HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:24:51 GMT

In article <Bxuw7t.GGr@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.192525.27740@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>>I believe we should only use "quite" if we can use "not quite" in the
>>same place.
>
>Why?

Because a qualifier points to one possibility out of a set; if it
doesn't narrow the set of possible interpretations, it's just useless
weight.

If a qualifier produces a smaller set of meanings, then that leaves
another set - the meaning or meanings that were excluded - the "not"
set.  (If I say something is round, I thereby exclude all non-round
shapes.  But if I say "a round circle", what am I excluding -
"not-round circles"?)

So if I quality "unique" with "quite", what meanings am I excluding,
if not "not quite unique"?

>>But what would "not quite unique" mean?
>
>"It's not quite unique -- there's a machine in Colorado that does much
>the same thing -- but it's not exactly commonplace, all the same."

Why is this better than "It's not unique"?  You've just added a
useless word, just weighed down your text unnecessarily.  I'd say
something like:  "It's uncommon, but not unique; there's a machine
in Colorado that does much the same thing."

Too many people today think adding words indiscriminately makes their
text look more important (look at standard bureaucratese!).  But all it
does is dilute the meaning - at the extreme, to incomprehensibility.
(And, in fact, this technique is often used to deceive - look at the
advertising industry .  .  .)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: palepink@lily.arts.com (Suzii Abe)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 22:16:32 PST

dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:
> From the Holy Book of <1992Nov18.100410.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
>   as spake by ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) :
> >Even `grammarians' gave up long ago worrying about `you' being used for both
> >singular and plural.
> Wait, 'you' _is_ both a second-person singular pronoun and a
> second-person plural pronoun.

Ok, let's see a show of hands.  How many here know what the *real*
second-person singular pronoun is in English?  (Native German speakers,
sit down; we all know you know it.)

> "Oh, someone will be coming by with the Harrison transcripts.  Send them
>  to Joe in room 405."
> Now, does the 'them' in that sentence refer to the transcripts or to the
> person bringing them?
> See the problem?

Oh, of course.  This is why there is no ambiguity whatsoever when I say:
"Angela and Edwina will be coming by with the Harrison transcripts.  Send
them to Joe in room 405."

Sheesh.

Some people's counter-examples...

--Suzii.
palepink@lily.arts.com
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:48:18 EST
Distribution: alt
Organization:  Wright State University 




RL>(Note that "unique" *really* means "singular,"
> "rare," etc. as well as "one-of-a-kind.")  

Not necessarily so, Roger.  I suggest you read up on this in Webster's usage
guide before making this mistake again!

RL>I use "unique" to mean 
> "one-of-a-kind" when the context makes that meaning clear.  I'm also
> pretty good at fashioning appropriate contexts, they tell me.  

Roger, you little linguistic jack-of-all-trades you, they're right about this:
you *do* keep changing meanings to fit contexts.


RL> btw, I don't use "unique" to mean anything other than what my 
> dictionary gives as its meanings.  That's not *because* the dictionary
> says that; just happens to be that way.   

Eh?  "Just happens to be that way"?  What a coincidence!

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: plu@math.psu.edu (Mr. Hypothetical)
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Penn State Department of Mathematics
	<1ec7boINNs78@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:23:29 GMT

ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
      
   In my experience, the verb "to cook" has both an active and a passive sense.
   That is, both "I am cooking the eggplants" and "The eggplants are cooking"
   are correct.  I believe Jin-Yuan's original question was something like
   "Is sentence (2) acceptable usage?"  I would answer that it is.

I never really thought about it before, but "The eggplants are
cooking" does sound kind of weird, in a way.... What are the eggplants
cooking?  I think the sentence is acceptable, but it's not so much
passive as reflexive: The eggplants are cooking themselves.  On the
other hand, not every verb is like "cook" - the sentence "Glass Recycles"
printed on soda bottles still sounds weird to me.

- Todd Andrew Simpson




Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject:  quite unique
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:10:46 GMT

At the risk of merely restating what has been said already, I am moved
to express my understanding of the "unique" situation:

Something that is "unique" is indeed one of a kind.

However, in most everyday contexts, like a "unique dress" or a
"unique point of view," this one-of-a-kindness is far from a precise
concept.  In fact, in these situations, "unique" really is used to
mean "unlike others."  So regardless of the conflict with the idea
of "one of a kind," the phrase "more unique" simply translates to
"more unlike others," which makes perfectly good sense, IMHO.

In scientific contexts, on the other hand, there would be no sense
at all in trying, for example, to intensify "Two is the unique even
prime number" with a comparative.

--Daz
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:55:09 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <By5pAu.4C@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
<In <By3FLH.DxM@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
<>Capital! Go for it Martin!  Favour is spelled with a 'u' in most places
<>around the world. 
<
<In most places perhaps, but certainly not by most people.

Most people can't tell "its" from "it's" or "there" from "their".
What's your point?  Mass illiteracy is still illiteracy.

<>Werner showed his ignorance (as do most Americans) of
<>the correct spelling of favour! It is unfortunate that Americans have
<>corrupted the written language.
<
<If that's corruption, you should put the 'u' back in governour.

Yes, it is corruption; as for the "u" in "governo[u]r", it is too late
to put it back, unfortunately.  Shouldn't have let it out in the first place.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (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: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:42:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.164506.24509@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>True, and most careful writers of today would not use "most unique," and
>>as such it gains in value.
>
>Absolutely.  I'd probably correct it myself if I encountered it in a 
>piece of formal writing.  

I'm so glad.  There's still hope for you.

>>>Be more precise about what's judgment and what's opinion, and this 
>>>won't happen ever again, I promise.
>
>>Wow!  Can I have that in writing?
>
>You just did.

Legally speaking, email doesn't count as "in writing."  Fax me.

>>Dictionaries don't
>>tell the whole story (as some of your messages implied), neither does
>>Evans & Evans, Strunk & White, or Fowler.
>
>Also true.  Doe this mean we should not make our judgments based on
>as many of the bits of info we can put together, or that we should
>not let our reading of those various bits be guided by some general
>principles of language?

But each person will interpret that reading and those bits of info
quite differently....thus we have your defending "most unique" and my
rebuking it.

>>We're in a *usage* newsgroup.  Everything is opinion.  Usage is all
>>opinion, be it yours, mine, or anyone else's.  
>
>Bosh.  Usage is what people say. 

Indeed.  And most careful writers and speakers would not, I think you
would agree, use "irregardless" or "most unique."


>You weren't writing mere opinions.  You were attaching value judgments
>("wrong," "misuse," "sloppy", "careful") to observations.  You were making
>judgments, not only about this or that word, but about how people speak 
>and write.             

Damn right I was making judgments, but those judgments are my
opinions.  I've never known someone to have an opinion without a
judgment attached to it.  I still am making judgments and casting
opinions, and have no regrets about doing it.  Someone can say "me and
my friends..." or "irregardless" or "most unique" and they can be
perfectly comfortable doing it.  That doesn't mean that I'm not going
to make a judgment about such a usage or have an opinion on it.

>Pardon me if I find your mode of operation less than impressive!

You are officially pardoned.

>>>Or giving some of the sources of your opinions? I
>>>bet they'd be genuinely fascinating.
>
>>One of these days...perhaps when you stop threatening me with
>>two-by-fours, and after I finish mopping up all that prejudice that
>>you claim I've spattered everywhere.
>
>{insert missing reply here]

Forgot to reply to that one, eh?  I guess you're mopping up any 
prejudice that I inadvertently spattered on your terminal.


--
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: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:22:26 GMT

In article <0XXiuB2w165w@lily.arts.com>, palepink@lily.arts.com (Suzii Abe) writes:
> 
> Ok, let's see a show of hands.  How many here know what the *real*
> second-person singular pronoun is in English?  (Native German speakers,
> sit down; we all know you know it.)

OK, if you want people to avoid giving away the punch line I'll
avoid using the t-word; but I don't see the point of this question.
I'd guess that almost all native speakers of English are aware of
the old form of the second person singular, and could even find the
right verb ending to go with it.  This is obscure only to those
who learnt English as a foreign language.

We didn't stop using that word because we forgot how to say it.
We stopped (that is, our ancestors stopped) using it because
(a) there is/was a convention - still alive in some other languages -
    that the plural form is somehow more respectful, and because
    the upper classes in England went through a phase of avoiding
    intimacy in speech;
(b) deliberate ambiguity can be very convenient.  For example,
    being able to say "I'll be seeing you" when leaving a group of
    people avoids the embarrassment of a farewell to one person
    which omits the others.

Point (b) applies equally well to the use of "they" as a replacement
for he/she.  There are times when we want to avoid specifying the
sex of a person.  It's unlikely that a newly invented pronoun for
this purpose would be accepted, since the convention in English, when
a new word is needed, has always been either to take the word from
another language (not really applicable in this case) or to extend
the meaning of an old word.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:09:39 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.112547.22880@black.ox.ac.uk> microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read) writes:
>>
> 
>>(I'm still shaking at the memory of Roger's flames to this newcomer to
>>Usenet about "concertize"....)
> 
> A pity, isn't it.  
> 
I agree. And I'm still waiting for him to tell me what it actually means...

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: palepink@lily.arts.com (Suzii Abe)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 10:49:26 PST

casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>          "unique, certainly, but not at all unusual."
> I swear to god I didn't make that up....It wasn't
> meant as a joke, either.  Is it illogical?  No, but it's... it's... what is
> that word I'm groping for?

Goofy?

Reminds me of an argument I had with Shirley Collins (one of the finest
English teachers in the country--any other alums of her initiation out
there?--regardless of her unwillingness to admit to being wrong in front
of the class...), who said that "possible" is a much stronger word than
"probable", leading to descriptions such as:
         "probable, certainly, but not at all possible."

I suspect you're looking for the word "incorrect" but don't want to
say so.  Perhaps you could settle on the word "confusing", with it's
connotations of clearly coming from your personal perspective.

--Suzii.
palepink@lily.arts.com

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Subject: How's it hanging? (was Re: What's cooking?)
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:09:42 GMT

In article <BxxAC1.Ms4@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>In article <1ec3g6INNrep@agate.berkeley.edu> dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum) writes:
>>ad says, "An Italian masterpiece IS HANGING in a museum."  (Note
>>that for human beings, the past participle is not hung, but hanged:
>>"He was hanged at dawn.")
>
>But people aren't "hanged like a horse" :)

Sheesh, Kay, leave us some illusions... :-)

Seriously though, back to the past participle.  The rule is a little
more complicated, the way I understand it.  An animate being was hanged
if its death came by hanging.  An inanimate object was hung when it was
dangled somewhere.  So it's proper to say (apologies to Mel Brooks):

	The cowboy and his horse were hanged at dawn.  Their corpses
	were hung in the public square afterwards.

-- Doug (never hanged like a horsethief) Harper

P.S.  It may even be more complicated.  The corpse of Cromwell was
disinterred and then (hanged/hung) for a traitor and regicide.  Which
is it?  I'd say "hanged" there because the intent was to treat the
corpse as though it were animate and could suffer punishment.  The same
way, you might say that an effigy of <choose a politician or sports
official> was hanged.

Opinions?
-- 
Douglas Harper | harper@oracorp.com | +1 (607) 277-2020
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:10:31 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <98422@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <TSOS.180.722166015@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>
>>I *do* hope that next spring, when the "unique" discussion has calmed
>>down (*) and is almost forgotten, some innocent person new to this group
>>will come up and ask the magic question again. (I even consider to hire
>>someone to do this ...)
>
>Ask Mandar.  Tell him the Americans are changing the spelling 
>to "yoo-neek."  
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

Really?  I thought they would come up with something more original like
"You-Nick" ,  "Me-Harry"!  :)

                                                              Mandar.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                         - The Beatles
From: benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:52:17 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <By2Ay4.5rF@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:

>kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:

>>From the Oxford Companion to the English Language ("Trademark"):
>>      Everyday words of English that were once trademarks (some now
>>      universal, some more common in one variety of English than
>>      another, some dated, all commonly written without an initial
>>      capital) include aspirin, band-aid, cellophane, celluloid,
>>      cornflakes, dictaphone, escalator, granola, hoover, kerosene,

>
>1. Aspirin has only lost its tm status in the US.  In other countries
>it's still a trademark.

Was aspirin a trademark?

Also, was corn-flakes a trademark. I was under the impression that Mr
Kellogg forgot to register it, which is why all other brands are still
called cornflakes. Rice Krispies (Uk only???) are only made by Kelloggs,
other brands have to attribute alternative names as a trademark exists,
but cornflakes don't.

Ben Hambidge.


<benha@castle.ed.ac.uk>
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:47:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <TSOS.180.722166015@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:

>I *do* hope that next spring, when the "unique" discussion has calmed
>down (*) and is almost forgotten, some innocent person new to this group
>will come up and ask the magic question again. (I even consider to hire
>someone to do this ...)

Ask Mandar.  Tell him the Americans are changing the spelling 
to "yoo-neek."  





-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: quite unique research?
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:59:43 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


I have done some research on the U-word.  Herewith is the score.  If you don't
believe me, I would urge you to look it up yourself.

1.  On the matter of Roger L.'s expert envy:

I made commentary on this several months ago in a light-hearted manner, and I
believe he took it that way.  OK then, here's a rundown of the expert opinion.

In favor of a modifiable uniqueness (this according to Roger): Evans, AHD 1.

Opposed to a modifiable uniqueness (according to my research): Fowler,
Nicholson, Strunk & White, Phythian, Partridge, Oxford Guide to English Usage
(and I would add Webster's 3rd and OED).  I may have missed some experts in
this tally, but I wouldn't hesitate to guess that they're in this group.

Result: on the basis of the quantity and quality of expert opinion, round 1
goes to the NOT group.  The majority of experts agree that unique is not
modifiable.  As the OED states, unique means "Single, sole, alone of its
kind... (obs: rare)."

HOWEVER, Phythian makes an interesting note that something may be nearly or
almost unique.

2.  Is "unique" unique?

I reviewed the discussion of unique in Webster's English usage guide (1989, pp.
927-929).  Very interesting.  Here's a summary of what they said.

There are four distinct meanings of unique.  The first meaning -- incidently,
the one Roger's expert (Evans) said may be modified -- is *only* or *sole*.
A second meaning is *having no like or equal*, that is, unparalleled; note that
this could be bad (e.g., "Dracula's unique evil").  A third meaning is
*peculiar*, as in "unique to" (e.g., "The spotted owl is unique to old growth
forest in the Pacific Northwest").  The final meaning is *unusual excellence*,
as in "Williams' .406 batting average was an indicator of his unique batting
capability."

Webster's had two suggestions for use of unique.  First, in its typical (though
not unique) cynical style, it suggested that many have dearly held beliefs
about unique but "Perhaps you might try being one who knows enough about its
bad reputation to avoid it but who also knows enough about its actual history
not to sneer at those who use it" (p. 929).  In this sense they endorse its
modification.

However, they went on to state that if one wishes to modify unique to make it
mean unusual or distinctive, then one *should* replace unique with unusual or
distinctive and not use unique.

I would add that they are implicitly acknowledging the lack of symetry which I
would write out as follows: something is rare because it is unique, but
something may not be unique because it is rare.

This posting doesn't solve this debate, but I would conclude that simply
counting up experts doesn't win Roger's case.  On the other hand, those of
Roger's ilk are partially correct to one degree, but not ... uniquely?

-----ted hayes

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: jb8285@guinea (Jeffrey R. Brown)
Subject: Re: pop &c.
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:21:47 GMT

It's "pop" in Minnesota.  You bet!

--
"The comments and opinions expressed above are mine and do not necessarily
represent the official position or views of Medtronic, Inc."
Jeffrey R. Brown
Internet: jeffrey.brown@medtronic.com             Voice: 1-612-574-4698
UUCP:     uunet!medtron!jb8285                    FAX:   1-612-574-6150
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: What's cooking?
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu)


JW>(1) Not all the Italian masterpieces are hanging in museums.

JW>(2) So come see what's cooking at Applebee's Festa Italiana.

JW>English is not my native language. I asked some American and English guys
  >and they told me that these two sentances are acceptable. Could any one
  >tell me why they are accepted grammartically? I thought they should be:

JW>(1) Not all ... are HUNG in museums.

JW>(2) So come see WHO'S cooking ...
  >or So come see what's cooked ...

Well, HUNG has several meanings (whereas "well hung" is pretty specific,
but not germane to _this_ conversation...).

Would you agree that the paintings are currently HANGING in the museums?
At various times in the past they were HUNG in the museums, but it is
less passive to assert they are currently hanging.

"What's cooking" is a code phrase for "what's happening" sometimes -
it's a play on words.  "Who's cooking" vaguely implies cannibals may be
at work....  <G>
---
 . OLX 3.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                                    
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english