idiosyncracies, which make it quite unique. 
>
>[In unison, please...]
>
>How unique is it?  Is it more unique than Hindi?
>--
>----
>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
>408-756-0895                                   USA

Yes, Hindi is primarily confined to only India (apart from variations such
as Fiji Hindi - the Hindi spoken by Indians in Fiji). In India too, only
a few states have declared Hindi as their primary language. (primarily
those located in North India). So, Hindi has not gained such a wide
usage, as has English. Besides Hindi uses the Devnagari script, which has
very precise notations  and the way a single syllable is pronounced, can
be modified with certain modifiers. So, Hindi is mostly spoken the way
it is written......nothing unique about it.......even if there are
differences, they are present in the variations of the language, not
in the standard Hindi, which is spoken in a state called Uttar Pradesh
(for those who are curious).
        The sharp differences between written and spoken English make
it quite unique.... 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)
Subject: Policy-wonk (was Re: Sound-Bite?)
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:12:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.165848.7936@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>bkannan@ha06.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan) asked:
>
>>>  Who is a policy-wonk?
>
>wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)replied:
>
>> If you can get a hold of it, take a look at William Safire's recent
>> column on this term in the New York Times Magazine, this past
>> Sunday or the one previous.
> 
> But for those of us who can't, or who can't be bothered to do the
> long library work this would involve, how about telling us yourself?

Sorry, I was a bit busy when I sent that off; I'm also not the best
source on the term, having never found occasion to use it.  Since no
one else seems to have followed up, though: I gather that a
policy-wonk is someone who delights in details of setting
(governmental) policy, without necessarily having any view of a larger
picture.  Anyone want to add to, modify or refute that?

-David
--
============================================================================
David Wald                                           wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu
   "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God"
             -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0
============================================================================
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:35:05 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au 
>  (Peter Moylan) writes:

>|> 
>|> Usually I try to avoid the ambiguity by using phrases like:
>|>      this coming Saturday (the very next Saturday to arrive)
>|>      Saturday week        (about a week and a half from now)
>|> Is the construct "Saturday week" used outside Australia?

>No - I quickly discovered I had to stop using that one, as it caused far too many
>furrowed brows. Pity, because it's a useful construction!

It is used in Britain. Or at least _I_ use it and have never had it not understood.

Philippa Hogben

pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Reverse address if posting from Janet)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au's message of Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:18:49 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 22:25:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

> To this non-American, "this weekend" means the coming weekend, and
> "next weekend" is ambiguous.  "Last weekend" is also ambiguous, but
> only because today is a Monday.  Thinking about this, I've just
> realised that to me "this Saturday" is ambiguous when I'm speaking
> on a Monday, but that "this weekend" almost always refers to the future.
> (Exception: "What did you do this weekend?")

To this USAmerican, "this weekend" and "next weekend" mean
the same thing, except when spoken during the weekend.  If
you say "next weekend" to me on Monday-Friday, it means the
one immediately following this M-F work week.  If you say
it to me on Saturday-Sunday, "this weekend" means the one
ongoing, while "next weekend" means the one coming up in a
week.

> Usually I try to avoid the ambiguity by using phrases like:
> this coming Saturday (the very next Saturday to arrive)
> Saturday week        (about a week and a half from now)
> Is the construct "Saturday week" used outside Australia?

Couldn't say.  I'd never heard of it until now.  If I
understand your definition correctly, I would refer to
the day in question as "a week from Saturday".
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: What to use instead of "pun intended"?
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: jhawk@panix.com's message of 30 Jul 92 03:19:27 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:11:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.031927.18962@panix.com>, jhawk@panix.com (John Hawkinson) writes:

> Anyway, I've noticed that occassionally I too will do this; subsequent
> reflection, however, indicates that such usage is a tad
> awkward/undesirable/something-to-avoid. Therefore, anybody have
> anything better they'd care to suggest?

Let it speak for itself.  Keep them guessing.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:20:32 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
	<1992Jul29.191955.20099@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>

	I realise you were not making the GHOTI point LITERALLY.......but it's
not such a great point because it could never happen. I didn't think you
actually wanted to change the spelling of "fish". Who would think such a
thing?

>Well then, can you tell me who on earth gave you chaps the authority to
>change the spellings?

	"Authority"? Who the hell needs authority to change spelling? This
isn't France, you know.

Ben Lukoff
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Keywords: missing article
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:05:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul20.145931.22967@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> lange@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>One difference between British and American English that's
>always seemed curious to me is the missing (to my ear) 
>article in British phrases like this:
>
>He had an accident and now he's in hospital.
>
>reasons for the difference?  Any similar usages?



"She graduated school last year."  That's
something that I hear around
here in the Philadelphia area, as well as from British friends.
I have no idea where it comes from.

--Lauren




Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: International English/Englishes
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU's message of Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:25:23 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<Bs5pKo.Ht3@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Jul29.202134.24761@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
	<1992Jul29.232523.4517@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:16:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.232523.4517@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:

> What you seem to desire is a standard international english. That's
> one thing we might usefully argue about. Then there is the question of
> *which* current variety will be the one closest to the international
> variety. 

Why, mine of course.

> of our writing system. What would be wrong with a spelling reform that
> would introduce more homogeneity into the English-speaking world,
> even though it made the spelling system harder?  Kind of quirky when
> you first think about it, but not so crazy? Or am I too tired?

Well, we wouldn't want people to think of us as effete snobs,
so adopting British spellings is out of the question.  Perhaps
you could convince them to adopt ours?  Or perhaps you're too
tired.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: Attorney
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:37:26 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 07-29-92 23:09

dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) observed:

|   => In a message to All on 07-26-92  16:48 Breadner Kenneth Cecil J said:
|
|  BKCJ> --thusly (already mentioned)
|  BKCJ> --hereinbefore (who coined this one?!)
|  BKCJ> --likewise, "thereinafter"
|
|  BKCJ> Why, oh why, can't lawyers use language the rest of us can wade
|  BKCJ> through wihout the use of hip waders?
|
| You should know what you're in for when you see on the lawyers' door,
| "John Smith and Mary Jones, PC, Attorneys at Law".
|
| Can they be attorneys at anything else?

Yes, actually.

An attorney is simply someone legally empowered to act for someone else.
If, for instance, a person is properly declared mentally imcompetent,
then someone else is appointed to act for him or her in all necessary
matters. That person, the attorney, [most often called legal guardian or
trustee] need not be a lawyer and, most often, is another member of the
family -- tinker, tailor or whatever. Unless that person is also a
lawyer, however, he or she cannot act as one and, although
properly called an attorney, cannot be called an attorney at law.

The same word attorney may properly be applied to someone to whom you
have given your proxy to vote for you at a shareholders' meeting. [I am
assuming that unlike I, everyone else is sufficiently well off to own
stocks in the first place.]

Regards: *PC*  <peter.churchill@rose.com>   Toronto
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001013: Liar:  One who tells an unpleasant truth.
   RoseMail 1.70: RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: would
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:07:49 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

All of a sudden I'm noticing people stating things with "would"
that I've also heard in the indicative, as in:

    When are you going?
    That would be tomorrow.

    Who's speaking?
    That would be John.

    Where's the game?
    That would be Mile High Stadium.

While this sort of thing has always been around a little, it seems 
a new thing to use it as frequently as I've heard of late.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

	    Sally with ally, yea, ye,
	    Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.