JimLane wrote:
> 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.

> 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.

Common usage _is_ correct usage, but only for the population that
uses it that way.

Mark L. Fergerson

PS I can't hear Brits talk about eating Spotted Dick without FNARRing