HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: consultant
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:26:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Dakota State University

In <1992Oct2.182319.10534@cs.mcgill.ca> pone@cs.mcgill.ca
(Daniel (...) Shields) writes:

>Is it considered correct to say "I consult with" or "I consult for" when
>referring to a position in a company for which the job title is 
>"consultant" ?  Thanks.

To my ear (if I had a consultant job) I'd probably say that in my work
as I consult for <XYZ Corp> I frequently consult with my colleagues to
resolve the more obscure parts of my problem.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: yeh@qucis.queensu.ca (Delbert Yeh)
Subject: a good dictionary
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:16:43 GMT

Can anyone recommend a good english dictionary to buy? Thanks,
Delbert
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
Subject: Re: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Moving Finger Rights
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:09:54 GMT

How many of you actually use the pretentious phrase _hoi polloi_?
Once again, Fowler's recommendations are entirely sensible.

   hoi polloi.  These Greek words for the majority, ordinary people,
   the man in the street, the common herd, &c., meaning literally
   'the many', are equally uncomfortable in English whether
   _the_ (= hoi) is prefixed to them or not.  The best solution is
   eschew the phrase altogether.

Alex Lange
Somewhere near The El Camino Real
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: MORE LIKE?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:59:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Sep30.150209.126936@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>In a quote from a major newspaper discussing the Bush taxpayer option
>to check a box on their tax return to direct a part of their tax payment
>towards reducing the deficit, the paper states:
>
> "We believe it would be more
> like trying to fly a jumbo jet by letting everybody on board operate the
> controls at the same time."
>
>Is the phrase "more like" considered proper in the English language?

In certain contexts, certainly.  Its meaning is something like "a
better analogy/metaphor is...".  At the end of the sentence you have
to add "than [what they said it was]".  i.e.,

	We believe it would be more like trying to fly a jumbo jet by
	letting everybody on board operate the controls at the same
	time [than a rational way to reduce the deficit].

I'm having trouble putting my finger on it, but there is a connotation
difference between sentences with "more like" and those with "like".
Perhaps, there is more of an explicit disagreement with the original
statement or analogy.  Of course, what is disagreed with may be the
extent rather than the truth:

	They told me he was big as a horse.  More like a house,
        really.

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

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dschlow@epas.utoronto.ca (Deborah Schlow)
Subject: Re: consultant
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:23:21 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Articles and acronyms)
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:04:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.163802.15087@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>
>Back when they were *first* appearing on the scene in Chicago, "Money
>Machine" (which may or may not have been a brand name) was the
>generic.  I haven't lived there in ten years, so I don't know if this
>is still current.

Around here it's "cash machine."  Banks call them ATM's anot not by
any machine brand-names.

As for the "ATM machine" argument, you don't call the font technology
"ATM manager" nor do you call a crafty astronomer an "ATM maker," so
there's no reason to call it an "ATM machine."  Just as bad as a DAT
tape, the DOS operating system, 6 a.m. in the morning, the SAT test,
the HIV virus, and of course, "please RSVP."


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Articles and acronyms)
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:42:50 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep26.060453.19626@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
<As for the "ATM machine" argument, you don't call the font technology
<"ATM manager" nor do you call a crafty astronomer an "ATM maker," so
<there's no reason to call it an "ATM machine."  Just as bad as a DAT
<tape, the DOS operating system, 6 a.m. in the morning, the SAT test,
<the HIV virus, and of course, "please RSVP."

Actually, "please RSVP" is much worse than any of the others, because
in it the expanded word ("please") puts 3/4 rather than 1/3 of the
abbreviation out of business.

-- 
 `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: alt.usage.english
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Re: clean somebody's clock
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:26:46 GMT

In article <4231@winnie.fit.edu> tepedeln@zach.fit.edu ( N. Tepedelenlioglu) writes:
>I heard the idiom "to clean (somebody's) clock on TV the
>other day. I gather it means something like beating up on
>somebody but I am not sure. I looked it up in every dictionary
>I have, from Oxford's to Partridge's; couldn't find it. I would
>appreciate if somebody posts exactly what it means and also
>the origin: why a clock for heaven's sake?

You're pretty close.  To clean someone's clock is to beat them
completely, beyond a doubt of who won the fight.  You don't have to
leave them unconscious (put/punch their lights out); you just have to
give them a thorough thrashing.

I don't know the origin, but I have an example of its use, courtesy of
a.u.e's own quick-witted Cameron Smith.  I asked him at a party what
would have happened to the lines:

	"Shoot if you must this old gray head,
	But spare your country's flag," she said.

if the brave old woman had been a brave young woman.  I started him out
with:

	"Shoot if you must these raven locks,

and he gave out this line, without a pause:

	But my husband will come out and clean your clocks."

-- 
Douglas Harper | harper@oracorp.com | +1 (607) 277-2020
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: difference between boyfriend and girlfriend
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:03:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep28.031210.17577@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>I don't think the Beatles ever used "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" in a 
>lyric.  "Girl," "You're gonna lose that girl," "I once had a girl,"
>"she's the girl for me and I want all the world to see she's mine,"
>etc.  Maybe it's more an American thing, or perhaps just not
>Liverpudlian.
>

Let's update this, 1990s style:

"Significant Other," "You're gonna lose that significant other," "I
once had a significant other," "she's the significant other for me and I
want all the world to see she's mine."

"My significant other's back, and you're gonna be in trouble (Hey na, hey
na, my SO's back)."


Makes you think of computer dating, doesn't it?



-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Adjective needed for the following scene.
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 20:50:57 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Describe the following scene with a one word adjective:
==========
You are riding your bicycle along a country dirt road and up ahead you
see the massive concrete pillars  and steel girders of a interstate highway
bridge. At that moment, enormous tractor-trailers are passing overhead.  
The stench and the roar of the highway is overwhelming.

Then, suddenly, out of the corner of your eye, you notice cattle peacefully
grazing in a meadow not too far from the road.
===========

You want a word that describes the rider's bewilderment at the striking
contrast of the peaceful nature scene juxtaposed with the tumult of the
industrial age.

Some of the words that I am considering are: anachronous, paradoxical,
contradictory.

Can someone come up with a better word to describe the situation?

-- 
Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: rallen@netcom.com (Robert W. Allen)
Subject: Re: login, logon, logout, logoff
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:15:06 GMT

futor@llnl.gov (randy j futor) writes:

>Till I read your post, 'on'&'off' was IBM while 'in'&'out' was everyone
>else.  ( Which underscores yet again the fact that everyone else has more
>sense than Big Blue! ;-)

Not quite everyone else - the Pick system has always used 'ON' and 'OFF'.
Yes, they're capitalized intentionally - the Pick world never made the 
transition to defaulting to lower-case letters. 

--
Rob Allen
rallen@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: h as in Pittsburgh (was Re: to be or not to be
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:19:33 GMT

eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>> 
>> Some of the other standardizations were to change -borough to -boro,
>> get rid of possesive forms and diacritic characters (including
>> apostrophes as in D'Lo, Mississippi) and hyphens.  To a certain extent,
>> they were successful, especially with possessives.  
>
>I'm relieved - but only slightly - to discover that Australia is
>not alone in this respect.  Around here we have Warners Bay, 
>Johns Road, and so on.  I don't think there's a single place name
>in Australia which still has an apostrophe.

Well, someone else mentioned Lee's Summit, MO.  Besides that, there's
D'Lo and D'Iberville MS and Coeur d'Alene, ID.  There may be more, but
not many.  D'Lo and Lee's Summit were spelled Dlo and Lees Summit for a
while, but they've since reverted.  Coeur D'Alene never lost it's
apostrophe, and D'Iberville evidently didn't exist when the decision to
get rid of them was made.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: difference between boyfriend and girlfriend
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:12:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.205508.5398@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>   These terms were coined at a time when cross-sex friendships were
>more often assumed to be romantic than they are today.

>   They're relatively recent as the default terms for steadies, though.
>The Beatles sang "Last night I said these words to my girl", not "my
>girlfriend".

At around the same time as another group sang, "my boyfriend's back
and you're gonna get in trouble."  Besides, the Beatles *couldn't* have
sung "my girlfriend" there, not only (as someone else pointed out)
because of meter but because "girlfriend" isn't used for addressing
someone, and the next line is "'I know you never even try, girl.'"

Of course, Sandy Wilson's _The Boyfriend_ hit the stage several years
before either song, and it was about the Twenties, when, if the show
(a brazen parody of Twenties musicals) is correct, the term "boyfriend"
was in vogue.

I don't think the Beatles ever used "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" in a 
lyric.  "Girl," "You're gonna lose that girl," "I once had a girl,"
"she's the girl for me and I want all the world to see she's mine,"
etc.  Maybe it's more an American thing, or perhaps just not
Liverpudlian.

Roger
From: futor@llnl.gov (randy j futor)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: login, logon, logout, logoff
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:57:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: CSo @ LLNL


 slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth L. Blumberg) wrote:
> 
> "VICKIE STARBUCK" <TS0058@ohstmvsa.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> >Personally, I logon to my MVS system . . .
> 
> Yes, and there are a few bastard systems with "login" and "logoff,"
> or "logon" and "logout."

These would be that subset of the race that actually *enjoys* watching me
go nonlinear, I guess.  Are there *really* systems with 'in'&'off'? 
'on'&'out'??  What'd they do -- steal the code from different sources?

Till I read your post, 'on'&'off' was IBM while 'in'&'out' was everyone
else.  ( Which underscores yet again the fact that everyone else has more
sense than Big Blue! ;-)
__
\/  -+-  randy  -+-  all generalizations are flawed  -+-  futor@llnl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tdlg9831@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tracey Dianne Layng)
Subject: Re: cockney slang
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:55:16 GMT

Sorry, I forgot to mention that _The Muvver Tongue_ was published after
1986.

Tracey
UIUC
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 10:14:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Bee sting or Bee bite?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard ISG-SBU-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders) writes
>jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>
>>>Is it correct to say that a bee bites his victim?
>
>>_Her_ victim, actually.  
>>--Joe
>
>_His_ victim, actually.  The only female in the hive is the queen. 
>Workers are male, and the drones are neuter. 
>                                   Scott

No, the drones are male, the workers are non-reproducing females.  One sex
is XX, the other is XO, if I remember correctly.  There is no genetic
difference between a worker and a queen, the queens are fed differently
after they hatch which causes them to develop differently.

However, this is entomology, not etymology.  I would add that it jars when I
hear people talking of being bitten by a bee, even if it is the 'local
usage'.

Andrew
From: tregan@everest.srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: THE SEMI-COLON
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:13:47 GMT
Reply-To: tregan@srd.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

From article <19cfgpINN1ao@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu\\ (Bonita Kale):
 
> As we learned it in school, a semicolon is used principally, either (a) to
> join two clauses without a conjunction or (b) in lists of things, some of
> which have commas in them, so the list might be unclear.

...

> b.  "My grandmother told me to carry a clean handkerchief; not to talk to
> strangers; and to accept only candy, flowers, or books from a gentleman."
 
        In British usage of English, a comma separated list takes the
form
 
                "x, y and z"
 
rather than the usage I prefer, the American usage of English, which  
gives the list the form

                "x, y, and z"

(correct me if I'm wrong). Is this difference reflected in the
construction of lists from semi-colons, i.e. is it correct British
usage of English to write

                "w; x; y and z"

or

                "w; x; y; and z"?





                                Yours,

                                 Tim.


--
Timothy Regan		tregan@srd.bt.co.uk		Tel: +44 473 645811
Applications Research Division, BT Laboratories, Martlesham Heath IPSWICH IP5 7RE
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: MORE LIKE?
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:17:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct2.164338.16228@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:

>Of course, another usage of this phrase could be
>
>	"The feelings between us were more like than love."   (:-)>

That wasn't what you told me last night, you beast.



-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: MORE LIKE?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:16:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.132730@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.150209.126936@watson.ibm.com>, yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph
>Yozzo) writes:
>> In a quote from a major newspaper discussing the Bush taxpayer option
>> to check a box on their tax return to direct a part of their tax payment
>> towards reducing the deficit, the paper states:

>>  "We believe it would be more
>>  like trying to fly a jumbo jet by letting everybody on board operate the
>>  controls at the same time."

>> Is the phrase "more like" considered proper in the English language?

>Interesting question.  I don't know if it's proper or not; in your quote it 
>doesn't seem to make much sense.  It makes sense to me to say "We believe it
>would be more like A than (it would be like) B".   As it is used, the "more"
>seems needless.  

As it is used? Ralph left off the context.  Clearly there was another
(probably official) analogy preceding it.  "More like" means the writer
feels that this analogy is closer.

>Anyone who wants to write and tell me to stop applying logic to the English 
>language:  please don't bother.  I've heard it before, and I'm still not
>convinced.  

Actually, I'd like you to start.  I don't follow your argument at all.

Roger
From: casseres@apple.com (David Csseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: log in to vs. log into
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:47:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Apple Computr, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.204947.23817@nas.nasa.gov>, asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov
(Daniel A. Asimov) wrote:
> 
> My own preference is for either "log in to" or even "login to" since
> "login" often appears as a prompt for the user to enter their user ID.

But "login" is a noun, not a verb.  If it were a verb you could conjugate
it, but you can't.  "Log" is a regular verb, "in" and "to" are
prepositions, and "login" is a noun like "payback" or "takeoff."


--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:7569 sci.lang:7390
From: tim@crash.canon.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: pluralizing corpus - the results
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:08:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: me myself and i

In <92Sep16.1230.11962@crash.canon.co.uk> I asked:
|pluralize "corpus". please do not be sensible. anyone suggesting
|"corpora" will be beaten over the head with a blunt instrument. followups
|to poster. i will summarize the results.

Thanks to all who volunteered pluralizations, especially those who
offered justifications for their strange suggestions (Harold Somers
deserves a special mention here, he being responsible for the
pluralizations inspired by non-English languages). And now, the
results...

4	corpi
4	corpuses
3	corpuscles
2	corpses
2	corpthem
2	corpulents
2	corpus (Japanese / with the singular being corpme)
2	corpusi (Serbo-Croatian)
2	corpussies
2	corpwe
1	coerpus (German)
1	collections
1	corpae
1	corpe
1	corpi (Latin)
1	corpiau (Welsh)
1	corpii
1	corpora (someone didn't read the rules of the competition...)
1	corps (as in 'corps de ballet')
1	corpu's
1	corpulae
1	corpunum
1	corpusa
1	corpuscorpus (Malay)
1	corpusejn (Maltese - dual)
1	corpusijiet (Maltese - plural)
1	corpust (Finnish)
1	vorpus (Swahili)

And my personal favorite (courtesy of "animal::kyle"@yogi.hsc.ucalgary.ca):

1	toaster

Strangely enough, no one volunteered "corpies" - this being the errant
pluralization that inspired my survey.

Tx. [followups to alt.usage.english]
-- 
Tim F O'Donoghue <tim@crash.canon.co.uk> <uunet!canon!tim>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: underground grammarian
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:44:41 GMT

i'm looking for a book by richard mitchell the "underground grammarian". it'
s called "the graves of acadame". as far as i can tell, it's out of print. 
does anybody know anything to the contrary? or has anybody read this book?

thanks.

kc
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: yholbroo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Yash Holbrook)
Subject: Re: Capitalisation of "raison d'etre"
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:28:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.074523.28583@canon.co.uk> kozato@canon.co.uk (Yasuo Kozato) writes:
>I want to use "raison d'etre" as a part of a title, but am not sure
>how to capitalise it.
>
>"The Raison d'Etre of ..."

This would the the way to do it...it wouldn't make any sense to 
capitalize the "d", as it means nothing more than "to" or "of".

--Yash
From: sjones@alfred.carleton.ca (Stan Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: h as in Pittsburgh (was Re: to be or not to be
Date: 27 Sep 92 13:45:43 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

In <1992Sep27.073647.2925@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:

>Actually, they once tried to do that.  "They" in this case being the
>Board on Geographic Names and "once" was in the 1890's.  See George R.
>Stewart's _Names on the Land_ for a write up.
>Some of the other standardizations were to change -borough to -boro,
>get rid of possesive forms and diacritic characters (including
>apostrophes as in D'Lo, Mississippi) and hyphens.  To a certain extent,
>they were successful, especially with possessives.  The weirdest change

One of the few remaining possessives I know is Lee's Summit, MO. Once
a small town outside Kansas City, now a big 9and growing) suburb
outside Kansas City.
From: "eliot gelwan" <eliot.gelwan@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: logging on (was ..in)
Date: 5 Oct 92 05:09:03 EST
Reply-To: "eliot gelwan" <eliot.gelwan@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

On 10-04-92 CYNTHIA KOEPP -  wrote:

CKDoes one "log into" a computer or "log in to" a computer? I had always gone
CKwith the latter, but now I am not so sure.COMPUTING

I log ON to one.

                   |
...eliot          -*-              Postlink: ->CHANNEL1 [R/O okay]
                   |               Internet: eliot.gelwan@channel1.com

---
EZ 1.39 #178 [in Brookline MA 11:01 pm, Sunday 10/04/92]
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: long@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: log in to vs. log into
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:31:55 EST
Organization: Queensland University of Technology

In article <koepp.6.717699787@cc1.un> Cynthia Koepp writes:

>>Does one "log into" a computer or "log in to" a computer? I had always gone 
>>with the latter, but now I am not so sure.

I've quite often seen the use of "login" to a computer (At the login prompt, 
of course), but of the above options I'd say "log in" without going into it too
deeply.

Geoff Long
QUT Brisbane
g.long@qut.edu.au
nosig
Newsgroups: alt.text.dwb