a box of sweets

[Yurui Liu]

Hi,

I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets", particularly
in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"?

I'd appreciate your help.

[Cheryl]

I wouldn't have thought you'd run into "box of sweets" in American
English. It sounds like UK English to me; I think an American would say
"a box of candy" or "a box of chocolates", although there's something in
the back of my mind about a slight difference between American and
Canadian usage of "candy" and "chocolates" - I think Americans would say
"candy" where we'd say "chocolates"; that is, they use "candy" in a
broad sense to refer to a lot of sweet treats, including those made with
chocolate. But I don't think they'd say "sweets".

I wait for some first-hand observations from the US and UK.

--
Cheryl

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:04:50 AM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-08-25 10:25 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

> > I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets", particularly
> > in American English.

Nothing.

> Does it necessarily mean "candy"?

Presumably if there were a Brit in America, it would. "Sweet" is an adjective
or an endearment.

> > I'd appreciate your help.
>
> I wouldn't have thought you'd run into "box of sweets" in American
> English. It sounds like UK English to me; I think an American would say
> "a box of candy" or "a box of chocolates", although there's something in
> the back of my mind about a slight difference between American and
> Canadian usage of "candy" and "chocolates" - I think Americans would say
> "candy" where we'd say "chocolates"; that is, they use "candy" in a
> broad sense to refer to a lot of sweet treats, including those made with
> chocolate. But I don't think they'd say "sweets".
>
> I wait for some first-hand observations from the US and UK.

Oll Korrekt. Yes, a box of chocolates is a box of candy. (Not vice versa.)

[Derek Turner]

(UK native) Don't know about US usage but "a box of sweets" isn't used
here because "sweets" don't come in boxes. They come in tins (especially
at Christmas) cellophane bags and jars and are sold loose (by weight) in
paper bags. hth. "Box of chocolates" is fine, however, chocolates tend
not to be called sweets unless individually wrapped - don't ask me why.

[Richard Yates]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:34:45 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@med.mun.ca>
wrote:

I never hear "sweets" here (US). Sounds archaic. You are right about
chocolate being one kind of candy, but I associate candy in a box most
usually with chocolates.

[Yurui Liu]

Peter T. Daniels於 2016年8月25日星期四 UTC+8下午9時08分52秒寫道：

> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:04:50 AM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
> > On 2016-08-25 10:25 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets", particularly
> > > in American English.
>
> Nothing.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/sweet


The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:

1
a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
I'm trying to cut down on sweets.

b [count] British : a piece of candy
a bag of sweets

c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal : dessert

Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <e289iq...@mid.individual.net>,

Derek Turner <frd...@suremail.je> wrote:

>> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
>> particularly in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"?

>(UK native) Don't know about US usage but "a box of sweets" isn't used
>here because "sweets" don't come in boxes. They come in tins (especially
>at Christmas) cellophane bags and jars and are sold loose (by weight) in
>paper bags. hth. "Box of chocolates" is fine, however, chocolates tend
>not to be called sweets unless individually wrapped - don't ask me why.

I mostly agree, though sweets do sometimes come in boxes:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41qG240D5mL.jpg

-- Richard

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com>,

Yurui Liu <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>
> 1
> a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
> I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>
> b [count] British : a piece of candy
> a bag of sweets
>
> c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal :
> dessert
>
> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
> why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.

American English has "box of candy and box of chocolates." Sweets
encompasses everything that is sugary. or has a high sugar content.
Forrest Gump's momma always said that life is like a box of chocolates.

[Don Phillipson]

"Yurui Liu" <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com...

<<
> > > I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
> > > particularly
> > > in American English.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/sweet

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:

1
a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
I'm trying to cut down on sweets.

b [count] British : a piece of candy
a bag of sweets

c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal :
dessert

Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.
>>

Because Americans do not say sweets (meaning candy) in the way the
British do, thus never say "a box of sweets." This example illustrates
the function of context (national context in this case) in determining
meaning. This is a feature of the English language (not necessarily
found in other languages.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Yurui Liu]

Don Phillipson於 2016年8月25日星期四 UTC+8下午10時00分23秒寫道：

I am not asking why Americans don't say 'a box of sweets' to mean
a box of candies; I am aware that it's a British usage. Rather, I am
asking why he can't say 'a box of sweets' to mean, for example, a box
of cookies or an assortment of sweet foods sold in a box.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Also
http://sweetgreetingsshildon.co.uk/wholesale-sweets/full-box-of-sweets

Full Box of Sweets

Below is our great selection of old fashioned quality sweets
available in their original sweet boxes. A great gift idea. We can
also gift wrap them for you or even add a greeting card for any
occasion from the menu on the left. We are constantly checking our
prices and keep our prices at the lowest possible for all our sweets
& gifts online.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Cheryl]

He could, but in the US, that wouldn't be the customary way to express
the idea, and other Americans would probably not immediately understand
that "a box of sweets" meant what would normally be called "a box of
cookies", "a box of cupcakes", "a box of candy bars" or a box of any
other sweet foods.

It is possible to express an idea of a box of sweet food in an unusual
way, and the hearer might figure out what is meant, but it is not the
usual way of communicating.

--
Cheryl

[HVS]

On 25 Aug 2016, Cheryl wrote

AFAIK, "sweets" (sometimes "sweeties" when people are speaking to little
children) -- is invariably the UK usage, with "candy" as much an American
marker as pairs like "nappy/diaper" or "rubber/eraser".

(...waits for someone to contradict me...)

I'm fairly sure - although not entirely positive - that where I grew up in
Canada, we referred to "chocolate bars", not "candy bars". Mixed "candy"
could include chocolate, but chocolate on its own wasn't "candy".

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Yurui Liu]

Cheryl於 2016年8月25日星期四 UTC+8下午11時06分26秒寫道：

In Taiwan, it is common for guests at a wedding reception to receive a
box of sweet foods containing candies and cookies individually packaged
in packets. How would you refer to it if not as "a box of sweets"?




> --
> Cheryl

[HVS]

On 25 Aug 2016, Yurui Liu wrote

> Cheryl於 2016年8月25日星期四 UTC+8下午11時06分26秒寫道：
>> On 2016-08-25 11:38 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

>>> Don Phillipson於 2016年8月25日星æ
> ��四 UTC+8下午10時00分23秒寫道：

I don't think either BrE or AmE usage places cookies and sweets/candies
into the same category of foodstuffs, do they?

Cookies aren't sweets or candies, so one wouldn't call a box containing
both by a term which only refers to one category.

"A box of treats", perhaps? (Not sure.)

[Cheryl]

I'd probably call it a box of treats. There won't be a fixed term in the
US (or Canada) if that particular type of gift isn't traditional there.

It is traditional for wedding guests to get a small gift here, but
they're called "favours", and they can be almost anything, so they
aren't necessarily sweet foods, or food at all.

--
Cheryl

[CDB]

On 8/25/2016 11:31 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:
> Cheryl：
>> Yurui Liu wrote:
>>> Don Phillipson：

The American use of "sweets" is more abstract than concrete. It
designates a category. Note that your dictionary definition was
general: "sweet foods".

If I were describing your wedding-guest--gifts I would invent a phrase
for them, since there is no traditional term. Is the gift serious or
light-hearted? If the latter, perhaps "a box of treats" ("loot bag" is
the North American word for small gifts children take away from a
birthday party, but that is not dignified enough). If the former,
perhaps something with the word "memories" in it. What do the Taiwanese
call it? With translation, please.

At traditional wedding receptions here, guests may be offered a
piece of the wedding cake to take home. There are customary ways of
dealing with the gift, including dreaming on it (placing it, wrapped,
under one's pillow) that night, or saving it to eat on the first
anniversary of the occasion. I don't know of a special word or phrase
for the object, though.

Finally, a general question. You have been assured by native English
speakers from several parts of the world that "a box of sweets" has no
idiomatic meaning in American English. Why do you continue to argue?
Do you hope to persuade them to change their usage?

[Lesmond]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu wrote:

>Cheryl‘ ¬ 2016† 8‘ 25‘ ‘ ‘ † UTC+8„ † 11‘ 06† 26‡ † ®‚ ‹¬

>> On 2016-08-25 11:38 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

>> > Don Phillipson‘ ¬ 2016† 8‘ 25‘ ‘ ‘ † UTC+8„ † 10‘ 00† 23‡ † ®‚ ‹¬

"Wedding favor".

"Box of sweets" is almost never used, but I do not believe anyone would be
confused by it.

In the US, I mean.

--
Queen of the fucking universe.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <839c0d12-2726-42e0...@googlegroups.com>,

Gifts for guests are "favors." It would be a favor of cookies and candy.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <XnsA66FA98F...@178.63.61.145>,

HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't think either BrE or AmE usage places cookies and sweets/candies
> into the same category of foodstuffs, do they?
>
> Cookies aren't sweets or candies, so one wouldn't call a box containing
> both by a term which only refers to one category.

And you can eat all the cookie dough you want, without gaining weight or
breaking your diet, because, as everyone knows, there are no calories in
cookie dough.

Of course cookies are sweets. When the doctor says to cut down on the
sweets, the meaning is all sugary treats.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu

<liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Cheryl? 2016?8?25???? UTC+8??11?06?26????

>> On 2016-08-25 11:38 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

>> > Don Phillipson? 2016?8?25???? UTC+8??10?00?23????

No specific name, but you would not hear "a box of sweets" referring
to cookies, or candy/chocolate for that matter. It is not a word that
is used in that context at least in my travels in the U.S.

You might hear, "A box of goodies" (in the U.S.).

(Sometime in British English, you will hear the diminutive, "Sweeties"
for candy but it's more like conveying a sense of intimacy or
endearment - baby talk)

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <npmsb0$a9u$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk says...

I agree with Derek.
In reading through this thread the phrase "box of sweets"
was sounding more false with each repetition.
A "tin of sweets" produces no such problem for my BrE ear.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:34:54 AM UTC-4, Yurui Liu wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels於 2016年8月25日星期四 UTC+8下午9時08分52秒寫道：
> > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:04:50 AM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
> > > On 2016-08-25 10:25 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

> > > > I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets", particularly
> > > > in American English.
> > Nothing.
>
> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/sweet
>
> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>
> 1
> a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
> I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>
> b [count] British : a piece of candy
> a bag of sweets
>
> c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal : dessert
>
> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
> why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.

Because sense (1a) is ised in the plural. We simply don't say "a sweet" to
mean a piece of sweet food (or at all, that I can hink of). "Cut down on
sweets" is far from limited to candy.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yabbut at the movies there are boxes of jujubes, SnoCaps [which are chocolate],
little jelly beans, etc.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com>,

Yurui Liu <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>
>1
>a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
>I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>
>b [count] British : a piece of candy
>a bag of sweets
>
>c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal
>: dessert

>Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
>why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.

Sense 1a is not used in my (British) English.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

What's your general word for the stuff diabetics (or dieters) ought to avoid
because of the sugars content?

[David Kleinecke]

The old-fashioned box of chocolates seems to be disappearing. Not
the concept of collections of goodies but the box of a certain size
and shape. The goodies are now being packaged more imaginatively.

The word "chocolate" never applied to all the goodies in the box -
only to most. Chocolates continue to flourish but a little more
variety is apparent.

I have always been fascinated by the similarity between box chocolates
and chocolate fondue (is that everybody's name for it?). It has always
seemed to me that box chocolates were a poor substitute for the fondue
equivalent.

[RH Draney]

You'd better look closely at a "box of sweets" before you open it:

https://www.famous-smoke.com/images/skupics/swi/CI-SWI-PERN-400.jpg

....r

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <4fa40102-945c-44cd...@googlegroups.com>,

The traditional package is still around, but no longer ubiquitous.

The Whitman's Sampler brand, now owned by former competitor Russell
Stover, which is owned in turn by some larger corporation, makes an
appearance around various candy-themed holidays.

[David Kleinecke]

And Whitman's Sampler is the epitome of stodginess.

[Harvey]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:45:12 -0400, Horace LaBadie
<hlab...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > I don't think either BrE or AmE usage places cookies and
sweets/candies
> > into the same category of foodstuffs, do they?
> >
> > Cookies aren't sweets or candies, so one wouldn't call a box
containing
> > both by a term which only refers to one category.


> And you can eat all the cookie dough you want, without gaining
weight or
> breaking your diet, because, as everyone knows, there are no
calories in
> cookie dough.

> Of course cookies are sweets. When the doctor says to cut down on
the
> sweets, the meaning is all sugary treats.

You appear to be saying that all sugary treats can be called sweets
(or candy). That doesn't strike me as right: toast covered with jam
or honey is a sugary treat, but I'd never call that a sweet; the
same goes for cookies.

Cheers, Harvey

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The recommendation is to eat "low-sugar" or "sugar-free" items.

The things to be avoided are "foods high in sugar" or (high-sugar
foods".

[Richard Tobin]

In article <26a19bfc-d46d-49c9...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>> >1
>> >a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
>> >I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>> >b [count] British : a piece of candy
>> >a bag of sweets
>> >c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal
>> >: dessert
>> >Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
>> >why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.

>> Sense 1a is not used in my (British) English.

>What's your general word for the stuff diabetics (or dieters) ought to avoid
>because of the sugars content?

I don't think I have a single word for that.

-- Richard

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <almarsoft.2860...@news.albasani.net>,

Well, then you would be mistaken in thinking that.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:27:23 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/25/2016 11:31 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

>> Cheryl?

>>> Yurui Liu wrote:
>>>> Don Phillipson?

Informally, "a box of goodies" if the contents are a mix of different
treats. There's no "rule", though.

If the items include non-edibles, a "swag bag" maybe.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 2:38:49 PM UTC-4, Harvey wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:45:12 -0400, Horace LaBadie
> <hlab...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > > I don't think either BrE or AmE usage places cookies and
> sweets/candies
> > > into the same category of foodstuffs, do they?
> > > Cookies aren't sweets or candies, so one wouldn't call a box
> containing
> > > both by a term which only refers to one category.
> > And you can eat all the cookie dough you want, without gaining
> weight or
> > breaking your diet, because, as everyone knows, there are no
> calories in
> > cookie dough.
> > Of course cookies are sweets. When the doctor says to cut down on
> the
> > sweets, the meaning is all sugary treats.

Cookies aren't sweets in themselves. Nothing is a sweet.

> You appear to be saying that all sugary treats can be called sweets
> (or candy). That doesn't strike me as right: toast covered with jam
> or honey is a sugary treat, but I'd never call that a sweet; the
> same goes for cookies.

It's included in the things you'd avoid when cutting down on sweets. Again,
"sweet" doesn't occur in the singular, and has no specific referent.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 3:02:14 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:37:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:30:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >> In article <be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Yurui Liu <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
> >> >1
> >> >a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
> >> >I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
> >> >b [count] British : a piece of candy
> >> >a bag of sweets
> >> >c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal
> >> >: dessert
> >> >Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
> >> >why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.
> >> Sense 1a is not used in my (British) English.
> >What's your general word for the stuff diabetics (or dieters) ought to avoid
> >because of the sugars content?
>
> The recommendation is to eat "low-sugar" or "sugar-free" items.

(That wasn't the question.)

> The things to be avoided are "foods high in sugar" or (high-sugar
> foods".

Ah, the leisured folks with no need for specific vocabulary items -- 4-5
syllables preferable to 1.

[HVS]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:08:44 -0400, Horace LaBadie

<hlab...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.2860...@news.albasani.net>,
> Harvey <use...@whhvs.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:45:12 -0400, Horace LaBadie

> > > Of course cookies are sweets. When the doctor
> > > says to cut down on the
> > > sweets, the meaning is all sugary treats.
> >
> > You appear to be saying that all sugary treats can be called
sweets
> > (or candy). That doesn't strike me as right: toast covered with
jam
> > or honey is a sugary treat, but I'd never call that a sweet; the
> > same goes for cookies.

> Well, then you would be mistaken in thinking that.

(shrug) I don't take that bait.

Cheers, Harvey

[Richard Tobin]

In article <24257625-27c8-4271...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >> >The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>> >> >1
>> >> >a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
>> >> >I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>> >> >b [count] British : a piece of candy
>> >> >a bag of sweets
>> >> >c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal
>> >> >: dessert
>> >> >Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
>> >> >why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.

>> >> Sense 1a is not used in my (British) English.

>> >What's your general word for the stuff diabetics (or dieters)
>> >ought to avoid because of the sugars content?

[...]

>> The things to be avoided are "foods high in sugar" or (high-sugar
>> foods".

>Ah, the leisured folks with no need for specific vocabulary items -- 4-5
>syllables preferable to 1.

Do you have (or notice the lack of) a single word for "fatty foods"?

But anyway, why wouldn't you just say "avoid sugar"?

-- Richard

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <almarsoft.4476...@news.albasani.net>,

WebMD seems to think that cookies and candy bars fall into the same
sugary treat category. Take it up with them.

How to Stop Sugar Cravings: 8 Tips to Use Right Now

If you're craving sugar, here are some ways to tame those cravings.

Give in a little. Eat a bit of what youąre craving, maybe a small
cookie or a fun-size candy bar, suggests Kerry Neville, MS, RD, a
registered dietitian and ADA spokeswoman. Enjoying a little of what you
love can help you steer clear of feeling denied. Try to stick to a
150-calorie threshold, Neville says.

<http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/13-ways-to-fight-sugar-cravings#1>

[Peter T. Daniels]

That would mean don't put the crystalline stuff on your cereal, in your coffee,
etc., but wouldn't warn the unthinking against cookies or canned soup.

[charles]

In article <4fa40102-945c-44cd...@googlegroups.com>, David

#difficult to pass round fondue to your neighbours in the theatre

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Jerry Friedman]

Mine, at least.

> > It has always
> > seemed to me that box chocolates were a poor substitute for the fondue
> > equivalent.
>
> #difficult to pass round fondue to your neighbours in the theatre

Or leave with an unsigned note for your secret admiree.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Cheryl]

Canned soup, OK, that might fool a few people who can't read labels. But
I find it difficult to imagine anyone not knowing that cookies contain
sugar. (Well, unless they're a special diet sugar-free type of cookie,
which must surely exist.)

--
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter T. Daniels]

Who thinks about the ingredients of the commercial products they buy?

"Sugar-free diet" cookies and such these days are often sweetened with "sugar
alcohols," which are as bad for glucose count as sugar. Plus they're laxative.

[CDB]

On 8/25/2016 1:08 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk says...

>> Derek Turner <frd...@suremail.je> wrote:

>>>> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
>>>> particularly in American English. Does it necessarily mean
>>>> "candy"?

>>> (UK native) Don't know about US usage but "a box of sweets"
>>> isn't used here because "sweets" don't come in boxes. They come
>>> in tins (especially at Christmas) cellophane bags and jars and
>>> are sold loose (by weight) in paper bags. hth. "Box of
>>> chocolates" is fine, however, chocolates tend not to be called
>>> sweets unless individually wrapped - don't ask me why.

>> I mostly agree, though sweets do sometimes come in boxes:

>> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41qG240D5mL.jpg

> I agree with Derek. In reading through this thread the phrase "box
> of sweets" was sounding more false with each repetition. A "tin of
> sweets" produces no such problem for my BrE ear.

George Herbert, ca 1630:

"Sweet spring, full of sweet dayes and roses,
A box where sweets compacted lie"

I suppose they didn't have tins then.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Aug-26 01:40, HVS wrote:

> I don't think either BrE or AmE usage places cookies and sweets/candies
> into the same category of foodstuffs, do they?

In my Australian childhood "sweets" was pretty much synonymous with
"pudding"; what we later came to call "dessert". The word never meant
lollies, for us.

Regardless of the name, we never put lollies and biscuits in the same
category. A box containing both might be called a gift box. or perhaps
an assortment.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[GordonD]

Says the man who puts gasoline* in his automobile and rides the
elevator up to his apartment.

*Okay, that's two syllables in BrE but you know what I mean.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Cheryl]

On 2016-08-25 11:45 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 5:47:31 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2016-08-25 6:46 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
>>>> But anyway, why wouldn't you just say "avoid sugar"?
>>> That would mean don't put the crystalline stuff on your cereal, in your coffee,
>>> etc., but wouldn't warn the unthinking against cookies or canned soup.
>>
>> Canned soup, OK, that might fool a few people who can't read labels. But
>> I find it difficult to imagine anyone not knowing that cookies contain
>> sugar. (Well, unless they're a special diet sugar-free type of cookie,
>> which must surely exist.)
>
> Who thinks about the ingredients of the commercial products they buy?

A surprising number of people. I do myself, from time to time, but the
people who do it more often are those who for one reason or another are
watching their diet more carefully than I do.

> "Sugar-free diet" cookies and such these days are often sweetened with "sugar
> alcohols," which are as bad for glucose count as sugar. Plus they're laxative.
>

I'll take your word for it. I don't eat many sweets (my food weaknesses
tend to the salty and fatty), and if I do, I stick to the regular variety.

[Tak To]

On 8/25/2016 10:15 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 5:47:31 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2016-08-25 6:46 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
>>>> But anyway, why wouldn't you just say "avoid sugar"?
>>> That would mean don't put the crystalline stuff on your cereal, in your coffee,
>>> etc., but wouldn't warn the unthinking against cookies or canned soup.
>>
>> Canned soup, OK, that might fool a few people who can't read labels. But
>> I find it difficult to imagine anyone not knowing that cookies contain
>> sugar. (Well, unless they're a special diet sugar-free type of cookie,
>> which must surely exist.)
>
> Who thinks about the ingredients of the commercial products they buy?

... which is a much broader issue than whether people generally
know that cookies (sans "sugar free", commercial or otherwise)
have sugar in them.

> "Sugar-free diet" cookies and such these days are often sweetened with "sugar
> alcohols," which are as bad for glucose count as sugar.

About the same in calories by weight but with a lower
Glycemic Index; hence slower absorption by the body
and better for the diabetic. That is, according to G.I.
theorists.

> Plus they're laxative.

Only in large quantities.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[RH Draney]

On 8/26/2016 4:00 AM, Tak To wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 10:15 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> "Sugar-free diet" cookies and such these days are often sweetened with "sugar
>> alcohols," which are as bad for glucose count as sugar.
>
> About the same in calories by weight but with a lower
> Glycemic Index; hence slower absorption by the body
> and better for the diabetic. That is, according to G.I.
> theorists.
>
>> Plus they're laxative.
>
> Only in large quantities.

I went to see a new doctor today because I needed some prescriptions
re-submitted and my old doctor has moved away...during the initial
interview, I was asked if I regularly experienced any nausea, bloating,
discomfort or diarrhea, and I truthfully told them I didn't....

Then the doctor came in and told me (surprised? not!) that I needed to
lose some weight....

Apparently they *want* me to have frequent diarrhea, because apart from
amputation that's the only sure way I know to lose weight....

(He also informed me that he didn't believe herbal supplements had any
effect...I asked him if that meant I could go back to eating licorice
again, since I had only given it up after finding that it raises blood
pressure)....r

[Cheryl]

The most successful period I ever had at weight loss was a year or two
ago, over the few days I had a stomach flu. It was a very effective way
to lose weight, but unfortunately the effect was as short-lived as the
stomach flu symptoms.

--
Cheryl

[Whiskers]

On 2016-08-25, Horace LaBadie <hlab...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com>,
> Yurui Liu <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>>
>> 1 a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food I'm
>> trying to cut down on sweets.
>>
>> b [count] British : a piece of candy a bag of sweets
>>
>> c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a
>> meal : dessert
>>
>> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am
>> wondering why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.
>

> American English has "box of candy and box of chocolates." Sweets
> encompasses everything that is sugary. or has a high sugar content.
> Forrest Gump's momma always said that life is like a box of
> chocolates.

A line that confused BrE speakers; over here, we know exactly what each
sweet in the box contains as there is an annotated diagram or picture
also in the box. I was surprised to learn that the original line was
intended to mean that you don't know what you're getting till you've got
it because each sweet comes as a complete surprise.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Whiskers]

On 2016-08-25, Derek Turner <frd...@suremail.je> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:55:17 -0700, Yurui Liu wrote:
>
>> Hi,

>>
>> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
>> particularly in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"?
>>

>> I'd appreciate your help.
>

> (UK native) Don't know about US usage but "a box of sweets" isn't used
> here because "sweets" don't come in boxes. They come in tins (especially
> at Christmas) cellophane bags and jars and are sold loose (by weight) in
> paper bags. hth. "Box of chocolates" is fine, however, chocolates tend
> not to be called sweets unless individually wrapped - don't ask me why.

That's what I was going to say, almost word for word.

Singular sweet as a noun can occur in the context of a meal, where it
refers to the sweet course - which might also be called pudding, even if
it isn't a pudding as such (and of course puddings aren't necessarily
sweet).

[GordonD]

A lot of stand-up comedians pointed that out.

[Whiskers]

On 2016-08-25, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:37:36 +0000 (UTC), ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
>>In article <e289iq...@mid.individual.net>,

>>Derek Turner <frd...@suremail.je> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
>>>> particularly in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"?
>>

>>>(UK native) Don't know about US usage but "a box of sweets" isn't used
>>>here because "sweets" don't come in boxes. They come in tins (especially
>>>at Christmas) cellophane bags and jars and are sold loose (by weight) in
>>>paper bags. hth. "Box of chocolates" is fine, however, chocolates tend
>>>not to be called sweets unless individually wrapped - don't ask me why.
>>

>>I mostly agree, though sweets do sometimes come in boxes:
>>
>> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41qG240D5mL.jpg
>>

> Also
> http://sweetgreetingsshildon.co.uk/wholesale-sweets/full-box-of-sweets
>
> Full Box of Sweets
>
> Below is our great selection of old fashioned quality sweets
> available in their original sweet boxes. A great gift idea. We can
> also gift wrap them for you or even add a greeting card for any
> occasion from the menu on the left. We are constantly checking our
> prices and keep our prices at the lowest possible for all our sweets
> & gifts online.

This seems to be a new marketing concept. They'd be called 'a box of
[brand name]s' though, rather than 'a box of sweets'.

[Peter T. Daniels]

No, gas.

No elevator in my house.

They're single words, not phrases.

> *Okay, that's two syllables in BrE but you know what I mean.

So we beat you by 1.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 7:00:45 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 10:15 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 5:47:31 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2016-08-25 6:46 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:

> >>>> But anyway, why wouldn't you just say "avoid sugar"?
> >>> That would mean don't put the crystalline stuff on your cereal, in your coffee,
> >>> etc., but wouldn't warn the unthinking against cookies or canned soup.
> >> Canned soup, OK, that might fool a few people who can't read labels. But
> >> I find it difficult to imagine anyone not knowing that cookies contain
> >> sugar. (Well, unless they're a special diet sugar-free type of cookie,
> >> which must surely exist.)
> > Who thinks about the ingredients of the commercial products they buy?
>
> ... which is a much broader issue than whether people generally
> know that cookies (sans "sugar free", commercial or otherwise)
> have sugar in them.
>
> > "Sugar-free diet" cookies and such these days are often sweetened with "sugar
> > alcohols," which are as bad for glucose count as sugar.
>
> About the same in calories by weight but with a lower
> Glycemic Index; hence slower absorption by the body
> and better for the diabetic. That is, according to G.I.
> theorists.

I don't know what "G.I. theorists" are, I just know what my glucometer tells me.
Once it's in the blood, it doesn't matter where it came from.

> > Plus they're laxative.
>
> Only in large quantities.

A couple summers ago I had a "food tour" of the Lower East Side, and
one of the stops was a famous old candy store (I'd have no idea how to
find it again). They had a whole wall of sugar-free chocolates, so
I selected about 1/4 lb. (4 oz.), which cost about $4. Hours later, on
the bus home, I got hungry and curious.

Do you think of 4 oz. as "large quantities"?

[Jerry Friedman]

On 8/26/16 5:16 AM, RH Draney wrote:
...

> I went to see a new doctor today because I needed some prescriptions
> re-submitted and my old doctor has moved away...during the initial
> interview, I was asked if I regularly experienced any nausea, bloating,
> discomfort or diarrhea, and I truthfully told them I didn't....
>
> Then the doctor came in and told me (surprised? not!) that I needed to
> lose some weight....
>
> Apparently they *want* me to have frequent diarrhea, because apart from
> amputation that's the only sure way I know to lose weight....
>
> (He also informed me that he didn't believe herbal supplements had any
> effect...I asked him if that meant I could go back to eating licorice
> again, since I had only given it up after finding that it raises blood
> pressure)....r

And he said...?

--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers

[Peter T. Daniels]

60 years ago, boxes of assorted chocolates included a diagram of the
significance of the various swirls and other designs on the tops of the
chocolates. I don't know whether the codes were industry-wide or varied
from maker to maker. Maybe that was too hard for the buyer, and briefly
they were replaced with that sort of map.

The leading candy-makers in NYC were Barracini's and Barton's (kosher).
Both of them had retail stores in the neighborhoods.

Then the national brands started horning in.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <0e10c59e-8db8-4ee0...@googlegroups.com>,
David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-7, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> > In article <4fa40102-945c-44cd...@googlegroups.com>,
> > David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:26:36 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels

> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:26:58 AM UTC-4, Richard Yates wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:34:45 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@med.mun.ca>
> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >On 2016-08-25 10:25 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
> > > > > >> particularly
> > > > > >> in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"?

> > > > > >> I'd appreciate your help.

> > > > > >I wouldn't have thought you'd run into "box of sweets" in American
> > > > > >English. It sounds like UK English to me; I think an American would
> > > > > >say
> > > > > >"a box of candy" or "a box of chocolates", although there's
> > > > > >something in
> > > > > >the back of my mind about a slight difference between American and
> > > > > >Canadian usage of "candy" and "chocolates" - I think Americans would
> > > > > >say
> > > > > >"candy" where we'd say "chocolates"; that is, they use "candy" in a
> > > > > >broad sense to refer to a lot of sweet treats, including those made
> > > > > >with
> > > > > >chocolate. But I don't think they'd say "sweets".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I wait for some first-hand observations from the US and UK.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never hear "sweets" here (US). Sounds archaic. You are right about
> > > > > chocolate being one kind of candy, but I associate candy in a box
> > > > > most
> > > > > usually with chocolates.
> > > >
> > > > Yabbut at the movies there are boxes of jujubes, SnoCaps [which are
> > > > chocolate],
> > > > little jelly beans, etc.
> > >
> > > The old-fashioned box of chocolates seems to be disappearing. Not
> > > the concept of collections of goodies but the box of a certain size
> > > and shape. The goodies are now being packaged more imaginatively.
> >

> > The traditional package is still around, but no longer ubiquitous.
> >
> > The Whitman's Sampler brand, now owned by former competitor Russell
> > Stover, which is owned in turn by some larger corporation, makes an
> > appearance around various candy-themed holidays.
>
> And Whitman's Sampler is the epitome of stodginess.

On the west coast I'm familiar with See's Candies, which, as far as I
know are only sold from their stores. Their stores are in permanent
locations year round, though some temporary ones can spring up at
various holidays associated with candy given as gifts.. They mostly have
individual chocolate candies, though there are also nut based ones as
well.

--
chares

[Charles Bishop]

In article <slrnns0diq.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,

I think that was also common when I was a child, the diagram on the
inner portion of the box lid, or on a sheet of paper in the box. There
is also a tradition of labeling an individual chocolate with a
distinctive swirl of chocolate on top that tells what type of filling
the chocolate has.

I don't think the box identification is done much any more (though
perhaps Russell Stover still does it, and the swirl of chocolate may
still be done but the ancient knowledge is lost. Perhaps the author or
scriptwriters were of a later generation.

--
charles

[Cheryl]

I think you can buy some boxes of chocolates year round, not only in
specialty places like candy stores, but also in drug stores, but they
aren't all that common most of the time in general type stores. They are
sold in far, far more places and in much larger quantities at certain
times of year - Christmas and Valentine's Day, most noticeably.

--
Cheryl

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:03:01 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@med.mun.ca>

If you are in the mood for hard candy, the gift shop area of Cracker
Barrel restaurants offer an extensive selection year-round. Dunno if
they are in your area, but they are all along the Interstates in the
Southeast.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[RH Draney]

On 8/26/2016 8:10 AM, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <slrnns0diq.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-08-25, Horace LaBadie <hlab...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> American English has "box of candy and box of chocolates." Sweets
>>> encompasses everything that is sugary. or has a high sugar content.
>>> Forrest Gump's momma always said that life is like a box of
>>> chocolates.
>>
>> A line that confused BrE speakers; over here, we know exactly what each
>> sweet in the box contains as there is an annotated diagram or picture
>> also in the box. I was surprised to learn that the original line was
>> intended to mean that you don't know what you're getting till you've got
>> it because each sweet comes as a complete surprise.
>
> I think that was also common when I was a child, the diagram on the
> inner portion of the box lid, or on a sheet of paper in the box. There
> is also a tradition of labeling an individual chocolate with a
> distinctive swirl of chocolate on top that tells what type of filling
> the chocolate has.

A lot of people never cracked the code, and many never realized there
*was* a code, leading to Momma Gump's homily...it's like the symbol on
the dashboard that tells you which side of the car the fuel filler door
is on, for which I'm constantly hearing "I didn't know that!"...r

[RH Draney]

On 8/26/2016 6:47 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 8/26/16 5:16 AM, RH Draney wrote:
>>
>> (He also informed me that he didn't believe herbal supplements had any
>> effect...I asked him if that meant I could go back to eating licorice
>> again, since I had only given it up after finding that it raises blood
>> pressure)....r
>
> And he said...?

Nothing that indicated a sense of irony....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Which cars? What symbol?

[Tak To]

Boxers, Ultimate Fighers, etc are known to use colonics
to get to the weight class...

[the Omrud]

All cars, as far as I know, although I have no idea when it started.
There's a little arrow or triangle indicating which side of the car the
filler is to be found.

http://www.wikihow.com/Know-Which-Side-of-the-Car-the-Gas-Tank-Is-Located
http://blog.liftshare.com/lifestyle/revealed-the-secret-of-that-little-arrow-on-your-cars-fuel-gauge

I occasionally wish that I'd thought of this first, patented it and then
sold it to Toyota, GM, Ford, etc, for 1c per car.

--
David

[Tak To]

The amount of sugar alcohol in the 4 oz of chocolate is ...?

Did you experience any laxative effective from them?

FYI I sometimes have 2 servings of sugar free angel food cake
(about 12g of sugar alcohol each) in one day and see no
obvious effect on my digestive system.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <e2b5pe...@mid.individual.net>,

I didn't mean to indicate that See's doesn't sell year round, only that
they open additional stores around holidays. We do have boxes of
chocolate for sale year round in other stores, but I consider the
quality to be less than See's but I haven't sampled (heh) all of the
brands, I'm sure.

--
chares

[Peter T. Daniels]

Please don't tell me that my wording and use of paragraphing were not sufficient
to communicate that fact.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <5uo0sb9oqc3sgrbu8...@4ax.com>,

There are also some stores that offer "Old Tyme" candies, mostly candies
that were sold during our childhoods but aren't carried along with the
other candies for sale in, say, supermarkets and other "normal"
locations. These may be in stores decked out to be like the original (?)
general stores, or stores that also sell "antiques".

There are many of these candies from my childhood, but some I remember
are "root beer barrels" - hard candy shaped like barrels and tasting of
root beer, "Bit-O-Honey" a candy "bar" with sections that were chewy,
sort of taffy, "soda bottles" which were very small and made of wax,
with a sugar liquid inside - we chewed the wax after drinking the very
small amount of liquid.

Many, many others. Some of which like Abba-Dabba I think I've seen in
regular stores, brought back or perhaps never left.

--
chrles

[Tak To]

Since you asked nicely, I oblige.

>> FYI I sometimes have 2 servings of sugar free angel food cake
>> (about 12g of sugar alcohol each) in one day and see no
>> obvious effect on my digestive system.

[snide...@gmail.com]

When I was a lad, in the Far North south of the Columbia,
See's Candies were a treat a couple times a year
when my father ventured to San Anselmo for a conference.
But by Jr High or Hi School, See's invaded the Land of the Firs,
and life reached a new level.

These days, in SoCal at least,
the malls have Godiva stores, which claim to be better,
and Rocky Mountain Chocolate, which aims at the See's market.
There are a few independent chocolatiers around,
usually in tourist zones.
They may moonlight in taffy.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:28:26 -0700 (PDT), snide...@gmail.com wrote:

>When I was a lad, in the Far North south of the Columbia,

Careful...PTD will take that to mean that you grew up south of 116th
and Broadway in Upper Manhattan.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <npq261$cli$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Does the filler door change sides so often that you need a hint where to
find it? The one on my car seems to have become sedentary.

[Tony Cooper]

Mine is in one of the dashboard clusters. I certainly don't need it
for my own vehicle, but it does help with a rental vehicle pulling
into a gas station for the first time. Puts you on the right side of
the pump.

[the Omrud]

Did you never rent a car? Drive your mother's car? Buy a new car and
drive it straight to the filling station?

--
David

[the Omrud]

Or the left, depending.

--
David

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <npqd8m$1ko$2...@news.albasani.net>,

Seems a bit excessive for something that might be useful once. Unless
the filler is hidden behind a tail light, as it was in some cars, which
would be memorable in itself, I do not see the necessity, as the French
nobleman said to the peasant.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 22:46:03 +0100, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>

That seems to be standard now, but it's not always been that way.
We've even had cars with the filler under the license plate in the
back of the vehicle.

The feature is less useful now with most vehicles having a release in
the driver's compartment. You can pull the release and spot the
filler door in a rear view mirror. Back when we had to manually open
the filler door it was a more useful feature.

The problem now with a rental car is finding that remote release. My
car has it on the floor to the left of the driver's seat, and my
wife's car has it on the door panel where the power windows, power
mirror, trunk release, and power door locks are located. When I drive
her car, I find myself fishing down on the floor for where the release
isn't.

[Harvey]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 18:19:10 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That seems to be standard now, but it's not always been that way.
> We've even had cars with the filler under the license plate in the
> back of the vehicle.

There was also at least one I recall that had the filler near the
rear window, on the horizontal part of the trunk/boot.

Can't remember which car - possibly the VW Karman Ghia, or the Chevy
Corvair (Ralph Nader's fave)?

Somebody here will undoubtedly know....

--
Cheers, Harvey

[RH Draney]

On 8/26/2016 12:13 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
>
> There are also some stores that offer "Old Tyme" candies, mostly candies
> that were sold during our childhoods but aren't carried along with the
> other candies for sale in, say, supermarkets and other "normal"
> locations. These may be in stores decked out to be like the original (?)
> general stores, or stores that also sell "antiques".
>
> There are many of these candies from my childhood, but some I remember
> are "root beer barrels" - hard candy shaped like barrels and tasting of
> root beer, "Bit-O-Honey" a candy "bar" with sections that were chewy,
> sort of taffy, "soda bottles" which were very small and made of wax,
> with a sugar liquid inside - we chewed the wax after drinking the very
> small amount of liquid.
>
> Many, many others. Some of which like Abba-Dabba I think I've seen in
> regular stores, brought back or perhaps never left.

A few years back I watched a DVD of early children's television shows,
one segment of which featured "Bonomo, the Magic Clown"...the sponsor
was Bonomo Turkish Taffy, which provided the name of the show's host,
the "magic words" he used whenever he did a trick, and what seemed like
about every third word of the script...after a minute or two, it was as
if you were tuned to the Bonomo-Bonomo-Bonomo-Bonomo Show....

Not long after, I was in a dollar store when I noticed packages of
Bonomo Turkish Taffy in the candy department...I bought one of each
flavor and took them home, marveling that this brand I'd never heard of
had somehow survived over fifty years since the show on the DVD....

When I checked Wikipedia, I learned that this was not exactly the
case...Bonomo had stopped production in 1989, and had only recently been
revived when I found it at that dollar store over twenty years later....r

[RH Draney]

For all practical purposes, they're a seasonal company...their only
product that interest me is the "Irish Spud" they sell only in March,
consisting of a lump of divinity fudge rolled in cocoa powder and
studded with a few almond slivers, giving the appearance of a small
russet potato....r

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-7, RH Draney wrote:
> On 8/26/2016 1:28 PM, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:07:55 PM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
> >>
> >> I didn't mean to indicate that See's doesn't sell year round, only that
> >> they open additional stores around holidays. We do have boxes of
> >> chocolate for sale year round in other stores, but I consider the
> >> quality to be less than See's but I haven't sampled (heh) all of the
> >> brands, I'm sure.
> >
> > When I was a lad, in the Far North south of the Columbia,
> > See's Candies were a treat a couple times a year
> > when my father ventured to San Anselmo for a conference.
>
> For all practical purposes, they're a seasonal company...

For YOUR practical purposes.

> their only
> product that interest me is the "Irish Spud" they sell only in March,
> consisting of a lump of divinity fudge rolled in cocoa powder and
> studded with a few almond slivers, giving the appearance of a small
> russet potato....r

Bordeaux. Mayfair. Lime Truffle.

The See's business model is:

a) holidays
b) birthdays, anniversaries
c) economic slumps
d) family visits

(Forbes or Motley Fool or one of their colleagues examined what happened
to See's Candy sales during recessions ... they were found to be comforting.)

/dps

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:34:15 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:28:26 -0700 (PDT), snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >When I was a lad, in the Far North south of the Columbia,
>
> Careful...PTD will take that to mean that you grew up south of 116th
> and Broadway in Upper Manhattan.

He'll get short-shirted if he does that.
My mother's family was in Brooklyn.

/dps

[snide...@gmail.com]

I will aver it was not the Karmann Ghia. Like the Beetle,
the gas tank was up front.

<URL:http://www.bustopia.com/Images/vw-karmann-ghia04c.jpg>
<URL:http://vintagebus.com/56kg/ref/63814.jpg>

/dps

[snide...@gmail.com]

It's basically a part of the silk-screen for the dashboard,
or on the the LCD cover for a "soft instrument" dashboard.
Costs as much as putting "F" or "E" on the scale.

/dps

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/08/2016 9:04 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-08-25 10:25 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

>> Hi,

>>
>> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
>> particularly
>> in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"?
>>
>> I'd appreciate your help.
>>
>>
>>
> I wouldn't have thought you'd run into "box of sweets" in American
> English. It sounds like UK English to me; I think an American would say
> "a box of candy" or "a box of chocolates", although there's something in
> the back of my mind about a slight difference between American and
> Canadian usage of "candy" and "chocolates" - I think Americans would say
> "candy" where we'd say "chocolates"; that is, they use "candy" in a
> broad sense to refer to a lot of sweet treats, including those made with
> chocolate. But I don't think they'd say "sweets".
>
> I wait for some first-hand observations from the US and UK.
>

I don't think I'd call a box of chocolates "a box of sweets".
Where I live, "sweets" are called "lollies", but I wouldn't use "box of
lollies" either for chocolates.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/08/2016 8:30 PM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2016-08-25, Horace LaBadie <hlab...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> In article <be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Yurui Liu <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>>>
>>> 1 a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food I'm
>>> trying to cut down on sweets.
>>>
>>> b [count] British : a piece of candy a bag of sweets
>>>
>>> c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a
>>> meal : dessert
>>>
>>> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am
>>> wondering why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.

>>
>> American English has "box of candy and box of chocolates." Sweets
>> encompasses everything that is sugary. or has a high sugar content.
>> Forrest Gump's momma always said that life is like a box of
>> chocolates.
>
> A line that confused BrE speakers; over here, we know exactly what each
> sweet in the box contains as there is an annotated diagram or picture
> also in the box. I was surprised to learn that the original line was
> intended to mean that you don't know what you're getting till you've got
> it because each sweet comes as a complete surprise.
>

I have to add that "sweets" don't usually come in a box. They might,
however, come in a paper bag, or a tin. Some chocolates come in a tin too.

[Robert Bannister]

The thing is, since I moved from the country to the city, I have never
run my petrol so low that I see an icon. You only get to see the petrol
pump picture if you got about eighty kilometres left, and in my last two
cars, I never seen it, so I don't know whether it appears with an arrow.

[Robert Bannister]

Not in the last fifty years. I expect a new car to come with a fairly
full tank.

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/08/2016 11:31 PM, Yurui Liu wrote:
> Cheryl於 2016年8月25日星期四 UTC+8下午11時06分26秒寫道：
>> On 2016-08-25 11:38 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:
>>> Don Phillipson於 2016年8月25日星期四 UTC+8下午10時00分23秒寫道：
>>>> "Yurui Liu" <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com...

>>>>
>>>> <<
>>>>>>> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets",
>>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>>> in American English.
>>>>

>>>> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/sweet

>>>>
>>>> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>>>>
>>>> 1
>>>> a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
>>>> I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>>>>
>>>> b [count] British : a piece of candy
>>>> a bag of sweets
>>>>
>>>> c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal :
>>>> dessert
>>>>
>>>> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
>>>> why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.
>>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Because Americans do not say sweets (meaning candy) in the way the
>>>> British do, thus never say "a box of sweets." This example illustrates
>>>> the function of context (national context in this case) in determining
>>>> meaning. This is a feature of the English language (not necessarily
>>>> found in other languages.)
>>>
>>> I am not asking why Americans don't say 'a box of sweets' to mean
>>> a box of candies; I am aware that it's a British usage. Rather, I am
>>> asking why he can't say 'a box of sweets' to mean, for example, a box
>>> of cookies or an assortment of sweet foods sold in a box.
>>
>> He could, but in the US, that wouldn't be the customary way to express
>> the idea, and other Americans would probably not immediately understand
>> that "a box of sweets" meant what would normally be called "a box of
>> cookies", "a box of cupcakes", "a box of candy bars" or a box of any
>> other sweet foods.
>>
>> It is possible to express an idea of a box of sweet food in an unusual
>> way, and the hearer might figure out what is meant, but it is not the
>> usual way of communicating.
>
> In Taiwan, it is common for guests at a wedding reception to receive a
> box of sweet foods containing candies and cookies individually packaged
> in packets. How would you refer to it if not as "a box of sweets"?

A box of sweet things.

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/08/2016 11:40 PM, HVS wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2016, Yurui Liu wrote
>
>> Cherylæ–¼ 2016å¹´8月25日星期四 UTC+8ä¸‹å ˆ11時06分26ç§’å¯«é “ï¼š

>>> On 2016-08-25 11:38 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:

>>>> Don Phillipsonæ–¼ 2016å¹´8月25日星æ
>> œŸå›› UTC+8ä¸‹å ˆ10時00分23ç§’å¯«é “ï¼š

> I don't think either BrE or AmE usage places cookies and sweets/candies
> into the same category of foodstuffs, do they?
>
> Cookies aren't sweets or candies, so one wouldn't call a box containing
> both by a term which only refers to one category.
>
> "A box of treats", perhaps? (Not sure.)
>
I like that, but these days it does sounds as though they are for the
dog or cat.

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/08/2016 1:37 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:30:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <be408584-c61e-4a02...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Yurui Liu <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>>> 1
>>> a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
>>> I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>>> b [count] British : a piece of candy
>>> a bag of sweets
>>> c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal
>>> : dessert
>>> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
>>> why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.
>>

>> Sense 1a is not used in my (British) English.
>
> What's your general word for the stuff diabetics (or dieters) ought to avoid
> because of the sugars content?
>
Sweet stuff, sweet food, sugary food, hi GI food.

[snide...@gmail.com]

The new car dealers I've dealt with (sporadically; my last 2 cars 1999 and 2008)
don't seem to like to spend much money on gas.
Cars that I've test drove usually have enough for a handful of test drives
(maybe a quarter of a tank),
and there isn't any top-off that I've seen at sale closing.
They do wash the car, though.

/dps

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/08/2016 5:16 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <24257625-27c8-4271...@googlegroups.com>,

>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows:
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>> a [count] : a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food
>>>>>>> I'm trying to cut down on sweets.
>>>>>>> b [count] British : a piece of candy
>>>>>>> a bag of sweets
>>>>>>> c [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal
>>>>>>> : dessert
>>>>>>> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering
>>>>>>> why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English.
>>>>>> Sense 1a is not used in my (British) English.
>>>>> What's your general word for the stuff diabetics (or dieters)
>>>>> ought to avoid because of the sugars content?
>>

>> [...]
>>
>>>> The things to be avoided are "foods high in sugar" or (high-sugar
>>>> foods".
>>> Ah, the leisured folks with no need for specific vocabulary items -- 4-5
>>> syllables preferable to 1.
>>
>> Do you have (or notice the lack of) a single word for "fatty foods"?

>>
>> But anyway, why wouldn't you just say "avoid sugar"?
>
> That would mean don't put the crystalline stuff on your cereal, in your coffee,
> etc., but wouldn't warn the unthinking against cookies or canned soup.
>

I wouldn't put cookies on my cereal (if I ate the stuff) nor canned soup
in my coffee.

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/08/2016 7:24 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-08-26 8:46 AM, RH Draney wrote:

>> On 8/26/2016 4:00 AM, Tak To wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2016 10:15 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sugar-free diet" cookies and such these days are often sweetened
>>>> with "sugar
>>>> alcohols," which are as bad for glucose count as sugar.
>>>
>>> About the same in calories by weight but with a lower
>>> Glycemic Index; hence slower absorption by the body
>>> and better for the diabetic. That is, according to G.I.
>>> theorists.
>>>

>>>> Plus they're laxative.
>>>
>>> Only in large quantities.
>>

>> I went to see a new doctor today because I needed some prescriptions
>> re-submitted and my old doctor has moved away...during the initial
>> interview, I was asked if I regularly experienced any nausea, bloating,
>> discomfort or diarrhea, and I truthfully told them I didn't....
>>
>> Then the doctor came in and told me (surprised? not!) that I needed to
>> lose some weight....
>>
>> Apparently they *want* me to have frequent diarrhea, because apart from
>> amputation that's the only sure way I know to lose weight....
>>
>> (He also informed me that he didn't believe herbal supplements had any
>> effect...I asked him if that meant I could go back to eating licorice
>> again, since I had only given it up after finding that it raises blood
>> pressure)....r
>>
>
> The most successful period I ever had at weight loss was a year or two
> ago, over the few days I had a stomach flu. It was a very effective way
> to lose weight, but unfortunately the effect was as short-lived as the
> stomach flu symptoms.
>
I lost the most weight when I had dysentery during my (mostly) overland
trip from England to Singapore. Well, I didn't have it the whole way,
just the three days from Bangkok to Singapore.

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/08/2016 1:43 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:26:36 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:26:58 AM UTC-4, Richard Yates wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:34:45 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@med.mun.ca>

>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-08-25 10:25 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:
>>

>>>>> I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets", particularly

>>>>> in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"?
>>>>> I'd appreciate your help.
>>>> I wouldn't have thought you'd run into "box of sweets" in American
>>>> English. It sounds like UK English to me; I think an American would say
>>>> "a box of candy" or "a box of chocolates", although there's something in
>>>> the back of my mind about a slight difference between American and
>>>> Canadian usage of "candy" and "chocolates" - I think Americans would say
>>>> "candy" where we'd say "chocolates"; that is, they use "candy" in a
>>>> broad sense to refer to a lot of sweet treats, including those made with
>>>> chocolate. But I don't think they'd say "sweets".
>>>>
>>>> I wait for some first-hand observations from the US and UK.
>>>

>>> I never hear "sweets" here (US). Sounds archaic. You are right about
>>> chocolate being one kind of candy, but I associate candy in a box most
>>> usually with chocolates.
>>
>> Yabbut at the movies there are boxes of jujubes, SnoCaps [which are chocolate],
>> little jelly beans, etc.
>
> The old-fashioned box of chocolates seems to be disappearing. Not
> the concept of collections of goodies but the box of a certain size
> and shape. The goodies are now being packaged more imaginatively.
>

> The word "chocolate" never applied to all the goodies in the box -
> only to most. Chocolates continue to flourish but a little more
> variety is apparent.

It's been a very long time since I saw a box of chocolates containing
anything other than chocolates, but I do think I vaguely remember other
lollies/sweets/candy being include - at least pre-1960.