HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:36:18 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov19.033247.27605@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
<In article <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
[_simile_]
<>[if enough]
<>>>language users care enough about the language this should result in
<>>>improvements. 
<
<>>How?  What kind of improvements?
<
<>The specialisation of originally synonymous terms to express finer
<>distinctions, or to remove ambiguity, for example. An instance of this
<>is the British adoption of the US spelling "program" to designate a
<>computer program, and the specialisation of "programme" for such cases
<>as "programme of research". u
<
<Are the Brits demonstrably better off for having created this distinction?

I tend to regard it as useful.  I may not be demonstrably better off
for having it, but then the same holds for the vast majority of things
that I enjoy using.

Some people prefer not to take advantage of it, and to write "programme"
in both cases.  I have nothing against that, either.

<I don't recall ever getting confused,
<so I doubt I'd pay much to implement that distinction.

Neither would we, but we don't have to pay anything.  We get it for free.  :-)

<The distinction certainly didn't come about *because* there was confusion.
<It came about because there were thousands of American books and papers
<on computers.

Well, those books and papers contain oodles of other American
spellings, yet "program" is the only one that the rest of the
English-speaking world has adopted for the technical use of the word.
Is there anything special about it?  I don't know.  Maybe some day
someone will apply this principle again, and introduce another
distinction of a similar kind, with the British spelling used for the
ordinary intuitive meaning of the word and the American spelling for
the technical one.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* 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,alt.sex
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:22:13 GMT

dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:

>"Oh, someone will be coming by with the Harrison transcripts.  Send them
> to Joe in room 405."
>
>Now, does the 'them' in that sentence refer to the transcripts or to the
>person bringing them?
>
>See the problem?

How is this any more grave than the problem that arises presently from:

"Oh, some folks will be coming by with the Harrison transcripts.  Send them
to Joe in room 405." 

We still don't know what "them" is referring to.  

rini

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
From: ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronounSKIP
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:04:10 GMT

In article <BxL0I3.1z4@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.200400.2865@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
> 
>>I have noticed that I use the word "they" as a singular, gender unspecified
>>pronoun.  Example:
>>
>>      I saw someone the other day.  I was to far away to see what
>>they looked like, but something was familiar about them.
>>
>>  I know that most people cringe hearing the strange mix of number in
>>this sentence. I say things like this often, though, and my roommate
>>seems to have become accustomed to it.    
> 
> Actually, I suspect that most people employ this construct, even those
> who'd like not to have to admit it.  Just about everyone I know uses
> this technique unconsciously.  As far as I'm concerned, that's proof
> positive that we need and have a gender-neutral pronoun.
> 
-- 
To me this is proof positive that we already have one: `they'.

Even `grammarians' gave up long ago worrying about `you' being used for both
singular and plural. How come some people still get their knickers in a twist
over the everyday use by millions of others of the singular `they'.

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: srinivas@lips.ecn.purdue.edu (The Abode of Wealth)
Subject: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:48:10 GMT




Hi,

I have a question for you knowledgeable netters.

I have noticed that people use an apostrophe in writing "1960s". What is
right, "1960s" or "1960's"?  I feel that the use of an apostrophe is 
wrong because when the words are used instead of numbers, "sixties" 
is the correct word and not "sixty's". The apostrophes also creep 
into plurals of commonly used abbreviations. What is right - "IMHOs" 
or "IMHO's"? Using the full form is not an alternative here because
I am using abbreviations of long technical phrases and it is very tedious to
use the full forms a hundred times.

Thanks,
Srinivas
--
R. Srinivas					srinivas@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Re: Things go better with
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:45:54 GMT

In article <857.18.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)  writes:
>TO: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
>
>GMW>Apparently in the late 19th century, it became quite common to call a
>   >portable camera a "Kodak," or at least ie was popular until Eastman Kodak
>   >ran an ad compaign that went something like, "If it isn't an Eastman, it
>   >isn't a Kodak."

Interesting aside:  "Kodak" made it into French in 1891.

>Somehow this reminds me of the story about the Benz motor car company,
>which named an entire production run after a young lady named Mercedes,
>the daughter of a major customer.  The name stuck, and now almost nobody
>remembers that the car company was Benz, not Mercedes.

Time to revise my trivia hoard?  I heard it was Benz's niece.  Do you
have a reference I can chase?

-- 
Douglas Harper | harper@oracorp.com | +1 (607) 277-2020
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dunphy@cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Dunphy)
Subject: Re: I palindrome I
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:01:33 GMT

I think "Girl on Bikini eyeing boy eyeing bikini on girl" is from a book
of palindromes. I'll try to get the reference for you.
-- 
Michael Dunphy          dunphy@cs.uiuc.edu
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:59:31 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

Quoting idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) in article <BxyxB8.HKA@cck.coventry.ac.uk>:

>For a gentle and humorous introduction to infinities, try "Infinity and
>the Mind", by Rudy Rucker.

Or for a high weirdness introduction, try his "White Light": half acid
trip, half transfinite number theory.  I liked it.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: last,latest,latter
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:46:55 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Nov17.164613.5916@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>Last: final one in a series.  Or, in contrast to "current" or "this":
>     previous.  The Last of the Mohicans means there won't be any more.
>
>      Last week was the week before this one.

This, of course, depends on the definition of "this":  "last
Wednesday" was the most recent Wednesday before today (six days ago,
the 11th); "last Monday" was two Mondays ago (eight days ago, the
9th).  This is because "this Wednesday" is in the future, whereas
"this Monday" is in the past.  "This Tuesday" doesn't seem to have a
referent (today being Tuesday), although "last Tuesday" was seven days
ago.

You can also think about it as "the X of last week".  This can make
"last Monday" ambiguous on Saturday, when "this Monday" moves into the
future.

"This weekend" can be in either the past or the future depending on
the day of the week.  Thinking about it, it seems that on Monday, it's
generally in the past, on Tuesday it can go either way, and on
Wednesday through Friday, it's in the future.  On Saturday and Sunday,
it's always the one we're in.

Months and seasons behave similarly, but not identically.  "Last
September" was in 1991, "last January" was probably in 1992, but may
have been in 1991.

Of course, "this past X" and "this coming X" always refer to the past
and future respectively, and so are equivalent to one or more of "last
X", "this X", and "next X".

Also, the construct "the last X" or "the last N Xs", includes "this X"
(when "this X" is not in the future):  "During the last two years...",
"In the last month...", "On the last three Saturdays...", (not
including "this Saturday", which is in the future).  "On the last
Saturday" and "In the last August" are wrong.

"The last issue of Time" is also the latest, except that when
discussing the latest issue, one can also refer to "the last issue",
which is the one before.

I hope this didn't confuse things :-).  For non-native speakers,
Roger's explanation was essentially correct.  Time can just get
complicated.

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | C: I'd like to take a few of you back
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U |    with me.  To prove I discovered
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       |    you.
				       | I: What you mean, discover us?  We
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       |    discover you.  We discover you on
    (415)857-7572		       |    beach here.  Is all how you look
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Panglossian?
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:43:35 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <By3FxA.E4v@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.230208.5596@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

>>Roger, you have this amazingly panglossian view of the world.  Anything
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^

>Can someone please tell me the meaning of this word? Unfortunately I
>do not have my Chambers dictionary with me :(  and the Websters 
>(oh, how I hate even to look at it; but alas, I have no other option)
>doesn't list it. A previous article  mentioned that the on-line OED
>is inaccessible.


This means "thinking like Dr. Pangloss."  Pangloss was a character in
Voltaire's _Candide, or, Optimism_ -- he was a philosopher who instructed
Candide that all is for the best in this, the best of all possible 
worlds.  Everything has a purpose -- noses exist to keep spectacles on
faces, etc. -- and nothing could be better.  Pangloss was Voltaire's
caricature of Leibnitz, who actually argued something like that.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Let's Kodak it
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:21:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.142231.41149@uvmark.uucp> roger@uvmark.uucp (Roger MacNicol) writes:
>
>An interesting use of "Kodak" exists in recording studios.  I was 
>working in Solid State Logic's demonstration studio one day and an 
>engineer said "Are you planning to Kodak it or milk it?"  meaning are 
>you planning to put the mikes back to get the big picture or put the 
>mikes close in to hear the musicians breath.

Well, this sure isn't a widespread usage in the recording industry.  It may
only have been in that engineer's idiolect.  Most recording engineers would
say something like "Are you going to close-mike it?"

Of course, as an engineer who records mostly classical, I'd say that I try
to Ektar everything.


--
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: jra@tristan.top.cis.syr.edu (James R. Allwright)
Subject: will likely
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:43:43 EST

I often see "will likely" used to mean "will probably"/"is likely to" or
"are likely to".

e.g. It will likely snow this winter.

This strikes me as wrong, but as it is so common (in the US) one
can argue that it is established US usage. What I would like to know is:

1. When did this expression first start being used ?

2. What was wrong with "will probably" ? My suspicion is that long ago
some newspaper headline writer wanted to save two characters. Headline
writing is the creative activity responsible for translating "Man charged 
with attempted murder" to "Man on murder bid rap" (to take an example from 
a British newspaper).

James Allwright,
Department of Computer and Information Science,
Syracuse University, NY, USA
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:30:13 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <11636@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>>Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:

>>a)	2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.

>>b)	1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.  

>>Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
>>perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
>>than the number 2, in the above contexts.

>Not really.  We agree that "unique" means `only one [of a kind]', but
>why should something be called more or less unique just because it was
>selected from a larger or smaller set?

Because we don't generally speak of things as being unique if they 
come from a small set, and because we usually *do* use unique to
indicate the ultimate in rarity.  "Unique" is usually used -- though
not in mathematics, I'll grant you -- in ways closely related to        
scales of rarity.

>a) 2 is the only integer that is an even prime number.
>b) 1/3 is the only real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.

>Is 1/3 onlier than 2, or what?  :-) (If "more unique" makes sense,
>then so does "onlier", since the two mean the same thing.)

They don't mean the same thing.  Or rather, "unique" may be used
in the sense of "only" that you're using, but most uses of "unique"
aren't like that.  "Unique" is generally used for emphasis, to draw
attention to some other quality--as in these two sentences, which
have explanatory clauses to say *how* it's unique.  We don't say
"my unique son" anymore (though one did say that in the 17th C).

Sure, their meanings are very similar, but they have different cachets,
different webs of association.  Not to mention different frequencies of
use--"only" is one of the most-used words in the language, whereas 
"unique" is not, and, as I have argued elsewhere, is almost entirely
avoidable if one feels like it.  Try doing without "only."

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Derivation of "wonk"
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:14:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.231101.29504@Cadence.COM> vince@cadence.com (Vince Gibboni) writes:
>> (Ted B Samsel) writes:
>> I like this word WONK. As in  policy WONK. Any ideas on the
>> derivations thereof?

>    Sounds suspiciously similar to wonky...

Well, when I was in college, about 17 years ago, I was told that
a) the expression came from MIT, and
b) that a WONK is someone who KNOWs everything backwards.

I think I saw the same explanation in a Safire column some time
later, though that's not necessarily worth much.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Panglossian?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:24:44 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Nov20.230208.5596@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>
>Roger, you have this amazingly panglossian view of the world.  Anything
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^

Can someone please tell me the meaning of this word? Unfortunately I
do not have my Chambers dictionary with me :(  and the Websters 
(oh, how I hate even to look at it; but alas, I have no other option)
doesn't list it. A previous article  mentioned that the on-line OED
is inaccessible.

                                                  Thanks,
                                                           Mandar.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                         - The Beatles
From: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Take a shave
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:21:04 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu

Paul Burnett writes:
>
>LLC>But will you take a powder?
>
>LLC>Anybody know where that phrase came from?
>
>From the "powder", or dust, left billowing in one's wake when
>one speedily departs?  My 2. worth....
>
Or from beating a hasty retreat to the "powder room", where one goes
to "powder one's nose"? (My 2d)

---------------------  
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |   
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: "quite unique"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:30:14 GMT

A few things I noticed while browsing books on usage:

Fowler I: "...expressions for which the illiterate often substitute it:"

Fowler II: "...expressions for which it is often ignorantly substituted:"
(referring to the use of "unique" to mean "unusual," etc.)

I guess Gowers didn't like the idea of calling so many great writers
illiterate.

First comment in the OED after pronunciation and etymology notes:

  Regarded by Todd (1818) as 'an affected and useless term of modern times.'

Todd wanted people to stop using the word altogether!  After all, there 
were perfectly good words that meant the same thing...

OED's only usage comment:

  The usage in the comparative and superlative, and with advs. as 
  "absolutely," "most," "quite," "thoroughly," "totally," etc., has
  been objected to as tautological.

This is followed almost immediately by examples of "absolutely,"
"totally," and "uniquest."  The large Supplement gives several
more examples of modified "unique" without comment.  

Note that the OED does not say "generally regarded as incorrect," or
"widely disapproved of," or the like, which it often does in other
cases where questions of usage arise.

Roger
From: microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:29:57 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, U
Originator: microsoc@black

In article <1992Nov16.052702.21102@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>I can't believe I missed this the first time around.
>
>In article <1992Nov16.023754.9072@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.180410.20206@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>>I take it, then, that you've actually looked up "quite" and "unique"
>>>in a dictionary or similar?  Again, I refer you to Evans and Evans,
>>>who address the issue directly.
>
>>I have, actually.  Unique means "being the only one of its kind."
>>That people also use it to mean "very unusual" doesn't mean much.
>
>Excuse me, Gabe, but when we're discussing words, what does "X means Y"
>mean, if not "people use X to mean Y"?  Is there some other source of
>meaning?  If "people also use it to mean Z" doesn't mean much to you, 
>how *do* you determine what a word means?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>Roger

Roger -

	You aren't related to Humpty Dumpty, by any chance, are you?

Yours,

		Marc

PS I haven't got my copy of Alice with me at the moment; perhaps someone
	would care to post the quotation that I'm thinking of...
From: LMEBGO@kiera.ericsson.se (Bengt G{llmo, L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 04:24:09 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum) writes:

> ... (Note
>that for human beings, the past participle is not hung, but hanged:
>"He was hanged at dawn.")

Maybe he was also well hung :-)
(isn't that an expression for having a big penis?)

Bengt
-- 
Forwarded-By:
Bengt Gallmo                        e-mail: lmebgo@kiera.ericsson.se
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson    phone:  +46 8 719 1940
S-126 25 STOCKHOLM                  fax:    +46 8 719 3988
SWEDEN

The bad thing about good things is that they usually come to an end.
The good thing about bad things is that they, also, usually come to an end.
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:55:01 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

Quoting kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com in article <1992Nov19.005116.7236@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>:
>
>"Horny as Kay Dekker"?  I'm not familiar with that expression.

You may be unique in that respect...

[starts running away]
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english