"resend" and e-style (181)

Mon, 24 Apr 89 21:27:15 EDT

Humanist Mailing List, Vol. 2, No. 884. Monday, 24 Apr 1989.

(1) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 22:32:58 EDT (17 lines)
From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler)
Subject: resend

(2) Date: 24-APR-1989 09:22:36 GMT (11 lines)

(3) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 08:18:17 -0400 (11 lines)
From: lang@PRC.Unisys.COM
Subject: resend

(4) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 11:40:05 EDT (52 lines)
From: Greg Goode <grgo@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re "resend"

(5) Date: 24 Apr 89 11:15:42 ET (18 lines)
From: "Nancy J. Frishberg" <NANCYF@ibm.com>
Subject: Electronic style

(6) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 10:45:00 EDT (45 lines)
From: Robert Kirsner (213) 825-3955 <IDT1RSK@OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: (COPY) resend em to siberia

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 22:32:58 EDT
From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler)
Subject: resend

My Webster's Ninth Collegiate says:

``resend - to send again or back''

An interesting note is that the past tense is `resent', which
shouldn't be confused with the verb `to resent' (did you mispronounce
that?) meaning ``to feel or express annoyance or ill will at''

A quick check shows that the Seventh Collegiate and the Macquarie
also have these verb.

(2) --------------------------------------------------------------14----
Date: 24-APR-1989 09:22:36 GMT

I believe that the verb 'to resend' has been used ever since
computer communications developed in the 1950s if not earlier.
'Say again' has been used in ham radio communications for much
longer as it is easy to understand over static and by non-natural
English speakers. Possible ambiguities arise in the past tense.
'I resent the message you resent'. Who did not like the message?
John Roper,
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------14----
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 08:18:17 -0400
From: lang@PRC.Unisys.COM
Subject: resend

>> (What would she say about the army verb, to re-up
>> meaning to enlist for a second--or any subsequent-- tour of duty? A
>> structuralist might say it proves that up can be a verb, as every poker
>> player knows it is).

This is just further proof that in English you can verb anything!

(4) --------------------------------------------------------------57----
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 11:40:05 EDT
From: Greg Goode <grgo@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re "resend"

It was interesting to see two separate defenses of the legitimacy
of the word "resend" invoke examples of military speech.
I didn't see the original message about the curmudgeon who
objected to "resend." But no matter how curmudgeonly, a person
who pretends to know language ought to admit the possiblity of
"resend" being technical jargon. Isn't it the relative
hospitality of the English language to words like these that makes
it (one of ?) the language with the largest lexicon? Similarly,
isn't one of the criteria of inclusion to the lexicon mere
usage? Isn't that what Webster's 3rd New International
Dictionary all about?

About the military examples. As a former member of the Army and a
present Field Artillery officer in the National Guard, I can
substantiate both Patrick Conner's comments about "re-up" and
Peter Junger's mention or "repeat."

Specifically, Peter Junger's comments about "repeat" are right.

> In the
> Army, of course, "repeat" is transformed into "say again", but
> I have always assumed that that ugly neologism is necessitated by
> the fact that the command "repeat" is likely to start another
> salvo of artillery on its way.

"Say again" is an ugly neologism. It's because in radio or
telephone talk in the Army, artillery shells are directed via
a sort of shorthand. Polar coordinates are given, in terms
of elevation from horizontal and left/right from the way the
tube of the howizter is pointing. "REPEAT" means to fire once
again using the exact same coordinates as last time. It's
shorter and less confusing than saying "Left 50, up 10."

And since the military is in essence its own culture, that
locution, "REPEAT," has worked its way into regions of the
Army far removed from Artillery -- some crusty old sergeant
will drill you for saying "repeat" in the normal context.

Those are commonly accepted as words within the military;
there should be no reason to disdain "resend" as a word in
slightly technical, computer-oriented usage.

--Greg Goode

(5) --------------------------------------------------------------26----
Date: 24 Apr 89 11:15:42 ET
From: "Nancy J. Frishberg" <NANCYF@ibm.com>
Subject: Electronic style

Two comments on the continuing saga of electronic style:
1) Denise Murray (Linguistics Program, San Jose State U.) has been
working on comparisons of oral-written & electronic discourse in a
specific milieu (IBM Research). Don't have an electronic address for
her (external to IBM), sorry. Several recent MLA presentations and
related publications: Language in Society, ACH newsletter....
2) Of course, "resend" is a word, and don't let "rescind" confuse
you. Notice, the two pronunciations for the sequence "resign", depending
on the derivation. If it's the productive use of re-, then the meaning
is to sign again (E.g. When all the invitation packets were
inadvertently thrown out, I had to resign the cover letters.) If it's the
fixed (presumably older) form, then it means to give up a position
(both literal and figurative) and the -s- is voiced. (E.g. When I realized
I had taken on too many responsibilities, I resigned as committee chair.)
(6) --------------------------------------------------------------53----
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 10:45:00 EDT
From: Robert Kirsner (213) 825-3955 <IDT1RSK@OAC.UCLA.EDU> (Department of
Subject: (COPY) resend em to siberia

I think we are getting a clash of two cultures here (sorry CP, it is another
two cultures): the litniks and the language people. People who actually
think about language itself (as opposed to Hamlet's oedipal problems or,
Goethe's concept of the eardrum) will have no trouble recognizing *resend*
as a verb. The relationship with UN-prefixation is interesting. I suppose
careful study of the works of Robert Silverberg will find not only the verb
*unkill* but also *rekill*, when the first *unkilling* was erroneous and
has to be corrected. (As the bumper sticker says: Reality is merely a
crutch for people who cannot cope with science fiction).


Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 22:32 PDT
To: maynor@msstate
From: Robert Kirsner (213)825-3955 <IDT1RSK>
(Department of Germanic Languages)
( 302 Royce Hall - UCLA)
( Los Angeles, CA 90024-1539)
( U.S.A.)
( Electronic mail: IDT1RSK@UCLAMVS.BITNET)
Subject: resend em to siberia

If I were Czar, I would make EVERYONE take at least one year of linguistics.
Not philology but linguistics, linguistics itself. Then we would not have
to waste our retinas on questions like whether *resend* is English.
Is oxygen a gas? Are grey elephants grey? The letter didn't have
the right account number on it, so the university mail service
returned it, but I'll resend it right away.
Perfectly normal.

The more interesting question is not whether RE- prefixation is productive
but whether all RE- forms are analysable. Bush gurgitated a lot of platitudes
during his press conference....