HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:59:30 GMT
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Aug24.022447.10625@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

# I'll tell you a story.  A true one.  In 1850, one state legislated
# that "he" would be used as the generic singular in all legal
# documents.  30 years later, one such document was used to exclude
# women from the law school, on the grounds that the law stated "he."

British parliament passed "An Act for shortening the language used in
acts of Parliament" in 1850, which went like this:

        ... in all acts words importing the masculine gender shall be
        deemed and taken to include females, and the singular to
        include the plural, and the plural the singular, unless the
        contrary as to gender and number is expressly provided.

My present source [*] doesn't go into any more detail, but I seem to
remember that the reason for this act was that a woman had claimed
exemption from a law that had been written with a generic "he" on the
grounds that the law applied only to men.

If this is true, a reasonable explanation would be that legal English,
under the influence of languages with grammatical gender, like French
and Latin, had continued using generic "he" long after the common folk
had switched over to generic "they".  Thus anyone unschooled in legal
jargon might well assume that the law would not have specified "he" if
it hadn't intended to exclude females, since the inclusive term "they"
was available.

This hypothesis would also explain why "they" cites have been found
going right back to the point where English lost grammatical gender,
but "he" also seemed alive the whole time.

By the way, to those who think that "he" is the normal, pre-PC generic
pronoun, I suggest going out into the real world and listening to the
great masses of Americans (or other English speakers, presumably) who
do not know about grammar rules and PC.  I think you'll find that they
virtually always use "they" with an indefinite pronoun and with very
generic nouns like "person", but that with specific nouns they use the
pronoun that fits the stereotype of the category named by the noun:
"he" for doctors, "she" for nurses, etc.

The relevance of PC, of course, is that we no longer have roles neatly
divided along gender lines.  Of the two proposals that don't involve
making up a new word, that of extending "they" to cover noun
antecedents seems more reasonable to me than extending "he" to the
indefinite pronouns -- which contrary to the prescriptivists, is still
contrary to the "genius" of the language, and leaves the bias issue
unresolved as well.

[*] I got this quote from an article by Martha Kolln in Eschholtz,
Rosa, and Clark's _Language Awareness_.  This article was an exerpt
from Kolln's _Understanding English Grammar.  Kolln cites Robert C.
Pooley, _The Teaching of English Usage_, as her source.

David Johns


Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
From: awalker@cbnewse.cb.att.com (andrew.j.walker)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.160536.28325@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:

>     Does anyone know of a language that has a "apparently gramatical"
>way of expressing sex uncertainty?  By "apparently gramatical" I mean
>a way that does not appear to conflict with any other grammar rules of
>the language.

In spanish the word "su" (or "sus" if object is plural) is the only
3rd person possive pronoun.  i.e. su = his, her, their, its.
Thus we have a gramatical way of expressing sex uncertainty
in this case.

For subject pronouns (he she it they) they can just be left off
in cases of sex uncertainty since the phase can be understood
via the verb conjugation.  e.g.

  Someone pulled the fire alarm.  Do you know why (they, he/she) did it?
  Alguien dio la alarma de incendio.  Sabes por que lo hizo?

If I understand the issue correctly (and perhaps I don't) then
I would say Spanish has a gramatically correct way of expressing
sex uncertainty.  The issue that exists in English regarding "they"
and "their" substituting their singular counterparts
doesn't exist in Spanish.

This is probably true for other romance languages?

Andy Walker
Madrid, Spain
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.celtic
From: man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine)
Subject: Re: [pronouns] Re: Other properties of pronoun usage
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:23:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.192440.5521@rdg.dec.com>, cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug28.160024.19136@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes...
|> >If I remember my high school Spanish correctly, most dialects did the
|> >same thing with the second person plural (the formal "ustedes"
|> >supplanting the familiar "vosotros").
|> > 
|> 
|> Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic seem to have undergone this change 
|> very recently, and it is probably still happening. The 2nd person
|> plural form "sibh" was reserved as a polite form, but these days
|> both languages are losing the polite form rapidly and replacing it
|> with "thu","tu/" for singular and "sibh" for plural. 

The same change towards using the familiar form 'ti' instead of the
polite form 'ch(w)i' is occurring in Welsh as well.  I don't have
exact statistics, but an informal survey (very limited sample)
accords with those statistics you gave for Gaelic.

	--Mark
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: "Neuman style" (was: Russian dative + infinitive)
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:52:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: memstvx1.1992Sep4.115212.3207
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Sep4.041542.8778@Princeton.EDU>, mikulska@bessel.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.113238.3085@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>> And consider the following:
>>
>>	Heinrich, mich graust vor dir!
>>
>>Damit ist wohl Deine Erklaerung gerichtet, meine gerettet? :-)
> 
> Her zu mir!  :-)
> 
> Warum "mich graust" und nicht "mir graut's" ?

Weil ich einfach zu schnell getippt habe, ohne den Wortlaut nachzuschlagen.
Hoffentlich hoer' ich deshalb nicht: "Her zu mir!"

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: thole@cs.rulimburg.nl (Johan Thole)
Subject: Re: Zusammenfassung: Rechtschreibereform
Organization: University of Limburg
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:08:27 GMT

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>>> * Phonetische Schreibung von Fremdw"ortern (wie im Niederl"andischen).

>Was geschieht denn im Niederlaendischen?  Soweit ich weiss, ist dort
>z.B. "c" statt "k" oefter als im Deutschen behalten.

Ich habe das mal im "Groene Boekje", die "offiziele" Beschreibung der
Niederlaendische Sprache nachgesehen:

[Groene Boekje 1990]

*	Wenn in einem Wort die 'k' schon seit Langem benuetzt wird, wird
	nur die Schreibung mit 'k' als Korrekt gesehen.

Bspl:	karton, katholiek, katheder


*	In Fremdwoerter, auch wenn sie haufig benuetzt werden, ist nur die
	Schreibung mit 'c' korrekt.

Bspl:	cachot, coulant, causeur, cadeau, creatuur

*	Wenn diese Regeln kein Ausschluss bieten duerfen sowohl 'c' als 'k'
	benuetzt werden. Meistens wird der 'c' bevorzugt.

Bspl:	cactus oder kaktus, kornet oder cornet.

[Ende]

Es stimmt dass fuer andere Lauten andere Regeln gelten, z.B:

	'ph' - immer -> 'f'		fonetiek statt phonetiek.
	'qu' - manchmal -> 'kw'		kwaliteit statt qualiteit.

Trotzdem wird in den meisten Woerter noch immer die Fremdschreibung
benuetzt. Ob einmal Konzensus (Niederl: consensus) erreicht wird ueber die
"Niederlandisierung" von Fremdwoerter ist fuer mich eine offene Frage.

- Johan.
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6796 alt.usage.english:6997
From: churchh@ut-emx.uucp (Henry Churchyard)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Conventional Gender (was: gender neutral pronouns in English)
Summary: die Schildwache
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:23:04 GMT
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <10511@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
} 
} >[In English] Gendered words (the personal pronouns) were
} >*almost always* used for identification of a person's sex.  That is, the
} >gender-sex connection became far stronger in English than in other
} >languages [with conventional grammatical gender for logically inanimate 
} >[nouns].
} >Nobody thinks of a penis when they hear "der Tisch" in German.
} 
} Not really.  Russian _on_, unlike English "he", can refer to a host of
} inanimate objects, but it can't refer to a female being any more than
} English "he".  In other words, if it has a definite antecedent, it
} can't belong to the female sex.  So there is a clear connexion between
} it and the male sex. 
} 

  Really?  Then what pronoun would you use to refer to _die_Schildwache_?

--
         --Henry Churchyard     churchh@emx.cc.utexas.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Zusammenfassung: Rechtschreibereform
Keywords: Kirche, Kueche, Kinder
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:34:19 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <8813@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil> matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Matt Rosenblatt) writes:
><...> "zh" and "sch" are also an asymmetric pair.  If symmetry counts,
>we get:
>
>            "Zchurnal, Garazche, Montazche, Dzchungel."

We don't.  Consider the following (one table is worth a thousand words):

(voi: voiced, shi: shibilant, aff: affricate)

   voi shi aff   Lithuanian   Albanian   English   German

    -   -   -    s            s          s[s]      s[s]
    -   +   -    \v{s}        sh         sh        sch
    -   -   +    c            c          (ts)      z
    -   +   +    \v{c}        \c{c}      ch        tsch

    +   -   -    z            z          z, s      s
    +   +   -    \v{z}        zh         s, (zh)   -?-
    +   -   +    dz           x          (dz)      (ds)
    +   +   +    d\v{z}       xh         j         (dsch)

See what I mean by symmetry?  In English and Albanian "zh" and "z"
differ in one feature.  In German "z(c)h" and "z" would differ in all
three features.

>Does that look any less "undeutsch"?

No more unGerman than having "j" or "g" stand for something other than
their usual German values.

>Best not even to venture into the Dzchungel of "Rechtschreibereform."
>No less a figure than George Bernard Shaw tried to do this for English.
>His attempt lies buried under the dust of the decades.

He attempted a fundamental change, and it was doomed to fail.  Here
we're talking of a minor change, which would affect only a few words.
It has been done in the past ("rot" and "tun" used to be written
"roth" and "thun").  I don't think it would be impossible.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (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
From: matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Matt Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Zusammenfassung: Rechtschreibereform
Summary: Zch?
Keywords: Kirche, Kueche, Kinder
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:21:50 GMT
Organization: U.S. ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY (AMSAA), APG, MD.

In article <10574@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) 
writes:

>In article <ZMJ6GGW@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> knappen@obelix.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE 
>writes:

>>"> ">   (Also dann: Zhurnal, Garazhe, Montazhe, Dzhungel).   [?]

>>Jede Idee sieht "undeutsch" aus,  [knappen]

>Natuerlich, - weil der zh-Laut so sehr undeutsch ist.  Mein
>Familienname wird bei Deutschen stets "Derschanski" ausgesprochen.
. . . 
>Trotzdem wuerde "\v{z}" neben "sch" ganz dumm (weil asymmetrisch) aussehen.
>[Ivan A. Derzhanski]

But "zh" and "sch" are also an asymmetric pair.  If symmetry counts,
we get:

            "Zchurnal, Garazche, Montazche, Dzchungel."

Does that look any less "undeutsch"?

Best not even to venture into the Dzchungel of "Rechtschreibereform."
No less a figure than George Bernard Shaw tried to do this for English.
His attempt lies buried under the dust of the decades.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
					(matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil)
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6664 alt.usage.english:6861
From: lucas@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Bruce Lucas")
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: k and s
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:53:13 GMT

The relationship of k and s is something that has long puzzled me.
I am aware of two examples of a phonological correspondence between
k and s in Indo-European languages: one involving (for example) Latin
and Sanskrit and one involving (for example) Latin and French.  (Compare
for example the words for "hundred" in those languages.)  What puzzles me
is how k could become s or vice versa; they are produced in completely
different parts of the mouth and sound very different.  Obviously my naive
understanding of the processes of phonological change is incomplete;
is there an expert in this field willing to say something that will
make this correspondence more intuitive to me?

Bruce Lucas
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: typology of Esperanto
    <1992Aug20.214711.24506@spss.com> 
    <1992Aug23.190212.107@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1992Aug24.202419.9164@spss.com>
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.202419.9164@spss.com>
markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Aug23.190212.107@leland.Stanford.EDU> alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:
>
>
>>To take a classic example, do you consider English to be a Germanic language,
>>vocabulary of English is derived from Latin (via Norman French or not) and
>>Greek than from Proto-Germanic.
>
>I think the prototype approach works very well here.  The prototypical
>example of a Germanic language would surely be German, not English.
>Both are Germanic, but German is a better example of Germanic.
 
There are several problems involved with this approach to language classi-
fication. First, we seem to be confusing typology with affiliation.  The
term Germanic is one applied to certain languages based on their historical
origin and development, not surface resemblance.  Second, of the 'parts'
of a language that one might consider in deciding whether language x is or
is not a member of language family q, vocabulary is the least safe, and
the least relied on by historical linguists (Swadesh having been an anthro-
pologist, and Greenberg is not widely accepted by historical linguists.)
For example, the observation that Italic (French, Latin, etc.) words out-
number Germanic ones in an English dictionary is beside the point, since
our knowledge of the development of English makes clear that these were
grafted onto the language by borrowing.  No matter how much I borrow from
someone, my genetic classification is unchanged. By the by, an argument
can be made that in some ways English is a more typical Germanic language
than is German.  One characteristic that helps define the Germanic languages
is that referred to as the first consonant shift, or Grimm's law (regard-
less of the details we attribute to Indo-European consonants).  English,
like Danish and Dutch, Gothic and Swedish, has for the most part preserved
the Germanic consonant system, while German through its second consonant
shift has not, making it more difficult to recognize as Germanic.
 
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: knappen@methusalix.kph.uni-mainz.de (Joerg Knappen)
Subject: X and Y
Keywords: Y
Reply-To: knappen@obelix.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE
Organization: Institute for Nuclear Physics, Uni Mainz, FRG
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:04:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.181010.7490@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:

"> "Anyway, most of your examples are words borrowed from other languages, and the
"> "name of the letter is not even a word. Or could you find an English word in
"> "which 'h' is actually pronounced /eitS/ ? (Or Italian word in which it is 
"> "pronounced /akka/, or a German word in which 'y' is pronounced /Upsilon/...)
"> "                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"> "Let's not split hairs.
"> "
"> "	Sven

Well, here it is:

Das Y-Chromosom.

:-) J"org Knappen.
Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:37:10 GMT

Amidst all this chat about 'they', 'them', etc. as "gender neutral singular"
pronouns with a long and hono(u)rable history in English, let us remember
humbly that these items are not native to our language, but imports from
Scandinavian tongues spreading from the Danelaw.   There was for a while
the possibility that English could have ended up with a form 'he', by
normal phonological (well pretty normal) from the Old English subject
pronouns meaning in today's English, not only 'he', but also 'she' and
likewise 'they', namely 'he', 'heo' and 'hie' respectively.  Indeed 'seo'
(the OE form that gives us 'she') wasn't a personal pronoun but a
demonstrative.  (I only list the 'standard' textbook forms of Old English,
and one should keep in mind that, unlike Modern English, Old English
often was quite permissive in spelling and use of variant forms, since
the poor wretches lacked our expertise in what is correct.)
 
     "I chose the flourishingest tree in all the park." A.Cowley 'The Tree'
From: matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Matt Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Agglutinative languages
Summary: Lots of agglutination in Korean
Keywords: Kim Chongsoon
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:01:57 GMT
Organization: U.S. ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY (AMSAA), APG, MD.

In article <1992Aug24.191142.12213@microsoft.com> siobhan@microsoft.com 
(Siobhan Harper) writes:

>I'm interested in knowing specifically whether Basque is an agglutinative
>language in the sense that Turkish is, and more generally, what other
>languages are. I know about Finnish, Hungarian, and their cousins, but
>what other languages are truly agglutinative?   [Siobhan Harper]

I know zilch about Basque, but I studied Korean in college, and my
professor said that Korean is an agglutinative language.  I can
believe it, too:  Some of those verb forms had six or seven endings,
tacked on one after the other.  'Course, Korean is an Altaic language,
and Siobhan Harper may already have had Korean in mind as one of the
cousins of Turkish.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
					(matt@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:47:20 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog):
:The fact that it is not taught, maybe gives a clue that the
:usage is not so spread as you like to imagine, by the way.

That's one possibility.  However, empirical evidence (listening to
people in normal conversation) soundly disputes this hypothesis.

Another possibility is that the prescriptive grammarians are the ones
who write the textbooks that you have learned English from, and that they
have their own agenda regarding what gets taught, an agenda that does
*not* include actually characterizing who people speak, but rather how
they *want* people to speak.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
    "The effect of his affected accent affected her,
     and effected a change in her affections."
				--Steve Chapin 
Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: Cognitive linguistics [was Re: Prototypes]
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:10:34 GMT

pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:

>I know this wasn't your topic, but it's one that interests me more.  Any
>"Cognitive" linguists read this?  

This isn't David's topic either... but I need some clarification here. I
have looked at a few things in so-called cognitive linguistics and haven't
seen much I had not seen already in "other kinds of linguistics", i.e.
those that do not dub themselves "cognitive". So, are some of us smarties
and put "cognitive" in front of the stuff we've been doing for ages in
order to attract the magic dollar, or am I missing something?

I'd like to hear from those who could tell me the difference between
"linguistics" and "cognitive linguistics", if there is a difference.

I've also cross-posted this to sci.cognitive. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bert Peeters                         Tel: +61 02 202344
Department of Modern Languages               002 202344
University of Tasmania at Hobart        Fax: 002 207813
GPO Box 252C                            Bert.Peeters@modlang.utas.edu.au
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6890 alt.usage.english:7061
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:23:05 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug31.022533.3636@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog):
>:
>:Neither can we use "they" instead of "he", particularly
>:is the instruction is to be read by non-native speakers. 

Come on, Erland.  Why should it matter that the instruction will be
read by non-native speakers?  It is like asking a native speaker of
British English to use American English when addressing a (partly or
mostly) American audience.  You wouldn't suppress a feature of your
Swedish for the sake of non-native speakers just because it is not
highlighted in texbooks.

>Hogwash.  This usage should simply be included in lessons
>on English.  It's used so much that not doing so leaves
>non-native speakers handicapped.

Handicapped in what respect?  Unable to communicate with non-native
speakers?  Not at all; they tend to be very good at becoming familiar
with features that are not present in textbooks.  Unable to
communicate among themselves?  Not that either; textbook English, if
somewhat different from what native speakers use, is perfectly fit for
serving the world at large - in any case much more so than Esperanto.
I can easily imagine that one day it will become _the_ language of
international communication, spoken as a second language by a little
more than four thousand million people, and it will be interesting
what features of the language will help us recognise the minority of
native speakers, "those who had the language before us", in the crowd.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (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: sci.lang
From: elf@ee.ryerson.ca (luis fernandes)
Subject: Translate Phrase Latin->English
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:52:33 GMT

Could someone translate the following phrase:

	Timor Mortis conturbat me

It is from William Dunbar's _Lament_for_the_Common Man_; the
phrase ends each verse.

ADVthnaksANCE

zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx
Luis Fernandes  <elf@ee.ryerson.ca>
-Friendly Neighbourhood X Wizard's Apprentice
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx