Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Re .0 (Jerry):
    
    Maybe that's Franglish for:
    
    "Under an agreement, I'm flying to New York." ;-)
    
    Actually, this Yank has always been bemused by those on the other
    side of the pond being "in hospital" instead of "in a hospital."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                

�    < Note 495.0 by HLDG03::KEW "Tea break over, back on your heads" >
                                 -< Concorde >-

�    Are there any other things treated like this?

�    In Britain (I'm not sure of the rest of the world) people always refer to 
�    Concorde as though there is only one occurence of said plane.

�    "I'm flying on Concorde to New York" rather than "I'm flying on a Concorde 
�    to New York" and all other usage I've heard seems the same.

�    Jerry

    Your reference to this is the only occurrence of said occurrence
    that I have seen. So perhaps it is another? -{]%^}
    
    Ian.

    	Maybe it goes so fast that they are not sure whether there is more
    than one. Omission of the "a" tends to indicate a state of being.
    
    "
    I am going to Ney York in bliss.
    I am going to New York in concorde.
    I am going to New York in Concorde.
    I am going to New York in a Concorde.
    "
    
    	If Concorde is no more than an illusion of speed, then I would
    think the terminology is correct :-)

'Conference' and 'comittee' are often granted a kind of mystical status;
especially the party political conferences. How many times have you heard
something along the lines of: 

	"Conference decided that ....."
	
        "We said xxxx at conference."	

The first time I noticed it Tony Benn was talking about the Labour Party
Conference, and I assumed it was a pseudo-Northern expression, but I have
since heard it so often that it seems more like the jargon of the trade.
Does anyone know why?

	Steve

    G'day,
    
     Is this not a case of trademark names beginning the transition
    into the language as nouns or verbs? 
    
    How many times do we take 'aspirin' for the headache rather than 'an
    aspirin' or 'panadol' rather than 'a Panadol' .
    
    In advertising class features, it is also common to drop the
    (in)definite articles to emphasise the product 
    
    
    Fly 747 for comfort.   for example.
    
    (Never saw fly BAC111 tho )
    
    'Concorde' is a class of service that is unique and the single word
    epitomises the idea.
                            
    In Australia, our equivalent  of the '125' train is the XPT.
    Passengers XPT to Dubbo.
    
    Just a thought.
    
    Derek
    

    There are a number of other languages in which there are no articles at
    all. I'm not an expert at any, but I imagine a russian, even one who
    spoke english reasonably well, would have some difficulty understanding
    what this topic was about. I wonder why english-speaking people feel a
    need to distinquish "a noun" from "the noun" from "noun" in the first
    place. I also wonder how the french talk about the Concorde. I'm not
    sure if it's "un/le" or (more likely) "une/la", but they have
    undoubtedly felt the need to assign it a sex. 

Fly concorde/fly first class - seems to be an adverb in some contexts??

It must be an ad-man's dream to get a product name into that sort of usage.


Jerry

    Re .6,
    
�    place. I also wonder how the french talk about the Concorde. I'm not
�    sure if it's "un/le" or (more likely) "une/la", but they have
�    undoubtedly felt the need to assign it a sex. 

     That's just French. Everything in French has sex, even a table,
    if you see what I mean.  @:^}
    
    
    Ian.

    We say "Concorde" in French, without an article, just
    like in English. "J'ai pris Concorde pour aller � New-York",
    If it had a gender, I think it would be masculine, as for all other
    planes ("Un 747"). 

    A feminine name "concorde" exists, but it only means "concord".
    
    Talking about genders, it was suggested in some other conference
    that the United Kingdom should really be called the United Queendom, 
    since they have a Queen since a long time.
    Sounds quite reasonable to me.
    
    	roger

>  It must be an ad-man's dream to get a product name into that sort of usage.

Actually, it's an ad-man's nightmare.  Once the word passes into common 
use like that, the company loses its legal rights to the name.  
Aspirin is a good example.  It used to be a trade-marked name, but it 
fell into common use to describe any tablet made up of the same 
chemical, so the trade-mark was lost.

Xerox and Coke have both been fighting expensive legal battles to keep 
their products from slipping into common use.  It's a problem: every 
company wants to be well known, no company wants to be so well known 
that they lose their trade-marks.
					>>>==>PStJTT

�    If it had a gender, I think it would be masculine, as for all other
�    planes ("Un 747"). 

    On the analogy of boats, n'est-ce pas? Like `Le France' - which
    stands for Le [paqueb�t, la] France.
    
    Re .another
    
    Sex doesn't say anything about gender. About 500 years ago - no exact
    dates, Bonny? - English had three words meaning woman, one m. one f.
    and one n. Spellings are beyond my ken: something like womman, queane
    and wyf.
    
    b 

    Oh, boy! An opportunity to leap on one of my favorite high horses.
    
    In French, and other languages, things do not have sex. Rather, they
    have gender. They are not male or female; they are masculine or
    feminine. The difference is subtle, but real.
    
    Similarly, people do not have gender; they have sex. 
    
    Go ahead and snicker. That common usage has "sex" being an icon for
    "sexual intercourse" simply gives us a handy mnemonic, so there's no
    excuse for forgetting the difference. Think of all the fun you'll have
    saying, "people don't have gender; they have sex" just loudly enough
    for lots of people to overhear out of context at parties. Then you can
    smile at them and explain, "we were discussing grammar." Also remember
    that some clever soul is bound to respond, "Whose?" There are lots of
    good replies to this, one being "Yours." I'll leave others as
    exercises. Just be sure that when you start this, your snappy reply
    should chambered and the safety off your tongue. 
    
    	Jon 

    Aw, shoot, Jon, you beat me to it again.
    
    A few back mentioned wyf, wyfman, womman, queen (cwen) and other
    words for woman -- that's not really related to the issue of
    gender of words.  There have always been lots of words for woman,
    just as there are lots of words for men.  (I think cwen used to
    mean 'a woman who's in charge of something in her own right,' but
    I don't have my dictionaries and stuff in front of me so I
    wouldn't swear to that.) 
    
    'Wyf' used to be a neuter word, but English had a trend that only
    words that referred to things could be gender-neutral.  All words
    that refer to people have to be he or she.  For instance, you
    seldom see a reference to "Put that child to bed, it's obviously
    tired."  Though for most of the history of the English language,
    that would have been perfectly correct. 

    For a perfect example of the distinction between the gender of the
    word and the sex of the thing being described, see note 34.48.
    
    --bonnie 

    Re .14
�                                -< addendum >-
�
�    For a perfect example of the distinction between the gender of the
�    word and the sex of the thing being described, see note 34.48.
    
    Uh? 34.48? Note 32 only has two replies. Could this be the 'future
    echo' effect, commonly encountered when travelling close to light
    speed?
    
    Ian.

    Re: .14, .15:
    
��      Re .14
��  �                                -< addendum >-
��  �
��  �    For a perfect example of the distinction between the gender of the
��  �    word and the sex of the thing being described, see note 34.48.
��     
��     Uh? 34.48? Note 32 only has two replies. Could this be the 'future
��     echo' effect, commonly encountered when travelling close to light
��     speed?
��     
��     Ian.
    
    Please excuse it.  It must have meant 31.48. (-:
    
    Dan

I was reminded of this from mennotes, one of my favourite notes.


================================================================================
Note 65.32                       Words for women                        32 of 33
RANCHO::RAH "lookout for the ties!"                   5 lines   4-FEB-1987 21:55
                      -< No acceptable terminology here >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In California there are *no* adjectives acceptable to women.
    Men aren't supposed to talk to females in Calif. I think
    it was outlawed during the Brown Administration.
    If it becomes necessary to address a female (fire, accident,
    question on X server, etc.) we have to use notes and deaddrops.

    �    A few back mentioned wyf, wyfman, womman, queen (cwen) and other
    �	 words for woman -- that's not really related to the issue of
    �	 gender of words.

    Caught me again! OK, it's not a good example; just a memorable bit of
    trivia. I could just as well have said that Ancient Greek (and Modern
    German - no, Phillip?) use a neuter word for maiden/virgin. My point,
    as Jon put it, is that words have gender and things have sex. I
    think everyone agrees.
    
    b 

    re: the number of the note I was referring to
    
    Yes, 31.48.  The essay about the cow.  
    
    I don't know how I typed the number wrong; I wrote it down
    correctly.  It's staring up at me from my little yellow post-it
    notepad: "cow, gender, 31.48".  Right next to "Reread 266.44" (not
    a note from this file, so don't waste your time looking for it.) 
    
    I guess that's what happens to the fingers and to the eyesight
    after a day in Fortran and CDD/Plus metadata buffers! 
    
    Re:  .18 -- Maybe we need a note for memorable linguistic trivia?
    I've got a whole hoard of them stashed away in places that could
    be better used for memorizing internal data structures: things
    like the derivation of the word "curfew" and three theories as to
    why the old anglosaxons combined the neuter "wyf" with the
    masculine "man" to make the feminine "woman." 
    
    --bonnie

    re:.18
    
    Modern German has two words for "girl" or "maid". The first is
    "M�del", which is feminine, and generally was used to refer to
    adolescent girls. It's somewhat archaic and not used much these
    days (unless it's come back into vogue from when I took German
    in school). The second word is "M�dchen", which is neuter, and
    was used to refer to younger girls (translation: "little maid"),
    but is used now pretty much for girls of all ages.
    
    The only reason "M�dchen" is neuter is because the "-chen"
    ("little") suffix makes it so. My German teacher used to joke
    that it was because the Germans didn't consider girls to be
    worth anything until they were women.
    
    re:.19
    
    Now, now, Bonnie. We all know that you typed in the wrong note
    number because you were NWI ("Noting While Intoxicated"). :-)
    
    re: etymology of "woman"
    
    I remember a joke from way back that maintained that "woman" comes
    from...
    
    **Danger, danger, Will Robinson! Here there be sexist jokes!**
    			Proceed at your own risk
    
    ... the "wo(e) of man"
    
    --- jerry

    re:.19
    
    I think it is logical that woman should be derived from _wyf_ (neuter)
    and _man_ (masculine).
    
    Isn't the first step in a sex-change operation from male to female
    the neutering of the male?  :-)
    
    Roger (the other one)

    re: .21
    
    Well, yes, that's logical, but they didn't have sex-change
    operations in 8th-century Angle-land.
    
    re: .20
    
    I have far better things to do while I'm intoxicated than mere
    noting. 
    
    --bonnie

    Re: .22
    
    > Well, yes, that's logical, but they didn't have sex-change
    > operations in 8th-century Angle-land.

    What about Ethelred the Unready, then?  :-) :-)

    Jeff.

    Re .13
    
    
    �- 'Wyf' used to be a neuter word, but English had a trend that only
    � words that referred to things could be gender-neutral.  All words
    � that refer to people have to be he or she.  For instance, you
    � seldom see a reference to "Put that child to bed, it's obviously
    � tired."  Though for most of the history of the English language,
    � that would have been perfectly correct. 
    
    Then why are birth announcements typically, "It's a girl!" (or It's
    a boy!").  Shouldn't that be:  "She's a girl!"?  Or would that be
    redundant :*)
    
    Spd

    > Then why are birth announcements typically, "It's a girl!" (or It's
    > a boy!").
    
    For the same reason that you say "Who is it?" and I reply "It is
    I" (for I are pedantic), instead of "I am I".  The "it" in "It's
    a girl" is not a pronoun for "girl".

    Jeff.

    re: .24
    
    I got a birth announcement a few months back that said "He's a boy." 
    
    I thought it sounded pretty funny.  
    
    I think the 'it' in "It's a (girl)" refers to the unstated "The
    baby we've been expecting."
    
    In which case you are correct, the usage of "it" in that context
    is a residual usage of the gender-neutral personal pronoun.
    
    --bonnie

    I may simply be a silly Yank, but isn't it British tradition to refer
    to children as "it"? I distinctly remember reading this in literature. 
    
    	Jon

    G'day,
    
    I like Bill Crosby's definition of why females are called  'Woman".
    
    When God created Woman from Adam's rib (sic) God looked at the result
    and exclaimed WO! MAN! 
    
    re-.1 In some parts of Uk it is common to refer to young (questionable)
    ladies as 'it'! ie 'It's got a good figure' or 'He shouldn't be
    doing that to it. Terribly sexist and before someone jumps on the
    bandwagon I APOLOGISE!  (I didn't say _I_ used the expression)
    
    Derek
    
    
    

    G'day again,
    
    To sort of bring things discussed so far into a nutshell
    
    Will woman ever fly Concorde?
    
    Derek
    

And, on the original subject, "anybody remember .0?" he asked waspishly, do 
we have other objects who are referred to as though there is only one of 
them in the world.


Jerry

    Re .27 (Jon):
    
    >I may simply be a silly Yank, but isn't it British tradition to refer
    >to children as "it"? I distinctly remember reading this in literature. 
     
    I would assume that all English-speaking people would refer to children
    as "them."
    
    In the subject of "it":  I've seen people refer to pets (cats, dogs,
    birds) as "it," even when they know the animals' genders.  E.g.,
    "I saw my dog Baron in the back yard.  It was burying a bone." 
    In that context, I take "it" to be a sign of lack of empathy with
    the animal.  Surely an owner should know the gender of his or her
    pet.
    
    Re subject:
    
    "At table" for "at the table" has always irritated me somewhat.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Here in Vermont among natives (not yuppie flatlanders), a case which is just  
the opposite of the base note can be heard.  Things which are obviously
singular and unique take the definite article, implying a degree of plurality.
A couple of examples: 

	1. In the town where I live (Shoreham) the general store is Herb's 
	Corner Store.  	One location only.  Several of my neighbors will talk 
	about buying something "down at the Herb's."

	2. I worked for a while for Simmonds Precision in Vergennes, Vermont.
	The same neighbors have told me that they too have worked "up at the 
	Simmonds.", or, even stranger, "up to the Simmonds."

I think this is fairly widespread in rural New England dialect.  Has anyone 
else noticed it?

Larry
	

< Note 495.31 by MARKER::KALLIS "Why is everyone getting uptight?" >

>    In the subject of "it":  I've seen people refer to pets (cats, dogs,
>    birds) as "it," even when they know the animals' genders.

I know people who refer to their pets as "it" if they've been nuetered...
"That's an it!"

Charlie

>  I think this is fairly widespread in rural New England dialect.  Has anyone 
>  else noticed it?

I used to hear that method of expression in central New Hampshire when I
was growing up there.  I had been transplanted from Boston at age 12, so
it sounded funny to me.  The strangest thing, to me, was their term for 
going into the business district.  In Boston, we'd say "I'm going 
downtown," but in Concord, they'd say "I'm going downstreet."  But if 
you were going to a particular place, you were always going "up to the" 
as in "I'm going up to the Woolworth's.  You want me to carry something 
back for you?"  No, thanks, I'll carry my own.

I'm sure I was just as amusing for them.
						>>>==>PStJTT 

    
    
    No No No!!!... You folks got it all wrong!!!. :-) :-) ;-)
    
    If you travel north to get to the city then it's "UPTOWN"
    
    If you travel south to get to the city then it's "DOWNTOWN"
    
    If you travel east or west to get to the cith then it's "CROSSTOWN"
    
    If you're within walking distaance then it's "Into the City"
    
   ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
    
    

    Re .35:
    
    Sorry.  You can only go "uptown," "downtown," or "crosstown" if
    you are _inside_ the city.
    
    Believe it or not, I when I was a student in New York, a stranger
    stopped me and asked me, very politely, which way was uptown.
    
    I pointed.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I've always felt that "downtown" was the business/shopping area
    of a city, and "updown" was the more residential area.  Further,
    I believe that `most' cities were located on rivers or bays, and
    therefore the commercial areas were closest to the water (and
    therefore the most low-lying), and the residential areas distanced
    themselves the most, almost inevitably uphill.
    
    							Ann B.

    and, of course, when you go from Boston to Maine, you go "down east".
    (some people may think you are going North, or Northeast, or just
    plain Going Up To Maine, but this is a fallacy).
    
    I presume the term originated from Maine's being "down wind" from
    Boston, as the prevailing ones would take them an easy sail "down"
    the coast.
    
    Wishin' I were Down Maine now
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	re Down East:
    
    	A good percentage of the "native" Maine population descended
    	from French Canadians (Canuks).  To a native from Maine, his home 
    	is the center of the universe.  Any "foreigner" who would have 
    	any legitimate reason to visit the "native" would, more than
    	likely, be coming from Canada.  To most Canadians Maine would
    	be in a South Eastern direction -- down east.  Most "native"
    	Maine residents migrated to their home by going Down East.
    	So to those "native" residents, Down East no longer holds any
    	directional meaning -- it simply refers to home, no matter where
    	they might be at the time.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    I have a book (historical novel) _Come Spring_ which is based on a
    family (from which I am a descendant) which were early settlers in 
    Rockland/Thomaston, Maine area circa 1776.  In that book there are
    several references to "going west" to Boston and "back east" to
    their homes.
    
    I'm not sure where the "down east" came from, but if you check a map,
    you will see that better than 99% of the State of Maine is east of
    the Boston and its environs, which was then the center of the
    Massachusetts Bay Colony.   At that time, what is now Maine was
    considered part of the Massachusetts Colony.

    Maine is down east because it is downwind.
    
    	Jon

    When I was growing up, "uptown" referred to the shopping area in
    our suburb.  "Downtown" referred to "downtown Chicago" (the big
    city!).
    
    Spd