Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Interesting article from the AUE's first day:

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
DE781 - 14 Jan 2004 21:54 GMT
"The centre/center question is a good example of why this is difficult.
"Center" is a phonetically correct spelling throughout much of North
America, but in Australia (and I think also in England), the spelling
"centre" is a better representation of the pronunciation.

Spelling reform is possible, and some influential people are pushing for
it; but it is going to mean a much larger separation between the
written forms of American English and British English.

Spelling reform has worked in other languages because of the existence
of a dominant group which was able to enforce its own pronunciation as
the "standard".  In the case of modern English, there are two dominant
groups, neither of which would be willing to accept the spelling or
pronunciation of the other.  (Meanwhile, those of us in the non-dominant
groups will, as usual, be crushed in the middle.)"

Why can't the Brits change their spelling to accomodate *our* pronunciation,
being that it's the *correct* English pronunciation and we also have a majority
of English-speakers.  Plus, foreigners learn to speak "American"; not Irish.
DE781 - 14 Jan 2004 22:05 GMT
"Before Webster (and his predecessors like
Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
spellings. I'm not sure which Dr. Johnson preferred."

Who's "Dr. Johnson"?
Ross Howard - 14 Jan 2004 22:05 GMT
>"Before Webster (and his predecessors like
>Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
>spellings. I'm not sure which Dr. Johnson preferred."
>
>Who's "Dr. Johnson"?

The guy who invented Pledge.

--
Ross Howard
Simon R. Hughes - 14 Jan 2004 22:27 GMT
>>"Before Webster (and his predecessors like
>>Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The guy who invented Pledge.

That was his brother, Mr Johnson.
Signature

Simon R. Hughes

R H Draney - 14 Jan 2004 23:30 GMT
Simon R. Hughes filted:

>>>"Before Webster (and his predecessors like
>>>Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>That was his brother, Mr Johnson.

Now a "Johnson doctor" on the other hand, that'd be a urologist....r
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 01:28 GMT
Draney:

>Now a "Johnson doctor" on the other hand, that'd be a urologist....r

*That*, I got!  I like your yoo-mur.
Robert Lieblich - 15 Jan 2004 02:06 GMT
> Simon R. Hughes filted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Now a "Johnson doctor" on the other hand, that'd be a urologist....r

I see Joey has attained Bun Mui status -- a feeder of straight
lines.

He'll probably ask what I mean.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Comments?

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 02:17 GMT
Liebs:

>> Now a "Johnson doctor" on the other hand, that'd be a urologist....r
>
>I see Joey has attained Bun Mui status -- a feeder of straight
>lines.
>
>He'll probably ask what I mean.

Yes, I do want to know what this "straight line" thing means.  You're not the
first person who's mentioned it to me.  And what's it got to do with Bun?  AND,
why the f.ck are read messages not staying read?  Tres annoying.
Skitt - 15 Jan 2004 02:40 GMT
> Liebs:

>>> Now a "Johnson doctor" on the other hand, that'd be a urologist....r
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> do with Bun?  AND, why the f.ck are read messages not staying read?
> Tres annoying.

Clue: a straight man delivers straight lines.

The read message thing is AOL's screw-up.  It'll pass, as all things do.
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/  

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 03:01 GMT
Skitt:

>Clue: a straight man delivers straight lines.

I still don't understand.

Anyways, Truly Donovan, who's still with us, posted this debacle about the
subjunctive tense:

"Or are you complaining that it is abused, because I don't find that it is any
more or less abused than any other language construct -- some people say
things right and some people don't. The person who says "Both him and her was
arrested" isn't going to use the subjunctive to suit me, either.

Okay, it is less abused than using the possessive with a gerund, but  we can
count ourselves on the fingers of one hand anyway."

I get it all up to the last paragraph.  What's the "possessive with a gerund"
form?  And what does she mean about being able to "count ourselves on the
fingers of one hand"?  Truly is one of only five people who use some kind of
possessive with a gerund error?  And how does that make it a major abuse, if
only five people use it?  I'm *clearly* not understanding something.
Skitt - 15 Jan 2004 03:11 GMT
> Skitt:

>> Clue: a straight man delivers straight lines.
>
> I still don't understand.

Look up "straight man" in MWCD10.

Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/  

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:14 GMT
Skitt:

>>> Clue: a straight man delivers straight lines.
>>
>> I still don't understand.
>
>Look up "straight man" in MWCD10.

OK, fine, I did!  But how the f.ck was I supposed to know you can all of a
sudden look up two words at once and have the dick give the definition?  That's
whacked!  And I *still* don't get why Bun is a straight man.  Isn't she a
straight woman, or a straight chinkette or something?
Tony Cooper - 15 Jan 2004 04:55 GMT
>Skitt:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Anyways, Truly Donovan, who's still with us, posted this debacle about the
>subjunctive tense:

Yes, she's still with us.  The news of her passing has been greatly
exaggerated.
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:15 GMT
Cooper:

>>Anyways, Truly Donovan, who's still with us, posted this debacle about the
>>subjunctive tense:
>
>Yes, she's still with us.  The news of her passing has been greatly
>exaggerated.

Damn!
Mike Bandy - 15 Jan 2004 23:09 GMT
...

>What's the "possessive with a gerund"

...

From www.google.com, put "possessive with a gerund" (with the quotes)
in the search box and hit the "I Feel Lucky" button.

Signature

Mike Bandy
Glad to help

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:20 GMT
Bandy:

>>What's the "possessive with a gerund"
>
>...
>
>From www.google.com, put "possessive with a gerund" (with the quotes)
>in the search box and hit the "I Feel Lucky" button.

Thanks very much, Mike.  It was appreciated to see some *real* info here,
rather than just diss after diss.  I was getting a little fed up.  Your post
almost single-handedly restored *most* of my confidence in this group.

Still, unfortunately, now I can't even remember *why* I was asking about the
"possessive with gerund" rule (a rule I was never officially taught, but am
pretty sure I've come to follow most of the time in formal writing); I don't
remember if someone corrected something I had written with that rule or if it
was from a post from '91.  Either way, if the rule isn't really mandatory,
what's the big deal about it?
Mike Bandy - 17 Jan 2004 05:04 GMT
>what's the big deal about it?

LOL.  I can't answer that one.

Signature

Mike Bandy

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 02:24 GMT
Liebs:

Wait a minute.  Is *that* a diss?  The last time I put "comments?" at the end
of one of my posts, you accused me of being Bun.  *She* stole that from *me*!
Sara Lorimer - 15 Jan 2004 18:49 GMT
> I see Joey has attained Bun Mui status -- a feeder of straight
> lines.

For those AUErs who also read AFU: don't you want to introduce Joey to
Jami JoAnne and see what happens?

Signature

SML

ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu  <http://pirate-women.com>

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 22:23 GMT
SNL:

>For those AUErs who also read AFU: don't you want to introduce Joey to
>Jami JoAnne and see what happens?

Who is she?  Wpuld I like her?  Is AFU "alt.french.usage"?  I don't speak
French.
Christopher Johnson - 16 Jan 2004 02:04 GMT

> SNL:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Who is she?  Wpuld I like her?  Is AFU "alt.french.usage"?  I don't speak
> French.

Joey, AFU is not alt.french.usage and I think some people here
on AUE are maybe taunting you a bit by referring only to "AFU"
and by avoiding referring to that newsgroup using its full name.
AFU does exist though, for sure. Just go to Google, click on
'Groups', and then type in "AFU". You'll find it.

Signature

Christopher

(Change 3032 to 3232 to reply by private e-mail)

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:42 GMT
CJ:

>Just go to Google, click on
>'Groups', and then type in "AFU". You'll find it.

Thanks, CJ!  At least I can depend on you to tell it like it is.  You're much
cooler than than the old prunes here.  Do you think we should invite some of
our friends here to make this place funner?  I've been thinking about doing
that.  It's so boring here now!
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 21:01 GMT
> CJ:
>
> >Just go to Google, click on
> >'Groups', and then type in "AFU". You'll find it.
>
> Thanks, CJ!  At least I can depend on you to tell it like it is.

So when he tells you to use Google, he's helpful, but when we do...

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |I value writers such as Fiske.
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |They serve as valuable object
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |lessons by showing that the most
                                      |punctilious compliance with the
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |rules of usage has so little to do
   (650)857-7572                      |with either writing or thinking
                                      |well.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |        --Richard Hershberger

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:14 GMT
Evan:

>> CJ:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>So when he tells you to use Google, he's helpful, but when we do...

He says it in a spiritual way!  It's all about the spirit!  I felt the spirit!
Mike Bandy - 17 Jan 2004 05:15 GMT
...

>Joey, AFU is not alt.french.usage and I think some people here
>on AUE are maybe taunting you a bit by referring only to "AFU"
>and by avoiding referring to that newsgroup using its full name.
>AFU does exist though, for sure. Just go to Google, click on
>'Groups', and then type in "AFU". You'll find it.

I didn't know you could do that.  Anyway, AFU is alt.folklore.urban.
If you're interested in folklore, the best websites are
http://www.urbanlegends.com/ and http://www.snopes.com/.

Signature

Mike Bandy

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:10 GMT
Bandy:

>>Joey, AFU is not alt.french.usage and I think some people here
>>on AUE are maybe taunting you a bit by referring only to "AFU"
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>If you're interested in folklore, the best websites are
>http://www.urbanlegends.com/ and http://www.snopes.com/.

Thanks.  But I still think AFU should be "alt.french.usage".  Snopes is a cool
site.  It's where I find out about all those phoney comp virus warnings.
Mike Bandy - 15 Jan 2004 23:03 GMT
>> I see Joey has attained Bun Mui status -- a feeder of straight
>> lines.
>
>For those AUErs who also read AFU: don't you want to introduce Joey to
>Jami JoAnne and see what happens?

For a month or two, I've occasionally lurked on AFU; and I feel right
at home.  It's amazing how many AUEers post to that group.

Signature

Mike Bandy

Michael Nitabach - 16 Jan 2004 03:53 GMT
>> I see Joey has attained Bun Mui status -- a feeder of straight
>> lines.
>
> For those AUErs who also read AFU: don't you want to introduce
> Joey to Jami JoAnne and see what happens?

That's funny! Maybe they'll save the Bettas together.

--
Mike Nitabach
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:04 GMT
Nitabach:

>> For those AUErs who also read AFU: don't you want to introduce
>> Joey to Jami JoAnne and see what happens?
>
>That's funny! Maybe they'll save the Bettas together.

What?  And someone ANSWER ME: who is this bitch and what is "AFU"?
"Alt.f.ck.U."?
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 01:27 GMT
Ross:

>>"Before Webster (and his predecessors like
>>Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>The guy who invented Pledge.

I don't understand.
Ross Howard - 15 Jan 2004 01:28 GMT
>Ross:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>I don't understand.

I know.

--
Ross Howard
Ross Howard - 15 Jan 2004 01:31 GMT
>>Ross:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>I know.

Oops. I missed out this bit:
http://www.scjbrands.com/docs/menu/scj_home.htm

--
Ross Howard
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 02:19 GMT
Ross:

>>>I don't understand.
>>
>>I know.
>
>Oops. I missed out this bit:
>http://www.scjbrands.com/docs/menu/scj_home.htm

OK, thanks.  I get it now.  I think I know that company as "Johnson & Johnson".
Pat Durkin - 15 Jan 2004 03:21 GMT
> Ross:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> OK, thanks.  I get it now.  I think I know that company as "Johnson & Johnson".

Think again & again.
Or _look_ that company up.
Or _read_ the site posted by Ross.

Of course, by this time, you have read the identification of  _the_ Dr.
Johnson.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2004 03:34 GMT
> Ross:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> OK, thanks.  I get it now.  I think I know that company as "Johnson
> & Johnson".

I doubt it.  Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1886 in New Brunswick,
NJ, by Robert Wood Johnson and Edward Mead Johnson (and James Wood) to
make surgical dressings.  S.C. Johnson was also founded in 1886, but
by Samuel Curtis Johnson, in Racine, WI, to make parquet floors.  I
don't believe that any of these Johnsons were doctors.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Your claim might have more
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |credibility if you hadn't mispelled
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |"inteligent"

   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:06 GMT
Evan:

>> OK, thanks.  I get it now.  I think I know that company as "Johnson
>> & Johnson".
>
>I doubt it.  Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1886 in New Brunswick,
>NJ, by Robert Wood Johnson and Edward Mead Johnson (and James Wood) to
>make surgical dressings.

No!!  I can't believe you don't know what "Johnson & Johnson" is!  They make
like baby powder and stuff!  Is SC Johnson different than Johnson & Johnson?

And HTF does any of this involve the guy who wrote dictionaries?  Plus, he's
NOT the ONLY DOCTOR JOHNSON!  So there!
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 20:16 GMT
> Evan:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> No!!  I can't believe you don't know what "Johnson & Johnson" is!

Your lack of credulity serves you well in this case.

> They make like baby powder and stuff!

Right.  That's the company that was founded to make surgical
dressings for hospitals using a less expensive process than Lister's.
Occasionally, over the course of 118 years, a company branches out
into other products.

> Is SC Johnson different than Johnson & Johnson?

I believe that that's what I said.

> And HTF does any of this involve the guy who wrote dictionaries?

It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
American culture and would recognize the connection between "Johnson"
and "Pledge", a common household product product manufactured by
S.C. Johnson.  Personally, I'm betting that CJ got it.

You were the one who dragged Johnson & Johnson into it.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Of course, over the first 10^-10
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |centimeters it averages out to
                                      |zero, but when you look in
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |detail....
   (650)857-7572                      |            Philip Morrison

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Skitt - 16 Jan 2004 20:56 GMT
>> Evan:

>>>> OK, thanks.  I get it now.  I think I know that company as
>>>> "Johnson & Johnson".
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> You were the one who dragged Johnson & Johnson into it.

CJ has been trying to bring YJ up to his level.  I hope he succeeds.
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/  

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:39 GMT
Skitt:

>> You were the one who dragged Johnson & Johnson into it.
>
>CJ has been trying to bring YJ up to his level.  I hope he succeeds.

What are you talking about?  You people make NO sense!  I'm gonna go watch
Michael Jackson.  It's comforting to know at least *some* people out there are
normal!
GEO - 16 Jan 2004 23:47 GMT
>It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
>assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
>American culture and would recognize the connection between "Johnson"
>and "Pledge", a common household product product manufactured by
>S.C. Johnson.  Personally, I'm betting that CJ got it.

  Is knowing about corporation names  an important part of American
culture?

  Geo
Skitt - 17 Jan 2004 00:19 GMT
>> It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
>> assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>    Is knowing about corporation names  an important part of American
> culture?

Naah -- it's only about keeping one's eyes and ears open, having some basic
intelligence, and being aware of the general goings-on in one's
surroundings.
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Pat Durkin - 17 Jan 2004 00:22 GMT
> >It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
> >assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>    Is knowing about corporation names  an important part of American
> culture?

Sad, but true.  References to historical figures, and biblical and classical
allusions do nothing but confuse many of our youth, while the TV generation
has little trouble recognizing metaphorical references to (the more recent)
TV commercials and jingles.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 17 Jan 2004 01:06 GMT
> > >It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
> > >assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the TV generation has little trouble recognizing metaphorical
> references to (the more recent) TV commercials and jingles.

This is, of course, completely different from all other times and
places, in which the bulk of the people were more familiar with
historical figures and biblical and classical allusions than they were
with well-known popular figures of the day and the items found in
their houses and towns.

I'll grant that it's only in the last 150 years or so that brand names
became a pervasive part of the everyday world, but I suspect that you
will find a similar familiarity (and expectation of familiarity) with
brand names in pretty much every culture that has them.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The mystery of government is not how
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Washington works, but how to make it
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |stop.
                                      |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Pat Durkin - 17 Jan 2004 04:37 GMT
> > > >It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
> > > >assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> will find a similar familiarity (and expectation of familiarity) with
> brand names in pretty much every culture that has them.

Snarl, snort, and for heaven's sake, Evan!  I might expect that kind of
response from Joey. (Wow, won't this make him feel great?)
Donna Richoux - 17 Jan 2004 11:21 GMT
> > > > >It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
> > > > >assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Snarl, snort, and for heaven's sake, Evan!  I might expect that kind of
> response from Joey. (Wow, won't this make him feel great?)

You mean Joey has been sarcastic this whole solid time?

You gotta remember -- in California, people often say the opposite of
what they mean. Unlike, say, the British.

And then they'll switch to being as sincere as Wisconsinites. They don't
send out any signals.

Signature

Best -- Donna Richoux
A Californian living abroad

Pat Durkin - 17 Jan 2004 19:57 GMT
> > > > > >It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
> > > > > >assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> You mean Joey has been sarcastic this whole solid time?

Joey can snip all previous entries in any thread excepting, and then take a
completely opposite tack to his prior postings in the thread, thereby
claiming both sides of the road.  He can laugh up his sleeve at all of us,
asserting his superior intelligence and our "xenophobiphilia".

> You gotta remember -- in California, people often say the opposite of
> what they mean. Unlike, say, the British.
>
> And then they'll switch to being as sincere as Wisconsinites. They don't
> send out any signals.

Believe me, I understood the sarcasm.

I felt that, like you, Evan was putting me in my place for expressing a
truism.  Thank you so much.

There are times when we have other compulsions than reflexive posting.
Mike Barnes - 17 Jan 2004 11:49 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> Sad, but true.  References to historical figures, and biblical and
>> classical allusions do nothing but confuse many of our youth, while
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>will find a similar familiarity (and expectation of familiarity) with
>brand names in pretty much every culture that has them.

Of course - in any society in which people didn't become aware of brand
names, brand owners would stop wasting their money (OK, *our* money).
The significant point - which you seem to treat very lightly - is the
modern pervasion of brand names.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

GEO - 17 Jan 2004 15:34 GMT
>>>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> Sad, but true.  References to historical figures, and biblical and
>>> classical allusions do nothing but confuse many of our youth, while
>>> the TV generation has little trouble recognizing metaphorical
>>> references to (the more recent) TV commercials and jingles.

>>This is, of course, completely different from all other times and
>>places, in which the bulk of the people were more familiar with
>>historical figures and biblical and classical allusions than they were
>>with well-known popular figures of the day and the items found in
>>their houses and towns.

>Of course - in any society in which people didn't become aware of brand
>names, brand owners would stop wasting their money (OK, *our* money).
>The significant point - which you seem to treat very lightly - is the
>modern pervasion of brand names.

 Thank you for the answers. I guess the comment arose my curiosity as
to what would be considered essential knowledge in American culture
(maybe in many other countries as well). Once upon a time -on certain
social circles-  it would have been considered essential for an
educated person to be have learnt Latin and Greek,  and be familiar
with Greek and Roman Mythology. Now it seems that actors, singers,
athletes, and corporations form part of everybody's culture. How much
knowledge of this topics would be expected?
  I would agree that these corporations have become so ubiquitous
around the world that we can not but be aware of them. Their names and
brands are part of our vocabularies. But asides from knowing their
names, How much should we know about these corporations?
  As Pat said, if this culture is not local; How does it develop?
  Well, this are not exactly language topics, so I will go off and
ponder this questions elsewhere.

  Thanks.
  Geo
Evan Kirshenbaum - 17 Jan 2004 20:25 GMT
> Of course - in any society in which people didn't become aware of brand
> names, brand owners would stop wasting their money (OK, *our* money).
> The significant point - which you seem to treat very lightly - is the
> modern pervasion of brand names.

Before we go much further, please define "modern".  Many of the
pervasive brand names of today are more than 100 years old (some
considerably more), and I suspect that there were a large number that
would have been instantly recognizable to children and adults 50, 75,
or 100 years ago.  (Plus, of course, all the brand names that would
have been familiar to them, but not us.)

I was collecting old brand names for a while, and found about 250
current ones that are over 100 years old and about 120 that are over
150 years old (and an additional 125 that are between 75 and 100).
The oldest current brand names I've been able to dig up referring to
something like their current business are Guinness and Wedgwood, both
dating to 1759.  (Lloyd's is older, but it was a coffee shop in 1688
and a publication in 1734, and didn't start doing insurance until
1871.)  The oldest brand name we have in our house seems to be Baker's
chocolate, which dates back to 1780, just beating out Schweppes
(1783).  These wouldn't have been household names back then, of
course, but I suspect that they would have been by the late nineteenth
century, when brand names started to proliferate.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |There are two types of people -
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |those who are one of the two types
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |of people, and those who are not.
                                      |           Leigh Blue Caldwell
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Simon R. Hughes - 17 Jan 2004 20:53 GMT
>> Of course - in any society in which people didn't become aware of brand
>> names, brand owners would stop wasting their money (OK, *our* money).
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> course, but I suspect that they would have been by the late nineteenth
> century, when brand names started to proliferate.

Seems to me someone needs to define "brand". Just sticking the
name of the family business over the door of the shop or on the
product packaging doesn't necessarily seem to qualify, to me. We
need a marketing strategy, a campaign to get consumers to
identify a certain product with a certain name, a claim of
superiority over other producers -- that kind of thing. Then
we'll have a brand.
Signature

Simon R. Hughes
On topic, and non-anti-American.

Mike Barnes - 18 Jan 2004 20:17 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

>> Of course - in any society in which people didn't become aware of brand
>> names, brand owners would stop wasting their money (OK, *our* money).
>> The significant point - which you seem to treat very lightly - is the
>> modern pervasion of brand names.
>
>Before we go much further, please define "modern".

Pat referred to "the TV generation", and my "modern" was intended to
indicate approximately the same period. But the actual period wasn't
central to my point.

>Many of the
>pervasive brand names of today are more than 100 years old (some
>considerably more), and I suspect that there were a large number that
>would have been instantly recognizable to children and adults 50, 75,
>or 100 years ago.  (Plus, of course, all the brand names that would
>have been familiar to them, but not us.)

Yes, but were they pervasive more than 100 years ago? Were *any* brand
names pervasive (by modern standards) at that time?

>I was collecting old brand names for a while, and found about 250
>current ones that are over 100 years old and about 120 that are over
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>course, but I suspect that they would have been by the late nineteenth
>century, when brand names started to proliferate.

I'd draw a distinction between brand names proliferating and them
becoming pervasive.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Evan Kirshenbaum - 17 Jan 2004 00:45 GMT
> >It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
> >assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>    Is knowing about corporation names  an important part of American
> culture?

Not important, per se, but you sort of expect people to be familiar
with brand names of things they have around the house and see
advertised.  I might not expect people to *know* that Pledge was made
by S.C. Johnson (and, indeed, I wasn't sure myself that it was), but
I'd expect them to be familiar enough with both names to make the
connection.

There are some corporate names that aren't widely advertised.  I
wouldn't, for example, expect most people to know Kimberly-Clark, even
though they know their most popular brand, Kleenex.  But this was more
like somebody replying to a mention of a "gamble" by saying that it
was more like a "Procter".

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Code should be designed to make it
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |easy to get it right, not to work
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |if you get it right.

   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:43 GMT
Evan:

>But this was more
>like somebody replying to a mention of a "gamble" by saying that it
>was more like a "Procter".

But that's just SOOOO gay!  I think 1/2 the reason why I can't understand youse
jokes is that I wouldn't think *anyone*, even an AUEer, could be so
flamboyantly GAY!  If that's you's idear of yoo-mur, you needs to take my 2
cents and buy a new sense of yoo-mahh!
R J Valentine - 17 Jan 2004 05:18 GMT
} On 16 Jan 2004 12:16:17 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
} <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
}
}>It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
}>assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
}>American culture and would recognize the connection between "Johnson"
}>and "Pledge", a common household product product manufactured by
}>S.C. Johnson.  Personally, I'm betting that CJ got it.
}
}    Is knowing about corporation names  an important part of American
} culture?

You can bet your BP it is.

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net>
Lately "Beyond Petroleum"

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:38 GMT
Evan:

>It doesn't.  It was a joke that made the apparently erroneous
>assumption that you have a passing familiarity with 20th-century
>American culture and would recognize the connection between "Johnson"
>and "Pledge", a common household product product manufactured by
>S.C. Johnson.  Personally, I'm betting that CJ got it.

I'm still horribly confused.  *I* didn't bring up Pledge!
Tony Cooper - 15 Jan 2004 04:56 GMT
>Ross:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>OK, thanks.  I get it now.  I think I know that company as "Johnson & Johnson".

You're trying to stem the flow of blood with a band-aid.  With the
amount of blood flowing, you'll need a mop.
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:06 GMT
Cooper:

>>OK, thanks.  I get it now.  I think I know that company as "Johnson &
>Johnson".
>
>You're trying to stem the flow of blood with a band-aid.  With the
>amount of blood flowing, you'll need a mop.

What are you on about now?
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 02:18 GMT
Howard:

>>>>Who's "Dr. Johnson"?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I know.

A little *help* please; isn't the guy who invented Pledge "Mr. CLEAN"?
Simon R. Hughes - 15 Jan 2004 07:34 GMT
> Howard:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> A little *help* please; isn't the guy who invented Pledge "Mr. CLEAN"?

Robert Nixon invented Pledge?
Signature

Simon R. Hughes

Laura F Spira - 15 Jan 2004 08:04 GMT
>>Howard:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Robert Nixon invented Pledge?

Richard, shirley.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Simon R. Hughes - 15 Jan 2004 08:35 GMT
>>>Howard:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Richard, shirley.

He was RF's namesake.
Signature

Simon R. Hughes

Richard Maurer - 15 Jan 2004 08:56 GMT
<< [DE781]
A little *help* please; isn't the guy who invented Pledge "Mr. CLEAN"?
[end quote] >>

<< [Simon R. Hughes]
Robert Nixon invented Pledge?
[end quote] >>

<< [Laura F Spira]
Richard, shirley.
[end quote] >>

Richard shirley was part of the team that reinvented the pledge.

--                       ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer              To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California       of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Van Sickle - 15 Jan 2004 09:09 GMT
On 15 Jan 2004, Richard Maurer wrote

><< [DE781]
> A little *help* please; isn't the guy who invented Pledge "Mr.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Richard shirley was part of the team that reinvented the pledge.

Any relation to Shirley Jones?

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)

Spehro Pefhany - 15 Jan 2004 14:51 GMT
>On 15 Jan 2004, Richard Maurer wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Any relation to Shirley Jones?

Tree-ripened waxed pears.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Signature

"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

John Dean - 15 Jan 2004 17:30 GMT
>>> Howard:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Richard, shirley.

Do you know Google can't find a single well-known Richard Shirley to enable
me to make some stunning jokes?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Laura F Spira - 15 Jan 2004 17:46 GMT
>>>>Howard:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Do you know Google can't find a single well-known Richard Shirley to enable
> me to make some stunning jokes?

Sometimes Google can let you down. I've wasted a lot of time today
playing with the new Google feature which is being tested which lets you
read extracts of books. It's taken me some time to work out exactly what
to type in - the snippet in the Guardian that led me to this was a bit
misleading. The formula appears to be

[your search word or phrase] site:print.google.com

If, for example, you wanted a taste of Henning Mankell, my current
favourite crime writer, you would type in

mankell site:print.google.com

Some of the links only provide the cover blurb, with others you seem to
get as much
as a whole chapter.

I'm not quite sure how useful this feature is, though.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 22:28 GMT
Laura:

>Sometimes Google can let you down. I've wasted a lot of time today
>playing with the new Google feature which is being tested which lets you
>read extracts of books.

"Amazon.com", maybe?  It's great.  I don't even buy text books anymore.  I just
Amazon them!
Laura F Spira - 16 Jan 2004 08:04 GMT
> Laura:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "Amazon.com", maybe?  It's great.  I don't even buy text books anymore.  I just
> Amazon them!

How should one respond to this post? Possible alternatives:
1. Ironically:
"*What* a good idea!"
"Why doesn't that surprise me?"
"That explains a lot."

2. Seriously, with explanations of:
* the importance of reading in learning
* the role of text books in learning
* the economics of text book publishing from the author's perspective

If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings. A student
who has spent the last semester on an exchange in Florida came to see me
yesterday. She is a bright but not outstanding student. After a lengthy
account of all the differences between her experience at Brookes and
that in Florida, she sighed deeply and said "It's going to be quite
difficult to get back to *proper* reading and thinking now."

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Charles Riggs - 16 Jan 2004 08:14 GMT
>If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
>in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings.

I'm quite sure you realise he is anything but typical. If he were
typical, most of the Americans in this group would make statements
similar to his.
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Laura F Spira - 16 Jan 2004 09:06 GMT
>>If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
>>in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings.
>
> I'm quite sure you realise he is anything but typical. If he were
> typical, most of the Americans in this group would make statements
> similar to his.

Most of the Americans posting here appear to be somewhat older than
DE781. It is not impossible that they were like that at that age.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Michael Nitabach - 16 Jan 2004 14:17 GMT
>>>If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I
>>>teach in the UK higher education system, for all its
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> than DE781. It is not impossible that they were like that at that
> age.

Agreed. But it is not even remotely likely.

--
Mike Nitabach
John O'Flaherty - 16 Jan 2004 16:00 GMT
>>>If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
>>>in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Most of the Americans posting here appear to be somewhat older than
>DE781. It is not impossible that they were like that at that age.

The same applies to most of the non-American posters. A few of them
may have been below grade level when they were sophomores, too.

--
john
John Holmes - 17 Jan 2004 10:59 GMT
> The same applies to most of the non-American posters. A few of them
> may have been below grade level when they were sophomores, too.

Very few, if any, of the non-American posters would ever have been
sophomores. But I know what you mean.

--
Regards
John
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:36 GMT
Laura:

>Most of the Americans posting here appear to be somewhat older than
>DE781. It is not impossible that they were like that at that age.

Well, at least we weren't kissing a bitch's moth-bally a.s at my age.
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:34 GMT
Riggs:

>I'm quite sure you realise he is anything but typical. If he were
>typical, most of the Americans in this group would make statements
>similar to his.

And most *do*, because I da bomb diggity!
Lars Eighner - 16 Jan 2004 08:45 GMT
> If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
> in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings. A student
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that in Florida, she sighed deeply and said "It's going to be quite
> difficult to get back to *proper* reading and thinking now."

The following is typical of the quality of the inquiries I get every
semester.  This is from a university student who, to judge from
his or her name, is a native speaker of English.  This student
had sufficient initiative to write to me and knows he or she is
in trouble.  I suppose there are many more who do not have so
much initiative or insight.

>>> Dear Mr. Eighner:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>> truth I am struggling within Professor *********'s class, and any
>>> advise you would permit me would be a tremendous help.

Signature

Lars Eighner -finger for geek code-  eighner@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
  "Writers, you know, are the beggars of Western society."  --Octavio Paz

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:38 GMT
>>>> Dear Mr. Eighner:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>>> truth I am struggling within Professor *********'s class, and any
>>>> advise you would permit me would be a tremendous help.

Oy vey!  Jesus Christ!  Ay caramba!  Madonna mia!  And every other racial slur!
Oh well, the poor girl is probably just not very bright.  Maybe I can tutor
her?  Steinar Mala sure liked my help, eh, ho?
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 21:02 GMT
> >>>> Dear Mr. Eighner:
> >>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> racial slur!  Oh well, the poor girl is probably just not very
> bright.  Maybe I can tutor her?

Out of curiousity, what makes you think that the author is female?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |When all else fails, give the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |customer what they ask for.  This
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |is strong medicine and rarely needs
                                      |to be repeated.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:15 GMT
Evan:

>Out of curiousity, what makes you think that the author is female?

Because the writing sounds feminine.
Sara Lorimer - 16 Jan 2004 13:56 GMT
> If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
> in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings.

It's been five years since I last took a class at an American college.
No, he's not typical. Did you really think he was?

(As an aside: sigh. I vote for putting "Just how uncultured and stoopid
are Americans, anyway?" in the FAQ and quit discussing it here.)

Signature

SML

ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu  <http://pirate-women.com>

R J Valentine - 17 Jan 2004 05:26 GMT
} (As an aside: sigh. I vote for putting "Just how uncultured and stoopid
} are Americans, anyway?" in the FAQ and quit discussing it here.)

I can't wait to see the answer.  Is that going to be in there, too?

} --
} SML
}
} ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu  <http://pirate-women.com>

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:arrr@wicked.smart.net>

Charles Riggs - 17 Jan 2004 05:49 GMT
>> If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
>> in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>(As an aside: sigh. I vote for putting "Just how uncultured and stoopid
>are Americans, anyway?" in the FAQ and quit discussing it here.)

Good idea, Sara. It could open an avenue for the likes of Simon Hughes
to post on topics of greater universal interest.

As another aside, I don't think Laura thinks Americans are, in
general, stupid. Stupid as a few of us are, DE781 remains an anomaly.
It might even be correct to say he's unique, in his level of
ignorance, among the college and high school students I've known.
Perhaps American students have been suffering from a considerably
dumbed-down educational system compared with my day, but I rather
doubt it.
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Tony Cooper - 17 Jan 2004 06:32 GMT
>>> If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
>>> in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>dumbed-down educational system compared with my day, but I rather
>doubt it.

He's not stupid.   He's got half of aue looking up definitions for him
and he tells them that "That's not good enough.  Explain it better".
He's just lazy and manipulative.

I don't think he's particularly bright, but he's of average
intelligence.   He probably memorizes well enough to get decent
grades, comprehends at an average level, but lacks the ability to
extrapolate or the initiative to examine.
R J Valentine - 17 Jan 2004 07:27 GMT
...
} He's not stupid.   He's got half of aue looking up definitions for him
} and he tells them that "That's not good enough.  Explain it better".
} He's just lazy and manipulative.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

} I don't think he's particularly bright, but he's of average
} intelligence.   He probably memorizes well enough to get decent
} grades, comprehends at an average level, but lacks the ability to
} extrapolate or the initiative to examine.

I suspect he's brighter than you peg him.  He's just been skating so long
that he's only just recently getting his walking legs.  Pound for pound,
he has shown more improvement per year than a lot of people.  He'll never
know as much as *some* people, whom you might guess; but how much
improvement have *they* shown year after year.

Oddly enough, you're probably just what he needs to get him with the
program.

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net>

Dena Jo - 17 Jan 2004 16:13 GMT
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 06:32:02 GMT Tony Cooper
> <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote: ...
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I suspect he's brighter than you peg him.  He's just been skating
> so long that he's only just recently getting his walking legs.

I supect he does it on purpose.  It's part of his AUE act.

Signature

Dena Jo

Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email.

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:01 GMT
Dena Jo:

>> I suspect he's brighter than you peg him.  He's just been skating
>> so long that he's only just recently getting his walking legs.
>
>I supect he does it on purpose.  It's part of his AUE act.

*Someone* deserves an award!  I don't know who though.
Pat Durkin - 17 Jan 2004 21:35 GMT
> Dena Jo:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> *Someone* deserves an award!  I don't know who though.

LOL!

Joey, stay out of this.  It is the nominating committee for an award, and
you are the prime candidate.  It's supposed to be a _secret_.
Tony Cooper - 17 Jan 2004 17:07 GMT
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 06:32:02 GMT Tony Cooper
>> <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote: ...
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>I supect he does it on purpose.  It's part of his AUE act.

I don't think that it's an act.  Yeah, there's a certain amount image
maintenance, but when he says he doesn't know what a word means, or
the meaning of a reference, I don't think he's playing like he doesn't
understand.  He doesn't.  

I don't see anything at all wrong with not knowing the meaning of some
of the words used here.  I don't see anything at all wrong with not
catching some of the references.  In many cases, those of us that do
know the meaning or the reference only do so because we've been around
longer and have been exposed to more.  

It's not an act or a indication of lack of intelligence for someone
Joey's age not to recognize "Goldwynism".   I'd never heard of the
term, and never knew about Goldwyn being known for I'd call
"Berraisms", but I'm old enough to know who Sam Goldwyn was and able
to make the mental jump - based on the context - without looking
anything up.   I can't fault Joey for not being able to do this.

What I can blame Joey for is not having the initiative to make even a
rudimentary effort to figure it out for himself.  First hit on Google
for "Goldwynisms" explains it.

Frankly, I can't understand being willing to appear to be so stupid
and lazy.  Looking stupid should be done inadvertently like I do.
Michael Nitabach - 17 Jan 2004 17:25 GMT
> Frankly, I can't understand being willing to appear to be so stupid
> and lazy.  Looking stupid should be done inadvertently like I do.

This is why I think DE781 is a parody.

Signature

Mike Nitabach

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:51 GMT
Nitabach:

>> Frankly, I can't understand being willing to appear to be so stupid
>> and lazy.  Looking stupid should be done inadvertently like I do.
>
>This is why I think DE781 is a parody.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF!  A parody of WHAT?  I just might tell you if you're right, if
you give me the details!
DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:50 GMT
Cooper:

>What I can blame Joey for is not having the initiative to make even a
>rudimentary effort to figure it out for himself.  First hit on Google
>for "Goldwynisms" explains it.

Look, you doesn't always know for sure that some AUE-fabricated term like
"Goldwynism" is on Google.  Fine!  If that's the case, then you should have to
Google "funner" and "racist" until you find the definition that's mines!

>Looking stupid should be done inadvertently like I do.

Poser!
DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:00 GMT
Valentine:

>} He's not stupid.   He's got half of aue looking up definitions for him
>} and he tells them that "That's not good enough.  Explain it better".
>} He's just lazy and manipulative.
>
>You say that like it's a bad thing.

LOL, I guess it has its advantages.  But, I don't like to be manipulative.
Lazy?  OK.  Yes, I am lazy.  Manipulation involves messing with other people,
though, and I really, sort of, don't like to do that.  You guys just know so
much, why should I bother using Google and finding some moron's biased website
when I can generally get the *real* answers here?  Plus, you see, I used to not
realize that you folks all just depended on Google *yourselves*.  When Leah and
I arrived here, we were conviced you all were super-geniuses or something.  She
even tried to tell me that people at the AUE were the people who wrote
dictionaries and encyclopedias.  I told her that that was most likely untrue.

Still, I find it very odd that all of you need Google for *everything*.  The
stuff you pass off as your own knowledge is really just Google and Wikipedia
and other people's websites' knowledge.  And then you find it shocking when I
question things before resorting to Google.  Well...I think that is how *most*
people use message boards and the way AUEers use this place is in the minority.

>but lacks the ability to
>} extrapolate or the initiative to examine.

I don't lack the ability.  I just find that stuff boring and unnecessary.  If a
minimal amount of work can earn you a B, why waste time and effort striving for
an A+?  It's not worth it.

>Pound for pound,
>he has shown more improvement per year than a lot of people.  

How so?  Just out of curiosity.

>Oddly enough, you're probably just what he needs to get him with the
>program.

Cooper?  Why?
Tony Cooper - 17 Jan 2004 17:21 GMT
>>but lacks the ability to
>>} extrapolate or the initiative to examine.
>
>I don't lack the ability.  I just find that stuff boring and unnecessary.  If a
>minimal amount of work can earn you a B, why waste time and effort striving for
>an A+?  It's not worth it.

Based on your answer, you don't understand the word "extrapolate" and
were too lazy to look it up.

>>Oddly enough, you're probably just what he needs to get him with the
>>program.
>
>Cooper?  Why?

Because I should be a role model for you.  I'm not as smart as the
average bear here, but I keep up because I look up.

And, the above is an example of your "you Google everything'.  I knew
without looking it up that the Yogi Bear cartoons had the line "not as
smart as the average bear" in them, but I wasn't sure if it was
"smart" or "bright'.  I Googled to verify. Yes, we Google, but mostly
to verify or clarify what we already know.  And, sometimes just to
learn a little bit more about something we know something about.
DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 18:12 GMT
Cooper:

>>>but lacks the ability to
>>>} extrapolate or the initiative to examine.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Based on your answer, you don't understand the word "extrapolate" and
>were too lazy to look it up.

Of course I do.  It means that when I hear "I'm gonna say the PLEDGE" that I
have to EXTRAPOLATE that to mean "SC Johnson & Wax/Johnson & Johnson" (which I
*know* is all the same company).  I don't likes extrapolationing!

>>>Oddly enough, you're probably just what he needs to get him with the
>>>program.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Because I should be a role model for you.  I'm not as smart as the
>average bear here, but I keep up because I look up.

No offense, Cooper, but if I wanted to present my true intelligence, I'd
probably look smarter than MOST, if not all, here.  I've already gone over
reasons--most at least semi-serious--why I don't think *any* of you people are
the sharpest tool in the thread.  If you were, you'd have no trouble
understanding what I'm about.

>And, the above is an example of your "you Google everything'.  I knew
>without looking it up that the Yogi Bear cartoons had the line "not as
>smart as the average bear" in them,

No, you're wrong.  The line was "Yogi & BooBoo are smarter than the average
bear".

And how's that intelligence?  It's just ability to remember useless facts,
which I have no problem doing.  That isn't what makes me smart, though.

BTW, it was unnecessary for you to have Googled "Yogi Bear" because I could
have just told you the answer.  And, see?  You didn't even get the RIGHT answer
to your question.  Google SUCKS, tha Murray Arnow-censoring P.O.S.!

>  And, sometimes just to
>learn a little bit more about something we know something about.

Where's that bit of pointless trivia gonna get you later in life?  BTW,
comparing Yogi Bear to Yogi Berra is just gay and asinine.  NO ONE finds that
sh.t funny no more!
Tony Cooper - 17 Jan 2004 18:53 GMT
>Cooper:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>have to EXTRAPOLATE that to mean "SC Johnson & Wax/Johnson & Johnson" (which I
>*know* is all the same company).  I don't likes extrapolationing!

It doesn't mean that at all.  In this context, it means to project or
extend one bit of knowledge into another area.  If you understood, you
would have caught my band-aids and mops reference.  If "Pledge" was
used as a clue to SC Johnson, then "band-aid" was a clue to another
Johnson.  The extrapolation is using the concept of associating the
item with the maker.  

With your interest in ghetto, "hair relaxer" would have been a better
clue.  (Although George is no longer in the business)

And, SC Johnson and Johnson & Johnson are totally unrelated companies.
Richard Maurer - 18 Jan 2004 03:44 GMT
<< [Tony Cooper]
And, SC Johnson and Johnson & Johnson are totally unrelated companies.
[end quote] >>

But easier to confuse nowadays, since all of those bottles with
"Johnson and Johnson" printed on them disappeared from the shelves
some years ago.  Nowadays you see some similar items with
just "Johnson" printed on them.
I was surprised to see that the company is still officially called
"Johnson and Johnson".

--                       ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer              To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California       of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Put that name change in the negative column)
Tony Cooper - 18 Jan 2004 04:14 GMT
><< [Tony Cooper]
>And, SC Johnson and Johnson & Johnson are totally unrelated companies.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I was surprised to see that the company is still officially called
>"Johnson and Johnson".

I haven't noticed this.  A quick root through the medicine cabinet
turned up a package of Topper 4 x 4 dressing sponges with the familiar
Johnson & Johnson in red script.  I don't know how old the package is.
DE781 - 18 Jan 2004 04:07 GMT
Cooper:

>If you understood, you
>would have caught my band-aids and mops reference

Yeah, yeah, because Johnson & Johnson owns Band Aid (brand) and all that.  But,
so what?  It still doesn't make the joke funny.  And I *still* don't get what
the mopping up blood has to do with anything.

>And, SC Johnson and Johnson & Johnson are totally unrelated companies.

I know.
Maria Conlon - 17 Jan 2004 19:55 GMT
> ....I've already
> gone over reasons--most at least semi-serious--why I don't think
> *any* of you people are the sharpest tool in the thread.  If you
> were, you'd have no trouble understanding what I'm about.

"...[S]harpest tool in the thread"? That doesn't quite work, IMO.
Replacing "shed" with "thread" wasn't enough to make the phrase funny or
truly clever. Can you try again? I'd be curious to see what you come up
with. I personally can't think of a "thread" line that sounds
satisfactory to me. Maybe you can.

Just a comment.

Signature

Maria Conlon
Please send any email to the Hot Mail address.

DE781 - 18 Jan 2004 04:09 GMT
Maria:

>"...[S]harpest tool in the thread"? That doesn't quite work, IMO.
>Replacing "shed" with "thread" wasn't enough to make the phrase funny or
>truly clever.

It honestly wasn't meant to be a joke.  It was some kind of Freudian slip, more
likely than not.  When I'm here, I tend to have "posts" and "threads" on the
brain.  I had entirely meant to write "shed".  Still, were my error an
intentional joke, I think it would be up to par with the AUE's corny sense of
humor, at the very least.
Michael Nitabach - 18 Jan 2004 19:35 GMT
> Still, were my error an
> intentional joke, I think it would be up to par with the AUE's
> corny sense of humor, at the very least.

You've slipped out of your parodic voice here.

Signature

Mike Nitabach

DE781 - 18 Jan 2004 20:23 GMT
Nitabach:

>> Still, were my error an
>> intentional joke, I think it would be up to par with the AUE's
>> corny sense of humor, at the very least.
>
>You've slipped out of your parodic voice here.

I see.  It appears that you're on the right track with me.  Now, can anyone
tell me *why* I might adopt different tones with different people and when
responding to different posts?
Simon R. Hughes - 18 Jan 2004 22:22 GMT
> Nitabach:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> tell me *why* I might adopt different tones with different people and when
> responding to different posts?

Lack of character? Lack of conviction? Lack of identity?
Signature

Simon R. Hughes
Off topic, but non-anti-American.

DE781 - 18 Jan 2004 22:39 GMT
Hughes:

>Now, can anyone
>> tell me *why* I might adopt different tones with different people and when
>> responding to different posts?
>
>Lack of character? Lack of conviction? Lack of identity?

Wrong, wrong, and, oh yeah, wrong.
R J Valentine - 19 Jan 2004 02:38 GMT
} Hughes:
}
}>Now, can anyone
}>> tell me *why* I might adopt different tones with different people and when
}>> responding to different posts?
}>
}>Lack of character? Lack of conviction? Lack of identity?
}
} Wrong, wrong, and, oh yeah, wrong.

Not knowing the difference between spin and a bank shot?

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>

DE781 - 19 Jan 2004 17:54 GMT
Valentine:

>}>Now, can anyone
>}>> tell me *why* I might adopt different tones with different people and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Not knowing the difference between spin and a bank shot?

Huh?  I don't get it.
Don Phillipson - 17 Jan 2004 20:13 GMT
> >I don't lack the ability.  I just find that stuff boring and unnecessary.  If a
> >minimal amount of work can earn you a B, why waste time and effort striving for
> >an A+?  It's not worth it.

1.  One of the early purposes of schooling is
to show people how to complete an assignment
they think boring and unnecessary.   The reason
is that you will probably need to do so in adult
life, and will suffer or miss a valuable opportunity
if you fail.  These businesslike habits hurt least
when acquired young.   It is bad luck that your
education failed in this early task.

2.  Grades in school are not awarded for the
benefit of the student but for the benefit of the
teachers and administrators.  With luck, you
will discover before leaving school the difference
between learning and grades.  (We usually
discover this for ourselves, because some
teachers do not know this and fewer admit it.)

3.  The general idea of "curriculum" is to expose
you to lots of things (foreign languages, science,
history, poetry, etc.) because (1) enjoyment in
life usually means being passionately interested
in at least one thing and (2) nobody knows whether
you are likeliest to be interested in geology or
paintings or grammar or medicine.  So schools
use the shotgun approach, exposing all students
to all subjects.  The only serious failures in
school are those students who never find out
what interests them;  and even then they may
later find out via TV, newspapers, chance etc.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Michael Nitabach - 17 Jan 2004 17:30 GMT
> If a
> minimal amount of work can earn you a B, why waste time and effort
> striving for an A+?

Because eventually those who earn the Bs with minimal effort end up
carrying water for those who invest the time and effort striving for
As.

> It's not worth it.

I guess it depends upon where you see yourself ten years from now.

Signature

Mike Nitabach

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 18:14 GMT
Nitabach:

>Because eventually those who earn the Bs with minimal effort end up
>carrying water for those who invest the time and effort striving for
>As.

I doubt that.  If it's true, so what?  I wait till I'm 30, living at home, and
then I go to grad school and get straight A's, taking one course at a time.
That makes me "smart", I guess?  Oh well, if you people are happy living in
such a screwy world, I don't care.  I KNOW how to manipulate people, if need
be.  How sad, that that's what you think we must do.

>> It's not worth it.
>
>I guess it depends upon where you see yourself ten years from now.

Loaded.
John Dean - 19 Jan 2004 02:13 GMT
> Nitabach:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> home, and then I go to grad school and get straight A's, taking one
> course at a time. That makes me "smart", I guess?

Not by comparison with the people with whom you are competing for the
alpha-positions, and comparison is exactly what prospective employers are
interested in. A student who has all the necessary As by the time they're 21
will look like a good prospect. One who doesn't get the requisite number
until they're 40 will look like a dumb sh.t. The student who takes all the
courses within a few years will have shown the necessary application to
succeed. The student who takes one course at a time and doesn't start a new
one until they've passed the old one will look like a plodder.
Getting straight As doesn't 'make' anyone smart. Though smart people are
often capable of straight As. Not starting until you're 30 the kind of
courses that the average student is up for at 18 will certainly not persuade
anyone you're smart.

--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Wood Avens - 19 Jan 2004 16:53 GMT
>Not by comparison with the people with whom you are competing for the
>alpha-positions, and comparison is exactly what prospective employers are
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>courses that the average student is up for at 18 will certainly not persuade
>anyone you're smart.

From my corner as a (retired) Open University academic, I think this
is too much of a generalisation not to challenge.  

Of some people, what you say is certainly true.  However, in my
experience the person who, for whatever reason, has failed or
abandoned or simply never taken any exams after the age of 16 or 18
but who then returns at the age of 30 or 40 and works their way to a
good degree, concurrently holding down a job and bringing up a family,
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the discriminating employer an
equal level of intellectual ability to that of the 21-year-old
graduate, and a higher level of motivation, stickability, ability to
organise their time, and varied experience of life.

Not that I'm recommending this approach to any current student
uncertain about whether to continue their education, and certainly not
to anyone who thinks this alternative would be easier.  It's not.
It's a damn sight harder work.  Another factor occasionally given due
credit.  

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove number to reply

DE781 - 21 Jan 2004 21:05 GMT
Dean:

>Getting straight As doesn't 'make' anyone smart.

Exactly my point.  Grades don't matter.

>Though smart people are
>often capable of straight As.

But, they generally realize that it's a waste to work their a.ses off for an A
rather than a B.

>Not starting until you're 30 the kind of
>courses that the average student is up for at 18 will certainly not persuade
>anyone you're smart.

Why?  You said it yourself: grades don't make you smart.  Laziness shouldn't
count against anyone.
Michael Nitabach - 23 Jan 2004 03:25 GMT
> Dean:
>
>>Getting straight As doesn't 'make' anyone smart.
>
> Exactly my point.  Grades don't matter.

Grades per se may not matter, but the self-discipline and study
required to get As do matter.

>>Though smart people are
>>often capable of straight As.
>
> But, they generally realize that it's a waste to work their a.ses
> off for an A rather than a B.

It may be a waste to work one's a.s off solely to obtain an A, but it
is far from a waste to work one's a.s off. Those who achieve success
in their lives have almost invariably worked their a.ses off. Life is
not a TV show.

>>Not starting until you're 30 the kind of
>>courses that the average student is up for at 18 will certainly
>>not persuade anyone you're smart.
>
> Why?  You said it yourself: grades don't make you smart.  Laziness
> shouldn't count against anyone.

Grades don't make you smart. Discipline and study make you smart.
Good grades are merely a side-effect.

Signature

Mike Nitabach

DE781 - 23 Jan 2004 23:06 GMT
Nitabach:

>Grades per se may not matter, but the self-discipline and study
>required to get As do matter.

I will have self-discipline when the work I'm doing actually matters.

>Life is
>not a TV show.

Yes it is.

>Good grades are merely a side-effect.

But, even dummies can get good grades with enough effort.  They're meaningless.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 00:08 GMT
> Nitabach:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I will have self-discipline when the work I'm doing actually
> matters.

Ah, but the question is: How will you convince someone that you can so
that they know that they can count on you enough to give you work that
actually matters?

> >Life is not a TV show.
>
> Yes it is.

I'm sorry.  The quote is "Life's a show".  "TV" was not specified, and
the implication was that it was a stage show.

> >Good grades are merely a side-effect.
>
> But, even dummies can get good grades with enough effort.  They're
> meaningless.

On the one hand we have someone who is either smart or a dummy who
will actually put in enough effort to do the job.  On the other hand
we have...well, we don't really know.  Might be someone smart who just
didn't care; might be someone dumb who didn't care; might be someone
who tried their hardest and couldn't do it.  Who do you pick?  Who do
you even bother calling in for the interview?

Not that "straight A's" are worth all that much, although it does show
that you can do pretty much anything you put your mind to, but a solid
pattern of (at least mostly) A's in what you claim to be your area of
expertise is very helpful.  Until you've gotten some publication
history or work experience, after which nobody cares what grades you
got in school.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If all else fails, embarrass the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |industry into doing the right
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |thing.
                                      |              Dean Thompson
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 24 Jan 2004 00:21 GMT
Evan:

>Ah, but the question is: How will you convince someone that you can so
>that they know that they can count on you enough to give you work that
>actually matters?

I sure have a way with convincing people *online* that I'm interesting.  What
makes you think it's any different offline?

>I'm sorry.  The quote is "Life's a show".  "TV" was not specified, and
>the implication was that it was a stage show.

All the world is a stage.

>Might be someone smart who just
>didn't care; might be someone dumb who didn't care; might be someone
>who tried their hardest and couldn't do it.  

And how's any of that different than:

>On the one hand we have someone who is either smart or a dummy who
>will actually put in enough effort to do the job

?

In both cases, you're as likely to get a dummy as not.  Well, actually, you're
more likely to get a dummy out of the group who "put in effort", because
dummies always feel they have to "prove" themselves.  Smart people are
intelligent enough to realize that high school and college achievements,
especially arbitrary grades, are meaningless.

> but a solid
>pattern of (at least mostly) A's in what you claim to be your area of
>expertise is very helpful.  

Well, right now I have a pattern of mostly B's in general and in my "areas of
expertise".  I'm fine with that and most rational people should be too.

>Until you've gotten some publication
>history

And, luckily for me, AUE has provided me that opportunity.  All an employer has
to do is visit the AUE and look through my Google history.  Where else can such
words of wisdom be found?

>or work experience

See above.

>after which nobody cares what grades you
>got in school.

Good.  So my plan is working out then.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 00:56 GMT
> Evan:

> >Might be someone smart who just didn't care; might be someone dumb
> >who didn't care; might be someone who tried their hardest and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> ?

Either one will be able to do the job.

> In both cases, you're as likely to get a dummy as not.  Well,
> actually, you're more likely to get a dummy out of the group who
> "put in effort", because dummies always feel they have to "prove"
> themselves.

And it wasn't Statistics, either, was it?

Okay, let's take it slowly, with some hypothetical numbers.  Say 10%
of the population is "smart" and the other 90% are "dummies".  Say
further that 80% of the smart people will get A's because, hey,
they're smart.  (The other 20% could get A's but don't bother.)  On
the other hand, by virtue of excessive effort, 30% of the dummies also
manage to get A's.  (I'm exaggerating the numbers in your favor here.)
So we can conclude that 0.1*0.8+0.9*0.3 = 35% of the students get
A's.

Now, what's the likelihood that a given student is smart?  If they got
A's, then we're looking at

  P(smart|A's) = P(A's|smart)*P(smart)/P(A's)
               = 0.8 * 0.1 / 0.35
               = ~0.229

so only a bit more than a fifth of the people who get A's are smart.
Now let's look at the other group.

  P(smart|not A's) = P(not A's|smart)*P(smart)/P(not A's)
                   = 0.2 * 0.1 / 0.65
                   = ~0.031

So only about one in thirty students who doesn't get A's is smart.
Given one student who gets A's and one who doesn't, the one who gets
A's is a more than seven times as likely to be smart.

> Smart people are intelligent enough to realize that high school and
> college achievements, especially arbitrary grades, are meaningless.

Yeah, but most actual smart people get good grades anyway, because it
doesn't take any tremendous amount of "work".

> > but a solid pattern of (at least mostly) A's in what you claim to
> >be your area of expertise is very helpful.
>
> Well, right now I have a pattern of mostly B's in general and in my
> "areas of expertise".  I'm fine with that and most rational people
> should be too.

To me that says "respectable, capable, but don't expect too much, and
he either didn't see the subject as interesting enough to warrant
putting in the effort or that's the best he can do".  (Of course, it
matters whether that's "mostly B's with a few A's" or "mostly B's with
a few C's".)

> >Until you've gotten some publication history
>
> And, luckily for me, AUE has provided me that opportunity.

This is a vanity press.  It doesn't really count, although we'll read
unrefereed tech reports if that's all that's available.

> All an employer has to do is visit the AUE and look through my
> Google history.

Luckily for you, nobody will make that effort.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Code should be designed to make it
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |easy to get it right, not to work
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |if you get it right.

   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 24 Jan 2004 20:43 GMT
Evan:

>> >On the one hand we have someone who is either smart or a dummy who
>> >will actually put in enough effort to do the job
>>
>> ?
>
>Either one will be able to do the job.

Nope, either way you don't know if you're getting a *smart* person, or a *dumb*
person.

>And it wasn't Statistics, either, was it?

What about Stats?  I *know* how to use them!  And I *did*!

>Okay, let's take it slowly, with some hypothetical numbers.  Say 10%
>of the population is "smart" and the other 90% are "dummies".

OK.

> Say
>further that 80% of the smart people will get A's because, hey,
>they're smart.  (The other 20% could get A's but don't bother.)  

No.  Of smart people, only like 10% care about getting A's (usually the
borderline smart people), because the other 90% realize that A's are
meaningless.  I am in the "other 90%" most of the time.

> On
>the other hand, by virtue of excessive effort, 30% of the dummies also
>manage to get A's.  (I'm exaggerating the numbers in your favor here.)

No.  More like 50 or 60% of dummies get A's because of easier schooling,
compensation for retardation, and desperation to "prove" themselves able.  If
you ain't got the standardized test scores, you gotta FUDGE your way into
college with "grades", especially A's, extracurriculars, clubs, sports, music,
community service, church groups, schtich, cheerleading, eating your own sh.t,
or whatever else you need to make yourself "stand out" from the nomalcy that
you are.  Take American Idol...95% of the people with the costumes and the
makeup and the flamboyance and the pets and the relatives and the attitudes and
the skateboards and the impersonations and the duets and the wild hairdoos and
everything else SUCK.  Whereas 95% of the people who are "real" move on.
Mediocrity always tries to cover itself up with gimmicks.  Grades and
extracurricular activites and wealth and celebrity are the GIMMICKS that dumbos
use to move up in life.  If only we all had Simon Cowell judging who is
qualified and who is not for job apps, & sh.t.

>So we can conclude that 0.1*0.8+0.9*0.3 = 35% of the students get
>A's.

I don't know how to statisticize it, but whatever.  OK, 35%.

OK, if 10% of all smart people get A's, and 50 or 60% of dumbos do, then *more*
smart people don't get A's than do.  However, *more* dumbos get A's than don't.

Therefore, out of the group of people who *don't* get A's, you're more likely
to find the smart peeps.

It's COMMON SENSE.

>Yeah, but most actual smart people get good grades anyway, because it
>doesn't take any tremendous amount of "work".

Not true.  It depends on the courses you take and where you go to college.  My
school *hardly* ever gives out A's.  With minimal work, I'm still up in the
90th percentile somewhere, though, gradeswise, where the average, I've learnt,
is 2.4-ish.

>and
>he either didn't see the subject as interesting enough to warrant
>putting in the effort

Exactly.  But when dinero is involved, *then* I will work to my full ability.
It's obvious to others of intelligence.

>(Of course, it
>matters whether that's "mostly B's with a few A's" or "mostly B's with
>a few C's".)

Mostly B's with a handfull of A's and a handfull of C's.  Actually, I think
I've had 5 or 6 A's and only 4 or 5 C's.  So, I'm still ahead.

>> And, luckily for me, AUE has provided me that opportunity.
>
>This is a vanity press.  It doesn't really count, although we'll read
>unrefereed tech reports if that's all that's available.

Huh?

>> All an employer has to do is visit the AUE and look through my
>> Google history.
>
>Luckily for you, nobody will make that effort.

I'm sure they will.  I'll encourage it.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 21:56 GMT
> Evan:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Nope, either way you don't know if you're getting a *smart* person,
> or a *dumb* person.

Clue time.  Most employers don't care whether somebody is smart or
dumb as long as they can do the job.  A dumb person who shows that
they will do (and are able to do) whatever is necessary to do the job
is just fine.

> >And it wasn't Statistics, either, was it?
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> the borderline smart people), because the other 90% realize that A's
> are meaningless.  I am in the "other 90%" most of the time.

Perhaps we have different thresholds for "smart".  Most people I
consider smart would have to actively work at not getting A's most of
the time.  Only 10% may care about it, but 80-90% will get them
anyway.  

> > On the other hand, by virtue of excessive effort, 30% of the
> >dummies also manage to get A's.  (I'm exaggerating the numbers in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> themselves able.  If you ain't got the standardized test scores, you
> gotta FUDGE your way into college with "grades",

I presumed we were talking about college.  Nobody's going to give a
sh.t about your high school grades once you graduate.

> >So we can conclude that 0.1*0.8+0.9*0.3 = 35% of the students get
> >A's.
>
> I don't know how to statisticize it,

Math major, eh?  

> but whatever.  OK, 35%.

No, you've changed it to 46-55%.

> >Yeah, but most actual smart people get good grades anyway, because it
> >doesn't take any tremendous amount of "work".
>
> Not true.  It depends on the courses you take and where you go to
> college.  My school *hardly* ever gives out A's.

And yet 50-60% of the "dummies" manage to get them in each class.  I
guess that works if the vast bulk of the students are "smart" and
therefore don't get good grades.

> >and he either didn't see the subject as interesting enough to
> >warrant putting in the effort
>
> Exactly.  But when dinero is involved, *then* I will work to my full
> ability.

At what?  Who's going to hire you?  I can just see your cover letter:
"I didn't get good grades because I'm too smart to put in the effort,
so you actually have no idea what I'm capable of, but trust me--if
you're willing to pay me I'll put in the effort and I'll be able to do
whatever you ask".  There are 200 other resumes in the pile.

> It's obvious to others of intelligence.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I think I've had 5 or 6 A's and only 4 or 5 C's.  So, I'm still
> ahead.

If you think of A's and C's as balancing, don't put on airs about how
"smart" you think you are.  That many C's in an entire college career
in courses having anything to do with the major would get me thinking
"This guy had better have some damn good references, test scores, and
something substantial like a publication or honors project to balance
it."  I'll buy the "too lazy to work for A's", but if you can't
sleepwalk through a course and get at least a B-, that's a red flag.

(Take this as advice from somebody who actually *has* been involved
with reading resumes and making the decision on who to interview.)

> >> And, luckily for me, AUE has provided me that opportunity.
> >
> >This is a vanity press.  It doesn't really count, although we'll
> >read unrefereed tech reports if that's all that's available.
>
> Huh?

Which part was unclear?  A paper that you decide is worthy of
publication is much less valuable than one that somebody else does, so
a conference paper, journal paper, dissertation, or book (chapter) is
what will be read.  Failing that, a self-published report, like a
technical report, will be read to get an idea of what kind of work you
do.  

> >> All an employer has to do is visit the AUE and look through my
> >> Google history.
> >
> >Luckily for you, nobody will make that effort.
>
> I'm sure they will.  I'll encourage it.

I see.  How?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Your claim might have more
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |credibility if you hadn't mispelled
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |"inteligent"

   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Tony Cooper - 24 Jan 2004 22:54 GMT
>If you think of A's and C's as balancing, don't put on airs about how
>"smart" you think you are.  That many C's in an entire college career
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>(Take this as advice from somebody who actually *has* been involved
>with reading resumes and making the decision on who to interview.)

You said something on this same order before.  It's not wrong, but
it's certainly not right.  What you are referring to is part of the
job market but not all of the job market.

The "skaters" in college usually end up with pretty good jobs.  They
are just not jobs of a certain type.   I suspect that what you would
call a "good job" *is* a job that requires top grades.  Perhaps your
floor at HP is stocked with these jobs, but that's not the job market.

If you imagine the job market as a bell curve, jobs for people with
brains and good grades are at one end, and jobs for people with charm
and personality are at the other.  Towards the middle there are jobs
that require some smarts and some personality.

Now, do a bell curve for income from jobs.  You could damn near
superimpose them.  The really smart guys aren't making that much more
than the really dumb guys.  The guys with ordinary smarts and a good
personality are up at the top of the bell.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 23:22 GMT
> >If you think of A's and C's as balancing, don't put on airs about
> >how "smart" you think you are.  That many C's in an entire college
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> it's certainly not right.  What you are referring to is part of the
> job market but not all of the job market.

Good point.

> The "skaters" in college usually end up with pretty good jobs.  They
> are just not jobs of a certain type.   I suspect that what you would
> call a "good job" *is* a job that requires top grades.  Perhaps your
> floor at HP is stocked with these jobs, but that's not the job market.

It's not so much "requires top grades" as "We've got three hundred
resumes for this position, we'll phone screen maybe twenty or thirty,
and we'll aim for bringing in four or five for interviews (a full day,
with several people).  You need something to make people give you a
second look, or they'll never find out about your winning personality.

I suspect it's different for jobs in which you expect to talk for ten
minutes with anybody who's interested in the job.

> If you imagine the job market as a bell curve, jobs for people with
> brains and good grades are at one end, and jobs for people with
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> more than the really dumb guys.  The guys with ordinary smarts and a
> good personality are up at the top of the bell.

Definitely.  My kind of job tends to have a better starting salary,
but there's a bigger upside potential for the other, and, as you say,
the entry requirements aren't as steep.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Of course, over the first 10^-10
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |centimeters it averages out to
                                      |zero, but when you look in
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |detail....
   (650)857-7572                      |            Philip Morrison

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Tony Cooper - 25 Jan 2004 00:06 GMT
>It's not so much "requires top grades" as "We've got three hundred
>resumes for this position, we'll phone screen maybe twenty or thirty,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>I suspect it's different for jobs in which you expect to talk for ten
>minutes with anybody who's interested in the job.

That's a bit snobbish.  A company will spend just as much time
selecting a new sales manager as they will a new IT manager.  The
sales manager may have a far greater impact on the company.

I would doubt that HPs sales representatives are selected for their
smarts.  That's not to say they are not smart, but the campus
recruiter really wasn't looking at their GPAs.  A guy that took five
years and barely got by may be a better choice than a whiz kid.  The
guy that took five years showed that he had perseverance and the
ability to grind away.  The whiz kid tends to show that he thinks he's
smarter than the guy he's selling to.  

It's not just sales.  Wall Street and Madison Avenue have far more
upper-income people that had GPAs in the 2s and 3s than in the 4s.

 
Evan Kirshenbaum - 25 Jan 2004 01:07 GMT
> >It's not so much "requires top grades" as "We've got three hundred
> >resumes for this position, we'll phone screen maybe twenty or
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> selecting a new sales manager as they will a new IT manager.  The
> sales manager may have a far greater impact on the company.

Sure, but they're not going to hire a sales manager who has no
experience.  I presumed that since we were discussing school records
that we were talking about entry-level jobs.  Clearly, once you have
relevant work experience, for most jobs what you did in school becomes
completely meaningless.  (Although in our case, we do still look at
publications.)

To come clean, most of of the people I've been involved in
interviewing have advanced degrees, and in such cases, we *don't* tend
to look at grades.  "Got into and out of grad school" is usually a
pretty good proxy, and we often know something about their program and
advisor and usually there are publications to look at, which give you
a better sense of what the person is capable of.

> I would doubt that HPs sales representatives are selected for their
> smarts.  That's not to say they are not smart, but the campus
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ability to grind away.  The whiz kid tends to show that he thinks
> he's smarter than the guy he's selling to.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that entry-level sales positions are
typically "interview (nearly) all applicants and see what kind of
feeling you get" positions.  And you don't make all that much in the
beginning (although if you *are* good you can do well on
commissions).

But if you're talking "send in your resume and wait for a response"
positions, you need something that will make you stand out.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |English grammar is not taught in
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |primary or secondary schools in the
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |United States.  Sometimes some
                                      |mythology is taught under that
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |rubric, but luckily it's usually
   (650)857-7572                      |ignored, except by the credulous.
                                      |             John Lawler
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 26 Jan 2004 21:26 GMT
Cooper:

>people that had GPAs in the 2s and 3s than in the 4s.

"In the 4's"?  That suggests schools that use some kind of shady scaling, such
that an A is *not* a 4.0.  The Ivys use such shadiness (who else?).

But, a school like Holy Cross, does not give grades higher than A/4.0.  If you
graduate with a 4.0, you GOT STRAIGHT A's, COULDN'T HAVE DONE BETTER.  Does
this not make sense?

Also, they scale it so that "-" grades are weighted much more negatively than
"+" grades.  Ain't nodoby gon' accuse an HC student with a 3.something of being
dumb!  How can it be any BETTER, literally??!!
Evan Kirshenbaum - 27 Jan 2004 01:07 GMT
> Cooper:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> scaling, such that an A is *not* a 4.0.  The Ivys use such shadiness
> (who else?).

I wasn't aware of that.  Do you have a citation?  I know that most
schools give different amounts of weight to different courses (does
Holy Cross not do that?), but I don't know of any universities (or
colleges) that actually change the scale the way many high schools
(mine included) do.

> But, a school like Holy Cross, does not give grades higher than
> A/4.0.  If you graduate with a 4.0, you GOT STRAIGHT A's, COULDN'T
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> with a 3.something of being dumb!  How can it be any BETTER,
> literally??!!

It makes sense if Holy Cross doesn't give A+'s.  But in any case, I'd
take anything above 3.7 (or whatever the school gives for an A-,
perhaps a bit lower) as "an A average", broadly construed.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is error alone which needs the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |support of government.  Truth can
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |stand by itself.
                                      |                  Thomas Jefferson
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 27 Jan 2004 18:24 GMT
Evan:

>I wasn't aware of that.  Do you have a citation?  

Yes.  My friend who goes to Columbia has a 4.2 GPA.  *How* could that be
possible if everything was legit?

>most
>schools give different amounts of weight to different courses (does
>Holy Cross not do that?)

Nope.  Everything is equal.

>but I don't know of any universities (or
>colleges) that actually change the scale the way many high schools
>(mine included) do.

My high school didn't even use GPA.  They used numbers.  As does Leah's
college.

>But in any case, I'd
>take anything above 3.7 (or whatever the school gives for an A-,
>perhaps a bit lower

Yes.  A-.  But since a B+ is a 3.3, then technically an "A" average is anything
above 3.5.  I *may* be up there in the end.  I will be around 3.3.-3.5, most
likely.

And that's "not good"?
Evan Kirshenbaum - 27 Jan 2004 23:04 GMT
> Evan:
>
> >I wasn't aware of that.  Do you have a citation?  
>
> Yes.  My friend who goes to Columbia has a 4.2 GPA.  *How* could
> that be possible if everything was legit?

Well, if an A+ is 4.3, as it's usually scored, then two A+'s and an A
would be 4.2.  

> >most schools give different amounts of weight to different courses
> >(does Holy Cross not do that?)
>
>  Nope.  Everything is equal.

At Stanford, each course was given a certain number of "units",
typically three to five, ostensibly based on (but not equivalent to)
the number of hours you were expected to have to devote each week.
Intensive classes with significant labs or projects might be worth
more (up to nine or ten) and seminars and most PE classes were one or
maybe two.  When you registered, you had to sign up for a certain
number of units, typically 15 to 18, so the number of classes might
vary each quarter.  (Not passing 12 got you put on academic
probabation and you had to petition to get more than, I believe, 20.)

Of course, what actually happened was that each department set the
number of units its courses were worth based on the number of classes
they thought their majors should take each quarter.  So History and
English classes tended to be five units, Psychology and Sociology
tended to be four, and Math, science, and engineering classes tended
to be three.  Since nobody ever officially calculated GPA except
occaisionally over the courses "in your major", this didn't really
matter, but it did lead to some interesting situations when
calculating GPA when applying to grad schools.

> >But in any case, I'd take anything above 3.7 (or whatever the
> >school gives for an A-, perhaps a bit lower
>
> Yes.  A-.  But since a B+ is a 3.3, then technically an "A" average
> is anything above 3.5.

I'd call that B+/A-.  It's on the cusp.

> I *may* be up there in the end.  I will be around 3.3.-3.5, most
> likely.
>
> And that's "not good"?

It's okay.  Nothing to get too excited about, but certainly nothing to
be ashamed of.  I wouldn't toss a resume in the discard pile based on
that, but I'd certainly be looking for something else in there, like a
consistent pattern of high grades in some concentrated area, showing
that when the person was interested they could do a good job.

I should note that I'm not an HR person.[1] The interviewing I've been
involved with has been mostly for researcher positions (also for
interns), and, of course, like everybody else, we haven't been doing
much hiring in the past few years.  We often hired people out of
school, but it was usually people with at least a master's degree, so
grades typically weren't as important as other evidence that they knew
their stuff.  We would look for experience in the domain (whatever
that might have been) but far more importantly evidence that they
could think critically and inventively in the domain even if their
experience was elsewhere, as it often was.  Resumes would be culled to
find people to interview by phone, and those that passed the screen
would be invited for a full day of interviews which involved giving a
presentation (on pretty literally *anything* they had worked on...mine
was on HPSG and the group had nothing to do with linguistics) and
talking one-on-one with researchers for half and hour or so apiece.
It was a big commitment of time on everybody's part, and we often paid
to fly them out, so we tried to be pretty careful about making sure it
was worth everybody's while.

[1] You asked earlier what I do.  I do computer science research.  I
   alternate between telling people I'm a computer scientist and a
   software engineer, but in the past few years the computer science
   part has tended to dominate in the actual research, although I do
   a fair bit of building as well.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If you think health care is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |expensive now, wait until you see
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |what it costs when it's free.
                                      |             P.J. O'Rourke
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Skitt - 27 Jan 2004 23:41 GMT
> ...  We [HP] often hired people out of school, but it was usually
> people with at least a master's degree, so grades typically
> weren't as important as other evidence that they knew their stuff.

Often?  Maybe, but when I was still in the job market, HP had the reputation
of hiring  only people straight out of school, getting them before they were
"ruined" by working for another company.

Since I had started my career at Lockheed, I never considered applying at
HP, even though I might have liked to work for them when I was considering
moving to the Loveland, Colorado area.  I got hired by STC instead, but they
reneged on that a week later, before anything had become cast in concrete.
Their reason was the recession that hit there first, before affecting the SF
Bay Area.  That was around 1964, I think.
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Evan Kirshenbaum - 28 Jan 2004 00:01 GMT
> > ...  We [HP] often hired people out of school, but it was usually

"My groups within the research labs at HP", please.

> > people with at least a master's degree, so grades typically
> > weren't as important as other evidence that they knew their stuff.
>
> Often?  Maybe, but when I was still in the job market, HP had the
> reputation of hiring only people straight out of school, getting
> them before they were "ruined" by working for another company.

That certainly wasn't the case in any of the groups I worked at.  New
grads were good because they were typically up on the latest stuff,
but they were almost always viewed as "potential" rather than proven
talent.  

I can't speak to the practices at the product divisions (or even their
R&D organizations).

> Since I had started my career at Lockheed, I never considered
> applying at HP, even though I might have liked to work for them when
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> recession that hit there first, before affecting the SF Bay Area.
> That was around 1964, I think.

A bit before my time.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The Elizabethans had so many words
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |for the female genitals that it is
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |quite hard to speak a sentence of
                                      |modern English without inadvertently
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |mentioning at least three of them.
   (650)857-7572                      |             Terry Pratchett

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 28 Jan 2004 04:05 GMT
Evan:

>Well, if an A+ is 4.3, as it's usually scored, then two A+'s and an A
>would be 4.2.  

Well, my school doesn't give out A+'s.  That was my point.
R J Valentine - 28 Jan 2004 03:26 GMT
...
} Yes.  My friend who goes to Columbia has a 4.2 GPA.  *How* could that be
} possible if everything was legit?
...

Man, the grading system at Harvard would blow your mind.  Get Dr. Whom to
explain them to you.  They have more different grades than you can shake a
stick at.  I know someone who managed to get every single one of them.

The trick for getting low grades is getting them in the hardest possible
courses.  There's a down side to getting all A's if you don't take all the
hardest courses.

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net>
Got a D+ (lowest grade still on my transcript) in one of my major courses.

Aaron J. Dinkin - 28 Jan 2004 19:11 GMT
> Man, the grading system at Harvard would blow your mind.  Get Dr. Whom to
> explain them to you.

Actually, I think as of next year or last near or some year that's not
too far off, Harvard is switching from its A=15, A-=14, B+=12 system to a
more conventional A=4 system. End of an era, wot.

> The trick for getting low grades is getting them in the hardest possible
> courses.  There's a down side to getting all A's if you don't take all the
> hardest courses.

Of course some of the very hardest courses give out only A's, on the
principle that in a class like that, just being able to hold your head
above water is a sign that you deserve a good grade.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
DE781 - 26 Jan 2004 21:23 GMT
Evan:

>Definitely.  My kind of job tends to have a better starting salary,
>but there's a bigger upside potential for the other, and, as you say,
>the entry requirements aren't as steep.

What exactly do you do?  Are you like a secretary for HP?  Why is that a high
salary job?
Aaron J. Dinkin - 25 Jan 2004 01:41 GMT
>> Evan:

[DE781 wrote:]

>> >> And, luckily for me, AUE has provided me that opportunity.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Which part was unclear?

I'd say it's who the "we" are that read unrefereed tech reports. It
wasn't clear to me that you'd switched from your a.u.e-poster hat
(signaled by the "this" in your first sentence above) to your
prospective-employer hat.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
DE781 - 26 Jan 2004 21:28 GMT
Aaron:

>It
>wasn't clear to me that you'd switched from your a.u.e-poster hat
>(signaled by the "this" in your first sentence above) to your
>prospective-employer hat.

Right!  You can't just do that.  HTF was I to know he employs people?  And you
AUE folk call *me* confusing?
DE781 - 26 Jan 2004 21:21 GMT
Evan:

>> Nope, either way you don't know if you're getting a *smart* person,
>> or a *dumb* person.
>
>Clue time.  Most employers don't care whether somebody is smart or
>dumb as long as they can do the job.  

Well, that's asinine because a smart person can do *anything* he's taught; a
dumb person can't do *anything*!

>Only 10% may care about it, but 80-90% will get them
>anyway.  

Depends on what kind of a school you go to.  If you go to Harvard, where they
hand out A's, then, yes, that's true.  97%, to be exact.

My school ain't *THAT* corrupt!

>I presumed we were talking about college.  Nobody's going to give a
>sh.t about your high school grades once you graduate.

We're talking about in general.  HIGH SCHOOL grades get people into COLLEGE.
DOOIIIIYYY!

>> I don't know how to statisticize it,
>
>Math major, eh?  

Yup, and a damn good one!

>> but whatever.  OK, 35%.
>
>No, you've changed it to 46-55%.

No, 35%!

>And yet 50-60% of the "dummies" manage to get them in each class.  I
>guess that works if the vast bulk of the students are "smart" and
>therefore don't get good grades.

Exactly.

>At what?  Who's going to hire you?  I can just see your cover letter:
>"I didn't get good grades because I'm too smart to put in the effort,
>so you actually have no idea what I'm capable of, but trust me--if
>you're willing to pay me I'll put in the effort and I'll be able to do
>whatever you ask".  There are 200 other resumes in the pile.

Well, whatever.  Their loss.  I don't want a job anyway.  I wanna be my own
boss.

>If you think of A's and C's as balancing, don't put on airs about how
>"smart" you think you are.  That many C's in an entire college career
>in courses having anything to do with the major would get me thinking
>"This guy had better have some damn good references, test scores, and
>something substantial like a publication or honors project to balance
>it."  

And I *will* have *great* test scores, like always.

> I'll buy the "too lazy to work for A's", but if you can't
>sleepwalk through a course and get at least a B-, that's a red flag.

It depends *where* the course is being taught and what the teacher is like.  If
the teacher doesn't teach, then, no, it's *not* very probable to get a B- or
higher.  Also, a B- is different at a good school, or at a school that uses the
bell curve, than a crappy school.

>(Take this as advice from somebody who actually *has* been involved
>with reading resumes and making the decision on who to interview.)

Thanks, but I'll be fine.

>Which part was unclear?  A paper that you decide is worthy of
>publication is much less valuable than one that somebody else does, so
>a conference paper, journal paper, dissertation, or book (chapter) is
>what will be read.  Failing that, a self-published report, like a
>technical report, will be read to get an idea of what kind of work you
>do.  

Got it.

>> >> All an employer has to do is visit the AUE and look through my
>> >> Google history.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I see.  How?

Tell them to Google it.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 26 Jan 2004 21:50 GMT
> Evan:
> >At what?  Who's going to hire you?  I can just see your cover
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Well, whatever.  Their loss.  I don't want a job anyway.  I wanna be
> my own boss.

And I have every confidence that you will be.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If I may digress momentarily from
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |the mainstream of this evening's
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
                                      |which is completely pointless.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |              Tom Lehrer
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 27 Jan 2004 18:20 GMT
Evan:

>> Well, whatever.  Their loss.  I don't want a job anyway.  I wanna be
>> my own boss.
>
>And I have every confidence that you will be.

Thank you.
Michael Nitabach - 25 Jan 2004 00:21 GMT
de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote in news:20040124154335.12638.00000814@mb-
m29.aol.com:

> Mediocrity always tries to cover itself up with gimmicks.

It's so disappointing when you lose your voice. It jars me out of my
state of willing suspension of disbelief.

Signature

Mike Nitabach

DE781 - 26 Jan 2004 21:32 GMT
Nitabach:

>> Mediocrity always tries to cover itself up with gimmicks.
>
>It's so disappointing when you lose your voice. It jars me out of my
>state of willing suspension of disbelief.

I think we both realize you know the truth about me.  Just come out and say it!
ENLIGHTEN your fellow AUEers, please!  For real...I wanna know just how much
you know (or think you know).  I'm serious.  What's your deal?

Or are you just not as bright as I think you might be?  You don't want that
image to fade, do you?  If it's all you've got, why not try to keep it?  Eh?
Tony Cooper - 24 Jan 2004 03:53 GMT
>Evan:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>I sure have a way with convincing people *online* that I'm interesting.  What
>makes you think it's any different offline?

Before you pop your arm out of the socket patting yourself on the
back, think about how traffic slows down so people can gawk at a bad
accident.  The "interest" in you is more like "Hey! Look!  The jaws of
life!".
R J Valentine - 24 Jan 2004 06:23 GMT
} On 24 Jan 2004 00:21:53 GMT, de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote:
}
}>Evan:
}>
}>>
}>>Ah, but the question is: How will you convince someone that you can so
}>>that they know that they can count on you enough to give you work that
}>>actually matters?
}>
}>I sure have a way with convincing people *online* that I'm interesting.  What
}>makes you think it's any different offline?
}
} Before you pop your arm out of the socket patting yourself on the
} back, think about how traffic slows down so people can gawk at a bad
} accident.  The "interest" in you is more like "Hey! Look!  The jaws of
} life!".

Ain't that the truth.

On the Capital Beltway (Interstate 495) westbound in Maryland (the Outer
Loop, going counter-clockwise (BrE: "anticlockwise") around (and, for a
bit over the Potomac, through) the District of Columbia, there is a
distinct jog in the road (you may be able to see it on your free State
Farm road atlas map of Washington, D.C.) around the Washington Temple of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (referred to by some
locally as The Mormon Temple).  Approaching it from the east, the spires
seem to rise out of the road, only to be blocked by several bridges, then
the complete temple again in all its glory.  On one of the middle bridges,
pranksters fairly regularly (since the temple was built) paint in large
block letters "SURRENDER DOROTHY".  (Maybe pictures of it are googlable.)  
Because it is visible for only a matter of seconds, if that, people tend
to slam on their brakes, generally paralyzing traffic during rush hour.  
Word has it that for years now they have had a special crew on alert to
paint out the "SURRENDER DOROTHY" as soon as it is reported in the
morning, so as to keep the traffic moving as safely as possible.  Even in
between times, the sixteen rectangles are plainly visible to those who
look for them.

The temple is sort of unique in not having windows, except for the stained
glass in a narrow column in the stairwells at either end.  Light gets in
from the outside through the translucent marble that covers the temple.  
Inside it's pretty much nothing like the cathedral that might be imagined
from the outside, having something like seven floors for various uses from
baptisms in the huge font in the basement to locker rooms on the entrance
floor to marriage-ceremony rooms upstairs and so on until you get to the
tabernacle (of choir fame).  They have their own government-certified
police and fire departments, and outsiders aren't welcome, even for
weddings.  And it's not all that easy even for a card-carrying Mormon to
get in.  I hear they ripped up all the carpets and replaced them shortly
after I was in there.

As metaphor for alt.usage.english, it's probably flawed; but they could
do worse than to name the bridge after Young Joey.

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net>
(Got tickets from the guy that raised bald eagles in the apartment upstairs.)

DE781 - 24 Jan 2004 20:48 GMT
Valentine:

>On one of the middle bridges,
>pranksters fairly regularly (since the temple was built) paint in large
>block letters "SURRENDER DOROTHY".  

HUH?!  Who's "Dorothy"?  Bea Arthur?

>I hear they ripped up all the carpets and replaced them shortly
>after I was in there.

Why was you in a Mormon temple?

>As metaphor for alt.usage.english, it's probably flawed; but they could
>do worse than to name the bridge after Young Joey.

What?  Huh?
DE781 - 24 Jan 2004 20:44 GMT
Coop:

>>I sure have a way with convincing people *online* that I'm interesting.
>What
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>accident.  The "interest" in you is more like "Hey! Look!  The jaws of
>life!".

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

"Better to be remembered as a weirdo than to be forgotten"--The smartest woman
in the history of the universe, Michael Jackson.
Laura F Spira - 17 Jan 2004 07:56 GMT
>>>If DE781 is typical of US college students, I am thankful that I teach
>>>in the UK higher education system, for all its shortcomings.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> As another aside, I don't think Laura thinks Americans are, in
> general, stupid.

I don't, and my post was not intended to be read in that way. I did have
some preconceptions about the US educational system, though, but I have
adjusted my ideas a little.

> Stupid as a few of us are, DE781 remains an anomaly.

If this is indeed the case, I am surprised that so many US posters have
taken this poster at face value and this is what prompted my comment. An
interesting contrast to the response to Johnson who was viewed as too
bright to be true: why isn't DE781 seen as too ignorant to be true?

> It might even be correct to say he's unique, in his level of
> ignorance, among the college and high school students I've known.
> Perhaps American students have been suffering from a considerably
> dumbed-down educational system compared with my day, but I rather
> doubt it.

We're of the same generation and it's happened in the UK: why shouldn't
it have happened in the US?

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:05 GMT
Laura:

>An
>interesting contrast to the response to Johnson who was viewed as too
>bright to be true: why isn't DE781 seen as too ignorant to be true?

Hear, hear!  I *told you* you peeps was unfair to CJ!
Laura F Spira - 17 Jan 2004 17:29 GMT
> Laura:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Hear, hear!  I *told you* you peeps was unfair to CJ!

Is the appropriate response to this a "whoosh" or a "duh"? <yawn>

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:53 GMT
Laura:

>> Hear, hear!  I *told you* you peeps was unfair to CJ!
>
>Is the appropriate response to this a "whoosh" or a "duh"? <yawn>

It's that yo momma f.cks beasts!
Michael Nitabach - 17 Jan 2004 17:31 GMT
> why isn't DE781 seen as too ignorant to be true?

He is by me.

Signature

Mike Nitabach

Sara Lorimer - 17 Jan 2004 22:08 GMT
Laura F Spira wrote, in part:

> why isn't DE781 seen...?

Kill files, m'dear, kill files.

Signature

SML, editing unfairly

ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu  <http://pirate-women.com>

Dena Jo - 17 Jan 2004 23:06 GMT
> why isn't DE781 seen as too ignorant to be true?

That's exactly how I see YJ.  He's putting on act.  He wasn't at first,
when he showed up a few months ago, but he soon learned what buttons to
push, and he's been gleefully pushing them ever since.

Signature

Dena Jo

Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email.

DE781 - 18 Jan 2004 04:02 GMT
DJ:

>> why isn't DE781 seen as too ignorant to be true?
>
>That's exactly how I see YJ.  He's putting on act.  He wasn't at first,
>when he showed up a few months ago, but he soon learned what buttons to
>push, and he's been gleefully pushing them ever since

*Very* interesting idea!
Simon R. Hughes - 17 Jan 2004 08:43 GMT
>>(As an aside: sigh. I vote for putting "Just how uncultured and stoopid
>>are Americans, anyway?" in the FAQ and quit discussing it here.)
>
> Good idea, Sara. It could open an avenue for the likes of Simon Hughes
> to post on topics of greater universal interest.

The bloke I hung around with most when I lived in Sweden was an
American. His name was Tom, and he came from Texas. I don't
remember if he had ever seen snow before, but we used to throw
snowballs at road signs and trees, as we walked down the road
together. One time though, Tom was too close to the sign I threw
the snowball at. As it burst, some of the snow hit Tom in the
face. I laughed, and told him to mind himself. He went ballistic.
He picked up handfuls of snow, formed it into rough snowballs and
threw them at me in rapid succession. Every single one of them
fell short, went long, or wide.

To begin with, I thought he was joking, so the more snowballs
missed me, the more I laughed. That just made him angrier, which
caused his aim to become all the more inaccurate. When I realised
how seriously angry he was, all I could do was leave him there
and walk home, shaking my head in disbelief. We laughed about it
together the following day.

Let the reader understand what is written.
Signature

Simon R. Hughes

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:33 GMT
Laura:

> She is a bright but not outstanding student. After a lengthy
>account of all the differences between her experience at Brookes and
>that in Florida, she sighed deeply and said "It's going to be quite
>difficult to get back to *proper* reading and thinking now."

What a HO (both of you).  At least WE had the sense not to change our way of
speaking and acting to pretension.
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 22:27 GMT
Dean:

>> Richard, shirley.
>
>Do you know Google can't find a single well-known Richard Shirley to enable
>me to make some stunning jokes?

More phoney intellectualism, I see?  Why do you people go *out of your ways* to
appear to know useless triviar?  It makes more work for us *all*!  *Some* of us
ain't gots the time!
Philip Eden - 21 Jan 2004 00:18 GMT
> > Richard, shirley.
>
> Do you know Google can't find a single well-known Richard Shirley to enable
> me to make some stunning jokes?
> --
Ah, but didn't Shirley Richard play Wendy Brahms in To Serve Them All My
Days?

pe
Christopher Johnson - 21 Jan 2004 03:41 GMT


> > > Richard, shirley.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Ah, but didn't Shirley Richard play Wendy Brahms in To Serve Them All My
> Days?

No. It was Shirley Brahms played by Wendy Richard in
"Are You Suggesting I'm Common?".

But you knew that, right?

Signature

Christopher

(Change 3032 to 3232 to reply by private e-mail)

Mervyn Doobov - 21 Jan 2004 13:57 GMT
>  
>>
>> > > Richard, shirley.
>> >
>> > Do you know Google can't find a single well-known Richard Shirley
>> > to enable me to make some stunning jokes?

>> --
>> Ah, but didn't Shirley Richard play Wendy Brahms in To Serve Them All
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> But you knew that, right?


I think it was in "Are you being served?"

Signature

Mervyn Doobov,
Jerusalem, Israel.

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 22:24 GMT
Hughes:

>> A little *help* please; isn't the guy who invented Pledge "Mr. CLEAN"?
>
>Robert Nixon invented Pledge?

The president of America?  I'm *so* lost.
Skitt - 15 Jan 2004 02:06 GMT
> Ross:

>>> "Before Webster (and his predecessors like
>>> Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I don't understand.

Ssh!  Don't let on!
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/  

R H Draney - 15 Jan 2004 05:38 GMT
DE781 filted:

>Ross:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>I don't understand.

Actually, it seems the Pledge was invented by William Booth....r
Spehro Pefhany - 15 Jan 2004 06:36 GMT
>DE781 filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Actually, it seems the Pledge was invented by William Booth....r

How does that go, "Lemon Pledge, very pretty, puts the something
something... "?  

ObAUE: Why is the Salvation Army called the "Sally Anne"?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Signature

"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

david56 - 15 Jan 2004 11:31 GMT
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat spake thus:

> ObAUE: Why is the Salvation Army called the "Sally Anne"?

Not in the UK in my experience - it's the "Sally Army" here.

Signature

David
=====

Jim Ward - 16 Jan 2004 17:40 GMT
> ObAUE: Why is the Salvation Army called the "Sally Anne"?

I want to know why the Salvation Army flag has an eight pointed star
(seven points not good enough?). Speaking of pledges ...

"I pledge allegiance
To the Christian Flag
And to the Saviour,
For whose Kingdom it stands.
One Saviour, crucified,
risen and coming again,
With life and liberty
for all who believe."

Another interesting flag is BVI's, which (according to legend) is always
flown with St. Ursula upright to honor her virginity.

http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/vg.html
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 18:42 GMT
> > ObAUE: Why is the Salvation Army called the "Sally Anne"?
>
> I want to know why the Salvation Army flag has an eight pointed star
> (seven points not good enough?).

According to the organization,

   The present star is eight-pointed; the number has been varied from
   time to time but no significance has ever been attached to this.

       http://tinyurl.com/2xvjk
       <URL:http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/0/
        2a9e82f8a2e5686e8025696c0032dba7?OpenDocument>

They also note that

   Until 1882 the central shape was a sun, but when a plan to open
   the Army's work in India was put into action it was found that the
   Parsees, an Indian religious sect regarded the sun as sacred and
   so it was changed to a star.

So it seems that they were trying to find something that *wasn't* a
sacred symbol to anybody.  It wouldn't surprise me if you had to get
up to eight points before you found a star that fit the bill.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If you think health care is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |expensive now, wait until you see
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |what it costs when it's free.
                                      |             P.J. O'Rourke
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

R H Draney - 16 Jan 2004 21:57 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum filted:

>So it seems that they were trying to find something that *wasn't* a
>sacred symbol to anybody.  It wouldn't surprise me if you had to get
>up to eight points before you found a star that fit the bill.

The Newagers have staked out the nine-pointed one, and I think the Pythagoreans
had a soft spot for the one with seventeen....

Incidentally, those of us who played with Spirographs as kids know that it's a
solecism to speak of "the" n-pointed star where n>6...there are two heptagrams,
one with each point joined to the ones two positions away and one where it leads
to the ones at the far side of the star...I've even seen the two forms inscribed
one within the othere, though I know not the significance of that....r
Martin Ambuhl - 14 Jan 2004 22:44 GMT
> "Before Webster (and his predecessors like
> Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
> spellings. I'm not sure which Dr. Johnson preferred."
>
> Who's "Dr. Johnson"?

Samuel Johnson
born 1709, in Lichfield, Staffordshire
He studied at Oxford for a year, but dropped out because he couldn't afford
it.  His doctorates are honorary: Dublin (1765) and Oxford! (1775).
After dropping out of Oxford and teaching for a while, he moved to London
(1737). His career in London started with cataloging the Earl of Oxford's
library and writing for _The Genleman's Magazine_.

He is best known for his dictionary.  He wrote the outline for it in 1746,
and used that to procure a contract for its production.  This was expanded
to the _Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language_.  He and his
assistants worked for three years collecting and filing citations.  The
first edition appeared in 1754 in a printing of 2000 and a price of 4
pounds, 10 shillings.  The second edition was published in weekly sections.
 There were 165 of these, costing 6p each.

The dictionary, especially in its revised form of 1773, was _the_
dictionary of English for many years.

He also wrote a 10-volume _Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets_ and
produced an 8-volume edition of Shakespeare's plays.  You have almost
certainly heard a reference to Boswell, his biographer.

A CD version of his dictionary is available from the Cambridge University
Press, listing for USD 295.   The CD has the first edition (1755) and the
fourth edition (1773).  Each edition has roughly 86,000 entries, 141,000
definitions and 222,000. Chambers traces its dictionaries back to the
Johnson dictionary.

There are many definitions well-known for their idiosyncratic definitions.
 These are much rarer than one would expect from the frequency of their
being cited.  Here is a more normal example:

E'THER. n. f. [ather, Latin; <in Greek: 'aither'>]
1. An element more fine and subtle than iar; air refined or sublimed.
    "If any one should suppose that ether, like our air, may contain
     particles which endeavour to recede from one another; for I do not
     know what this ether is; and that its particles are exceedingly
     smaller than those of air, or even than those of light, the exceeding
     smallness of its particles may contribute to the greatness of the
     force, by which those particles may recede from one another."
        Newton's Opt.
    "The parts of other bodies are held together by the eternal pressure of
     the ether, and can have no other conceivable cause of their cohesion
     and union."
        Locke
 2. The matter of the highest regions above.
     "  There fields of light and liquid ether flow,
      Purg'd from the pond'rous dregs of earth below."
       Dryden

Signature

Martin Ambuhl

Robert Lieblich - 15 Jan 2004 02:13 GMT
> > "Before Webster (and his predecessors like
> > Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> He studied at Oxford for a year, but dropped out because he couldn't afford
> it.

[snip much else]

Lieblich's Law: No query addressed to AUE is so foolish, inane, or
ignorant that it cannot elicit at least one serious answer.

Corollary: There's no way to force the ignoramus to look it up.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Out of patience

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 02:47 GMT
Bob:

>Lieblich's Law: No query addressed to AUE is so foolish, inane, or
>ignorant that it cannot elicit at least one serious answer.

I am grateful to Martin for his help.  And, no, no question is too foolish to
not deserve an answer.

>Corollary: There's no way to force the ignoramus to look it up.

You'd be proud of me.  I've encountered many a vocab word or an English concept
during my AUE chronology that I've researched myself without so much as a
comment about it typed to the AUE.  However, certain obscure things like "Dr.
Johnson" or ancient Latin subjunctive tenses cannot be accurately Googled.  I'm
sure you realize this yourself, Bob.  You try Googling "Johnson" and tell me
what you find.  Given the fact that several AUEers were able to make puns out
of the name, involvng everything from window cleaner to dicks, it'd be pretty
reasonable that you'd assume Johnson is a common name, even if you didn't know
that beforehand.
Robert Lieblich - 15 Jan 2004 03:13 GMT
[ ... ]

Bob.  You try Googling "Johnson" and tell me
> what you find.

You try Googling either "Doctor Johnson" or "Dr. Johnson" and tell
me what *you* find.

Gawd.
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:08 GMT
>You try Googling either "Doctor Johnson" or "Dr. Johnson" and tell
>me what *you* find.
>
>Gawd.

OK, fine!  I found *some* websites on him.  But, still, how do I know that's
the right person?  Also, some biographical info isn't gonna explain to me *why*
anyone would care what Johnson has to say of *why* they'd compare him to
Webster?  Webster and OED are famous.  What's the big deal about Johnson?  Try
finding a website that will explain *that*, why don't you!
Mickwick - 18 Jan 2004 01:17 GMT
In alt.usage.english, DE781 wrote:

>OK, fine!  I found *some* websites on him.  But, still, how do I know that's
>the right person?  Also, some biographical info isn't gonna explain to me *why*
>anyone would care what Johnson has to say of *why* they'd compare him to
>Webster?  Webster and OED are famous.  What's the big deal about Johnson?  Try
>finding a website that will explain *that*, why don't you!

The only thing you need to know about Dr Johnson is that he played a big
part in the creation of the USA. His 1775 pamphlet_Taxation no Tyranny_
(full text available on the Web) hardened attitudes towards the American
colonists and made compromise less likely.

Johnson came to hate Americans even more than he hated Scotsmen but he
wasn't always like that and _TNT_ is well worth five minutes of
anybody's time. Even yours.

Signature

Mickwick

Security and leisure are the parents of sedition.
       -S. Johnson

Mike Barnes - 15 Jan 2004 09:39 GMT
In alt.usage.english, DE781 wrote:
>Bob:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>I am grateful to Martin for his help.  And, no, no question is too foolish to
>not deserve an answer.

Huh?

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:09 GMT
Barnes:

>>I am grateful to Martin for his help.  And, no, no question is too foolish
>to
>>not deserve an answer.
>
>Huh?

There is no such thing as a question "too foolish" to deserve an answer.
Mike Barnes - 16 Jan 2004 22:15 GMT
In alt.usage.english, DE781 wrote:
>Barnes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>There is no such thing as a question "too foolish" to deserve an answer.

Did you notice that your rewrite changed "not deserve" to "deserve"?

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:09 GMT
Barnes:

>>>>I am grateful to Martin for his help.  And, no, no question is too foolish
>>>to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Did you notice that your rewrite changed "not deserve" to "deserve"?

Huh?
Mike Barnes - 17 Jan 2004 19:47 GMT
In alt.usage.english, DE781 wrote:
>Barnes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Huh?

I'll take that as a "no".

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Tony Cooper - 17 Jan 2004 01:18 GMT
>Barnes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>There is no such thing as a question "too foolish" to deserve an answer.

Possibly not, but we admire you for trying.
Richard R. Hershberger - 15 Jan 2004 13:25 GMT
> However, certain obscure things like "Dr.
> Johnson" or ancient Latin subjunctive tenses cannot be accurately Googled.  I'm
> sure you realize this yourself, Bob.  You try Googling "Johnson" and tell me
> what you find.  

If I thought that "Dr. Johnson" were obscure, I wouldn't admit it in a
group devoted to the English language.  Such admissions make others
wonder about the depth of one's education.

In any case, I googled "Dr. Johnson" and found the third listing
(second main listing) devoted to Samuel.  Googling on "Doctor Johnson"
brings up a site devoted to the good doctor as the first listing.

Richard R. Hershberger
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:12 GMT
Richard:

>> However, certain obscure things like "Dr.
>> Johnson" or ancient Latin subjunctive tenses cannot be accurately Googled.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>group devoted to the English language.  Such admissions make others
>wonder about the depth of one's education.

Since you even suggested "if I thought X was obscure", that must mean you did.
Especially when you're admittedly a phoney.  Well, at least YOU and COOPER can
admit it, if nobody else can, which makes the two of you SLIGHTLY more real, in
a twisted sort of way.  Still, you have a ways to go before you're really
"REAL"!  Unlike me, who is not afraid to admit when I don't know or understand
something.  Someone wanna question my education?  Fine!  But we all knows that
I'd be the one winning in a contest as long as youse didn't have yo' cheap-a.s
Google and online dictionaries and all that other sh.t!  Wit'out that sh.t,
you'd all be MAD stoooopeeeeed!
Jim Ward - 16 Jan 2004 17:43 GMT
> Lieblich's Law: No query addressed to AUE is so foolish, inane, or
> ignorant that it cannot elicit at least one serious answer.

Speaking of famous Doctors, every time I go to the beach I wonder
who Dr. Zogg was.
Tony Cooper - 17 Jan 2004 01:20 GMT
>> Lieblich's Law: No query addressed to AUE is so foolish, inane, or
>> ignorant that it cannot elicit at least one serious answer.
>
>Speaking of famous Doctors, every time I go to the beach I wonder
>who Dr. Zogg was.

And every time I put on my pajamas I wonder who Dr Denton was.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 17 Jan 2004 01:57 GMT
> And every time I put on my pajamas I wonder who Dr Denton was.

The first guy to implant an artificial heart in a human.

   http://www.texasheartinstitute.org/cooley.html

(It's bugging me that I can't track down the actual answer to your
question.  The trademark was sold to a company called Wormser in 1999,
and their site doesn't have anything on the history before that.)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |There are just two rules of
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |governance in a free society: Mind
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |your own business. Keep your hands
                                      |to yourself.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |             P.J. O'Rourke
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Tony Cooper - 17 Jan 2004 03:02 GMT
>> And every time I put on my pajamas I wonder who Dr Denton was.
>
>The first guy to implant an artificial heart in a human.
>
>    http://www.texasheartinstitute.org/cooley.html

I've met Dr Cooley several times.  He developed some surgical
instruments that a company that I worked for made for him.  Very
charismatic guy.  

>(It's bugging me that I can't track down the actual answer to your
>question.  The trademark was sold to a company called Wormser in 1999,
>and their site doesn't have anything on the history before that.)

Don't get in a flap over it.
mUs1Ka - 17 Jan 2004 13:07 GMT
>>> And every time I put on my pajamas I wonder who Dr Denton was.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Don't get in a flap over it.

Ah. *Those* kind of pyjamas.
m.
Jim Ward - 17 Jan 2004 17:16 GMT
>>Speaking of famous Doctors, every time I go to the beach I wonder
>>who Dr. Zogg was.

> And every time I put on my pajamas I wonder who Dr Denton was.

Not being a surfer, I've always been curious as to the purpose of surf wax.
Is it to make your board slicker so that there's less water resistance?
Michael Nitabach - 17 Jan 2004 17:22 GMT
> Not being a surfer, I've always been curious as to the purpose of
> surf wax. Is it to make your board slicker so that there's less
> water resistance?

I'm not a surfer either, but it is my understanding that surf wax is
applied to the top of the board to make it stickier so your feet don't
slip.

Signature

Mike Nitabach

Joe Fineman - 15 Jan 2004 21:11 GMT
> "Before Webster (and his predecessors like
> Benjamin Franklin), `center' and `color' were merely variant
> spellings. I'm not sure which Dr. Johnson preferred."
>
> Who's "Dr. Johnson"?

Samuel Johnson, I presume.

His dictionary (1755) has "centre" & "colour".
Signature

---  Joe Fineman    jcf@TheWorld.com

||:  Most of the evil in the world comes from nature, and most  :||
||:  of the ugliness comes from art.                            :||
DE781 - 14 Jan 2004 22:31 GMT
"Or
"The cars were red, blue, green and blue, orange and white and grey"
   (Period omitted - I'll take the `5th')"

I get the example on what the commas do.  But why's the period omitted and
what's "taking the 5th" have to do with any of it?
DE781 - 14 Jan 2004 22:34 GMT
"Or
"The cars were red, blue, green and blue, orange and white and grey"
   (Period omitted - I'll take the `5th')

Sure it parses but it doesn't scan commas are pauses dashes and semicolons are
too.

We don't spell the way we speak, shouldn't we at least punctuate phonetically."

OK.  I just read the rest of the person's post.  What does she mean by "it
parses but it doesn't scan"?  I'm guessing she used no punctuation to
illustrate a point?
DE781 - 14 Jan 2004 22:42 GMT
Fontana will be happy to know that the AUE had its first pronunciation thread
in its first day, May 13, 1991.  So, Fontana, when people diss you for wanning
to discuss the way words are said, tell them all to respect their elders.

"Message 1 in thread
From: karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu (karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu)
Subject: Verbal usage

 
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: 1991-05-13 00:12:41 PST


As long as we're at it, we need not confine ourselves to questions of
written (hm, typed, displayed) English.  One could start by asking how
many know how to pronounce the name of the language.  Far too many
people have the fairly twisted idea that they speak Inglish;
personally, I speak English, where the `E' is pronounced the way it is
heard in "Engineering" and "Entertainment."

pedantically,
--karl

PS- Excessively serious followups will be taken as conclusive evidence
of the need for a Real Life(tm), regardless of the fact that I'm
really quite serious about the subject matter..."
Ben Zimmer - 15 Jan 2004 00:26 GMT
> From: karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu (karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu)
> Subject: Verbal usage
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> personally, I speak English, where the `E' is pronounced the way it is
> heard in "Engineering" and "Entertainment."

Had this been posted nowadays, it would no doubt have provoked a
blizzard of "Oy!"s.  

For those curious about the history of the "twisted idea" of pronouncing
<English> as /'INglIS/, see the recent sci.lang thread on "Inglish"  
<http://groups.google.com/groups?th=ecb9729fa45715cf>, to which I
contributed:

 Here's OED's etymological note for _England_:

    This word and its cognates, _English_, etc. are the only
    instances in which in mod. standard English the letter
    _e_ stands in an accented syllable for /I/. The change of
    an earlier /EN/ into /IN/ is strictly normal, and in all
    other examples the spelling has followed the pronunciation.
    Cf. _wing_, ME. _wenge_; _string_, OE. _strenge_; _link_,
    OE. _hlence_.

 So the change to /'INglIS/ and /'INgl@nd/ was not particularly
 unusual-- it's just that the spelling of <English> and <England>
 remained conservative for some reason, while the spelling of
 <wing>, <string>, etc. reflected the new pronunciation with /IN/.
Bob Cunningham - 15 Jan 2004 01:20 GMT
[ . . . ]

>   So the change to /'INglIS/ and /'INgl@nd/ was not particularly
>   unusual-- it's just that the spelling of <English> and <England>
>   remained conservative for some reason, while the spelling of
>   <wing>, <string>, etc. reflected the new pronunciation with /IN/.

I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
believe a lot of other people do too.

But I know that some people who use [I] in those words will
swear that I'm using [I] when I pronounce them, and when
they pronounce them supposedly with [I], I will clearly hear
them pronouncing them with [i:].
Ross Howard - 15 Jan 2004 01:24 GMT
>[ . . . ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>they pronounce them supposedly with [I], I will clearly hear
>them pronouncing them with [i:].

Isn't it actually more [i] (i.e. the Spanish/Italian "i" ) than [i:]?
Do you really use exactly the same vowels as in "weakling"?

--
Ross Howard
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 02:22 GMT
Ross:

>Do you really use exactly the same vowels as in "weakling"?

I use two different vowels in "weakling".  The first one is the true long "E"
(the Spanish/Italian "I", como te lo chiama); but the second is the short "I".
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 02:32 GMT
In the subjunctive discussion from 5/13/91, someone said the following:

"As I
mentioned in another posting, the subjunctive in Latin absorbed other,
older moods like the optative and jussive, so if we are going to talk
about the subjunctive in English because Latin has a subjunctive,
shouldn't we be more specific and discuss the optative, jussive, etc.?

What about the instrumental and ablative cases, while we're at it,
or the middle voice?"

I agree with him that our subjunctive--*if* it were indistiguishable from the
indicative, which I don't believe it is, even 13 years later--would not be
worth caring about.  Still, what he says about those other tenses and whatnot
sounds interesting. What are the opative, jussive, ablative, etc?  How come
youse 2004 peeps don't mention such cool stuff anymore?

Sorry if this is a one-liner or whatever Liebs accuses me of doing that's
Bun-ish.  I'd like to learn some sh.t, and, hopefully, stimulate discussion in
the process.
Pat Durkin - 15 Jan 2004 03:19 GMT
> In the subjunctive discussion from 5/13/91, someone said the following:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Bun-ish.  I'd like to learn some sh.t, and, hopefully, stimulate discussion in
> the process.

Call it entropy.

We are none of us as young as we once were, but some of us are in
the expanding phase,
and some of us
are
not.

Still, Joey, you might ask us your own questions, get our answers, get to
understand them, and save your research for your own private study.
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:13 GMT
Durkin:

>Still, Joey, you might ask us your own questions, get our answers, get to
>understand them, and save your research for your own private study.

I don't get it.  Isn't that what I'm doing?
Pat Durkin - 16 Jan 2004 23:50 GMT
> Durkin:
>
> >Still, Joey, you might ask us your own questions, get our answers, get to
> >understand them, and save your research for your own private study.
>
> I don't get it.  Isn't that what I'm doing?

No, Joey.

You didn't include any part of your previous message, but it was snippets
from questions asked and answered in the early days of this newsgroup.

Archives are there for those who care to read them, and you and other
researchers can conduct further inquiries by private email.
DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:08 GMT
Durkin:

>Archives are there for those who care to read them, and you and other
>researchers can conduct further inquiries by private email.

No.  You don't understand what I was doing.  I posted the posts just for
*reference*.  Then, I added my own question at the end, about what made that
1991 joke a joke.
Bob Cunningham - 15 Jan 2004 05:43 GMT
> >[ . . . ]

> >>   So the change to /'INglIS/ and /'INgl@nd/ was not particularly
> >>   unusual-- it's just that the spelling of <English> and <England>
> >>   remained conservative for some reason, while the spelling of
> >>   <wing>, <string>, etc. reflected the new pronunciation with /IN/.

> >I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
> >("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
> >believe a lot of other people do too.

> >But I know that some people who use [I] in those words will
> >swear that I'm using [I] when I pronounce them, and when
> >they pronounce them supposedly with [I], I will clearly hear
> >them pronouncing them with [i:].

> Isn't it actually more [i] (i.e. the Spanish/Italian "i" ) than [i:]?
> Do you really use exactly the same vowels as in "weakling"?

I suppose it could be [i], but when I say "English" or
"sing" I feel like I'm using the same vowel as in "eeny" and
"seen".

You can hear for yourself in two sound files at
http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/win_and_wing.html
.  I would appreciate any opinions regarding what vowels I'm
using in those files.
R J Valentine - 15 Jan 2004 07:20 GMT
} On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:24:12 +0100, Ross Howard
} <gguiri@yahoo.com> said:
}
}> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:20:49 GMT, Bob Cunningham
}> <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrought:
}>
}> >On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:26:02 -0500, Ben Zimmer
}> ><bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> said:
}
}> >[ . . . ]
}
}> >>   So the change to /'INglIS/ and /'INgl@nd/ was not particularly
}> >>   unusual-- it's just that the spelling of <English> and <England>
}> >>   remained conservative for some reason, while the spelling of
}> >>   <wing>, <string>, etc. reflected the new pronunciation with /IN/.
}
}> >I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
}> >("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
}> >believe a lot of other people do too.
}  
}> >But I know that some people who use [I] in those words will
}> >swear that I'm using [I] when I pronounce them, and when
}> >they pronounce them supposedly with [I], I will clearly hear
}> >them pronouncing them with [i:].
}  
}> Isn't it actually more [i] (i.e. the Spanish/Italian "i" ) than [i:]?
}> Do you really use exactly the same vowels as in "weakling"?
}
} I suppose it could be [i], but when I say "English" or
} "sing" I feel like I'm using the same vowel as in "eeny" and
} "seen".
}
} You can hear for yourself in two sound files at
} http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/win_and_wing.html
} .  I would appreciate any opinions regarding what vowels I'm
} using in those files.

_Any_ opinions?  Okay.  At first listen, I agree that your "English" and
"sing" vowels are on the [i] side of [I] to the point that I wouldn't
disagree if you called them [i], rather than [I], because they are
distinctly different from the [I] you use in "win".  I don't think they're
protracted enough that *I* would call them [i:], and they don't strike me
to be what you might hypothetically might do with (or to) "seeng", which
might well be [i:].

I similarly sort of agree with what I think you are saying elsewhere about
"ang" and "ank" sounds in relation to "cat" sounds.  I don't recall your
"can a cat man" "man" sound to compare that one just now.

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>

Michael J Hardy - 15 Jan 2004 23:53 GMT
> I suppose it could be [i], but when I say "English" or
> "sing" I feel like I'm using the same vowel as in "eeny" and
> "seen".

   Could it be that you're a Californian?  I think a lot
of those say "workeen" instead of "working", etc.   -- Mike Hardy
Bob Cunningham - 16 Jan 2004 00:19 GMT

> > I suppose it could be [i], but when I say "English" or
> > "sing" I feel like I'm using the same vowel as in "eeny" and
> > "seen".

>     Could it be that you're a Californian?  I think a lot
> of those say "workeen" instead of "working", etc.   -- Mike Hardy

I've been a Southern Californian for the past sixty years or
so.

And I do say "working".

Every English speaker in the world -- not excepting
non-native speakers -- says "working".

I suppose you say "working", but it's possible you pronounce
it differently from the way I do.
Michael J Hardy - 16 Jan 2004 00:43 GMT
> Every English speaker in the world -- not excepting
> non-native speakers -- says "working".

    Not so.  My wife, a former southern Californian, says
"workeen".  She is capable of saying "working", but only with
conspicuous effort.  And a transplant from the Midwest who has
lived for a couple of decades in northern California tells me
he hears that there as well.  He mentioned this without having
heard anything from me about this; it's quite independent of my
own observation.    -- Mike Hardy

PS: It is surprising to hear someone say that some pronunciation
   is used universally throughout the English-speaking world.
DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 01:39 GMT
Cunningham:

>I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
>("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
>believe a lot of other people do too.

So, you're talking the difference bewteen a long "E" and a short "I" then.  All
those vowel sounds that you seem to use the long "E" for, I use the short "I".
The '91 poster, apparently, used the short "E", in an attempt at "correctness".
Aaron J. Dinkin - 15 Jan 2004 03:33 GMT
> I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
> ("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> they pronounce them supposedly with [I], I will clearly hear
> them pronouncing them with [i:].

I know that I can't tell the difference (by ear, anyway) between [IN] and
[iN]. This is all because, as far as I know, no dialect of English
differentiates between /i/ and /I/ before /N/. You clearly interpret your
front high vowel before /N/ as /i/; I, out of habit, interpret mine as
/I/, but I sure couldn't tell you whether it's actually [I] or [i].

(Not just out of habit, actually: /I/ also fits the pattern better, as my
dialect allows /A./, /E/, and /V/ - canonical short vowels - before /N/,
but not canonical long vowels like /u/, /o/, or the diphthongs. This makes
it more reasonable, I think, to assign the ambiguous cases to the
short-vowel phonemes /I/ and /&/, rather than the long-vowel phonemes /i/
and /e/ that they also resemble.)

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Ben Zimmer - 15 Jan 2004 04:24 GMT
> > I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
> > ("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> dialect allows /A./, /E/, and /V/ - canonical short vowels - before /N/,
> but not canonical long vowels like /u/, /o/, or the diphthongs.

Wot, no "oink", "boink", "boing", or "Oingo Boingo"?

That diphthong has a high front offglide, so it doesn't undermine your
case.
Aaron J. Dinkin - 15 Jan 2004 06:47 GMT
>> (Not just out of habit, actually: /I/ also fits the pattern better, as my
>> dialect allows /A./, /E/, and /V/ - canonical short vowels - before /N/,
>> but not canonical long vowels like /u/, /o/, or the diphthongs.
>
> Wot, no "oink", "boink", "boing", or "Oingo Boingo"?

Good counterexample. I suppose the "oi" diphthong isn't one of the
canonical long vowels (/ai/ is, and arguably /au/ could be as well), but
it seems like it ought to pattern with them. Then again, /U/ doesn't
pattern with the canonical short vowels in many respects (though it does
in some respects), so perhaps there is justification for distinguishing
the "canonical" vowels as a class.

> That diphthong has a high front offglide, so it doesn't undermine your
> case.

I don't quite see what you mean. /ai/ has a high front offglide as well.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
J. W. Love - 15 Jan 2004 04:41 GMT
Aaron wrote:

>I know that I can't tell the difference (by ear, anyway)
>between [IN] and [iN].

Have you listened to CNN's Aaron Brown? He seems to use something close to the
[iN] form.
Bob Cunningham - 15 Jan 2004 06:05 GMT
> > I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
> > ("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
> > believe a lot of other people do too.
 
> > But I know that some people who use [I] in those words will
> > swear that I'm using [I] when I pronounce them, and when
> > they pronounce them supposedly with [I], I will clearly hear
> > them pronouncing them with [i:].

> I know that I can't tell the difference (by ear, anyway) between [IN] and
> [iN]. This is all because, as far as I know, no dialect of English
> differentiates between /i/ and /I/ before /N/. You clearly interpret your
> front high vowel before /N/ as /i/; I, out of habit, interpret mine as
> /I/, but I sure couldn't tell you whether it's actually [I] or [i].

> (Not just out of habit, actually: /I/ also fits the pattern better, as my
> dialect allows /A./, /E/, and /V/ - canonical short vowels - before /N/,
> but not canonical long vowels like /u/, /o/, or the diphthongs. This makes
> it more reasonable, I think, to assign the ambiguous cases to the
> short-vowel phonemes /I/ and /&/, rather than the long-vowel phonemes /i/
> and /e/ that they also resemble.)

When I try to pronounce [IN], [&N], or {EN], it seems
difficult and unnatural.  But [A:N] (as in "wrong") and [VN]
(as in "hung") are no problem.  I can't think at the moment
of any English words that have [aIN], [oUN], or [u:N] but I
don't find them unnatural to pronounce.  I think I use [eIN]
in "angle" and [i:N] in "sing".

I don't see any short-vowel-long-vowel pattern there.

Some people may want to listen to my rendition of "The rain
in Spain falls mainly at an angle on the ankles of the
angels on the plain" at
http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/rain_in_spain.wav
.  Also "We sing if we bring in a win" and "In England we
sing things in English" at
http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/win_and_wing.html
.      `
Aaron J. Dinkin - 15 Jan 2004 06:57 GMT
> When I try to pronounce [IN], [&N], or {EN], it seems
> difficult and unnatural.  But [A:N] (as in "wrong") and [VN]
> (as in "hung") are no problem.

I find [&N] unnatural to pronounce as well, but no more so than I find
[&n] or [&m]. When I've got /&/ before /N/, I think it comes out as
something a lot higher than [&], maybe even [e]. I analyze this as /&/
rather than /e/ for the reasons detailed in my previous posting.

No [EN]? How do you pronounce "strength"? (I have different vowels in
"strength" and, for instance, "ankle".)

As I've already mentioned, I can't say whether I've got [IN] or not.

> I can't think at the moment of any English words that have [aIN],
> [oUN], or [u:N] but I don't find them unnatural to pronounce.  I think
> I use [eIN] in "angle" and [i:N] in "sing".
>
> I don't see any short-vowel-long-vowel pattern there.

Fair enough. It looks like your dialect has a significantly different
pattern of what can go before /N/ than mine does. That's perfectly
legitimate. Mine is restricted (mostly) to canonical short vowels; yours
seems to be more complicated. It seems to be similar to (though not the
same as) the set of vowels allowed before /r/.

> Some people may want to listen to my rendition of "The rain
> in Spain falls mainly at an angle on the ankles of the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/win_and_wing.html
> .      `

Your "ang" vowels in "ankle" and "angle" sound lower than [eIN] to me, and
lower than I think I would pronounce them - perhaps even as far down as
[&N]. Your "ing" vowels do sound higher than your "in" vowels, so I'm
willing to accept your description of them as [iN] rather than [IN].

I still don't have Praat, or anything that can tell me about formants, on
my home computer, so I can't analyze your sentences with more than my
ear; but I'm taking Phonetics this semester so that'll probably change.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Bob Cunningham - 15 Jan 2004 07:22 GMT
[ . . . ]

> I still don't have Praat, or anything that can tell me about formants, on
> my home computer, so I can't analyze your sentences with more than my
> ear; but I'm taking Phonetics this semester so that'll probably change.

I exchanged some e-mails with Professor Ladefoged a year or
three ago.  He said they had Praat, but it was "languishing
on the shelf".  He told me about a software package that he
had and that he liked a lot more.  (Unlike Praat, it wasn't
free.)  I'll see if I can dig up the message.

I would think that your university should have a
phonetics-analysis package that would be available to
faculty and students.  

Anyway, it will be good to know that someone else in AUE is
doing formant analysis.  I've long wished for someone to
compare results with.
Jonathan Jordan - 15 Jan 2004 20:39 GMT
<snip>

> When I try to pronounce [IN], [&N], or {EN], it seems
> difficult and unnatural.  But [A:N] (as in "wrong") and [VN]
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> in Spain falls mainly at an angle on the ankles of the
> angels on the plain" at

http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/rain_in_spain.wav
> .  Also "We sing if we bring in a win" and "In England we
> sing things in English" at

http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/speech_examples/win_and_wing.html
> .      `

To me, your "ankle" and "angle" sound higher than the vowels I would use in
those words, but I don't think they're high enough to be [e], nor do I hear
an [I] glide.

Your vowel in "wing" etc. is probably slightly more towards [i] than mine,
but the most striking thing to me in that recording was that your "win"
vowel sounded diphthongal - something like [I@].

Jonathan
Bob Cunningham - 17 Jan 2004 22:49 GMT
[ . . . ]

> To me, your "ankle" and "angle" sound higher than the vowels I would use in
> those words, but I don't think they're high enough to be [e], nor do I hear
> an [I] glide.

Yes, I think Skitt commented on that a few months ago.  I
had thought my vowels in "rain" and "ankle" were the same,
but after reading his comments I listened again and realized
they weren't.

> Your vowel in "wing" etc. is probably slightly more towards [i] than mine,
> but the most striking thing to me in that recording was that your "win"
> vowel sounded diphthongal - something like [I@].

Vowel glide varies greatly depending upon what consonant
follows.  I think this is what Professor Ladefoged calls  
anticipatory coarticulation.

I've done formant analysis of the string "hib hid hif hig
hij hik hil him hin hip hir his hit hiv hiz" to show the way
glide depends upon the following consonant.  You can see the
results at http://tinyurl.com/2dou3 or
http://www.exw6sxq.com/sparky/aue_related/formants/hib_thru_hiz.html
.     `
Richard Maurer - 18 Jan 2004 01:52 GMT
The phrase of the day comes from the above article.

"anticipatory coarticulation"

--                       ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer              To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California       of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Jordan - 15 Jan 2004 12:32 GMT
> > I say ['i:NglIS], ['i:Ngl@nd], [wi:N], and [stri:N]
> > ("eenglish", "eengland", "weeng", and "streeng"), and I
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> front high vowel before /N/ as /i/; I, out of habit, interpret mine as
> /I/, but I sure couldn't tell you whether it's actually [I] or [i].

I also interpret mine as /I/, but I can feel a difference - it feels
higher and fronter.  The same is true for /I/ before /g/, and for /E/
before both /N/ and /g/.  The vowels of "egg" and "vague" are still
different, but they don't feel as different as those of "bet" and
"bait".

> (Not just out of habit, actually: /I/ also fits the pattern better, as my
> dialect allows /A./, /E/, and /V/ - canonical short vowels - before /N/,
> but not canonical long vowels like /u/, /o/, or the diphthongs. This makes
> it more reasonable, I think, to assign the ambiguous cases to the
> short-vowel phonemes /I/ and /&/, rather than the long-vowel phonemes /i/
> and /e/ that they also resemble.)

I have /N/ after the short vowels (but not /U/) and /OI/ e.g. "bang",
"strength", "sing", "long", "hung", "boing".  My "long" has /A./
("cot"), not /O/ ("caught").

Jonathan
Michael J Hardy - 15 Jan 2004 23:52 GMT
> I know that I can't tell the difference (by ear, anyway) between [IN] and
> [iN]. This is all because, as far as I know, no dialect of English
> differentiates between /i/ and /I/ before /N/.

   You gotta be kidding.  "Tin" and "teen" are pronounced
quite differently from each other, and the difference is exactly
that between "bit" and "beat".  (Smaller then the difference
between "tin" and "ten", I think, but just barely.)  If I heard
someone say "teen" when they meant "tin", I would find it
jarringly conspicuous.        -- Mike Hardy
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 00:12 GMT
> > I know that I can't tell the difference (by ear, anyway) between
> > [IN] and [iN]. This is all because, as far as I know, no dialect
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> quite differently from each other, and the difference is exactly
> that between "bit" and "beat".

Aaron said "before /N/", not "before /n/".  /N/ is the sound typically
written "ng".

I think that I can tell the difference between [IN] and [iN], but [iN]
sounds "foreign", and it's the sound I would use in, say, a fake
Mexican accent.  In words like "seeing", I have the two next to one
another: /siIN/, and there's a distinct difference.  (There doesn't
appear to be any appreciable glide between them.)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |When all else fails, give the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |customer what they ask for.  This
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |is strong medicine and rarely needs
                                      |to be repeated.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Michael J Hardy - 16 Jan 2004 00:37 GMT
> >     You gotta be kidding.  "Tin" and "teen" are pronounced
> > quite differently from each other, and the difference is exactly
> > that between "bit" and "beat".
>
> Aaron said "before /N/", not "before /n/".  /N/ is the sound typically
> written "ng".

   Oh.  I knew that, but I'm less than fluent in ASCIIIPA.

   Maybe Aaron's right, but I am still inclinded to think
of these as different sounds.

   BTW, long before I ever suspected that some people pronounce
"ten" like "tin" I mentioned to someone the obvious fact that
the pronunciation of "English" and "England" is an exception,
in that people pronounce it as if it were spelled "Inglish"
and "Ingland".  I was surprised that he could not understand
what I was talking about.  By hindsight I suspect he was one
of those.    -- Mike Hardy
R F - 16 Jan 2004 00:27 GMT
> > I know that I can't tell the difference (by ear, anyway) between [IN] and
> > [iN]. This is all because, as far as I know, no dialect of English
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> someone say "teen" when they meant "tin", I would find it
> jarringly conspicuous.        -- Mike Hardy

[N] is KirshASCIIIPA for the final consonant of "thing" (in most English
dialects, anyway [I presume]), not the final consonant of "thin".

I am well aware of there being numerous AmE accents that sound to me like
they use a more [i]-like vowel in "ing" than sounds "normal" to me.  I'm
guessing that this is a Western dialect thing (or "theeng").
The Western part explains Bob Cunningham's wanting to use [i] to represent
his pronunciation.  Bob is nothing if not a Western American speaker par
excellence.

I think I've heard something that might be related in certain Midland
accents, but not necessarily for /I/ before /N/.  I know one
(Midland-region) Hoosier who says "get 'im" as what sounds to me like
"get eem".  I think I've heard something like this in Western Pennsylvania
accents too.

I'm reminded of those Midland speakers who say "measure" like "may-zher",
not to mention the egg-rhymes-with-vague crowd.  Needless to say, it
doesn't happen in Postwar New York Prestige Standard (The American RP of
the Twenty-first Century [TM]).
Bob Cunningham - 16 Jan 2004 01:04 GMT
[ . . . ]

> I think I've heard something that might be related in certain Midland
> accents, but not necessarily for /I/ before /N/.  I know one
> (Midland-region) Hoosier who says "get 'im" as what sounds to me like
> "get eem".

I think that's the normal pronunciation in Postwar Northern
Utah Prestige Standard.  Anyway, it's the way I think I say
it.  I also pronounce the "ish" in "English" [iS] (roughly,
"eesh").
R J Valentine - 16 Jan 2004 04:30 GMT
} On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:27:43 -0500, R F
} <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> said:
}
} [ . . . ]
}
}> I think I've heard something that might be related in certain Midland
}> accents, but not necessarily for /I/ before /N/.  I know one
}> (Midland-region) Hoosier who says "get 'im" as what sounds to me like
}> "get eem".
}
} I think that's the normal pronunciation in Postwar Northern
} Utah Prestige Standard.  Anyway, it's the way I think I say
} it.  I also pronounce the "ish" in "English" [iS] (roughly,
} "eesh").

I don't know about your "him", but I happened to have a sample of your
"English" handy, and it strikes me as a solid ['iNglIS].  That's not to
say you don't pronounce it with an [iS] (roughly, "eesh") at other times,
but this one was a rock solid KAI [IS] (roughly, "ish"), at a spot where I
wouldn't be too surprised if someone popped an [@S].

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>
(who's sorry to appear to disagree when he so often agrees)

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 02:18 GMT
Hardy:

>You gotta be kidding.  "Tin" and "teen" are pronounced
>quite differently from each other, and the difference is exactly
>that between "bit" and "beat".  (Smaller then the difference
>between "tin" and "ten", I think, but just barely.)  If I heard
>someone say "teen" when they meant "tin", I would find it
>jarringly conspicuous.        -- Mike Hardy

Did you people *never* learn short and long vowel sounds?  "Tin" is short "I";
"teen" is long "I".  Ten is short "E".
R J Valentine - 16 Jan 2004 04:33 GMT
} Hardy:
}
}>You gotta be kidding.  "Tin" and "teen" are pronounced
}>quite differently from each other, and the difference is exactly
}>that between "bit" and "beat".  (Smaller then the difference
}>between "tin" and "ten", I think, but just barely.)  If I heard
}>someone say "teen" when they meant "tin", I would find it
}>jarringly conspicuous.        -- Mike Hardy
}
} Did you people *never* learn short and long vowel sounds?  "Tin" is short "I";
} "teen" is long "I".  

Oy!

}                      Ten is short "E".

How about "Tet" and "Ted"?  Are they both short e's?

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:54 GMT
Valentine:

>Oy!
>
>}                      Ten is short "E".
>
>How about "Tet" and "Ted"?  Are they both short e's?

Of course.  It ain't my fault that youse are dumb.
R J Valentine - 17 Jan 2004 05:39 GMT
[but not before snipping that what was Oy!ed, which was his:]

 Did you people *never* learn short and long vowel sounds?  "Tin" is short "I";
 "teen" is long "I".

} Valentine:
}
}>
}>Oy!

The "Oy!" stands.

}>}                      Ten is short "E".
}>
}>How about "Tet" and "Ted"?  Are they both short e's?
}
} Of course.  It ain't my fault that youse are dumb.

Have you noticed that they're not the same length?

--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>
Alan Jones - 16 Jan 2004 15:59 GMT
> Hardy:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Did you people *never* learn short and long vowel sounds?  "Tin" is short "I";
> "teen" is long "I".  Ten is short "E".

No. The "I" sounds are different in quality, not simply length, as you can
confirm by trying to elongate the "tin" sound without changing the quality
of the sound: the result won't be "teen" (or at least it isn't for me).  Or
you can try saying "sheet" and "sheep" quickly: they won't magically turn
into "sh.t" and "ship". That's why the IPA/ASCII system has separate
symbols: [i] or elongated to [i:] for the "teen" sound, [I] for the "tin"
sound.

People whose own languages don't have [I] and [i] as a minimal pair find the
sheet/sh.t sheep/ship distinction in English very hard to recognise and
imitate, which can lead to amusement on one side and embarrassment on the
other.

If "ten" has a "short E", what would be an example of a "long E"?  If you
simply lengthen the vowel of "ten", you'll get (in my RP version of BrE)
approximately the vowel of "air" -- but only approximately: the sound of
"air", even in the non-rhotic RP BrE,
is more complicated that that.

Alan Jones
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 21:01 GMT
Jones:

Hmmm...maybe you people aren't dumb.  Maybe you just never learned the vowel
sounds in terms of "long" and "short".  "Long" and "short" has *nothing* to do
with the actual length of the vowels.  It just means that each English vowel
has, in general, two different sounds.

>> Did you people *never* learn short and long vowel sounds?  "Tin" is short
>"I";
>> "teen" is long "I".  Ten is short "E".

What I said here holds, except that I made a mistake.  "Teen" is long "*E*",
not long "I".  Long "I" would be the sound *I*, just as long "E" is the sound
*E*, long "A" is the *A* sound, etc.  Long "U" can be either the *U* sound or
the "oo".

>Or
>you can try saying "sheet" and "sheep" quickly: they won't magically turn
>into "sh.t" and "ship".

Although there is *another* way of turning sheep into sh.t.

> which can lead to amusement on one side and embarrassment on the
>other.

LOL!  Yup!  Oddly enough, I remember an Asian back who used to work at my
town's post office back in the day.  I was there, with my parents, odering
"sheets" of stamps, when the sheet-stamps first made their debut.  The poor guy
asked, "how many 'sh.ts' do you want?", and I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

>If "ten" has a "short E", what would be an example of a "long E"?

The long "E" is the "beat"/"teen" vowel sound; when I called that the long "I",
as above, that was an error.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 21:21 GMT
> Jones:
>
> Hmmm...maybe you people aren't dumb.  Maybe you just never learned
> the vowel sounds in terms of "long" and "short".  "Long" and "short"
> has *nothing* to do with the actual length of the vowels.  It just
> means that each English vowel has, in general, two different sounds.

You might notice that he's posting from the UK.  Evidently the notion
of "long" and "short" as the names for the contrast is pretty much
limited to the US.  (I don't know about Canada.)

Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
phonetic difference is that the vowel in the second is longer.

For non-Americans, our canonical vowels are

   long A   bait       short A   bat
   long E   beat       short E   bet
   long I   bite       short I   bit
   long O   boat       short O   bot
   long U   butte      short U   but

(I was also taught that "a long vowel says it's own name") and for
some,

   long OO  boot       short OO  book

The distinction is signalled in writing by a macron for long vowels
and a breve for short vowels.

the other vowels are pedagogically

   AW       bought
   OY       boil
   OW       bout

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is error alone which needs the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |support of government.  Truth can
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |stand by itself.
                                      |                  Thomas Jefferson
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

R H Draney - 16 Jan 2004 22:02 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum filted:

>(I was also taught that "a long vowel says it's own name")

Oy! to whoever taught that....r
R F - 16 Jan 2004 23:20 GMT
> Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
> length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
> phonetic difference is that the vowel in the second is longer.

That may be true of "most of us in the US", but New York region speakers,
probably including Young Joey, have a difference in the quality of the
vowel ("cap" has the "be able can" lax can vowel, while "cab" has the "tin
can" tense can vowel).  This is a phonemic difference too (because of
"can").
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 23:44 GMT
> > Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
> > length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> while "cab" has the "tin can" tense can vowel).  This is a phonemic
> difference too (because of "can").

Fair point.  How about the other (typically) length-determined pairs:

   bait : bade     bat : bad
   beat : bead     bet : bed
   bite : bide     bit : bid
   boat : bode     bot : bod
   cute : cued     but : bud
   boot : booed   foot : food

 bought : baud
   lout : loud

(I can't seem to think of one with /OI/.)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The General Theorem of Usenet
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Information: If you really want to
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |know the definitive answer, post
                                      |the wrong information, and wait for
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |someone to come by and explain in
   (650)857-7572                      |excruciating detail precisely how
                                      |wrong you are.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |              Eric The Read

Jonathan Jordan - 17 Jan 2004 17:38 GMT
> > > Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
> > > length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>     boat : bode     bot : bod
>     cute : cued     but : bud

On the other side of the Atlantic, I can feel a length difference in the
pairs on the left, but it's much less noticeable on the pairs on the right.
So "bit", "bid" and "beat" are all about the same length, but "bead" is
longer.

>     boot : booed   foot : food

You have the same vowel phoneme in "foot" as in "food"?  I have /U/ in
"foot" but /u/ in "food".

Jonathan
Evan Kirshenbaum - 17 Jan 2004 20:28 GMT
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> >     boot : booed   foot : food
>
> You have the same vowel phoneme in "foot" as in "food"?  I have /U/ in
> "foot" but /u/ in "food".

No.  I'm like you.  I have no idea why I wrote that.  Let's see if I
can find a minimal pair.  No, I don't think I can.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It does me no injury for my neighbor
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |to say there are twenty gods, or no
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |God.
                                      |                  Thomas Jefferson
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Aaron J. Dinkin - 20 Jan 2004 20:47 GMT
>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
>> >     boot : booed   foot : food
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> No.  I'm like you.  I have no idea why I wrote that.  Let's see if I
> can find a minimal pair.  No, I don't think I can.

"Hood"/"who'd"?

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Ben Zimmer - 20 Jan 2004 21:39 GMT
> >> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> >> >     boot : booed   foot : food
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> "Hood"/"who'd"?

I believe Evan was looking for a minimal pair with /-Ut/ and /-Ud/.
Both combinations are somewhat rare in English, however:

/-Ut/: put, foot, soot, root (in some AmE dialects)
/-Ud/: good, hood, stood, could, should, would/wood
Evan Kirshenbaum - 20 Jan 2004 21:53 GMT
> > > No.  I'm like you.  I have no idea why I wrote that.  Let's see
> > > if I can find a minimal pair.  No, I don't think I can.
> >
> > "Hood"/"who'd"?
>
> I believe Evan was looking for a minimal pair with /-Ut/ and /-Ud/.

Right.  Or with any other pair of homorganic voiceless and voiced
consonants.

After thinking a while, I finally found "nookie" and "noogie", which
work for me.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is a popular delusion that the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |government wastes vast amounts of
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |money through inefficiency and sloth.
                                      |Enormous effort and elaborate
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |planning are required to waste this
   (650)857-7572                      |much money
                                      |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Ben Zimmer - 20 Jan 2004 22:54 GMT
> > > > No.  I'm like you.  I have no idea why I wrote that.  Let's see
> > > > if I can find a minimal pair.  No, I don't think I can.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> After thinking a while, I finally found "nookie" and "noogie", which
> work for me.

Or "bookie/boogie", or "booker/booger"...

But if the alternating consonant is followed by a vowel, then the pair
no longer fulfills your original condition:

> Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
> length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
> phonetic difference is that the vowel in the second is longer.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 21 Jan 2004 00:49 GMT
> > After thinking a while, I finally found "nookie" and "noogie",
> > which work for me.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
> > phonetic difference is that the vowel in the second is longer.

Oh, right.  You've got aspiration, too.  You do still have the length
contrast, though.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway.
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |It can't affect you unless you
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |install Windows, and who would be
                                      |foolish enough to do that?
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |            Peter Moylan
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

R J Valentine - 21 Jan 2004 03:01 GMT
} Ben Zimmer <bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
}
}>
}> > After thinking a while, I finally found "nookie" and "noogie",
}> > which work for me.
}>
}> Or "bookie/boogie", or "booker/booger"...

[Cross-thread example, by the way:]

}> But if the alternating consonant is followed by a vowel, then the pair
}> no longer fulfills your original condition:
}>
}> > Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
}> > length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
}> > phonetic difference is that the vowel in the second is longer.
}
} Oh, right.  You've got aspiration, too.  You do still have the length
} contrast, though.

Putting/pudding (at least in America).

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>

Evan Kirshenbaum - 21 Jan 2004 16:23 GMT
> Putting/pudding (at least in America).

Yeah.  That works perfectly, since both the /t/ and the /d/ get merged
into a flap [*] here.  As you say, though, "in America".  I still
recall a class in which a British speaker was talking about his
"writing teacher" in a way that didn't make sense, and it took the
rest of us about ten minutes to realize that he was talking about his
"(horse) riding teacher".  He didn't lengthen the vowel, so we heard
the flap as /t/.  When we asked for confirmation ("Writing teacher?"),
he heard our flap as a /d/, since it was unaspirated, and so
interpreted it as "riding" and said "Yes, my riding teacher".

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |All tax revenue is the result of
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |holding a gun to somebody's head.
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Not paying taxes is against the law.
                                      |If you don't pay your taxes, you'll
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |be fined.  If you don't pay the fine,
   (650)857-7572                      |you'll be jailed.  If you try to
                                      |escape from jail, you'll be shot.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |                  P.J. O'Rourke

Jonathan Jordan - 21 Jan 2004 18:08 GMT
> > Putting/pudding (at least in America).
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> "(horse) riding teacher".  He didn't lengthen the vowel, so we heard
> the flap as /t/.

I don't _think_ that /d/ would be a flap in BrE - it would be an
actual [d].  (Usual caveat - I don't have any training in this
subject.)

Curiously, I think I'm more likely to use [*] for /t/ than for /d/,
mainly in phrases like "a lot of".  Whatever, I do use it a bit, but
not enough to stop its prevalence in AmE being one of the most
noticeable American features to my ears, up there with the "not" that
sounds like it's "gnat" and the raised "man" vowel.

>  When we asked for confirmation ("Writing teacher?"),
> he heard our flap as a /d/, since it was unaspirated, and so
> interpreted it as "riding" and said "Yes, my riding teacher".

Some Americans in AUE have claimed that they don't have that
distinction.  Interestingly the OED's "American" pronunciations show
/d/ in "waiting" and "butter".

Jonathan
Evan Kirshenbaum - 21 Jan 2004 18:25 GMT
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> > I still recall a class in which a British speaker was talking
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> actual [d].  (Usual caveat - I don't have any training in this
> subject.)

No, you're right.  I'm not sure why I wrote it that way.  It would
have been a [d].

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |weighted down with concrete blocks
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |and a telephone cord was tied
                                      |around the neck. Police suspect
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |foul play...
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Ben Zimmer - 21 Jan 2004 18:33 GMT
> > > Putting/pudding (at least in America).
> >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> distinction.  Interestingly the OED's "American" pronunciations show
> /d/ in "waiting" and "butter".

This is a recent decision by the OED editors-- only entries that have
been revised for the New Edition (OED3) use /d/ for AmE flapped /t/.
See Larry Trask's complaints about this on the Linguist List:

http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-2166.html
http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-2228.html
DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:17 GMT
Fontana:

>> Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
>> length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>can" tense can vowel).  This is a phonemic difference too (because of
>"can").

I don't know about you, but I say "cap" and "cab" both with the short A sound.
I say "can" with the short E sound, and "can" with some other sound--the sound
I use in "Mary".
R J Valentine - 18 Jan 2004 04:09 GMT
...
} I don't know about you, but I say "cap" and "cab" both with the short A sound.

But do you notice that one lasts longer than the other?

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>

DE781 - 18 Jan 2004 04:24 GMT
Valentine:

>} I don't know about you, but I say "cap" and "cab" both with the short A
>sound.
>
>But do you notice that one lasts longer than the other?

Yes, I'd say that "cab" lasts slightly longer than "cap", however they are both
said, by me at least, with the short "A" sound--i.e., the "marry" sound.
Fontana?

Comments?
Michael J Hardy - 19 Jan 2004 01:57 GMT
> That may be true of "most of us in the US", but New York region speakers,
> probably including Young Joey, have a difference in the quality of the
> vowel ("cap" has the "be able can" lax can vowel, while "cab" has the "tin
> can" tense can vowel).  This is a phonemic difference too (because of
> "can").

    OK, you seem to presuppose that "can" is pronounced
differently when it means "tin can" from the way it is pronounced
when it means to be able, by speaker in the NY region.  Do you
have any way of describing to us what these sounds are?

      Mike Hardy
Skitt - 19 Jan 2004 02:07 GMT
>> That may be true of "most of us in the US", but New York region
>> speakers, probably including Young Joey, have a difference in the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> when it means to be able, by speaker in the NY region.  Do you
> have any way of describing to us what these sounds are?

I think that the difference is not confined to the NY region.  See the
pronunciations given im MWCD10.  For "to be able" meaning I use the first
one, except when emphasizing the word.  For "tin can" it is always the
second pronunciation shown for the verb entry, and the only one shown for
the noun entry.

I'm pretty sure that your usage is the same, but you are not noticing it.
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

R F - 19 Jan 2004 02:43 GMT
> > That may be true of "most of us in the US", but New York region speakers,
> > probably including Young Joey, have a difference in the quality of the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> differently when it means "tin can" from the way it is pronounced
> when it means to be able, by speaker in the NY region.

You are correct, sir.

> Do you have any way of describing to us what these sounds are?

I don't have to.  On the AUE website, somewhere, there's already a
recording of me/my saying "Can a cat man a catamaran?".  Ignore the
unstressed "can", but listen to me say "cat" and "man"/"catamaran".  "Tin
can" rhymes with "man".  "Be able can" has the vowel of "cat".
R J Valentine - 19 Jan 2004 04:15 GMT
...
} I don't have to.  On the AUE website, somewhere, there's already a
} recording of me/my saying "Can a cat man a catamaran?".  Ignore the
} unstressed "can", but listen to me say "cat" and "man"/"catamaran".  "Tin
} can" rhymes with "man".  "Be able can" has the vowel of "cat".

Only when _really_ emphasized.  ("Well?  _Can_ you?").  When moderately
emphasized, the "be able" "can" is closer to "ken".  (Of _course_ I can.)

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net>

DE781 - 19 Jan 2004 04:56 GMT
Fontana:

>"Be able can" has the vowel of "cat".

So you use "marry" and "Mary", then?  I use "merry" and "Mary".  Is that odd?
Saying "can" (either one) with the "marry" vowel sounds, to me, British.

>When moderately
>emphasized, the "be able" "can" is closer to "ken".  

Meaning the "merry" vowel?  I *always* say "be able" "can" with the "merry"
vowel, stressed or not.
R F - 19 Jan 2004 08:31 GMT
> Fontana:
>
> >"Be able can" has the vowel of "cat".
>
> So you use "marry" and "Mary", then?

"Cat"/"marry"/"be able can" (stressed) have the same vowel.  I think from
now on I'll use /a/ as the phonemic symbol for this.  I'll use /&/ to
represent the "man"/"Mary"/"tin can" vowel, and of course /E/ is the
"merry"/"Ken" vowel.  This is going to look odd, but so be it.  It's high
time we stop trying to force New York English, including Postwar New York
Prestige Standard (The American RP of the Twenty-First Century[TM]) into
the GenAm strai(gh)tjacket.

> I use "merry" and "Mary".  Is that odd?

No.  That's mighty Mid-Atlantic of you, I'm sure.

> Saying "can" (either one) with the "marry" vowel sounds, to me, British.

Well, you're the one who's told us that New York English is close to the
18th century British English!

> >When moderately
> >emphasized, the "be able" "can" is closer to "ken".

I didn't say that (not sure who did); my "be able can" is nothing like
"ken".  If anything, "tin can" is what's closer to "ken" in the New York
English case.

> Meaning the "merry" vowel?  I *always* say "be able" "can" with the "merry"
> vowel, stressed or not.

That's Jersey English, then.  (Possibly also Boston English and
Jamaica-Laurel English.)
Michael J Hardy - 20 Jan 2004 02:44 GMT
> "Cat"/"marry"/"be able can" (stressed) have the same vowel.

   I'm right with you ... the "short a" sound, as we're
taught to call it in first grade.

> I'll use /&/ to represent the "man"/"Mary"/"tin can" vowel,

   So you use a different vowel in "man" from the one used
in "cat"?  I'm sure /&/ has been used consistently for the
short "a" sound on a.u.e.  Is this the same sound you use in
"air" and "care"?       -- Mike Hardy
DE781 - 21 Jan 2004 21:17 GMT
Hardy:

Fontana & I, living somewhat close to each other, seem to have very similar
word pronunciations.  We both have two distinct "A" prounciations: one is the
"A" in "marry" and one is the "A" in "Mary".  So, I'm pretty sure I can answer
your questions about what Fontana has written.

>> "Cat"/"marry"/"be able can" (stressed) have the same vowel.
>
>    I'm right with you ... the "short a" sound, as we're
>taught to call it in first grade.

Right.  Short "A".  This is our "marry" vowel sound.

>> I'll use /&/ to represent the "man"/"Mary"/"tin can" vowel,
>
>    So you use a different vowel in "man" from the one used
>in "cat"?  

Right.  This is the "Mary" vowel.

> I'm sure /&/ has been used consistently for the
>short "a" sound on a.u.e.  Is this the same sound you use in
>"air" and "care"?

Right.  "Air"/"care"/"Mary"/tin "can"/"man" all have the same vowel sound (not
the standard short "A" sound).  Whereas "cat"/"marry" (for me) have the
standard short "A" sound, as do the both of them and be able "can", too, for
Fontana.  My be able "can" vowel is the short "E" (the "merry" sound) vowel for
some reason.
R H Draney - 19 Jan 2004 07:30 GMT
R F filted:

>> Do you have any way of describing to us what these sounds are?
>
>I don't have to.  On the AUE website, somewhere, there's already a
>recording of me/my saying "Can a cat man a catamaran?".  Ignore the
>unstressed "can", but listen to me say "cat" and "man"/"catamaran".  "Tin
>can" rhymes with "man".  "Be able can" has the vowel of "cat".

Might be fun to transcribe the entire limerick phonetically (contrast
phonemically):

A canner exceedingly canny
One morning remarked to his granny,
 "A canner can can
  Anything that he can,
But a canner can't can a can, can he?"

....r
DE781 - 19 Jan 2004 04:54 GMT
Hardy:

>Do you
>have any way of describing to us what these sounds are?

For me, "can" meaning "to be able" is pronounced with the "merry" vowel, making
it a homophone with "Ken"; and "can" meaning "tin can" is pronounced with the
"Mary" vowel, making it rhyme with the name "Dan".  You don't do this?
Fontana?

Anyone else?  Bun Mui?  Comments?
John Holmes - 17 Jan 2004 08:46 GMT
>> Jones:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> of "long" and "short" as the names for the contrast is pretty much
> limited to the US.  (I don't know about Canada.)

They were taught the same way in Australia, at about Prep-Grade 1 level.
It was part of the way that reading was taught by sounding out
unfamiliar words.

> Phonetically, of course, the only place most of us in the US have a
> length contrast is in pairs like "cap" and "cab", where the only
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>     long O   boat       short O   bot
>     long U   butte      short U   but

I think the pronunciation scheme in the old Oxford dictionaries worked
like that: a vowel with a long bar over it was the long vowel; one with
a concave-up hook above was the short vowel. So Britons should know what
they are, even if they didn't call them 'long' and 'short'.

--
Regards
John
Michael J Hardy - 16 Jan 2004 22:39 GMT
> Did you people *never* learn short and long vowel sounds?
> "Tin" is short "I"; "teen" is long "I".

   The way it's usually taught in school is that "tin" is
short "i" and "teen" is long "e".  In ASCIIPA, "tin" is [I]
and "teen" is [i].      -- Mike Hardy
Raymond S. Wise - 16 Jan 2004 23:25 GMT
> > Did you people *never* learn short and long vowel sounds?
> > "Tin" is short "I"; "teen" is long "I".
>
>     The way it's usually taught in school is that "tin" is
> short "i" and "teen" is long "e".  In ASCIIPA, "tin" is [I]
> and "teen" is [i].      -- Mike Hardy

And in the traditional American system of representing pronunciation, the
sounds are indicated as follows (followed by the ASCII IPA equivalent):

"long 'e'": e with a macron, /i/.

"short 'e'": e with a breve, /E/.

"long 'i'": i with a macron, /aI/.

"short 'i'": i with a breve, /I/.

See http://www.brl.org/formats/gifs/emacron.gif
and http://www.brl.org/formats/gifs/ebreve.gif

To most native speakers of American English, this was learned in elementary
school, but I've learned in this newsgroup that some native speakers of
English never learned such a system.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 01:36 GMT
Zimmer:

>Had this been posted nowadays, it would no doubt have provoked a
>blizzard of "Oy!"s.  

Don't worry, Zimms.  Even back in 1991, someone knew enough to respond to the
above message with the comment that "engineering" and "entertainment" come from
French and have therefore retained the French pronunciation of "en".  That's
something I didn't know.  The poster also stated that, because "English" is an
"English" word, "English" is correctly pronounced when "en" becomes "in".

Another interesting historical AUE factoid:

A thread titled "Subjunctive" was the only thread that originated on the AUE's
first day and reappeared within the past year (as recently as Oct '03); it also
popped up in '94, '95, '98, and '00.  Back in '91 people were convinced that
the subjunctive mood was dead everywhere but in America, where it'd eventually
die out "within our lifetimes".  How wrong those primitive net people were!
DE781 - 14 Jan 2004 22:45 GMT
And, Ben proves that there is nothing unaccpetable about using multiple
question marks:

"Well, [whoever], the next time you use the English language in a non-verbal
  context you should post it.

  /Bill

??????  How is it possible to use the English language in a non-verbal
context?"
DE781 - 14 Jan 2004 22:53 GMT
"=> It is not a verbal contract ... but an oral one that
=> is not worth the paper it is written on.
=
=
=An oral contract "is not worth the paper it's written on"?
=I must be lost!

It's a "samuelgoldwynism."  Also referred to as "goldwynesque speech"!"

HUH???!!!
Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2004 03:52 GMT
> "=> It is not a verbal contract ... but an oral one that
> => is not worth the paper it is written on.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> HUH???!!!

So give us your best guess as to the name of the person that might
refer to, and let us know what happens when you hand that name to
Google.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The skinny models whose main job is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |to display clothes aren't hired for
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |their sex appeal.  They're hired
                                      |for their resemblance to a
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |coat-hanger.
   (650)857-7572                      |              Peter Moylan

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

R J Valentine - 15 Jan 2004 06:08 GMT
} de781@aol.com (DE781) writes:
}
}> "=> It is not a verbal contract ... but an oral one that
}> => is not worth the paper it is written on.
}> =
}> =
}> =An oral contract "is not worth the paper it's written on"?
}> =I must be lost!
}>
}> It's a "samuelgoldwynism."  Also referred to as "goldwynesque speech"!"
}>
}> HUH???!!!
}
} So give us your best guess as to the name of the person that might
} refer to, and let us know what happens when you hand that name to
} Google.

Come on, Ev!  There's a such of a thing as being TOO easy on the kid.

Signature

R. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net>

DE781 - 15 Jan 2004 22:22 GMT
Evan:

>> =An oral contract "is not worth the paper it's written on"?
>> =I must be lost!
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>So give us your best guess as to the name of the person that might
>refer to,

"Samuel Goldwyn"?  Is he Google-able?  Is that even the right name?
R H Draney - 15 Jan 2004 23:39 GMT
DE781 filted:

>"Samuel Goldwyn"?  Is he Google-able?  Is that even the right name?

It's the one most likely to be Googleable; he was also known as Samuel Gelbfisch
and even "Sam Goldfish" by those who felt he had forgotten his humble
beginnings....

When you find him on the web, he'll often be in the company of Dizzy Dean, Casey
Stengel and Yogi Berra (baseball players), Dan Quayle (son of a prominent
newspaper publisher), and Eugene Ormandy (orchestra conductor)....r
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 00:30 GMT
> When you find him on the web, he'll often be in the company of Dizzy
> Dean, Casey Stengel and Yogi Berra (baseball players), Dan Quayle
> (son of a prominent newspaper publisher), and Eugene Ormandy
> (orchestra conductor)....r

I don't think I've ever seen Ormandy mentioned as a source of such
things.  I see a list of his at

   http://users.actrix.co.nz/dgold/fun/ormandy.html

and they're pretty good, but I don't think I've heard any of them
before.   (With the exception of "I don't want to confuse you any more
than absolutely necessary".)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |I believe there are more instances
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |of the abridgment of the freedom of
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |the people by gradual and silent
                                      |encroachments of those in power
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |than by violent and sudden
   (650)857-7572                      |usurpations.
                                      |                    James Madison
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:26 GMT
Draney:

>When you find him on the web, he'll often be in the company of Dizzy Dean,
>Casey
>Stengel and Yogi Berra (baseball players),

I know who Yogi is.  He lives near me.

>Dan Quayle (son of a prominent
>newspaper publisher),

Is he the same "Dan Quayle" who used to be the vice-president?  The potatoe
dude?

BTW, thanks for the help.  I've found some sites, but I'm not sure they'll be
enough to explain to me what a "Samuel Goldwynism" is.  Unless he's like
Yogi...

Wait a minute...the first time the person mentioned the "Samuel Goldwynism", I
thought to myself why didn't he just say a "Yogi Berrism", if that's what he
was trying to get at.  Based on what I know about Yogi & Qualye, and I'd guess
Goldwyn, were all those names you listed people who said bizarre things?

That could be.  But, I don't get it.  Because Dan Quayle only spelt something
wrong.  Yogi made up funny sayings.  Why isn't Bush on that list then too?  Am
I reading too deeply into things?

At any rate, Yogi is *definitely* more famous for saying bizarre things than
Goldwyn, so why *didn't* the poster use "Yogism"?
david56 - 16 Jan 2004 20:54 GMT
de781@aol.com spake thus:

> At any rate, Yogi is *definitely* more famous for saying bizarre things than
> Goldwyn, so why *didn't* the poster use "Yogism"?

I know I'm not supposed to be talking to you, but you are certainly
giving us plenty of laughs in between the abuse.

Signature

David
=====

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:11 GMT
David:

>> At any rate, Yogi is *definitely* more famous for saying bizarre things
>than
>> Goldwyn, so why *didn't* the poster use "Yogism"?
>
>I know I'm not supposed to be talking to you, but you are certainly
>giving us plenty of laughs in between the abuse.

I don't get it.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2004 20:59 GMT
> That could be.  But, I don't get it.  Because Dan Quayle only spelt
> something wrong.

Some quotes by Dan Quayle (actual ones, according to Snopes):

   If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

   Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother
   and child.

   Mars is essentially in the same orbit . . . Mars is somewhat the
   same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen
   pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there
   is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can
   breathe.

   What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is
   being very wasteful. How true that is.

   I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
   democracy - but that could change.

   One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice
   president, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'

   We're going to have the best-educated American people in the
   world.

   I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.

   I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix.

   We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.

   It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the
   impurities in our air and water that are doing it.

        http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.htm

It turns out that he *didn't* actually say

   I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I
   have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could
   converse with those people.

although it was widely reported that he had.  (It was told (not by
Quayle) as a joke and picked up as news.)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |"The Dynamics of Interbeing and
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Monological Imperatives in 'Dick
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |and Jane' : A Study in Psychic
                                      |Transrelational Modes."
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                   Calvin
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DE781 - 17 Jan 2004 17:13 GMT
Evan:

>ome quotes by Dan Quayle (actual ones, according to Snopes):

Thanks for all the quotes.  WOW!  Quayle sounded worse than Bush.  How come the
only thing you ever hear about is potatoe?  And why does everyone act like Bush
is the first person who screws up the language to ever be in office?
DE781 - 16 Jan 2004 20:29 GMT
Wow!  I found some Goldwyn quotes!  I *like* the way this guy thinks!  I wish I
could come up with such amazing quotes like that!
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.