Otto Bahn wrote:
> "JimLane" > wrote
>
>
>>So "spaghetti noodles" is a valid
>>
>>>way to specify an ingredient, as we don't have another name for them.
>>
>>However, it is redundant, but if you need that to understand what
>>spaghetti is, that's a personal problem.
>>
>>Spaghetti is the noodle, how you chose to dress it or not, is another
>>matter.
>
>
> Oh, right, so when an American kid says "We're having
> spaghetti for lunch", he means a big heaping plate of
> nothing but plain noodles -- no sauce, no cheese, and
> no beef hamburger. Right.
>
> When I order spaghetti at Lorena's Italian Restaurant
> (which I do about once a week), I don't have to tell
> them I'd also like the above ingredients put on it.
>
> --oTTo--
>
>
>

I was going to make a quip about us ignorant 'mericans but decided it
would go over your head. Common usage and correct usage are not
necessarily the same thing.


jim