HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:41:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.180049.514@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) writes:
<In article <1992Apr10.023453.4489@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
<
<>> half-bath,
<>
<>A bathroom with only a shower, no bathtub.
<>
<Nope.  A half-bathroom is not a bathroom at all.  It has just a toilet
<and sink.  I build one a few years ago.

Correct.  The word is usually used by realtors, who write "2-1/2" or "2.5"
to indicate that a house has two full baths (with tub and/or shower) and
one with only a toilet and sink.  (How, then, would they refer to two half-
baths?  "2/2"?  "1.0"?  And what about a room containing nothing but a
bathtub?)

<I'm not sure, but I think the one with a shower is a 3/4 bath.

Or a 2/3-bath, or simply a full-bath.

					--Scott

-- 
Scott Horne                               ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu      SnailMail:  Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT   06520
203 436-1848                Residence:  Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
ZANG4 HAN4 YI4 JIA1 / GONG4 JIAN4 ZHONG1HUA2!
From: dmr@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Daniel Rosenblum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:18:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University, Graduate School of Management, Newark, N.J.

In <1992Apr10.233012.24386@macc.wisc.edu>
 anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.172602.13017@morrow.stanford.edu>
>francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>I've always thought it strange that czar is ever spelled
>that way and not always spelled tsar.  The cz spelling
>always evokes Polish to my eye, leading me to want to say
>"char" (as in charred, not as in character).  Tsar is rather
>closer to the Russian word (though still quite far, since in
>Russian the a is heightened and the r is palatalized).

>I don't know the history of this particular orthography.  C
>does indicate the ts sound in the Slavic languages that
>don't use Cyrillic.  But in that case, I don't know how the
>z got in there.

The only language that I can think of in which "cz" is pronounced
"ts" is Hungarian.  (The contrasting use of "cz" in Hungarian and
Polish leads to confusion among English speakers who vaguely know
one of the uses and have little idea of which of these unrelated
languages a given word comes from.  An even worse case is "sz" and
"s", which have precisely switched pronunciations in Polish and
Hungarian.  But I digress.)  This would suggest that our now most
common English spelling of "tsar", viz. "czar", comes from a
Hungarian transliteration of the Russian.  Note that "tsar" used to
be a lot more common in English, and it is certainly a better
transliteration of the Russian into *English* orthography than "czar"
is.  Now, why we would get "czar" via Hungarian, unless it had
something to do with old Austro-Hungarian Empire usage being a
common source of references to the Russian monarch, is a mystery to
me.  Note, by the way, that "czar", according to the etymological
sources I've seen, goes back to Latin "caesar", as does German
"kaiser"; indeed, if my memory of the Yiddish I once learned is
still valid (an admittedly doubtful proposition), then Yiddish still
uses the same word, "keyser" (pronounced Kay-sehr), for both czar
and kaiser.
-- 
Daniel M. Rosenblum, Assistant Professor, Quantitative Studies Area,
   Graduate School of Management, Rutgers University (Newark Campus)
ROSENBLUM@DRACO.RUTGERS.EDU                      ROSENBLUM@ZODIAC.BITnet
dmr@andromeda.rutgers.edu          ...!rutgers!andromeda.rutgers.edu!dmr
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:53:50 GMT

In article <204740@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

> I thought you didn't believe in smileys...

   I use smileys.  I just don't view them as a universal solvent that
renders any insult acceptable.

> Then you don't read so good.

   Has it occurred to you that the problem might be with your writing?

> If you honestly think that asking someone to get used to 
> Wayne&Garthspeak is morally equivalent to telling a black man (or woman)
> to get used to the word "nigger", then you've passed far beyond 
> pedantry.  And taste.

   They're not "equivalent".  I don't object to the first as much as to 
the second, but I object to them on similar grounds.

> Exactly who am I supposed to be belittling, degrading, abusing, or 
> oppressing with the now-famous epigram you object to so strongly?

   You're belittling people who oppose something that *you* happen to
consider not worth opposing.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2987 soc.culture.british:6178
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:40:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr6.144045.558
    <1992Apr3.160736.17790@unx.sas.com> 
    <1992Apr3.204126.2511@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2296

In article <1992Apr3.204126.2511@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>, epstein@sunc7.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:
|> 
|> 1. Is it in syntax or semantics that the "hopefully" construct (i.e.
|> where it refers to the attitude of the speaker) differs from other
|> sentence adverbs?
|> 
|> 2. For which reason do you object to it?
|> 

My objection is that given what I take to be the semantics of 
"hopefullly" (or of "fully" type adverbs in general), it doesn't
seem to make sense to allow a syntax in which it is a sentence
modifier.

Or, if you like, I might put it in a way that may be more familiar
to compiler writers:

	Let's admit "hopefully" as a sentence modifier since
	it makes our syntax easier.  However, since it's meaningless
	when applied to a sentence (sentences can't be full of hope,
	only sentence utterers can), let's forbid its use on
	semantic grounds.

The response to this is something like:  But wait!  We can impose
any semantics we like on "hopefully".  So as a matter of convenience,
let's extend it to be meaningful when applied to sentences.

Okay, this can be done, but my point is that there is a price to
pay -- as there is in any language change.  I do not see this
extension of our semantics as worthwhile (for reasons given
previously).  The only reason there is so much dispute about
this particular case is that it is not very central to our everyday
use of language -- no one can visualize great disasters occurring
from it, or great upheavals in our language.  Were I to suggest
something like extending our semantics to allow the use of adjectives
where we now use adverbs, I suspect people would become quite upset.
Were I to suggest that for the sake of simplicity we eliminate
nouns entirely and use only verb forms, or, alternatively use verbs
and nouns interchangeably, people would become very upset (though
I suspect that some contributors to this thread would stubbornly
insist that that was a great thing to do!).  In principle, my
concern with "hopefully" is no different from the concern others
would voice over these changes they would regard as more fundamental.



-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Pleonasm
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:46:16 CDT
Organization: Management Graphics, Inc.

> The technique of using more words than necessary (e.g. "he heard with his
> own ears") is called "pleonasm".  Please write that in big letters in your
> red books and don't forget it.  PLEONASM, peons.

My dictionary (admittedly not the final authority on much of anything)
defines pleonasm as "redundancy of language in speaking or writing".
Peter has added to this the element of emphasis, and it may be that
this is how the term is most commonly used, for all I know.

It's not clear to me, though, how to reliably distinguish between the two.
The example of a fatal shooting causing death seems merely redundant to
me, while the "I heard it with my own ears" example seems to be
"I heard it" with the addition of "Surely you don't expect me to doubt my
own senses".

An example that occurred to me was that famous line of God's, "Take off
your shoes from off of your feet".  Pleonasm, or just redundancy?
============================================================================
I was going to buy a copy of _The_Power_of_Positive_Thinking_, but then I
thought, "What the hell good would that do?"
============================================================================
Dave Carpenter                                       Voice:   (612) 851-6142
Management Graphics                                    FAX:   (612) 851-6159
1401 E. 79th St.                        Internet:   carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com
Bloomington, MN   55425
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Definition of prefix wanted
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:05:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.002117.9237@ugle.unit.no>, omk@Lise.Unit.NO (Ole Martin Kristensen) writes:
> I've been looking in my dictionary for definitions/usage information on the
> prefix 'int' - as in 'int-rude' or 'int-ravenous', but have found nothing so
> far. Any suggestions?

I couldn't resist adding just one more:

      int-erred:             Post-mortem dump

Peter.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: -ine suffix
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:07:09 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.193229.25450@leland.Stanford.EDU>
nkhr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Tetsushi Nakahara) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.232125.602@macc.wisc.edu>
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>[attributive adjectives in -ine for animals]

>I wonder how many of these adjectives would an avarage native English
>speaker understand/use/spell correctly/etc...

My guess would be: not very many, a few percent at most.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: mquigley@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Martyn Quigley)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:29:36 GMT

sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
>
>> >high school n : grades 9-12 (ages ~15-18)
>> >high school diploma n : high school graduating certificate
>> >high (school), senior n : grades 10-12 (ages ~16-18)
>> 
>> Called "Forms 1 - 6" in the UK?
>
>There is no real direct translation I think. The school levels (at least
>when I was at school) are;
	.....
>11-18	Secondary School (not to be confused with Secondary Modern which is a
>	type of secondary school).

You've been away too long--secondary modern schools went the way of the
dodo many years ago.

>Secondary schools are normally 1st-5th forms ...

Actually, years 7 through 11...How's that for Tory inflation?

>Which brings to light another US-UK (at least) difference, ie the
>suffixes on 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. This is particulary obvious in date
>representation (today is the 6th April and not 6 April or April 6 for
>example). but I have noticed that in general first is not written 1st in
>the US.

Actually, today's date is 1992 04 06, but then I'm not in the US.  Only
heathens use words in the date.

>Simon.

Martyn
From: ssmith@eoin.net.netcom.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A whole nother story
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 10:33:00 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Amethyst Systems

eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

> In article <69944@ut-emx.uucp>, verbum@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Neal Whitman) writ
> 
> > Is the expression, "That's a whole 'nother story," a Texasism?
> 
> It seems to be common enough in Oz.  I use it myself.
> 
> > On a related subject, how many think the members of Pink Floyd
> > would transcribe the line sung as, "All in all you're just a 
> > [pause] nother brick in the wall," dividing the word "another"?
> 
> Transcribe?  Transcribe?  Why would a group that don't need no
> education write anything down?
> 
> Peter.

Peter, Peter.  Remember, "No dark sarcasm in the classroom."

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolotl.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

foster@mtechca.uucp (self.attribute:=major_arcana[0].name) writes:
>     Chicester     pronounced Chester

Chicester does not exist; there is Chichester (pronounced Chichester) and
Chester (pronounced Chester).  There is also Cirencester, which my Mother
refers to as Sissester, but I'm not sure if that is a general pronunciation.

Andrew
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Summary: Last time, folks, I promise
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:17:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr11.215350.8006@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:

  [David Tate wrote:]

>> Exactly who am I supposed to be belittling, degrading, abusing, or 
>> oppressing with the now-famous epigram you object to so strongly?

>   You're belittling people who oppose something that *you* happen to
>consider not worth opposing.

Nonsense.  I'm disagreeing with them.  Anything you read into it beyond 
that is your own invention.  

If you must reply to this yet again, please do it by email.  We've bored
these nice people enough already.

-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.bi
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Out of the closet (was Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:15:40 GMT

I'm afraid there's very little alt.usage.english relevance to this
post.  I left a.u.e. in the Newsgroups line because of the reference
to "tearoom" sex.

In article <20097@castle.ed.ac.uk> sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Sara's ElectroPostie) writes:
>gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>>Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd always assumed (and thought I'd always heard tell)
>>that 'coming out of the closet' was from the practice of repressed gays
>>meeting in public toilets - a practice known over here as 'closeting' -
>>and that when someone 'came out of the closet' they did their chatting-up
>>in more acceptable places, like everyone else.  Ie they no longer had
>>to meet in secret in WCs.
>
>No, it's called *cottaging*, dunno why ... but I know folk that do this,
>bifolk at that and watch out with the "repressed" bit as these folk
>*aren't* repressed.

Watch out with the overgeneralizations there, though, for while many
of the people who engage in this sort of "tearoom" or "t-room"
activity (as it's called on this side of the pond -- perhaps we can
find a 'Murrican word queen to etymologize that for us) are not
repressed queers, many of them ARE.  There are scads and scads of
people who meet anonymously for same-sex encounters in bathrooms,
parks, rest stops, truck stops, and so on and would never in a million
years consider themselves "faggots" because of it.

(The use of the male term in that last sentence ... "cruising" like
this is considered to be done almost universally by men.  I have no
idea if women have similar cruising areas.)

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: P's and q's
From: phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:38:25 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Apr14.060439.7298@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.160452.12287@eng.cam.ac.uk>, pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
> 
>> pete@btcase.bt.co.uk (Pete Harris) writes:
>>
>>> Please could someone enlighten me as to the origin of the phrase ...
>>> mind one's p's and q's
>>
>> I heard is was probably from:
>>
>> "Mind one's pieds (feet) and queues (wigs???)"
>>
>> from the last century I think when the upper social classes went to
>> balls etc and had to be nimble on their feet.  (Not that my history is
>> very good.)
>>
>> Anyone else???
> 
>    That's as good a theory as any.  Another theory:  children just 
> learning to write may get the letters 'p' and 'q' confused.  Another:
> "Mind your pints and quarts."
> 
>    And here's one I just thought of:  a corruption of "Mind your 'please's
> and 'Thank you's."
> 
>    Amazing how such phrases can survive for centuries when no one is
> sure what they mean!  The parrot instinct is alive and well in the human
> race.

	We know WHAT it MEANS, we just don't know WHY.

Peter Hoogenboom
phoogenb@ucs.indiana.edu		phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu
        @iubacs.bitnet				   @wesleyan.bitnet

> 
> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
> Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie)
Subject: a fight to the death between our champions?
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:53:29 GMT

The two warring factions --- the 'there is such a thing as good usage'
and the 'que sera sera descriptivists' --- avoided war in the late
twentieth century by sending their champions into battle to the
death. Both sides chose 'hopefully'. The winner?

j
-- 
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150, USA
                  scobbie@csli.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2825 soc.culture.british:5829
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:14:34 GMT
Reply-To: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr06.145900.73112@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>More pronounciation trivia:
>
>"epoch".  In the UK, the "e" is long (I think!) and the "o" is an "o".
>	  In the US, the "e" is short and the "o" is an "i" (i.e., "epic").

  I don't pronounce "epic" and "epoch" the same...the second vowel in
"epoch" is a schwa for me, not a short i.  (I'm from Massachusetts,
but both my parents were midwesterners.)

Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:39:09 GMT

Kathleen Much writes:

	Francis Muir writes:

		D. Gerdemann writes:

			...it is therefore rather intolerant of you 
			to blatantly declare it wrong.

		Should that not be "blatantly to declare"? Oh hell, 
		I'm feeling pretty tolerant this morning...

	Or "brazenly to declare"? Unless your computer has a voice
	synthesizer, of course.

This is too much.

	kmuch@comlab.oxford.ac.uk
	also reachable at kathleen@casbs.stanford.edu

My God! A personal transglobal link. This is much too much. There's a
rather complicated joke here about Stannous Oxide, a tin=pot sort of
thing, but I think I'll let it drop.

			Floreat Baliolo!

							Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:59:11 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <8163@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) writes:
>(P.S. Is the word "czar" pronounced wrongly, i.e. "zar", in Britain, as it
>is in America ?)

I'd use an 's' rather than a 'z'.  If it were spelt T(s|z)ar rather than Czar
I'd probably try to pronounce the T(s|z) like a German initial Z (ie with
a touch of a 't' in there somewhere...)

Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: Fastest-growing segment ...
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:12:36 GMT

In <s511mINNeu4@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:

>One frequently sees sentences in newspaper articles of the form "X is the
>fastest-growing segment of the population to have property P."  For example,
>The April 9 New York Times contains a letter to the editor with a sentence 
>like the following:  "Women now constitute the fastest-growing segment of 
>the US prison population."
>
>This locution troubles me, as I am not sure what is meant by a "segment."  
>Does the above sentence mean simply that the female prison population is 
>growing faster than the male prison population?  It seems to me that the 
>author means a stronger statement than this.  (Digressively, if this is what 
>the author means, then the word "fastest" is wrong, as only two entities are 
>being compared.)

How about this (getting a bit formal):

X is a conjunction of values of certain features, and this conjunction
represents the segment (i.e. subset) in question.  The disjunction of
all possible values of all features (the cross-product?) is exhaustive
on the set in question.  Each other segment is represented by a
conjunction of the same features, where at least one of them has a
different value.  For example, if the segment were desribed by "black,
female", then the two features would be race and gender, and the other
segments would implicitly be "black, male", "white, female", "white,
male" (and others, depending on what values of race are being used).

With this description, there would be only one feature being used in
the example you gave, so it does indeed seem weird to use this
construction.

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: perseant@milton.u.washington.edu (Dis Pater)
Subject: Re: Believe ye there be an English subjunctive?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:17:52 GMT

oliver@oak.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver) writes:
>          Is this possible?  Does anyone currently teach that there
>is no English subjunctive?

From what most would consider a scholarly source (Allen & Greenough's
New Latin Grammar, 1888--these people had more grammatical knowledge
in their left little toenail than is in the head of most of my
professors here at UW):

157.b.  The Subjunctive mood [in Latin] ... is often translated by the
English Indicative; frequently my means of auxiliaries /may/, /might/,
/would/, /should/; sometimes by the (rare) [English!] Subjunctive;
sometimes by the Infinitive....

Also, in my dictionary (sorry,, I don't have a Wester's 2 or an OED on
hand, it's Random House's "Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic
Dictionary of the English Language") the listing under "be" begins:

be ... pres. sing. 1st pers, _am_, 2d _are_ or (Archaic) _art_, 3rd
_is_, pres. pl. _are_,
...
pres. subj. _be_; past subj sing 1st pers. _were_, 2d _were_ or
(Archaic) _wert_, 3d _were_; past subj. pl. _were_

Konrad Schroder
perseant@u.washington.edu