Language Bits

By -
1) I've been re-reading old detective novels from a box I just unearthed. The characters are always "washing down" food with a pint or a glass of wine. What's this about? Have their digestive systems stopped working? My food goes down fine on its own, without any need for "washing."

2) One of the phrases of British English I least like is "tuck into," as in, "He tucked into his fish and chips." I tuck babies into their blankets; I never have tucked myself into my food. It makes me shiver every time I read it.

3) In Brooklyn, new Indian restaurants with absolutely standard fare still boast that they offer "exotic Indian foods." Dear owners: Thirty years ago, paratha, lamb korma, and chicken vindaloo may have been "exotic," but today they are about as exotic as spaghetti marinara.

4) Another tired blog cliche: "I'm just asking..." Having seen this for like the 7000th time, I'm pretty sick of it.

Comments

  1. Anonymous6:02 AM

    'Tuck-shop' = shop selling food, usually in a school.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah8:39 AM

    I know "tuck" can mean food, but that meaning makes total nonsense of the phrase: "He tucked into his food" becomes "he fooded into his food"!

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Goes8:50 AM

    If food is particularly salty or spicey, sometimes you have to cleanse the pallet with some wine or stout.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sheldon Richman9:58 AM

    How about "at the end of the day"? Ugh! I heard some commentator use that horrible phrase five times in two minutes the other day. It has apparently replaced "the bottom line," which was equally atrocious and overused.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:11 PM

    At the end of the day, do you think you just have to consider these pet peeves pointless and happily tuck into some exotic curry, washed down with lashings and lashings of ale?

    I'm just asking?

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah12:15 AM

    Andy, "I'm just asking..." requires ellipses in its canonical form.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:34 PM

    Andy, good job on the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5:01 PM

    'Tuck' is both a noun _and_ a verb -- like any number of words in English...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous4:26 PM

    Thanks for article!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:43 AM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:10 AM

    Glad to read articles like this. Thanks to author!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous3:21 PM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more