HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: windsor@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Katherine Windsor)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: words that peeve me
Date: 28 Jul 1992 18:38:12 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu

In article <gate.BmwFoB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org> dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:
> -=> 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 --
>
I have always loved verbs that used to be nouns.  My favorite is 
"to mushroom."  I ask French people if they find the noun-turned-
mysteriously-to-verb phenomenon very often in their language;
they say no.  Is this the American spirit at work?  Is it only in the
U.S that we so desperately strive to express ourselves in a unique manner  
that we all end up sounding a bit like Miss Malaprop? 
I am interested in hearing from those of you who reside elsewhere -
particularly from the Brits, who are, it is assumed, a bit more 
formal with the language.
	-If there's anything I cannot stand, it's intolerance.
		-katherine
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: right time
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:28:49 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:14:49 GMT

In article <Brr6t4.83F@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:

> Neither expert opted for `a quarter till,' presumably because
> they considered it dialect (=South Midland).  But what's a
> well-intentioned consulter of usage experts to do in such a
> case?  

A quarter before seven.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu's message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:38:42 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul27.141850.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
	<SLAGLE.92Jul27152542@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul28.153842.12457@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.153842.12457@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.92Jul27152542@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>if
>>you say "next weekend" to me on Monday-Friday, it means the
>>one immediately following this M-F work week. 

> Really?  Even if someone asks you on Friday, "What are you
> doing next weekend?"

Well, the boundary is a bit hazier than I implied.  If it
gets late enough on Friday, and the workday is almost done
then next weekend gets farther away, I suppose.  Mostly it
just gets useless at that point, though.  I'd still need
to ask which one was intended.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: hillyer@rrc.chevron.com (Martin J. Hillyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: french
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:44:14 GMT
Reply-To: hillyer@rrc.chevron.com
Organization: Chevron, Richmond, California

When I was growing up in the UK, my father used to refer to a hammer as a Birmingham screwdriver (we lived in the London 'burbs)

Martin
From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: talkwords and writewords
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:06:13 GMT
Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

In article 1sPFoB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org, dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson) writes:
>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 --

Does somebody make you use those dreadful terms?
If so, maybe you should contact Amnesty International.

-m.
From: karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Date: 22 Jul 1992 20:42:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Committee for Open Access Computing
Reply-To: karplus@ce.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ararat.ucsc.edu

For redundancy, one of my favorites is a hotel called
	the El Alhambra Hotel
which used to exist in Santa Cruz.

Translating the foreign morphemes into English gives
	the the the hotel hotel
	
Kevin Karplus



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)
Subject: Re: More unique. (Was: ``momentarily'' vs. ``in a moment'')
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:05:37 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany

Ted,
    how about "less polyque" instead of "more unique"   ;)
Actually I would prefer that you use "more seldom".

Ciao,
     Stu
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:00:48 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Jul30.000127.3197@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi):
>:      Exactly the point which was trying to drive home....no single
>:individual has the authority to change the language. The spelling 
>:can be changed only if a majority of it's native speakers (I mean
>:the English, here) concur. 
>
>I think you mean "its", not "it's", but since you're disadvantage, 
>I won't hold it too much against you.
>
OOpppss......yet another typo... I have posted so many articles today,
that that is bound to happen. I am aware of the difference between
it's (it is) and its. Thanks for correcting me.....
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: "need"
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:31:51 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 "Benjamin D. Lukoff" <bl2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>:
:"One need not pay the postman" and "you make it harder than it need be"
:are quite correct in English. The 'be' in 'need be' is in the
:subjunctive.  The 'need' without the 's' is the standard form of the
:verb and does not involve the use of the subjunctive. It all depends on
:how the sentence is formed:

Oh, but I really don't think so.  The 'be' is the infinitive, and the
'need' now appears to me to be a modal.  Indeed, other than modals, I do
not believe there exist [my soul yearns for the subjunctive for that verb]
defective English verbs lacking a distinction between being singular and
being plural.  Compare this with 'should' in place of 'need', and note
how similar the cases actually are.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
    little statesmen and philosophers and divines.  With consistency a
    great soul has simply nothing to do."  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: lannert@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Subject: Re: I'm in a comma.
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet Duesseldorf
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:19:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul8.002155.29216@news.eng.convex.com> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:

>I happen to be in the #1 crowd because it prevents ever having an
>ambiguity, or having to decide whether I have compound list elements or
>not and changing the rule contextually.  There's also the issue that that
>comma signifies a change in cadence.  I have a little pause in my voice
>when enumerating a list, and I prefer to have the comma signal this to me.

>The +'s are unambiguous -- and tastier -- compared with the -'s:

> +  Sandwiches include ham, tuna, and peanut butter and jelly.
> -  Sandwiches include ham, tuna and peanut butter and jelly.

> +  Sandwiches include ham, tuna, and peanut butter.
> -  Sandwiches include ham, tuna and peanut butter.

> +  Sandwiches include ham, peanut butter and jelly, and tuna.
> -  Sandwiches include ham, peanut butter and jelly and tuna.

>Personally, I never care to offer peanut butter with tuna on one 
>sandwich, and I wouldn't want someone thinking they should find 
>another cafe because of limited and disgusting sandwich choices.

I fully agree with you: I don't want a tuna and peanut butter sandwich
(I don't like tuna anyway), and it's always a good thing to avoid
ambiguities. And I don't want to keep a thread alive that has been
boring the a.u.e readers repeatedly. But there is an aspect - maybe
I missed its previous discussions here - that still interests me:
Punctuation rules for German will have it just the other way round
and require that the "," before the "and" be omitted.

Of course the learner (of German) is given an obvious ;-) reason for
that rule: It avoids ambiguities! Example:

	I will have a minestrone, my favourite dish, and a pint of lager.

According to the German rule, "my favourite dish" is attributive to the
minestrone (otherwise there would be *no* "," before the "and"), and 
thus I'll order just two things. 

According to the "comma=yes"-rule, which seems to be preferred by English
grammar books (and by Tom), my favourite dish might be something else
(pizza perhaps), and thus the soup is only a starter.

So how would you avoid this ambiguity? Or isn't it one at all?

I apologize if this question has been asked many times before - if you
are concerned about the bandwidth, ignore it or mail me (to the address
given *below*).

Thanks (or should I say "ta"? :-) )
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Ab morgen wird gearbeitet."
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: tilley@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Richard Tilley)
Subject: Re: "This" weekend vs. "Next" weekend
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:19:01 GMT

On Friday, Saturday, or Sunday,  'this weekend' refers to the
weekend at hand, and so 'next weekend' and 'last weekend' are clear.

Otherwise for 'this weekend' the tense of the verb can be useful, as
in 'What did you do this weekend?', or 'What are you doing this weekend?'.

'Next weekend' could mean 'this comming weekend', or 'the end of next week'.

The same goes for days of the week.
If this is Tuesday, then 'this Tuesday', 'next Tuesday'  and 'last Tuesday are clear.
'This Monday' could mean 'yesterday', or 'Monday of next week'.
'Last Monday' could mean 'yesterday', or 'Monday of last week'.
'Next Monday' is clear since Monday of this week has passed.
'Next Friday' could mean 'this comming Friday', or 'Friday of next week'

I think 'this week' and 'next week' are clear except perhaps on Sunday.
Month and year are always clear.

For a specific month, I am not sure.
Suppose this is November.
Does 'next December' ever mean 'December of next year'?
Does 'last January' ever mean 'January of last year'?

If this is February, do the previous 2 questions still have the same answer?

Perhaps it is safe to use 'last xxx' only if
the xxx belonging to the current group of xxx-like things has not yet passed,
and to use 'next xxx' only if
the xxx belonging to the current group has already passed,
and to use 'this xxx' when this *is* xxx.

For ambiguous xxx, use 'xxx of this group' or 'xxx of last group' or 'xxx of this group'.
-- 
This space is not blank!
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:42:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul29.191955.20099@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>Well then, can you tell me who on earth gave you chaps the authority to
>change the spellings?

That's easy.  God.



-- 
===============================================================================
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: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Use of "dereference"
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:36:15 GMT

In article <11454725.19.712045108@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au>, 11454725@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (JOLAN EVANS) writes:
> Use of "derefence"
> 
> 	In one of my first year computer science subjects my lecturer uses 
> the word dereference. From the context in which he uses it, to my best 
> knowledge, it means "given a reference to a variable x, obtain its value". I 
> can not find it in The Macquarie Dictionary ( a relatively large Australian 
> English language dictionary), Revised Edition or the Hamlyn Dictionary of 
> Computing. The Macquarie Dictionary, Revised Edition is a little dated do I 
> was wondering if it's in any larger and/or more up to date dictionary/
> dictionary of computing. My immeditate thoughts as to the etymology if it is 
> a recently invented word is the contraction of "decode" and "reference". Any 
> thoughts?

Others have already given good answers, but I'd just like to add this
suggestion: don't bother looking up the Macquarie Dictionary for anything
related to computers.  Most of the time you won't find the word you're
looking for - which is perhaps understandable, given that many such
words are new jargon - and the rest of the time you risk finding
definitions with which computer-literate people would not agree.
(Check out "microcomputer" and "microprocessor", for example; they have
the definitions back to front.)

I like this dictionary - for most purposes it's my favourite - but in
this one area they seem not to have checked their entries with
anyone competent in the area.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:56:50 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.

What a miserable, misinformed, prescriptive soul this Indian must have.
Language has a life of its own, not subject to petty pronouncements.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

	    Now I surely will not plague you
	    With such words as plaque and ague.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: joannee@sco.COM (Joanne Eglash)
Subject: Shrew, as in taming of...
Reply-To: joannee@fscott.UUCP (Joanne Eglash)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:18:21 GMT


What is the origin of the word "shrew," as in "The Taming of..."?
I have checked some references, and they seem to vary. 

NOT a shrew,
Joanne
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu's message of Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:46:43 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul29.191955.20099@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
	<SLAGLE.92Jul29190301@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Jul30.054643.2225@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 21:50:30 GMT

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?

> Yes, Hindi is primarily confined to only India (apart from variations such
[...]

...A whizzing sound barely disturbs the concentration of the
earnest correspondent as a once sharp point, now dulled by
time and trouble, passes within inches of his parietal lobe...
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: dand@buscard.fidonet.org (Dan Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "in hospital" vs. "in
Date: 26 Jul 92 10:03:13 GMT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


  => In a message to All on 07-24-92  08:57 Simon Patience said:

 SP> However I am sure that now we are going to have loads of Brits
 SP> disagreeing.

Loads of unhappy Brits, indeed.  Don't cross your Brits before
counting them.


                                                   -- Dan --


... THINK! or thwim.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More unique?  polique!
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:51:43 EST
 <13vh1iINNfh4@agate.berkeley.edu> <sav.711785137@nanette>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <sav.711785137@nanette>, 
sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
> Ted,
>     how about "less polyque" instead of "more unique"   ;)
> Actually I would prefer that you use "more seldom".
> 
> Ciao,
>      Stu

I replied to Dr. Savory over e-mail but I wanted to have this public
posting opportunity too, as the post had *nothing* to do with "at" finally!

Anyway, how would one pronounce "polyque"?  For example, 'polyp' has a 
short 'i' sound (as in 'hip'), but 'polynomial', 'polystyrene', etc. have
an 'ee' sound (as in 'GP', a.k.a. 'jeep').  So -- 'pol-lee-queue' or
'poe-leak'?  Also, would this polique thing refer to membership in a class
of objects, much as "cheese", having several attributes?

BTW: I think "more seldom" is fine, as it is synonymous with "rare", and
certainly there can be a rarest, rarer, and somewhat rare!

-----ted hayes


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re:  Language Acquisition and Transformational Grammar
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:02:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.202747.969@dragon.com>, cms@dragon.com (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith)) writes:

> 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."  

I presume that this should have been "(the dog which is brown)".
Or does he interpret the sentence "The brown dog ate his food; the
black dog didn't" as meaning "The dog (the dog is brown) ate his food;
the dog (sorry, the dog isn't brown, it's black) didn't"?

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

Your comments before this statement suggest that you've been looking
at how children learn English, rather than how children learn language.
Try looking at children who grow up with another language, or
children who grow up bilingual; the answers might turn out to be
different.

I'm not a specialist in this area, so perhaps I'm missing a point,
but I have the impression when listening to my four-year-old children
(English/French bilingual) that they haven't yet learnt much in the
way of grammar, they've simply learnt a large collection of stock
phrases which happen to be consistent with the grammar of one of their
two languages (not always the correct one).  As soon as they try to
construct sentences which are not already in their model set, they
become quite shaky on things like the singular/plural distinction,
which verb form to use with which pronoun, and so on.

Peter.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: Words that peeve me
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:28:25 GMT

I can't remember if someone else already used this as a "word that peeves"; if
so, I apologize.  I heard it on National Public Radio this morning:  "fraction"
used to mean "very small fraction".  The announcer said that X million dollars
has been ear-marked for AIDS research, "but only a fraction of it will be used
in the developing world".  Well, naturally!  The only alternative would be to
use ALL of it in the developing world.  

While we're on the topic, anyone else hate the phrase "developing world"?

Marie Coffin
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Ex-presidents' titles and adverbs of location
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:35:34 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
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 thayes@desire.wright.edu:
:(A) The challenge was to find three sentences, three *NORMAL* sentences, 
:whose meanings are *IMPROVED* by appending "at" to their derrieres.  I argued
:in an earlier post that this challenge has not been met and offer further
:proof of that contention.  However, for the sake of peace & love & because
:I've had a good day, let's say (b) that "Where it's at" is OK.  So there's
:one sentence; I'm waiting for the other two.

People keep giving them to you, but you've decided that separable
verbs (e.g. "to look at") don't count, which is patently bogus.

    I'm going to the show.
    What time is it at?

without the "at", it means "Do you have the time?" rather than 
"When's the show?"

But I suppose separable prepositions don't count now, either?  

Get real.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist


    f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgrmmng.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english