HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: umjaco19@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Martin Andreas Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:32:11 GMT

In article <28498@castle.ed.ac.uk> benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge) writes:
>In article <By2Ay4.5rF@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>
>>1. Aspirin has only lost its tm status in the US.  In other countries
>>it's still a trademark.
>
>Was aspirin a trademark?

It still *is* a trademark in Germany.
I suppose that is also the reason, why it is about ten times as expensive
there as it is in the UK.
As far as I remember Bayer, the manufacturer of Aspirin, lost their 
trademark rights outside of Germany after the First World War.

>Ben Hambidge.

Martin

><benha@castle.ed.ac.uk>


-- 
       Martin Jacobs | Comp. Sci. III  | <Martin_Jacobs@Umanitoba.CA>
 
 "Und wenn Du glaubst es geht nicht mehr, kommt irgendwo ein Lichtlein her... "
            "Quid quid agis, prudenter agas, et respice finem !"
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: vince@cadence.com (Vince Gibboni)
Subject: Re: Derivation of "wonk"
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:11:01 GMT

> (Ted B Samsel) writes:
> I like this word WONK. As in  policy WONK. Any ideas on the
> derivations thereof?


    Sounds suspiciously similar to wonky...


--
                                                         vince@gda.cadence.com

         Go play in the blender.
             - Garfield
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:12:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.224011.20690@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU
(Roger Lustig) writes:

> My last bit of evidence is the quotation from Todd (1818), cited
> (epigrammatically, one suspects) at the beginning of the entry
> for "unique".
>
>     "an affected and useless term of modern times."  
>
> Todd may be right.  Aside from the use as "only" ("two is the
> unique even prime number"), "unique" isn't very important, at
> least, not to me.  (I'd like to hear from people who use the word
> a lot and find it indispensable.)

O. K.  You've convinced me.  I'll never use it again except as a
technical term meaning "one of a kind, there are no others".  For
example

  If a strictly convex function achieves its maximum, the maximizer
  is unique.

  An irreducible Markov chain has a unique stationary distribution.

  We refer to genes present in a single living individual as "unique
  copy" genes.

I can't remember the last time I said "a really, truly unique, once
in a lifetime opportunity".  I don't think it will be hard to give
up this usage.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp ("Yoshiyuki Igarashi")
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Q about the usage of but and though
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:53:35 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Centre for Informatics, WASEDA University
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: wucc.cfi.waseda.ac.jp

I'd like to know the acceptability of the following sentences using
_but_/_though_.

(1) Congressmen, but not the general public, can propose a bill.
(2) Congressmen(,) though not the general public(,) can propose a bill.

Would you be kind enough to tell me how good they sound to you?

--
Yoshiyuki Igarashi @ Tokyo International University  (~~T~~) T T  T
E-mail: igarashi@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp                I    I I  I
        igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp                       U    U  UU
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:49:29 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <1992Nov18.054810.12567@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, srinivas@lips.ecn.purdue.edu (The Abode of Wealth) writes:
> 
> I have noticed that people use an apostrophe in writing "1960s". What is
> right, "1960s" or "1960's"?  I feel that the use of an apostrophe is 
> wrong because when the words are used instead of numbers, "sixties" 

Here's the rule I use.  I think it's fairly standard.

(a) Normally an apostrophe is not used (unless, of course, a
    possessive is intended, or when an apostrophe replaces omitted
    letters).   Thus "the 1960s" is correct.
(b) Exception: after a one-letter word, or where confusion would
    otherwise result, some sort of mark is needed to separate the
    final 's' from the rest of the word.  Sometimes the apostrophe
    is the best choice here, although quotation marks are often better.
    Examples:
       Mind your p's and q's.
       The room was filled with "hi"s as everyone arrived.
    (Yes, I know that that's an ugly sentence, but I was struggling
    to find an example.)
    In the case of an acronym or other word written entirely in
    upper case, I find the change of case a sufficient marker:
       Of the several ANUs around the world, I am familiar only
       with the Australian one.
    Some people would use an apostrophe here, though, to avoid
    ambiguity.

(Of course, some people would use an apostrophe just about anywhere,
but that's a different story.  For poor spellers, the rule used is
"throw in apostrophes at random".)

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:10:17 GMT

In <1992Nov15.145943.5614@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:


>I have done some research on the U-word.  Herewith is the score.  If you don't
>believe me, I would urge you to look it up yourself.

>1.  On the matter of Roger L.'s expert envy:

>I made commentary on this several months ago in a light-hearted manner, and I
>believe he took it that way.  OK then, here's a rundown of the expert opinion.

>In favor of a modifiable uniqueness (this according to Roger): Evans, AHD 1.

>Opposed to a modifiable uniqueness (according to my research): Fowler,
>Nicholson, Strunk & White, Phythian, Partridge, Oxford Guide to English Usage
>(and I would add Webster's 3rd and OED).  I may have missed some experts in
>this tally, but I wouldn't hesitate to guess that they're in this group.

Fowler doesn't like degrees of uniqueness but allows that unique can
tolerate e.g. quite, almost, (and 6 others) as modifiers.

[...]
>HOWEVER, Phythian makes an interesting note that something may be nearly or
>almost unique.
[...]
>I reviewed the discussion of unique in Webster's English usage guide [...]
>In this sense they endorse its modification.

At least three of your NOTs look to me like they allow modification of
unique in some cases. That doesn't lend much confidence to your claim
that the remaining experts are opposed?

Werner
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:19:12 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG, Paderborn, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de

In <97508@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

>In article <Bxnx3p.3w1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tdlg9831@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tracey Dianne Layng) writes:
>>Yes, Coke is a trademark, but people will say it anyway. It's just like
>>kleenex. Kleenex is a trademark, but I never hear people say "Give me a facial
>>tissue." 

>Or:  "I think I'll have some more of that cherry-flavored gelatin dessert."
>Or:  "I have a hangnail.  Do you have any self-adhesive plastic bandages?"

>On the other hand, I was surprised to hear my British friends talk about
>"hoovering" the living room floor.  

And in spain:   UNIX is a brand of fire-extinguishers

OBJOKE:
	Put UNIX in your computer centre and watch the fire go out! Ole!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Q about the usage of but and though
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:05:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.041027.6039@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <IGARASHI.92Nov21000616@wucc.cfi.waseda.ac.jp> igarashi@cfi.waseda.ac.jp ("Yoshiyuki Igarashi") writes:
> >I'd like to know the acceptability of the following sentences with
> >_but_/_though_:
> 
> >(1) Congressmen, but not the general public, can propose a bill.
> >(2) Congressmen(,) though not the general public(,) can propose a bill.
> 
> >Would you be kind enough to let me know how good they sound to you?
> >(Please don't care about the correctness of the content.  Just think
> >about the grammatical forms of the sentences.)
> 
> "But" is idiomatic here.  "Though" tends to go with a verb in such
> cases -- Congressmen can propose bills, though the general public can't.  
> ("But" can be put in that sentence, but it changes the emphasis somewhat. 
> "Though" makes what congressmen can do sound more like an exception--at least,
> it does to me.)
> 
> I don't think I'd write either sentence, though I wouldn't worry about the 
> first one.  I'd usually put the "general public" part either at the end
> or the beginning, not in the middle:
> "Congressmen can propose a bill, but the general public can't."
> "Although the general public can't propose a bill, congressmen can."
> "Although the general public can't do so, congressmen can propose a bill."

Or even 

Congressmen, and not the general public, can propose a bill.

depending on what you were trying to emphasise.

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: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.231257.5217@news2.cis.umn.edu> I wrote (replying
to Roger Lustig):

> O. K.  You've convinced me.  I'll never use it again except as a
> technical term meaning "one of a kind, there are no others".

In article <1992Nov19.023428.23502@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu
(Roger Lustig) replies:

> Gee, that was *frighteningly easy*.  Maybe I should start a cult or 
> something!
>
> Seriously, though, I don't want to disallow uses of "unique."  

Jeez Roger.  You never get it.  I was needling you about having snuck over
to our side without admitting it.  Now your're backsliding again.  You're
better when you're not serious.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:30:40 GMT

In article <722057498@ptero.cs.duke.edu> dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:
>From the Holy Book of <1992Nov18.100410.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
>  as spake by ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) :
>>To me this is proof positive that we already have [a gender-neutral
>>pronoun]: `they'.

>And it's an ex post facto usage of the word, with all the awkwardness
>that implies.

How do you figure that?  It's been around since before Caxton's time.
Shakespeare used it.   Thousands of other good writers use and have used   i
it.  

And what awkwardness does "ex post facto usage" imply?  Could you give 
a few other examples?

>>Even `grammarians' gave up long ago worrying about `you' being used for both
>>singular and plural.

>Wait, 'you' _is_ both a second-person singular pronoun and a
>second-person plural pronoun.

Only recently.  Used to be, one said "thou" for 2nd. sing.

>>                     How come some people still get their knickers in a twist
>>over the everyday use by millions of others of the singular `they'.

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

>Now, does the 'them' in that sentence refer to the transcripts or to the
>person bringing them?

"Some people will be coming by with the transcripts.  Send them to
Room 405."

"Jack will be coming by with the new recruit.  Send him to Room 405."

I'm not sure what singular "they" has to do with this particular ambiguity.

>See the problem?

Yup.  But it has nothing to do with "they" in particular.  It has to do
with the inherent lack of specificity in pronouns.  Even in German,
where everything takes a gender (and accordingly, one can build
collossal sentences without getting lost because the gender markers
sort out what refers to which), simple sentences that happen to have two
referents in the same gender can be ambiguous.  Sometimes you have to
give up on pronouns altogether  to make yourself completely, unambiguously
understood. That's just life.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Paintball/Coloured-ball war games (?)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:05:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, marder@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Stephen Marder) says:

>   This is an appeal to anyone with any knowledge of what is, evidently, a
>very popular form of activity/recreation called 'coloured-ball war games'.
>According to a local source, 'the game originated in the mid-1970s in
>Canada, where some farmers hit on the idea of using special dye-firing
>guns fired from helicopters to mark their cattle herds, which were spread
>across huge areas... The game gradually spread to the US and Britain.
>Today, it is more widespread in Britain than elsewhere, and the country
>boasts more than 200 clubs.
>
>   'Players are divided into two competing teams -- attackers and
>defenders. The battlefield and the objective are determined before the
>game begins. The objective for the attacking team is usually to gain
>control of the defending team's flag or fuel barrels. When the start
>signal is given, attackers advance on the position of the enemy. A player
>hit by a coloured ball is knocked out of competition. Because it is easy
>to remove the colour that sticks to the player when he is hit, players are
>required to call out that they have been hit and to wear yellow bands
>around their arms so that enemy soldiers do not shoot at them as they
>leave the battlefield for the resting camp to await the end of the battle.'
>
>   A local informant has offered the term 'tag warfare' and 'paintball' in
>addition to 'coloured-ball war games' already referred to. Can anyone
>confirm the validity of these names? Does anyone know any other, regional
>varieties of the game, as well as other ways of referring to it?
>
>-- 
>Stephen Marder 			    P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
>Russian Section 		    Email:Stephen.Marder@vuw.ac.nz
>School of European Languages        Telephone: +64 4 472-1000 x8824
>Victoria University of Wellington
>


Here in Ohio, we refer to the game as splat ball.  Goggles are mandated,
but other than that, there is no other safety equipment. (The paint ball
will draw blood at a range of about three feet.)

The game here is also a version of the described "capture the flag" that
you mentioned.  Splat ball leagues exist much like a bowling league
exists.

The game is invigorating.  camouflaged uniforms and body paint are the order
of the day.  One quickly understands that the other team is armed.  The 
breath quickens, the heart thumps, and the mouth goes dry.  It is scary!

As a former Marine, I can vouch for the games sense of reality.  I've
seen grown men retreat in panic at the sight of an attacking patrol.

We do have strange hobbies.  Do we not?
-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:48:32 GMT

Speaking of plurals, a number of years ago McDonald's commissioned a
survey of usage experts to determine the proper plural for Egg McMuffin.
They didn't ask me, but I would have offered the following:

Egg McMuffins : too ordinary
Eggs McMuffin : the analogy with Eggs Benedict doesn't hold, because EB
                typically has 2 eggs; and besides, where would they get
                all those billions of truffles?

Eggs McMuffins : this double plural, on the analogy of children (which
                 takes the sg. child, adds the plural -er, followed by
                 an additional plural, -en, would definitely make the
                 product stand out.  Nonetheless, my preference is for

Egg McMuffin  : the zero-plural, on the analogy of fish, sheep, deer.
                If you want class and cachet, this is the form to pick.

Anyway, so far as I know, the whole project was dropped before a corporate
solution could be determined.

Dennis

__




debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.221451.14168@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov17.181046.21137@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
|> >>	[...]
|> >>In scientific contexts, on the other hand, there would be no sense
|> >>at all in trying, for example, to intensify "Two is the unique even
|> >>prime number" with a comparative.
|> >>
|> >>--Daz 
|> >
|> >Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:
|> >
|> >a)	2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.
|> >
|> >b)	1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.  
|> >
|> >Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
|> >perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
|> >than the number 2, in the above contexts.
|> 
|> Wrong - there are not infinitely more real numbers than integers.  If I
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> had my university notes, I could trot out the proof, but in the
|> meantime:  there are infinite numbers of integers and of real numbers.
|> "Infinite" being an absolute term, you can't say that one infinite set
|> is larger than the other (and certainly not infinitely larger).
|> 
|> Hmm, is Roger now going to argue that "quite infinite" and "more
|> infinite" are legitimate?  :-)
|> 
|> The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

Um, yes, indeed, there *are* more real numbers than integers, as strange as
that my seem. Georg Cantor proved in the mid-1800s that there exists no one-to-
one correspondence between these two sets (the mathematical criterion for two
sets to have equal size).  I would be happy to send the proof to anyone who
requests is, as it is simple enough that anyone without mathematical training
can understand it, and it takes only a few sentences of explanation.

--Daz 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.004556.6597@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.221451.14168@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>>>Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
>>>perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
>>>than the number 2, in the above contexts.
>>
>>Wrong - there are not infinitely more real numbers than integers.  If I
>>had my university notes, I could trot out the proof, but in the
>>meantime:  there are infinite numbers of integers and of real numbers.
>>"Infinite" being an absolute term, you can't say that one infinite set
>>is larger than the other (and certainly not infinitely larger).
>
>Sigh.
>
>Please be gentle with him; he often says things I agree with :-).
>
>Rheal-
>
>  There really are infinitely more real numbers than integers.  The
>classic proof is Cantor's diagonalization argument.  The set of
>integers has countably many elements (its cardinality is generally
>notated by the Hebrew letter aleph subscript zero [pronounced "aleph
>null"]).  The set of real numbers has uncountably many elements and
>its cardinality is equal to that of the set of sets of integers or two
>to the aleph null which is strictly greater.  There exist higher order
>infinities as well.
>  The set of rational numbers *is* countable and therefore there are
>as many integers as rationals.

Sigh, indeed.  Yes, the proof I vaguely remembered was for rationals,
not reals.  Oh well, what can you expect from a CompSci major?

>  It's usually wise to make sure that you're right before you correct
>someone.  [Ok, everybody point out all of the mistakes in my
>correction! :-)]

But, this is Usenet!  If people waited to be sure they're right before
replying to posts, we'd hardly have *anything* to read!  :-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
                                           (I'm sure BNR's glad of THAT!)
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:00:25 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
>Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:
>
>a)	2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.
>
>b)	1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.  
>
>Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers, 
>perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique" 
>than the number 2, in the above contexts.

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

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

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

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english