"Snail" and "slug"?
Bertel Lund Hansen
In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
it possible to use one word for both kinds?
--
Bertel, Denmark
Nick Spalding
<1rj616linbpt6it9g...@news.stofanet.dk>
on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200:
> Hi all
>
> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
I've never heard either word to include the other; if it has a shell
it's a snail, if not it's a slug.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Mark Brader
>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs.
Nick Spalding:
> I've never heard either word to include the other; if it has a shell
> it's a snail, if not it's a slug.
I agree.
--
Mark Brader | "...he entertained the notion that I was cribbing from
Toronto | other [students' exams] until it was pointed out that
m...@vex.net | I often had the only correct answer..." --Lars Eighner
Joachim Pense
Am 12.06.2010 11:14, schrieb Bertel Lund Hansen:
> Hi all
>
> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>
My experience is that in English, "slug" is used often as a metaphor for
slowness (cf sluggish) where German uses "snail" (Schnecke).
English has also a separate word for the marine variety ("whelk").
Joachim
Steve Hayes
<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>Hi all
>
>In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
>it possible to use one word for both kinds?
You can call them all gastropods.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Cheryl P.
English can also use 'snail' to mean 'slow', although there's no word
'snailish' and it's a bit ruder to be called 'sluggish' than it is to be
called 'slow as a snail' or said to be operating at a 'snail-like pace'.
But I agree with the other posters. You'd never call a snail a slug, or
vice versa, in English, and there's no word in common English (ok, apart
from scientific language) to refer to both together.
--
Cheryl
Bertel Lund Hansen
> >In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
> >englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
> >it possible to use one word for both kinds?
> You can call them all gastropods.
Thanks for all answers. They ... eh, answered my question.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
This came up in an episode of the BBC show "QI" which was repeated on
Dave recently.[1]
Your distinction between snails and slugs is a good working definition,
however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug
Slug is a common name that is normally applied to any gastropod
mollusc that lacks a shell, has a very reduced shell, or has a
small internal shell. This is in contrast to the common name snail,
which is applied to gastropods that have coiled shells that are big
enough to retract into.
[1] QI is a comedy quiz show:
http://www.qi.com/tv/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI
Dave is the name of a TV channel:
http://uktv.co.uk/dave/homepage/sid/5002
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
John Holmes
Whelk is not a general term for all marine gastropods. It means only
certain varieties, and different ones in different places.
Sea-snail is probably the best general non-technical term for the ones
that look most snail-like. But even that wouldn't include things like
limpets and periwinkles, for example.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
TubeLuber AfflictedMealTicket AllHandsOnDick
> Hee ell
>
> In Duneesh ve-a hefe-a oonly oone-a vurd ffur sneeels und sloogs. Du
> ingleeshspeeking peuple-a oose-a but vurds een iferydey lungooege,
> oor ees eet pusseeble-a tu oose-a oone-a vurd ffur but keends?
>
> --
> Bertel, Denmerk
>
What?
TragicomicalBroad SaturatedHairyScar LusciousNaNa
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.06.2010 11:14, schrieb Bertel Lund Hansen:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
>>> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>>>
>>
>> My experience is that in English, "slug" is used often as a metaphor
>> for
>> slowness (cf sluggish) where German uses "snail" (Schnecke).
>>
>> English has also a separate word for the marine variety ("whelk").
>>
>> Joachim
>
> English can also use 'snail' to mean 'slow', although there's no word
> 'snailish' and it's a bit ruder to be called 'sluggish' than it is to
> be called 'slow as a snail' or said to be operating at a 'snail-like
> pace'.
Who the fuck says 'snail-like pace', you fucking stupid flat-chested, no
brained old crone?
WhiskerlessTaffyPuller KinkySex BabyBound
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:16:08 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>>Bertel Lund Hansen wrote, in
>><1rj616linbpt6it9g...@news.stofanet.dk>
>> on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
>>> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>>
>>I've never heard either word to include the other; if it has a shell
>>it's a snail, if not it's a slug.
>
> This came up in an episode of the BBC show "QI" which was repeated on
> Dave recently.[1]
>
> Your distinction between snails and slugs is a good working
> definition,
> however:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug
>
> Slug<BITCHSLAP>
You pedantic little fuckbot.
the Omrud
How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and garlic?
--
David
the Omrud
^^^
eat
--
David
Liz
a few drinks
and i am a sea cucumber
out of water
Gijô (1741)
Rise, Ye Sea Slugs! by Robin Gill
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Sea-Slugs-Robin-Gill/dp/0974261807
James Silverton
> ^^^
> eat
Some caution is indicated with wild snails. They sometimes feed on
plants poisonous to humans. I still remember my first visit to Rome when
I saw people picking things up at Trajan's Forum. Puzzled, I went over
and found that they were gathering presumably edible snails.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Moreover, most people react quite differently to them. Almost everyone
regards slugs as revolting; many think of snails as being quite sweet.
The idea of using the same word for both seems absurd.
--
athel
R H Draney
>
>On 2010-06-12 02:16:08 -0700, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> said:
>
>> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote, in
>> <1rj616linbpt6it9g...@news.stofanet.dk>
>> on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200:
>>
>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
>>> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>>
>> I've never heard either word to include the other; if it has a shell
>> it's a snail, if not it's a slug.
>
>Moreover, most people react quite differently to them. Almost everyone
>regards slugs as revolting; many think of snails as being quite sweet.
>The idea of using the same word for both seems absurd.
Mileage may vary...by the time I was ten years old I'd seen plenty of snails
around my granny's garden, but when I saw my first slug I ran in the house all
excited about how I'd found "a snail that lost its shell"....r
--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
J. J. Lodder
> Hi all
>
> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
Dutch also calls them all slak/slakken.
There is a secondary destinction
between 'huisjesslakken' and 'naaktslakken'.
(house snails versus nude snails)
Jan
Stan Brown
> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
If it has a shell, it's a snail. If it doesn't, it's a slug.
They're both yucky. :-)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
James Silverton
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language,
>> or is it possible to use one word for both kinds?
> If it has a shell, it's a snail. If it doesn't, it's a slug.
> They're both yucky. :-)
That was my feeling too until my wife persuaded me to try the snails she
ordered in Dijon. Admittedly, a great part of the flavor was garlic.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and garlic?
They have a name, "vinbjergsnegle" ("winemountainsnails"). My
Danish-English dictionary translates this to "edible snail".
Other kinds can be served though - not that I know much about it,
but the only time I have tried snails, they were rather small and
certainly not vinbjergsnegle.
Picture:
http://www.dansksnegleforening.dk/photogallery/Vinbjergsnegl%206.JPG
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Moreover, most people react quite differently to them.
That's not my experience.
> Almost everyone regards slugs as revolting;
> many think of snails as being quite sweet.
I don't think I would call them sweet - more like interesting or
funny. They are slimy and filled with bacteria.
> The idea of using the same word for both seems absurd.
Not to me. I was quite surprised to discover that you do not.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> That was my feeling too until my wife persuaded me to try the snails she
> ordered in Dijon. Admittedly, a great part of the flavor was garlic.
The (two) snails I have eaten and the numerous pieces of octopus
I've had all tasted like seasoned eraser.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Cece
Thank you! I consider mushrooms to taste like unseasoned erasers; now
I have more arguments to give those who want to me eat those icky
animal things.
the Omrud
> the wrote on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:10:26 +0100:
>
>> On 12/06/2010 17:08, the Omrud wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2010 11:43, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Steve Hayes skrev:
>>>>
>>>>>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>>>>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday
>>>>>> language, or is it possible to use one word for both
>>>>>> kinds?
>>>>
>>>>> You can call them all gastropods.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all answers. They ... eh, answered my question.
>>>
>>> How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and
>>> garlic?
>
>> ^^^
>> eat
>
> Some caution is indicated with wild snails. They sometimes feed on
> plants poisonous to humans. I still remember my first visit to Rome when
> I saw people picking things up at Trajan's Forum. Puzzled, I went over
> and found that they were gathering presumably edible snails.
All land snails are edible. In our SW village, they are gathered from
the garrigue (a scrubby hillside area alongside the Med) and cooked by
individuals and restaurants alike.
--
David
Joachim Pense
Am 12.06.2010 20:12, schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> Moreover, most people react quite differently to them. Almost everyone
> regards slugs as revolting; many think of snails as being quite sweet.
> The idea of using the same word for both seems absurd.
>
In German we have the common word "Schnecken", with the snail as
prototyp. Slugs are "Nacktschnecken" ('naked snails'), so they are seen
as sort of a freak variant of the snails. The idea of having a separate,
non-derived word for them seems absurd.
Joachim
Stan Brown
>
> Stan wrote on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:29:40 -0400:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
> >> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language,
> >> or is it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>
> > If it has a shell, it's a snail. If it doesn't, it's a slug.
>
> > They're both yucky. :-)
>
> That was my feeling too until my wife persuaded me to try the snails she
> ordered in Dijon. Admittedly, a great part of the flavor was garlic.
I tried them once in a French restaurant (in Toronto, IIRC). The
garlic and butter were all very well, but garlic and butter can
improve almost anything. The snails themselves were chewy, which I do
not appreciate in protein. (For the same reason, calamari are a big
turn-off for me.)
Robert Bannister
> the Omrud skrev:
>
>> How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and garlic?
>
> They have a name, "vinbjergsnegle" ("winemountainsnails").
Just guessing from German "Weinberg", are you sure "vinbjerg" doesn't
mean "vinyard"?
My
> Danish-English dictionary translates this to "edible snail".
> Other kinds can be served though - not that I know much about it,
> but the only time I have tried snails, they were rather small and
> certainly not vinbjergsnegle.
>
> Picture:
> http://www.dansksnegleforening.dk/photogallery/Vinbjergsnegl%206.JPG
>
--
Rob Bannister
Joachim Pense
Am 13.06.2010 01:31, schrieb Robert Bannister:
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> the Omrud skrev:
>>
>>> How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and garlic?
>>
>> They have a name, "vinbjergsnegle" ("winemountainsnails").
>
> Just guessing from German "Weinberg", are you sure "vinbjerg" doesn't
> mean "vinyard"?
We have "Weinbergschnecke" in German, and Weinberg means vinyard, and it
is the edible one.
Joachim
Donna Richoux
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > the Omrud skrev:
> >
> >> How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and garlic?
> >
> > They have a name, "vinbjergsnegle" ("winemountainsnails").
>
> Just guessing from German "Weinberg", are you sure "vinbjerg" doesn't
> mean "vinyard"?
>
That would be an exact match to the Dutch name "wijngaardslak" which the
Dutch Wikipedia says is Helix pomatia. The English Wikipedia says its
common names are the Burgundy snail, Roman snail, edible snail or
escargot.
"Vinyard" as a spelling looked very good to me, because that's the way
you pronounce it, but MW doesn't list it as a variant -- it has to be
"vineyard".
This snail/slug discussion reminds me of recent go-round my husband had
with a Dutch friend over butterflies and moths. The Dutch call moths
"nachtvlinders" (literally, night-butterflies) and this appeared to lead
the Dutch friend to think of moths as special kinds of butterflies,
whereas we think of them as separate categories.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Christian Weisgerber
> > How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and garlic?
>
> They have a name, "vinbjergsnegle" ("winemountainsnails").
Cf. German "Weinbergschnecke" ("vineyard snail").
> My Danish-English dictionary translates this to "edible snail".
The English term that immediately comes to mind is "escargot", but
Merriam-Webster claims that this refers to "a snail prepared for
use as food" and not a particular kind.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
R H Draney
>
>This snail/slug discussion reminds me of recent go-round my husband had
>with a Dutch friend over butterflies and moths. The Dutch call moths
>"nachtvlinders" (literally, night-butterflies) and this appeared to lead
>the Dutch friend to think of moths as special kinds of butterflies,
>whereas we think of them as separate categories.
English "cherry" can be used for the fruit, the tree, the blossom, or several
other items, but when unqualified it refers to the fruit...meanwhile, Japanese
"sakura" is similarly flexible, but unless elaborated is assumed to refer to the
blossom....r
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> said:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden skrev:
>
>> Moreover, most people react quite differently to them.
>
> That's not my experience.
>
>> Almost everyone regards slugs as revolting;
>> many think of snails as being quite sweet.
>
> I don't think I would call them sweet - more like interesting or
> funny. They are slimy and filled with bacteria.
Where did you get that idea (about the bacteria)?
>
>> The idea of using the same word for both seems absurd.
>
> Not to me. I was quite surprised to discover that you do not.
OK, but you're not a native English speaker, and I understood your
original question to refer to native English speakers.
--
athel
rwalker
I'm a native English speaker, but I agree with you that it is not
absurd to have a single word refer to both. They clearly are quite
similar animals, except for the shells. Many languages make different
kinds of distinctions. Some don't divide colors up in the way that
English speakers do, having different divisions of the spectrum, for
example. So a different division of molluscs isn't that surprising.
rwalker
See my reply to Bertel.
Frank ess
James Silverton wrote:
> the wrote on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:10:26 +0100:
>
>> On 12/06/2010 17:08, the Omrud wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2010 11:43, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Steve Hayes skrev:
>>>>
>>>>>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>>>>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday
>>>>>> language, or is it possible to use one word for both
>>>>>> kinds?
>>>>
>>>>> You can call them all gastropods.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all answers. They ... eh, answered my question.
>>>
>>> How do you distinguish the type you want to with butter and
>>> garlic?
>
>> ^^^
>> eat
>
> Some caution is indicated with wild snails. They sometimes feed on
> plants poisonous to humans. I still remember my first visit to Rome
> when I saw people picking things up at Trajan's Forum. Puzzled, I
> went over and found that they were gathering presumably edible
> snails.
My sister gave me a care-and-feeding book about snails.
Commercially-raised examples were usually raised on corn meal and
starved for three days prior to harvest.
My no-profanity-using father's strongest epithet for a human was
"slug", which I believe invoked laziness as well as slowness and
general non-toughness.
--
Frank ess
John Varela
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> The snails themselves were chewy, which I do not
> appreciate in protein. (For the same reason, calamari
> are a big turn-off for me.)
If the squids are fresh and prepared well they are not at all chewy.
And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
that they are squids? Well actually I have met people who think
calamari are octopuses, but the principle would be the same.
--
John Varela
R H Draney
>
>If the squids are fresh and prepared well they are not at all chewy.
>
>And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
>that they are squids? Well actually I have met people who think
>calamari are octopuses, but the principle would be the same.
For the same reason that you don't ask for a "piece of cow" or a "slice of
pig"....
The places I'd be most likely to eat squid, they'd be called "ika", not
"calamari"....r
Bertel Lund Hansen
> This snail/slug discussion reminds me of recent go-round my husband had
> with a Dutch friend over butterflies and moths. The Dutch call moths
> "nachtvlinders" (literally, night-butterflies)
In Danish we call them "natsv�rmere" ("nightswarmers"). The
special moth that likes to eat holes in cloth(es), have a special
name, "m�l", which is related to the word "moth".
> If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
If the tail is the only leg it has, it doesn't have a leg to
stand on.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Where did you get that idea (about the bacteria)?
The world of a snail is not exactly hygienic. Besides we are
warned in Denmark about the Iberian snail which has invaded our
country in recent years. You will easily get quite sick if you
touch it and afterwards do not carefully wash your hands. They
have a lot of unpleasant bacteria and sticky slime.
> OK, but you're not a native English speaker, and I understood your
> original question to refer to native English speakers.
Absolutely, but there was no need to refer to other customs than
the English one as absurd.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bob Martin
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:16:08 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
>>> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>>
>>it's a snail, if not it's a slug.
>
>Dave recently.[1]
>
>Your distinction between snails and slugs is a good working definition,
>however:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug
>
>Slug is a common name that is normally applied to any gastropod
>mollusc that lacks a shell, has a very reduced shell, or has a
>small internal shell. This is in contrast to the common name snail,
>which is applied to gastropods that have coiled shells that are big
>enough to retract into.
>
>[1] QI is a comedy quiz show:
>http://www.qi.com/tv/
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI
>
>Dave is the name of a TV channel:
>http://uktv.co.uk/dave/homepage/sid/5002
To summarise : some slugs have shells.
James Hogg
>> <1rj616linbpt6it9g...@news.stofanet.dk>
>> on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language, or is
>>> it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>>
>> I've never heard either word to include the other; if it has a shell
>> it's a snail, if not it's a slug.
>
> regards slugs as revolting; many think of snails as being quite sweet.
> The idea of using the same word for both seems absurd.
I once caught two slugs in the act:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30819125&l=e2fe084651&id=1116351892
--
James
Peter Brooks
knowledge. If they taste like snails or octopuses (odd to be both
since snails and octopuses taste so very different), then it's odd
that more people don't consume them.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
That's an interesting act. Probably a bit too slow to do well on a TV
talent show.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Joachim Pense
I don't know what the common cliches on Danish cuisine are. Are they in
the same league as the English, Dutch, or German cuisines?
Joachim
Cheryl P.
to eat them. They're called 'squid' in Newfoundland, Canada, where there
are very few Italian or Greek people, and the squid can be caught
nearby. Oddly enough, in different parts of the province, squid are
treatd differently - as a cheap source of bait or a delicacy.
If it's tough, it's not cooked properly.
--
Cheryl
Stan Brown
Well, why are horse mackerel called "tuna" at the table? :-)
Stan Brown
> John Varela filted:
> > [quoted text muted]
> >
> >And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
> >that they are squids? Well actually I have met people who think
> >calamari are octopuses, but the principle would be the same.
>
> For the same reason that you don't ask for a "piece of cow" or a "slice of
> pig"....
I started to post something to that effect, but I stopped because I'm
not sure the reason *is* quite the same. We eat beef, not cow,
because the Norman invaders, who became the upper classes, naturally
called it beef (boeuf); as the lower classes grew able to afford meat
they used the upper-class term.
But even if calamari is Italian for squid (I haven't checked), I
don't think this is quite parallel, because we haven't been conquered
by Italians and learned to call their food by their name. We call
spaghetti "spaghetti" because there's no native English word; but we
do have a native English word for calamari.
I always thought that "calamari" was a marketing thing, the marketers
assuming that people would order something exotic-sounding like
calamari or escargot who wouldn't order squid or snails.
Stan Brown
> On Jun 12, 10:59 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > The (two) snails I have eaten and the numerous pieces of octopus
> > I've had all tasted like seasoned eraser.
> >
> I've never tried eating an old rubber,
That's even more disgusting in AmE than in BrE. :-)
Understanding that "rubber" is the accepted BrE term, would Britons
also accept "eraser", or would it sound understandable but wrong, the
way Americans feel about "boot" for "trunk" (of a car)?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:14:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 10:59 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen
>> <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> > The (two) snails I have eaten and the numerous pieces of octopus
>> > I've had all tasted like seasoned eraser.
>> >
>> I've never tried eating an old rubber,
>
>That's even more disgusting in AmE than in BrE. :-)
>
>Understanding that "rubber" is the accepted BrE term, would Britons
>also accept "eraser", or would it sound understandable but wrong, the
>way Americans feel about "boot" for "trunk" (of a car)?
I would accept "eraser". This UK website sells erasers.
I found it via a Google search. The Google result entry says:
Scented Eraser Pack : Unusual Gifts UK
Scented Eraser Pack - five rubbers in five amazing scents.
www.shinyshack.com/product.php?prid=213109
The page linked to does not have that wording (now?):
This selection of scented erasers come in individual milk carton
style packs. You'll get five erasers, one of each scent.
Elsewhere on that page it has this which is potentially misleading for
Americans:
Eraser Matches
Extra large matches with rubbers for heads.
That points to a page that says:
They won't start any fires but these Eraser Matches can be used for
striking out your mistakes.
These 6cm long wooden sticks have red rubber heads so they look just
like giant matches, and they come in their own match box to keep
them tidy.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 12 Jun 2010 20:05:57 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
>> John Varela filted:
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >
>> >And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
>> >that they are squids? Well actually I have met people who think
>> >calamari are octopuses, but the principle would be the same.
>>
>> For the same reason that you don't ask for a "piece of cow" or a "slice of
>> pig"....
>
>I started to post something to that effect, but I stopped because I'm
>not sure the reason *is* quite the same. We eat beef, not cow,
>because the Norman invaders, who became the upper classes, naturally
>called it beef (boeuf); as the lower classes grew able to afford meat
>they used the upper-class term.
Yes. There are many animal foods for which we use the animal's name
directly. We eat fish: cod, haddock, plaice, lobster, crab, tuna,
salmon, sole; birds: grouse, partridge, duck, chicken, turkey; and
mammals: rabbit.
Sheep are lambs when young. "Lamb" is used for the meat from a lamb.
However, "mutton" is the meat of an older sheep but, AFAIK, the word is
not generally used of an older sheep.
Peter Brooks
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:14:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 10:59 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen
> > <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > > The (two) snails I have eaten and the numerous pieces of octopus
> > > I've had all tasted like seasoned eraser.
>
> > I've never tried eating an old rubber,
>
> That's even more disgusting in AmE than in BrE. :-)
>
> Understanding that "rubber" is the accepted BrE term, would Britons
> also accept "eraser", or would it sound understandable but wrong, the
> way Americans feel about "boot" for "trunk" (of a car)?
>
you used to. Stagecoaches probably had trunks strapped to the back
above the boots of the footmen, which caused the confusion.
tony cooper
>On Jun 12, 10:59 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen
><splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> James Silverton skrev:
>>
>> > That was my feeling too until my wife persuaded me to try the snails she
>> > ordered in Dijon. Admittedly, a great part of the flavor was garlic.
>>
>> The (two) snails I have eaten and the numerous pieces of octopus
>> I've had all tasted like seasoned eraser.
>>
>I've never tried eating an old rubber,
I would hope not. In the US, "rubber" is another term for a condom.
An eraser is not called a rubber.
"Rubbers", though, are waterproof things that slip over your shoes to
keep your feet dry on rainy or snowy days.
I haven't seen rubbers worn for years. When I lived in Chicago, I
kept a pair of very lightweight rubbers in my briefcase during the
winter. Of course, that was when I was wearing leather-soled dress
shoes every day.
>so I must bow to your superior
>knowledge. If they taste like snails or octopuses (odd to be both
>since snails and octopuses taste so very different), then it's odd
>that more people don't consume them.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Understanding that "rubber" is the accepted BrE term, would Britons
> also accept "eraser", or would it sound understandable but wrong, the
> way Americans feel about "boot" for "trunk" (of a car)?
I know about "rubber" and "eraser", but I chose "eraser" as the
word that was least likely to produce misunderstandings.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
> that they are squids? Well actually I have met people who think
> calamari are octopuses, but the principle would be the same.
"Calamari" might be just perceived as the name of a dish.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Steve Hayes
>This snail/slug discussion reminds me of recent go-round my husband had
>with a Dutch friend over butterflies and moths. The Dutch call moths
>"nachtvlinders" (literally, night-butterflies) and this appeared to lead
>the Dutch friend to think of moths as special kinds of butterflies,
>whereas we think of them as separate categories.
That's the same as Afrikaans (nagvlinder), but a butterfly is a skoenlapper.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>Yes. There are many animal foods for which we use the animal's name
>directly. We eat fish: cod, haddock, plaice, lobster, crab, tuna,
>salmon, sole; birds: grouse, partridge, duck, chicken, turkey; and
>mammals: rabbit.
That raises another question in my mind: why do most Americans say "tuna
fish", but they don't say "salmon fish".
Joachim Pense
Am 13.06.2010 17:08, schrieb Steve Hayes:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:00:52 +0200, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
>> This snail/slug discussion reminds me of recent go-round my husband had
>> with a Dutch friend over butterflies and moths. The Dutch call moths
>> "nachtvlinders" (literally, night-butterflies) and this appeared to lead
>> the Dutch friend to think of moths as special kinds of butterflies,
>> whereas we think of them as separate categories.
>
> That's the same as Afrikaans (nagvlinder), but a butterfly is a skoenlapper.
>
>
In German, "Motte" is normally only the clothes-eating variant, "moth"
in general is "Nachtschmetterling".
Joachim
Bertel Lund Hansen
> That raises another question in my mind: why do most Americans say "tuna
> fish", but they don't say "salmon fish".
In Danish we say "tunfisk". This comes from German "Thunfisch".
ODS (Wordbook of the Danish Language) lists Eng. "tunny" as a
family word and Latin "thunnus" as the source.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Christian Weisgerber
> > or would it sound understandable but wrong, the
> > way Americans feel about "boot" for "trunk" (of a car)?
> >
> Yes, it's understandable, but wrong. You put trunks in the boot, or,
> you used to. Stagecoaches probably had trunks strapped to the back
> above the boots of the footmen, which caused the confusion.
A while back I came across a comment where somebody mentioned having
smuggled something-or-other across a border in their boot. It took
me a moment to realize that they were talking about the trunk of
their car rather than a piece of footwear.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> said:
Are you always as touchy as this? Your question was "Do englishspeaking
people use both words in everyday language, or is it possible to use
one word for both kinds?", and I repeat, therefore, most native English
speakers think of snails and slugs as two different things and would
think it absurd to use one word for both.
--
athel
Christian Weisgerber
> Yes. There are many animal foods for which we use the animal's name
> directly. We eat fish: cod, haddock, plaice, lobster, crab, tuna,
> salmon, sole; birds: grouse, partridge, duck, chicken, turkey;
But you don't eat birds, you eat poultry.
Christian Weisgerber
> And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
> that they are squids?
Only in Mediterranean cuisine.
The most excellent salt-and-pepper squid at Gee Gong in Calgary is
always referred to as squid.
James Silverton
>> Yes. There are many animal foods for which we use the
>> animal's name directly. We eat fish: cod, haddock, plaice,
>> lobster, crab, tuna, salmon, sole; birds: grouse, partridge, duck,
>> chicken, turkey;
> But you don't eat birds, you eat poultry.
Doesn't it depend on what you consider poultry? In Italy songbirds are
eaten and this practice is not approved by most English speakers.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Weisgerber) wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. There are many animal foods for which we use the animal's name
>> directly. We eat fish: cod, haddock, plaice, lobster, crab, tuna,
>> salmon, sole; birds: grouse, partridge, duck, chicken, turkey;
>
>But you don't eat birds, you eat poultry.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I used the words "fish", "birds" and "mammals"
as introductions to the lists of the things that we eat by name.
The sentence would have the same intended meaning if written as:
We eat cod, haddock, plaice, lobster, crab, tuna, salmon, sole,
grouse, partridge, duck, chicken, turkey,...
"Poultry" usually includes chicken, duck, turkey and goose but not "game
birds" such as grouse, partridge and pheasant.
In my experience we do sometimes refer to a chicken, duck, turkey or
goose as a bird when cooking it whole or when eating it.
Put the bird in the oven...
That was a nice bird...
I have extremely limited experience with game birds but I would expect
one to sometimes be referred to as a bird when being cooked or eaten.
Peter Brooks
wrote:
>
>
> I have extremely limited experience with game birds but I would expect
> one to sometimes be referred to as a bird when being cooked or eaten.
>
taste of a good bird fresh off the grill. Biting into a piece of shot
that wasn't found during cleaning can make even the tastiest meal
unpleasant." -
http://insidetheinvention.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=661&ProReview_ID=194
John Varela
<peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, it's understandable, but wrong. You put trunks in the boot, or,
> you used to. Stagecoaches probably had trunks strapped to the back
> above the boots of the footmen, which caused the confusion.
Some old cars had actual trunks strapped to their backs, leading
naturally to the modern AmE usage.
http://www.oldtrunks.com/history/historypages/auto_trunks.htm
--
John Varela
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
>
> In German, "Motte" is normally only the clothes-eating variant,
> "moth" in general is "Nachtschmetterling".
>
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
"El hombre es tantas veces hombre cuanto
es el número de lenguas que ha aprendido".
-- Carlos I (Rey de España)
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Are you always as touchy as this?
I'm not touchy at all. I do have an oppinion about the proper use
of the word "absurd". If you cannot see the similarity between a
snail and a slug, then ... oh well.
Has no englishspeaking child ever called a slug "snail" or vice
versa?
> and I repeat, therefore, most native English speakers think of
> snails and slugs as two different things and would think it
> absurd to use one word for both.
A true and a false statement.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Wood Avens
<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>Has no englishspeaking child ever called a slug "snail" or vice
>versa?
I wouldn't wonder. Still, in England (can't speak for the US)
children learn pretty young that the ones with shells are snails and
the ones without shells are slugs. Much like they learn that the
round orange-coloured things are oranges and the pointy yellow ones
are lemons, or that the barking animals are dogs and the purry mewy
ones are cats. In fact, thinking about it, cats and dogs probably
look more like each other than snails and slugs do. A snail's shell
is a major part of what's visible -- indeed, often the only part
that's visible.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
franzi
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>
> > In German, "Motte" is normally only the clothes-eating variant,
> > "moth" in general is "Nachtschmetterling".
>
> More common: "Nachtfalter" and "Nachtschwärmer."
>
visionaries?) is fine up to a point, and that point is the diurnal
moths. By no means all moths are nocturnal. I can't resist pointing
out that some are also to be found in underwear.
<http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/diurnal-moths.html#cr>
"64 new species discovered in drawers - Hundreds more waiting
discovery"
--
franzi
franzi
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:48:34 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
>
> >Has no englishspeaking child ever called a slug "snail" or vice
> >versa?
>
> I wouldn't wonder. Still, in England (can't speak for the US)
> children learn pretty young that the ones with shells are snails and
> the ones without shells are slugs. Much like they learn that the
> round orange-coloured things are oranges and the pointy yellow ones
> are lemons, or that the barking animals are dogs and the purry mewy
> ones are cats. In fact, thinking about it, cats and dogs probably
> look more like each other than snails and slugs do. A snail's shell
> is a major part of what's visible -- indeed, often the only part
> that's visible.
>
that asks what little boys and little girls are made of. According to
the rhyme, we boys (shades or Choctaw-speak) are made of "slugs and
snails and puppy-dogs' tails". That's what boys are made of, as I
learned it. Little girls, OTOH, are sickly-sweet. Very formative,
those early years.
In fairness, the word "slugs" isn't consistently used across the
different versions of the song. Alternatives include frogs, snips and
snigs, if Interweb sources are to be believed.
--
franzi
(still sniggering - or is that a tabu word too these days?)
Stan Brown
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:14:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 12, 10:59 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen
> ><splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> >> James Silverton skrev:
> >>
> >> > That was my feeling too until my wife persuaded me to try the snails she
> >> > ordered in Dijon. Admittedly, a great part of the flavor was garlic.
> >>
> >> The (two) snails I have eaten and the numerous pieces of octopus
> >> I've had all tasted like seasoned eraser.
> >>
> >I've never tried eating an old rubber,
>
> I would hope not. In the US, "rubber" is another term for a condom.
> An eraser is not called a rubber.
>
> "Rubbers", though, are waterproof things that slip over your shoes to
> keep your feet dry on rainy or snowy days.
Which, I suspect is why "rubber" is AmE slang for a condom.
Cheryl P.
> Athel Cornish-Bowden skrev:
>
>> Are you always as touchy as this?
>
> I'm not touchy at all. I do have an oppinion about the proper use
> of the word "absurd". If you cannot see the similarity between a
> snail and a slug, then ... oh well.
>
> Has no englishspeaking child ever called a slug "snail" or vice
> versa?
I don't see why they would. To a child, the differences between the
common species - especially the presence or absence of a shell - are far
more obvious than the similarities.
I remember being told that a slug was basically a snail without a shell,
and that hadn't occured to me before then, although once it was
explained it was fairly obvious. I can't remember how old I was at the
time - teenaged, maybe.
--
Cheryl
J. J. Lodder
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:00:52 +0200, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> >This snail/slug discussion reminds me of recent go-round my husband had
> >with a Dutch friend over butterflies and moths. The Dutch call moths
> >"nachtvlinders" (literally, night-butterflies) and this appeared to lead
> >the Dutch friend to think of moths as special kinds of butterflies,
> >whereas we think of them as separate categories.
>
> That's the same as Afrikaans (nagvlinder), but a butterfly is a skoenlapper.
In the original Dutch a 'schoenlapper' (lit. 'Shoe mender')
is a particular family of buttterflies,
not all of them,
Jan
R H Draney
When did you first notice that a giraffe and a camel have similar faces?...r
--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
R H Draney
Cobblers!...r
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>John Varela wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:12:12 UTC, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> The snails themselves were chewy, which I do not
>>> appreciate in protein. (For the same reason, calamari
>>> are a big turn-off for me.)
>>
>> If the squids are fresh and prepared well they are not at all chewy.
>>
>> And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
>> that they are squids? Well actually I have met people who think
>> calamari are octopuses, but the principle would be the same.
>>
>I suspect it depends on when and from whom the local population learned
>to eat them. They're called 'squid' in Newfoundland, Canada, where there
>are very few Italian or Greek people, and the squid can be caught
>nearby. Oddly enough, in different parts of the province, squid are
>treatd differently - as a cheap source of bait or a delicacy.
>
>If it's tough, it's not cooked properly.
Or too big. I've found that those two-inch-or more squid circles made
by cutting large squid across can be very tough. I prefer baby squid
whose bodies are no longer than three inches. They need a short
cooking time and should almost melt in the mouth.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Brooks
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:01:12 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:14:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
> > <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jun 12, 10:59 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen
> > ><splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > >> James Silverton skrev:
>
> > >> > That was my feeling too until my wife persuaded me to try the snails she
> > >> > ordered in Dijon. Admittedly, a great part of the flavor was garlic.
>
> > >> The (two) snails I have eaten and the numerous pieces of octopus
> > >> I've had all tasted like seasoned eraser.
>
> > >I've never tried eating an old rubber,
>
> > I would hope not. In the US, "rubber" is another term for a condom.
> > An eraser is not called a rubber.
>
> > "Rubbers", though, are waterproof things that slip over your shoes to
> > keep your feet dry on rainy or snowy days.
>
> Which, I suspect is why "rubber" is AmE slang for a condom.
>
tony cooper
To me, galoshes are high-topped shoe coverings. They come up over the
ankles. So they could be pulled over the shoe, they had a gore (is
that the word) that allowed them to be opened up. They were fastened
with buckles. It was uncool to buckle galoshes, so I spent a lot of
time tripping because the buckle of one would catch in the buckle of
the other one.
Rubbers, on the other hand, covered only the shoe and didn't extend
over the ankles.
Here's a boy pulling on galoshes. The buckles are evident:
http://taffyunderhill.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/galoshes.jpg
Here's a pair of shoes with rubbers on them:
http://blog.leffot.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dsc_0046.jpg
Today, the kids wear rubber boots that I first knew as "Wellies".
These were not known to kids in Indiana when I was growing up.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Cheryl P.
opportunity to examine far more slugs and snails than giraffes and camels.
--
Cheryl
Bertel Lund Hansen
> To me, galoshes are high-topped shoe coverings. They come up over the
> ankles. So they could be pulled over the shoe, they had a gore (is
> that the word) that allowed them to be opened up. They were fastened
> with buckles.
Those that I remember from my childhood, had zippers.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Pat Durkin
"Bertel Lund Hansen" <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote in
message news:bvka16119ecncm0qg...@news.stofanet.dk...
In my childhood, they had buckles, which were often left unfastened,
making a charming jingle as the wearer stomped up the porch and across
the kitchen floor.
franzi
--
franzi
Christian Weisgerber
> "Poultry" usually includes chicken, duck, turkey and goose but not "game
> birds" such as grouse, partridge and pheasant.
Yes, "poultry" refers to domesticated birds, but that covers the
vast majority of the meat consumed.
> I have extremely limited experience with game birds but I would expect
> one to sometimes be referred to as a bird when being cooked or eaten.
Agreed.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. There are many animal foods for which we use the animal's name
>> directly. We eat fish: cod, haddock, plaice, lobster, crab, tuna,
>> salmon, sole; birds: grouse, partridge, duck, chicken, turkey;
>
> But you don't eat birds, you eat poultry.
When my son was little, one of his favorite dishes was "bird", by
which he meant Cornish hen (as opposed to chicken, turkey, or duck).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> That slugs and snails are different is borne out by the nursery
> rhyme that asks what little boys and little girls are made
> of. According to the rhyme, we boys (shades or Choctaw-speak) are
> made of "slugs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails". That's what boys
> are made of, as I learned it. Little girls, OTOH, are
> sickly-sweet. Very formative, those early years.
>
> In fairness, the word "slugs" isn't consistently used across the
> different versions of the song. Alternatives include frogs, snips
> and snigs, if Interweb sources are to be believed.
I don't think I've ever heard it with "slugs". I learned "snakes" and
later learned of "snips".
Looking at Google Books, I first see it as "snips", in 1827, in Gerald
Griffin's "Suil Dhuv". Overall, I see
1827 snips
1840 snarls
1846 snaps
1854 slugs
1873 tadpoles
1878 frogs
1883 rats
1884 snappers
1898 snivels
1898 toads
1904 snakes
1908 scissors
1908 shrimps
1909 nails
1913 chips
1922 snipes
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden skrev:
>>
>>> Are you always as touchy as this?
>>
>> I'm not touchy at all. I do have an oppinion about the proper use
>> of the word "absurd". If you cannot see the similarity between a
>> snail and a slug, then ... oh well.
>>
>> Has no englishspeaking child ever called a slug "snail" or vice
>> versa?
>
> I don't see why they would. To a child, the differences between the
> common species - especially the presence or absence of a shell - are far
> more obvious than the similarities.
It's like lizards and snakes. Even now, I need some convincing before
I'll believe a legless lizard is not a snake. As for slow worms or blind
worms, if you think I'm going to check an obvious snake out for eyelids
and ears, this is difficult to do when I'm breaking the Olympic land
speed record in the opposite direction.
A shell is a lot more obvious than legs.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:58:10 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden skrev:
>>
>>> Moreover, most people react quite differently to them.
>> That's not my experience.
>>
>>> Almost everyone regards slugs as revolting;
>>> many think of snails as being quite sweet.
>> I don't think I would call them sweet - more like interesting or
>> funny. They are slimy and filled with bacteria.
>>
>>> The idea of using the same word for both seems absurd.
>> Not to me. I was quite surprised to discover that you do not.
>
> I'm a native English speaker, but I agree with you that it is not
> absurd to have a single word refer to both. They clearly are quite
> similar animals, except for the shells. Many languages make different
> kinds of distinctions. Some don't divide colors up in the way that
> English speakers do, having different divisions of the spectrum, for
> example. So a different division of molluscs isn't that surprising.
Without being able to provide a specific example off the top of my head,
I seem to remember that French is much more lacking in words that
describe similar species and that you have to find the specific word.
Come to think of it, a number of European languages are fussy about
lumping all melons together, in particular wanting water melons kept
separate.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>
> "Vinyard" as a spelling looked very good to me, because that's the way
> you pronounce it, but MW doesn't list it as a variant -- it has to be
> "vineyard".
I must have ignored the spelling checker's advice for once. Even now,
looking at the two spellings, the correct one looks wrong.
--
Rob Bannister
Stan Brown
>
> R H Draney wrote:
> >
> I don't think I had until this very day! But of course, I've had the
> opportunity to examine far more slugs and snails than giraffes and camels.
Thank goodness! I wouldn't want you to have your garden infested
with giraffes and camels. :-)
Robert Bannister
>
> Am 13.06.2010 17:08, schrieb Steve Hayes:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:00:52 +0200, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>>
>>> This snail/slug discussion reminds me of recent go-round my husband had
>>> with a Dutch friend over butterflies and moths. The Dutch call moths
>>> "nachtvlinders" (literally, night-butterflies) and this appeared to lead
>>> the Dutch friend to think of moths as special kinds of butterflies,
>>> whereas we think of them as separate categories.
>> That's the same as Afrikaans (nagvlinder), but a butterfly is a skoenlapper.
>>
>>
>
> in general is "Nachtschmetterling".
I had never noticed that before. Thanks for telling me - I've read
"Nachtschmetterling", but I suppose I just assumed it was some variant
like Bienen and Immen.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> or would it sound understandable but wrong, the
>>> way Americans feel about "boot" for "trunk" (of a car)?
>>>
>> Yes, it's understandable, but wrong. You put trunks in the boot, or,
>> you used to. Stagecoaches probably had trunks strapped to the back
>> above the boots of the footmen, which caused the confusion.
>
> A while back I came across a comment where somebody mentioned having
> smuggled something-or-other across a border in their boot. It took
> me a moment to realize that they were talking about the trunk of
> their car rather than a piece of footwear.
>
Whereas "trunk of their car" sounds rather like "body/torso of their car".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
entry point for icy-cold water.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:36:54 -0400, James Silverton wrote:
>> Stan wrote on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:29:40 -0400:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:14:55 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> In Danish we have only one word for snails and slugs. Do
>>>> englishspeaking people use both words in everyday language,
>>>> or is it possible to use one word for both kinds?
>>> If it has a shell, it's a snail. If it doesn't, it's a slug.
>>> They're both yucky. :-)
>> That was my feeling too until my wife persuaded me to try the snails she
>> ordered in Dijon. Admittedly, a great part of the flavor was garlic.
>
> garlic and butter were all very well, but garlic and butter can
> improve almost anything. The snails themselves were chewy, which I do
> turn-off for me.)
>
Squid should not be chewy - if that's what you've been served, then it
was overcooked. Octopus, on the other hand, is always rubbery. I agree
with you about the chewiness of snails and am convinced that their only
flavour is garlic and butter.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>> appreciate in protein. (For the same reason, calamari
>> are a big turn-off for me.)
>
>
> And why are squids called "calamari" at the table, when we all know
> that they are squids? Well actually I have met people who think
> calamari are octopuses, but the principle would be the same.
>
Who calls them that outside an Italian restaurant? Have we discovered
another secret American vice?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. There are many animal foods for which we use the animal's name
>> directly. We eat fish: cod, haddock, plaice, lobster, crab, tuna,
>> salmon, sole; birds: grouse, partridge, duck, chicken, turkey;
>
> But you don't eat birds, you eat poultry.
>
Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>Squid should not be chewy - if that's what you've been served, then it
>was overcooked. Octopus, on the other hand, is always rubbery. I agree
>with you about the chewiness of snails and am convinced that their only
>flavour is garlic and butter.
I must disagree with you about the octopus...I've had plenty of octopus that
wasn't rubbery (along with some bits so small I couldn't honestly assign any
sort of texture to them)....
In my experience, it's abalone that's always rubbery....r
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Athel Cornish-Bowden skrev:
>
>> Are you always as touchy as this?
>
> I'm not touchy at all. I do have an oppinion about the proper use of
> the word "absurd". If you cannot see the similarity between a snail
> and a slug, then ... oh well.
>
> Has no englishspeaking child ever called a slug "snail" or vice
> versa?
I'm sure it's happened. Many children go through a phase where they
call cows "dog" (or similar). But even if some have, that doesn't
really say much to whether or not most native English speakers would
consider it a category error to think of the two as the same.
>> and I repeat, therefore, most native English speakers think of
>> snails and slugs as two different things and would think it
>> absurd to use one word for both.
>
> A true and a false statement.
They both seem right to me. Category distinctions and mergings often
seem bizarre to people whose languages don't make them. Looking at
the web I see things like
Their language [Baka] does not distinguish between song and dance,
it is the same word.
The Quiché language does not distinguish between feet and legs.
[Some English-based creoles likewise -- ek]
The Japanese language makes no distinction between the two
religious types described by the English words monk and priest.
The Kazakh language makes no distinction between "brother" and
male cousin.
The Quiche language does not distinguish between green and blue.
The hausa language does not distinguish between song and written
poetry, employing the same term, wa'ka', for both.
The Balinese language does not distinguish between widows and
divorcees (both are balu).
I recall most of us finding it very strange when learning Spanish to
learn that Spanish didn't distinguish between fingers and toes (both
being "dedos"). Or between waiting and hoping (both "esperar"). Or,
for that matter, between "in" and "on" (both "en"). Spanish speakers,
I'm sure, are equally bemused by our not distinguishing "tocar" and
"jugar" (play), "ser" and "estar" (be), "caliente" and "picante"
(hot), or "por" and "para" (for). Similar mismatches exist for pretty
much any pair of languages.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572