HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: anymore unique
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:15:05 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <BrHt04.Ft9@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
writes:

> As for unique and other so-called noncomparables, those who insist
> that language conform to logic often cite _more unique_ and
> _more perfect_ as ridiculous errors on the order of being a little
> bit pregnant or dead or whatever.
> 
> However, language does not conform to logic, fortunately for us,
> and unique and perfect have been used in the comparative and
> superlative from their first introduction into the language.  
> 
> You may not like past or current usage -- my guess is that is the
> reason many people have questions about usage -- but you are
> stuck with it (ever try to get anybody to change the way they
> speak?-- it ain't easy.).

This is a sermon that I often preach myself.  However, my objection to the
current usage of "unique" is not so much that it isn't logical.  It's that the
current usage (equivalent to "kinda different, huh") takes a word that once had
a specific and useful meaning, not matched by any other single word, and reduces
it to vague interchangeability with dozens of other locutions.

Moreover, it's the kind of usage that arises from someone being slovenly and
pretentious at the same time, not the kind that shows a creative urge or lets
the inner genius of the language herself come into play.

No, I can't change the way people talk, but I can damn well complain about it.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: lmf@gtech.com's message of 27 Jul 92 15:19:42 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul24.172825@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Jul27.151942.4821@gtech.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 01:38:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.151942.4821@gtech.com>, lmf@gtech.com (Linda M. Fitzpatrick) writes:

> My own pet peeve -- 'weight proportional to height' ??  Usually
> intended to mean someone who is slim, but 10 pounds per inch of
> height is a proportion, but would be 600 pounds for a 5 foot
> woman!

I won't defend the usage, it doesn't need me to, but I
believe what is meant by the phrase is an implication
that the weight is in reasonable or good proportion to
height.  A person weighing 600 pounds would not usually
be said to have weight proportional to height according
to this reasoning.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:30:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <4821@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> esr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Edwin S. Russell) writes:
>> > Contributions are encouraged.
>> 
>> "Roast beef with au jus" in menus.  
>
>Potatoes au gratin with cheese.

ENTHUSED.  As in, "Oh, I was so enthused about this, I decided to
take PROACTIVE measures ..."

Or anything Danforth Quayle says.  My favorite quote:

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is
being very wasteful.  How true that is."
	--From a speech at a United Negro College Fund luncheon

--Lauren
From: tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: anymore unique
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:50:37 GMT
Reply-To: tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R)
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <Bruw6q.yy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parsons@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Parsons) writes:
>tysoj@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R) writes:
>
>>There are important ways in which language is like logic, but this is
>>not one of them.  Using a modifier with a word like 'unique' or 'silent'
>>is a useful resource for speakers, 
...
>
>	The key word here is speakers.  Perhaps it is acceptable to allow
>slightly sloppy usage in spoken English to convey those little nuances you
>mention, especially since there is much more to spoken communication than
>just the words.  In written English, however, it is more important to be
>precise and unambiguous.  I think this should preclude more unique.  As this
>whole thread has shown, whether you accept it or not, it is ambiguous and
>therefore sloppy.

This may be true...but it is stipulation.  There are some ambiguities
which you anyway can do nothing about.  Take your own clause:

it is more important to be precise and unambiguous

You could have meant by this

it is more important to be precise and it is unambiguous

but I take it you actually meant:

it is more important to be precise and to be unambiguous.

Now just because some ambiguity is inevitable doesn't mean
we should increase it, I grant you.  But ambiguity and precision
are relative values in both writing and speach, relative to
the context and purpose of communication.  If you are always
writing to be purely informative, then you may well wish to be
unambiguous.  But even in such a situation you will vary your 
precision according to your purpose.

There are also modes, registers what have you, where people
are deliberately vague and ambiguous, this may be the
case in literature for example.

I don't see why we should select one mode and function of
language and promote values of usage that we maintain are
relevant there, ignoring the wider range of purposes of
language use.  Do you?

Jim Tyson
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:23:54 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: "need"

"One need not pay the postman" and "you make it harder than it need be"
are quite correct in English. The 'be' in 'need be' is in the
subjunctive.  The 'need' without the 's' is the standard form of the
verb and does not involve the use of the subjunctive. It all depends on
how the sentence is formed:
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: "Texas Leaguer" (was Re: french)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:53:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <Brspxq.KDM@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>...Texas leaguer (aka Jap liner, Sheeny Mike, stinker) is
>a cheap base hit. ...

Actually, when I played little league, it was more narrowly defined as
a shallow popup that fell between the infielders and outfielders
(generally because someone was playing out of position).  Another name
was a "bloop single".

I don't think that it's a reference to Texas per se, but rather a
reference to "Texas league" as an exemplar of the minors.  As in,
"that's usually only a hit in the minors".  Why the Texas league as
opposed to, say, the Grapefruit league, I can't say.

Note that it is a mildly disparaging term even when used about
ballplayers who aren't anywhere near good enough to make the minors.
(But only mildly:  a hit's a hit.)

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hplabs.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: International English/Englishes
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:32:36 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul30151615@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.232523.4517@Csli.Stanford.EDU>,
scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
> 
> > What you seem to desire is a standard international english. That's
> > one thing we might usefully argue about. Then there is the question of
> > *which* current variety will be the one closest to the international
> > variety. 
> 
> Why, mine of course.
> 
> > of our writing system. What would be wrong with a spelling reform that
> > would introduce more homogeneity into the English-speaking world,
> > even though it made the spelling system harder?  Kind of quirky when
> > you first think about it, but not so crazy? Or am I too tired?
> 
> Well, we wouldn't want people to think of us as effete snobs,
> so adopting British spellings is out of the question.  Perhaps
> you could convince them to adopt ours?  Or perhaps you're too
> tired.
> --
> ----
> Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
> 408-756-0895                                   USA

Oh, speak for yourself, Mark.  My life's dream is to have someone think of
me as an effete snob.

Marie Coffin
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Nested acronyms revisited
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:09:12 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

On a thoroughly out-of-date thread I've just been reminded of
the net's favourite two acronyms:
snafu  ==  Situation normal: all fucked up

fuck   ==  For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

Another nested acronym!(-:

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
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 03:02:26 GMT

In article <84760@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.191955.20099@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>>Well then, can you tell me who on earth gave you chaps the authority to
>>change the spellings?
>
>That's easy.  God.
>
>
Sorry...he stays in heaven.... :)

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:07:14 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
	<1992Jul26.031137.10102@athena.mit.edu>

I always thought everyone understood the distinction between 'this'
weekend, meaning this upcoming weekend, and 'next' weekend, meaning the
one after that. Is that really used more often by non-American speakers?
I'm from Seattle, by the way.

Ben
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Take Back the Dildo
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:45:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.115531.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>In article <sav.712218520@nanette>, sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
>> I do not want to cant, or...
>> how about       an  infinity, countable infinities, uncountable what(s)?
>
>I use the same word: uncountable infinities.  An uncountable infinity
>may be more infinite than a countable infinity, but it's not more
>unique.
>
>What does this have to do with dildoes?


If you have to ask, Peter, telling you probably won't help.


Toodles!
Dhanesh

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: smills@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (MuffinHead)
Subject: Re: tie one on
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:59:12 GMT

cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:


>does anybody know where this expression comes from? "tie one on?" i've 
>looked in several books of cliche's and idioms, but i cannot find a 
>reference. what exactly is being tied and how? the obvious usage is to 
>overindulge in alcohol, but what does it mean?

   Perhaps it has something to do with drinking so much that you'd die of
alcohol poisoning and get a toe tag tied on your toe? :)

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
$ smills@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu $   Fish must get awfully tired of sea food.  $
$ MuffinHed@aol.com           $               -Dudley Moore, "Arthur"       $
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Horns polishing
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:39:21 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

"The goat wants it horns polishing."

I've only heard this construction in the UK,
and I still can't find a logical sense in it.
I would say, "the goat wants its horns polished,"
implying "the goat wants its horns to be polished."
Similarly, I'd say,
    I want all your food eaten before you leave the table.
    Would you like your feet tickled?
    You need your head read.

Can anyone justify the goat example?

(Extra points for those who can name the sitcom the example comes from.)
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"Being kissed by a man who didn't wax his moustache was --
like eating an egg without salt." -- Rudyard Kipling
From: morris@rtf.bt.co.uk (Neil Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "French" spacing (was: How many spaces after a period?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:45:30 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Jul23.105011.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

>One which has always amused me is "filet americain": American fillet.
>This refers to a dish made with uncooked ground beef.  (Not just lightly
>cooked, but completely uncooked.)  How did this ever get to be thought
>of as an American recipe?  Most Americans I know use the term "rare"
>(in reference to a steak, for example) to mean what I would call
>"well done", so I find it hard to imagine that raw meat would be a
>popular dish in the US.

"Homard a l'Americaine", which is a popular way of serving lobster, 
is apparently a Parisian corruption of "Homard a l'Armoricaine", which
is how they serve it in the Armor region of Brittany. It may be that
this is a similar corruption. 


-- 
Neil Morris                                     morris@btcs.bt.co.uk
BT Customer Systems, Brighton.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:22:54 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English

    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".
    >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.

Benjamin Lukoff    Carnegie-Mellon University    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: ex-presidents' titles
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: dand@buscard.fidonet.org's message of Wed, 22 Jul 92 08:55:40 EDT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 03:00:34 GMT

In article <gate.iRDBoB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org>, dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:

> Caffein is a stimulant.  Nicotine is a depressant.

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

Worth what it cost.  Nicotine, although it can act to soothe and
concentrate the mind of those addicted to it and deprived of it
for longer than ten to twenty minutes, is most definitely a
stimulant.  It has, as is suggested above, several paradoxical
effects, but chemically it has some similarities to caffeine and
several other naturally occurring alkaloids.  All of them have
several contradictory side effects when used regularly for
extended periods.  The key factor, from the standpoint of
classification as a stimulant however, is that both nicotine and
caffeine act to increase respiration and heart rate and to
constrict the capillaries in the extremities, leading to an
increase in blood pressure.  Both have a tendency to provide at
least the sensation of alertness and concentration of mental
faculties.  That is why they are so attractive and widely used,
despite having several undesirable and/or unpleasant side
effects, both short and long term.  The two drugs are also
mildly synergistic.

Disclaimer:  I am not a physician, nor am I a pharmacist.
But I have been a long term user of both nicotine and
caffeine, and I like to know about the things that I 
put in my body.  I still drink one or two cups of coffee
a day, but I have not smoked or otherwise dosed myself
with nicotine in over four years.  Some subtle after-
effects persist, however, but continue to become milder
with time.  Should anyone suggest to you that smoking is
no big problem because you can just quit any time, then
a violent response may be in order here, if anywhere.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:47:17 -0400 
From: "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: letter to Mandar

In "Letter to Mandar" Gregson Vaux writes "...from your posting I would
guess that you are about seventeen. You are full of passion but very
little knowledge". Now, if you've been reading all the postings over the
past few days you will see that I agree with most of you, i.e. Mandar
has it wrong. However, don't assume he's a teenager. I happen to be
seventeen as well and I don't like it when people assume just because
you're not in college yet you don't know anything.

BENJAMIN LUKOFF, Carnegie-Mellon University Pre-College, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: Re: Would
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:10:52 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 07-30-92 15:19
On Thu 07-30-1992, Tom Christiansen wrote:

TC<>All of a sudden I'm noticing people stating things with "would"
TC<>that I've also heard in the indicative, as in:

TC<>    Who's speaking?
TC<>    That would be John.

TC<>While this sort of thing has always been around a little, it seems
TC<>a new thing to use it as frequently as I've heard of late.

I've noticed it too - I have gotten the feeling that it is an inflated use
of language for comic effect - sort of overstating the obvious.

I have a friend who, when the telephone rings, says loudly, 'That'll be the
phone!'

(Well, *we* thought it was funny . . . )

                                Greg


Written by Greg Grainger at Toronto Ontario,
on Thu 07-30-1992 at 3:08:08 pm.
Usenet address: greg.grainger@rose.com

---
   OLX 2.2   Carpe that diem sucker!
   RoseMail 1.70: RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Moving Finger Writes, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:35:45 GMT

eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
: In article <1992Jul20.145931.22967@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>, lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange) writes:
: 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"?
Pardon my raising a frequently asked, badly formulated,
insufficiently generalized question.
:                                                    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. 
: 
In both (US) "in the hospital" and (UK) "in hospital", the reference
is to a state. That the article is missing or present strikes "British"
and "American" speakers as odd seemed to me a curiosity of English
usage.  
: 
: Enough.  I'd better get back to the work.
Bye, thanks, and sorry to waste your time.
: 
: Peter.
Alex Lange
From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: same old same old
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:59:26 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA14132; Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:11:12 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA25006; Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:11:10 -0700
X-Received: from TMS-PORT-15.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTPid AA23906; Tue, 21 Jul 92 17:10:57 EDT
X-To: alt.usage.english.usenet
X-Command: Send_AEvt(doAutoForward)


Another phrase whose origin I do not know:

        same old same old

As far as I can tell, it means that nothing
much has changed.  Anyone know its origin?


Dhanesh
dks@mit.edu
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: words that peeve me
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:52:48 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <9541@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>
>In article BmwFoB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org, dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:
>> Then, what do you think of *verbs* such as "finalize", "destruct",
>>"conference"... ?
>
>The other two I can live with, but "destruct"?

Yeah, "destruct."  

	Synonym: destrue
	Antonym: constroy

Get with the program!


Dhanesh
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: english english versu
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:31:12 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

  => In a message to All on 01-28-19  18:32 Mandar Mukund Mirashi said:

 MMM> thread.... ....I am just a newcomer to the US and what struck me
 MMM> immediately was the difference in the written and spoken language. In
 MMM> India, we follow the English English, since IMHO it is the original and
 MMM> pure form of the language.

Ho, boy, where to begin...

First, If you're a newcomer to the United States, then your comments
are at least premature.  But I'll rush in.

 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"?

 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?

 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.  I don't know whether undiluted "hillbilly" is still spoken
anywhere, but recordings show that it is/was nearly pure Elizabethan
English.

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

                                                   -- Dan --

                      +------------------------------+
                      |   dand@buscard.fidonet.org   |
                      +------------------------------+
                      |       Dan Davidson           |
                      +------------------------------+


... THINK! or thwim.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                                                                             
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english