HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca (Jonathan Story)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: scut work
Date: 08 Jan 93 23:46:36 GMT

This is a case where I *thought* I knew a word but later discovered I
didn't.  This word is "scut", and here's an example from Alexei Panshin's
_The_Thurb_Revolution_:

    "... No, you'll have to make your own notes.  I will make
    an offer, though.  If you want to spend your time making
    David a Big Beaver, I'll mind things here, do the cooking
    and scut work."

I understood "scut work" to be small jobs that have to be done, but that
folk would just as soon not do themselves.  Recently, though, I thought to
look this up in the dictionary and found that it isn't there!  Not in
Oxford's Concise, nor in the original OED.  Possibly, it is related to
"short work", but this is not clear.

So, can anyone supply an authoritative definition and origin?
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A letter to Sue
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:34:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1ikjmrINNl80@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca writes:

>Actually I goofed a bit on my earlier post. I should have mentioned that my
>analysis of 'Mahalingam' was for the benefit of netters who may have missed
>the connection between Mahalingam and magnificent (and if everyone who read
>that article knew it already, I'm bloody glad that Indian languages are
>getting around).

During my travels around India, I came across a good many lingams, both
stone and, er, not.  I found it such a nice, lilting term.  Wish we had an
English equivalent.  However, let's *not* start that thread.



-- 
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
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Date: 10 Jan 93 12:17:31 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1993Jan05.213350.109962@evolving.com> jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes:

# "United States" as a plural noun was current in England well into
# this century -- I found a journalistic example from 1935 the other
# day -- and was standard in America in the 18th century and common
# certainly till the middle of the 19th.  In the Constitution (1783)
# we have "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
# levying war against them ..."  And the 13th Amendment (1865)
# "within the United States, or any place subject to their
# jurisdiction."

Yes, and of course there's the legend that "United States" took plural
agreement until the Civil War, but singular agreement thereafter --
grammar in the service of patriotic symbolism.

David Johns


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 05:56:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.042636.4241@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.173503.26973@rose.com> peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill) writes:
>
>>As I remember, much of the anguished gnashing of teeth concerned not so 
>>much its existence as its usefulness. Even though the word, in the lexical 
>>sense, may be legitimate,  the very fact it caused gnashing says something 
>>about its usefulness. 
>
>How do you reckon that?  Special Relativity caused a lot of gnashing,
>too.  In matters of language, gnashing about a perfectly common word
>can be induced by the gnashing of one pundit's teeth.  Look back to
>the 19th C's gnashing about "donate," "greed," or any number of other
>words we find quite useful today.

Special Relativity caused a lot of gnashing, indeed.  So did a lot of
other theories - but how many of them have proven to be valid (or, to
use a scientific criteria for validity, useful)?

>>I will never use it, and do not wish it used upon me. 
>
>Dean Swift felt the same way about "mob."  Would you have respected
>his wishes?

Again, a lot more innovations in language have fallen by the wayside
than have been adopted.  And thank the Gods of Language for that,
for otherwise English would have collapsed under its own weight!

Certainly, a language is a living, growing, organism.  But uncontrolled
growth is cancer, which is fatal if left untreated . . .

>Seriously, though, what are you saying?  That we shouldn't consider
>how music is made when we speak of it?  That we should expect musicians to
>live on air and play for the glory of art?  (I'm not a musician
>precisely because that one was tried out on me once too often.)

What does this have to do with the validity of "concertize"?  (Besides,
where did Peter criticize musicians?)

>Note also that Fowler can't tell you *why* the words are inelegant, 
>or what "Elegance" has to do with appropriate speech, nor can he
>state what Sir Alan had said in his own words, preferring merely
>to drop the quotation in there without comment.  (This passage
>gets posted to the group about once a month, and is still one of
>Fowler's lesser efforts.)

You mentioned Special Relativity earlier.  Surely, one reason this
theory so caught the popular imagination was the simplicity, the
elegance, of E=mc2 (pretend the "2" is a superscript, please!).

I also dislike "concertize".  I still don't see how this is better than
"perform", except that it's a longer, fancier, word.  (In my experience,
people who choose the longer, fancier, word are more likely to be trying
to dazzle or to impress than to inform.  And I believe the primary
purpose of language is to inform . . .)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:13:49 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Re:K Street

And one of the most popular, at least among popular writers on politics,
a/k/a "pundits": The Beltway, as in are you inside it or outside it.
Non-U.S. readers may not understand this. So just in case, "the Beltway"
is a major circumferential highway that circles Washington, DC. Hence,
"inside the Beltway" means Washington-elitist, political-establishment,
out-of-touch-with-the-real-world-as-other-Americans-live-it. All of
which is largely nonsense, of course. Most people who live inside the
Beltway are just plain folks like me.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Roger the permissivist
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:20:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.052154.11810@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>> Calling me a "permissivist" with all its aura of Dr. Spock is 
>>> nonsense, as I espouse no such attitude.
>
> I neither permit nor favor permitting.  Permitting is for those in
> charge, and there's nobody in charge of the language.

   You give advice, Roger.  When you say:

In article <1993Jan12.062508.17276@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

> So your form would seem to be the older one.  I tend to find and use
> "inauthentic."  But don't let that stop you.

-- that is more permissive than if you had said, "Let that stop you."
I think "permissivist" is a perfectly appropriate label for you.

> Linguists have long been called "permissivists" by the pop 
> grammarians and golden-agers and barbarians-at-the-gate crowd.

   A "linguist", Roger, is someone who purports to study language
scientifically.  If and when he gives *advice*, he is no longer wearing 
his "linguist" hat.  You can't be a "linguist" and a "permissivist" at
the same time, any more than you can be a linguist and a conservative
prescriptivist at the same time.

> It's a stupid term.

   A "stupid term"?  Do you realise you are insulting users of that
term by calling us stupid, Roger?  How sad and ironic that one who 
protests against insult as frequently as you do fails to refrain from
it himself!

   You don't like being called a "permissivist"?  Well, I don't like
being called a "pop grammarian".  But we may both have to live with it.

>> Was Dr. Spock a permissivist?  Or did he condemn them?
>
> Again, neither.  His approach to child-rearing is not based on
> such a dichotomy.

   Then why did you say that "permissivist" has an "aura of Dr. Spock"?

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Concertise
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:22:40 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1993Jan11.174023.25507@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> Special Relativity is a scientific theory -- there, elegance counts
> for a lot, and is defined along pretty clear lines.  What is elegance
> in a word?  Swift complained of inelegance wrt hunderds of words we
> find perfectly OK.

What is elegance in music? in architecture? I am sure you would
not hesitate to say that some music (a Handel minuet), some architecture (the
White House) even some typefaces (palatino) are elegant, whereas others (Le
Sacre du printemps, a municipal bus station, courier) are not. But can you say
why? Just because their are no clear criteria for elegance does not mean that
we cannot use the word, and use it in a way that many people will understand. I
will carry on describing words as `ugly' or `inelegant' and avoid using them. 
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:44:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

About your bit on 'quite':

This is the point I tried to make a couple of months back when we had
the far too lengthy discussion of 'quite unique'.

In British English, quite can have two meanings. The main one, similar
to 'ziemlich' in German, is the one Gabe came across, meaning 'fairly'
or 'a bit' challenging. However, we do sometimes use quite to mean
'completely', as seems to be the standard US usage.

Ben
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pwhitman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Philip N Whitman)
Subject: Re: a MST, or an MST?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:24:25 GMT

Look, there's a nit!  Think I'd better pick it.  That was an interesting 
posting about whether to use "a" or "an" in front of an acronym, and I'll
follow the guideline suggested in my writing in the future.  But, there are
acronyms and there are initializations. Acronyms are pronounced as they are
spelled; thus NASA, laser and scuba are acronyms.  Initializations are simply
spelled out; thus, MIT, MRI and IBM are initializations.  I got this out of
a technical writing guide that a roommate of mine had a few years ago.

-Neal Whitman
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: srinivas@wolf.Princeton.EDU (Santhanam Srinivasan)
Subject: Re: Which is correct?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:44:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.191712.6450@desire.wright.edu>, thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:

[stuff deleted]
 
|> >      One problem is customers' using the wrong wording.  [note apostrophe]
|> 
|> Someone out there will analyze this sentence better than I, but there seems to
|> be no object possessed by the customers here.  A twisted rewrite would be:
|> 
|>       One problem is the customers' uses of the wrong wording.
                                       ~~~~
|> 
|> I prefer the original sentence.  Sounds better, looks better.
|> 
|> -----ted hayes

I would think that "One problem is the customers' use of the wrong wording."
                                                  ~~~
is the correct (twisted) usage.

-S.S

-- 
Dept. of EE, Computer Engg. group,      | (r) 400 D Devereux Avenue 
Princeton University                    |     Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (o)609-258-4108,(r)609-252-0743  | (o) 223B Engg. Quadrangle
Internet: srinivas@ee.princeton.edu     |     Princeton, NJ 08544
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: vince@cadence.com (Vince Gibboni)
Subject: Re: a.u.e. FAQ (was Re: Speaking of mathematics...
Keywords: Lemurs
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:39:38 GMT

gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.172915.13689@bnr.ca> baril@bnr.ca (David Baril) writes:
>:In article <1993Jan7.042510.10712@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark
>:Israel) writes:
>:>
>:>   Thank you; I will mention this in the FAQ.
>:>> Where is the FAQ anyway?  How long have we been hearing about it?
>:>   Too long, and I'm sorry.
>:
>:An "a.e.u" FAQ?  I've been reading the group off and on for a couple of
>:months now and this is the first I've heard of it.  Please advise.
>
> 1) it's a.u.e
> 2) Mark Israel above just said, if you can read, that he's writing it and
>   it's on its way.
>
    Wow ! A totally unwarranted, unprovoked attack - how novel !

    There is nothing in what Mark said to imply that the FAQ did not exist, 
    only that he was working on it. (In some newsgroups - such as a.f.u - 
    someone's _always_ working on the (latest version of the) FAQ).



--
                                                         vince@gda.cadence.com

    Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
        - William of Occam
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: moksha@fakevm.tifr.edu (Virupaksha Mokshagundam)
Subject: Re: Collecting Funny Mistranslations
Organization: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:24:29 GMT


au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:

>I collect printed examples of English (most commonly found on packaging,
>in instruction booklets) that has been literally translated from another 
>language by someone with no clue as to English idiomatic usage, must less
>basic grammar.

Should it not be "no clue as to basic grammar, much less idiomatic usage"?
I ask this in all sincerity!

I once was taking driving instructions from a fellow whom I called "master"
since he was my teacher. What was rather humorous was that he called me the
same, since I was a young chap. However, my main object here is to reproduce
a sample of his speech, which though very far from being printed English is
still replete with some side interest:

"What master, ghabrified from now only! I am telling you not to throw the
cullutch! To release it slowly, not to throw it fast, listen me properly
now!"

The two words which might be unfamiliar respectively denote "frightened"
and "clutch". Sincerely,
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Final(?) Draft of ASCII/IPA Representation
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:07:50 GMT

Looks good, thanks.  btw I think it would be worthwhile to issue it as
a Usenet RFC since it's relevant to communications across the net.

Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:23:58 GMT

mjw@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Alien) writes:

>Somebody wrote that "shat" is Scottish usage not English: I deny it!
>I wish to God people would exercise caution before committing
>themselves to sweeping statements. There is one hell of a lot of variety
>within England let alone all the other English-speaking countries.
>My Dad says "shat" and so do I so there!

Indeed, W. H. Auden (English & then American) began one of his poems
"Unwashed, unshat...".

I gather from the OED, tho, that "shat" is a recent formation,
probably on the analogy of "sat" & "spat".  The old forms were shite,
shit, shitten (cf. bite, bit, bitten, & German scheissen, schiss,
geschissen).  Somehow the past tense drove out the other two forms,
and in my dialect the principal parts are all "shit" (cf. "hit").
Until my mid 20s (i.e. about 1960) I regarded "shat" as a humorous
distortion & did not realize there were people who used it
unaffectedly.

When I was in Scotland in 1960, "shite" was still in fairly common use
among the students there.
-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
From: baril@bnr.ca (David Baril)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: a.u.e. FAQ (was Re: Speaking of mathematics...
Summary: Fool suffered gladly?
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:00:14 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <C0IBFD.AMw@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.172915.13689@bnr.ca> baril@bnr.ca (David Baril) writes:
>:In article <1993Jan7.042510.10712@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca
(Mark
>:Israel) writes:
>:>
>:>   Thank you; I will mention this in the FAQ.
>:>
>:>> Where is the FAQ anyway?  How long have we been hearing about it?
>:>
>:>   Too long, and I'm sorry.
>:>
>:>
>:>misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
>:>Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
>:>
>:
>:An "a.e.u" FAQ?  I've been reading the group off and on for a couple of
>:months now and this is the first I've heard of it.  Please advise.
>
>1) it's a.u.e
>2) Mark Israel above just said, if you can read, that he's writing it and
>   it's on its way.
>
>G
>

OUCH!

I think I've just received my first internet 'flame'! 
 
Suitably chastised for both typo and functional illiteracy, I await the 
forthcoming FAQ with bated breath.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Baril                                  "Can we do it again in shapes?"
baril@bnr.ca                                    "It's not their fault!"
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:28:13 GMT
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <30023@castle.ed.ac.uk> benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge) writes:
>About your bit on 'quite':
>
>In British English, quite can have two meanings. The main one, similar
>to 'ziemlich' in German, is the one Gabe came across, meaning 'fairly'
>or 'a bit' challenging. However, we do sometimes use quite to mean
>'completely', as seems to be the standard US usage.

I don't think most Americans would use 'quite' if trying to set up a list
like that.  The distinction between 'easy' and 'quite easy' just isn't 
clear enough over here.  I'd have done

	Very easy
	Easy
	Average
	Challenging
	Very challenging


--
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:48:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.020701.9391@news.columbia.edu>
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>d) The word "quite"
>
>I acquired a catalog of musical instrument kits (lutes, harpsichords, etc) and
>it had a legend to show the level of difficulty of the kits.  The list read:
>
>	* = Easy
>       ** = Quite easy
>      *** = Average
>     **** = Quite Challenging
>    ***** = Challenging
>
>To my eyes this looked strange, as I would say that something "quite
>challenging" is more challenging than something "challenging," and 
>something "quite easy" is easier than something "easy."

Yes.  I'm told by an English co-author that the way Americans use "quite"
sounds silly in the U. K. so I must never use it in anything we write. It's
the only word I'm not allowed to use.  I gather that "quite challenging"
means not very challenging.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:33:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.074215.29732@netcom.com> lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam) writes:
:Mr. Zeleny's arguments had some weight. But you have shown him for what
:he is, a frustrated, defeated flamer, and one who could care less about
:what gnu software is about.

Or indeed one who couldn't.

G
(Just trying to keep the a.u.e part of this <discussion> in line...)
From: LMEBGO@kiera.ericsson.se (Bengt G{llmo, L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:53:19 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam) writes:

>... in the north east of England (which is where I come
>from) you get `fairly' used colloquially something like the US
>`quite'.  ("It's fairly difficult" -> "It's very difficult")

Is that really the US 'quite'?  I have always thought that 'fairly'
means 'rather', 'somewhat', 'a little',  and that the use of 'fairly' 
that you describe is an example of British understatement.

Bengt 
-- 
Forwarded-By:
Bengt Gallmo                        e-mail: lmebgo@kiera.ericsson.se
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson    phone:  +46 8 719 1940
S-126 25 STOCKHOLM                  fax:    +46 8 719 3988
SWEDEN

The bad thing about good things is that they usually come to an end.
The good thing about bad things is that they, also, usually come to an end.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: New light on the apostrophe
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:40:10 GMT

In article <20231.2b4aa5bc@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
:If the apostrophe ('s) is a contraction for "his", should it

Fortunately it isn't so that saves a long argument, no? :-)

Would whoever wrote that excellent piece on case declension in old English
(a couple of years ago) care to repost it?

G
(Say, is a.u.e gophered or waised anywhere?  If you want to look up one
of the previous times we ran this discussion, look for the keywords
'Piet zijn hond'.  I vaguely remember discussing the differences between
English and Dutch in this respect.  Kay, you were in on this one weren't
you?)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Playing in Peoria (was Re: k street)
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:51:51 GMT

In article <199231.4867.9135@dosgate> "peter curran" <peter.curran@canrem.com> writes:

>Winnipeg:
>Portage & Main - the main intersection.  Sometimes used as a
>reference to "middle Canada" (somewhat like "will it play in
>Peoria?").  

This being a.e.u, folks might be interested in the original meaning of
"Will it play in Peoria?"  It has nothing to do with Peoria as the
supposed typical Heartland city.  Instead, it comes from Peoria's
reputation among Vaudeville performers.

Peoria audiences were *tough*.  My Dad, a native East Peorian, has been
in audiences that have received complete multi-act performances without
even polite applause.  If a show could play in Peoria, it would play
anywhere.

-- 
Douglas Harper | harper@oracorp.com | +1 (607) 277-2020