HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:09:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul28.183222.20963@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>
>I am just starting a new (perhaps been beaten to death already??) thread....
>....I am just a newcomer to the US and what struck me immediately was the
>difference in the written and spoken language. In India, we follow the
>English English, since IMHO it is the original and  pure form of the
>language. (I am not referring to the variations to which the language is  
>subjected to, in Britain itself, but rather to "standard" English, which
>is taught in schools). 
>     What irked me most, was how Americans seemed to treat the language
>as if they owned it! Personally I have no grudge against Americans, but
>dammit, you guys just can't change the language like that! To me, it 
>---
>If you want to speak English, speak it like an Englishman.


Ah, Mandar, Mandar.  How much you have to learn.  You remind me of my
recent visit to India, where I was informed that I had to adopt Indian
customs if I was to survive with any degree of success.  This meant,
as a woman, I had to cover my terribly seductive upper arms, legs (right
down to the ankle), and overall shape.  But I _could_, if I so
chose, expose my midriff.  Naturally, my first instinct was to balk
at such patently _ridiculous_ and, may I say, medieval and arbitrary
restrictions.  Doggone it, I _would so_ wear dresses that ended just
below the knee and I would do it with verve!  

Alas, after tolerating many rude advances and various forms of blatant
harassment I succombed and, when in India, did as the Indians did.
I also started nodding my head when I meant "no" and shaking my head
when I meant "yes."  I learned to do a whole host of things that
were, of course, totally ridiculous and incorrect but those sadly
ignorant and misinformed Indians hadn't yet been enlightened, and
I did want to enjoy my stay.

You say that we can't just drop letters and change things around, but
the fact is, Mandar, that we _have_ done it, and like it or not, you're
here and you get to lump it.  Granted, if you don't you probably won't
have to put up with unwanted advances from horny members of the
opposite sex (quite the opposite, in fact); you'll just get ulcers.



-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being very
wasteful.  How true that is."--J. Danforth Quayle to United Negro College Fund 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 05:03:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

All of the bit-slinging that Mandar started raises a couple of questions 
that might be of general interest:

What groups in England claim to have authority over the English 
language, and what credibility do they have in England?

What groups in other countries claim to have authority over what 
they call the English language, and what credibility do they have in 
those countries? 

Surely Mandar is not the only defender of the One True
English(TM).

-- 
 ________________________________________________________
/ Henry  || We are such stuffe as dreames are made on;   \
\ Polard || and our little life is rounded with a sleepe /
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith))
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re:  Language Acquisition and Transformational Grammar
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:27:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited


 Hi, I used to read this newsgroup fairly frequently, but haven't kept 
up with it in a while.  At any rate, I have a request.  I am writing 
an essay, with a reading notebook, on the subject of language 
acquisition.  We are currently using as our text for the course I'm 
taking _Understanding English Grammar_ by Martha Kolln.  Our professor 
said that our class would be the last to use this book as it is 
outdated (though still useful).  I'm not sure which book they're using 
next quarter.  Our professor had certain problems with it, saying, for 
example, "there is no such thing as a pre-noun qualifier."  In other 
words, Kolln classifies the word "brown" in "The brown dog ate his 
food" as a pre-noun qualifier, whereas our professor says "brown" is 
an embedded clause, i.e., "The dog (the dog is brown) ate his food."  
But I digress.

 Concerning language acquisition:  How do you know the rules of 
grammar?  How do we learn the rules of grammar?  People instinctively 
break up sentences into two parts; English is binary.  
Subject-verb----.  I'll be studying the differences between langue 
(competence) and parole (performance).  It is interesting that all 
children go through similar stages of development at similar times, 
regardless of language and culture.  I'll be looking at 
pivot/operational format, i.e., the way kids move from "want dog" or 
"cookie me" to more complex sentences.  Affixes are missing in early 
kids grammar and these come as classes.  Adding an "s" is learned as 
the grammatical concept of plural.  Kids learn this before they learn 
verb affixes.  EX:  "Boy sings" isn't plural and comes later in 
development.  Kids speak in active voice declaratives with intonations 
indicating aspect or time.  Intonations always come first.

 The most important concept I've learned, I think, is that kids learn 
language the way transformation grammar teaches it.

 Anyway, this is the kind of information I'm looking for.  If you know 
any books you think I might find helpful, please e-mail me at 
cms@dragon.com, although I will also be checking this group for 
responses.  Thanks!

Cindy Smith
cms@dragon.com
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: For instance/for example
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:32:42 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Jul28.212544.9065@uts.uni-c.dk>, 
clauct@uts.uni-c.dk (Claus Tondering) writes:

> I am not a native speaker of English. 

(I cannot help but note that we "native speakers of English" have no end of
difficulty agreeing on how to speak English!)

> I have been trying with the
> help of various dictionaries to find out what the difference between
> "for instance" and "for example" is, all to no avail. The Oxford
> Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English explains "for instance"
> as "by way of example", so that does not make me any wiser. Nor
> do other dictionaries help me.
> 
> Is there any difference?

An instance is a particular example, or a specimen.  An example is a more 
general representative of a class of things (following my dictionary here).

I think this distinction is clearer in Latin.  There e.g. (*exempli gratia*)
refers to a group of objects (ideas, animals, words, etc.), only a few of
which are presented for the reader's elucidation.  On the other hand, 
i.e. (*id est*) and viz. (*videlicet*) refer to a particular instance or 
thing, etc.  It is that particular that is the intended agent or object of
the sentence.

By The Way: I'm sure there is an exact linguistic term that describes i.e. and
e.g., and I would welcome someone's post as to what that part of speech would
be!

Does this clear anything up?

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tchrist@convex.com (Tom Christiansen)
Subject: "need"
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:39:46 GMT
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.

How come people use "need" instead of "needs" sometimes:

    One need not pay the postman.

    You make it harder than it need be.

Is this a different verb (doubts), some hitherto undocumented use of the
subjunctive mode (my guess), just a plain error, or what?  Since it sounds
fine to my ear (unless I think about it too much), I suspect something
other than a blatant mistake.

--tom

    
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
    Pereant, inquit, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt.
    "Confound those who have said our remarks before us."
		    -- Aelius Donatus
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

>     Unarmed??  -  I think not!
>Battle?? - Right now it's one person against many.....although a solitary
>soul did chip in. Hey all you guys who follow the English English, I
>could do with some help out here. (It's a pity that 90% of the readers
>of this article would be from the US). 

You apparently have selective hearing.  Several posters have pointed
out that you lack facility with English articles, and with other subtle-
ties of the language.  This may, in fact, be due to your background.
I find that Indian people virtually always claim that they are speaking
British English, and yet I have not met a single one that actually
sounded like a Brit.  Why this preoccupation with something that has
no practical use, and which is clearly not being attained?

My theory is that it's a large-scale identification-with-the-captor
complex that released hostages and prisoners often feel for quite some
time after their experience ends.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: talkwords and writewords 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:06:11 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

It appears to me that most people have separate vocabularies for
speaking and writing.  I would find doing that to be unnecessarily
inconvenient.

Why should I write "on the reverse side" when "on the back" or "on the
other side" are both shorter and clearer?

Why write "utilize", a word that must have been coined in Washington?

The verb that should correspond with the noun "obligation" is
"oblige".  "obligate" is a ridiculous word.

My examples are endless, but my message is not.

Anybody else?
                                                   -- Dan --



... THINK! or thwim.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                             
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: words that peeve me
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:47:51 GMT

In article <QeQiXkS00awA06jEVR@andrew.cmu.edu> "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>I dislike the verb 'to destruct' as much as I dislike the verb 'to
>dialog'. Especially when there is  the verb 'to destroy' readily
>available for our use.

But do you object to "self-destruct" as a verb?


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: data
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:11:45 GMT

Is data singular, plural or mass (note the implied distinction
between morphological plural and semantic)?  Not an easy one to
decide, since the situation is more complex for borrowed terms.

Some people like to try to preserve the morphology of the source
language, others prefer nativizing.  Usually the result is
inconsistent: careful about data, we may trip over a singular
phenomena.

I seem to handle these words on a case by case basis in my own
use: data can take a sg. verb, but I insist on phenomenon.
However, a meeting with only one item to be discussed has in
my book an agenda, not an agendum.

A foolish inconsistency?  I think it was Shelly Berman who did
a routine about the plural of Kleenex being kleenices, the
plural of stewardess, stewardi.


-- 
Dennis Baron                                         debaron@uiuc.edu 
University of Illinois at Urbana                     217-333-2392
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:32:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul30.054643.2225@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29190301@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>
>>[In unison, please...]
>>
>>How unique is it?  Is it more unique than Hindi?
>>--
>>----
>>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>
>Yes, Hindi is primarily confined to only India (apart from variations such
>as Fiji Hindi - the Hindi spoken by Indians in Fiji). In India too, only


(DISSERTATION ON HINDI DELETED)

I don't think I've ever had this much fun in a newsgroup before.  This
is _wonderful_.



-- 
===============================================================================
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: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: Attorney
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:28:58 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 07-29-92 23:09

dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) observed:

|   => In a message to All on 07-26-92  16:48 Breadner Kenneth Cecil J said:
|
|  BKCJ> --thusly (already mentioned)
|  BKCJ> --hereinbefore (who coined this one?!)
|  BKCJ> --likewise, "thereinafter"
|
|  BKCJ> Why, oh why, can't lawyers use language the rest of us can wade
|  BKCJ> through wihout the use of hip waders?
|
| You should know what you're in for when you see on the lawyers' door,
| "John Smith and Mary Jones, PC, Attorneys at Law".
|
| Can they be attorneys at anything else?

Yes, actually.

An attorney is simply someone legally empowered to act for someone else.
If, for instance, a person is properly declared mentally imcompetent,
then someone else is appointed to act for him or her in all necessary
matters. That person, the attorney, [most often called legal guardian or
trustee] need not be a lawyer and, most often, is another member of the
family -- tinker, tailor or whatever. Unless that person is also a
lawyer, however, he or she cannot act as one and, although
properly called an attorney, cannot be called an attorney at law.

The same word attorney may properly be applied to someone to whom you
have given your proxy to vote for you at a shareholders' meeting. [I am
assuming that unlike I, everyone else is sufficiently well off to own
stocks in the first place.]

Regards: *PC*  <peter.churchill@rose.com>   Toronto
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001013: Liar:  One who tells an unpleasant truth.
   RoseMail 1.70: RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Ex-presidents' titles and adverbs of location
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:39:56 GMT
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 slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com:
:First order modifications follow.  Recasting may
:be in order in some cases.
:
:In article <sav.711871356@nanette>, sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
:> Jane, whose house I was sick at.
:Jane, at whose house I was sick.
:
:> The burglary you were caught at.
:The burglary at which you were caught.
:
:> The time I was hurt at, doesn't matter to the insurance company.
:The time at which I was hurt doesn't matter...

Sorry, but there's absolutely reason to rearrange those sentences, 
since a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.  We're
not speaking Latin.

--tom

-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
"There are two ways of disliking poetry; one way is to dislike it, the
other is to read Pope."
                -- Oscar Wilde
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: words that peeve me  
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:33:22 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

 -=> Quoting Morag Ni Shabhain to All <=-

 MNS> ... but the one that astonished me was a noun turned into a verb, used
 MNS> by  a telephone company representative, in discussing the problem with
 MNS> the  company's phone bill, when told me he'd be DIALOG-ING with me
 MNS> about it  soon !

 Then, what do you think of *verbs* such as "finalize", "destruct",
"conference"... ?

                                                   -- Dan --



... THINK! or thwim.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                      
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ewald@math.lsa.umich.edu (Brian Ewald)
Subject: Bread and Butter
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:10:58 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor

  Does anyone know where the practice of saying "Bread and butter"
when two people walking together are separated by a pole or third
person originated?

Brian D. Ewald
ewald@math.lsa.umich.edu
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sound-Bite?
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:58:48 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster


bkannan@ha06.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan) asked:

>>  Who is a policy-wonk?
> 

wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald)replied:

> If you can get a hold of it, take a look at William Safire's recent
> column on this term in the New York Times Magazine, this past Sunday
> or the one previous.
> 
But for those of us who can't, or who can't be bothered to do the long library
work this would involve, how about telling us yourself?

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
From: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:22:14 GMT
Reply-To: roger@quantime.co.uk (Roger Phillips)
Organization: Quantime Ltd, London (software for market research)

In article <1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>,
eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
> Is the construct "Saturday week" used outside Australia?

Yes.

BTW, I came to the UK ten years ago next January.
-- 
Roger Phillips                            roger@quantime.co.uk
"Being kissed by a man who didn't wax his moustache was --
like eating an egg without salt." -- Rudyard Kipling
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Re: "In hospital" vs. "In the hospital"
Keywords: missing article
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.083343.24845@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
...
>In Britain you can use
>	He went to hospital
>	He went to  a hospital
>	He went to the hospital
>	He went into hospital
>	He went into a hopsital
>	He went into the hospital
>
>all with slightly different meanings. It seems that American had lost
>this ability.

Misleading semblance, I think.  In my experience, American English is
just as expressive as any form of British English.  Explicate the
nuances above that you think American English can't express, and I
imagine you'll be proved wrong in this forum in short order.

-- 
Douglas Harper     | ORA Corporation | 301A Dates Drive | Ithaca, NY 14850 
harper@oracorp.com | (607) 277-2020  | FAX: 277-3206    | USA
From: scotty@netcom.com (J Scott Peter)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: THE VERB 'TO BE'
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:30:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <ceNsoIW00awGE0v1lM@andrew.cmu.edu> "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>The only correct interrogative form of "I am" is "am I not"?
>People say "aren't I" and "ain't I", and yes, in places they *do* say
>"amn't I" but the correct form is "am I not" even though it doesn't
>sound natural.

Huh?  Where do people say "amn't I"?  I've got to move there!  It should be
an accepted form!  I say it all the time (well, at least when nobody's
listening).
-- 
J Scott Peter XXXIII  // "Instantiating new solutions in the emerging arena
scotty@netcom.com    // of transcending the de-facto horizons of industry-
Las Anjealous       // standard open paradigms."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* Engli
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:29:54 GMT

In article <5555@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com>, hillyer@rrc.chevron.com (Martin J.
Hillyer) writes:
> In article 204257@IASTATE.EDU, mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.234925.2439@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom
> >Christiansen) writes:
> >>                            [...deleted...]
> >> Come on, guys, just READ that sentence, and put him in your killfile.
> >> He's either pulling our chains, or is both clueless and arrogant.
> >> 
> >>                            [...deleted...]
> >>      Tom Christiansen           tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
> >
> >Of course he's pulling our chains (although that doesn't preclude his being
> >clueless and arrogant).  Don't encourage the child.
> >
> >Marie Coffin
> 
> 
> Can anyone fill me in on how much this one post has cost, with its 100 or so
replise/flames.  I mean the cost in $$, I can see the cost in bandwidth.  And
who pays the bill?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Martin
> 

Good question, Martin.  I'd be interested in seeing the answer also.  God, I
wish I'd saved *all* of this thread, because (a) it was wildly funny and
(b) it was fascinating to see the guy get accused of things he never said.
I mean, the original post was about *spelling*!

Marie Coffin
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: french
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:15:17 GMT

In article <9526@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>>One account I've read, though, suggests the Dutch fare worst
>>in terms of the English vocabulary, with Dutch courage and
>>Dutch treat, Dutch headache (hangover), Dutch widow (prostitute),
>>and quite a few others.
>
>There's always Dutch oven (farting while in bed with someone).
>
>I've had the concept of a "Dutch wife" explained to me, but I've
>never actually seen one. It's an item of bedding once employed
>by colonists and traders in the tropics.


Dutch wife == bolster.  You ought to be able to find
the latter in any dictionary.


Dhanesh

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english