On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:02:57 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:35:02 -0600, Janet B >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:32 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> On 8/1/2015 2:11 PM, Janet B wrote:
> > > >>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:29:53 +0100, Janet >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > >>>> In article >,
> > > says...
> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>> sf wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>>> Gary wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Really? Interesting. I always though worldwide was:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>>>> - herb the spice was pronounced erb
> > > >>>>>>> - herb the name was pronounced herb.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>>> The Brits don't prescribe to that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>>> Those barbarians! ;-D
> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> At least we know how not to use "prescribe "
> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> Janet UK
> > > >>> perhaps 'ascribe'?
> > > >>> Janet US
> > > > > >
> > > >> Subscribe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I don't know. Look back at the original statement. I am unsure of
> > > ascribe vs. subscribe.
> > > Janet US
> >
> > No. Prescribe as in prescription. A blind following of their subset
> > of rules.
>
> Ascribe in American english is the right one for the meaning. Means to
> 'follow a path'. Subscribe in US english indicates a stronger
> affiliation to the point on no other view allowed.
>
> Grin, subscribe is more a shoot to kill level term than was intended.
>

I meant prescribe as in prescribed rules. Janet needs to educate
herself before she gets snotty with me.


--

sf