HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dhubin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Donald C Hubin)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: "One less egg to fry"--Pedantry on 'less' and 'fewer'
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:39:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Apr9.133955.6229
Organization: The Ohio State University


Since, in the infamous and ongoing 'hopefully' debate, I have appeared
to some to have no stylistic scruples at all, I will raise an issue
that will show me to be a bit of a pedant after all.  Slips of the
tongue aside, I reserve 'less' for use with "mass nouns" and use
'fewer' with "count nouns".  (I admit to noticing frequently and with
minor irritation the "12 items or less" signs in stores.  There!  Now
have I earned my pedant pin?)  

The question is this:  Why do even I say things like "I have one less
check in the checkbook than I thought"?  I would never say, "I have
two less checks in the checkbook than I thought".  Is it so that I can
avoid deciding between 'one fewer *check*' and 'one fewer *checks*'?
Is it, for some reason I can't see right now, correct after all?  Or,
have I just not completely shaken my youthful sloppy ways?  (Although
I think that I've always maintained the 'less'/'fewer' convention
mentioned.)  

I would appreciate help from any "linguistic psychoanalysts" out
there.  

Don
-- 
Donald C. Hubin  |  Depart. of Philosophy, The Ohio State University 
                 |  Columbus, OH  43210  USA   (614)292-7914 
-----------------+---------------------------------------------------------
hubin+@osu.edu   |  or hubin+@ohstmail.bitnet
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Word Dictionary Wrong?!?!?
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:20:48 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.

In article <1992Apr6.141015.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>Outside the US, "dependent" is the adjective, and "dependant" is the
>noun.  A dictionary will tell you this, a spelling checker won't.

A good grammar checker might.  Anyone care to test theirs?

G
--
From: joannee@sco.COM (Joanne Eglash)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: semicolons vs. colons
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:43:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.


I'd appreciate some input on semicolons versus colons. I
notice writers using colons a LOT these days: for example, in
this case, I might go on to add a secondary thought. Perhaps
it's from the preponderence of movie and book titles that
use colons....of course, having written this, no examples come
immediately to mind! :-)  Anyway, any thoughts on the matter
would be appreciated.

Joanne

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dhubin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Donald C Hubin)
Subject: Re: Semantics (was Probably (was More importantly, ...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:48:58 GMT

Gary Merrill is certainly right about the semantic distinction
between:

     This book is blue

and,

     I think this book is blue.

(To assert that the book is blue but that one does not believe it is
not to formally contradict oneself.  The oddity, called Moore's
Paradox, is a pragmatic oddity.  The second part is inconsistent with
something you are *doing* in asserting the first part, not in
something *asserted* in the first part.)

However, *lying* should be left out of it.  One can be mistaken
without lying.  Therefore, we shouldn't concede, as Merrill does, that
"if x is not lying, then x's statements indicate x's beliefs".  Lying
requires intent to deceive.  We can't say, either, that "if x is
telling the truth, then x's statements indicate x's beliefs" for this
will only capture only part of what we mean.  (Even if x is *not*
telling the truth, because misinformed himself, he his sincere
utterances will still indicate his beliefs.)  I think the problem is
usually handled by talking of *sincere* utterances.  Since these are
usually understood, by me at least, to be utterances that the speaker
believes to be true, the last claims Merrill argues are trivial
*really* are trivial.

Don
-- 
Donald C. Hubin  |  Depart. of Philosophy, The Ohio State University 
                 |  Columbus, OH  43210  USA   (614)292-7914 
-----------------+---------------------------------------------------------
hubin+@osu.edu   |  or hubin+@ohstmail.bitnet
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2985 soc.bi:4428
From: sara@castle.ed.ac.uk (Sara's ElectroPostie)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.bi
Subject: Re: Out of the closet (was Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage)
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:02:14 GMT
Organization: News Addicts

gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>In article <x7tjtf+.sue@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>The US expression "coming out of the closet" means "coming out of a small
>>confining space", and is not taken to mean "coming out of a WC".

>I got quite a lot of heated mail about this.  I thought that accusations
>of homophobia were quite funny considering my own sexuality... 

Um, it's possible for bi's to be homophobic ... but I think the sin is
ignorance not 'phobia here - but then what do *I* know?  >{8-)

>Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd always assumed (and thought I'd always heard tell)
>that 'coming out of the closet' was from the practice of repressed gays
>meeting in public toilets - a practice known over here as 'closeting' -
>and that when someone 'came out of the closet' they did their chatting-up
>in more acceptable places, like everyone else.  Ie they no longer had
>to meet in secret in WCs.

No, it's called *cottaging*, dunno why ... but I know folk that do this,
bifolk at that and watch out with the "repressed" bit as these folk
*aren't* repressed.  I have no idea whether the term "closet" has any
relationship to public lavatories or no, but I have certainly always
considered it to have the small confining place meaning.

>PS Followups redirected back to a.u.e; soc.culture.british removed. 

I've put soc.motss back in my followup for motss relevance soc.bi coz
that's the one that I read ... (OK so call me selfish >{8-) )

Sara
-- 
 >{8-)  Sara Hopkins  (-8}<                      ______             ^
 Geography Dept.  Edinburgh Uni.  Drummond St.   \  / / Glorious OOO
 Edinburgh,  EH8  9XP,  UK. +44 (0/31) 650 2662   \/\/   Stereo  ++  
 >  sara@geovax.ed.ac.uk  < < Six of one, half a dozen of the other >
From: sds@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Sherwood Daniel Silliman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:22:01 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr6.144045.558@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>                                               Were I to suggest
>something like extending our semantics to allow the use of adjectives
>where we now use adverbs, I suspect people would become quite upset.

This is already happening, not that I think it should.  
U.S. sportscasters are notorious for changing American
spoken English, usually for the worse.  One often hears
something along the lines of, "They played awful today."
-- 
Sherwood D. Silliman         "When I give food to the poor, they call me a
                              saint.  When I ask why the poor have no food,
                              they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Natural language, prescriptivism, etc.
Date: 11 Apr 92 09:55:12 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr10.233624.6038@Csli.Stanford.EDU> scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
:My mother in law remarked last night on 'hot cup of tea'. "That's
:wrong, isn't it?" she said. "The tea is hot, not the cup".  So: she
:doesn't say it herself (thinks she), and she has a grudge against
:it, most probably because her teacher had a grudge against it too.  I

But of course you immediately reminded her that intelligent users
of English know of a construct called 'metonymy' thus making it a
perfectly acceptable usage.  [If you don't know what it's called, you
can't use it :-)))]

Graham
"Just because you can argue better than me doesn't mean you're right" -- Lianna

PS Actually, that one is probably just a case of the adjective binding
less tightly than the preposition; hot (cup of tea).
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nkhr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Tetsushi Nakahara)
Subject: Re: -ine suffix
Reply-To: nkhr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Tetsushi Nakahara)
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 19:32:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.232125.602@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <Apr.8.10.47.46.1992.27556@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
>rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg) writes:
>
>>Can anyone point me to a list of biological adjectives (generic)
>>that end in "-ine," like lupine, vulpine, murine, canine, etc.?
>
>Ask and ye shall receive.  I am indebted to my friend Jack
>Hamilton of San Francisco for providing this list, some time
>ago:
>
>acarine            mite
>accipitrine        hawk
>alaudine           skylark
>alcidine           auk, puffin, etc.
>alcine             auk
> [...]

I wonder how many of these adjectives would an avarage native English
speaker understand/use/spell correctly/etc...

-- 
Tetsushi Nakahara
Stanford University

<nkhr@leland.stanford.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3082 soc.culture.african:1882 soc.culture.african.american:4613
From: jmnjeru@athena.mit.edu (James M Njeru)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: origin of word "okay"?
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:36:40 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hi all,

What is the origin of the word "okay" or "O.K."?
I have heard that it is originally West African, and was brought over
by the slaves into North America.
I'd like to know from which ethnic West African language
the word came from, specifically, and what the word means 
in that language.

Incidentally, the American Heritage Dictionary claims that the
word is "Probably abbreviation of 'oll korrect' slang 
respelling of 'all correct'."

Thanks alot.
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Semantics (was Probably (was More importantly, ...
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:05:19 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.

In article <1992Apr6.194858.28117@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dhubin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Donald C Hubin) writes:
>Gary Merrill is certainly right about the semantic distinction
>between:
...

Is this particularly relevant to alt.usage.english?  Maybe alt.semiotics
would be more appropriate?

Then again, maybe everyone bar me is enthralled by it...

G
--
From: rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: how are webster's new world and collegiate dictionaries different?
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:15:28 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The name "Webster" (like Roget) is in the public domain.  Check the
publisher.  Merriam-Webster publishes the renowned Collegiate.
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: More FAQ fodder
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:27:04 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.


A couple more for which I remember people posting fairly good answers;

1) the list of parts of speech - tmesis, synecdoche, metonymy etc.

2) Damn. I've forgotten. It'll come back to me as soon as I press 's' :-(

G
--
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Webster's on Sentence Adverbs
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:03:10 GMT
	<1992Apr3.160736.17790@unx.sas.com> <204370@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu's message of 3 Apr 92 22:33:17 GMT

In article <204370@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
   Allow me to turn this around.

   The fact that this transformation doesn't work for "hopefully" is 
   precisely why, IMHO, "hopefully" (in its controversial sense) is so
   much more valuable to the language than these other examples.  

   There's no compelling reason to say "Luckily, ____" instead of "It's lucky
   that ______" or the more colloquial "It's lucky _______".  On the other hand,
   the sense of "Hopefully, _______" cannot be conveyed without stilted diction
   or odd circumlocutions.  Thus, "hopefully" fills a need in the language, and
   facilitates ease of communication.  (I don't necessarily buy the "It is to
   be hoped that..." parsing; see below.)

----
Your statement simply underscores the extent to which the
use of hopefully has undermined the language.  There is 
no need to resort to the tortured "It is to be hoped that..."
form in the overused passive voice to render the meaning
usually intended by "Hopefully...".  Consider the following
sentence, heard daily on some large number of radio stations:

  "Hopefully, we will win today."

The passive rendering suggested by you and others is:

  "It is to be hoped that we will win today."

or, somewhat more simply:

  "It is hoped that we will win today."

I think these sentences deserve all the derision you can
muster.  But they deserve it at least as much because they
do not express the sense of the original and that they 
fail to do so with such unredeemed passivity, as because 
they are so horribly cumbersome.  The real problem is that
the "Hopefully..." construction, if read literally, does not
express the plain meaning that is intended.  Toward the ends
of clarity and simplicity, I offer this substitute:

  "I hope we will win today."

The sentence is simple and direct and the actor is clearly
visible.  I think that these attributes are part of the
common objection to it.  The simplicity is thought to 
reflect badly on the speaker who is trying to make a
grandiose statement out of a platitude and at the same
time avoid being the subject of the sentence out of fear
that his raw ego might be exposed.

As I final irony, I note that despite your spirited defense
of the usage you still don't seem to think it is good enough
for your own final sentence:
----
   I certainly hope that you don't interpret anything I've said here as a 
   personal attack.

----
Even with the unnecessary "certainly", your sentence is much
preferable to "Hopefully, you don't interpret...", don't
you think?

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: chris@state.COM.AU (Chris Keane)
Subject: Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Keywords: dag-blast it!
Organization: Group Treasury, State Bank of NSW
Date:  8 Apr 92 05:31:58 GMT

gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu") writes:

>Pardon the racist language, but don't Ozzies use 'dag' as a shorthand
>for 'dago', with the implication of 'idiot'?

No, dago (pronounced day-go) is, in a strict interpretation, a spaniard.
However, it is also often used to descibe wogs and people of other
Mediterranean countries.

A dag (pronounced daaaaaaag) is a label for a person who has no style.


regards...                                                 
Chris Keane.                  State Bank NSW            ph. +61 2 259 4459
Unix Systems Administrator   (Group Treasury)     chris@rufus.state.COM.AU
Disclaimer: These are my own opinions, but I'm insane. What's your excuse?
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:59:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr10.185353.8381@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>
>   Please correct me if I'm wrong, Gary, but I believe Gary uses 
>"prescription" in much the same sense I do.  And Jon Alan Conrad and I
>mean the same thing by "vibrato". :-)

I thought you didn't believe in smileys...

>>>> If you're only making suggestions, and I'm only concerned with usage 
>>>> (and not style), then perhaps we can take off our gloves and part 
>>>> amicably.
>>>
>>> Certainly!  Just retract your "Noble efforts? Please." and "Get used
>>> to it." statements and we can do just that.
>>
>> Actually, you've been misquoting me all along.  My original sentence was
>> "Get used to it :-)." 
>
>   I did notice the smiley; I think it makes no difference.  

Then you don't read so good.  Try thinking of it as a tone-of-voice cue.
If that doesn't work, think of it as a shrug performed during the utterance.
If that doesn't work, maybe you should reconsider the practice of replying
to comments you don't understand.

>If you told
>a black man, "The word 'nigger' is here to stay; get used to it", I doubt
>that smiling while you said it would redeem you in his eyes.  

If you honestly think that asking someone to get used to Wayne&Garthspeak
is morally equivalent to telling a black man (or woman) to get used to the
word "nigger", then you've passed far beyond pedantry.  And taste.  Exactly
who am I supposed to be belittling, degrading, abusing, or oppressing with
the now-famous epigram you object to so strongly?

>And there
>was no smiley after "Noble efforts? Please."  I still want a retraction
>of both statements.

>Instinctive grammatical moralizer.

Some instinctive behaviours are best kept private, if not avoided altogether.



-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dave@lsuc.on.ca
Subject: Re: Loaded language in the abortion debate
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 03:01:18 GMT

In <1992Apr8.093136.1748@vixvax.mgi.com> carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com writes:
>I seriously believe that it would
>be helpful for both groups to start describing themselves and each other
>accurately.

Well, as long as they're only describing each other, it's simple:
pro-death  and  anti-choice.

:-)

Actually, my favourite example of a loaded word (which has nothing
whatsoever to do with my views on abortion, which are irrelevant here)
is that used by the, um, anti-choice people to describe abortion
clinics, at least in Canada:
	abortuary

David Sherman
Toronto
-- 
dave@lsuc.on.ca
Moderator, mail.yiddish mailing list
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ken@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Ken Yap)
Subject: momentarily
Organization: CSIRO Division of Info Tech, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 05:17:53 GMT

Does anybody else wince like I do when I hear momentarily used in:

I'll be with you momentarily.

instead of

I'll be with you shortly. or
I'll be with you in a moment. or
I'll be with you in a while.

or a host of other alternatives?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: perseant@milton.u.washington.edu (Dis Pater)
Subject: ignition (was Re: <None>)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:13:50 GMT


ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: (typos corrected without permission)
>Is there any rhyme or reason to the etymologies of words ending in
>-ion and -er?  To clarify: Why is my car's ignition called an ignition,
>and not an igniter?  Is it because it is that which causes SOMETHING
>else to ignite, or do I have it completely backwards and it's because
>it is itself what ignites?

>Too much time stuck in traffic makes me wonder these things...

As for the car's ignition, it is short for "ignition switch", meaning
that by turning the key (switch) one enables or disables the ignition of
fuel in the cylinders.
(Too much time working on my cursed-of-Robigo car makes me answer
these things.)

As for the suffixes, -ion is a Greek noun ending/suffix, although
'ignition' is not an example of this, since its suffix is the Latin
-tio, -tionis, which degenerated to 'tion' after we lost our ability
to decline properly.  Likewise -er is a degeneration of Latinate -or, an
author suffix.  (Look in various dictionaries for alternate spellings of
'advisor' and I think that you will see a good example of this
'o'-->schwa degeneration.)

Konrad Schroder
perseant@u.washington.edu
From: ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:00:17 GMT
Organization: Amethyst Systems

gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

> In article <8163@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) wr
> :The Czar of All the Russias ruled by decrees, which were calles ukases. It's
> :a perfectly normal Russian word, and used in many other countries for
> :decrees imposed by authority (with a connotation of insufficient democracy).
> :I don't see any reason to view it as a particularly *American* introduction
> :into the language, and I'm surprised if it's not known in Britain.
> 
> Might just be me that's ignorant of it.  I would have used 'fiat' for
> that concept.  Thanks for the explanation.

Wot 'e said. And I'm an American. 

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolatl.com
From: jmacvean@willamette.edu (Jennifer Mac vean)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pronunciation of British names
Keywords: garbled pronunciations
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:49:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: willamet.1992Apr15.214900.17799
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Willamette University, Salem, OR

I've seen Americans do some really creative pronunciations too:
The name of the college I go to and the valley that the river runs through,
is not "will-AM-et", it's "wuh-LAM-it."  Also, there is a town nearby of the
name "Gervais."  It is pronounced "JER-viss."  

Lynne
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
telnet:  jmacvean@willamette.edu  __________
				  \  \  /  / 
				   \  \/  /  
                                    \/  \/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chelle@cats.ucsc.edu (Mavourine Tesoro)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: tmeses (was Re: A whole nother story)
Summary: also, slang
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:41:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32394
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <Apr.8.11.10.49.1992.1239@gandalf.rutgers.edu> rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg) writes:
>The expression "a whole nother" is the Great American Tmesis; the word
>"another" has been split by "whole."  It's just easier on the tongue
>than saying "a whole other."  And it's everywhere, from the radio news
>to the classroom lectern, from Texas to Maine, from Ripken to Murray
>(sigh--the good old days).

///

interesting.

question:  are tmeses considred valid grammatical units?  or are
they just pure slang?

and, wait -- is slang considered grammatically valid, itself, at'all?

l(i.hope.this.has.been.discussed.a.million.times.before.NOT!)mic*
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3033 soc.culture.british:6339
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:47:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Apr14.024728.5536
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <204851@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.151101.5158@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>
>>"Sunny side up" is well-known to the British, but I
>>cannot recall ever having heard it over here. "Up" is the phrase.
>
>Where is "over here"?  California?
>
>I've never heard sunny-side-up eggs referred to any other way; I grew up in
>southern Illinois, Nebraska, and Maryland.

Same here.  That's what we called em.  I grew up in Pennsylvania and my
parents were from Texas and Virgina.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2801 soc.culture.british:5792