Some questions. Please help.
lcy
Please help me with the following questions. Thank you very
much!
1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
correct? Thank you!
2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
correct? Thank you.
Eric Walker
> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I heard
> people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is correct?
The term "health food" usually means food characteristically eaten by
people especially interested in health but typically not much eaten by
others, because unusual: something like carrot juice might be an
example. Food that is widely eaten by the general public that is held to
be conducive to good health is not *usually* called "health food", but
some might include it within the class.
Food that is likely to make or keep its eaters in good health is rightly
referred to as "healthful", but is commonly mis-called "healthy". It is
the people who eat it who are (presumably) healthy, not the food.
> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
> correct?
They mean two somewhat different things. To agree *with* means to hold
the same opinion, to concur. To agree *to* means to willingly comply
with, follow out.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
James Hogg
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:58:43 -0800, lcy wrote:
>
>> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
>> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
>> correct?
>
> The term "health food" usually means food characteristically eaten by
> people especially interested in health but typically not much eaten
> by others, because unusual: something like carrot juice might be an
> example. Food that is widely eaten by the general public that is
> held to be conducive to good health is not *usually* called "health
> food", but some might include it within the class.
>
> Food that is likely to make or keep its eaters in good health is
> rightly referred to as "healthful", but is commonly mis-called
> "healthy". It is the people who eat it who are (presumably) healthy,
> not the food.
"Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
--
James
aquachimp
> Dear all,
> Please help me with the following questions. Thank you very
> much!
>
> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
> correct? Thank you!
Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
stuff they would ordinarily avoid. It'll probably contain a variety of
nuts, some scanky looking dried bits of fruit and unprocessed cereals
(oats, wheat, corn). It could also contain something dreadful, like
say, yoghurt, fresh fruit and vegetables and uncontaiminated meat
products.
Others, on the other hand will sarcastically refer to health food as a
pint or two of Guinness, or a fast food take)away.
Healthy food however sounds a bit odd. A chicken before slaughter
should be healthy, but at that walking-around-still-very-much-alive
stage the chicken would not ordinarily be referred to as food.
So Healthy food probably refers to something which is not
contaminated.
>
> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
> correct? Thank you.
"I agree with..." primarily outlines that you agree with the person.
You wouldn't say, "I agree to her", you'd say "I agree with her".
"Agree to.." applies when you are agreeing to do something, so in this
case it would fit if you say "I agree to do as she suggests"
Or you might even say "I agree to her being allowed in for now" There,
you would again be agreeing with an action rather agreeing with a
person about agreeing on an action.
Richard Chambers
1. A "healthy food" is any food that sustains the body but does not contain
an excessive quantity of salt, fat, or substances that are likely to
contribute to cholesterol deposition in the arteries. Examples are fruit,
most vegetables, fish, meat if eaten in small quantities, etc. Contrast this
with "unhealthy" foods such as pizzas (too much salt), chips (too much fat),
etc.
Now, "health food". Most towns in Britain have at least one "Health Food
Shop". These usually do not sell vegetables, fruit, and other degradables.
But they do sell a range of foods that they claim are "healthy". Packets of
cereals that contain bran. Yeast for making your own bread. Aids to
slimming. They also sell bottles of vitamin pills, cod liver oil, and herbal
remedies. Their range, they assert, is "health foods". The only thing I ever
buy from one of these shops is occasional yeast. Otherwise, in my opinion,
they are all just hyperchondromarkets.
2. "I agree with her idea" = I believe she is right. But this might be in
theory only. I might, or might not, put her idea into practical operation.
She says that she thinks my house is worth �250,000
I agree with her. The idea seems to be sound, theoretically.
I do nothing more about it.
----
"I agree to her idea" = I might, or might not, believe that she is right.
But, whether she is right or wrong, I shall put her idea into practical
operation.
I advertise my house at �250,000
She (a different "she") offers �200,000
I say that I will not accept a penny less than �235,000
She offers �225,000
Reluctantly, I agree to her offer. [Notice the word "to"].
The selling of the house is put into practical operation.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Don Phillipson
news:26f1e12e-1895-4dca...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
> correct? Thank you!
Your confusion (which is common) occurs because of two
linguistic domains (marketing and journalism) that overlap
within the general field of everyday English. The language
often pairs nouns together in order to link two ideas, e.g. football
pools, swimming costume, swap file and so on. Modern
marketers now want to sell us things called health food,
fashion shoes, sports bras and so on, and these noun pairs
linger in the memory. Newspapermen and broadcasters
nowadays deal with marketing and fashion as often as
(formerly) with legislation and political debate, thus reinforce
the trend. But the word health is still used differently by a
nurse and by someone trying to sell you sugar-water.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Mark Brader
> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
> correct? Thank you!
Both are correct, but they mean different things. "Healthy food"
refers to food that is good to eat for health reasons. "Health
food" is food that is *marketed* as being especially good to eat
for health reasons, which you might buy at a "health food store"
specifializing in this.
> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
> correct? Thank you.
Both are correct, but they mean different things. "Agree with" means
you have the same opinion as her. "Agree to" means you consent to
what she suggests; it usually refers to actions rather than ideas.
("I agree to pay for the supplies if you will do the work.")
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Winning isn't everything, but not trying to win
m...@vex.net | is less than nothing." --Anton van Uitert
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Pavel314
wrote:
> On Nov 12, 12:58 pm, lcy <lcyiu3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> > Please help me with the following questions. Thank you very
> > much!
>
> > 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
> > heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
> > correct? Thank you!
>
> Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
> stuff they would ordinarily avoid.
Good definition of "health food." That reminds me of the scene in
"Sleeper" where Woody Allen awakens after being frozen for 500 years
and is given a plate of blue goop to eat. "This is awful," he says, "I
could have made a fortune selling it at my health food store."
Paul
Roland Hutchinson
> Now, "health food". Most towns in Britain have at least one "Health
> Food Shop".
AmE: "health food store" (The shop/store variation, as the original
poster, Icy, may already know, is an expected difference between American
and British varieties of English).
> These usually do not sell vegetables, fruit, and other
> degradables. But they do sell a range of foods that they claim are
> "healthy". Packets of cereals that contain bran. Yeast for making your
> own bread. Aids to slimming. They also sell bottles of vitamin pills,
> cod liver oil, and herbal remedies. Their range, they assert, is "health
> foods". The only thing I ever buy from one of these shops is occasional
> yeast. Otherwise, in my opinion, they are all just hyperchondromarkets.
American ones might sell organic produce.
Many of the things they sell are now sold in ordinary supermarkets. When
I was a youth in southern California (home of many of the original health
food stores) this was definitely not the case.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Mark Brader
> ...the original poster, Icy...
Roland, if you're not making a joke you either need a better monitor,
a better screen font, or better glasses.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet
m...@vex.net | than it is anywhere else." --Henry Spencer
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson writes:
>> ...the original poster, Icy...
>
> Roland, if you're not making a joke you either need a better monitor, a
> better screen font, or better glasses.
The fact that I am overdue for a visit to the ophthalmologist does not
preclude the possibility that Pan could profitably adopt different
default fonts for its listing of messages and senders.
James Hogg
How do you feel about a healthy diet?
--
James
Cheryl
I agree that food, and a lot of other things, can be 'healthy'. I can
eat healthy food, which may or many not be 'health food', have a healthy
lifestyle, get a healthy amount of exercise, and so on.
I do agree that 'health food' refers to a special type of food, usually
found in a special store or on special shelves in a grocery. "Health
food' usually has less processing than the other kind, is often exotic
as well (seeds, beans and grains which are not often found in the same
country or even hemisphere as the store), and promises lots of
nutrients. It also tends to be extraordinarily expensive, especially if
it is also 'organic', a term that is supposed to mean 'grown without
artificial chemicals', although it is often alleged - in Canada, anyway
- that there's really no way to ensure that something marked 'organic'
really is grown under those conditions.
--
Cheryl
ke...@cam.ac.uk
>>salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
>
>The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
>food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
I had a discussion the other day centred on whether it was sloppy to talk
about "unconscious desires". It seems to me a perfectly normal figure
of speech (probably has a name I can't remember) similar to the one above.
It's a lot better than boiling the kettle, and nobody complains about that.
Katy
JimboCat
ObWodehouse: "I wouldn't have said off-hand that I had a subconscious
mind, but I suppose I must without knowing it" [Bertie Wooster, /What
Ho, Jeeves/]
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"There is a quantum conscious computer inside the moon, and our
consciousness is broadcast to our pineal gland . . . it will be going
down for maintenance in 2012." [Rick Sobie]
John Varela
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
> When
> I was a youth in southern California (home of many of the original health
> food stores)
"Land of the fruits and the nuts."
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
John Varela
<aqua...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
> stuff they would ordinarily avoid. It'll probably contain a variety of
> nuts, some scanky looking dried bits of fruit and unprocessed cereals
> (oats, wheat, corn). It could also contain something dreadful, like
> say, yoghurt, fresh fruit and vegetables and uncontaiminated meat
> products.
You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
curd").
Skitt
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> James Hogg wrote:
>>> Eric Walker wrote:
>>>> lcy wrote:
>>>>> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
>>>>> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
>>>>> correct?
>>>> The term "health food" usually means food characteristically eaten
>>>> by people especially interested in health but typically not much
>>>> eaten by others, because unusual: something like carrot juice
>>>> might be an example. Food that is widely eaten by the general
>>>> public that is held to be conducive to good health is not
>>>> *usually* called "health food", but some might include it within
>>>> the class. Food that is likely to make or keep its eaters in good
>>>> health is
>>>> rightly referred to as "healthful", but is commonly mis-called
>>>> "healthy". It is the people who eat it who are (presumably)
>>>> healthy, not the food.
>>> "Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
>>> salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong
>>> with it.
>>
>> The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
>> food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
>
> How do you feel about a healthy diet?
Well, a healthful diet would be better, I'd say.
After an examination of the entries for healthy and healthful in M-W Online,
I think that even though the two words can be synonyms in some applications,
there is enough of a difference to make "healthful" a better choice for some
of them.
Main Entry: health�ful
[...]
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : beneficial to health of body or mind
2 : healthy <he felt incapable of looking into the girl's pretty, healthful
face - Saul Bellow>
- health�ful�ly adverb
- health�ful�ness noun
synonyms healthful, wholesome, salubrious, salutary mean favorable to the
health of mind or body. healthful implies a positive contribution to a
healthy condition <a healthful diet>. wholesome applies to what benefits,
builds up, or sustains physically, mentally, or spiritually <wholesome
foods> <the movie is wholesome family entertainment>. salubrious applies
chiefly to the helpful effects of climate or air <cool and salubrious
weather>. salutary describes something corrective or beneficially effective,
even though it may in itself be unpleasant <a salutary warning that resulted
in increased production>.
Main Entry: healthy
[...]
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): health�i�er; health�i�est
Date: 1552
1 : enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit : well
2 : evincing health <a healthy complexion>
3 : conducive to health <walk three miles every day.a beastly bore, but
healthy - G. S. Patton>
4 a : prosperous, flourishing b : not small or feeble : considerable
- health�i�ly \-th?-le\ adverb
- health�i�ness \-the-n?s\ noun
synonyms healthy, sound, wholesome, robust, hale, well mean enjoying or
indicative of good health. healthy implies full strength and vigor as well
as freedom from signs of disease <a healthy family>. sound emphasizes the
absence of disease, weakness, or malfunction <a sound heart>. wholesome
implies appearance and behavior indicating soundness and balance <a face
with a wholesome glow>. robust implies the opposite of all that is delicate
or sickly <a lively, robust little boy>. hale applies particularly to
robustness in old age <still hale at the age of eighty>. well implies merely
freedom from disease or illness <she has never been a well person>.
--
Skitt (AmE)
aquachimp
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:21:37 UTC, aquachimp
>
> > Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
> > stuff they would ordinarily avoid. It'll probably contain a variety of
> > nuts, some scanky looking dried bits of fruit and unprocessed cereals
> > (oats, wheat, corn). It could also contain something dreadful, like
> > say, yoghurt, fresh fruit and vegetables and uncontaiminated meat
> > products.
>
> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
> curd").
Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is is regarded
an example of as healthy eating?
R H Draney
>
>On Nov 12, 8:52=A0pm, "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:21:37 UTC, aquachimp
>>
>> <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
>> > stuff they would ordinarily avoid. It'll probably contain a variety of
>> > nuts, some scanky looking dried bits of fruit and unprocessed cereals
>> > say, yoghurt, fresh fruit and vegetables and uncontaiminated meat
>> > products.
>>
>> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
>> curd").
>
>Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is is regarded
>an example of as healthy eating?
Sometimes, under the category of "food without a face"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Pat Durkin
news:693b0f5d-a2b0-4c1d...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 8:52 pm, "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:21:37 UTC, aquachimp
>
> <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
> > stuff they would ordinarily avoid. It'll probably contain a
> > variety of
> > nuts, some scanky looking dried bits of fruit and unprocessed
> > cereals
> > (oats, wheat, corn). It could also contain something dreadful,
> > like
> > say, yoghurt, fresh fruit and vegetables and uncontaiminated meat
> > products.
>
> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
> curd").
aquachimp: Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is
is regarded
an example of as healthy eating?
Pat: I met a health food nut who was really down on any soy product,
"because soy contains estrogen". He was mixing a protein powder with
water in a fancy mixer cup. He had purchased both at "The Vitamin
Shop" in one of our shopping malls. I forget what the source of his
particular protein powder was.
For a while, textured vegetable protein (TVP) was a common soy product
purchasable in some supermarkets, but I think it became so popular
that the marketing industry hopped on the product and started
producing varieties with loads of additives, mainly, I think for
coloring. (Boca Burgers, etc). Now, I think one has to go back to
specialty stores to find it as a "staple". At least, I haven't
recently noticed the bulk TVP in the vegetarian food sections.
James Hogg
Is this a Pondian thing? The word "healthful" sounds archaic to me. I
don't know when I last heard it. I doubt if I've ever used it.
Are there no Americans here who can speak of healthy food, a healthy
diet, a healthy lifestyle?
--
James
aquachimp
It sound weird to me. I prefer "wholesome foods", though that too is
but another rather meaningless label.
Jerry Friedman
> >>"Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
> >>salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
>
> >The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
> >food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
>
> I had a discussion the other day centred on whether it was sloppy to talk
> about "unconscious desires". It seems to me a perfectly normal figure
> of speech (probably has a name I can't remember) similar to the one above.
"Transferred epithet" is one possibility, but if it's wrong, I won't
spend a sleepless night worrying about it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
A.u.e. is an excellent place to find the few Americans who use
"healthful" rather than "healthy" in this sense. This is one battle
I'm not willing to fight, though I retain enough of that childhood
prescription to dodge the issue and say things like "a good diet".
--
Jerry Friedman
the Omrud
> aquachimp filted:
>> On Nov 12, 8:52=A0pm, "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:21:37 UTC, aquachimp
>>>
>>> <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
>>>> stuff they would ordinarily avoid. It'll probably contain a variety of
>>>> nuts, some scanky looking dried bits of fruit and unprocessed cereals
>>>> (oats, wheat, corn). It could also contain =A0something dreadful, like
>>>> say, yoghurt, fresh fruit and vegetables and uncontaiminated meat
>>>> products.
>>> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
>>> curd").
>> Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is is regarded
>> an example of as healthy eating?
>
> Sometimes, under the category of "food without a face"....r
Food without a taste, IMO.
--
David
Peter Moylan
Tofu on its own has an unpleasant texture, but it compensates by having
very little taste. Think of it as edible rubber.
The people who eat it can do a pretty good job of using lots of sauces
and flavourings to make it palatable. It's like using lots of garlic to
hide the taste of snail.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Richard Chambers
On Nov 12, 11:22 am, k...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> >>"Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
> >>salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with
> >>it.
>
> >The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
> >food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
>
> I had a discussion the other day centred on whether it was sloppy to talk
> about "unconscious desires". It seems to me a perfectly normal figure
> of speech (probably has a name I can't remember) similar to the one above.
...
------------Jerry
"Transferred epithet" is one possibility, but if it's wrong, I won't
spend a sleepless night worrying about it.
------------end
She had made a careless error when she was caught by the secret police. Now
she was in the condemned cell of the female prison, after an unfair trial.
Her clumsy pyjamas, prison-issue grey, did not fit, and gave her another
restless night. The prison food certainly could not be said to be healthy.
This had not been a happy story, from start to sad finish. Her face wore an
bemused frown, partly caused by her guilty conscience.
With acknowledgements to Wikipedia, under "Hypallage", also known as
"Transferred Epithet", as Jerry has said. First I have ever heard of such a
term. Thank you, Jerry.
I am not too sure about some of the transferred epithets I have come up with
for myself. For example, are "unfair trial", and "guilty conscience"
examples of hypallage? I am fairly sure that "secret police" is not
hypallage, but that "happy story" is.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Richard Chambers
"Richard Chambers" <richard.cham...@ntlworld.net> wrote in message
news:tdWdnQqKKYCRN2HX...@brightview.co.uk...
annily
> L.C. Yiu:
>> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
>> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
>> correct? Thank you.
>
> Both are correct, but they mean different things. "Agree with" means
> you have the same opinion as her. "Agree to" means you consent to
> what she suggests; it usually refers to actions rather than ideas.
> ("I agree to pay for the supplies if you will do the work.")
I certainly agree with your example where a verb follows "to" but I
don't think I would ever say "I agree to her idea". I would insert
something like "implementing" after the "to".
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Peter Moylan
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> L.C. Yiu:
>>> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
>>> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
>>> correct? Thank you.
>>
>> Both are correct, but they mean different things. "Agree with" means
>> you have the same opinion as her. "Agree to" means you consent to
>> what she suggests; it usually refers to actions rather than ideas.
>> ("I agree to pay for the supplies if you will do the work.")
>
> I certainly agree with your example where a verb follows "to" but I
> don't think I would ever say "I agree to her idea". I would insert
> something like "implementing" after the "to".
"I agree to her suggestion" would be OK. Because of that, I find "I
agree to her idea" acceptable even if a bit borderline.
Mark Brader
>>> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
>>> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
>>> correct? Thank you.
Mark Brader:
>> Both are correct, but they mean different things. "Agree with" means
>> you have the same opinion as her. "Agree to" means you consent to
>> what she suggests; it usually refers to actions rather than ideas.
>> ("I agree to pay for the supplies if you will do the work.")
"Annily":
> I certainly agree with your example where a verb follows "to" but I
> don't think I would ever say "I agree to her idea". I would insert
> something like "implementing" after the "to".
Which is why I said "it usually refers to actions rather than ideas".
But you might say "I agree to her proposal", so a noun is possible in
that position, and I think "idea" is acceptable too, if the "idea"
represents a proposed plan of action, say.
--
Mark Brader | "Of course, the most important part of making the
Toronto | proposal something special for both of you is
m...@vex.net | addressing it to the right person." --Mara Chibnik
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
>>> How do you feel about a healthy diet?
"Skitt":
>> Well, a healthful diet would be better, I'd say.
James Hogg:
> Is this a Pondian thing? The word "healthful" sounds archaic to me.
I wouldn't say quite archaic, but definitely on its way there.
Also, it's rather a mouthful... like the diet.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I don't have *any* minions any more."
m...@vex.net -- Clive Feather
annily
> annily wrote:
>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>> L.C. Yiu:
>>>> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
>>>> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
>>>> correct? Thank you.
>>>
>>> Both are correct, but they mean different things. "Agree with" means
>>> you have the same opinion as her. "Agree to" means you consent to
>>> what she suggests; it usually refers to actions rather than ideas.
>>> ("I agree to pay for the supplies if you will do the work.")
>>
>> I certainly agree with your example where a verb follows "to" but I
>> don't think I would ever say "I agree to her idea". I would insert
>> something like "implementing" after the "to".
>
> "I agree to her suggestion" would be OK.
Interesting. I don't think I would say that either.
annily
> L.C. Yiu:
>>>> 2. I read an article where it said " I agree with her idea." But I
>>>> personally prefer to saying " I agree "to" her idea." Which one is
>>>> correct? Thank you.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> Both are correct, but they mean different things. "Agree with" means
>>> you have the same opinion as her. "Agree to" means you consent to
>>> what she suggests; it usually refers to actions rather than ideas.
>>> ("I agree to pay for the supplies if you will do the work.")
>
> "Annily":
>> I certainly agree with your example where a verb follows "to" but I
>> don't think I would ever say "I agree to her idea". I would insert
>> something like "implementing" after the "to".
>
> Which is why I said "it usually refers to actions rather than ideas".
> But you might say "I agree to her proposal"
I might say it, but probably wouldn't write it, because that
construction still sounds funny to me.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Is this a Pondian thing? The word "healthful" sounds archaic to me. I
> don't know when I last heard it. I doubt if I've ever used it.
>
> Are there no Americans here who can speak of healthy food, a healthy
> diet, a healthy lifestyle?
You're jumbling up differing terms. "Healthful" signifies something that
promotes health; "healthy" signifies something that either has good
health or is associated with living things that have good health.
Thus, certain foods are healthful but not healthy, whereas a lifestyle
(or diet) can be healthy.
Think of "healthy" as synonymous with "full of vigor". Food is not full
of vigor, but can make those who eat it become filled with vigor. A
given lifestyle might well be full of (that is, manifesting) vigor, but a
given diet would not.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
James Hogg
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:15:39 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Is this a Pondian thing? The word "healthful" sounds archaic to me.
>> I don't know when I last heard it. I doubt if I've ever used it.
>>
>> Are there no Americans here who can speak of healthy food, a
>> healthy diet, a healthy lifestyle?
>
> You're jumbling up differing terms. "Healthful" signifies something
> that promotes health; "healthy" signifies something that either has
> good health or is associated with living things that have good
> health.
I didn't start this "jumbling", which is a natural semantic development.
As I stated in an earlier post, the OED shows that healthy has meant
"conducive to or promoting health; wholesome, salubrious; salutary"
since the 16th century. It's a well-established usage.
> Thus, certain foods are healthful but not healthy, whereas a
> lifestyle (or diet) can be healthy.
>
> Think of "healthy" as synonymous with "full of vigor". Food is not
> full of vigor, but can make those who eat it become filled with
> vigor. A given lifestyle might well be full of (that is,
> manifesting) vigor, but a given diet would not.
Think of "healthy" as having more meanings than just "full of vigor".
--
James
James Hogg
>>> incapable of looking into the girl's pretty, healthful face -
>>> favorable to the health of mind or body. healthful implies a
>>> positive contribution to a healthy condition <a healthful diet>.
>>> wholesome applies to what benefits, builds up, or sustains
>>> physically, mentally, or spiritually <wholesome foods> <the movie
>>> is wholesome family entertainment>. salubrious applies chiefly
>>> to the helpful effects of climate or air <cool and salubrious
>>> weather>. salutary describes something corrective or beneficially
>>> effective, even though it may in itself be unpleasant <a
>>> salutary warning that resulted in increased production>. Main
>>> Entry: healthy [...] Function: adjective Inflected Form(s):
>>> healthy complexion> 3 : conducive to health <walk three miles
>>> every day.a beastly bore, but healthy - G. S. Patton> 4 a :
>>> prosperous, flourishing b : not small or feeble : considerable -
>>> enjoying or indicative of good health. healthy implies full
>>> strength and vigor as well as freedom from signs of disease <a
>>> healthy family>. sound emphasizes the absence of disease,
>>> weakness, or malfunction <a sound heart>. wholesome implies
>>> appearance and behavior indicating soundness and balance <a face
>>> with a wholesome glow>. robust implies the opposite of all that
>>> is delicate or sickly <a lively, robust little boy>. hale applies
>>> particularly to robustness in old age <still hale at the age of
>>> eighty>. well implies merely freedom from disease or illness <she
>>> has never been a well person>.
>> Is this a Pondian thing? The word "healthful" sounds archaic to me.
>> I don't know when I last heard it. I doubt if I've ever used it.
>>
>> Are there no Americans here who can speak of healthy food, a
>> healthy diet, a healthy lifestyle?
>
> A.u.e. is an excellent place to find the few Americans who use
> "healthful" rather than "healthy" in this sense. This is one battle
> I'm not willing to fight, though I retain enough of that childhood
> prescription to dodge the issue and say things like "a good diet".
I haven't been able to find any authority for the prescriptive rule that
"healthy" should not be used to mean "conducive to health". All I have
found is this note on synonyms in Webster's Third:
"HEALTHFUL and HEALTHY are both used to mean conducive to or indicative
of health or soundness, the former word being preferred in some quarters
<a healthful climate>."
It seems to be a dialectal difference, then, this arbitrary distinction that
doesn't exist in the quarters in which I move, where the word
"healthful" is rare. I haven't yet seen any good argument, only
declarations along the lines of "It is so because it is so."
Why shouldn't "healthy" mean "conducive to health"? Is it because it
isn't the earliest recorded meaning of the word? That would not be a
strong argument. And why should "healthful" be particularly suitable
for the meaning "conducive to health"? Etymologically it means "full of
health" and is thus synonymous with "healthy".
Both adjectives have had both meanings for centuries: "in good health"
and "conducive to health". Compare the entries in Johnson's Dictionary:
Healthy
1. Enjoying health; free from sickness; hale; sound.
2. Conducive to health; wholesome.
Healthful
1. Free from sickness.
2. Well disposed.
3. Wholesome; salubrious.
4. Salutary; productive of salvation.
--
James
Eric Walker
[...]
> I didn't start this "jumbling", which is a natural semantic development.
> As I stated in an earlier post, the OED shows that healthy has meant
> "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome, salubrious; salutary"
> since the 16th century. It's a well-established usage.
What I meant was that you were jumbling up the nouns to which those
adjectives might be applied. Some are healthful and some are healthy and
a few could be either. To toss them all out in a string as candidates
for just one or the other adjective was the jumbling.
Eric Walker
[...]
> I haven't been able to find any authority for the prescriptive rule that
> "healthy" should not be used to mean "conducive to health".
The basic principle is that the language is diminished when one word
means two things or two words mean one thing, whereas it is augmented
when definitely different things have definitely different words to
signify them.
> All I have found is this note on synonyms in Webster's Third . . .
The OED has, at "healthful":
1. Promoting or conducive to bodily health; health-giving, wholesome,
salubrious.
2. Of persons, their actions, etc.: Full of, or characterized by health;
enjoying good health; healthy. Now _rare_.
At "healthy":
1. Possessing or enjoying good health; hale or sound (in body), so as to
be able to discharge all functions efficiently.
2. Conducive to or promoting health; wholesome, salubrious; salutary.
3. Denoting or characteristic of health or sound condition (_lit._ &
_fig._) opp. to _morbid_.
The first-blush conclusion is that "healthful", in any sense not now
rare, signifies "conducive to health" and nothing else. Meanwhile,
"healthy" in 2 of 3 senses does not mean that. There is one sense in
which it can mean that, but of course that's the issue: do we want to use
a word that particularly means something, and nothing else, or do we want
to further corrupt the sense of a word with, on the whole, a different
set of meanings into a pointless synonym?
It is also perhaps noteworthy that the examples given for "healthy" under
sense 2 seem more to illustrate sense 3 than to be equivalent to
healthful, inasmuch as one would be hard put to it to substitute
"healthful" into any of them:
Best it is in good and healthy places, to set the house to the east.
Gardening and husbandry . . . are fit and healthy recreations . . .
A mixture of Herbs . . . healthier as well as cheaper than tea.
Healthy dwelling houses.
The OED is the OED, but those all look to me to embody sense 3 rather
than sense 2.
James Hogg
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:00:31 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I haven't been able to find any authority for the prescriptive rule
>> that "healthy" should not be used to mean "conducive to health".
>
> The basic principle is that the language is diminished when one word
> means two things or two words mean one thing, whereas it is augmented
> when definitely different things have definitely different words to
> signify them.
Which leads to another question: When two words A and B can both mean
X and Y and we wish to sort out this jumble to arrive at a neat system,
who formulates the rule according to which A means only X and
B means only Y?
--
James
Richard Chambers
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:00:31 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I haven't been able to find any authority for the prescriptive rule that
>> "healthy" should not be used to mean "conducive to health".
>
> The basic principle is that the language is diminished when one word
> means two things or two words mean one thing, whereas it is augmented
> when definitely different things have definitely different words to
> signify them.
----------------
You might well have an argument within the phrase "one word means two
things", but I disgree in the phrase "two words mean one thing". Far from
"diminishing" the language, having a choice of two words meaning one thing
augments and ameliorates the language. The two words can be used alternately
within a sentence to prevent excessive and boring repetition of the same
word.
In the thread "Help on two sentences required", I suggested a re-write of a
sentence to become:-
---start
The new gauge also has the following facilities:-
Simultaneous representation of current readings and of maximum values
Selectable visual / acoustic alarm.
---end
I then had to warn the person I was advising that he should not use the word
"current" (= relevant to the particular time the readings were being taken)
if the gauge measured an electrical quantity of any sort. Use of "current"
in that sense, within the field of electrical or electronic engineering, can
often cause confusion. This shows one of the potential ills of having one
word meaning two things, exactly as you have asserted. But it also shows a
deficiency in the language when there is no other word, an exact synonym,
that will do the same job. I have had this problem, from time to time, all
my working life as a power-station metering engineer. I have had to resort
to other words, almost-synonyms-but-not-quite, such as "present-time",
"immediate", "instantaneous", etc.
The example of "current" also illustrates how impossible your actual demands
are. The word current, with or without the permission of OED, is used by
engineers in the following senses:-
1. Relevant to the time at which the word "current" is written. (e.g.
"current legislation")
2. Relevant to the time at which the word "current" is read. (e.g. "all
meters shall be installed according to the requirements of the current Codes
of Practice".
3. Relevant to the time at which, it is anticipated, the measurements will
be taken (see the example higher up the page).
There are not enough different words meaning "current" to cover all these
cases. We just have to get by with the one word at our disposal. Where there
might be serious doubt, you can clarify (e.g. "current legislation (as of
2003)" or simply "the 2003 legislation", "the Codes of Practice current at
the time of installation", etc. Engineering Reports are already sufficiently
heavy and full of verbiage for most engineers, and in the overall interests
of readability, this wordy solution must be applied only where absolutely
necessary. You can usually rely on the intelligence of professional
engineers.
That is the principal reason why I disagree with you. Everybody knows what a
"healthy diet" means. The phrase works well and is cheap. Therefore it is
good. An age-old engineering principle. I see your analysis as useless
pedantry. Save your analysis to be applied only in cases where there would
otherwise be genuine ambiguity.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Roland Hutchinson
>>>> "healthful" a better choice for some of them. Main Entry: health·ful
>>>> [...] Function: adjective Date: 14th century 1 : beneficial to health
>>>> of body or mind 2 : healthy <he felt incapable of looking into the
>>>> girl's pretty, healthful face - Saul Bellow> - health·ful·ly adverb -
>>>> health·ful·ness noun synonyms healthful, wholesome, salubrious,
>>>> salutary mean favorable to the health of mind or body. healthful
>>>> implies a positive contribution to a healthy condition <a healthful
>>>> diet>.
>>>> wholesome applies to what benefits, builds up, or sustains
>>>> physically, mentally, or spiritually <wholesome foods> <the movie
>>>> is wholesome family entertainment>. salubrious applies chiefly
>>>> to the helpful effects of climate or air <cool and salubrious
>>>> weather>. salutary describes something corrective or beneficially
>>>> effective, even though it may in itself be unpleasant <a
>>>> salutary warning that resulted in increased production>. Main Entry:
>>>> healthy [...] Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): health·i·er;
>>>> health·i·est Date: 1552 1 : enjoying health and vigor of body, mind,
>>>> or spirit : well 2 : evincing health <a healthy complexion> 3 :
>>>> conducive to health <walk three miles every day.a beastly bore, but
>>>> healthy - G. S. Patton> 4 a : prosperous, flourishing b : not small
>>>> or feeble : considerable - health·i·ly \-th?-le\ adverb -
>>>> health·i·ness \-the-n?s\ noun synonyms healthy, sound, wholesome,
Well done!
You don't expect the self-appointed guardians of our language to buy
this, though, do you?
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
James Hogg
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:00:31 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
>> Both adjectives have had both meanings for centuries: "in good
>> health" and "conducive to health". Compare the entries in Johnson's
>> Dictionary:
>>
>> Healthy 1. Enjoying health; free from sickness; hale; sound. 2.
>> Conducive to health; wholesome.
>>
>> Healthful 1. Free from sickness. 2. Well disposed. 3. Wholesome;
>> salubrious. 4. Salutary; productive of salvation.
>
> Well done!
>
> You don't expect the self-appointed guardians of our language to buy
> this, though, do you?
I can understand that some people would like language to be more neat
and systematic than it is, but it would be disastrous for the free
market of ideas if language were a command economy.
--
James
CDB
> aquachimp wrote:
>> "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
>>> curd").
>>
'cheese')". The word "fu", pronounced "foo", also means "rotten,
putrid, stale corroded", but don't let that stop you.
>
>> Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is is
>> regarded an example of as healthy eating?
>
> Tofu on its own has an unpleasant texture, but it compensates by
> having very little taste. Think of it as edible rubber.
>
> The people who eat it can do a pretty good job of using lots of
> sauces and flavourings to make it palatable. It's like using lots
> of garlic to hide the taste of snail.
>
but you have to draw a line somewhere.
>
It's very good, and very easy to prepare, sliced a quarter inch to
half an inch thick, lightly sauteed (you only need to heat it) in a
little butter, and sprinkled with soy or tamari sauce. It's important
to get fresh tofu (and to keep it in the fridge, once the package is
opened, in water which you change every day) and to season it with
*fermented* soy sauce -- Kikkoman is a good brand, and widely
distributed. In my opinion the kind with the best texture is the
"regular", often sold in water. The "silken" is hard to handle, and
the "firm" is too much like coagulated cottage cheese.
John Dunlop
> I haven't been able to find any authority for the prescriptive rule that
> "healthy" should not be used to mean "conducive to health".
MWDEU says the distinction was invented by Alfred Ayres in 1881.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC
In _The Verbalist_, Ayres asserted that "[healthy] is often improperly
used for [wholesome]".
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EynBmlp5Fk4C
--
John
James Hogg
Thanks. I felt sure it had to be an invented distinction.
--
James
Roland Hutchinson
Other nations, perhaps those more given to mercantilist protectionism
then our own beloved English-speaking lands, have tried and, ultimately,
failed.
Roland Hutchinson
Yes, thanks. Nice to know!
Roland Hutchinson
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> aquachimp wrote:
>>> "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
>>>> curd").
>>>
> "Tofu"is borrowed from Chinese "doufu" which means "bean curd (or
> 'cheese')". The word "fu", pronounced "foo", also means "rotten,
> putrid, stale corroded", but don't let that stop you.
>>
>>> Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is is regarded
>>> an example of as healthy eating?
>>
>> Tofu on its own has an unpleasant texture, but it compensates by having
>> very little taste. Think of it as edible rubber.
>>
>> The people who eat it can do a pretty good job of using lots of sauces
>> and flavourings to make it palatable. It's like using lots of garlic to
>> hide the taste of snail.
>>
> The Japanese have it plain on ice, as a summer treat. I like tofu, but
> you have to draw a line somewhere.
That strikes me as a good place to draw one.
> It's very good, and very easy to prepare, sliced a quarter inch to half
> an inch thick, lightly sauteed (you only need to heat it) in a little
> butter, and sprinkled with soy or tamari sauce.
Butter and tofu?
I am fond of butter, and fond of tofu, but putting the two together
strikes me as somehow profoundly wrong.
> It's important to get
> fresh tofu (and to keep it in the fridge, once the package is opened, in
> water which you change every day) and to season it with *fermented* soy
> sauce -- Kikkoman is a good brand, and widely distributed. In my
> opinion the kind with the best texture is the "regular", often sold in
> water. The "silken" is hard to handle, and the "firm" is too much like
> coagulated cottage cheese.
They have different uses. The softest stuff works well for putting in
soup, for example.
Jerry Friedman
As an occasional user of "healthful", I find your comment strange.
All of those seem precisely like "healthful", conducive to good
health. A place, a recreation, a mixture of herbs, a house can't be
characteristic of good health.
> The OED is the OED, but those all look to me to embody sense 3 rather
> than sense 2.
Why corrupt "look" into a pointless synonym for "seem" and "appear",
which mean only one thing?
--
Jerry Friedman
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:19:54 +0100, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Walker wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:58:43 -0800, lcy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
>>>>> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
>>>>> correct?
>>>> The term "health food" usually means food characteristically eaten by
>>>> people especially interested in health but typically not much eaten
>>>> by others, because unusual: something like carrot juice might be an
>>>> example. Food that is widely eaten by the general public that is
>>>> held to be conducive to good health is not *usually* called "health
>>>> food", but some might include it within the class.
>>>>
>>>> Food that is likely to make or keep its eaters in good health is
>>>> rightly referred to as "healthful", but is commonly mis-called
>>>> "healthy". It is the people who eat it who are (presumably) healthy,
>>>> not the food.
>>> "Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
>>> salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
>>
>> The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
>> food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
>
>How do you feel about a healthy diet?
It makes me feel, once again, that English is so inconsistent that I'd
better continue to study along with the alt.usage.english group. And
that other one.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> aquachimp wrote:
>>> "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
>>>> curd").
>>>
> "Tofu"is borrowed from Chinese "doufu" which means "bean curd (or
> 'cheese')". The word "fu", pronounced "foo", also means "rotten,
> putrid, stale corroded", but don't let that stop you.
>>
>>> Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is is
>>> regarded an example of as healthy eating?
>>
>> Tofu on its own has an unpleasant texture, but it compensates by
>> having very little taste. Think of it as edible rubber.
>>
>> The people who eat it can do a pretty good job of using lots of
>> sauces and flavourings to make it palatable.
The advantage of tofu in dishes is that it provides texture without
providing much taste of its own (although I like the flavor it does
have), but absorbs the taste of whatever it's in and holds a sauce
well. (Of course, I've never managed to encounter "rubbery" tofu. I
wouldn't have thought it possible.) I like the texture, but I enjoy a
number of things that other people can't get around the texture of.
(Jellyfish, for example.)
>> It's like using lots of garlic to hide the taste of snail.
>>
> The Japanese have it plain on ice, as a summer treat. I like tofu,
> but you have to draw a line somewhere.
Don't draw it at hiyayakko. A little soy sauce, some chopped green
onion, some ginger, and it's very refreshing. It's a common feature
of "It's just too hot to cook" meals in our house.
> It's very good, and very easy to prepare, sliced a quarter inch to
> half an inch thick, lightly sauteed (you only need to heat it) in a
> little butter, and sprinkled with soy or tamari sauce. It's
> important to get fresh tofu (and to keep it in the fridge, once the
> package is opened, in water which you change every day) and to
> season it with *fermented* soy sauce -- Kikkoman is a good brand,
> and widely distributed. In my opinion the kind with the best
> texture is the "regular", often sold in water. The "silken" is hard
> to handle, and the "firm" is too much like coagulated cottage
> cheese.
Which kind you want depends on what you're planning on doing with it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard
(650)857-7572
Chuck Riggs
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 4:15�pm, James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>> > James Hogg wrote:
>> >> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> >>> James Hogg wrote:
>> >>>> Eric Walker wrote:
>> >>>>> lcy wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> 1. �Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but
>> >>>>>> sometimes I heard people say "healthy food". �I feel
>> >>>>>> confused. �Which one is correct?
>> >>>>> The term "health food" usually means food characteristically
>> >>>>> eaten by people especially interested in health but typically
>> >>>>> not much eaten by others, because unusual: something like
>> >>>>> carrot juice might be an example. �Food that is widely eaten
>> >>>>> by the general public that is held to be conducive to good
>> >>>>> health is not *usually* called "health food", but some might
>> >>>>> include it within the class. Food that is likely to make or
>> >>>>> keep its eaters in good health is rightly referred to as
>> >>>>> "healthful", but is commonly mis-called "healthy". �It is the
>> >>>>> people who eat it who are (presumably) healthy, not the food.
>>
>> >>>> "Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health;
>> >>>> wholesome, salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see
>> >>>> nothing wrong with it.
>>
>> >>> The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy.
>> >>> "Health food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
>>
>> >> How do you feel about a healthy diet?
>>
Not wanting people to think I have my finger up my ass, I avoid
"healthful" like the plague.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Roland Hutchinson wrote:
It would be equally disastrous if we lived in a modern day Tower of
Babel.
Chuck Riggs
>>>"Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
>>>salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
>>
>>The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
>>food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
>
>I had a discussion the other day centred on whether it was sloppy to talk
>about "unconscious desires". It seems to me a perfectly normal figure
>of speech (probably has a name I can't remember) similar to the one above.
>It's a lot better than boiling the kettle, and nobody complains about that.
>
>Katy
Do you delete attributions or is my news reader out of whack? That
last is a non-vulgar AmE phrase in case you wondered.
CDB
you would like it, since you are fond of the separate ingredients.
>
>> It's important to get
>> fresh tofu (and to keep it in the fridge, once the package is
>> opened, in water which you change every day) and to season it with
>> *fermented* soy sauce -- Kikkoman is a good brand, and widely
>> distributed. In my opinion the kind with the best texture is the
>> "regular", often sold in water. The "silken" is hard to handle,
>> and the "firm" is too much like coagulated cottage cheese.
>
> They have different uses. The softest stuff works well for putting
> in soup, for example.
>
in soup, does it survive as a separate ingredient, or break into fine
particles when you stir? The silken tofu sold around here has to be
handled with extreme care, if you don't want it in small, mushy
lumps. I can see putting slices into a bowl and gently pouring the
rest of the soup over them.
Chuck Riggs
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>R H Draney wrote:
>> aquachimp filted:
>>> On Nov 12, 8:52=A0pm, "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:21:37 UTC, aquachimp
>>>>
>>>> <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Health food is a label some people use to encourage others to eat
>>>>> stuff they would ordinarily avoid. It'll probably contain a variety of
>>>>> nuts, some scanky looking dried bits of fruit and unprocessed cereals
>>>>> (oats, wheat, corn). It could also contain =A0something dreadful, like
>>>>> say, yoghurt, fresh fruit and vegetables and uncontaiminated meat
>>>>> products.
>>>> You omitted tofu (which used to be more descriptively called "bean
>>>> curd").
>>> Ah, alas, I confess to being unfamiliar with that item. Is is regarded
>>> an example of as healthy eating?
>>
>> Sometimes, under the category of "food without a face"....r
>
>Food without a taste, IMO.
The stuff is so bland my assumption has always been it just must be
good for us or who'd ever eat it?
Pat Durkin
news:hdk3g1$42n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Like Egg Drop Soup? I think it could pass, in either a chicken or a
vegetable broth.
Pat Durkin
news:ui3rf51v2ilrfj3rv...@4ax.com...
Heh heh! Chuck, talking about healthful practices and fingers up your
ass! Very amusing image!
Roland Hutchinson
Who says we don't?
R H Draney
>
>"CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:hdk3g1$42n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> And the firmest for patching drywall. When you put the softest tofu
>> in soup, does it survive as a separate ingredient, or break into
>> fine particles when you stir? The silken tofu sold around here has
>> to be handled with extreme care, if you don't want it in small,
>> mushy lumps. I can see putting slices into a bowl and gently
>> pouring the rest of the soup over them.
>
>Like Egg Drop Soup? I think it could pass, in either a chicken or a
>vegetable broth.
It's already being done...the name on the menu is "miso soup" (which I'm told is
a tautology on the level of "shrimp scampi")....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Eric Walker
[...]
> MWDEU says the distinction was invented by Alfred Ayres in 1881.
Dear me . . . trusting something from Merriam?
The OED examples of "healthful" in the sense "conducive to bodily health;
health-giving, wholesome, salubrious" go back to 1382.
Their examples of "healthy" in the sense "possessing or enjoying good
health" date to 1552; in the sense "denoting or characteristic of
health", the examples go back to 1597.
Perhaps the author of "The Owl and the Nightingale" invented the
distinction?
Jerry Friedman
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:58:12 +0000, John Dunlop wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > MWDEU says the distinction was invented by Alfred Ayres in 1881.
>
> Dear me . . . trusting something from Merriam?
>
> The OED examples of "healthful" in the sense "conducive to bodily health;
> health-giving, wholesome, salubrious" go back to 1382.
>
> Their examples of "healthy" in the sense "possessing or enjoying good
> health" date to 1552; in the sense "denoting or characteristic of
> health", the examples go back to 1597.
And for "healthy" in the sense "salubrious"? I don't have the OED or
access to it here.
The NSOED says this sense dates to the mid 16th century, that is,
1530-1569, so there might have been a period of up to 17 years in
which "healthy" meant only "in good health". Then over three
centuries passed with "healthy" frequently used in the sense of
"salubrious".
Incidentally, Ayres wrote, "We speak of /healthy/ surroundings, a /
healthy/ climate, situation, employment, and of /wholesome/ food,
advice, examples. /Healthful/ is commonly used in the sense of
conducive to health, virtue, morality; as /healthful/ exercise, the /
healthful/ spirit of the community...."
http://books.google.com/books?id=yRJKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA113#v=onepage&q=&f=false
So the distinction he invented (or conceivably reinvented) seems to
have changed; modern advocates of "healthful" to describe exercise
would condemn "healthy climate", I believe.
>Perhaps the author of "The Owl and the Nightingale" invented the
> distinction?
He couldn't have, since "healthy" didn't exist then.
--
Jerry Friedman
John Dunlop
> [John Dunlop:]
>
>> MWDEU says the distinction was invented by Alfred Ayres in 1881.
>
> Dear me . . . trusting something from Merriam?
I can't refute MWDEU's claim because I haven't found any formulation of
the rule or censure of the usage before 1881.
> The OED examples of "healthful" in the sense "conducive to bodily
> health; health-giving, wholesome, salubrious" go back to 1382.
>
> Their examples of "healthy" in the sense "possessing or enjoying good
> health" date to 1552; in the sense "denoting or characteristic of
> health", the examples go back to 1597.
The OED says nothing about the origin of the distinction.
--
John
Chuck Riggs
Whatever rocks your boat, Pat.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Which leads to another question: When two words A and B can both mean X
> and Y and we wish to sort out this jumble to arrive at a neat system,
> who formulates the rule according to which A means only X and B means
> only Y?
I do. You do. That is why I believe, strongly, that where an existing
differentiation exists, and is, or till recently has been, observed
fairly commonly, it is much to be desired that we all of us continue to
observe it, and not let usefully differentiated words become
indistinguishable synonyms.
As I think the OED demonstrates, there has been, for six or seven
centuries, a common feeling that "healthful" and "healthy" have somewhat
different meanings. Why that utility should be sacrificed on the altar
of the great god Humpty Dumpty[1] is beyond me.
[1] "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less."
Eric Walker
[...]
> That is the principal reason why I disagree with you. Everybody knows
> what a "healthy diet" means. The phrase works well and is cheap.
> Therefore it is good. An age-old engineering principle.
"I don't got none." Everybody knows what that means--therefore it is
good. Yes?
Eric Walker
[...]
> And for "healthy" in the sense "salubrious"? I don't have the OED or
> access to it here.
>
> The NSOED says this sense dates to the mid 16th century, that is,
> 1530-1569, so there might have been a period of up to 17 years in which
> "healthy" meant only "in good health". Then over three centuries passed
> with "healthy" frequently used in the sense of "salubrious". . . .
>
> So the distinction he invented (or conceivably reinvented) seems to have
> changed; modern advocates of "healthful" to describe exercise would
> condemn "healthy climate", I believe.
Probably. I must say that I really don't understand what is so
provocative about this distinction. It is a nice, useful one, and causes
no harm that I can see, whereas confounding the terms causes the same
sort of harm as confounding, say, imply and infer (which some here also
seem to think is A Good Thing). The idea seems to be not so much what is
good for the tongue as a sort of social exercise, "No one's gonna tell
*me* what words mean! (See Carroll, Lewis, _Through the Looking-Glass_)
>>Perhaps the author of "The Owl and the Nightingale" invented the
>> distinction?
>
> He couldn't have, since "healthy" didn't exist then.
Well the poem is said to have originated in the 12th or 13th century.
The word "health", or a direct forerunner, is at least as old as the year
1000. Just when -y suffixes came into use I am unsure, but the OED
suggests that they were in use by the time of that poem. Whether the
particular word "healthy" had been coined by then I don't know; the
earliest date given by the OED is not necessarily the date of first use
in the tongue.
James Hogg
The word "health" is attested in Old English as "h�l�" and probably goes
back to Germanic because it has a cognate in Old High German "heilida". The
"-y" suffix is likewise Germanic, in the form "-ig".
The OED will confirm this.
--
James
Roland Hutchinson
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:20:26 +0000, Richard Chambers wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> That is the principal reason why I disagree with you. Everybody knows
>> what a "healthy diet" means. The phrase works well and is cheap.
>> Therefore it is good. An age-old engineering principle.
>
> "I don't got none." Everybody knows what that means--therefore it is
> good. Yes?
It ain't no skin off my nose.
James Hogg
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:56:15 +0000, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:20:26 +0000, Richard Chambers wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> That is the principal reason why I disagree with you. Everybody
>>> knows what a "healthy diet" means. The phrase works well and is
>>> cheap. Therefore it is good. An age-old engineering principle.
>> "I don't got none." Everybody knows what that means--therefore it
>> is good. Yes?
>
> It ain't no skin off my nose.
It's all part of the stirring story of the struggles of the
English-speaking people for a fuller expression of their unfolding
intellectual life.
--
James
ke...@cam.ac.uk
Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>Do you delete attributions or is my news reader out of whack? That
>last is a non-vulgar AmE phrase in case you wondered.
I am familiar with the expression (I didn't know it was AmE, particularly).
As for the attributions, I tend to snip a lot of material irrelevant to what I
am answering, so I sometimes remove all attributions rather than mis-attribute.
The latter is a sin; is the former (genuine question)?
Katy
Robin Bignall
I would say not, provided the attributions match. Apart from pun
threads, which are as they are, I seem to be seeing more posts
spanning several screens with just one new line at the bottom. They're
tedious and AOL-ish.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Leslie Danks
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:23:38 +0000 (GMT), ke...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
[...]
>>As for the attributions, I tend to snip a lot of material irrelevant to
>>what I am answering, so I sometimes remove all attributions rather than
>>mis-attribute. The latter is a sin; is the former (genuine question)?
>>
> I would say not, provided the attributions match. Apart from pun
> threads, which are as they are, I seem to be seeing more posts
> spanning several screens with just one new line at the bottom. They're
> tedious and AOL-ish.
I agree. The way my newsreader is set up I can see the first 25 lines of a
post when I first open it. When I'm in "grumpy" mood, I pass over any
post which doesn't contain anything new in these first 25 lines (unless
I'm interested in the particular thread).
--
Les (BrE)
Leslie Danks
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:23:38 +0000 (GMT), ke...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
[...]
>>As for the attributions, I tend to snip a lot of material irrelevant to
>>what I am answering, so I sometimes remove all attributions rather than
>>mis-attribute. The latter is a sin; is the former (genuine question)?
>>
> I would say not, provided the attributions match. Apart from pun
> threads, which are as they are, I seem to be seeing more posts
> spanning several screens with just one new line at the bottom. They're
> tedious and AOL-ish.
I agree. The way my newsreader is set up I can see the first 25 lines of a
post when I first open it. When I'm in "grumpy" mood, I pass over any
post which doesn't contain anything new in these first 25 lines (unless
I'm interested in the particular thread).
--
Les (BrE)
Sorry if this appears twice.
Nick
> Sorry if this appears twice.
No, that only appeared once. The rest of the post was a wee bit
familiar though.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Peter Moylan
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:56:15 +0000, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:20:26 +0000, Richard Chambers wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> That is the principal reason why I disagree with you. Everybody
>>> knows what a "healthy diet" means. The phrase works well and is
>>> cheap. Therefore it is good. An age-old engineering principle.
>> "I don't got none." Everybody knows what that means--therefore it
>> is good. Yes?
>
> It ain't no skin off my nose.
Pulling skin off your nose would not be a very healthy, ... err,
healthful, ... ah, maybe it was "healthy" after all ... Aaargh! Why does
the language have two near-synonyms?
I think I'll just stick to using "healthful" to mean "full of health"
and "healthy" for everything else. Like everyone else does.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
As far as I'm concerned, your technique is in whack. Most of us have
newsreaders that can display threads. Anyone who's really curious can
easily find the information that you've snipped.
The real sin is to quote piles of stuff that you're not responding to -
something that's become surprisingly common in this otherwise
considerate group.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Pat Durkin filted:
>>
>>"CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>news:hdk3g1$42n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> And the firmest for patching drywall. When you put the softest
>>> tofu in soup, does it survive as a separate ingredient, or break
>>> into fine particles when you stir? The silken tofu sold around
>>> here has to be handled with extreme care, if you don't want it in
>>> small, mushy lumps. I can see putting slices into a bowl and
>>> gently pouring the rest of the soup over them.
>>
>>Like Egg Drop Soup? I think it could pass, in either a chicken or a
>>vegetable broth.
>
> It's already being done...the name on the menu is "miso soup" (which
> I'm told is a tautology on the level of "shrimp scampi")....r
Not at all. Miso is a fermented pasty thing you buy in a jar and use
in the broth. Wikipedia says
produced by fermenting rice, barley and/or soybeans, with salt and
the fungus kojikin..., the most typical miso being made with soy.
But typically the tofu I find in miso soup is firmer than the really
soft stuff. I've seen it in Korean soups and Chinese dishes, though,
and I think in Japanese desserts.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands
|to yourself.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Pat Durkin
news:1vjzl0...@hpl.hp.com...
I just think that the firmer tofu types stay in the cubes into which
they are diced, while perhaps the silken type would string out the way
egg whites string out when slightly beaten into the chicken broth.
The flavor wouldn't be much different, that's for sure. I haven't
made up the Hacho Miso powder that I have had in my fridge for a year.
Had to go and look, but, no. I guess I got rid of the firm tofu that
I had for over a year.
Still have the Vegemite and Marmite jars that I haven't touched in
about 3 years. And I have absolutely no idea of when or how I
obtained a small jar of "Truly Texas" wildflower hunny. I have had a
bottle of sorghum molasses for about 16 years, so what else is new?
Bill McCray
wrote:
That's an argument for top posting. I would rather see new material
at the top so I don't have to scroll down to find it.
However, top posting prevents making separate responses to several
parts of a post and encourages not deleting unrelated material further
down in the original post, so I recognize the wisdom in bottom
posting.
Bill in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address
Jerry Friedman
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:18:11 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > And for "healthy" in the sense "salubrious"? I don't have the OED or
> > access to it here.
>
> > The NSOED says this sense dates to the mid 16th century, that is,
> > 1530-1569, so there might have been a period of up to 17 years in which
> > "healthy" meant only "in good health". Then over three centuries passed
> > with "healthy" frequently used in the sense of "salubrious". . . .
>
> > So the distinction he invented (or conceivably reinvented) seems to have
> > changed; modern advocates of "healthful" to describe exercise would
> > condemn "healthy climate", I believe.
>
> Probably. I must say that I really don't understand what is so
> provocative about this distinction.
The main provocative part is suggesting, or as some do, insisting that
other people make it.
> It is a nice, useful one, and causes
> no harm that I can see, whereas confounding the terms causes the same
> sort of harm as confounding, say, imply and infer (which some here also
> seem to think is A Good Thing).
I disagree. The meaning is clear from context in any situation I can
think of. If there are situations where it's not, synonyms are
available, but I feel sure those situations are rare.
"Healthful" had both meaning for something like 600 years, and
"healthy" had both for over 200, before anyone thought a distinction
might be useful, and it never really caught on.
On the other hand, I like the distinction between "infer" and
"imply". The two meanings can't always be distinguished from context,
and the modern distinction is simpler than what MWDEU says is the
original one. This distinction (again according to MWDEU, though they
don't like it) is catching on.
> The idea seems to be not so much what is
> good for the tongue as a sort of social exercise, "No one's gonna tell
> *me* what words mean! (See Carroll, Lewis, _Through the Looking-Glass_)
Yes. Someone announced in 1881 that "healthy" didn't have one of the
meanings it had had for two centuries and that people using it that
way were using it "improperly". This /ipse dixit/ wasn't as glorious
as Humpty-Dumpty's, but it's in the same category. Shortly
thereafter, people must have revised the distinction to make more
sense--here's one example, anyway:
/Practical Exercises in English/, by Huber Gray Buehler (1895)
http://books.google.com/books?id=cf4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I feel sure that many people who noticed this tactless fiat resented
it, and that many considered it pointless, as I mentioned above,
because you can usually infer the intended meaning from context with
no difficulty.
As for social exercises, I'm not sure whether I've responded yet to
your claim about language by saying that it's not just for putting
one's thoughts in other people's minds (if such a thing is possible);
it's also for forming one's relations with others, including
projecting an image of oneself. The avoidance of "healthy food" did
get a small foothold in America, but I'll bet many people didn't go
along because they didn't want to appear as caring about useless
distinctions or as correcting their listeners and readers.
So not only may people disagree with you on what's good for the
tongue, they may attach more importance to what they consider good for
themselves.
> >>Perhaps the author of "The Owl and the Nightingale" invented the
> >> distinction?
>
> > He couldn't have, since "healthy" didn't exist then.
>
> Well the poem is said to have originated in the 12th or 13th century.
> The word "health", or a direct forerunner, is at least as old as the year
> 1000. Just when -y suffixes came into use I am unsure, but the OED
> suggests that they were in use by the time of that poem. Whether the
> particular word "healthy" had been coined by then I don't know; the
> earliest date given by the OED is not necessarily the date of first use
> in the tongue.
Which implies, by the way, that the first sense of "healthy" could
have been "good for you", since the first attestation in that sense is
at most 17 years later than the first in the sense of "well". It's
far less likely that "healthy" existed for three or four hundred years
before the first citation in the OED.
--
Jerry Friedman
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Robin Bignall wrote:
If done with a degree of care, watching that attributions match the
remaining material, there is nothing wrong with snipping irrelevant
lines from several posts back. In fact, I wish more people would do
it.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>ke...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <g34rf5leqcpembl2r...@4ax.com>, Chuck Riggs
>> <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> Do you delete attributions or is my news reader out of whack? That
>>> last is a non-vulgar AmE phrase in case you wondered.
>>
>> I am familiar with the expression (I didn't know it was AmE,
>> particularly).
>>
>> As for the attributions, I tend to snip a lot of material irrelevant
>> to what I am answering, so I sometimes remove all attributions rather
>> than mis-attribute. The latter is a sin; is the former (genuine
>> question)?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, your technique is in whack. Most of us have
>newsreaders that can display threads. Anyone who's really curious can
>easily find the information that you've snipped.
>
Read her post again. To save you time, I'll repeat it:
START.
>>"Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
>>salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
>
>The food isn't healthy; it is supposed to make you healthy. "Health
>food" is correct and the other one is not, IMO.
I had a discussion the other day centred on whether it was sloppy to
talk
about "unconscious desires". It seems to me a perfectly normal figure
of speech (probably has a name I can't remember) similar to the one
above.
It's a lot better than boiling the kettle, and nobody complains about
that.
Katy
END.
There were no attributions.
>The real sin is to quote piles of stuff that you're not responding to -
>something that's become surprisingly common in this otherwise
>considerate group.
That is sin #2, IMO.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Eric Walker wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:58:43 -0800, lcy wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
>>> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
>>> correct?
>>
>> The term "health food" usually means food characteristically eaten by
>> people especially interested in health but typically not much eaten
>> by others, because unusual: something like carrot juice might be an
>> example. Food that is widely eaten by the general public that is
>> held to be conducive to good health is not *usually* called "health
>> food", but some might include it within the class.
>>
>> Food that is likely to make or keep its eaters in good health is
>> rightly referred to as "healthful", but is commonly mis-called
>> "healthy". It is the people who eat it who are (presumably) healthy,
>> not the food.
>
>"Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
>salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
There can be amibiguity.
In today's Times (of London):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/expert_advice/article6916232.ece
{About official guidelines to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics]
This group of respiratory tract infections accounts for more than
half of antibiotic usage in general practice, yet most are caused by
viruses, which are resistant to all antibiotics.
Issuing a prescription for these self-limiting conditions will have
no impact on the duration or severity of the illness and may
actually cause more problems resulting from side-effects such as
allergic reactions, diarrhoea and the wiping out of the billions of
healthy bacteria living in the gut.
In that case "healthy" presumably means "health promoting to the host
human". The individual bacteria, being organisms, can themselves be
healthy or unhealthy. In fact, the function of an antibiotic is to
fatally impair the health of bacteria.
The "healthy" bacteria in the human gut need to be kept healthy so that
they can perform their tasks.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:19:54 +0100, James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Eric Walker wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:58:43 -0800, lcy wrote:
>
> >>> 1. Sometimes, I heard people say " health food", but sometimes I
> >>> heard people say "healthy food". I feel confused. Which one is
> >>> correct?
>
> >> The term "health food" usually means food characteristically eaten by
> >> people especially interested in health but typically not much eaten
> >> by others, because unusual: something like carrot juice might be an
> >> example. Food that is widely eaten by the general public that is
> >> held to be conducive to good health is not *usually* called "health
> >> food", but some might include it within the class.
>
> >> Food that is likely to make or keep its eaters in good health is
> >> rightly referred to as "healthful", but is commonly mis-called
> >> "healthy". It is the people who eat it who are (presumably) healthy,
> >> not the food.
>
> >"Healthy" has meant "conducive to or promoting health; wholesome,
> >salubrious; salutary" since the 16th century. I see nothing wrong with it.
>
> There can be amibiguity.
> In today's Times (of London):
>
> {About official guidelines to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics]
>
> This group of respiratory tract infections accounts for more than
> half of antibiotic usage in general practice, yet most are caused by
> viruses, which are resistant to all antibiotics.
>
> Issuing a prescription for these self-limiting conditions will have
> no impact on the duration or severity of the illness and may
> actually cause more problems resulting from side-effects such as
> allergic reactions, diarrhoea and the wiping out of the billions of
> healthy bacteria living in the gut.
>
> In that case "healthy" presumably means "health promoting to the host
> human". The individual bacteria, being organisms, can themselves be
> healthy or unhealthy. In fact, the function of an antibiotic is to
> fatally impair the health of bacteria.
>
> The "healthy" bacteria in the human gut need to be kept healthy so that
> they can perform their tasks.
That's a good one. I'd have expected "beneficial bacteria".
Another is Peter Moylan's example: 'Pulling skin off your nose would
not be a very healthy, ... err,
healthful, ... ah, maybe it was "healthy" after all ...'
Here the ambiguity is between "good for you" and the "evincing health"
sense of "healthy"--pulling skin off your nose would suggest mental
illness.
However, I think such ambiguous cases are extremely rare and easily
avoided.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
> I just think that the firmer tofu types stay in the cubes into which
> they are diced
and frequently remain in cubes on the side of my plate after I've eaten
the tasty portion of the meal.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>Another is Peter Moylan's example: 'Pulling skin off your nose would
>not be a very healthy, ... err,
>healthful, ... ah, maybe it was "healthy" after all ...'
>
>Here the ambiguity is between "good for you" and the "evincing health"
>sense of "healthy"--pulling skin off your nose would suggest mental
>illness.
Seems one of the sanest things to do with a sunburn....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Glenn Knickerbocker
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:42:23 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
> wrote:
> >As far as I'm concerned, your technique is in whack. Most of us have
> >newsreaders that can display threads. Anyone who's really curious can
> >easily find the information that you've snipped.
> There were no attributions.
Are those somehow less easily found than other snipped information?
�R
Skitt
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> As far as I'm concerned, your technique is in whack. Most of us have
>>> newsreaders that can display threads. Anyone who's really curious
>>> can easily find the information that you've snipped.
>>
>> There were no attributions.
>
> Are those somehow less easily found than other snipped information?
Hmm. Effective snipping is an art that is not mastered by many.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
How right you are but, unlike becoming a violin virtuoso, it can be
mastered by all after some concentrated practice.
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:hdk3g1$42n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
[meat without bone, or "tofu" as you know it]
>
>>> They have different uses. The softest stuff works well for
>>> putting in soup, for example.
>>>
>> And the firmest for patching drywall. When you put the softest
>> tofu in soup, does it survive as a separate ingredient, or break
>> into fine particles when you stir? The silken tofu sold around
>> here has to be handled with extreme care, if you don't want it in
>> small, mushy lumps. I can see putting slices into a bowl and
>> gently pouring the rest of the soup over them.
>
> Like Egg Drop Soup? I think it could pass, in either a chicken or a
> vegetable broth.
>
I think, if it got to that stage, I would try to dissolve it as
thoroughly as possible. It would taste fine, though, as you say.
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
[mmm, tofu]
>>>
>> The Japanese have it plain on ice, as a summer treat. I like tofu,
>> but you have to draw a line somewhere.
>
> Don't draw it at hiyayakko. A little soy sauce, some chopped green
> onion, some ginger, and it's very refreshing. It's a common feature
> of "It's just too hot to cook" meals in our house.
>
I get my tofu at the store and it's seldom really fresh whan I use it,
so I find I like it better heated and flavoured. If I'm in a Japanese
restaurant next summer, maybe I'll ask for it. Or if I ever get
around to trying to make some at home.
>
>> It's very good, and very easy to prepare, sliced a quarter inch to
>> half an inch thick, lightly sauteed (you only need to heat it) in a
>> little butter, and sprinkled with soy or tamari sauce. It's
>> important to get fresh tofu (and to keep it in the fridge, once the
>> package is opened, in water which you change every day) and to
>> season it with *fermented* soy sauce -- Kikkoman is a good brand,
>> and widely distributed. In my opinion the kind with the best
>> texture is the "regular", often sold in water. The "silken" is
>> hard to handle, and the "firm" is too much like coagulated cottage
>> cheese.
>
> Which kind you want depends on what you're planning on doing with
> it.
>
Of course, it's personal. I don't like the grainy texture of firm
tofu, so I never use it: substituting the medium-grade stuff works
well enough. I went through a phase of taking dried tofu (the skimmed
sheets that resemble plastic or the freeze-dried cakes that resemble
drywall) on camping trips. What I must have been planning to do with
it was lose some weight.