Conference thebay::joyoflex

Perhaps it means last, as in the last (latest) 21st, or last Thursday.
They had to take this one from Latin because Tokyo subway stations don't
have signs showing where the last train was headed.

    Yes, it means "last month". Often abbreviated to "ult". The counterpart
    for the current month is "instant", more usually abbreviated to "inst".
    Neither is really in current usage, though I don't think you'd have to
    go too far back to find them commonly used in literature (I'm thinking
    specifically of late Victorians, but I'd bet there are more recent
    examples).
    "Ultimo" derives fairly obviously from Latin "ultimus" = last.
    
    ...Robert

    thanks.  ulimate thanks.
    
    karl

    G'day,
    
    There is a suburb of Sydney, Australia called Ultimo...
    
    There was a noted? person of earlier times accused of murdering someone
    on such a day, Ultimo. Since he head an alibi for the date, Ult - but
    not for the day, inst (this month) when the murder in fact occurred, he 
    was exonerated. He was so pleased, he called his house ultimo, and the
    suburb ultimately took its name from the house.
    
    
    derek
    

The words were routinely used in formal British business English until
fairly recently.  The full set is:

ultimo = last month
instant = this month
proximo = next month

'Instant', or 'Inst.' for short, still survives but the other two are
now only used by the older partners of the most old-fashioned firms of
British solicitors.

The subject of 'Business English' really deserves a note of its own. 
It was a  distinct dialect quite unlike normal spoken or written
English.  My mother was a secretary in the 1940's in England.  She got
a job working for a US company - Heinz - and was surprised that their
policy was to write business correspondence in ordinary language.  I
assume from this that the practices of using odd bits of Latin, the
passive voice always being used (-:, remaining an obedient servant and
servile groveling in general were not found in American business
correspondence to the same extent.

Jon

    Hey you guys,
    
         How do you think we'd look if we write business letters in
    ordinary language?  Don't you think we'd better tone it down a
    bit?  Well, yeah it's better if we don't spout old Latin phrases
    that no one understands any more, but we can't get too laid back
    about it either.
    
                             Your obedient servant,
    
                             anon.

> The subject of 'Business English' really deserves a note of its own. 
> It was a  distinct dialect quite unlike normal spoken or written
> English.  My mother was a secretary in the 1940's in England.  She got
> a job working for a US company - Heinz - and was surprised that their
> policy was to write business correspondence in ordinary language.  I
> assume from this that the practices of using odd bits of Latin, the
> passive voice always being used (-:, remaining an obedient servant and
> servile groveling in general were not found in American business
> correspondence to the same extent.

	Probably not to the same extent, but it's still there 
	nonetheless.  I teach a tech writing class at a local
	university, and one of the fisrt assignments is a cover
	letter.  There are always a couple of students who favor
	the "Dear Sir or Madam," "per your request," "pursuant to
	our discussion" style.  I think this probably just comes
	from their imitating their superiors, who imitated their
	superiors, who imitated their superiors, who may well have
	been Barteblies.  I try to couch my discussion of this in
	terms of tone and style and the impression they make on the
	reader.  I also make sure they realize it's a continuum, 
	with stuffy, pompous, and archaic on the one side and 
	breezy, overly familiar, and stupid on the other.

		-- Cliff

	> letter.  There are always a couple of students who favor
	> the "Dear Sir or Madam," "per your request," "pursuant to
	> our discussion" style.  I think this probably just comes

    Cliff,

    What's wrong with `Dear Sir or Madam'? I always start a letter this 
    way if I don't know the name or gender of the person who'll be
    reading it, for example if I'm writing to the bank or the tax office.
    At school we were told to always use Dear Sir in this case, but I 
    don't think this is appropriate when the recipient may be a woman.

    Is there a better way?

    June.

>    What's wrong with `Dear Sir or Madam'? I always start a letter this 
>    way if I don't know the name or gender of the person who'll be
>    reading it, for example if I'm writing to the bank or the tax office.
>    At school we were told to always use Dear Sir in this case, but I 
>    don't think this is appropriate when the recipient may be a woman.

It's sounds rather pompous and archaic to me.  But, then again, you're right 
about there being no real alternatives if you want to be PC.  As "Dear Sir" and
"Gentlemen" (which sound nice to the ears, but aren't very PC) become more and
more unacceptable, I'm sure something will come up (kind of like Ms.).

I've had classes where we wrestled with this problem.  One of our suggestions
was "To Whom It May Concern," which always sounded like the beginning of a
suicide note to me.  Another approach is the "To the Editor" one -- that is,
identify the position (personnel manager, customer service manager, etc.) you
are writing to, instead of the sex of the person.

Any other ideas?

	-- Cliff

		My rule is:  If I know the name of my recipient, 
		I use that name.  Otherwise I use:

		`Dear Reader'

		Works for me.  :-)

		Jim

re: `Dear Reader'

Somehow that sounds to me like something Ann Landers would use; in fact "Miss 
Manners" begins her replies "Gentle Reader:".  

Clay

    If you want PC, there's always "Dear People"
    
Lew Lasher

>>    If you want PC, there's always "Dear People"

	In the spirit of ratho ... er ... exploring another facet
	of this: is the word `dear' really so PC?  Could it not 
	be considered a harasser?  [Or possibly an harasser?]

	Yes?  Well, let's do away with it then!

	Why do we need *anything* before the main text?   You write 
	me a letter.  I know it's for me.  The `Dear Jim' is 
	redundant.

	Does this help?

	Jim.

    I use "Gentleperson" after once seeing someone else use it.

I always use "Greetings".  PC, faintly ironic for those of us old enough to 
remember the draft, and acceptable by William Safire.

Larry

	This brings up another rathole -- how do you address a group of
	mixed sex whose members you all know.  In an informal situation,
	I use things like "Gang:", "ALL-IN-1ers:" (or whatever happens to
	tie the group together).  Other suggestions here?

		-- C

    Gentlepersons
    
    
    or, for the less pedantic, Gentlepeople

    Gee, I thought "guys" _was_ generic. Silly me.
    
    Re greetings on business letters: If I know the recipient's name and/or
    title I'll use it, but otherwise I tend to omit the salutation
    entirely. I mean, after typing (or scribbling) the entire business
    address, I should think they'd know who should be reading the letter,
    and "Dear Sir or Madame" irks me for some reason. (A terse "People:"
    seems appropriate sometimes; and, occasionally, "Dear Employer of the
    Slimy Toad Who Attempted To Convince Me That a Dead Fly Was Not an
    Unacceptable Ingredient of the Soup Du Jour:")
    
    Speaking of "re", isn't it cute that even the computer software
    defaults to Latin sometimes?
    
    -b

    
    	The problem I have with "Dear Sir or Madam" is that the
    	word "madam" connotes a married woman and in our overly
    	sensitive, politically correct business world I would
    	not choose to be the one to stir up that cloaca.
    
    	I know people who, if they do not have a specific person
    	to designate, forego the customary greeting entirely and
    	launch into the body of the letter directly.
    
    	Why is it that long ago in the murky mists of time when I
    	was working toward a doctorate in English that language
    	seemed so much simpler?
    
    	I'm reminded of a story Al (Li'l Abner) Capp told.  He said
    	that each of the adult theaters of Boston's Combat Zone used 
    	to have three restrooms marked "Men," "Women," and "Usual 
    	Customers."

>>    Note 917.18 

>>    Gee, I thought "guys" _was_ generic. Silly me.

	Interesting.  But, if you are right, what are "dolls"?.

	A similar question is posed by considering the phrase
	"officers and men".    :-)

	Jim

re .18

> 	A similar question is posed by considering the phrase
>	"officers and men".    :-)

I recall seeing a cartoon in which there were three doors below a big
REST ROOMS sign.  The leftmost door was signed MEN, the rightmost door
WOMEN.  The center door, marked OFFICERS, was open and a man in uniform
was emerging from it, and a woman in uniform was walking toward it
as if to enter.

It was funnier to see than it was to read my description.

Dave C.

    It sounds funny enough from your description.

    re .19
    
    cloaca?????

    
    
    	Re: .23
    
    	Well, since cloaca means sewer it should go.  It may not
    	be the most common usage, but I do believe it is correct.

    Yup.  "Cloaca" is Latin for sewer.  Now I only see it used
    anatomically.

    Yeah, my only previous experience of this word was as an anatomical
    reference in a book on turtles!
    
    Looked in the American Heritage dictionary, but it wasn't listed at
    all.  (What a surprise, huh?)
    
    -ellie

    It's in my American Heritage (Second College Edition):
    
    cloaca n., pl. -cae 1. A sewer 2. A latrine 3. Zool. a. The cavity into
    which the intestinal, genital, and urinary tracts open in vertebrates
    such as fish, reptiles, birds, and some primitive mammals. b. THe
    posterior part of the intestinal tract in various invertebrates. [Lat.]
    --cloacal adj.

    re <<< Note 917.19 by POWDML::COHEN_R >>>
    
    > 	The problem I have with "Dear Sir or Madam" is that the
    >  	word "madam" connotes a married woman and in our overly
    >  	sensitive, politically correct business world I would
    >  	not choose to be the one to stir up that cloaca.

    I'm not so sure that the use of Madam in this context suggests
    a married woman. Surely it's just a polite form of address, the 
    female equivalent of Sir? 

    In any case, at least `madam' acknowledges the fact that the 
    reader may be female. Speaking as an unmarried woman, I would 
    rather be addressed as Madam than Sir!! 

    June.

    re .27
    
    I just have the paperback at work -- "based on" second college edition.
    Glad the hardcover edition is better.  (I *never* find anything I'm
    looking for in that paperback!!!)
    
    -ellie

Aren't all officers addressed as sir regardless of gender?  Aren't all soldiers
addressed as mister (if addressed as all, that is)?  In informal situations, I'm
sure one would just use a subordinate's last name with or without rank, but what
about in more formal situations?

Wook

    Female officers are "ma'am."  Except for generals, which are addressed
    as "general" for both genders.

    I have an extra meaning !
    Ulti or ultimo is a very popular card game in Hungary. (It's isn't
    played using rummy cards but a 32 card special one. Similar ones are
    used in Germany and Austria as well. Maybe they also know this game.)
    The game starts with a bidding procedure, as bridge does.
    Possible  bids are for instance collecting a hundred scores, beating
    all the rounds (durchmars), beating none of them (betli), and regardless
    of the others beating the last round is called "ulti" or "ultimo".
    GyJ