On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:50:16 -0700, Mark Fergerson >
wrote:

>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.
>
Irregardless of whether it is common usage or correct usage, the fact
remains that "spaghetti noodles" refers to both the dish and the
ingredient.