HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Date: 18 Dec 92 12:49:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1992Dec18.032256.26457@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser") writes:

>kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>>
>>"Horse shit" and "Bull shit" are nouns and adjectives meaning "extreme
>>falsehood".
>>
>>"Ape shit" and "Bat shit" are adverbs(?) meaning roughly "irrational",
>>"non-linear", possibly "crazy".  They seem to only be found as the
>>object of the verb "go".
>>
>>"Chicken shit" is an adjective meaning "insignificant".

>Or "inconsistent," or "insufficient," or "cowardly."

>Also, "rat shit" and "lizard shit" seem to be roughly synonymous with "chicken
>shit" in the first sense, though not in the others.  I think.  (I've only ever
>heard them used by forrunners, i.e., people from the Southwest.)

>And what about "pig shit"? I *think* it's an adjective indicating disrespect
>("...that pig-shit boyfriend of hers...."), but I'm not sure.

And not forgetting:

		"diddly squat" - little shit.

As used in, "I don't give a diddly squat", in other words "I don't give a damn".

I've  heard "diddly squat" being used by in Scotland, I also heard it being used
in some american tv shows and films by characters when they want to sound quaint.

What I'd like to know is where does it come from ? (Honest question :)!)

Another phrase I'd like to know the origins of is, "Hunky Dory".

Cheerio

tariq
--

Tariq Hamid	                 	Internet:  tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
 Department of Computer Science  	JANET:     tariqh@uk.ac.qmw.dcs
  Queen Mary & Westfield College  
   Mile End Road                   	  Telephone:  +44 71-975 5245
    LONDON, E1 4NS, UK             	  Fax:        +44 81-980 6533
From: ecurtis@orion.oac.uci.edu (Evans Curtis)
Subject: Re: Note to Mandar (Observation of point 5)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:30:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.070951.24706@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.143823.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>
>My experience confirms this. As a speaker of approximately BBC English, I
>found that when I moved to the States, many people could not understand me
>simply due to my accent. It did not take much modification to make myself
>understood however, shortening my 'a's and enunciating 'r's solved most of
>the problem.


This reminds me of a TV show here in the U.S. called TV Bloopers and
Practical Jokes.  They were doing one on Johnny Carson.  He was flown to
GB -if you believe that, and was met at the airport by his friend and 
two or three Brits.  The joke was for them to talk in their deepest accent
and some double talk thrown in.  The friend was suppose to pretend he
understood what they were saying (I don't think he did either), anyway,
there was Johnny nodding in agreement and smiling when he thought he should,
but not saying a word.  He understood NOTHING! :) :)  I didn't either, but it
was funny to see how this was possible :) :)  

After he found out it was a joke, he almost jumped the friend :) :)  By that
time I was falling off my couch :) :)



Evans D Curtis
Office of Academic Computing
University of California - Irvine
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: I'm back!
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:43:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <BzAH4o.6CE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>    I am back!!   My wretched finals are finally over and I can now
>devote my energies to establishing the superiority of English English
>over its variants. 

NOW it feels like Christmas!



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language 
From: hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 23:20:08 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Lethargy Inc.


In article <1992Dec17.194237.2190@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> 
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:

  > "Ape shit" and "Bat shit" are adverbs(?) meaning roughly "irrational",
  > "non-linear", possibly "crazy".  They seem to only be found as the

"Ape shit" in my lexicon has at least a very strong implication of 
strong anger, which isn't present in "bat shit" (which isn't a phrase 
I actually use).

  > There doesn't seem to be much pattern here.  Why horses and bulls, but
  > not cows, sheep, or goats?  Why no pigeons? Does anybody have other
  > examples?

"Rat shit", meaning roughly "of bad quality".

"As rare as rocking-horse shit".

 ----------------------------------------------
 Phil Anderson  ***  hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
 ----------------------------------------------
       "No-one is equal to anyone else!"
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:38:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, CCSY Messaging Centre, UK.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

varhus@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kristofor A Varhus) writes:
>Freshman is a noun.  
>First-year is an adjective.  One must append the "student" to "first-year"
>in order to get a noun.  And who ever says "freshman student"?

Who ever says "first-year student"?  At schools in the UK it is (or at least
was, 20 years ago) normal to use the terms "first-year", "second-year" and
so on as nouns; e.g. "In 1971 I was a first-year" and "I want the
second-years to stay behind after assembly".   The alternative, not so useful
in the case being discussed, was the term "first-former", i.e. a member of
the first form (this was exclusive to schools (~= high school), the "x-year"
form was still used at the Poly I went to).  (Members of the top two years
were always sixth-formers, never sixth-years as far as I can recall.  Partly
because they were in fact the sixth- and seventh-years, and partly it doesn't
slip off the tongue so easily).

>What?  Freshman is very descriptive!  Obviously, it's someone who is new at
>what (s)he's doing! 
No it isn't; there's nothing obvious about it at all.  I remember puzzling
over this expression when I first encountered it in a book many years ago.
You are just so used to it you don't see the problem.  (A comment which
applies to this whole discussion).

Andrew
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:38:38 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Knives and forks

(Fascinating disquisition on knife-and-fork manipulation in the UK deleted.)

Thank you, Chris. Although this is obviously not a language issue, that
was the most interesting thing I've read here in ages.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Grammartek Software
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:33:17 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121

In article <BzFFpt.8pM@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>    I'll try digging up the issue where the test results were performed.
>The name of the s/w package which performed the best, escapes me. In
>conclusion though, the article noted that even the best of the grammar
>checkers currently available, performed *far* worse than a human expert
>would have.

Not necessary to dig up the issue.  I think I have it.  I'll have to check 
it out.  Thanks for the info, though.  I *really* appreciate it!!

-- 
Chad Helfenberger
(chelf@lunatix.uucp) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Excrement in the English Language
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:42:37 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

I was thinking the other day about the connotations attached to the
excretory products of various fauna in the English language, and I was
wondering if anybody could help me expand my list.

"Horse shit" and "Bull shit" are nouns and adjectives meaning "extreme
falsehood".

"Ape shit" and "Bat shit" are adverbs(?) meaning roughly "irrational",
"non-linear", possibly "crazy".  They seem to only be found as the
object of the verb "go".

"Chicken shit" is an adjective meaning "insignificant".

"Jack shit" (which, interestingly, is the only one whose accent falls
on "shit") is a noun meaning "nothing".

There doesn't seem to be much pattern here.  Why horses and bulls, but
not cows, sheep, or goats?  Why no pigeons? Does anybody have other
examples?

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | He who will not reason, is a bigot;
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | he who cannot is a fool; and he who
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | dares not is a slave.
				       |               Sir William Drummond
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | 
    (415)857-7572


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gjditchf@plg.uwaterloo.ca (Glen Ditchfield)
Subject: Canadian accents
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:13:03 GMT

In article <RINGO.92Dec10121835@grand-cayman.icad.com> ringo@icad.com (Amy Gorin) writes:
>On a related note, does anyone know how many USan news anchors are
>canadian?  When I was studying journalism it was pointed out that
>they have an advantage over folks from the US, because to a USan ear, 
>educated canadians sound like they "come from nowhere".

I once heard an old-time broadcaster say that when American newsreaders
were given elocution lessons, they called it "learning to speak Canadian".
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Spelling differences (was Re: Reading (was Re: program__ (Re: quit
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:39:54 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

In article <92346.125552HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>In article <TSOS.222.723895705@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de
>(Detlef Lannert) says:
>>
>>I'm still waiting for someone (from the US, perhaps?) to explain why
>>in the example I quoted (`bow' vs. `bough') a different spelling is
>>useful while the pronunciation is the same and both words have the same
>>origin.
>
>It isn't useful. It also isn't an innovation.

According to my sources, it used to be one. Centuries ago.

[So why keep it if it isn't useful? -- If spelling differences weren't 
useful at all, they would've been ironed out, I suppose.]
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake! 
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:16:08 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:
>
>slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (that's me!) writes:
>
>> ObUsage: Why are there two different and incompatible ways of indicating a
>> full dash in typed copy ("--" and " - ")? Why do copy-editors insist on the
>> latter when typesetters insist on the former?
>
>A couple of points:
>
>1) Typesetters probably want the double dash as opposed to the single 
>so they can unambiguously differentiate em dashes from hyphens.

I *know* that.  My question was, why do *copy editors* routinely insist that a
double hyphen is not the correct symbol for an em dash when it's what the
typesetters prefer?

>2) Em dashes may have no space on either side, as in your "--", or 
>they may have narrow spaces, depending on house style. Lack of 
>standards isn't confined to the field of computers...

I thought that the typesetters added the narrow spaces, and the typescript
customarily contained no spaces on either side of the double hyphen.  This is
the rule in every style book I've seen.

Seth L. Blumberg          \ Warning: This posting has been determined to cause
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ cancer in laboratory animals.  Please make sure
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \ that no white mice are allowed to read it.  
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:18:15 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Keywords: Mandar

In article <1992Dec20.061037.6771@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <BzJMLp.84o@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>      Secondly, I am NOT prejudiced against American English. I see 
>>nothing wrong with this variant, just as I see nothing wrong with
>>Indian English; but I am humble enough to accept a standard English,
>>the very existence of which you deny.
>
>India got its independence from England a long time ago, Mandar.  You can
>stop thinking like a 1920's Briton now.
>

India's independence (or America's, for that matter) doesn't have to
do anything with this. This is *precisely* what I am trying to make
clear. Your acceptance of this standard doesn't imply that you are
*still* a part of the British Empire.

>The BBC has forsaken you, by the way
>
In spoken English, well maybe. But a majority of the British still
think that the Queen's English is the purest form. And the Queen
hasn't forsaken me!  ;)

     As for written English English, it is quite standard throughout
the UK.
>
>--

                                                            Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: benh@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Ben Harrison)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Who vs. Whom (FAQ?)
Date: 16 Dec 92 05:34:35 GMT
Organization: /home/benh/.organization
In-reply-to: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au's message of 8 Dec 92 00:08:52 GMT

In article <1g0p2kINNsm1@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber) writes:
>Basically, `who' is nominative and `whom' is accusative.
>In modern English, the distinction (especially as an interrogative
>pronoun) has blurred. This is not a MISTAKE as such as the point of a
>grammar is to describe a language not prescribe it. 

I had an amusing syntax teacher at University of Michigan who wrote
the two forms as <<who>> and <<who'>> to indicate that they are
different but almost everyone pronounces them in the same way.  I
think he was trying to poke fun at us for making such a big deal out
of their distinction.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:51:54 GMT

And the old Army saying

   Shit flows downhill.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dadams@dstrike.demon.co.uk ("David Adams")
Subject: Re: Sexist language) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Data Strike Computers Ltd
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:24:24 +0000

In article <BzBvMn.AnC@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu writes:
..stuff deleted...
>The counterparts for the terms "freshman", "sophomore", etc. in India,
>are some "infinitively more descriptive" (to couch it in the words of
>a previous debater :)  ) acronyms, which are actually composed of 2
>parts. The prefix of the acronym indicates the year of study the student
>is currently enrolled in, and the suffix indicates the type of study.
>
>Thus, F.E. - first year engineering student.
>      S.E., T.E. - second, third year engg. students
>      B.E. - final year student of the bachelor of engg. course
>Similarly,
>      F.Y.J.C./S.Y.J.C. - First/Second year Junior college student 
>      F.Y.B.Com. - First year bachelor of commerce student. (I really
>                   have no idea why they don't change this to a simpler
>                   F.Com!  :)  )
>      F.Y.B.A. - First year bachelor of Arts student.
>and many other acronyms on these lines.....      

On another note:
In both my Oxford English Dictionary and my eletronic version of the
American Heritage dictionary acronym is defined as a word formed by the 
initial letters (or parts ) of other words, *not* merely an abbreviation.  
Thus, NATO and RADAR are acronyms, but USA or IBM are not.

And back to the original subject:
And yes, Freshman is not readily understood throughout the English
speaking world, even less so Sophomore.  And as for the order of
progression through Sophomore, Junior and Senior, *very* few people
in the UK understand this.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Adams                  |   dadams@dstrike.demon.co.uk   |
| Data Strike Computers Ltd.   |   100031.160@compuserve.com    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Keywords: Mandar
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:10:37 GMT

In article <BzJMLp.84o@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>      Secondly, I am NOT prejudiced against American English. I see 
>nothing wrong with this variant, just as I see nothing wrong with
>Indian English; but I am humble enough to accept a standard English,
>the very existence of which you deny.

India got its independence from England a long time ago, Mandar.  You can
stop thinking like a 1920's Briton now.

The BBC has forsaken you, by the way


--
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: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Something NEW, ferGawdzake!
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:35:08 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>I am not selling this idea, but I subscribe to it.  I haven't
>witnessed the birth of the distinction, but I am told by someone who
>has done (and whom I know as highly sensitive to language matters)
 ^^^^^^^^
>that usefulness has been an issue, and I find this quite plausible.

As an American, I've found this use of the verb "to do" is extremely jarring
to my ear, though apparently it is common in the UK, if not the commonwealth.
Can't forget the South Africans or New Zealanders on the net! Canadians (hi
Rheal!) probably side with their southron neighbors on this issue, but I don't
know for sure, eh?

Americans would say "I might have" or "I might have done so," but they would
never think to say "I might have done." It would definitely sound like an
affectation, and would probably produce snickers among those who were aware of
the British usage. To those who had never heard it, it would simply sound
wrong or incomplete. "You might have done WHAT? Why'dja stop? Are you OK?
Not choking, are you?" Well, I exaggerate, but this *is* the net. . .

In America, the sentence cited would simply drop the "done," and the word
"has" that precedes it would be accented, with a distinct pause after it.

So, is this a British colloquialism that has become common over some recent
span of time, or is this something the American colonists drubbed out of them-
selves so they wouldn't appear to be bumpkins? Whence the divergence, and also
we could use a ruling from Mandar here on what is "pure."   ;-}

[There is precedent for this last comment. Europeans ridicule American table
manners, where the fork *must* be transferred from left hand to right after
cutting meat and before moving it to the mouth. However, this was instituted in
colonial times because the colonists were afraid (I don't know if they were
justified) that if they didn't have table manners *better* than the motherland,
they would be looked down upon as uncultured rustics, half reverted to Indian
savagery.]

Enquiring minds want to know, and also want to get off this damned "Who/Whom"
thread, and other flame wars on a.u.e, before it becomes alt.misusage. . .

-Brian
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: American English
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:03:52 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec16.104350.10831@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <BzAGFo.5y8@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>> Amazing how the very Americans who shouted down the program/me
>> distinction, applaud the freshman/first-year distinction!

>That, my dear Mandar, is because `freshman' excludes half the freshers whereas
>`first-year' excludes no-one. 

And, programme excludes programs whereas program(American usage) doesn't 
exclude programmes.     ;)

-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: yuji@cms.kyutech.ac.jp (Yuji Nagaishi )
Subject: some questions 
Organization: Center for Microelectronic Systems, Kyushu Inst. of Tech., Japan
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:43:16 GMT
Distribution: alt



    Hi there,

If you would permit, I would like to have some intuitive responses whether 
the following sentences are acceptable or not from English native speaker's 
point of view. Also, I would appreciate if you can have some comments on the 
context, whether they are okey or not, and some reasons why they are so. 

1)  Ann shrieked that there were cockroaches in the caviar.
2)  Tom shouted that the orange was poisonous.
3)  John mumbled that he was a genius in mathematics, but he actually isn't.
4)  Mrs. Farmer grunted that Mary broke the window.
5)  John grunted that this window is stuck.
6)  I didn't know that cooking requires this much of time and energy!
7)  I didn't know you have 3 kids.

p.s.  I posted same message in soc.culture.japan and fj.life.in-japan.
I got some intrenting replies, but I need more.

Thanks in advance.


--
Yuji Nagaishi 
yuji@mickey.ai.kyutech.ac.jp
KYUSHU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english