"JimLane" > wrote in message ...

> >>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.
>
> 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.

Language evolves, unlike people who don't reproduce.

--oTTo--