Out of morbid interest, I'm going to waste a bag of baby spinach and do this, just to see what the final product looks/smells/tastes/feels like. I hope that there isn't some unholy alchemy that ruins the pot. I'm anticipating a dark grey-green wallpaper paste.
Over-boiling vegetables is, or used to be, a classic British trait. We had a friend (now dead, alas) whose mother, a Methodist, used to put on the cabbage to boil on the stove before the family left for chapel on Sundays so that it would be ready for when they came home afterwards. You could smell it, he said, at the end of the street. In those days, of course, no one was expected to enjoy food. It was good for you, like medecine.
A friend of mine (now dead) possessed a cookbook produced by the ladies of one of Edinburg's posh Church of Scotland congregation some time in the late 1880s. It included a recipe for baby spinach (note, baby spinach) which called for the spinach to be boiled for two hours before serving. As a vegetable note, not as a thin soup.
I think my mother must have used the same book. But at least she never boiled peas with sugar.
I think my mother must have used the same book. But at least she never boiled peas with sugar.
Mrs C was rather surprised to discover, whilst helping run a scout camp in Germany, that it was apparently standard local practice to boil peas in cream. And even more surprised that one of the locals was proposing to use an electric kettle to do so.
I think my mother must have used the same book. But at least she never boiled peas with sugar.
Mrs C was rather surprised to discover, whilst helping run a scout camp in Germany, that it was apparently standard local practice to boil peas in cream. And even more surprised that one of the locals was proposing to use an electric kettle to do so.
Perhaps not a solecism, but its relative, a malapropism... A lawyer friend told a story today - alleged to be from the southern USA - of a TV discussion about sexual orientation, where the question was asked, "Well - what would you do if your son turned out to be homo sapiens?"
Perhaps not a solecism, but its relative, a malapropism... A lawyer friend told a story today - alleged to be from the southern USA - of a TV discussion about sexual orientation, where the question was asked, "Well - what would you do if your son turned out to be homo sapiens?"
Well, at least I'd know for sure who the father was.
Perhaps not a solecism, but its relative, a malapropism... A lawyer friend told a story today - alleged to be from the southern USA - of a TV discussion about sexual orientation, where the question was asked, "Well - what would you do if your son turned out to be homo sapiens?"
I think there was a survey of American when asked whether they would be OK with their child being a homo sapien, and a good proportion (30% or so) said they would not.
Some people - not only Americans - react strongly to words (and phrases) without context. Some people do not think.
Perhaps not a solecism, but its relative, a malapropism... A lawyer friend told a story today - alleged to be from the southern USA - of a TV discussion about sexual orientation, where the question was asked, "Well - what would you do if your son turned out to be homo sapiens?"
Well, at least I'd know for sure who the father was.
Perhaps not a solecism, but its relative, a malapropism... A lawyer friend told a story today - alleged to be from the southern USA - of a TV discussion about sexual orientation, where the question was asked, "Well - what would you do if your son turned out to be homo sapiens?"
I think there was a survey of American when asked whether they would be OK with their child being a homo sapien, and a good proportion (30% or so) said they would not.
Some people - not only Americans - react strongly to words (and phrases) without context. Some people do not think.
It's a bit like the dihydrogrn monoxide thing. (To be fair, there's no such thing as a Homo sapien. Sapiens is singular; the plural would be Homines sapientes.)
It also shows a general lack of science knowledge though; the number of times I see C02 with a zero instead of CO2 with an 'O', which tells me the writer has no idea what chemical formulae are and mean.
I think there was a survey of American when asked whether they would be OK with their child being a homo sapien, and a good proportion (30% or so) said they would not.
Can't blame them, as sapiens is nominative singular whereas sapien doesn't exist.
Railway modellers, not wanting people to touch their layouts at exhibitions, used to put up signs saying, "Danger! 12,000 millivolts!" Perhaps they still do, at least in Canada: https://live.staticflickr.com/27/63177767_6753f89151_b.jpg
Railway modellers, not wanting people to touch their layouts at exhibitions, used to put up signs saying, "Danger! 12,000 millivolts!" Perhaps they still do, at least in Canada: https://live.staticflickr.com/27/63177767_6753f89151_b.jpg
That ballasting is well ropey. You shouldn't be able to see the black webbing under the rail between sleepers.
'Prolific offenders', used for 'repeat offenders'. Unless they have numerous children of course.
prolific
adjective
UK /prəˈlɪf.ɪk/ US /prəˈlɪf.ɪk/
producing a great number or amount of something:
He was probably the most prolific songwriter of his generation.
Rabbits and other rodents are prolific (= have a lot of babies).
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become!
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become!
OK - so what do you say when you actually mean 'decimated'?
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become!
OK - so what do you say when you actually mean 'decimated'?
When the fuck would I ever need to say "killed 10% of the adult males in the town, sparing women and children"?
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become
OK - so what do you say when you actually mean 'decimated'?
When the fuck would I ever need to say "killed 10% of the adult males in the town, sparing women and children"?
For me? Any excuse at hand. I'll start with your street.
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become
OK - so what do you say when you actually mean 'decimated'?
When the fuck would I ever need to say "killed 10% of the adult males in the town, sparing women and children"?
For me? Any excuse at hand. I'll start with your street.
FOUL. THREATS OF MURDER ARE NOT ALLOWED ON SHIP OF FOOLS.
lighting hostly lightsaber
Cool it, people. We can have civil discussions about the differences in word meaning and Irksome solecisms, can't we.
Also...not even a hint of eliminating the lives of fellow Shipmates is allowed.
Remember where you are, Heaven, just in case you might have forgotten.
jedijudy-Heaven Host
grumbling about unheavenly posts while powering down lightsaber.
The word has been used (loosely and unetymologically, to the irritation of pedants) since 1660s for "destroy a large but indefinite number of."
FWIW, that same source says that “original” meaning of “decimate” in English dates to c. 1600, so only 60ish years before the irksomely solecismistic use decried in this thread.
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become!
OK - so what do you say when you actually mean 'decimated'?
When the fuck would I ever need to say "killed 10% of the adult males in the town, sparing women and children"?
Hopefully, you would never. But in the many places in the world where there is genocide happening, to deliberately kill a tenth of the fighters (or that sort of portion) without regard for who they are - just as numbers - would fit with the concept well.
'Decimated', referring to anything which does not involve one tenth of a group of people being executed (A Roman military punishment for errant legionaries.)
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become!
OK - so what do you say when you actually mean 'decimated'?
When the fuck would I ever need to say "killed 10% of the adult males in the town, sparing women and children"?
You might have occasion to discuss Roman history, or a Latin text, as one does.
----
Completely different subject: Am still recovering from the shock of learning that "irregardless" is noted as a real word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Whatever next?
If people use it, particularly in print, it should go in the dictionary even if you think it is deplorable that they do.
Likewise, if people use decimate in the wrong/ loose way as well as the correct one, both should go in dictionary. It's preferable though that the erroneous one is marked as such.
If people use it, particularly in print, it should go in the dictionary even if you think it is deplorable that they do.
Likewise, if people use decimate in the wrong/ loose way as well as the correct one, both should go in dictionary. It's preferable though that the erroneous one is marked as such.
Comments
Thanks - but it still needs boiling, which the cabbages don't.
I think my mother must have used the same book. But at least she never boiled peas with sugar.
Mrs C was rather surprised to discover, whilst helping run a scout camp in Germany, that it was apparently standard local practice to boil peas in cream. And even more surprised that one of the locals was proposing to use an electric kettle to do so.
Petit pois à la Française, anyone? (No kettle involved, though)
Well, at least I'd know for sure who the father was.
I think there was a survey of American when asked whether they would be OK with their child being a homo sapien, and a good proportion (30% or so) said they would not.
Some people - not only Americans - react strongly to words (and phrases) without context. Some people do not think.
It's a bit like the dihydrogrn monoxide thing. (To be fair, there's no such thing as a Homo sapien. Sapiens is singular; the plural would be Homines sapientes.)
It also shows a general lack of science knowledge though; the number of times I see C02 with a zero instead of CO2 with an 'O', which tells me the writer has no idea what chemical formulae are and mean.
That ballasting is well ropey. You shouldn't be able to see the black webbing under the rail between sleepers.
Looks to me like old Graham Farish N gauge Code 80 track.
Which is exactly the reason it shouldn't be visible.
Talk about living up to your name! Best not baptise the tracks, though - don't risk the shock from that many volts.
12? More worry about dissolving the PVA holding the ballast firm.
Just posting as a Shipmate!
prolific
adjective
UK /prəˈlɪf.ɪk/ US /prəˈlɪf.ɪk/
producing a great number or amount of something:
He was probably the most prolific songwriter of his generation.
Rabbits and other rodents are prolific (= have a lot of babies).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prolific
How horrible it is when a word from one language is used to mean something else in another language. O! O! What is to become!
OK - so what do you say when you actually mean 'decimated'?
When the fuck would I ever need to say "killed 10% of the adult males in the town, sparing women and children"?
For me? Any excuse at hand. I'll start with your street.
FOUL. THREATS OF MURDER ARE NOT ALLOWED ON SHIP OF FOOLS.
Cool it, people. We can have civil discussions about the differences in word meaning and Irksome solecisms, can't we.
Also...not even a hint of eliminating the lives of fellow Shipmates is allowed.
Remember where you are, Heaven, just in case you might have forgotten.
jedijudy-Heaven Host
grumbling about unheavenly posts while powering down lightsaber.
Meanwhile, the Online Etymology Dictionary says:
FWIW, that same source says that “original” meaning of “decimate” in English dates to c. 1600, so only 60ish years before the irksomely solecismistic use decried in this thread.
Hopefully, you would never. But in the many places in the world where there is genocide happening, to deliberately kill a tenth of the fighters (or that sort of portion) without regard for who they are - just as numbers - would fit with the concept well.
You might have occasion to discuss Roman history, or a Latin text, as one does.
----
Completely different subject: Am still recovering from the shock of learning that "irregardless" is noted as a real word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Whatever next?
Likewise, if people use decimate in the wrong/ loose way as well as the correct one, both should go in dictionary. It's preferable though that the erroneous one is marked as such.
It's not erroneous.