HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:29:12 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <3Vw5iB3w164w@xocolatl.com> ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
:>  backlog,
:> Opposite way round from us!
:   ???

I wasn't sure about this, but I vaguely remember it being discussed
here before.  *We* take 'backlog' to be a pile of work you haven't done
and which has to be caught up on urgently.  I *think* I remember the
US meaning being something more like extra work done in advance so
that you can take a holiday with a clear conscience.  What we call
'gold-bricking'.

What did the person who set the questions mean by it?

:>  kettle,
:> Do you mean a pot rather than a water-boiling jug?  Or some special US meanin

Seems you meant a pot.  We use that too, though it is rather archaic.
Hence 'kettle of fish', or the shape of a 'kettle-drum'.

:>  nipple,
:> teat? (dummy, for kids)
:   A dummy is called a pacifier here.  Nipple means either the fake
:   teat (attached to a bottle and through which formula is fed to the
:   baby) or the real thing.  There are industrial uses for the word
:   as well.

Well, that's exactly the same as here.

:>  valedictorian,
:> Dux of the school
:   Dunno what a dux is--valedictorian is the top student by GPA.

Top pupil in final-year at high-school.  No prizes for second-best :-)

:>  (ummm),
:> ?
:   A hem-and-haw, a verbal pause while trying to come up with, say,
:   the word you're looking for.

Same here, which is why I couldn't think of anything especially US for it.

:>  yard,
:> back garden
:   Although it can be the front yard as well.

A very Scottish use, I should point out!


I mentioned I might return the favour by doing a British version.
After getting some mail saying 'please do', I'll certainly do it
but give me some time to glean things from conversation over
the next week that might be appropriate.

Regards
   Graham
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Hopefully (was: More importantly, ...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:37:17 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

I never would have guessed there would be so much debate about "Hopefully" as a
sentence adverb (henceforth abbreviated as HAASA).  I haven't the time to write
individual answers to so many lengthy and interesting arguments, both right and
wrong from my point of view, so forgive me if I just scatter a few points here.

I do not think the issue is best understood in terms of ambiguity.  I don't mind
ambiguity in many other constructions, and I feel that the need for unambiguous
communication is generally overstated.  *My* objection to HAASA is that it is
ugly, and what I have been trying to explain, mostly, is why I find it ugly.

Some posts have asked whether the problem is felt to be syntactic or semantic. 
It is both: given the semantics (the word describes a hopeful speaker), the
syntactic form (an adverb) is simply wrong by what I take to be the standards of
careful speech.  A number of people have offered examples of accepted
constructions that purport to be parallel, but I reject them.  I have seen *no*
other example of an adverb used to qualify a noun.  It sounds weird and ugly.

Now, there are ways of construing HAASA so that the adverb does not qualify a
noun.  But the construction where it does qualify a noun is so obvious as to be
inescapable.  "Hopefully it will rain soon" brings forth "Someone is hopeful" as
surely as the picnic ham brings forth ants and yellowjackets.  The miscegenation
of adverb and noun won't go away.  Whoever it is that's hopeful, why are we
saying that he's hopefully?

It is argued that HAASA meets a need met by no other mellifluous locution.  But
the fact is that 90 percent of the time it is nothing but a sloppy way of
indicating uncertainty about something that would be good if it were true.  It
occurs to me that in older writing I have seen the use of "Thankfully" as an
exact parallel to HAASA: "Thankfully, we are finally getting some rain."  But
that seems to have disappeared from currency -- apparently it was not
indispensable!

Now, I am no schoolmarm.  If others employ a usage that strikes me as ugly
because it breaks a rule that remains in force in everyone's English, no matter
how colloquial, I do not claim they should be chastised for doing so.  But I
reserve the right to complain about the ugliness I perceive, and when they claim
it does *not* break any accepted rules, *then* I start chastising!

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3045 soc.bi:4524
From: daj@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.bi
Subject: Re: Out of the closet (was Re: Dictionary of American and British Usage)
Keywords: different definition
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:57:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Apr13.093449@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie A Coffin) writes:

# I believe "coming out of the closet" stems from the use of closet
# as an adjective meaning secret or hidden, which led to the phrases
# "closet homosexual" and "closet queen", which in turn led to
# "coming out of the closet".  I'd like to know which usage came
# first -- if anyone has information on this point, please send
# e-mail.

Could it have started as a derivative of "having a skeleton in the
closet"?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Wogs (was Re: Darrens and "Bewitched"
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:04:28 GMT

Somebody wrote:

>WOG must certainly have first stood for Wealthy Oriental Gentleman, before the
>British began applying it to all and sundry.
 
to which Dan Tilque responded:

> I'm curious, where did you learn this interesting etymology?
> 
>   a. Made it up yourself
>   b. Heard it from a friend
>   c. Looked it up in a dictionary
>   d. Don't know
>   e. Same place you heard posh comes from "Port out, starboard home"

It's a natural mistake, and I imagine that (b) is the answer.  I've
heard the "worthy oriental gentleman" explanation from many sources
(though never the "wealthy" variant).  It seems very likely to me that
somebody first said this as a joke, and the joke spread.

Peter.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2891 soc.culture.british:5991
From: nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:22:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.NIKOLAY.92Apr9212237
 <jwb.702255223@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au><1992Apr7.133652.3157@sun.pcl.ac.uk><1992Apr8.232044.28510@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu's message of 8 Apr 92 23:20:44 GMT


In article <1992Apr8.232044.28510@news2.cis.umn.edu>, 
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

> In article <1992Apr7.133652.3157@sun.pcl.ac.uk> marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk
> (Marcus Harvey) writes:

>> Americans talk about "rooting for someone" to describe their support
>> for them. I think "backing" as in "I'm backing Kennedy" would be the
>> closest, but I don't think there's a direct translation.

> I don't think so.  It is pure sports metaphor.  "Rooting" is going out
> to the ballpark and yelling as in

>    Root, root, root for the home team
>    If they don't win it's a shame

What about cheering or supporing a team? 

Philip Nikolayev at nikolay@husc.harvard.edu
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A whole nother story
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:26:58 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <P05yiB1w164w@xocolatl.com> ssmith@eoin.net.netcom.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
:eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
:
:> In article <69944@ut-emx.uucp>, verbum@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Neal Whitman) writ
:> 
:> > Is the expression, "That's a whole 'nother story," a Texasism?
:> 
:> It seems to be common enough in Oz.  I use it myself.
:> 
:> > On a related subject, how many think the members of Pink Floyd
:> > would transcribe the line sung as, "All in all you're just a 
:> > [pause] nother brick in the wall," dividing the word "another"?
:> 
:> Transcribe?  Transcribe?  Why would a group that don't need no
:> education write anything down?
:> 
:> Peter.
:
:Peter, Peter.  Remember, "No dark sarcasm in the classroom."
:
Shannon, really!  Leave those kids alone!

G
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "One less egg to fry"--Pedantry on 'less' and 'fewer'
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:04:06 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 1834

In article <1992Apr9.133955.6229@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dhubin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Donald C Hubin) writes:
|> 
|> 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?)  

Yes! Yes! Redemption has been achieved!  This use of 'less' for
'fewer' is even worse than 'hopefully'.

|> 
|> 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

I try not to say such things -- and I *usually* succeed.

|> 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.  

I'm afraid that your problem is simply that you fall short of perfection.
I try to avoid this problem and usually succeed.  Once, I thought I was
imperfect, but it turned out to be a mistake.  At least there are
some of us who *know* this kind of thing is wrong and *try* to avoid
it.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: petelev@convex.com (Pete Levinthal)
Subject: Re: Usage of "Why" and "Howcome" - pronunciation
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:20:33 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.


I've seen some discussion about the usage, but I'd like to add that the
pronunciation in Indiana was always "Howzcome", and it is often used in 
the context of a rhetorical question.  For example:
"Howzcome we don't have any good candidates for president?"

It is also used in casual conversation.  For Example:
Speaker A:  "John and Mary can't make it for dinner..."
Speaker B:  "Howscome"
Speaker A:  "well....."

I doubt that it will disappear as it's pretty well ingrained in rural speech
patterns.   Furthermore, it serves a place in language where asking "why" is
delving deeper into the question than required and "howscome" is an way of
asking for the more apparent reason. 

Pete
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Go figure
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:45:54 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1216@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:
:Recently I have seen the expression _Go figure_ in many places. It
:seems to be a preferred way to end postings in rec.pets.cats for
:instance. What does it mean, what is its style worth and where does it
:come from? (Not geography-wise, but rather full sentence-wise.)
:
:--Ceci, dabbling along in English

It means 'Go figure it out for yourself' which in turn means
'Go work it out for yourself' ('figure' is being used figuratively,
unless the postings were on sci.maths :-) )

It is, of course, American, and fairly standard off-net idiom.

Regards
   Graham
From: foster@mtechca.uucp (self.attribute:=major_arcana[0].name)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Missing syllables in place names
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:34:52 GMT
Organization: MAINTECH, A division of Volt Delta Resources, Inc. Orange, CA

When I went to London in 1986, the locals flamed me greatly for
pronouncing the name Leicester (as in Square, the one with six
six PizzaLand restaurants within two minutes stroll of each 
other) with three syllables.

I later found out that there are more English place names that are 
spelled with the syllable -ce- but are not pronounces with it. The 
ones I know of are:

     Leicester     pronounced Lester
     Gloucester    pronounced Gloster
     Worcester     pronounced Wooster (oo as in book)
     Chicester     pronounced Chester

Does anyone know the historical reason for the missing syllable? Is
there a name for this phenomenon, other than elision (no, wait, 
elision only happens to vowels, doesn't it?)? And why does it not
happen in names like Winchester and Dorchester? Or did these latter
names used to be spelled Winchecester and Dorchecester?

Thanks very.

Jeff Foucester
From: rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:50:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

As wise man once said, "If B U R D doesn't spell "bird," what does it
spell?"
Of course, this is an oral oracularity.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: "Same as above" marks
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au's message of Mon, 6 Apr 1992 01:05:42 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
	<1992Mar28.162851.10835@microsoft.com> <3591@novavax.UUCP>
	<1992Apr6.110542.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 06:10:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.110542.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
   In article <3591@novavax.UUCP>, vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:

   > 1) What is the meaning of "foo" and "bar"? I see them in "C" programming
   >    books once in a while, or from "C" programmers.

   Perhaps this too belongs in the FAQ file; though I'm not sure that it
   counts as usage.english.

----
It is in the FAQ file ("Answers to Frequently Asked Questions"
in news.announce.newusers):

 2.  What is the derivation of "foo" as a filler word?

     The favorite story is that it comes from "fubar" which is an
     acronym for "fouled up beyond all recognition", which is supposed
     to be a military term.  (Various forms of this exist, "fouled"
     usually being replaced by a stronger word.) "Foo" and "Bar" have
     the same derivation.

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shape Changer
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:17:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <6APR199213242128@adpdp2.lanl.gov> 105126@adpdp2.lanl.gov (105126) writes:
>In article <BRECHER.92Mar20120523@husc8.harvard.edu>, brecher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jonathan Brecher) writes...

>>>It is the name for a creature that can change its appearance. 

>>The two terms I've seen most often are "polymorph" and "metamorph".  

As a special case, the word "lycanthrope" refers to man-shaped creatures who
can change into wolf-shaped creatures, and (by extension) into other animal
shapes...

-- 
          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
From: gtoal@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: `alternately' vs `alternatively' and also `momentarily'`regular' &c &c ad nauseam
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:32:53 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr16.211818.19902@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Ray.Nickson@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Ray Nickson) writes:
:In article <RICHARD.92Apr16133139@bilbo.harlqn.co.uk> richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby) writes:
:
:   How does an American indicate regularity as opposed to normality.  To
:   me `regular' means at equal time spacing or with regular shape?  (I
:   can't think of another word for `regular' in the latter example, which
:   is partly why I'm asking!)
:
:I'd only seen that used in MacDonalds (`regular fries' is their term
:for `small box of chips'), until recently a television advertisement
:(for insurance, if I remember correctly!) here appeared which claims
:that they'd interviewed six regular people about their lifestyles.
:I can just imagine the interviewers keeping their logbooks outside the
:toilets for weeks beforehand ...


I thought the US meaning of 'regular' was 'often', as in "I bathe
regularly"  (to which the Brit replies 'Oh yes?  Once a month
whether you need to or not, right?')

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:58:13 GMT

In article <jwb.702255223@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au>, jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes:
> smithj@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes:
> >  The
> >Dictionary
> >    of
> >American and British
> >      Usage
> 
> >For English Speaking People
> 
> A laudable effort. A few minor corrections:
> 
> >buck for v : root for
> 
> Tsk, tsk. "Root" in English means either rummage around, or have sexual
> intercourse. 

I was under the impression that this latter meaning was exclusively
australian.  Perhaps we need an English<->Australian dictionary as well?

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: momentarily
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:10:33 GMT

ken@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Ken Yap) writes:

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

>I'll be with you momentarily.

Only unless the dreaded Garrick Utley, of the NBC Sunday program, says it. 
Then it causes me great relief to think he won't be back after the ad break 
for very long, nattering on portentiously. But he always lies and 
comes back for long periods of time again, often with yet another 
item about some triumph of the spirit. The man is a wince dispenser.
He can't use anything other than hackneyed journalese.

-ricko
From: oliver@oak.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Believe ye there be an English subjunctive?
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:33:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In my Italian class, we have been studying the "congiuntivo," translated
"subjunctive," and I have been having a running argument with my TA, who
claims that there is no subjunctive in English.  I have given examples
like "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener" and "It is better that the
class be held on Thursday" but she is unmoved; she claims that the
"were" is the "second form of the imperfect of 'to be' " and that
the "be" in the second sentence is just the infinitive without the
"to."

She claims that this is what she was taught in an English class here
at UCLA.  Is this possible?  Does anyone currently teach that there
is no English subjunctive?

I can see how such a description might be made to have equal predictive
power, at least for modern usage, albeit with a couple things that
look kludgy to me.  (For example, why use the "second form" only
in counterfactual or speculative situations?  This were awkward, methinks.)
But from a comparative-linguistic point of view I think you just
about have to call it "subjunctive."

One point for her side:  If what I think is subjunctive in fact is,
then it does seem a bit strange that we use present subjunctive
in past time, for example "It was necessary that the class
be on Thursday" not "... were on Thursday."  In Italian you
would say "Era necessario che la classe fosse il (?) giovedi' "
rather than " ... sia il giovedi'," that is, you would use
the past subjunctive in this case.

--
Mike Oliver			Logic is a little bird
oliver@math.ucla.edu		tweeting in the meadow.
				Logic is a wreath of beautiful flowers
				that smell *bad*.   --Spock
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:2856 soc.culture.british:5924
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:20:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Apr8.232044.28510
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <1992Apr7.133652.3157@sun.pcl.ac.uk> marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk
(Marcus Harvey) writes:

> Americans talk about "rooting for someone" to describe their support
> for them. I think "backing" as in "I'm backing Kennedy" would be the
> closest, but I don't think there's a direct translation.

I don't think so.  It is pure sports metaphor.  "Rooting" is going out
to the ballpark and yelling as in

   Root, root, root for the home team
   If they don't win it's a shame

from the song "Take me out to the ball game," the official seventh-inning
stretch music at many ballparks.

"Rooting" for a political candidate would be anything that could be
metaphorically construed as cheering him or her on.  It would be
(mixing metaphors) to join the peanut gallery.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: a fight to the death between our champions?
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 15:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.235329.6845@Csli.Stanford.EDU> scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>The two warring factions --- the 'there is such a thing as good usage'
>and the 'que sera sera descriptivists' --- avoided war in the late
>twentieth century by sending their champions into battle to the
>death. Both sides chose 'hopefully'. The winner?


But if the descriptivists are so bloody nonchalant, why don't they just
ignore everyone else and let peace ring out?


Dhanesh

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Sniglet update
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:00:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

[In an attempt to make up for starting out on the wrong foot in this group,
 David Tate changes the subject... :-) ]

Someone recently posted a suggested sniglet for the odd dance that occurs
when two people attempt to pass on a busy sidewalk, and end up bouncing
back and forth in each other's way.  The word "indecijig" was proposed.

I've been racking my brains since then, trying to remember the wonderful
phrase I once heard to describe this phenomenon.  I'm afraid it's only
tangentially English, but the phrase was "faux pas de deux".  For a more
home-grown phrase, I've also heard "impassing by"...

-- 
          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,soc.culture.british