HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Make Rome Howl
Keywords: Rome, Howl
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:32:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Does anyone know the provenance of the phrase "make Rome howl,"
meaning to stir things up?  It's from no later than 1875.  Please
e-mail me if you know.  Thank you.
 
Bob Rosenberg
Thomas A. Edison Papers
Rutgers University
rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: VIZspeak - What is frottage ?
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:38:29 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 



> Oh - that reminds me.  What's the word for having sex with someone's
> (presumably someone *else*'s ;-) ) armpit?  [It sort of came up in
> conversation last night...]  It's more specific that just general
> frotteurism.

Bras-age?

-----ted hayes
From: Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:15:46
Organization: Konrad Zuse Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin
Distribution: alt
	<8207@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> <1993Jan12.032111.10507@news.columbia.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: borodin.zib-berlin.de
In-reply-to: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu's message of Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:21:11 GMT


In article <1993Jan12.032111.10507@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

   What is the function of this device?  [What does it do?]
   What is the functionality of this device? [How well does it do it?  How
	   functional is it?

I should have said:

What is the function of this device?  	  [What should it do?]
What is the functionality of this device? [What does it do?]

Still...
							Chris


--

           on sighting mathematicians it should unhook the algebra from their
           minds and replace it with with poetry; on sighting poets it should
               unhook poetry from their minds and replace it with algebra
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Store v Shop
Date: 13 Jan 93 11:31:17 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

The discussion about 'shop' and 'store' on both sides of the
Atlantic has put me in mind of a few things. As they are separate
I will post them separately. In this note I'll just note that
our usage in NZ generally follows the British, but 'store' may
have been gaining a little ground of late.
-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
__________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Skid Road (was Re: K Street
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:55:21 GMT
Organization: University of South Africa

In article <1ii29rEINNmue@uni-erlangen.de> sngoetze@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Sebastian Goetze) writes:

>They told the story in "the american Top 40 countdown" some time back
>because of the band "skid row". That show is broadcasted worldwide...

Shouldn't that be "broadcast"?

Or is "broadcasted" so common that it is becoming accepted usage?

Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.butt.harp
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Idjit alert II
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:00:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.191257@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
:In article <NIKOLAY.93Jan2222505@husc10.harvard.edu>, nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu
:(Philip Nikolayev) writes:
:> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
:> 
:> >Followup-To: /dev/null
:> 
:> No way.
:> 
:> > In article <1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu>
:> > zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:> >:
:> >:Flame me as only you can, rms.  After all our past arguments, I am
:> 
:> > A gentle warning to all our readers.  This Zeleny character is one
:> > of these people who stir up flame wars in groups that they're not
:> > really interested in just for personal amusement.  Zelany in
:> > particular has ruined a couple of good groups for *months*.  I
:> > strongly urge everyone not to rise to any bait he posts here.
:> 
:> On the contrary, Zeleny is the only participant in a number of
:> groups that makes them worth reading, Mr Taol. Get lost, amadon.
:> 
:> > G
:> 
:> Philip Nikolayev
:> nikolay@husc.harvard.edu
:
:
:Speaking of Idjits, Nikolayev and Zeleny form a mutual-admiration society,
:which no one else joins or wants to.

Well, one would expect a world-class asshole to have a world-class
ass-licker to service it.  What I want to know though is whether
Nikolayev can play the Star Spangled Banner on Zeleny's butt-harp with
his teeth... (a neat trick I recommend to all our readers)

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: geoff@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Geoffrey Kuenning)
Subject: Re: Mark & pole
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:02:07 GMT

In article <1iu0ihINN3k1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> keeper@deeptht.armory.com writes:

> That is a matter of dispute, actually.  True, the word `poll' does
> mean the front or head or first in a series, but it also could be
> `pole', like the post in horce racing.  The post, or pole, is on
> the inside of the track, you see, and person starting the race in
> the No. 1 position is closest to the pole, so in the pole position.

Here's more grist for the mill.  The term "pole line" is used in
bicycle track racing to refer to a line which is painted on the inside
of the track, designating both the line along which distance is
measured, and an area "owned" by the leading rider in a sprint.  I've
always seen this spelled "pole," not "poll," over a period of twenty
years of following the sport.  But, to the best of my knowledge,
bicycle tracks *never* had poles or posts on the inside.  Perhaps the
term was picked up from horse racing?

-- 

	Geoff Kuenning	geoff@maui.cs.ucla.edu	geoff@ITcorp.com
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 11 Jan 1993 05:05:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1993Jan11.020701.9391@news.columbia.edu>  
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> a) "Scheme"
> 
> On the front of the VAT refund form, the header read:
> 
> 			H.M. Customs and Excise
> 			 Retail Export Scheme
> 
> Generally in the US, a scheme is something at its best a little underhanded,
> and at its worst a criminal offense.  A "retail export scheme" would be a 
> smuggling operation.

Well, in France schema is a locally ringed space in which every point has a  
neighborhood that is the spectrum of a ring.:-)

--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.... Love your
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       |  enemies."--Jesus of Nazareth
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: goer@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: capitalization of fields of study
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:15:22 GMT

When does one capitalize "Linguistics"?  What if I'm talking about a
book that covers historical and comparative linguistics, phonology,
syntax, semantics, etc.  Do I have to capitalize these words?  I have
always thought that the rule was, capitalize them if they refer to a
discipline as an entity (e.g. "his degree is in "Linguistics"), but
not in cases like "he knows a lot about linguistics."

Is this correct?

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: might/may/would? HELP!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:25:13 GMT

Dear Nancy:

You ask:

>I am having a problem deciding whether to use
>might, may or would in the following statements:

These are subtle questions, because the doubt expressed in the mere
use of "may" or "might" gets mixed up with the different doubt
expressed in the choice of the conditional mood.  Here is how it comes
out in my dialect (fussy U.S., age 55), at any rate:

>Please indicate your experience with each of the following items and then
>rate each item based on how useful you think each one was or
>**would/might/may*** be in helping you to use the system effectively?

There are so many cases here that any of the three might be
appropriate for one or more.  "Would" takes care of items that the
recipient has not had experience with but is pretty sure of cos (= his
or her) opinion of all the same.  "Might" takes care of items that co
has not had experience with but would need experience to determine the
usefulness of (if you think that's bad grammar, see Fowler s.v.
Preposition at end).  "May" takes care of items that co has had some
experience with but not yet determined to be either useful or useless.

>These are not available.  Please rate how useful you feel each
>**might/may/would** be in helping you to use the system effectively.

A thing that is not available cannot be useful, so I would say "may"
is impossible here.  The choice between "might" & "would", as above,
depends on the degree of certainty required of the recipient.  Each is
a contrary-to-fact conditional, with the subordinate clause "if it
were available" understood.

Yours &c,  Joe

-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
From: caedmon@cats.ucsc.edu (Axeman)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: 'Unauthenticity'?
Keywords: hmMM!
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:04:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


I always have to poke fun at something.  There's a command on my Athena
system (Glorified UNIX) similar to 'write'.  There's some big hang-up
about security and 'authentic' messages.  It's really kind of silly, since
there's a command-line flag to approve or negate the authenticity of a message.
I changed it to always negate authenticity, so all my messages to other
people are as such:

UNAUTHENTIC Personal message at 21:59:20 on Mon Jan 11 1993
  From: Master of Unauthenticity <caedmon>

I'm just curious if 'Unauthenticity' is a real word.  I'm sure I can look
for better usage in thesaurii, but the whole silly point of my game is
to keep intact 'authentic.'  Can anybody site this word in a familiar
dictionary?

thanks,
-jq


-- 
,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,
,;';,   caedmon@ucscb.ucsc.edu               Jeff Ishaq          .,;';,
,;';,   I am a meatball:  Bite me.           Guitar withdrawal!  .,;';,
,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,.,;';,
From: tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:45:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

shat - (verb; past tense of "to shit") as in, "A bird shat on my computer". 
	And one did as well a couple of months ago. 

jobbie - the "s" word, of Scottish origin
From: meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Meach)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Left field
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:05:24 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1993Jan8.205232.9241@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <dolonsgh.726504060@unix1.tcd.ie> dolonsgh@unix1.tcd.ie (D.) writes:
>>What exactly does the expression "Out of left field" mean?
>>What is its origin?
>
>I've heard "out in left field", to mean someone is out of it, and "out
>of the blue" for something unexpected, but I don't remember hearing
>"out of left field".
>
>I'd be interested in knowing which of these expressions are familiar to
>people (I may just have got it wrong).


I have heard the following forms. . .

1) Out *in* left field = doesn't know what s/he is talking about
   ( Way out there,  out of touch with what is going on. . . 'out of it', 
    indeed!)

2) Out *of* left field = invented on the spur of the moment - probably by
   someone who doesn't know what s/he is talking about
   (Therefore, coming from the same same perspective as 1), above.)

3) Out of the blue = sudden/unexpected

Hope this helps. . . 

--jtm

>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:52:19 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Person

In article <1993Jan7.151439.19910@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU
(Roger Lustig) says:
>
>
>Yeah.  "A man walks down the street."  You don't think gender?  Most of
>us do, and Paul Simon certainly expected us to.

I'm gonna miss ya, Roger. I'm leaving, don't know when I may retrieve
my access to Usenet. I won't miss most of the folks here, but I'll
miss Roger. *smooch*

Herschel

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Is it proper to use CONTRACTIONS in letters,resumes,etc.?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:55:13 GMT

In article <1iobbuINN1jd@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P. Chatterjee) writes:

> I had a question about whether it is proper to use contractions (that
> is I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements, 
> resumes and other statements.

   Yes.  But in a more formal style, you use fewer contractions than in
a less formal style.

   You *can* see how *complete* avoidance of contractions can make your
style unbearably starchy, can you not?

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Left field
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:00:08 GMT

In article <dolonsgh.726504060@unix1.tcd.ie> dolonsgh@unix1.tcd.ie (D.) writes:
>What exactly does the expression "Out of left field" mean?
>What is its origin?

Left field is part of the outfield in baseball.  (Right and center fields,
amazingly enough, are the other parts.)  LF is remote from most of the 
action, and the left fielder is often a player without great fielding
abilities.  "Out of left field" means "from a remote, unexpected source."

Roger


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Which one is correct?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:08:09 GMT
Organization: University of South Africa

In article <1993Jan6.204841.8545@Princeton.EDU> srinivas@bombay.Princeton.EDU (Santhanam Srinivasan) writes:

>Which of the following, if any, is correct?  Is there a better way
>of expressing this?
>
>--> The British Labour Party has not even had the time to start their
>                                                                ~~~~~
>    annual conference, now that their divisions are already bursting
>                       ---      ~~~~~ 
>    out in the open.
>
>--> The British Labour Party has not even had the time to start its
>                                                                ~~~
>    annual conference, now that its divisions are already bursting
>                       ---      ~~~
>    out in the open.

The second one is more correct than the first. If you use the first, then 
you should have used "have" rather than has.

Otherwise you could use either, depending on whether you are thinking of the 
party as a single entity, or as a conglomerate of its divisions and 
branches.

My main reservation is about "divisions are already bursting out in the 
open". It sounds as though they took their divisions out into the open air 
to pop them. Is that really what you wanted to say?

>Is the "now" correct/neccesary? Any suggestions would be appreciated. 

Well if the bit about the bursting divisions were clearer, yes, it seems to 
be syntactically necessary. But it doesn't make much semantic sense.


Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:39:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.174023.25507@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.055629.22312@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>>Special Relativity caused a lot of gnashing, indeed.  So did a lot of
>>other theories - but how many of them have proven to be valid (or, to
>>use a scientific criteria for validity, useful)?
>
>That's "criterion."  8-)
>
>As for usefulness, people seem to be able to figure that out for themselves,
>and gnashing generally doesn't take a very scientific view toward the 
>issue when it comes to words.  

But how useful is a word that irritates part of the target audience?
(Remember the discussion of "men (including women)", and the example
brought up a couple of times of "nigger".  No doubt, some people find
"nigger" a useful word, or they wouldn't use it, but most of us would
add in the negative effect it's likely to have and judge its usefulness
differently.  Now, "concertize" isn't as offensive as "nigger", but
obviously some of us don't like it.)

>>Certainly, a language is a living, growing, organism.  But uncontrolled
>>growth is cancer, which is fatal if left untreated . . .
>
>But the treatment happens by itself, and the self-appointed treaters
>have no effect except to make the unschooled feel insecure.  What 
>treatment other than the marketplace are you referring to?

But - I'm part of the marketplace too, aren't I?  And as a language
consumer, I have the right to make my preferences known . . .  (Of
course, as a consumer, I don't always get what I want!)

>>You mentioned Special Relativity earlier.  Surely, one reason this
>>theory so caught the popular imagination was the simplicity, the
>>elegance, of E=mc2 (pretend the "2" is a superscript, please!).
>
>Special Relativity is a scientific theory -- there, elegance counts
>for a lot, and is defined along pretty clear lines.  What is elegance
>in a word?  Swift complained of inelegance wrt hunderds of words we
>find perfectly OK.

That's "hundreds" :-)

Elegance is clearly defined in science?  I doubt it . . .

But shouldn't elegance also count in language?

And I'm sure Swift also complained about inelegance wrt hundreds of
words we *don't* find perfectly OK, because they were never generally
accepted.  (And they weren't accepted because enough people didn't like
them, or find them useful or elegant . . .)

>Concertize does *not* just mean "perform."  We went through this a while
>ago.  It carries implications of professional performance, of repeated
>performance, of touring, i.e., of something other than a steady gig.

How many people are aware of the distinction?  I wasn't.  Doesn't this
make "concertize" jargon, to be avoided in general use?  (I have nothing
against jargon, btw - I use it all the time, in contexts where it will
likely be understood.  Like my using "btw" in this post . . .)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: jon@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Jon Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Which is correct?
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:20:43 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

>>>> Which is correct?:

>>>>     One problem is customers using the wrong wording.
>>>>     or
>>>>     One problem is customers' using the wrong wording.  [note apostrophe]

This is beautifully ambiguous, as you cannot tell whether the problem is
	a) the fact that the customers are using the wrong wording
or	b) the customers who are using the wrong wording

The ambiguity can be solved, though :-

	a) One problem is the customers, who use the wrong words
	b) One problem is the customers' use of the wrong wording

Don't quote me on this, coz I have the strange suspicion that the first of
these is still vaguely ambiguous.

Jon

 
Jon Wells
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
Language & Linguistics Dept.
Tel: +44 61 200 3108
Fax: +44 61 200 3099
e-mail: jon@ccl.umist.ac.uk
snail-mail: Jon Wells, Dept. of Lang. and Ling., UMIST, POBox 88, Sackville
Street, Manchester, M60 1QD

-----

Life? Don't talk to me about LIFE!!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Mark & pole
From: brian.wrigley@oosight.status.gen.nz (Brian Wrigley) 
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: brian.wrigley@oosight.status.gen.nz (Brian Wrigley) 
Distribution: world
Organization: OUT OF SIGHT BBS, Auckland, New Zealand, 64-9-298-3805

Mckeonj@ul.ie writes:

 > Another use, or possibly misuse, is the word "marque" used to
 > denote a particular make & model of sports/racing car.

It means 'make', NOT model, and does not apply only to sports and racing 
cars.  It's a French equivalent of 'mark'.

 > The same
 > sport also gives us another wonderful misuse: writers will refer
 > to e.g. Nigel Mansell as holding the "pole" position, meaning
 > that he is in the lead. They have misheard the word "poll",
 > meaning head.

No, 'pole' is correct.  Next to the fence, not at the head.

 > "Ich am of Irlonde" (medieval fragment used by Yeats)
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------
 > John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland


Brian Wrigley

--- WinQwk 2.0 #0
                                                                                                              
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders)
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:38:09 GMT

briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm) writes:

>>"Functionality" is merely the noun form of the adjective "functional."

>And what ever happened to "function"? Is that an outdated modality?

"Function" is a noun.
"Functional" is an adjective derived from "function".
"Functionality" is (unfortunately) a noun derived from "functional".

What's next, an adjective derived from "functionality"?  And yet 
another useless noun derived from that adjective?  Have we invented
linguistic ping-pong yet?

--
Scott Borders
sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu
borders_scott@tandem.com
From: microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Concertise
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:30:23 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, U
Originator: microsoc@black

In article <1993Jan11.174023.25507@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

[stuff actually relevant to a.u.e delted]
>
>Special Relativity is a scientific theory -- there, elegance counts
>for a lot, and is defined along pretty clear lines.  What is elegance

[more stuff deleted]

Could you please send me a copy of the definition?

Yours,
	Marc

PS I hope that each and every one of you enjoyed Christmas.
PPS I still don't like concertise/ize, but that's another matter...!