Is "alot" "alright?"
Garrett Albright
my college major from Computer Science to English. It's a long story,
but to sum it up, my high school math classes didn't prepare me for my
college ones, so CS became an impossibility.
So why did I choose English?
Uh... let me get back to you on that one.
Anyway, two new contractions that seemed to have popped up recently are
"alot" and "alright." Both of 'em bug the hell out of me, wherever I
see 'em - and in the digestive tract of literacy that is the Internet,
I'm seeing 'em quite often nowadays.
So... What's the word? Must I give in to these annoying new
contractions?
And what's the difference between alt.english.usage and
alt.usage.english?
--
--Garrett Albright
Mac Addict - Straight-edge - Vidiot - Toonatic
albright(at)students{dot}sonoma[dot]edu
XNS: Albright AIM: Albright Guy
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> Anyway, two new contractions that seemed to have popped up recently are
> "alot" and "alright." Both of 'em bug the hell out of me, wherever I
> see 'em - and in the digestive tract of literacy that is the Internet,
> I'm seeing 'em quite often nowadays.
>
> So... What's the word? Must I give in to these annoying new
> contractions?
No, of course not. Unless your instructors insist on them. Develop
your own standards, follow your own taste -- and be prepared to
compromise if it will affect your grade.
I doubt that any but the most permissive college graders will even
*allow* alot and alright. So eschewing them should cost you
nothing, and using them may draw some sneers.
>
> And what's the difference between alt.english.usage and
> alt.usage.english?
Different names. Well, that''s not all -- The subject matter is
the same, but AUE is older and larger, has a FAQ, and tends to
attract a wider variety of temperaments. AEU is smaller, more
sedate, but less able to cope with the difficult questions of
grammar and usage (and reluctant to admit this last -- but, hell,
John Lawler of AUE knows more linguistics and grammar all by himself
than all of AEU put together, me included). If you want to take the
pulse of both groups, post a single inquiry to both simultaneously
(cross-post); don't post the same thing separately to each.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> Anyway, two new contractions that seemed to have popped up recently are
> "alot" and "alright." Both of 'em bug the hell out of me, wherever I
> see 'em - and in the digestive tract of literacy that is the Internet,
> I'm seeing 'em quite often nowadays.
>
> So... What's the word? Must I give in to these annoying new
> contractions?
Here's the British perspective, Garrett, if you want it.
"Alot" is a sure badge of illiteracy, so you should eschew it yourself and
may deride it from others.
"Alright" on the other hand is absolutely correct in every respect, having
a subtly different meaning from "all right". You should add it to your
lexicon pridefully.
Matti
Polar
<albrSP...@studSUREents.sonSUCKSoma.edu> wrote:
>Hello, folks. This is my first post here. Yesterday (Friday), I changed
>my college major from Computer Science to English. It's a long story,
>but to sum it up, my high school math classes didn't prepare me for my
>college ones, so CS became an impossibility.
>
>So why did I choose English?
>
>Uh... let me get back to you on that one.
>
>Anyway, two new contractions that seemed to have popped up recently are
>"alot" and "alright." Both of 'em bug the hell out of me, wherever I
>see 'em - and in the digestive tract of literacy that is the Internet,
>I'm seeing 'em quite often nowadays.
>
>So... What's the word? Must I give in to these annoying new
>contractions?
>
>And what's the difference between alt.english.usage and
>alt.usage.english?
Hi! Welcome.
Posting via email to keep the peace.
+++++++++++++++++
1. Alot/Alright:
From Matti:
1. Here's the British perspective, Garrett, if you want it.
"Alot" is a sure badge of illiteracy, so you should eschew it yourself
and
may deride it from others.
"Alright" on the other hand is absolutely correct in every respect,
having
a subtly different meaning from "all right". You should add it to
your
lexicon pridefully.
++++++++++++++
Moi: Can't think what got into his head! I doubt if it's OK even
in UK. No, No, a thousand times no! Sure mark of
semi-literacy, as others have remarked.
2. AUE/AEU
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From Bob Lieblich:
Different names. Well, that''s not all -- The subject matter is
the same, but AUE is older and larger, has a FAQ, and tends to
attract a wider variety of temperaments.
Moi: Read: Nutcases, trolls, psychos.
AEU is smaller, more
sedate, but less able to cope with the difficult questions of
grammar and usage (and reluctant to admit this last -- but, hell,
John Lawler of AUE knows more linguistics and grammar all by himself
than all of AEU put together, me included).
Moi: Disagree. It's true John Lawler is an expert, but
we have some pretty smart people too.
If you want to take the
pulse of both groups, post a single inquiry to both simultaneously
(cross-post); don't post the same thing separately to each.
I don't think one visit will "take the pulse" adequately.
You might come upon a sane spell by chance.
I posted to A.U.E. for literally years, but got fed
up with the shenanigans, and haven't been back since.
HTH
--
Polar
(email only)
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> I posted to A.U.E. for literally years, but got fed
> up with the shenanigans, and haven't been back since.
(email only)
Your trigger finger betrayed you, Polar, and here you are on Usenet
anyway.
As for AUE, it's been fairly civilized lately. Your personal bete
noir has taken an indefinite leave of absence, and the cranks seem
to be cranking elsewhere.
Franklin Cacciutto
acceptable alternative spelling for "all right." I believe it is even the
preferred spelling now in some dictionaries.
However, although a similar force may be at work, when last I looked, "a
lot" remains two words. "Alot" is a common misspelling, common enough to
threaten to become common usage and therefore acceptable. Woe is me.
ankerstein
"Matti Lamprhey" <ma...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> "Alot" is a sure badge of illiteracy,
Agreed.
> "Alright" on the other hand is absolutely correct in every respect,
I will agree *only* if you accept "alwrong". Afterall, last year
I learned "Algore".
GFH
--
To see what makes me tick, check out
www.ankerstein.org
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Polar
wrote:
Well, I blew that one!
--
Polar
Dr Robin Bignall
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Polar wrote:
>
>[ . . . ]
>
>> I posted to A.U.E. for literally years, but got fed
>> up with the shenanigans, and haven't been back since.
>
>(email only)
>
>Your trigger finger betrayed you, Polar, and here you are on Usenet
>anyway.
>
Good Lord! Is wrongbuttonitis infectious? I'm sorry, Polar...
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
The Walkers
<210120010128538702%albrSP...@studSUREents.sonSUCKSoma.edu>,
Garrett Albright <albrSP...@studSUREents.sonSUCKSoma.edu> wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, two new contractions that seemed to have popped up recently
> are "alot" and "alright." Both of 'em bug the hell out of me,
> wherever I see 'em - and in the digestive tract of literacy that is
> the Internet, I'm seeing 'em quite often nowadays.
>
> So... What's the word? Must I give in to these annoying new
> contractions?
[...]
As all have noted, "alot" is simply illiterate. The status of
"alright" is more complicated: writing only about three years ago,
Garner in _A Dictionary of Modern American Usage_ said: "_Alright_ for
_all right_ has never been accepted as standard in AmE. Still, the
one-word spelling may be coming into acceptance in BrE . . . ."
A point that never seems to get much recognition in a.e.u. or a.u.e. is
that whether or not some particular word or construction can be held to
have become acceptable--and there are on ocasion long and sometimes
vitriolic differences of opinion expressed--no one can ever go wrong,
in any sense of that term, by following standard, accepted English.
As you may already know-and if you don't, you very soon will--there is
a profound divide in modern English grammar, syntax, and diction
between two diametrically opposed schools or philosophies, the
prescriptive (which holds that there are clear rules prescribing what
is and is not correct English) and the descriptive (which holds that
"correctness" is determined by what most people say).
I am a hard-core prescriptivist. But in all the, ah, exchanges I have
had here with descriptivists, I have never had one reply to my usual
question: if you express this thought in perfect accord with the
accepted rules of English, in what way is that thought made less clear
or less elegant? Here, then, I would say that by always writing "all
right" and never writing "alright" you will always be all right.
Some references that I strongly recommend to you (needless to say, none
descriptivist, but all classics):
H.W. Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ (1st or 2nd editions ONLY)
George O. Curme's _English Grammar_
Wilson Follett's _Modern American Usage_
_The Chicago Manual of Style_
If resources allow, some others well worth getting are:
Bryan A. Garner's _A Dictionary of Modern American Usage_
Jacque Barzun's _Simple & Direct_
Eric Partridge's _Book of Usage and Abusage_
_The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations_
_The Oxford Dictonary of Slang_
and, of course, a sound dictionary. For a desk dictionary, I recommend
the _Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition_ from Simon
& Schuster; for a larger dictionary--which you should have--the ideal
is the full OED (Oxford English Dictionary), but those are expensive,
and you may have to make do with another.
The often-touted _Webster's Unabridged, 3rd Edition_ is much disliked
by those who believe that, for example, there is a difference in
meaning between 'imply' and "infer."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
"Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works"
http://owlcroft.com/sfandf
John Cartmell
The Walkers <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> I am a hard-core prescriptivist. But in all the, ah, exchanges I have
> had here with descriptivists, I have never had one reply to my usual
> question: if you express this thought in perfect accord with the
> accepted rules of English, in what way is that thought made less clear
> or less elegant? Here, then, I would say that by always writing "all
> right" and never writing "alright" you will always be all right.
between the meaning of 'all right' and 'alright'. If 'alright' takes some
of the original sense of 'all right' then might not limiting oneself to
'all right' not always be all right? Alright! ;-)
--
Fleur Designs - Manchester UK http://www.cartmell.demon.co.uk
~ designer craft products ~ information products ~ information services ~
~ see our unique designer board games at:
Altrincham Marketplace every Saturday ~
- - - and in Acorn User magazine - November 2000
P&D Schultz
> <...> no one can ever go wrong,
> in any sense of that term, by following standard, accepted English.
The problem is, who gets to say when a usage has become standard and
accepted.
> As you may already know-and if you don't, you very soon will--there is
> a profound divide in modern English grammar, syntax, and diction
> between two diametrically opposed schools or philosophies, the
> prescriptive (which holds that there are clear rules prescribing what
> is and is not correct English) and the descriptive (which holds that
> "correctness" is determined by what most people say). <...>
First, the two views are not "diametrically opposed," and neither are
they "schools" or "philosophies," unless an individual decides to treat
them as such (which isn't a particularly sensible or useful position to
take). One can guide learners as to the accepted rules of formal
English, without losing sight of (or condemning) what is actually
happening in the evolution of the living language.
Second, we should not ignore the fact that much of what prescriptivists
of the past deplored as "illiterate and unacceptable" is now good
English. And that will continue to happen.
\\P. Schultz
meirm...@erols.com
Bignall <docr...@cwcom.net> posted:
Your story is a little more interesting though. It's relatively easy
to post instead of email something like this. Is there a newsgroup
that carries your real estate transactions? :)
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me only, please say, so I won't
e-mail by removing QQQ wait forever for a post and then forget to
answer the email at all. If you post &
mail, please say, so I will wait for the post.
meirm...@erols.com
<wal...@owlcroft.com> posted:
>In article
><210120010128538702%albrSP...@studSUREents.sonSUCKSoma.edu>,
> Garrett Albright <albrSP...@studSUREents.sonSUCKSoma.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Anyway, two new contractions that seemed to have popped up recently
>> are "alot" and "alright." Both of 'em bug the hell out of me,
>> wherever I see 'em - and in the digestive tract of literacy that is
>> the Internet, I'm seeing 'em quite often nowadays.
>>
>> So... What's the word? Must I give in to these annoying new
>> contractions?
>
>[...]
>
>As all have noted, "alot" is simply illiterate. The status of
>"alright" is more complicated: writing only about three years ago,
>Garner in _A Dictionary of Modern American Usage_ said: "_Alright_ for
>_all right_ has never been accepted as standard in AmE.
AIUI, it originated in Czechoslovakia in one form or other, then
gained currency in England, reaching the USA a decade or so later, and
finally becoming Secretary of State in 1996.
Wait a second. That period ended yesterday anyhow. Anyhow, I think
Garrett A. has an axe to grind on this issue but I'm not sure which
direction he's grinding it.
The Walkers
P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> The Walkers wrote:
> > <...> no one can ever go wrong,
> > in any sense of that term, by following standard, accepted English.
>
> The problem is, who gets to say when a usage has become standard and
> accepted.
That is an old question: and while there is certainly no Academy, it is
not generally terrifically difficult to ascertain in any particular
instance what the standard acceptation is. Dictionary makers convene
panels of presumably expert language users from time to time, there are
newspapers and other publications each with well-known reputations, and
so on and so forth. Speaking broadly and casually, not to paint an
invincible and incontrovertible maxim, I would say that when a clear
majority of writers, each held by a clear majority of those who attend
to their language as experts, are using a term or spelling or usage, it
has become accepted as standard.
> > As you may already know-and if you don't, you very soon will--there
> > is a profound divide in modern English grammar, syntax, and diction
> > between two diametrically opposed schools or philosophies, the
> > prescriptive (which holds that there are clear rules prescribing
> > what is and is not correct English) and the descriptive (which
> > holds that "correctness" is determined by what most people say).
<...>
>
> First, the two views are not "diametrically opposed," and neither are
> they "schools" or "philosophies," unless an individual decides to
> treat them as such (which isn't a particularly sensible or useful
> position to take). One can guide learners as to the accepted rules of
> formal English, without losing sight of (or condemning) what is
> actually happening in the evolution of the living language.
Without wanting to get into a quibble over just precisely what
"diametrically opposed" means, I do think they are. I also think they
are very clearly "schools," and that they see themselves that way (the
"they" at issue being those who deal with language professionally or
are recognized and published as expert commentators on language) and
couch their discussions in such terms.
Not losing sight of a process and not condemning it are separate
issues. Language change, I believe, is a mutation process much like
that of biological mutation: the species advances through owing to such
mutations as are beneficial to it, but the vast majority of mutations
are not beneficial but harmful. We do indeed, those of us who have
concerns about our language, need to be extremely careful to never lose
sight of what is actually happening in the evolution of the living
language; but we also need to be scrupulous about praising what is
praiseworthy and condemning what is not.
If, for example, "all right" and "alright" are bifurcating into
different terms with different meanings, that is likely a positive
development, though it would depend on exactly what the new "alright"
means (I have no idea) and thus whether it describes a thing for which
no good word now exists but for which a word is wanted, or whether it
is muscling aside some perfectly sound extant term to no good purpose.
If it is just a variant spelling with no different meaning, it clearly
is not an improvement.
> Second, we should not ignore the fact that much of what
> prescriptivists of the past deplored as "illiterate and unacceptable"
> is now good English. And that will continue to happen.
There is a hidden implication there which should be made overt: that
such changes, having become "good English," have improved the language.
It is a commonplace of discussions like these to see quotations from
supposedly authoritative sources (of the usual suspects, some are and
some aren't) severly castigating some usage that is now everyday; the
idea is "see how silly those old fuddy-duddies were," and, by a logical
extension left as an exercise for the student, how silly must those
today who object to changes be.
In reality, if the touchstone of a change in the language is that it
enables a skilled user of the language writing for an equally skilled
reader to place the writer's thoughts in the reader's mind with greater
precision or elegance or both than would be the case absent the change,
then a great many of the changes bemoaned in the past which
nevertheless became standard were after all _not_ improvements. In
sum, the proposition that the language does and _can only_ improve over
time is a nonsense.
(More yet needs to be said there, but it's tired and I'm late and this
is long enough as is.)
English, like any language, gets better in some ways and worse in
others. All any of us can do is to encourage positive changes and
discourage negative ones, to as great or as miniscule a degree as our
positions in the world allow. To approve all changes sheerly because
they are changes is self-evident folly.
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> If, for example, "all right" and "alright" are bifurcating into
> different terms with different meanings, that is likely a positive
> development, though it would depend on exactly what the new "alright"
> means (I have no idea) and thus whether it describes a thing for which
> no good word now exists but for which a word is wanted, or whether it
> is muscling aside some perfectly sound extant term to no good purpose.
> If it is just a variant spelling with no different meaning, it clearly
The word "all" has a range of interpretations, perhaps the two most
commonly used being "every member of a set" and "full[y], complete[ly]". I
suspect that English speakers have been aware for a while of the
ambiguities which can arise from this, and developed a variation "al-" for
use in the "fully, completely" sense.
When I say "a while", do I mean the last half-century? No, there are
examples going back beyond Middle English to Old English. An early example
is "almighty", and there is no shortage of others such as "altogether",
"already", "although" as well as the less obvious "alone". The latest is
"alright", which is used in the UK as an all most perfect synonym for the
US "OK" in all its senses, and does not mean "all [is] right". I think
Fowler disapproved, and this is still seized on by Leftpondia to justify
its avoidance. But in Britain it is preferred to "all right" in the "OK"
sense by professional editors. NSOED notes that there are those who regard
it as an error but simply points to the pattern.
Here is an example of the problem otherwise caused:
- We just flew through some massive turbulence -- is the aircrew all right?
- The pilot is all right; the co-pilot is all right ... and the engineer
is all right. They are all all right.
Matti
Sam Hinton
there is no quickno quick and easy answer to the question "when does a new
usage become acceptable?" I gather that "alright" enjoys a wider acceptance in
the UK than in the US, and that "alot" is unacceptable on either side of the
Big Pond. Personally, I shall never use either, although I have used "already"
and "forever" all my life. In my youth, just before World War II, I worked as
a riveter in an aircraft factory (Lockheed), and found that many of my
fellow-workers looked with grave suspicion upon certain uses of "correct"
grammar; if I said "Please hand me one of those bucking bars," I would be
marked as an ignorant outsider. The "correct" way in that circumstance was to
say "... one of THEM bucking bars." In the same way, if the people with whom
the original questioner works prefer "alrigheven or even "alot", then that's
the way to go.
Sam
La Jolla, CA USA
Language use is a little like political views: there are conservatives and
there are liberals. (as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "Every boy and every gal
/ That's born into the world alive / Is either a little liber-al / Or else a
little conserva-tive." If either one were the only view, the political scene
would either change with confusing rapidity or would stagnate with no change at
all. I happen to be a political liberal but a conservative user of language --
but almost all of my working life has been in the realms of academia, and I
might not be so linguistically conservative if I had worked in industry all
that time.
John Cartmell
<ma...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> The word "all" has a range of interpretations, perhaps the two most
> commonly used being "every member of a set" and "full[y], complete[ly]".
> I suspect that English speakers have been aware for a while of the
> ambiguities which can arise from this, and developed a variation "al-"
> for use in the "fully, completely" sense.
..and allows for comments such as, to a group of people in a trapped lift,
"Are you OK in there?" "We're all alright" with an optional response "I'm
alright but the others don't like the dark."
The Walkers
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <94h2o7$6c1$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Matti Lamprhey
> <ma...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> > The word "all" has a range of interpretations, perhaps the two most
> > commonly used being "every member of a set" and "full[y],
> > complete[ly]".
> > I suspect that English speakers have been aware for a while of the
> > ambiguities which can arise from this, and developed a variation
> > "al-" for use in the "fully, completely" sense.
>
> ..and allows for comments such as, to a group of people in a trapped
> lift, "Are you OK in there?" "We're all alright" with an optional
> response "I'm alright but the others don't like the dark."
What I, at least, extract from these last two posts is that "alright"
is coming to simply replace "all right" in all but exceptional
cases--that is, I cannot see much reason for the two forms to co-exist,
any more than we have much need for "all mighty" or "all most."
(I cannot see that the "all" in "all right" would ever mean "all of the
subject class" save in unusual castings, where the simple "all right"
would continue to be used--as a parallel to, for example, "these
athletes are all mighty men and women."
In my own view, that change is harmless and possibly mildly beneficial,
in that it makes parallel forms truly parallel. There is, however, and
I think will be for some while, a transition period during which the
choice of form will be a tricky matter in formal writing (and, it seems
based in part on where one is).
Were it me, I would continue to write "all right" until such time as
that usage seems clearly obsolescent; if it is on its way to dominance,
my individual conservatism will not stop it, but if it is not, I will
not have been a soldierly casualty in a lost cause.
Dr Robin Bignall
>In alt.english.usage on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:47:36 +0000 Dr Robin
>Bignall <docr...@cwcom.net> posted:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:18:55 -0500, Robert Lieblich
>><lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Polar wrote:
>>>
>>>[ . . . ]
>>>
>>>> I posted to A.U.E. for literally years, but got fed
>>>> up with the shenanigans, and haven't been back since.
>>>
>>>(email only)
>>>
>>>Your trigger finger betrayed you, Polar, and here you are on Usenet
>>>anyway.
>>>
>>Good Lord! Is wrongbuttonitis infectious? I'm sorry, Polar...
>
>Your story is a little more interesting though. It's relatively easy
>to post instead of email something like this.
All too easy! The 'post' and 'mail' buttons are almost adjacent in
Agent.
>Is there a newsgroup that carries your real estate transactions? :)
>
Nope. But the good news is that the problems are sorted, I exchanged
contracts today (which commits both parties) and will move Feb 7 & 8.
Yippee!
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Dr Robin Bignall
[..]
> In my youth, just before World War II, I worked as
>a riveter in an aircraft factory (Lockheed), and found that many of my
>fellow-workers looked with grave suspicion upon certain uses of "correct"
>grammar; if I said "Please hand me one of those bucking bars," I would be
>marked as an ignorant outsider. The "correct" way in that circumstance was to
>say "... one of THEM bucking bars." In the same way, if the people with whom
>the original questioner works prefer "alrigheven or even "alot", then that's
>the way to go.
>
That's a good point, Sam, but I also agree with Eric Walker very
strongly. Let me try to explain why I'm not practising Orwell's
'doublethink'.
Take China, a country with many languages, and hundreds or thousands
of dialects so different that they appear to be different languages.
They solve their communication problem, so I'm told, by having one,
common written language across the whole of that huge country.
The world of English is not quite so bad, but I can tell you from my
personal experience of running international seminars that if I put,
say, a native of Glasgow, Scotland, in a room with one from Georgia or
Texas, and they spoke their own, broad versions of their English
dialects, they would take a while to realise that they were speaking
the same language. I believe that if they were of average
intelligence, and had had an average English education in their
respective state systems, they would be able easily to communicate in
writing. That is somewhat obvious, but it needs stressing. We all
write more-or-less 'standard' English in the newsgroups, but I suspect
that many of us would find communication on the telephone less easy.
The key reason for this is not just the different word usages between
dialects, but the pronunciation. Few readers of English understand
phonetic notation, and attempts to imitate pronunciation in normal
written dialogue are a pale shadow of the real thing. It is, as you
point out, perfectly acceptable English usage for a group of miners in
Derbyshire, England, or workers in wherever Lockheed's plant is, to
have their own rules about what is normal English *for them*, even to
the spelling they use, but attempts by descriptivists to convince us
that therefore the basic written language should be changed to reflect
these local usages is totally in error. There is no reason why the
written English used by relatively uneducated people in one place, be
it in America or Britain, should affect all written English. As Eric
has pointed out, changes to the basic language, which, apart from some
words having different meanings in different places, is remarkably
uniform across the world, should enrich the language, not diminish it.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
meirm...@erols.com
Bignall <docr...@cwcom.net> posted:
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:41:38 -0500, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
>>In alt.english.usage on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:47:36 +0000 Dr Robin
>>Bignall <docr...@cwcom.net> posted:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:18:55 -0500, Robert Lieblich
>>><lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Polar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[ . . . ]
>>>>
>>>>> I posted to A.U.E. for literally years, but got fed
>>>>> up with the shenanigans, and haven't been back since.
>>>>
>>>>(email only)
>>>>
>>>>Your trigger finger betrayed you, Polar, and here you are on Usenet
>>>>anyway.
>>>>
>>>Good Lord! Is wrongbuttonitis infectious? I'm sorry, Polar...
>>
>>Your story is a little more interesting though. It's relatively easy
>>to post instead of email something like this.
>
>All too easy! The 'post' and 'mail' buttons are almost adjacent in
>Agent.
Yes, and while the screeens looked different in Free Agent, they added
a line to Agent's email screen that makes it look the same as the post
screen.
If it will help you can rearrange the buttons in a different order,
add a button for almost any drop-down command, delete what you never
use, or put in extra empty space. I didn't fiddle with these. What
bothered me was that on the compose screen, Send Now and Send Later
were right next to each other, so I moved one to put some other things
in between.
>
>>Is there a newsgroup that carries your real estate transactions? :)
>>
>Nope. But the good news is that the problems are sorted, I exchanged
>contracts today (which commits both parties) and will move Feb 7 & 8.
>Yippee!
Congrats.
Dr Robin Bignall
Ah! I didn't know that. I have the $30 version, so I'll experiment
this weekend. Thanks for the tip. The adjacency (is there such a word)
of send now or later doesn't bother me because I do all of my posting
and e-mailing off-line, so if I hit the send now button the dial-up
panel comes up.
>>
>>>Is there a newsgroup that carries your real estate transactions? :)
>>>
>>Nope. But the good news is that the problems are sorted, I exchanged
>>contracts today (which commits both parties) and will move Feb 7 & 8.
>>Yippee!
>
>Congrats.
>
Thanks!
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Roberta Davies
>
>
> Here's the British perspective, Garrett, if you want it.
>
> "Alot" is a sure badge of illiteracy, so you should eschew it yourself and
> may deride it from others.
>
> "Alright" on the other hand is absolutely correct in every respect, having
> a subtly different meaning from "all right". You should add it to your
> lexicon pridefully.
Here is a different British perspective. They're both horrible
illiterate misspellings. Run a mile before using either of them.
Robbie
meirm...@erols.com
<roberta...@virgin.net> posted:
I think you mean, Run amile.
>Robbie
Matti Lamprhey
Utter nonsense, Robbie. When "all" is being used in its "fully" sense, we
have been writing "all xxx" as "alxxx" since Old English!
Almighty, although, almost, already, alright -- the next will probably be
alsinging aldancing.
Why are any of these "illiterate misspellings", when they seem to be the
preferred rendering for professional editors here in the UK? (I am aware
Fowler had a strange pet peeve about "alright".)
Matti
Dr Robin Bignall
I'm beginning to think that we don't got no right to be different than
the States. :)
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Roberta Davies
>
> > Here is a different British perspective. They're both horrible
> > illiterate misspellings. Run a mile before using either of them.
>
> Utter nonsense, Robbie. When "all" is being used in its "fully" sense, we
> have been writing "all xxx" as "alxxx" since Old English!
>
> Almighty, although, almost, already, alright -- the next will probably be
> alsinging aldancing.
>
> Why are any of these "illiterate misspellings", when they seem to be the
> preferred rendering for professional editors here in the UK? (I am aware
> Fowler had a strange pet peeve about "alright".)
Well, if it's good enough for Fowler, it's good enough for me! I
know "alright" is widely used, but then so is "thankyou". If I'm
still proofreading in a hundred years, perhaps I'll accept it
then. At present it just gets up my nose.
Then again, given the choice, I prefer "an hotel", "good-bye"
with a hyphen, and long discursive sentences. Maybe I was born
50 or 100 years too late.
Robbie
Matti Lamprhey
>
> [...] I know "alright" is widely used, but then so is "thankyou".
> If I'm still proofreading in a hundred years, perhaps I'll accept it
Robbie, if you weren't a professional proofreader I'd obviously accept that
and leave the matter there. But it seems to me, as I said earlier, that
the majority of professional editors in the UK prefer "alright".[1] Surely
you either need to disagree with me there, or start worrying?
It raises, if not begs, the question -- are professional proofreaders
permitted personal pet peeves?
[1] I'm judging by their output rather than formal policy statement.
Matti
Mark Wallace
Roberta Davies <roberta...@virgin.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
3A81E45A...@virgin.net...
What about to-day, to-morrow, O'clock?
Words change. Big deal.
So long as your readers understand what you write: what does it matter, the
language you use?
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
Polar
I feel so sad, reading the above .
It reflects the weltanschauung of those -- and their numbers are
legion, alas -- who do not value language for itself; for elegance,
beauty, eloquence, emotional power -- a host of other qualities
which no doubt others who share my views can name. Only
for basic communication. No doubt language arose originally
for just that reason. But are we still in pre-history?
It's like the difference between calling an employee a
valuable human resource to the company -- and
calling him/her a unit of production.
--
Polar
auc...@my-deja.com
Language can be rendered sterile and inelegant as easily through the rote
following of prescriptive rules as by sloppy, thoughtless babbling. "I
loves you, Porgy", "It Ain't Necessarily So", "Ain't Misbehavin'", "God
SAve the Queen, She Ain't No Human Bein'" just to name a few song titles
that come to my mind, are all far more effective with their "sloppy"
grammar than they could ever be in proper standard English. And so
called "sloppy" elocutions like "gonna" actually signal a distinction
that is not made by the standard "going to".
> It's like the difference between calling an employee a
> valuable human resource to the company -- and
> calling him/her a unit of production.
I find "human resource" to be quite a tasteless expression. It's just a
gloss for "unit of production" in any case. What's wrong with
"employee".
Mark Wallace
Polar <sme...@mindspring.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
5d368tstmupabal7u...@4ax.com...
I confess that I've never understood this argument about language --
especially the English language, which is a literal bastard, created by
throwing together the languages of many tribes, invaders and conquered
people.
The tide waxes and wanes.
The sun rises and sets.
The language changes.
What's the problem?
Maybe one can have peeves over certain phrases or uses which one finds
disagreeable, but that's akin to not liking a particular shade of a
colour -- You might not like it, but not likin' it ain't gonna make it never
was.
Communication is the important thing. So long as you can communicate well
with those people with whom you wish to communicate, there is no problem.
Things like standardised grammar and punctuation are new inventions, which
are intended to help with that communication; not set up rigid, unchangeable
laws to restrict it.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
Sam Hinton
>I confess that I've never understood this argument about language --
>especially the English language, which is a literal bastard, created by
>throwing together the languages of many tribes, invaders and conquered
>people.
>The tide waxes and wanes.
>The sun rises and sets.
>The language changes.
>What's the problem?
**************************
I try to keep up with language changes, but this is the first time I've heard
of the tide waxing and waning; in my lexicon, it's the MOON that does that,
while the tide ebbs and flows. (I'm a retired marine biologist, still living
within easy walking distance of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography where I
worked for so many years.)
This whole thread about language change is futile: nobody would deny that
English has undergone -- and is undergoing--a tremendous amount if change, and
those of us who use the language must decide for ourselves how long to hang on
to an old form before using a new one to replace it. Effective communicatgion
is the cfriterion. I personally will not use either "alright" or "alot," but I
m not peeved" by those who do. If the meanings change so that communiction is
impaired, I will go along with whatever change seems necessary for effective
discourse. I'm about ready to give up an accept )nd use) "loan" as a
verb-form of "lend", because so many people really don't understand me when I
say somebody "lent" me something.
One thing I have learned from this thread is that "alright" is acceptable to at
least some people in the UK. Whod've thunk it?
Mark Wallace
Sam Hinton <slhin...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
20010209141148...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2001 2:37 AM, "Mark Wallace" mwallac...@noknok.nl
wrote:
>
> >I confess that I've never understood this argument about language --
> >especially the English language, which is a literal bastard, created by
> >throwing together the languages of many tribes, invaders and conquered
> >people.
> >The tide waxes and wanes.
> >The sun rises and sets.
> >The language changes.
> >What's the problem?
> **************************
> I try to keep up with language changes, but this is the first time I've
heard
> of the tide waxing and waning; in my lexicon, it's the MOON that does
that,
> while the tide ebbs and flows. (I'm a retired marine biologist, still
living
> within easy walking distance of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
where I
> worked for so many years.)
Tides have always waxed and waned, where I'm from. It's sometimes said that
they 'wax with the moon', but the moon 'rises and falls/sets', doesn't it?
Did you typo Scripps Institute, btw? The 'Scripps Institution' sounds like
a place where they keep all the marine biologists who think they're
Napoleon.
Is that difference (institute/institution) not present in USese?
> This whole thread about language change is futile: nobody would deny that
> English has undergone -- and is undergoing--a tremendous amount if change,
and
> those of us who use the language must decide for ourselves how long to
hang on
> to an old form before using a new one to replace it. Effective
communicatgion
> is the cfriterion. I personally will not use either "alright" or "alot,"
but I
> m not peeved" by those who do. If the meanings change so that
communiction is
> impaired, I will go along with whatever change seems necessary for
effective
> discourse. I'm about ready to give up an accept )nd use) "loan" as a
> verb-form of "lend", because so many people really don't understand me
when I
> say somebody "lent" me something.
I can't say I like that, myself, but it's already happened and is only
waiting for the dictionaries to keep up.
What really bugs me is the use of 'borrow' in the Midlands -- "Will you
borrow me a fiver?", as if the word has somehow become perversely reflexive.
Majority rules, I'm afraid; and, as always, them as knows what they're
talking about are vastly outnumbered by them as don't.
> One thing I have learned from this thread is that "alright" is acceptable
to at
> least some people in the UK. Whod've thunk it?
It has been for a long time. I've even used it myself (though rarely).
Sam Hinton
>Tides have always waxed and waned, where I'm from. It's sometimes said
>that
>they 'wax with the moon', but the moon 'rises and falls/sets', doesn't it?
*************************
Well, I've learned something! Tides seem to wax and wane in at least one part
of Rightpondia, but not here in the USA, as far as I know. Yes, the moon rises
and sets all right, on a daily basis; it also waxes and wanes in a 28-day
cycle, changing from new to full (waxing) and back to new (waning). To help
remember which I which, there is a French proverb: "You lie like the moon!"
When the moon is shaped like a "C", one would expect that it stood for some
verb derived from "cresser", "to increase." But the moon is a liar, and it's
actually DEcreasing when it looks like a C when iin the east, so it's really
waning. In the same way, if it's shaped like a "D" at moonrise, it should be
Decreasing (decresser), but it's really growing each night -- waxing! The
tides ebb and flow -- usually twice each daily--partly governed by the moon and
sun, according to the degree to which Sun, Moon, and Earth are or are not
lined up in a straight line. This line is closest to being straight when the
moon is new or full, and the tides then are "spring" tides -- with a big
difference between the highest and lowest tides on a given day: that is, both
the highest and lowest tides are near the time of full and new moon. When the
moon is in its quarters, there is less difference between high and low, and
these are the "neap" tides. The picture is complicated by the resonance
features of different bodies of sea water, so that the difference between high
and low on one day in the Bay of Fundy can exceed 40 feet, while on parts of
the open shore not too far away the difference would be only 4 or 5 feet.
This whole thing is explained in more detail in my book _Seashore Life of
Southern California_ (University of California Press.)
****************
>Did you typo Scripps Institute, btw? The 'Scripps Institution' sounds like
>a place where they keep all the marine biologists who think they're
>Napoleon.
>Is that difference (institute/institution) not present in USese?
******************
We marine biologists may be quite mad at times, but "Institute" in the USA
does not necessarily convey that. The two words are used indiscriminately here,
it seems, and "Scripps Institution" is correct, as is "Smithsonian
Institution" for the great Museum complex in Washington, DC. The Scripps
Institution (SIO) is part of the widespread University of California; so is
the Coastal Marine Institute at Santa Barbara!
Roberta Davies
Sure we're allowed pet peeves. It's never come up, but if I ever
happened to be editing or proofing something where the house
style insisted on "alright", I would have to swallow my pride and
let it go through. That's life. But I would change it to "all
right" wherever allowed!
Back to the basic tenet I mentioned somewhere else in the group:
write for the people who give a damn. "All right" is definitely
correct and accepted by everyone. "Alright" -- as shown here --
is contentious and not accepted by many. This should help guide
your choice.
Robbie
Roberta Davies
>
> Yes, the moon rises
> and sets all right, on a daily basis; it also waxes and wanes in a 28-day
> cycle, changing from new to full (waxing) and back to new (waning). To help
> remember which I which, there is a French proverb: "You lie like the moon!"
> When the moon is shaped like a "C", one would expect that it stood for some
> verb derived from "cresser", "to increase." But the moon is a liar, and it's
> actually DEcreasing when it looks like a C when iin the east, so it's really
> waning. In the same way, if it's shaped like a "D" at moonrise, it should be
> Decreasing (decresser), but it's really growing each night -- waxing!
I learnt the following mnemonic: When the visible part of the
moon is on the left, it's "left-over" -- i.e. old, waning. This
leaves waxing for the time when the visible part is on the right.
Will our Aussie friends remind me whether this is reversed in the
Southern Hemisphere -- in which case the mnemonic won't do you
much good!
Robbie
Lynda
Sam Hinton wrote:
<snip>
> remember which I which, there is a French proverb: "You lie like the moon!"
> When the moon is shaped like a "C", one would expect that it stood for some
> verb derived from "cresser", "to increase." But the moon is a liar, and it's
> actually DEcreasing when it looks like a C when iin the east, so it's really
> waning. In the same way, if it's shaped like a "D" at moonrise, it should be
> Decreasing (decresser), but it's really growing each night -- waxing! The
if C then DEcreasing
if D then decreasing
hrm.
>
> Sam
> La Jolla, CA USA
Lynda
--
"they say goldfish have no memory
i guess their lives are much like mine
and the little plastic castle is a surprise every time.
and it's hard to say, if they're happy
but they don't seem much to mind"
- Ani Difranco
meirm...@erols.com
(Sam Hinton) posted:
>>Did you typo Scripps Institute, btw? The 'Scripps Institution' sounds like
>>a place where they keep all the marine biologists who think they're
>>Napoleon.
>>Is that difference (institute/institution) not present in USese?
>******************
>We marine biologists may be quite mad at times, but "Institute" in the USA
>does not necessarily convey that. The two words are used indiscriminately here,
>it seems, and "Scripps Institution" is correct, as is "Smithsonian
>Institution" for the great Museum complex in Washington, DC.
I was thinking about this one. I'm sure that 40 years ago we called
it the Smithsonian Institute, but lately, in maybe the last 20 years,
they call it an institution. Do you or anyone remember when popular
usage changed?
This is a little bit like Smokey the Bear.
> The Scripps
>Institution (SIO) is part of the widespread University of California; so is
>the Coastal Marine Institute at Santa Barbara!
>
>Sam
>La Jolla, CA USA
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
meirm...@erols.com
<roberta...@virgin.net> posted:
>Sam Hinton wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the moon rises
>> and sets all right, on a daily basis; it also waxes and wanes in a 28-day
>> cycle, changing from new to full (waxing) and back to new (waning). To help
>> remember which I which, there is a French proverb: "You lie like the moon!"
>> When the moon is shaped like a "C", one would expect that it stood for some
>> verb derived from "cresser", "to increase." But the moon is a liar, and it's
>> actually DEcreasing when it looks like a C when iin the east, so it's really
>> waning. In the same way, if it's shaped like a "D" at moonrise, it should be
>> Decreasing (decresser), but it's really growing each night -- waxing!
>
>I learnt the following mnemonic: When the visible part of the
>moon is on the left, it's "left-over" -- i.e. old, waning. This
>leaves waxing for the time when the visible part is on the right.
Interesting. The mnemonic I use is DOC. No special relevance but
it's short, it works, and it's mine.
>Will our Aussie friends remind me whether this is reversed in the
>Southern Hemisphere -- in which case the mnemonic won't do you
>much good!
Almost never thought of this until you bring it up, except that I have
noticed that the line between light and dark on the moon isn't as
vertical as I remember it, at least some of the time. It actually
seems that it varies even without my leaving Baltimore. So maybe it
varies by season. I was going to start taking notes. Seems to me
because of the tilt of the axis of the earth, if you ignore real
latitude, and define the "solar earth equator" as a line through the
earth that bisects the illuminated portion of the earth, and from
there define "solar earth latitude" so to speak, our latitude during
darkness does vary with the season, and with the time of night. So
that does account for why the angle of the line on the moon (or the
direction in which the open crescent faces) changes during the course
of the night and the year. I think I"m still going to make some
observations and notes but talking about this now should save a lot of
time.
I think you are right and I think it also means that at the equator is
the transition place and the line should be horizontal with the dark
part on top. I got as far as the Canal Zone and I don't remember
noticing anything special about the moon. And I was out every night.
Hmmm. Actually all the pictures of the crescent moon** show the
opening pointing up, maybe with a baby? hanging from the lower point
as if it were a hook. So the dark part is the part that is towards
the top. Wow.
**IIUC despite its origin, crescent means either waxing or waning, as
long as it is less than a half. Right?
It means the mnemonic in the southern hemisphere is COD. And at the
equator, people will either be above or below the "solar equator"
depending on the time of year and the time of day! When it is
spring/fall periods in the north/south, that is march/april/may and
sept/oct/nov people at the equator go from above the solar equator to
below, or the opposite,in one night, and they will see the lit half of
a waxing or waning moon rock from one side to the other in the course
of a night. This won't look so strange because it happens slowly and
at the same time, it traverses the sky, the earth is rotating, and if
one bears in mind where the sun is, it's not surprising that the lit
part changes with respect to the viewer. I guess that is why I never
noticed all this until you pointed it out.
>Robbie
meirm...@erols.com
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> posted:
Aye doughn't no.
Sam Hinton
>Sam Hinton wrote:
><snip>
>
>> remember which I which, there is a French proverb: "You lie like the
>moon!"
>> When the moon is shaped like a "C", one would expect that it stood for
>some
>> verb derived from "cresser", "to increase." But the moon is a liar, and
>it's
>> actually DEcreasing when it looks like a C when iin the east, so it's
>really
>> waning. In the same way, if it's shaped like a "D" at moonrise, it should
>be
>> Decreasing (decresser), but it's really growing each night -- waxing!
>The
>
>if C then DEcreasing
>if D then decreasing
>
>hrm.
>
>>
>> Sam
>> La Jolla, CA USA
>
>Lynda
**************************
Hi, Lynda: Please read the last line of your quote once more; it says that if
the moon looks like a D, it's INcreasing: it's not telling the truth!
Hrm?
Sam
Lynda
'should be'.
yes. i see it now.
>
> Hrm?
so sorry.
> Sam
Don Aitken
>In alt.english.usage on 11 Feb 2001 05:03:13 GMT slhin...@aol.com
>(Sam Hinton) posted:
>
>>>Did you typo Scripps Institute, btw? The 'Scripps Institution' sounds like
>>>a place where they keep all the marine biologists who think they're
>>>Napoleon.
>>>Is that difference (institute/institution) not present in USese?
>>******************
>>We marine biologists may be quite mad at times, but "Institute" in the USA
>>does not necessarily convey that. The two words are used indiscriminately here,
>>it seems, and "Scripps Institution" is correct, as is "Smithsonian
>>Institution" for the great Museum complex in Washington, DC.
>
>I was thinking about this one. I'm sure that 40 years ago we called
>it the Smithsonian Institute, but lately, in maybe the last 20 years,
>they call it an institution. Do you or anyone remember when popular
>usage changed?
>
>This is a little bit like Smokey the Bear.
>
I'm sure it's always been the Smithsonian Institution. Gore Vidal used
that as the title for his novel and I'm sure his acquaintance with the
place goes back more than forty years.
BTW it is not true that "Institute" is the invariable form this side
of the pond. From the London telephone book we have -
Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence
Institute of Biology
Institute of British Organ Building (stop laughing at the back!)
Institute of Chartered Accountants
Institute of Regression Analysis (Est. 1972)
and so on for over three columns, BUT
Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Institution of Civil Engineers
Institution of Nuclear Engineers
Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists
and so on for half a column. There doesn't seem to be any pattern to
it, not even a tendency for newer bodies to use one rather than the
other.
--
Don Aitken
Sam Hinton
>I'm sure that 40 years ago we called
>it the Smithsonian Institute, but lately, in maybe the last 20 years,
>they call it an institution. Do you or anyone remember when popular
>usage changed?
***************************
I can't speak for popular usage in every part of the country. but it's been an
"Institution" to me for a long time. I think that, in popular usage, it's most
often spoken of simply as "The Smithsonian." I began corresponding with Dr.
Doris L. Cochran, Curator of Herpetology there, in 1931, when I was living in
Crockett, Texas,and in 1937, I worked for her as an illustrator. (She was
paying me out of her own pocket ---$3.00 a week--while my main full-time job
($13.00 a week) was as a window decorator and show-card writer at the Woodward
and Lothrops Department Store.) It was called the Smihsonian Institution then.
I was there again gor a couple of weeks in 1947, when the Scripps Institution
of Oceanography sent me on a trip all over the country, to study museums and
museum preparation. Dr. Cochran had died, but the place was still called an
"Institution."
When James Smithson, an English scientist who had never been to the United
States, unaccountably but fortunately in 1829 left his estate of more than
$500,000 to the US, it was for the founding of an Institution of Science,
History, and Education.
There's a nice website about the Smithsonian and its history at
http://www.sil.si.edu/Exhibitions/Smithson-to-Smithsonian/index.html .
meirm...@erols.com
(Sam Hinton) posted:
>On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 1:28 AM, meirm...@erols.com, wrote:
>
>>I'm sure that 40 years ago we called
>>it the Smithsonian Institute, but lately, in maybe the last 20 years,
>>they call it an institution. Do you or anyone remember when popular
>>usage changed?
>***************************
>I can't speak for popular usage in every part of the country. but it's been an
>"Institution" to me for a long time. I think that, in popular usage, it's most
>often spoken of simply as "The Smithsonian." I began corresponding with Dr.
>Doris L. Cochran, Curator of Herpetology there, in 1931, when I was living in
>Crockett, Texas,and in 1937, I worked for her as an illustrator. (She was
>paying me out of her own pocket ---$3.00 a week--while my main full-time job
>($13.00 a week) was as a window decorator and show-card writer at the Woodward
>and Lothrops Department Store.) It was called the Smihsonian Institution then.
>
Well this makes me feel better. At least they weren't playing games
with the name like they've been doing with Smokey the Bear. (BTW, do
you know what Smokey the Bear's middle name is? Straight from 1957)
So it's good to hear from you.
Nonetheless I'm sure I didn't make it up. I used or heard the term
Smithsonian Institute at least 10 times by the time I turned ten in
1957 and it was the only Institute I had ever heard of at that time.
There were none in my little town, or in Pittsburgh (that I'd heard
of). Maybe it was a regional thing, or used on one tv show, or in our
newspaper or one comic book. I'll check with my older brother and see
if he knows. I know when I finally got there in person in 1967 or
1976? I was totally surprised to hear what they called it.
>I was there again gor a couple of weeks in 1947, when the Scripps Institution
>of Oceanography sent me on a trip all over the country, to study museums and
>museum preparation. Dr. Cochran had died, but the place was still called an
>"Institution."
>
I'm sure you know. I'll check with my 7 year older brother to see if
he knows where I got this idea.
>When James Smithson, an English scientist who had never been to the United
>States, unaccountably but fortunately in 1829 left his estate of more than
>$500,000 to the US, it was for the founding of an Institution of Science,
>History, and Education.
>
>There's a nice website about the Smithsonian and its history at
>http://www.sil.si.edu/Exhibitions/Smithson-to-Smithsonian/index.html .
>
>Sam
>La Jolla, CA USA
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> Nonetheless I'm sure I didn't make it up. I used or heard the term
> Smithsonian Institute at least 10 times by the time I turned ten in
> 1957 and it was the only Institute I had ever heard of at that time.
> There were none in my little town, or in Pittsburgh (that I'd heard
> of).
It's hardly a surprise that you heard "Smithsonian Institute." It's
quite common. But that doesn't make it any less wrong. The
establishment in question has been "The Smithsonian Institution"
since its founding. That doesn't stop people from getting the name
wrong.
And before any of you descriptivist-haters out there tell me
(ironically) that usage rules, let me point out that the correctness
of a name is not a matter of usage. It's a matter of convention --
just as is spelling. Names and spellings do on occasion drift, but
the Smithsonian has been assiduous in maintaining its name, and
anyone who uses "Institute" is simply wrong.
[ . . . ]
P&D Schultz
> <...> (BTW, do
> you know what Smokey the Bear's middle name is? Straight from 1957) <...>
I heard it as: "What do Attila the Hun and Smokey the Bear have in
common?"
\\P. Schultz