HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: salea@athena.mit.edu (Sherrian Lea)
Subject: Re: What's cooking?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:24:57 GMT

In article <BxvMIH.JvE@cs.psu.edu>, jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu) writes:
|> Hi Dear Netters:
|> 
|> I read a food ad and found two sentances which I don't understand.
|> 
|> (1) Not all the Italian masterpieces are hanging in museums.
|> 
|> (2) So come see what's cooking at Applebee's Festa Italiana.
|> 
|> 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:
|> 
|> (1) Not all ... are HUNG in museums. 
|> (2) So come see WHO'S cooking ...
|> or So come see what's cooked ...
|> 
|> Thank you.

The first sentence is acceptable because the masterpieces were hung on the wall
in the past, but are still hanging there.  "Hang" can mean either "place something in
a hanging position" or "be in a hanging position," depending on the context.
It is entirely acceptable English to describe a coat as hanging in a closet, for
instance.

The second sentence is informal; the usage you had a problem with is a slang
expression from (I think) the first half of this century:  "What's cooking?",
which means something roughly like "What's happening?".  The expression was often
used in contexts that had nothing to do with food; using it in a restaurant
advertisement is something of a play on words.  In addition, it's not
particularly jarring because "cooking," like "hanging," can be used as an
intransitive verb, although this happens mostly in informal contexts.  "A stew
was cooking on the stove," for example, is a fairly common usage in parts of 
the United States.  

Hope this helps.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: krishna@seas.smu.edu (Sanjay Krishna)
Subject: Judging from/by ??
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:43:08 GMT

Could someone tell me the correct way of saying this - 

  a) Judging from the Indians that you have met, ...
      or 
  b) Judging by the Indians that you have met, ...

Or is there a better way of stating this ? Please send a reply to 

krishna@seas.smu.edu

Thank you, 

Sanjay 

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Meach)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:26:12 GMT
Followup-To: meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu
Organization: UB

In article <1992Nov16.173817.20080@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

[Apologies in advance for a follow-up to a topic that probably should have
died of old age long ago. . . but this was too much!]

>But anyway, we have seen that "unique" *does* and always has had more than
>one meaning (at least since it took on the "one-of-a-kind" meaning, which
>was not its original one), so the "many people believe" argument begs
>all kinds of questions: which people?  Why do they believe it?  What of
>all the other clearly accepted meanings?  Keep "head" in mind, and stay
>awake.  And ask yourself why context, which works so well in keeping our
>"head" on straight, would suddenly fail us with "unique."

". . .took on the 'one-of-a-kind' meaning, which was not its original one"?
Roger, Roger. . . check your derivations! 

From the latin 'unicus', from unus: one --- more at ONE

And, since last I knew, dictionary definitions have always been listed in
order of propriety/frequency of [yes!] usage:  

all of the ones I have at hand list:

1. SINGLE, SOLE  2. being without a like or equal  3. UNPARALLELED, UNEQUALED
and, finally: 4. very rare or uncommon : very unusual

[Emphasis Webster]

[Follow-ups set to Sender:]

Jo Meachem [I shoulda stood in bed!]
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: How's it hanging? (was Re: What's cooking?)
Date: 23 Nov 92 11:51:28 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov23.103445.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.170942.15605@oracorp.com>, harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper) writes:
>> An animate being was hanged if its death came by hanging.  An
>> inanimate object was hung when it was dangled somewhere.  [...]
>> 
>> 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.  [...]
>
>I prefer a simpler rule.  Forget about the animate/inanimate distinction.
>"Hung" refers to all forms of dangling, but "hanged" refers to a
>very specific procedure which involves putting a rope around the neck
>and then letting the victim drop.  From this point of view, there's
>no doubt that the corpse of Cromwell was hanged.

I prefer a rule that reflects faithfully how English usage works.
Let's see.

It is "hanged" if the live victim was suspended by the neck in a way
which normally interrupts the flow of blood and air, causing death.
It is still "hanged" if the victim was taken out of the noose while
still alive, in order to be set free or disembowelled, drawn and
quartered as appropriate.

It is still "hanged" if a dead body was treated in this way, but (I'd
say) only if this is done by analogy with the form of capital punishment,
as I understand it was in Cromwell's case (as per D Harper's postscriptum).
If it were the custom to execute the criminal by stabbing in the heart,
poison, stoning, or what have you, and then suspend the dead body by the
neck to deter the population, I would use "hung".

But that is not the whole story.  How about hanging head down, by the
ankles, as a method of execution?

-- 
 `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: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
Subject: Re: Proper Use of Acronyms (was Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?)
Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space, Sunnyvale CA USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:27:19 GMT

TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
: In article <1992Nov19.184011.17265@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
: 
: >I would question whether they speed up reading.  The first few do.  When only
: >a few are used, they place no strain on the memory, and are easier to grasp
: >than the long phrases they abbreviate.  Who would want to have DNA spelled
: >out all through "Double Helix"?  When DDT was first used, it seemed to be
: >a simplification.  But when hundreds of initialisms are used in a single
: >field, they become a nuisance.  They slow down the reader.  In the mind's
: >ear, they must be spelled out.  In the mind's eye, they must be looked up
:       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >in a glossary.  They are not words; they are not language; they are not
: >what people remember naturally.
: 
: This is the crucial point. Acronyms and abbreviations are useful and
: preferable if the reader can accept them as words; words that he/she
: either has known before or could acquire easily while reading the pamphlet.

Detlef has phrased very well what I was trying to say in earlier postings:
Acronyms are as useful in speeding communication as any other
symbology--only if the symbols are familiar.  With that in mind,
acronyms _are_ language, are words.

How did I get myself into actually defending acronyms?! 

Thanks,

Alex Lange
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:06:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.192525.27740@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <BxtI97.n4I@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>I agree with Fowler that "very unique" and "most unique" aren't good
>>usage, but I'd make a special case for "quite unique".  It's something
>>of an archaism, but you can use "quite" to emphasise adjectives which are
>>not of degree:

>>"The butler lay in the hallway.  Checking his pulse, Lord Dalliwell
>>found that he was quite dead."

>I believe we should only use "quite" if we can use "not quite" in the
>same place.  

Um, why?

>We can, for example, say that someone is "not quite dead",
>meaning "barely alive".  This makes sense because dying is a process,
>and one can well advanced in this process without yet being dead.

>But what would "not quite unique" mean?

"somewhat different from all other items, but not radically so."  That's
what I'd take the expression to mean.

Roger
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: followup to "more unique research"
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:18:50 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


I apologize for not following up sooner.  I had to do whatever it is I'm
officially paid to do here, which doesn't include nettalking.

Anyway, two people have questioned my unique research.  Here are my belated
replies.

1.  Add *The Economist*'s style guide to the list of those who decry modifying
unique.  Note that *The New York Times*'s style guide advises that unique
"should be avoided" as it is a tricky word.

2.  Style guides are fair game for opinions about unique, etc.  After all, Roger
L. makes much hay out of how good English is what writers write, so why
shouldn't style guides -- which many good writers follow -- carry significant
weight in this compilation?

3.  There is nothing at all contradictory about Phythian allowing unique to be
modified by "almost," "nearly," etc.  These do not qualify the singularity of
the unique object, and Phythian goes to great lengths to point that out. 
Instead they simply indicate that something is not unique, but nearly so.  By
extension, 9.99999999999 etc. is "almost," "nearly," etc., 10, but not 10. 

(NOTE: number theorists: I don't want to hear arguments about this!)

Phythian, S&W, OED usage guide, etc., would say that 10, as a "unique" number,
is not "more unique" (or "more 10" if you like) than, say, 11.  If you STILL
don't like this state of affairs, I suggest you consult the Webster's Usage
Guide (1989) for a good read.

-----ted hayes
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

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?

>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."
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique research? (round 1)
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:40:20 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 





Honestly, Roger, you have *completely* lost sight of the nature of this
posting.  I tracked down the summary opinion of "experts" and usage
guides and dictionaries.  I presented them in a responsible manner, making very
few points based on my own opinions on the matter.  

You seem to imply that I have invented these summary opinions to launch 
an attack.  On the contrary, I think some of my findings support your
claims *to a limited extent*.  But you seem as uninterested in this relatively
non-partisan summary as you are in opinions that run contrary to Evans^^2. 

Sure, I could post every motherloving paragraph from each source -- I would note
that Mr. Read has posted the Fowler's argument -- but so what?  They are 
there, *you* can go look them up as I suggested if you don't believe me.  
You already went overboard attacking *me* for the Webtster's usage guide 
extract that I did post -- now why would I want you to attack me for *other* 
opinions too?  That wouldn't be smart, Roger, you must admit.

RL>Time for a reality check.  Are you *honestly* saying that any of the 
> folks above disallow *all* modifiers for "unique"?  Including "really"
> and "truly" and "more nearly" and "in some/every sense" and so on?
> "Unique" can obviously be modified; the question is: how?

See Roger?  I spent many, many lines of posting explaining the opinions of a
usage guide that stated how the modification may or may not be justified, 
but you have chosen to ignore that.  In this matter, sir, you need 
the reality check.

I will comment again later...

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:52:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.221451.14168@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Wrong - there are not infinitely more real numbers than integers.  If I
>had my university notes, I could trot out the proof, but in the
>meantime:  there are infinite numbers of integers and of real numbers.
>"Infinite" being an absolute term, you can't say that one infinite set
>is larger than the other (and certainly not infinitely larger).

Paaaa.  There are more infinities in heaven and earth, Rheal, than are
dreamed of in your philosophy.  For a gentle and humorous introduction
to infinities, try "Infinity and the Mind", by Rudy Rucker.  Then
tackle, perhaps, "On Numbers and Games" by John Conway.  And certainly
the cardinality of reals is greater than that of the integers.  Cantor's
diagonal proof shows this.

These, of course, are mathematical infinities, not the Philosophical
Infinity (referred to by Rucker as big-Omega).  Big-Omega is by
definition infinitely more infinite than any other infinity :)

PS: please don't take this as a flame.  I really enjoy your postings.

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:51:14 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov18.184011.4089@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.141032.26433@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> lange@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>"IMHOs" is correct, according to _Chicago_. [...]
>>Some net-writers, however, might insist that "IMHOen" is best.

Oh.  Why?  "IMHOes" appears to make more sense.  (But not "IMHA" or "IMHI".)

>>This earth-shaking, cosmos-stopping question was settled humorously
>>by the coinage "VAXen," borrowing the Germanic plural suffix "en" (as in
>>"children," "oxen"). (See the JARGON file for more on "VAXen.")
>
>Was it really from German? I always thought "vixen" was involved.

\begin{description}
\item[Germanic:] the branch of the Indo-European language family
                 to which English belongs.
\item[German:] one of the Western Germanic languages.
\end{description}

>>_Chicago_ would insist that "VAXs" is the correct form.
>
>Not sure about that.  They explicitly give "SOS's."

Wouldn't that be "SOSses"?  And "VAXes", for that matter?

(Insert smileys as appropriate.)

Re apostrophes, I don't use them for plurals; I prefer keeping the
plural distinct from the possessive.

-- 
 `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
From: schuyler@acf9.nyu.edu (Gabriel M. Schuyler)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:09:51 GMT
Organization: New York University

I personally think that acronyms are a matter of personal style.  If we all
stuck to a certain set of rules . . . would we have Joyce?  Nope, he would've
been thrown out because he used words that were supposed to be two words.

My personal problem with acronyms is when they get misused from a misunder-
standing of what the original words were.  How many times have you heard
someone (news anchors especially) say

"HIV virus"

?
--
Gabriel M. Schuyler       |  212-473-4986 (Voice)  |           \ /
55 Second Ave - Suite 3   |  917-879-0345 (Pager)  | Test Stand X
New York, NY  10003-8650  |  Call to arrange fax.  |           / \
From: palepink@lily.arts.com (Suzii Abe)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: last,latest,latter
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:14:18 PST

tdlg9831@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tracey Dianne Layng) writes:

> Nico Tranquilli asks about:
> >LAST, LATEST(?), LATTER ?

and then comments on:

> >the last time I posted here  

thereby demonstrating his command of one of the three, although
certainly not fitting the definitions:

> Last- the final one. "That was the last cookie, and you ate it."
> Latest - newest.  "That is the latest edition of _Webster's Dictionary_."
> Latter - used when choosing the second of two things.  "If I had a choice of 
>   pork chops or lobster, I would choose the latter." (lobster)

My interpretation of the combination of these three adjectives is
that Nico is asking about them as identifiers for a (unique...)
element of a set *in chronological order*.

Last:  the set is complete.
  "The last time I posted here" is correct because of the past tense
of "posted".  The set of the times Nico posted in the past is complete--
even though it clearly does not include the current post or any future
posts.
  "The last time I post here", in contrast, *must* refer to the current
post, and clearly states that the set of my postings here is complete
with this post--there will be no future postings.  (This is usually
understood, with most net.persons, to be hyperbole.  Most of them will
be back again and again.)

Latest:  the set is incomplete.  (Synonymous to "most recent".)
  "My latest posting" is the one I wrote most recently.  This has connotations
of "New!  Improved!  Fashionable!", reinforced by the meaning of "latest"
as "newest, most fashionable", undeterred by the meaning of "late" as "dead".

[Now that I look at it, "the meaning of X _as_ Y" makes my stomach
feel sorta twisty.  What do I really want there?]

Latter:  (Very stuffy word.  I know about three people who use it in
real life, Mormons ("Latter-Day Saints") excepted.)  Set small.

--Suzii.
palepink@lily.arts.com
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.184011.4089@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>Some net-writers, however, might insist that "IMHOen" is best. Another
>>variation on your question is "Which is correct, 'VAXs' or 'VAXes'?"
>>This earth-shaking, cosmos-stopping question was settled humorously
>>by the coinage "VAXen," borrowing the Germanic plural suffix "en" (as in
>>"children," "oxen"). (See the JARGON file for more on "VAXen.")
> 
> Was it really from German? I always thought "vixen" was involved.

Are we talking here about forming a plural, or forming the feminine
form?  If the former, then indeed vaxen has to be the Germanic
(not German) plural.  If the latter, a vaxen would be a female fux.

Peter
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: cliff@engin.umich.edu (clifford  kaminsky)
Subject: Re: mnemonics in general
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 00:04:50 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

>>
>>OK, I don't *think* I'm stupid, but how does one use "God, I need a drink"
>>to remember 3.14159?
>
>Count the number of letters in each word....
>
>Again, it can't be a good mnemonic since I can't remember it, but isn't it
>something like 
>"God, I need a drink (alcoholic of course) after that heavy
>lecture involving Quantum Mechanics?" 
>(Would give 3.14159265457979... is that right, anyone?)
>
>Marc Read

Get ready for this:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937511

Now maybe someone can write a new mnemonic.

-Cliff
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: why wOn't for wIll not?
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:07:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory)


D>>So here's another question:  Where does the "O" in "will not = won't"
 >>come from?

D>Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)

So why is it "cAn't" and not "cOn't"?  <G>  Consistency is _not_
English's strong point, is't?

---
 . OLX 3.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                                                                          
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:36:32 GMT

In article <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>
>I meant publicity in the most general sense, i.e., including public
>usage, such as by the media, some of which are regarded as holding to
>an approved standard of good usage.

Well, some of the media uses phrases like "deja-vu all over again" and
"not-so-great superstars".  (OK, these are typical of sports broadcasts,
but that's still part of the media.  In fact, such broadcasts have much
broader audiences than anything one could consider "an approved standard
of good usage" - does this make them a greater authority on language?
This is, after all, "usage" . . .)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: pop &c.
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:25:20 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu

Brian Diehm writes:
>I remember an anecdote in the Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes edited by
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any relation to the Little Black Book of Telephone Numbers? <wicked G>

---------------------
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |      
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english