HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:41:14 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec21.224543.26671@Princeton.EDU> mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska) writes:
[to Mandar]
>First of all, [...]  This alone deserves capital punishment.
>
>Second, [...]

So how shall we proceed about executing Mandar twice?  Shall he be
hanged for the first crime and then drawn and quartered for the second,
or maybe simply put into two people's kill files?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:28:07 GMT

In article <BzyG5L.GMy@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
writes:

> I think the equivalent [of "professor"] in America is a personal chair.

I think we'd call it an "endowed" chair.

> Hence why it grates so badly when some visiting American professor
> insists on using his title over here when we would title such a
> person a 'lecturer'.

I can't see why that should be any worse than our calling lorries "trucks".

In fact that is what formality requires.  In replies to discussion of papers
in UK journals one often finds something like

    The comments of Professor Jones [an Ass. Prof. at an American university]
    and Dr. Smith [a Lecturer at a British university] are especially
    welcome ...

everyone understands, if they look at the affiliations, that Jones's title
is no more impressive than Smith's.

Come to think of it though, I can't remember how I was introduced when
giving talks in the U. K.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: R0264@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Organization: CSU
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:37:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.164130.12995@waikato.ac.nz>
maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Dec27.174634.18263@u.washington.edu>, lukoff@carson.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff) writes:
>[much deleted]
>> Or make up words than end in -person? I actually saw a Washington State
>> government notice for 'fisherperson' licenses and nearly died. So does
>> anyone have any suggestions as to how we can fix this situation, BESIDES
>> -person words?
>>
>> Ben Lukoff
>
>In the case of this particular problem there is no need for
>a -person word solution. The word 'fisher' has a nice biblical
>ring to it and does the job perfectly.
>
>--
>Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
>Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand
>__________________________________________________________________
>'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
>if only I've stated it thrice.'
I lived in Washington State for a while, and remember that the objects
in question usually were called "fishing licenses", and don't believe
I ever heard them called "fisherman licenses".
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:36:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <1992Dec29.172940.28345@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <C00op6.8Mp@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>>roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>>The Bowery.
>>>Downing St.
>>>47th St.
>
>>Someone else has already mentioned Downing St. and I found The Bowery in
>>Webster's Third (it's about the same as Skid Road), but what is 47th St.
>>metonymous for?
>
>The diamond trade.  (The block bet. 5th and 6th is a remarkable little
>world of its own.  Alas, the collapse of the diamond market has done 
>much to depress if not destroy the old ambience.)
>

I thought of 2 others I haven't seen yet, but if I'm
duplicating judge me not harshly I pray. They are:

Seventh Avenue -- home of the NYC garment industry and
metonymous for the U.S. fashion industry.

Carnaby Street -- once synonymous with the Mod fashion
industry of the Sixties.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:24:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.174634.18263@u.washington.edu> lukoff@carson.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff) writes:
>
>Sure, the suffix may seem like the words make men the norm and women
>'deviant', but what are we then to do, make up words like 'waitron'?
>Or make up words than end in -person? I actually saw a Washington State
>government notice for 'fisherperson' licenses and nearly died. So does
>anyone have any suggestions as to how we can fix this situation, BESIDES
>-person words?
>
>Ben Lukoff

	How you reacted to the word "fisherperson" is exactly how many
women feel about the suffix "man."  Anyway, why is "fisherperson" so
revolting to you?  Other than it sounding funny, does it make you feel
less of a person?  Consider "fisherMEN" instead.  For a female, there
might be some feelings of dissatisfaction based on the inability to
identify with the "masculine" suffix.  More importantly, attempts to
change it to a gender neutral word is met with resistance by some
people, which makes it seem more concrete tha males have it better.
	The problem of wording has a whole lot to do with how one
feels.  It's also important to take notice that, for an example,a
spouse generally makes concessions to the other spouse as a show of
affection and caring, similarly, an inability to make concessions
on the part of males could be interpreted as not caring or giving a
damn.  The result of this might be the rise of radical feminism or
intolerance on the part of females when dealing with traditional
male structures of whatever (discourse, decision making, etc.)

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 03:18:40 GMT

In article <Bzqs14.JCE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.235749.14921@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>
>>But will you violently object if some people prefer to use a less
>>ambiguous word, like "person"?
>
>No....but we *will*, if you try to force us to do the same when either
>of the words is applicable.

And of course, should someone then misunderstand you, then they are
prejudiced, deliberately misinterpreting, and most likely radical
feminists trying to rape the English language . . .

Use whatever words you choose, Mandar - but if you are misunderstood,
question your choice of words at least as much as the motives of the
reader.

My experience is that few readers will willfully misunderstand a text
(that is, correctly understand, then pretend they don't).  But many
readers will unintentionally misunderstand you, given half a chance . . .

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: History
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 03:15:53 GMT

In article <BzMx11.HCE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>Reference : Robin Lakoff : "Language and Women's place". 45-80.
>
>Lakoff considers the argument for changing the word "history". The
>argument goes as follows. A part of the word "history" is the masculine
>"his" (you can read the word as "his story") but women also make history; 
>therefore, the usage demeans women.
>
>      
>     Yes, I agree that *most* women don't find "history" demeaning. But
>I place before you the irrefutable proof that *some* women, very
>obviously, do find it demeaning.  

You provide ONE quotation, then argue that *some* women seriously object
to the word "history".  Then, in a later post, you argue with great
feeling that "they" (a very global "they", including everyone who
doesn't share your narrow views on language) take this view.

I might as well say that "Mandar is an ass, therefore some Indians
are asses, therefore *they* are asses."  Would you be impressed by
such illogic?  Yet you use it with the greatest of ease!

A hint, Mandar - has ANYONE who favours non-sexist language in this
debate argued for "herstory"?  No - it has only been raised as a red
herring by those who defend the use of "men" to (sometimes) include
women.  (But it is easier to put words in people's mouths, then attack
those words, then to pay attention to what they are really saying, isn't
it Mandar?)

>Now for the word "herstory". It will surprise you H. Brown that there
>is a BOOK entitled Herstory.

It doesn't surprise me - I've heard of it.  So what?  It's a pun.  Do
you really take all puns that seriously?  Will you now claim that I
advocate that "reality" should be spelled "Rheality", because I've used
this pun?  Will you tolerate such unspeakable assaults upon the sacred
English English language by radical Rhealists?

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:55:35 GMT

In article <38043@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
:        I'll go out with anyone as long as they don't smoke.
:
:I've definitely heard examples like this second sentence in contexts
:where I was fairly sure the speaker wasn't flaunting __ bisexuality.

Hmmm... I use 'they' occasionally and fairly sparingly, and the sentence
above is one of the few contexts I *would* use it for the reason you
suggested :-)

G
(Actually there are other reasons I won't go out with just anyone, even
if they don't smoke... religion, pseudo-science, extreme politics,
uncritical language pedantry... :-) )
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 03:01:11 GMT

In article <BzMzC5.Inq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>    Just how far should we allow this assault on the English language
>by radical feminists? They claim "history" is sexist. Next, they'll
>claim that "manager" is sexist. Finally, do we change "this" to "tits"?

What big works you use Mandar - "assault", "radical feminists", "they
claim" - you've not proven "they" condemn "history" as sexist, and you
can't prove it, because "they" don't.  (It really amuses me to be
branded a "radical feminist" for preferring "persons" to "men (including
women)".)

Then to cap it, an absurd example - an argument used by those who defend
sexist usage, attributed to those who oppose it.  Putting words in
people's mouth is not considered cricket, Mandar.

Sorry, Mandar, but such nonsense doesn't do your credibility any good.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 04:17:54 GMT

In article <Bzqv1H.6DA@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <92358.154429HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>:In article <1992Dec23.195637.8547@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
>:says:
>:>
>:> ("Gay", after all, is a euphemism coined
>:>by people who couldn't face the reality of "homosexual".)
>:>
>:
>:Nonsense.
>
>Indeed. Perhaps Imhaginary Nadeau could explain why Gay meant
>(hetero)sexually adventurous/libertine for a period of around two
>hundred years?  Was it perhaps a euphemism coined by people who
>couldn't face the reality of 'sexy'?

Wasn't it?  Why did people start using "gay" in this sense, rather than
the more direct words - libertine or depraved or sinful or luxurious or
whatever other words might have come to mind?

Think of all the words people might use today to describe someone as
promiscuous:  "easy", "willing", etc.  How many are used to suggest
rather than state (that is, as euphemisms), and how many because they
convey a more precise shade of meaning?

These are serious questions, and I do hope to learn something from the
answers.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:31:27 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzMvK3.GD5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> Yes, there are local standards. But which standard should be used when
> resolving an inter-standard conflict? Obviously, it is the English 
> English standard.

Boring! "Obviously" is not good enough. We've rejected all your arguments so
far: give us some more to knock down.


> I am sorry that I can't relate to this example. I am not even sure what
> race I belong to. In fact, it would be better if there were no races at
> all.  But if you are trying to draw an analogy between "which race is
> superior" and "which standard is superior", you fail. This is because
> while different races were born at the same time in different places, 
> English was born in England.
Actually it was born in Northern France, Scandinavia and Germany, brought up in
England and matured in Great Britain and the USA.

> Hey! I wouldn't *kill* or *die* for linguistic purity. I hold no grudge
> against someone else if he uses a different standard. But it irritates me
> when he refuses to acknowledge the existence of a supreme standard.

And it irritates the hell out of me when some pig-headed know-nothing continues
to place some fictional "standard" English dialect on a pedestal and worship
it. Idolatry, some would call it.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Goodbye
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:38:19 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <BzwE6o.3LA@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>   I think I am just plain tired of continuing to argue with
>people. I wish I could reply to all your individual articles but
>I have grown excessively weary of debate. I'll henceforth flame
>only those morons who challenge the spelling of "favour". I feel
>I am just wasting my energy on this newgroup. A short break
>will do me good.

Translation:  You can't think of any new ways to defend a pointless and
stupid argument.  We'll all favor your dropping it, and will be more than
happy to be rid of you.

>P.S. : Followups to this article and my previous articles will be
>       ignored. 

Thank goodness.


--
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: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:19:48 GMT

bill@mri.com (Bill Weinberg) writes:

>In article <38085@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
writes:

>>Yes, yes -- the government have decided -- a barbarism no American
>>would think of uttering.

>It appears that in British English (yes, whatever THAT is) that
>singular nouns representing organizations, teams, or other multi-
>person entities are give grammatical plural status, as in

>- the government example above
>- <football team name> win some cup or other
>- IBM announce new product
>- etc.

>As a speaker of my own ideolect of some mixed dialect (Calif. overlaid
>on top of a Germantown/Roxborough Philadelphia American/Jewish) dialect,
>I do find the singular/plural usage odd, but not "barberous"!

This is not matter of barbarism, or even, really, of different rules,
but of different applications of the same rule: that whether a noun
counts as singular or plural is not determined by its bare form, but
by how the referent is conceived by the speaker.  On both sides of the
Atlantic we say "the United States is", "people are", etc.  In Britain
the tendency is for organized bodies of people to be treated as
plural, and in America as singular, but there are exceptions on both
sides.  Surely, even in this country, one may say "the jury are taking
their seats".

The choice can be pretty skittish.  Thousands of business letters must
be written every day that begin something like this:  "I have gotten
in touch with the --- Company, a firm that we have dealt with before
and that has an excellent reputation.  They tell me that...".  As soon
as the company opens its collective mouth, it becomes a bunch of human
beings.

Happy New Year.
-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Radical feminists
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:29:40 GMT

In article <92358.154429HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
:In article <1992Dec23.195637.8547@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
:says:
:>
:> ("Gay", after all, is a euphemism coined
:>by people who couldn't face the reality of "homosexual".)
:>
:
:Nonsense.

Indeed. Perhaps Imhaginary Nadeau could explain why Gay meant
(hetero)sexually adventurous/libertine for a period of around two
hundred years?  Was it perhaps a euphemism coined by people who
couldn't face the reality of 'sexy'?

G
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:06:30 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzJpFu.AG5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
# that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
# reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
# English spread from England to other lands.

How do you say "non sequitur" in English?

David
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:45:12 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>Those who oppose words such as "stewardess", "heroine", "hostess" are
>hypocrites. Their explanation  is that these words further the notion that
>being a man is the norm and being a woman is a deviant. i.e. there
>aren't different words for the male *and* the female. 

No, it's not. 

As usual, you can't be bothered to find out why some people object to
this or that usage, and just dump some more prejudice on the net.

For one thing, there are *several* objections to the use of these words.

For another, we'd like to see some citations of ANYONE who has objected
to them, since your word hasn't been worth much around here.

>Yet, they
>accept the word "woman". The word "woman" comes from "man". (wif-man or
>literally "wife of man")

BZZZZT!

Some of the people who object to the above words have ALSO objected to
the word "woman" on that very ground!  Open your eyes, fool!  The word
"womyn" is found in many feminist texts.

Now, as to the reason for objecting to "stewardess," it has far more to
do with the automatic association of the job with women, although women
possess no particular qualification for the job that men do not also 
have.  Note that after a while it became hard for men to get hired in 
such jobs, that it was considered effeminate for a man to take such
a job (though ships have male stewards), and that the issue of sexual
harassment on that particular job was particularly intense.

Note, finally, that the term is terribly inaccurate, which is why it
was changed to "flight attendant" some time ago.

The only hypocrite around here is Mandar Mirashi.  You claim to care 
about language, yet you talk nonsense, spout prejudice, and don't bother
to check the most basic assertions before posting them.  Then you 
misquote and change your story.  "Hypocrite" barely scratches the 
surface.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:00:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <C00Fx2.5LE@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>>
>>Queer Street?
>
>I was trying for actual streets.  From what I can tell from
>dictionaries, there was no actual street named Queer that gave rise to
>this expression.  That's also why Main Street was not on my list--while
>there are many Main Streets, no one in particular is the source of the
>expression refering to "materialistic self-complacent provincialism" (to
>quote an M-W dictionary).
>

I think Main Street does qualify. The reference has got to be the
Sinclair Lewis novel, the location being Gopher Prairie, Minnesota.
Fictional, yes, but also a powerful symbol, as powerful as any of the
"real" streets mentioned here.

On another note, real streets might be expanded to included real
squares.  Just as real streets do expand, as it were, to become real
squares.

Here you can include Red Square, Times Square, and Pioneer Square (to
throw in a Pacific Northwest reference to go with Skid Road). Also
Tienanmen Square, of course. Others?

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:44:29 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Radical feminists

In article <1992Dec23.195637.8547@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
says:
>
> ("Gay", after all, is a euphemism coined
>by people who couldn't face the reality of "homosexual".)
>

Nonsense.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: tug/tugging (was: Re: An apology)
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:26:38 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Dec26.044141.1513@Princeton.EDU> mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska) writes:

# They helped him (TO) move the car.
#
# (Actually, I'm curious which usage is more common and where: "help
# + bare infinitive" or "help + full infinitive".  I certainly hear
# the variant without "to" most of the time.)

Before I moved to Florida, I heard help to V only from blacks, but
here it's the dominant form of almost all speakers, especially younger
ones.  As a first approximation, then, I'd guess it's southern US in
origin.

On the other hand, it's what you might call an expected change, since
there are only a couple of other verbs that allow V + V and lots that
require V to V or V Ving.  So it would not surprise me to hear that
help to V had sprung up independently in several places.

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english