4.0534 Remnants: Footnotes and Words (4/67)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Wed, 26 Sep 90 18:00:04 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0534. Wednesday, 26 Sep 1990.


(1) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 08:37:06 EDT (23 lines)
From: TEBRAKE@MAINE (William H. TeBrake)
Subject: So, why did so many jump on the WP bandwagon?

(2) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 10:03:34 PDT (14 lines)
From: "ALAN C. ACOCK" <ACOCK@ORSTVM>
Subject: WordPerfect files

(3) Date: 21 Sep 90 09:0:00 EDT (16 lines)
From: DAVID REIMER <REIMER@WLUCP6.BITNET>
Subject: Isogloss and 'booger'

(4) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 18:15 EDT (14 lines)
From: JLANCASTER@amherst
Subject: Plurals

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 08:37:06 EDT
From: TEBRAKE@MAINE (William H. TeBrake)
Subject: So, why did so many jump on the WP bandwagon?

Reading the raft of suggestions concerning how to keep footnotes created
with WordPerfect when creating an ASCII file reminded me of the
considerable pressure I received from colleagues and friends a couple of
years ago when I began looking for something besides WordStar for word
processing. Get WordPerfect, they said in chorus. The footnote
facility often was touted as its strongest feature (though I had WS 5
with its footnote facility on my office micro, I still used WS 2.26 on
my old CP/M Osborne at home without an integrated footnote facility).
In my usual perverse way, I resisted and began using NotaBene instead.
I have never regretted the decision: flawless footnote/endnote
manipulation, automatically creates an ASCII-like file with some
internal markup that can easily be located and modified with macros,
etc. Actually, now that I think of it, with the external program
Footnote and WordStar 2.26, I could easily extract, merge, change
footnotes/endnotes as well. So, what was the great improvement over
WordStar that WordPerfect hype used to stress? There, this should
ruffle a few feathers.
regards
Bill TeBrake, History, U. of Maine.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------20----
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 10:03:34 PDT
From: "ALAN C. ACOCK" <ACOCK@ORSTVM>
Subject: WordPerfect files

If you can upload files as BINARY files and whoever receives them can
download them as BINARY files, then all this footnote discussion is
unimportant. The literal WP file will be transferred and this will
include footnotes, tables, even graphics. The same can be done with
an *.exe or *.com file. You can send software this way. On an IBM
machine using PC3270 connection/software the command for an ascii
file is SEND FN.EXT FN FT FM (ASCII CRLF

For a binary file the command is SEND FN.EXT FN FT FM. On other systems
this may not be practical.
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------27----
Date: 21 Sep 90 09:0:00 EDT
From: DAVID REIMER <REIMER@WLUCP6.BITNET>
Subject: Isogloss and 'booger'

I hesitate to prolong discussion of this subject, but ever since
it was mentioned I have been expecting a contribution from
someone (anyone!) in Scotland. A Glaswegian acquaintance of mine
informed me a few years ago that the proper term (if one can call
it that) for "booger" was "bogle" in that part of the world. The
conversation then turned up some other variations which suggested some
fairly clear isoglosses distinguishing local vocabularies. Any
light to be shed on this subject from those in a position to know?

David Reimer, Wilfrid Laurier University
REIMER@WLUCP6

(4) --------------------------------------------------------------18----
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 18:15 EDT
From: JLANCASTER@amherst
Subject: Plurals

An anecdote told by J.W. Marchand in teaching (Germanic) linguistics
at Cornell in the late 60s:

In Swahili there is a class of nouns beginning in ki- that forms its
plurals by replacing ki- with vi-. The name of a traffic circle in
one African country (I don't recall which) that used the English
traffic pattern is "kiplefti"; the plural is "viplefti".

John Lancaster (jlancaster@amherst.edu)
Amherst College