HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:30:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.032906.23596@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>
>Well, I learned English at my mother's very English knee (she is from
>Manchester, but I would entertain the argument that Mancunian is not 
>English, but I digress).  But I speak (and write) very American English.
>It was difficult to learn, but I managed.

That's the key.  I assume that any sensible person submitting an article
to a British journal would either use British spellings, or submit to
its being reworked by the copy editors.  That's part of life.  How dull
it would be if we and the Brits both spoke and wrote in the same dialect.
We Americans love British and Australian speech, and we all understand
British written English as well as our own.  It's a unique and interes-
ting relationship few of us complain about, and many of us rather enjoy.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Okey-Dokey
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:31:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul30.153043.12864@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> zrubek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ZRUBEK PETER F) writes:
>
>PS -- I feel so self-consious posting to this group, I am always ready to
>have a bunch of mail saying "improper use of a preposition, blah blah!!"


Your prepositions were lovely, John.  I especially enjoyed your
blah blahs.  Forge ahead!


-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind.  Or not to have a mind.  How true  
that is." -- J. Danforth Quayle at United Negro College Fund luncheon
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Jul21.143545.3981@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul22.132639.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:25:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.132639.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:

   The real issue, I think, is that
   reference to a state (as distinct from, for example, the concrete
   building called "the hospital") is in some sense a departure from a
   strict literal meaning, and therefore often a matter of idiom.
   And idiom is something you would expect to vary from one dialect to
   another.

I strongly agree that it's idiom, and arguing which is `right' is
unfruitful.  However, comparing idioms can be very enlightening.

For example, the following exchange sounds very natural to me:

a: Have you heard?  Jane's in the hospital.
b: No.  Which hospital?

The following phrases sound good to me also:
in/at/to school
in/to elementary/middle/junior high/high school
in/at/to college
in/to jail/prison
at/to work

but not (as I think the British say):
in/at/to university
in/at academy
in hospital

For consideration by all who don't do it the right way. ;-)
--
J Lee Jaap <jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23665-5225
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Spelling differences (was Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:05:40 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>PS Are any of the following words misspelled (or misspelt):
>>		gaol, waggon, oeconomist
>
>I do not claim that I am a whiz at spellings Dan, however I do accept my
>faults, when someone points them out....I would spell those words as
>follows :
>gaol - correct (I presume you are referring to prison)

Yes, I meant the synonym of prison.  However, I must inform you that
you are probably in a minority on this spelling, even among
non-Americans.  I believe that the "jail" spelling is now prevalent in
Great Britain.

>waggon - wagon
>oeconomist - economist
>     Perhaps the last two were the old spellings......maybe not. I presume
>you are from England...could you please enlighten me?

Yes, they are old spellings.  They were common in the UK and the Empire
well after the US had changed to the modern spellings.  Waggon was in
common use up until about WWII; oeconomist (and oeconomy, etc.) changed
about the turn of the century.

But I'm from the US.  I've done a bit of research on the spelling
variations.  

In another article, you suggest that we follow the spellings in the
OED.  And you also said in your original article that we should use the
-ise suffix on verbs instead of the -ize.  You obviously aren't aware
of it, but these are contradictory statements.  The OED has the -ize
endings (except where Americans use -ise -- see below).  As I
understand it, the Times of London follows the OED.  Most everyone else
in the UK uses the -ise, except for a few ultra-pedants who use -ize
for words with Greek roots and -ise for other words.

Americans use the -ize suffix for all verbs except for merchandise,
advertise, and one other which escapes my memory at the moment.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:23:34 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:

>What a miserable, misinformed, prescriptive soul this Indian must have.
>Language has a life of its own, not subject to petty pronouncements.

>--tom
>-- 
>    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

>	    Now I surely will not plague you
>	    With such words as plaque and ague.

Miserable??   Not at all I am quite happy!
Misinformed??   Can you point out anomalies in the article??
Prescriptive???   Huh?

Sure language does have a life of its own....as I mentioned, there are
new words coming into usage, and old words fading out...in that sense
the language is dynamic. But why deface existing words???
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: anymore unique
Keywords: anymore, unique, journal
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:24:34 GMT

The suggestion that unique can mean either `one of a kind' or
`one of a small group approaching one of a kind', ie that it may
be compared or noncomparable, comes close to claiming that a word
can have but one meaning, which is of course arrant nonsense, 
though quite a few well------------known (is that enough hyphens
for ya?) usage critics have made just this claim.  

For example, one insisted that _journal_ could only refer to daily
writing or publication, another that _hectic_ can only mean feverish,
that _paraphernalia_ could only be used in its strict legal sense,
referring to the possessions of a bride exclusive of her dowry.

But of course words are leaky things; they don't do what we tell 
them to, we resist other people's strictures, we reject language
authority at the same time we seek to know what's right, and where
to put the commas.

Sure there are conventions of usage.  But like most conventions,
they drink too much and walk a less than steady line.  To insist
on rigor from a flabby system, which is what language is, means
you will always be disappointed, and usage critics are always
disappointed.


-- 

debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: More unique?  polique!
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU's message of 23 Jul 92 18:43:58 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.92Jul22201000@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul23.134358@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:56:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.134358@IASTATE.EDU>, mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:

> My dictionary (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate), indicates that
> the 'y' in polystyrene is pronounced with the short 'i' of
> 'hit'.  This is the *only* pronounciation given for the word.
> I was surprised also, as I have always (well, let's face it, it
> doesn't pop up in conversation that often) pronounced it with
> the long 'e'.  I only bothered to check it in the first place
> because Ted also mentioned 'polynomial', which I pronounce with
> the short 'i'.

> The other words you list are also given the short 'i' pronunciation in 
> Webster's, with the exception of polyzoic, which is not listed.  

> Are you using a different dictionary, and if so, which one?  

I rely on the American Heritage.  I have never liked the
Webster's, and this is yet another reason.  Many of the
pronunciations for "poly" words with unaccented "y" syllables
should probably just get a schwa anyway.  The AH makes this
distinction, but Webster's doesn't.  But I don't care what
Webster's says about this matter, most of the words I gave are
ones that I "know" are pronounced with the long "e" in all the US
dialects to which I have been exposed.  In the case of
polystyrene, I have been exposed to a lot of organic chemists
also, and I have never heard it pronounced otherwise than
"pol-ee-sty-reen".  I can see softening it a little toward a
shwa, but not much in this case.

You can say it any way you like, but I'll stick with the lone
"e" on this one.  And the AH dictionary gets almost all of these
"right", according to my sense of it.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Take Back the Dildo
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:55:31 GMT

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?
-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: words that peeve me
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:04:07 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1992Jul26.225248.27492@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
> 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!
> 

In the C++ programming language "destructor" is the opposite of "constructor".
I think it's a shame that they missed the chance to have a programming
concept with the name "destroyer" - that would have been cool!

Lorne Epp
epp@mala.bc.ca
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:02:17 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

"Utilized".  I have yet to encounter this word in any context where "used"
would not have served as well or better.  What's worse, it is most often used
by people striving for a "formal" tone, as in some memo or paper, even if they
would never use it in normal conversation.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: right time
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:14:49 GMT

In 1906 two eminent usage critics squared off over the matter
of time-telling.  One, Frank Vizetelly, announced that the
expression `a quarter of seven' was inappropriate since it
literally meant 1 3/4 (seven divided by four).  He favored
`a quarter to seven.'  

But Josephine Turck Baker about the same time announced that
`a quarter to seven' literally meant 6:15, one quarter of an
hour toward seven on the clock dial.  She argued that only
`a quarter to seven' was correct.

Neither expert opted for `a quarter till,' presumably because
they considered it dialect (=South Midland).  But what's a
well-intentioned consulter of usage experts to do in such a
case?  

Today of course the answer is, say `six-forty-five' and be done
with it, an appropriate response in the age of digital time.


-- 
Dennis Baron                                         debaron@uiuc.edu 
University of Illinois at Urbana                     217-333-2392
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: More unique?  polique!
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:53:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.095143.3030@desire.wright.edu>, thayes@desire.wright.edu
writes:
> 
> Anyway, how would one pronounce "polyque"?  For example, 'polyp' has a 
> short 'i' sound (as in 'hip'), but 'polynomial', 'polystyrene', etc. have
> an 'ee' sound (as in 'GP', a.k.a. 'jeep').  So -- 'pol-lee-queue' or
> 'poe-leak'?  Also, would this polique thing refer to membership in a class
> of objects, much as "cheese", having several attributes?
> 
> BTW: I think "more seldom" is fine, as it is synonymous with "rare", and
> certainly there can be a rarest, rarer, and somewhat rare!
> 
> -----ted hayes
> 
> 

Um, Ted, I don't know how to tell you this, but...polynomial and polystyrene
both have the short 'i' sound too.  A brief (very brief!) perusal of my
dictionary indicates that "poly" words take the short 'i' sound if poly-
is followed by a consonant, and take the long 'e' sound if poly-  is 
followed by a vowel (e.g. polyandry, polyester).  So it seems to me "polyque"
would be pronounced 'pol-li-queue' or possibly 'pol-lick' or even (someone
else suggested this!) 'pol-li-kay'.  My own vote is for 'pol-lick'.  

Marie Coffin


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: The "right" time
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:14:24 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <sav.711719557@nanette>, by sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory):
>>	"Do you have the right time?"
> 
>>I don't know if there's some tradition in the U.K. about people giving
>>others the _wrong_ time,
> 
>>Perhaps the timepieces in the U.S. are just that much more accurate that
>>we can omit the "right" when we ask others if they "have the time."  

I suspect (personal guess) the reason for the "right" could be that it
predicates an assumption that you have some idea of
the time but know that it's wrong and needs correcting. In other words it acts as a sort of
justification for the question in the first place, especially as there's
a standard assumption nowadays that everyone wears a watch. 

I don't know about America but the standard rude reply to the question
here is simply to reply "Yes, thank you" and walk on. As for soliciting
ironically the only time this ever happened to me in Soho I assumed that
the woman who initially said "excuse me", was about to ask for the right time
perhaps I'm just behind the times.

Andy Fear, cla04@uk.ac.Keele
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 03:04:24 GMT

In article <84766@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.193534.21246@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>>corruption of word spellings! That is certainly a most shameful act, IMHO.
>                                                                      ^^^^
>Nonsense!  There's nothing whatsoever humble about your opinion.  8-)
>
If you feel so, read IMHO = In my honest opinion {:-)
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "French" spacing (was: How many spaces after a period?)
Date: 23 Jul 92 08:33:42 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

> In article <james.711768891@cs.anu.edu.au>, james@cs.anu.edu.au (James Popple) writes:
> 
>> (I guess that "french kiss" and "french
>> letter" fall into a different category.)

"French Letter" comes from an early condom brand name, which was "Lettre".

Lorne Epp
epp@mala.bc.ca
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: right time
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:01:12 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul21232846@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> In article <Brr6t4.83F@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
> 
>> Neither expert opted for `a quarter till,' presumably because
>> they considered it dialect (=South Midland).  But what's a
>> well-intentioned consulter of usage experts to do in such a
>> case?  
> 
> A quarter before seven.
Or whatever sounds right to you. In this neck of the woods the 
alternatives are "six forty-five" and "a quarter to seven." 
Anything else is understood, but understood to be local dialect
or foreign.

Incidentally, is there any part of the English speaking world other
than small areas of Yorkshire (Sheffield and Batley specifically) in
which it is usual to substitute "while" for "'till" or "to" in such
phrases as "I have a class from two [while, 'till] four?

I've got two friends who use this construction, and it took me several
years to get used to it.

-- 

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: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: "Texas Leaguer" (was Re: french)
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: evan@hpl.hp.com's message of Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:53:51 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 03:22:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.155351.6956@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:

> 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.)

It's disparaging because it carries the implication that
the ball has been hit as hard as the batter can manage,
that if he could hit a real, major league fly ball that
he would be out with that stroke.

I speculate that the term disparages the Texas League (AA) in
particular as a play against the well-known Texas claim that
every thing and every act of theirs is "bigger".  It just
wouldn't have the same ring to it if it were called a
"Midwest leaguer", would it?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: letter to Mandar
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:38:14 GMT
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <UeS7y5a00WBLE6qmUe@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Benjamin D. Lukoff"
<bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 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

No, Ben, we think that seventeen-year-olds are full of idealism and youthful
enthusiasm to set the world straight.  Take it as a compliment.  

Marie Coffin
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: sci.lang and its Mutilation
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:27:41 -0600
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Jul28.213433.13985@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
> kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar) writes:
>>
>>I was disturbed to see how the language is used here in the USA.
>>What I have really come to despise are expressions such as:
>>
>>"I did not get the invite."
>>"Dont do drugs." (Seen on billboards all over the country.)
> 
> When one learns a language in school that is not one's mother-tongue,
> one has to memorize a lot of rules that come naturally to a native
> speaker.  It is easy to get so wrapped up with these rules that one
> begins to see the rules as the language itself, and not as abstrac-
> tions from it.  It is also easy to superimpose the norms of standard
> written English on living speech communities, forgetting that, be-
> cause you are not part of a living community of first-language Eng-
> lish speakers, you haven't had the opportunity to learn the various
> subtleties - regionalisms, levels of formality, etc. - that charac-
> terize British, American, Australian, South Afreican, Canadian (etc.)
> speech.
> 
> If you find colloquial dialects unbearable, given your background,
> then try reading alt.usage.english.  You may find partial fulfillment
> there....

My, we are getting nasty, aren't we?  And xenophobic to boot.

Come on.  Native speakers of English make all of the mistakes that
Kartik complained about, and that you and others have found in his
post.  We have plenty of natives who try to make us write the way
Sister Porcupina wanted us to because she thought that was the only
way.  Kartik didn't tell us anything we didn't already know: that
American newspapers sometimes make dreadful mistakes, and that some
speakers of English (both native and foreign) don't write so well.
Read some of the posts by natives.  Some of you guys don't bother
to capitalize, punctuate, or even try to spell correctly, and we have
constant trouble with posts that simply don't say what the poster
intended.  Even *I* don't always make myself too clear, as a recent
exchange on Black English --> German dialects illustrated.  Let's
just cool it, do lunch, and hope that Bush can be beat.

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english