HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: More unique?  polique!
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:43:58 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul22201000@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.145301@IASTATE.EDU>, mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
writes:
> 
> > Um, Ted, I don't know how to tell you this, but...polynomial and
polystyrene
> > both have the short 'i' sound too.  A brief (very brief!) perusal of my
> > dictionary indicates that "poly" words take the short 'i' sound if poly-
> > is followed by a consonant, and take the long 'e' sound if poly-  is 
> > followed by a vowel (e.g. polyandry, polyester).  
> 
> Oh?
> 
> In the first place, polystyrene is pronounced with a long
> "e", not a short "i", which violates your rule
> 
> And what about:
>   polytonal
>   polytheism
>   polytechnic
>   polyzoic
>   polysyllabic
> 
> and so on for a very long way.  You need a better rule.
> 
> > So it seems to me "polyque"
> > would be pronounced 'pol-li-queue' or possibly 'pol-lick' or even (someone
> > else suggested this!) 'pol-li-kay'.  My own vote is for 'pol-lick'.  
> 
> I would be inclined to spell it "polique", but in either
> case I would pronounce it as "pol-eek", in parallel with
> unique.
> 
> --
> ----
> Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
> 408-756-0895                                   USA

My dictionary (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate), indicates that the 'y' in
polystyrene is pronounced with the short 'i' of 'hit'.  This is the *only*
pronounciation given for the word.  I was surprised also, as I have always
(well, let's face it, it doesn't pop up in conversation that often) pronounced
it with the long 'e'.  I only bothered to check it in the first place because 
Ted also mentioned 'polynomial', which I pronounce with the short 'i'.  

The other words you list are also given the short 'i' pronunciation in 
Webster's, with the exception of polyzoic, which is not listed.  

Are you using a different dictionary, and if so, which one?  

Marie Coffin
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: anymore unique       
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:17:44 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

 -=> Quoting Dennis Baron to All <=-

 DB> Sure there are conventions of usage.  But like most conventions,
 DB> they drink too much and walk a less than steady line.  To insist
 DB> on rigor from a flabby system, which is what language is, means
 DB> you will always be disappointed, and usage critics are always
 DB> disappointed.

To be sure, a little flexibility produces the inevitable evolution of
language.  But *abandonment* of usage conventions produces cultural
fragmentation, or even linguistic revolution, such as followed the
Anglo-Saxon, Danish, or Norman French influxes.

                                                     -- Dan --


... Ad astra per aspera (or, I'll never get off the ground)
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Use of "dereference"
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:50:37 GMT

In article <1887@sdrc.COM>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:

> the object.  It's certainly a jargon term -- I don't believe I've ever
> heard anyone other than C programmers use the term.  The definitive

Jargon, yes; but it's by no means confined to the C language.

Having read a lot of C programs, I would find it very offensive
to be called a C programmer.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:34:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.065142.16716@midway.uchicago.edu> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) by chance utters
>
>This is too much fun.  And Mandar doesn't seem to realize why.
>
>Mandar, if you had and English father and mother, and if English were
>the language spoken in your home from the time you first popped out of
>your mum's womb, then you *would* be a native speaker.  Your dialect
>of English would be a direct, lineal descendent of a parent dialect-
>group we call "English."  The same would be true of any group of people
>who maintained English in their households.


As I mentioned earlier...that is not the sole criterion a native
speaker is judged by.

>
>Is this what you are arguing happened in the US?  If so, then prove
>it by sound argument.  Which, for instance, is more innovatory:  To
>pronounce a postvocalic "r", or to drop it?  Which is more innovatory,
>to spell Greek -izdo: endings as -ise or -ize?  Which is more inno-
>vatory, to pronounce dictionary with an elided a-vowel or to keep the
>vowel?
>
      I am not a master of the English language...perhaps an 
Englishman will answer this question better...

>I suppose you are not concerned with originality, though.  Your cri-
>terion seems to be whatever is spoken in English public schools.  Where
>*did* you take on this obsession?  I suppose you haven't heard:  The
>English spoken in public schools has to be taught to many of the chil-
>dren.  They, as native speakers, speak different dialects.  I suppose
>you'll say that they aren't native speakers, either?  Or will you emu-
>late Cockney for us?  If not, then you must admit that you are excluding
>legitimate English dialects indigenous to England.


       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.
From: smawer@datlog.co.uk (Steve Mawer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:20:38 GMT
Organization: Data Logic Limited

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

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

>Couldn't say.  I'd never heard of it until now.

I could.  I use it all the time in England (well not all the time, but when
it's relevant).  And don't forget "Saturday fortnight" is the Saturday after
Satuday week.

>                                                 If I
>understand your definition correctly, I would refer to
>the day in question as "a week from Saturday".

I might say "a week Saturday" as an alternative to "Saturday week".  (But
what do we pommie/limey b*****ds know about it :-)).
-- 
Steve C. Mawer       < smawer@datlog.co.uk> or < {backbone}!ukc!datlog!smawer >
		       Voice:  +44 81 863 0383 (x2139)
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: right time
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:11:34 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <1992Jul24.110112.7781@vax.oxford.ac.uk>,
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> Incidentally, is there any part of the English speaking world other
> than small areas of Yorkshire (Sheffield and Batley specifically) in
> which it is usual to substitute "while" for "'till" or "to" in such
> phrases as "I have a class from two [while, 'till] four?

Sounds like COBOL to me. :-)

And by the way, "till" isn't a contraction of "until";
"until" is "till" with a prefix.  "Unto" and "to" are the same.
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about." -- Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Subject: Re: anymore
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:17:37 GMT

In article <Brp5y6.Moy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
> Anymore w.o. the negative constraint (as it is usually
> referred to) is now found (to some extent) in every region 
> except perh. New England, including Iowa.

I think you meant "in every region of the USA".

--apb (Alan Barrett)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: I'm so gay
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:11:46 GMT

In article <920722140150.20805c69@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU>, SSR48327@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU
(Syed Shibli) writes:
> 
> 
>   Is the original meaning of "gay" lost forever? Would it be futile
>   to wrestle it back from oblivion? 
> 
> -- 
>                         Syed Shibli
>             I'm a gay, gay child in a gay, gay world.
>                       +1 918 631 3257                                       

No, it would be impossible.

Marie Coffin
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Jewelry
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:33:23 GMT

I'm curious to know how people tend to pronounce the word "jewelry."
I tend to say eithere "jule-ree" or "juwul-ree," though I hear many
people, especially here in New York, saying "ju-luh-ree."

I don't know if it's that they get jewelry (what a jeweller makes)
mixed up with jewellery (the craft of a jeweller), but still, many
people, I believe, would pronounce the words the same.  I wonder
what we would get if we asked a random sampling of Americans to
say:
        "The jewellery on this jewelry is exquisite."


--
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
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ex-presidents' titles
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 08:55:40 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

 -=> Quoting Thayes07-20-92  13:36esire.wright.edu to All <=-

 Th> here,  a trailing "at" is an annoying, lazy habit.  Smoking is
 Th> redundant  with drinking coffee (they produce similar
 Th> physiological effects), it may not be "inherently" evil, it happens

This comment is not about English, but is to correct a misaprehension:

  Caffein is a stimulant.  Nicotine is a depressant.

All part of the course -- no extra charge...

                                                  -- Dan --


... THINK! or thwim.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                                                                                                 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Subject: Re: english english versu
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:00:37 GMT

In article <gate.Pm9ooB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org> dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:
>  => In a message to All on 01-28-19  18:32 Mandar Mukund Mirashi said:
>
> MMM> "standard" English, which is taught in schools). 
>
>Right you are, but American schools teach American English.  What
>jury elected which flavOR of English "standard"?
>
    That is tantamount to legaliSing crime! English English is the
right standard.....you are just being stubborn and foolish enough
not to understand that.


> MMM> What irked me most, was how Americans seemed to treat the
> MMM> language as if they owned it! Personally I have no grudge against
> MMM> Americans, but dammit, you guys just can't change the language like
>
>We do own it.  Which office in India submits words to England for
>approval?
>
    You don't own it! Nor do I!That is the point I was trying to make. No
office does that, but there is a certain "standard" followed when we are
in doubt....and obviously English English is the standard.


> MMM> that! To me, it  amounts to sacrilege! They have dropped letters from
> MMM> words for "convenience" Blasphemy! I can understand words going out of
> MMM> usage, or neologisms coined, etc. but changing the very spelling of
> MMM> words is an impardonable sin! What is even more annoying is how they
>
>Language *always* changes faster in cultural centERs than at outposts.
>American forms are, to a great extent, *older* than those of British
>English.

What came first...England or America?   :)

>
>Were you English, I could understand your misplaced ardor...

If I were English, I could not have offered an unbiased opinion.....you
guys should learn to clear up your spelling mistakes.

----


"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                        - The Beatles
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:19:55 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

"Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>    Since everyone else has already pointed out things written in
>"English English" that were illogical and made no sense, and so on, I
>just wanted to make the point that "fish" can NEVER EVER be spelt as
>"ghoti". GH only sounds as F at the end or middle of a word, like
>"enough" or "laughter". And TI only sounds as SH in words of Latin
>derivation and *never* at the end of a word. It is always followed by an
>A or an O as in "partial" or "reaction".

        I did not make that point LITERALLY.......it is just that when
you substitute letters for pronounciations, you can end up with funny
results....that's all. I AM NOT proposing to change the spelling of
fish to ghoti. I was just pointing out some of the language's 
idiosyncracies, which make it quite unique. So, when you go around
changing spellings of words, you lose the charm of the original language.


>    >If you go around trimming words to suit your needs, you simply
>deface this language...Bunch of idiots!
>    >P.S. The flamewar has started..... :)
>   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"?
>And don't mention Noah Webster, I know about his simplifications.

Well then, can you tell me who on earth gave you chaps the authority to
change the spellings?
From: tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: I'm so gay
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:41:13 GMT
Reply-To: tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <920722140150.20805c69@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU> SSR48327@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU (Syed Shibli) writes:
>
>
>  Is the original meaning of "gay" lost forever? Would it be futile
>  to wrestle it back from oblivion? 
>
You've lost it?  You mean we entrusted you with *the* original meaning
of the poor, abused word and it got lost?  Or did someone else lose it?
In that case if you know what it was, tell us and it won't be lost.

Or could it be that the real agenda here is not the 'original'
meaning having got lost, but reservations about the new meaning?
Words after all are not runnning out, there are lots still to choose
from.  I realise that after its stay in oblivion the word gay may
not have quite the odour you would like anymore, neither after all
do queer, fairy, faggot or any number of others, but if it is that
important to you to have a word, have silly on me.  See if you 
can make do with its orignal meaning, because, of course, I don't
intend its contemporary meaning.

Jim Tyson
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:38:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.145931.22967@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>, lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange) writes:
> One difference between British and American English that's
> always seemed curious to me is the missing (to my ear) 
> article in British phrases like this:
> 
> He had an accident and now he's in hospital.
> 
> I'll be on holiday for the next few weeks.
> 
> American usage is "...in the hospital" and "...on a holiday..." (though
> for that last, we would more likely say "on vacation"). Does this
> difference strike anyone else as curious?  Can anyone give any
> reasons for the difference?  Any similar usages?

And can anyone explain why Americans say "on vacation" rather than
"on a vacation"?

Every time this question comes back (i.e. every few weeks) it seems
to be put in the form "Why do the British omit the article in cases
like this"?  I suspect that if you collected enough examples you would
find a roughly equal number of examples of this type in "British English"
and "American English", if such beasts can be said to exist.

The way I look at it is this:

A. The form <preposition><article><noun> is a reference to some
   (definite or indefinite) instance of the noun.  For example in
   the sentence "He is in the hospital" we are referring to some
   specific hospital, whose identity is established by context (or
   it could be left ambiguous, if we feel that this is unimportant
   detail).

B. The form <preposition><noun>, without any article, is a reference
   to a state of being rather than a reference to some instance of the
   noun.  Examples include "on vacation", "at college", "in hospital",
   "at work", "in bed", and numerous others.  When I say "I am going
   to bed", I am not talking about my bed, I am talking about retiring
   for the night.  (Should I prefer to sleep on the floor, I would
   still say "going to bed" rather than "going to floor".)  Saying
   "My sister is at university" does not imply that she is on campus
   at this moment; it means only that she is a student.

Now, it just happens that case A involves very elementary grammatical
rules, so that examples of this class are pretty much the same across
all dialects of English.  Examples of class B, on the other hand,
involve idiom, so it is not too surprising that the set of common
phrases of this type varies from one dialect to another.

Enough.  I'd better get back to the work.

Peter.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:58:33 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 mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
> Besides I usually never look at what country, race, etc. an individual
> belongs to, when I make friends. The same would hold true if I ever found
> myself in the position of hiring a new worker in the US. I would evaluate
> him for his qualities, not for his nationality, race. etc.

Notice MMM didn't name gender as something not to discrimate against, and
has chosen to evaluate HIM for HIS qualities.  Women, don your veils!

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
    little statesmen and philosophers and divines.  With consistency a
    great soul has simply nothing to do."  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: blosser_cy@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: QUESTION...
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:16:07 GMT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

Exkuse me,

But I resently made a 43 on a enGlISh eXam an' I wuz wundering what
went wrong...I mene, beats me why I ain't got no good engliSH.
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Policy-wonk (was Re: Sound-Bite?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:07:34 GMT
Organization: National Center for Social Engineering, Policiwonc, Wisconsin
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

A policy-wonk is somebody who has trouble with that vision thing,
only Democratic.

Joe
"The pallid pimp of the dead-line/The enervate of the pen" --Robert Service
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:50:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Bs66wn.Izt@acsu.buffalo.edu> xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang) writes:
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) :
>       Well then, can you tell me who on earth gave you chaps the 
>       authority to change the spellings?
>
>crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) :
>       That's easy.  God.
>
>I have to say the answer is wrong. The original poster questioned
>who *on earth* gave "you people" the authority to change the spellings.



Oh heavens, you're right.  In that case, it was my mother.
Don't you _dare_ flame my mother.




-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind.  Or not to have a mind.  How true  
that is." -- J. Danforth Quayle at United Negro College Fund luncheon
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: parsons@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Parsons)
Subject: Re: What is a "Homie" or a "Homeboy" ???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:13:00 GMT
Keywords: slang, jargon, homie, homeboy, definition_wanted

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?  

	It is definately not deragatory, but it isn't specifically
complementary either.  It is often used as an address for a friend like "Hey
homes!  What's up?", but it can also be a more general reference like
"Homeboy's (that guy) crazy!".  It comes from urban black America and I
think originally referred to someone from your own neighborhood, but it's
use has since expanded.  Also, although it is used primarily by blacks, it
is not necessarily race specific.  A black guy can call a white guy homie if he wants.
I have never noticed a white person call another white person homie, though.
I also don't know if it's (in)appropriate for a white to call a black
homeboy.
	Finally, homeboy is gender specific.  You don't hear it as often,
but homegirl works too.

	Later homes...
		-m.
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Okey-Dokey
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:56:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

O.K.  This may have been done to death already for all I know, but
what are the various opinions on the origins of OK/O.K./okay?

If it's done been gone over with a fine tooth comb, and if anyone
saved the conversation, I'd appreciate a flameless email.  

If it ain't done been gone over, well, what do you think?


-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being very
wasteful.  How true that is."--J. Danforth Quayle to United Negro College Fund