HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: plp1@Ra.MsState.Edu (pat parker)
Subject: Re: What is a "Homie" or a "Homeboy" ???
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:05:12 GMT

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.030832.3510@disk.uucp>, tony@disk.uucp (tony) writes:

>> For the past year or two I have heard the words "homie" (homey,
>> homeie?) and "homeboy" on television, in conversations of others, and I have
>> read grafitti that contains that word.  What does it mean?  Is it deroggatory
>> or should it be considered a complement?  
>> I don't watch much t.v., so I'm counting on some worldly netter to
>> cue me in.  Thanks!

>As far as I know, it depends on who is saying it.  It is often
>used to refer to a member of an urban street gang or, more
>generally, someone from the same urban, presumably ghetto,
>neighborhood.  If a homeboy uses the term, it is descriptive and
>indicates some solidarity.  If an outsider uses the word to
>describe on of the members it can be taken, depending on the tone
>and attitude of the speaker, in the same light as "nigger",
>"spic", and other racial epithets.

as far as i know, before it had these meanings (local person or racial slur)
it had the meaning "boyfriend" or in the case of homegirl, "Girlfriend,"
someone who stays in the speaker's home, a significant other.

it has had these meanings for at least five years, though recently its meaning
has changed to the connotations that mark slagle writes about.



________________________________________________________________________
pat parker
mississippi state university
plp1@ra.msstate.edu
________________________________________________________________________
"They're not leeches, they're scientologists!"
From: bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Benjamin D. Lukoff)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:13:04 GMT
	<1992Jul30.060447.3592@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>There is a certain standard to be followed..if every Tom, Dick and
Harry would >come up with his own spellings for the same set of words,
there would be total >chaos...people wouldn't understand each
other...the language would lose [its] >very purpose...communication!

Well, obviously, an Englishman can read an American newspaper, and an
American can read an English newspaper without any sort of problem.
Furthermore, every Tom, Dick and Harry is not coming up with his own
spellings. The English language as spoken in the United States is not
exactly the same as spoken in England because England is across the
Atlantic Ocean, and the two countries' people are somewhat isolated from
each other.
Also, this stuff about the English people, since it's THEIR language,
should be the ones to determine the use of the language around the
world, would you spell "laugh" as "laff" if that's what they wanted?
Your opinion that Indians and Canadians and Americans are just speaking
poor facsimilies of the English language is taking a subservient
position to Great Britain. I shouldn't be surprised if you thought
Portugal should set the standards for how Brazilians spell things. My
Lord.
Ben Lukoff    Carnegie Mellon University    Pittsburgh
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: right time
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:05:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.110112.7781@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

> Or whatever sounds right to you. In this neck of the woods the 
> alternatives are "six forty-five" and "a quarter to seven." 

Here too.

> Anything else is understood, but understood to be local dialect
> or foreign.

With one exception.  I have a lot of trouble remembering whether
"a quarter of seven" means 6.45 or 7.15.  (My first reaction, of
course, would be to think of 1.75)

Peter.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: Re: french
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:07:58 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 07-23-92 03:02
On Wed 07-22-1992 a message was posted, saying (in part):

B(>A New York minute seems to be a very brief time (< 60 secs.); is
B(>it negative?  I heard it during convention coverage, but since I
B(>am from New York I am not familiar with the term.

I've heard it many times - it never seemed derogatory; merely expressive of
the legendary fast pace of life in that town.

How 'bout a 'Philadephia lawyer'; i.e. a person who is crooked or
extraordinarily clever.

                                Greg


Written by Greg Grainger at Toronto Ontario,
on Wed 07-22-1992 at 11:17:21 pm.
Usenet address: greg.grainger@rose.com

---
   OLX 2.2   A conclusion is where you got tired of thinking.
   RoseMail 1.70: RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: jane@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jane Philcox)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Might-as-well'nt I
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:26:43 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

In article <YePMIxC00awAQAV0p3@andrew.cmu.edu> bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Benjamin D. Lukoff) writes:
>"I might as well do that, might as well'nt I?"
>
>no.....
>"I might as well do that, mightn't I as well".....
>
> Actually, my second form would be the correct one, but I hope you
>resist the temptation to use either :)

Personally, I always thought that tag questions were formed with the negative
of the first auxiliary verb in the main part of the sentence (or "do" if
there's no auxiliary), and the pronoun for the subject, i.e.

I might as well do that, mightn't I?

or

 John might as well do that, might he not?

I'd call the second construction marginally odd.  I've never heard it, that I 
can remember, but it would probably be considered OK in some of the dialects
that tend to not use contractions.

Little as I like the term "correct", I would say in Ben's two examples there
is not much to choose between them, they're both equally 'orrible.  :-)  I
think (trying frantically to remember, rather than looking it up) that "as
well" is an adverbial phrase.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  Anyway,
whatever it is, it isn't part of the verb.  I don't think anyone, in any
dialect, if they stopped and thought about it, would consider that it should
be included in the tag question.  I'd say the quoted construction came from
someone who has never in their life thought about what they're saying.  Which,
come to think of it, includes the bulk of the population .....   

Bother, I've just destroyed my own argument.  Isn't it extraordinary how hard
it is not to think prescriptively?

Regards, Jane.
-- 
*******************************************************************************
ABSURDITY: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:12:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.173452.10941@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midwa
y.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>
>       You are mixing up colloquial and written English! My argument
>is against defacing written English. There are, I agree, many English
>dialects all over the world......but the written English standard is
>the one set by Englishmen.
>
>

And, as an American, I feel obliged to state, uncategorically, that in my daily
writing I reject (previous to today at an entirely unconscious level) the
written English standard set by "Englishmen."

[Comme vous etes fou.]

**
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sources.wanted,comp.unix.shell
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: script to center text
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:56:28 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.

From the keyboard of tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen):
:In my techojargon brand of English, "both can't" is not the same
:as "neither can".  This is "both can't":
:
:    if (!a || !b)

:
:Meaning it's true if EITHER A OR B OR BOTH CANNOT.
:
:whereas this is "neither can":
:
:    if (!(a && b))

That should have been

    if (!a && !b)

:Meaning is true only if neither A nor B can do something.
:
:I realize that the poster is not a native speaker of English.
:Perhaps these are equivalent in German.  Perhaps I'm no longer
:a native speaker of English. :-)

For clarity, since I think I may have screwed of my Boolean logic:
to me, "both cannot" doesn't disallow one from being able to,
and thus is different from "neither can", which guarantees that
neither A nor B is able to.

	Both can't		not a or not b 
	Neither can		not a and not b

And no, I don't use English "or" as an inclusive or (a | b).
I realize it's an exclusive one in normal speech (a ^ b).


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


Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.  -- Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: parsons@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Parsons)
Subject: Re: anymore unique
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:16:00 GMT

tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R) writes:

>There are important ways in which language is like logic, but this is
>not one of them.  Using a modifier with a word like 'unique' or 'silent'
>is a useful resource for speakers, it allows them to  express highly
>nuanced notions: 'this thing is way beyond plain rare, similar objects
>exist, but very few quite like this, that one over there for example
>is fine of its kind, but this is more unique' and so on.

	The key word here is speakers.  Perhaps it is acceptable to allow
slightly sloppy usage in spoken English to convey those little nuances you
mention, especially since there is much more to spoken communication than
just the words.  In written English, however, it is more important to be
precise and unambiguous.  I think this should preclude more unique.  As this
whole thread has shown, whether you accept it or not, it is ambiguous and
therefore sloppy.

>Would you allow almost unique?  If you do, I think you will find you *have
>to* allow 'more' and 'less' unique.

	I lost you here.  I can accept almost unique as meaning very
different to the point that it approaches singularity, but why does that
make more unique acceptable?

	-m.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: "Benjamin D. Lukoff"'s message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:22:54 -0400 
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<keRU3yK00iUx07W1p6@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 01:57:54 GMT

In article <keRU3yK00iUx07W1p6@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> I know people have already written about this, but do you honestly
> think a bunch of Americans sat around a table and said, "well, let's
> switch around the r and e in 'theatre', that'll piss the British off"?

That's why I do it.  Is there another reason?
--
----
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, 22 Jul 1992 11:56:45 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Might-as-well'nt I
	<1992Jul22.093221.9524@waikato.ac.nz>

"I might as well do that, might as well'nt I?"

no.....
"I might as well do that, mightn't I as well".....

 Actually, my second form would be the correct one, but I hope you
resist the temptation to use either :)

Benjamin Lukoff
Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh
[bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu]
From: sharon@netlabs.com (Sharon Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: THE VERB 'TO BE'
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:59:43 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1992Jul22.093221.9524@waikato.ac.nz> maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>In article <ceNsoIW00awGE0v1lM@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> The only correct interrogative form of "I am" is "am I not"?
>> People say "aren't I" and "ain't I", and yes, in places they *do* say
>> "amn't I" but the correct form is "am I not" even though it doesn't
>> sound natural.
>
>I keep wanting to use 'might-as-well'nt I' in sentences like
>
>'I might as well do that, might as well'nt I ?' .
>
>I resist the temptation, though.

I tend to prefer

    "I might as well do that, hmm?"

It's shorter.  :-)

Or if you prefer something more concrete, you can substitute "yes"
(or even "no") for the "hmm".

--Sharon Hopkins
  sharon@netlabs.com
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Okey-Dokey
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:18:39 GMT
 <1992Jul24.165403@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Jul29.143200.637@quantime.co.uk> <84739@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

OK was nailed down finally by Allen Walker Read.  It was originally
a comic spelling, ole keerect, or some such, for _all correct_ --
comic spellings being popular in American journalistic humor in the
early 19th c.  But it was spread largely through its association
with Martin Van Buren and the Old Kinderhook democratic club in NY
(1830s?),  Van Buren becoming known as Old Kinderhook during 
his presidential campaign, a nickname that was shortened to OK.

Now if we can find Kilroy, we'll be all set.


-- 
Dennis Baron                                         debaron@uiuc.edu 
University of Illinois at Urbana                     217-333-2392
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Native Speakers of English"
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:07:36 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <4eRq4YW00awQACfEou@andrew.cmu.edu> "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) wrote:
>
>>Let me repeat...you are NOT native speakers of the language.....maybe
>>some (not all) of your forefathers were....but their predecessors seem
>to >have contorted it.
>
>You're Indian, right, Mandar? Well, neither are YOU a native speaker of
>the language, if that's how you want to go about it. I suppose the Irish
>aren't native speakers of the language either.....neither are the Welsh
>or the Scots......since it's ENGLISH after all.
>
>I am certainly a native speaker of the English language.
>
>Ben Lukoff

I never contended that I was a native speaker of the language...if you
ARE English, well then, it's about time you showed up......things are
heating up on this newsgroup!   {:-)
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "standard" pronunciat
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:42:43 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

 -=> Quoting Gorokhovsky@binah.cc.bra to All <=-

 Go> Sorry if this is not the right group to post this message.  Could
 Go> someone, please, recommend a book (possibly with tapes) teaching a
 Go> "standard" English pronunciation?

If you find such a book, avoid it.  There will never be a concensus.
If you are learning English as a foreign language, and if you are more
than 16 years old, you will, probably, never lose your "accent".
Except for that, you can achieve (as you've demonstrated) a command of
English superior to that of most native American English speakers.

                                                   -- Dan --


... Ad astra per aspera (or, I'll never get off the ground)
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                                            
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: gay
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 06:57:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.012828.22594@sq.sq.com>, dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) writes:
> 
> The old meaning has succumbed in current writings, but of course
> there are still lots of books around with it.  My 8-year-old
> daughter has been reading Enid Blyton books (written in England
> in the 40's and 50's), and asks me quite regularly what various
> words mean.  One of them was gay.

Did she ask you about the sentence "Noddy felt a little queer"?

Peter
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 08:36:48 GMT

In article <oeQibGu00awAQ6jEwK@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff"
<bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I always thought everyone understood the distinction between 'this'
> weekend, meaning this upcoming weekend, and 'next' weekend, meaning the
> one after that. Is that really used more often by non-American speakers?
> I'm from Seattle, by the way.

I understand it, I just ignore it :-)  I always use next to mean the
"soonest to come" which is funny as my OED does too. I do distinguish
between "this weekend" and "next weekend" in that I use "next weekend"
but I never use "this weekend". I'm British by the way.

Simon.

  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: "need"
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:46:08 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.

From the keyboard of gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener):
:In article <1992Jul24.143946.29548@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.com (Tom Christiansen) writes:
:>How come people use "need" instead of "needs" sometimes:
:
:It's just a standard use of the subjunctive, in this case a contrary-to-fact
:because all the cases discussed are hpothetical.

No, I don't think so.  I think the subjunctive needs to be in a
subordinate clause.  As pointed out to me by A. Satish Pai
<Pai-Satish@CS.YALE.EDU>.  this seems to be a modal, much like "can",
"could", "ought", "might", "may", "should", "shall", "will", and "would".
He also pointed "dare" as a modal, which I'd never noticed before either.

This really isn't what I'd call "contrary to fact".  I keep hearing 
this phrase "contrary to fact" as though it were the sole marker
of the subjunctive.  There are plenty of others, like

    It's surprising that you should believe this fancy.

as well as cases that are clearly contrary to fact where one rarely if
ever uses the subjunctive in English:

    It's not that she's got to wear white -- she wants to.

whereas in Spanish, you do use it:

    No es que tenga ella que vestirse en blanco -- lo quiere hacer.

Not even I, the subjunctive nut, can bring myself to say:

    It's not that she should have to wear white -- she wants to.
		     

--tom

-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
    "Writing is easy.  Al  you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until
    drops of blood form on your forehead."
		    --Gene Foulwer
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ex-presidents' titles
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:33:17 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

 -=> Quoting Mark Slagle to All <=-

 > The time I was hurt at, doesn't matter to the insurance company.

 MS> The time at which I was hurt doesn't matter...

I'd go for that one, only I druther not have to use "which".

                                                   -- Dan --


... THINK! or thwim.  
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:31:44 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Jul29.204257@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.234925.2439@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom
>Christiansen) writes:
>>                            [...deleted...]
>> Come on, guys, just READ that sentence, and put him in your killfile.
>> He's either pulling our chains, or is both clueless and arrogant.
>> 
>>                            [...deleted...]
>>      Tom Christiansen           tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
>
>Of course he's pulling our chains (although that doesn't preclude his being
>clueless and arrogant).  Don't encourage the child.
>
>Marie Coffin

I am NOT pulling your uh...chains (is that a derivation from pulling
one's leg?).
Clueless??   - I have demonstrated several of them in my original article.
Arrogant??  _ I am always willing to accept my mistakes, I DO NOT repeat
               DO NOT consider myself as a paragon of English usage. 

I just thought that it was time someone reminded the Americans, of
the flawed spellings that they use.
From: tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "need"
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:44:40 GMT
Reply-To: tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <1992Jul26.034701.157@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.013151.25009@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>
>>Oh, but I really don't think so.  The 'be' is the infinitive, and the
>>'need' now appears to me to be a modal.  Indeed, other than modals, I do
>>not believe there exist [my soul yearns for the subjunctive for that verb]
>>defective English verbs lacking a distinction between being singular and
>>being plural.  Compare this with 'should' in place of 'need', and note
>>how similar the cases actually are.
>
>But "be" is very often used as a subjunctive, and its congation is
>indeed defective (not in the true Latin sense of defectiveness, but
>irregular enough for our purposes)
>
>Try these:
>
>	It is important that they be here.
>	It is important that he be here.
>	It is important that I be here.
>
>

I don't quite get what you mean by defective, since *no* verb that I
know of has any distinctive morphological reflex of person or number
in the (vestigially used) subjunctive.  (I suppose it is defective
compared to say Italian where all verbal forms exist, pretty well, or
against Chinese where there is no verbal morphology, ie the verbal
paradigm is perfect).  I agree that `be' can be subjunctive but usually
people talk of infinitival forms following a modal auxiliary and that
is what need in the examples under discussion appears to be.  A heuristic
for modal auxiliary-hood is to consider 1)whether question formation
by inversion is possible (this establishes that we are dealing with
an auxiliary since, apart from to have and to be, main verbs don't
allow this and 2) is there a third person singular form in -s, if there
is not this is a modal.  So:

He need not pay the postman
Need he not pay the postman?
He must not pay the postman
Must he not pay the postman

There is ofcourse the complication that along side the modal `need' there
exists a non-modal form that takes a to-complement:

He needs to pay the postman.
*Needs he to pay the postman?

There, we can't form the question by simple inversion of verb and
subject so this is not an auxiliary and the fact that we can use the
-s inflected form of the verb tells us it is not modal.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english