"Orc General" > wrote in message
.. .
> Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
> (I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
> Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
> "Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
> thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
> "Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
> Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
> but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
> First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?

It is already done by the factory.

Go he

http://www.lodgemfg.com/usecare2.asp?menu=logic

Dimitri

Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
(I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
"Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
"Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?

Dimitri wrote:
> "Orc General" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
> > (I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
> > Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
> > "Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
> > thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
> > "Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
> > Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
> > but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
> > First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?

Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
does the "pre-" come in?

Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
"Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
The "pre-" is not necessary.

N.

nancy1 wrote:


> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?

"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
cook. Seems sensible to me.

> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.

Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.



Brian

nancy1 wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>>"Orc General" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
>>>(I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
>>>Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
>>>"Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
>>>thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
>>>"Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
>>>Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
>>>but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
>>>First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?
>
> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
> related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
> Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
> does the "pre-" come in?
>
> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
> For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
> bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
> "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
> The "pre-" is not necessary.

Bwah...

I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people to
bite me.

People offer all kinds of rationales for the distinctions and not a one
stands up to any scrutiny. Good for you. You get my vote when you run
for Imperial office.

Pastorio

Default User wrote:
> nancy1 wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
>>things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
>>you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
>>don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?
>
> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
> also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
> cook. Seems sensible to me.

Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
the cast iron. Gibberish.

>>Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
>>annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
>>oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
>>beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
>>ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.
>
> Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
> don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.

The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
else is going on.

This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.

It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
"pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
no information.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
> > also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever
> > used to cook. Seems sensible to me.
>
> Do you say re-season

Yes.

> and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time

No, re-season doesn't indicate that it's the first time that it's take
place.

> "Seasoning" is the name of a process.

Yes, but that doesn't make preseason incorrect. Preseason is merely
more specific.

Similarly pay and prepay.



Brian

nancy1 wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
> > "Orc General" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Can someone please tell me about these cast iron cookware that requires no
> > > (I repeat NO) pre-seasoning. How is this possible. I look at a "Kitchen
> > > Select Colored Cast Iron Dutch Oven" model recently and on the box it says
> > > "Requires no pre-seasoning". I thought to myself, now that's strange, the
> > > thing is all yellow on the inside and you can use it right away. I said
> > > "Ah ha!! The smart alec just painted the pot with a yellow layer of
> > > Non-Stick" and call it instant use cast iron. I know I am wrong of course,
> > > but hope someone can explain to me about these no-preseasoning cast iron.
> > > First, why is it yellow? Second, is it still cast-iron cookware?
>
> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
> related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
> Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
> does the "pre-" come in?
>
> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
> For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
> bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
> "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
> The "pre-" is not necessary.

Yes it is, the 'pre' is absolutely manditory... pre-heat an oven
indicates the oven is brought to temperature and left to stay at said
temperature before opening and introducing food, so that not only the
air in the oven is correctly heated but that the interior chassis of
the oven is fully heated as well. Pre-heat is more precise a direction
than "heat".

Merriam Webster

preheat

transitive verb

: to heat beforehand; especially : to heat (an oven) to a designated
temperature before using for cooking.
---

Sheldon

Default User wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>>Default User wrote:
>
>>>"Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
>>>also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever
>>>used to cook. Seems sensible to me.
>>
>>Do you say re-season
>
> Yes.

So you do make time differentiation germane to the name of the process.

>>and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time
>
> No, re-season doesn't indicate that it's the first time that it's take
> place.

But if one time needs its own specific description, why not every time?
What does the first time have to do with anything?

>>"Seasoning" is the name of a process.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't make preseason incorrect. Preseason is merely
> more specific.

A needless specificity. The pan will be, by that logic, pre-seasoned
each time it's to be used. So maybe the technique should be called
"pre-seasoning."

And if the seasoning needs to be done from scratch before the pan can be
used to cook, is it pre-season time again? Or is it merely seasoning
every time it's done?

> Similarly pay and prepay.

These make a bit more sense because the time component matters. If I pay
for a service before I get it, I'm prepaying. If afterward, just paying.
Right? No. I'm paying in both cases irrespective of the time.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > Bob (this one) wrote:
> >
> > > Default User wrote:
> >
> > > > "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose".
> > > > The pan also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before
> > > > it's ever used to cook. Seems sensible to me.
> > >
> > > Do you say re-season
> >
> > Yes.
>
> So you do make time differentiation germane to the name of the
> process.
>
> > > and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time
> >
> > No, re-season doesn't indicate that it's the first time that it's
> > take place.
>
> But if one time needs its own specific description, why not every
> time? What does the first time have to do with anything?
>
> > > "Seasoning" is the name of a process.
> >
> > Yes, but that doesn't make preseason incorrect. Preseason is merely
> > more specific.
>
> A needless specificity.

In your opinion. Not in mine. There is a difference.

> The pan will be, by that logic, pre-seasoned
> each time it's to be used. So maybe the technique should be called
> "pre-seasoning."

You season a pan before each use?

> And if the seasoning needs to be done from scratch before the pan can
> be used to cook, is it pre-season time again? Or is it merely
> seasoning every time it's done?

No, it has been used by you to cook at some point. Similarly the term
reseason. Also unnecessary by your theory, but it adds information.

> > Similarly pay and prepay.
>
> These make a bit more sense because the time component matters. If I
> pay for a service before I get it, I'm prepaying. If afterward, just
> paying. Right? No. I'm paying in both cases irrespective of the time.


That's like claiming that you can't say, "I'm wearing a blue shirt."
After all, you're wearing a shirt no matter color it is.


These are perfectly good terms that people understand and carry
specific information. If you don't want to use them, I have no problem
with that. However, you're wrong about them being somehow incorrect.




Brian

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Default User wrote:
>> nancy1 wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
>>> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
>>> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
>>> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?
>>
>> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
>> also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used
>> to cook. Seems sensible to me.
>
> Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time
> you do it.

But if you repeat, do you have to peat first?

Jill

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Default User wrote:
>
>> nancy1 wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
>>> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
>>> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
>>> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?
>>
>>
>> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
>> also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
>> cook. Seems sensible to me.
>
>
> Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
> do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
> doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
> say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
> the cast iron. Gibberish.
>
>>> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
>>> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
>>> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
>>> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
>>> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.
>>
>>
>> Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
>> don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.
>
>
> The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
> else is going on.
>
> This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.
>
> It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
> predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
> "pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
> no information.
>
> Pastorio


Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
might be an indication of order.

Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
inflammable? And then there's . . .


jim

Bob (this one) wrote:

>
> Bwah...
>
> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
> people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
> keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people to
> bite me.

I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are caught
with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed and
embarrassed.


jim

JimLane wrote:

> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Bwah...
>>
>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
>> people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
>> keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people to
>> bite me.
>
> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are caught
> with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed and
> embarrassed.

Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with is
ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try to take a
cheap shot.

Bite me.

Pastorio

JimLane wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>
>>> nancy1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
>>>> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
>>>> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
>>>> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?
>>>
>>> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
>>> also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
>>> cook. Seems sensible to me.
>>
>> Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time
>> you do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality.
>> It doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as
>> sensible to say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the
>> infrastructure of the cast iron. Gibberish.
>>
>>>> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
>>>> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
>>>> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
>>>> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
>>>> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.
>>>
>>> Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
>>> don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.
>>
>> The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter
>> what else is going on.
>>
>> This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.
>>
>> It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It
>> must predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition.
>> The "pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating
>> add no information.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
> Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
> might be an indication of order.

Like, I thought I'd pretty well dealt with that above, Jim, when I said:
"Anything that's requisite is required. It must predate whatever it is
required for; inherent in the definition."

But you probably haven't had your coffee yet, huh...?

Sure. And prepare means to pare first. One can vent and one can prevent...

> Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
> inflammable?

Different linguistic formations.

"Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However,
the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that
inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in
inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is
related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and
inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the
Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But
many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it
is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings."
<http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0164700.html>

"Combustible" and "incombustible" are opposites but "flammable" and
"inflammable" are synonyms. Why? The "in-" of "incombustible" is a
common prefix meaning "not," but the "in-" of "inflammable" is a
different prefix. "Inflammable," which dates back to 1605, descends from
the Latin "inflammare" ("to inflame"), from "in-" (here meaning "in" or
"into") plus "flammare" ("to flame"). "Flammable" also comes from
"flammare," but didn't enter English until 1813. In the early 20th
century, firefighters worried that people might think "inflammable"
meant "not able to catch fire," so they adopted "flammable" and
"nonflammable" as official safety labels and encouraged their use to
prevent confusion. In general use, "flammable" is now the preferred term
for describing things that can catch fire, but "inflammable" is still
occasionally used with that meaning as well.
--Merriam-Webster dictionary

> And then there's . . .

And then there's waxing poetic and waxing Brazilian...

Pastorio

JimLane wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
> > Default User wrote:
> >
> >> nancy1 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
> >>> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
> >>> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
> >>> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?
> >>
> >>
> >> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
> >> also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used to
> >> cook. Seems sensible to me.
> >
> >
> > Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
> > do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
> > doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
> > say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
> > the cast iron. Gibberish.
> >
> >>> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
> >>> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
> >>> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
> >>> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
> >>> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.
> >>
> >>
> >> Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
> >> don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.
> >
> >
> > The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
> > else is going on.
> >
> > This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.
> >
> > It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
> > predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
> > "pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
> > no information.
> >
> > Pastorio
>
>
> Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
> might be an indication of order.
>
> Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
> inflammable? And then there's . . .
>
>
> jim

Ja. LOL. I didn't mean to start something big. Just wanted to say
that "preheat" and "preseason" just get on my last nerve. It's
probably just me. ;-)

N.

JimLane wrote:

> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
> >
> > Bwah...
> >
> > I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
> > people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it.
> > In keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several
> > people to bite me.
>
> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
> caught with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed
> and embarrassed.


One of the great benefits I've gotten from hanging out on
alt.usage.english is that English is a complicated and expressive
language capable of many levels of nuance. Railing against other
people's ways of expressing themselves is often foolish and not
supported by the language or its history.

These prescriptive diatribes of Bob and his ilk are silly, like the
long ago self-appointed language experts that came up with "don't end
with a preposition" or "don't split the infinitive". It's a way of
being self-important and order people around for no good reason.



Brian

"nancy1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> JimLane wrote:
>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>> > Default User wrote:
>> >
>> >> nancy1 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some
>> >>> things related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or
>> >>> you don't. Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you
>> >>> don't. Where does the "pre-" come in?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Pre" as in "before the first use for the intended purpose". The pan
>> >> also seasons through use. Preseasoning is done before it's ever used
>> >> to
>> >> cook. Seems sensible to me.
>> >
>> >
>> > Do you say re-season and then re-re-season, ad infinitum, each time you
>> > do it. "Seasoning" is the name of a process. It's its own reality. It
>> > doesn't matter when it's done. Just that it's done. Just as sensible to
>> > say that the pre-seasoning is a pre-requisite to the infrastructure of
>> > the cast iron. Gibberish.
>> >
>> >>> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still
>> >>> annoying. For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the
>> >>> oven to 350 and bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the
>> >>> beginning of the recipe: "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the
>> >>> ingredients, and the directions. The "pre-" is not necessary.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Same here. You preheat the oven before you put anything into it. I
>> >> don't preheat the oven for roasts, but it heats none the less.
>> >
>> >
>> > The oven is either heating or it isn't. If it is, it is, no matter what
>> > else is going on.
>> >
>> > This is exactly the sorts of rationales I hear all the time.
>> >
>> > It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
>> > predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
>> > "pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
>> > no information.
>> >
>> > Pastorio
>>
>>
>> Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
>> might be an indication of order.
>>
>> Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable and
>> inflammable? And then there's . . .
>>
>>
>> jim
>
> Ja. LOL. I didn't mean to start something big. Just wanted to say
> that "preheat" and "preseason" just get on my last nerve. It's
> probably just me. ;-)
>
> N.
>

It is *not* just you. The "pre" prefix certainly has valid uses but is also
used in many foolish and stupid ways. But I must disagree about the opinion
that "prerequisite" is redundant. I will illustrate with an example. To chop
onions, a knife is required - it is requisite. You do not have to have a
knife before you chop, just while you are chopping. Therefore it is not a
prerequisite. However to be hired as a staff physician at a hospital you
have to have an MD degree - you must have the degree *before* you are hired.
Hence it is a prerequisite.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

jmcquown wrote on 8/3/2005:

<snip>

> But if you repeat, do you have to peat first?
>
> Jill

Say again? (Or maybe just say).

"nancy1" > wrote in message
oups.com...

<Snip>

> Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
> related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
> Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
> does the "pre-" come in?
>
> Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
> For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
> bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
> "Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
> The "pre-" is not necessary.
>
> N.

Actually it is especially in baking.

Because the leavening agents begin to work when mixed with liquids it is
important to the finished product to bring the over to temperature before
blending the ingredients ergo pre-heat. IMHO the "pre" does not refer to the
oven but the overall task. Many times if the oven is not ready (up to
temperature) when the raw product is put in the desired effect can not be
attained.

Dimitri

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
>> One of the great benefits I've gotten from hanging out on
>> alt.usage.english is that English is a complicated and expressive
>> language capable of many levels of nuance. Railing against other
>> people's ways of expressing themselves is often foolish and not
>> supported by the language or its history.
>
> Yeah, this and similar threads are really starting to remind
> me of Garrison Keillor's sketches regarding the joys of
> being an English major...

It is tough to unravel ... who raveled it in the first place?

nancy

"Kevin_Sheehy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> jmcquown wrote on 8/3/2005:
>
> <snip>
>
> > But if you repeat, do you have to peat first?

And why isn't "flammable" the opposite of "inflammable"?

What exactly ARE "jumbo shrimp," anyway? (apologies to
George Carlin)

Of course, I either could or couldn't care less about
the answers to these...

Bob M.

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> One of the great benefits I've gotten from hanging out on
> alt.usage.english is that English is a complicated and expressive
> language capable of many levels of nuance. Railing against other
> people's ways of expressing themselves is often foolish and not
> supported by the language or its history.

Yeah, this and similar threads are really starting to remind
me of Garrison Keillor's sketches regarding the joys of
being an English major...

Bob M.

Bob (this one) wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>
>>> Bwah...
>>>
>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
>>> people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
>>> keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people to
>>> bite me.
>>
>>
>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are caught
>> with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed and
>> embarrassed.
>
>
> Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with is
> ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try to take a
> cheap shot.
>
> Bite me.
>
> Pastorio

Thanks for illustrating your moroness. You could not have done it more
eloquently.


jim

Bob (this one) wrote:
> JimLane wrote:

snip

>> Now that you've waxed poetic about this inanity, how about flammable
>> and inflammable?
>
>
> Different linguistic formations.
>
> "Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However,
> the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that
> inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in
> inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is
> related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and
> inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the
> Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But
> many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it
> is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings."
> <http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0164700.html>
>
> "Combustible" and "incombustible" are opposites but "flammable" and
> "inflammable" are synonyms. Why? The "in-" of "incombustible" is a
> common prefix meaning "not," but the "in-" of "inflammable" is a
> different prefix. "Inflammable," which dates back to 1605, descends from
> the Latin "inflammare" ("to inflame"), from "in-" (here meaning "in" or
> "into") plus "flammare" ("to flame"). "Flammable" also comes from
> "flammare," but didn't enter English until 1813. In the early 20th
> century, firefighters worried that people might think "inflammable"
> meant "not able to catch fire," so they adopted "flammable" and
> "nonflammable" as official safety labels and encouraged their use to
> prevent confusion. In general use, "flammable" is now the preferred term
> for describing things that can catch fire, but "inflammable" is still
> occasionally used with that meaning as well.
> --Merriam-Webster dictionary
>
>> And then there's . . .
>
>
> And then there's waxing poetic and waxing Brazilian...
>
> Pastorio

And waxing moons. . .

The key is that flammable and inflammable historically mean the same
thing and are synonyms. Nether contributes a nuance that is different
than the other, so only one is really needed.

Onto redundancies and oxymorons!


jim

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:32:16 GMT, Peter Aitken wrote:

>
> It is *not* just you. The "pre" prefix certainly has valid uses but is also
> used in many foolish and stupid ways. But I must disagree about the opinion
> that "prerequisite" is redundant. I will illustrate with an example. To chop
> onions, a knife is required - it is requisite. You do not have to have a
> knife before you chop, just while you are chopping. Therefore it is not a
> prerequisite. However to be hired as a staff physician at a hospital you
> have to have an MD degree - you must have the degree *before* you are hired.
> Hence it is a prerequisite.

So, preheat means to heat the oven to the required temperature before
using it to cook.

JimLane wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bwah...
>>>>
>>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
>>>> people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it. In
>>>> keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several people
>>>> to bite me.
>>>
>>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
>>> caught with their pants down. You must like running around
>>> bare-assed and embarrassed.
>>
>> Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with is
>> ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try to take a
>> cheap shot.
>>
>> Bite me.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
> Thanks for illustrating your moroness.

It should be moronness. But how would you know that?

> You could not have done it more eloquently.

Sure I could. You just aren't worth the effort.

IKYABWAI... how eloquently JimLame of you

Pastorio

Dimitri wrote:
> "nancy1" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> <Snip>
>
>>Sorry, I have to jump in here and say the use of "pre-" for some things
>>related to cooking is just annoying. You "season" a pan or you don't.
>>Where does the "pre-" come in? You heat the oven or you don't. Where
>>does the "pre-" come in?
>>
>>Oh, I know what the writers are trying to say, but it's still annoying.
>>For example, in a recipe: Why not just say, "Heat the oven to 350 and
>>bake the whatever for 30 minutes?" Or, at the beginning of the recipe:
>>"Heat oven to 400F." Then list the ingredients, and the directions.
>>The "pre-" is not necessary.
>>
>>N.
> Actually it is especially in baking.
>
> Because the leavening agents begin to work when mixed with liquids it is
> important to the finished product to bring the over to temperature before
> blending the ingredients ergo pre-heat. IMHO the "pre" does not refer to the
> oven but the overall task. Many times if the oven is not ready (up to
> temperature) when the raw product is put in the desired effect can not be
> attained.

This is why the first instruction in baking recipes typically is to heat
the oven. How many times does one need to see the identical instruction
before the meaning becomes clear? How much experience does a baker need
before the idea is fixed?

I could maybe see it if it were the first time a person was doing it,
but even then "Heat oven to 350°F" doesn't leave much room for
interpretation. If it's not 350°F, it's not heated per instructions.

Pastorio

Default User wrote:

> JimLane wrote:
>
>>Bob (this one) wrote:
>>
>>>Bwah...
>>>
>>>I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
>>>people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it.
>>>In keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several
>>>people to bite me.
>>
>>I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
>>caught with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed
>>and embarrassed.
>
> One of the great benefits I've gotten from hanging out on
> alt.usage.english is that English is a complicated and expressive
> language capable of many levels of nuance. Railing against other
> people's ways of expressing themselves is often foolish and not
> supported by the language or its history.

Stop the presses. Languages evolve in uncontrollable ways. Who'd a
thought it?

> These prescriptive diatribes of Bob and his ilk are silly, like the
> long ago self-appointed language experts that came up with "don't end
> with a preposition" or "don't split the infinitive". It's a way of
> being self-important and order people around for no good reason.

Actually, bloviating Brian, my diatribes aren't prescriptive. If you'll,
note, JimLame was telling me what I was doing wrong. Was telling me what
I shouldn't do. And it does look like I was being told for no good reason.

You ought to do a lap around "passive-aggressive" in a dictionary.

This evening, my daughter made pasta which she tossed with butter, then
sprinkled on a few drops of of the expensive balsamic, and finished with
a good grating of parmesan cheese. Lovely.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>
>>> JimLane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bwah...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
>>>>> people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it.
>>>>> In keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several
>>>>> people to bite me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
>>>> caught with their pants down. You must like running around
>>>> bare-assed and embarrassed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with is
>>> ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try to take a
>>> cheap shot.
>>>
>>> Bite me.
>>>
>>> Pastorio
>>
>>
>> Thanks for illustrating your moroness.
>
>
> It should be moronness. But how would you know that?
>
>> You could not have done it more eloquently.
>
>
> Sure I could. You just aren't worth the effort.
>
> IKYABWAI... how eloquently JimLame of you
>
> Pastorio

How childish of you and yet another display of your moroness. Trying for
the world championship cheffie troll?


jim

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Default User wrote:
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bwah...
>>>>
>>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
>>>> people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it.
>>>> In keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several
>>>> people to bite me.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
>>> caught with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed
>>> and embarrassed.
>>
>>
>> One of the great benefits I've gotten from hanging out on
>> alt.usage.english is that English is a complicated and expressive
>> language capable of many levels of nuance. Railing against other
>> people's ways of expressing themselves is often foolish and not
>> supported by the language or its history.
>
>
> Stop the presses. Languages evolve in uncontrollable ways. Who'd a
> thought it?
>
>> These prescriptive diatribes of Bob and his ilk are silly, like the
>> long ago self-appointed language experts that came up with "don't end
>> with a preposition" or "don't split the infinitive". It's a way of
>> being self-important and order people around for no good reason.
>
>
> Actually, bloviating Brian, my diatribes aren't prescriptive. If you'll,
> note, JimLame was telling me what I was doing wrong. Was telling me what
> I shouldn't do. And it does look like I was being told for no good reason.
>
> You ought to do a lap around "passive-aggressive" in a dictionary.
>
> This evening, my daughter made pasta which she tossed with butter, then
> sprinkled on a few drops of of the expensive balsamic, and finished with
> a good grating of parmesan cheese. Lovely.
>
> Pastorio

Well, ****oir, to use your childishness on you, you are still displaying
your moroness.

You think yourself the final arbiter on cooking and language. Wanna go
for a third display of your megalomania and moroness?


jim

JimLane wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>
>>> JimLane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bwah...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns and
>>>>> people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about it.
>>>>> In keeping with the foodie nature of it all, I've told several
>>>>> people to bite me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
>>>> caught with their pants down. You must like running around bare-assed
>>>> and embarrassed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the great benefits I've gotten from hanging out on
>>> alt.usage.english is that English is a complicated and expressive
>>> language capable of many levels of nuance. Railing against other
>>> people's ways of expressing themselves is often foolish and not
>>> supported by the language or its history.
>>
>>
>>
>> Stop the presses. Languages evolve in uncontrollable ways. Who'd a
>> thought it?
>>
>>> These prescriptive diatribes of Bob and his ilk are silly, like the
>>> long ago self-appointed language experts that came up with "don't end
>>> with a preposition" or "don't split the infinitive". It's a way of
>>> being self-important and order people around for no good reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, bloviating Brian, my diatribes aren't prescriptive. If
>> you'll, note, JimLame was telling me what I was doing wrong. Was
>> telling me what I shouldn't do. And it does look like I was being told
>> for no good reason.
>>
>> You ought to do a lap around "passive-aggressive" in a dictionary.
>>
>> This evening, my daughter made pasta which she tossed with butter,
>> then sprinkled on a few drops of of the expensive balsamic, and
>> finished with a good grating of parmesan cheese. Lovely.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
>
> Well, ****oir, to use your childishness on you, you are still displaying
> your moroness.
>
> You think yourself the final arbiter on cooking and language. Wanna go
> for a third display of your megalomania and moroness?
>
>
> jim

Following up on this sub-thread, here's the RD Oxford, ****torio, read
it and go argue with a dictionary, because I, and default user are correct:

requisite: required by circumstances; necessary for success, a thing needed

Now, pay attention here, moron,

prerequisite: required as a precondition (preparatory act)


jim

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message

<snip>

>> Because the leavening agents begin to work when mixed with liquids it is
>> important to the finished product to bring the over to temperature before
>> blending the ingredients ergo pre-heat. IMHO the "pre" does not refer to the
>> oven but the overall task. Many times if the oven is not ready (up to
>> temperature) when the raw product is put in the desired effect can not be
>> attained.
>
> This is why the first instruction in baking recipes typically is to heat the
> oven. How many times does one need to see the identical instruction before the
> meaning becomes clear? How much experience does a baker need before the idea
> is fixed?
>
> I could maybe see it if it were the first time a person was doing it, but even
> then "Heat oven to 350°F" doesn't leave much room for interpretation. If it's
> not 350°F, it's not heated per instructions.
>
> Pastorio

The other very common mistake is over mixing the quick bread recipes making for
a really tough end product. You really want to minimize the gluten formed.

Dimitri

JimLane wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>
>>>> JimLane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bwah...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my
>>>>>> columns and people objected. On my radio program, I've
>>>>>> gotten calls about it. In keeping with the foodie nature of
>>>>>> it all, I've told several people to bite me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they
>>>>> are caught with their pants down. You must like running
>>>>> around bare-assed and embarrassed.
>>>>
>>>> Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with
>>>> is ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try
>>>> to take a cheap shot.
>>>>
>>>> Bite me.
>>>>
>>>> Pastorio
>>>
>>> Thanks for illustrating your moroness.
>>
>> It should be moronness. But how would you know that?
>>
>>> You could not have done it more eloquently.
>>
>> Sure I could. You just aren't worth the effort.
>>
>> IKYABWAI... how eloquently JimLame of you
>>
>> Pastorio

JimLane replies with typical wit and wisdom:
> How childish of you and yet another display of your moroness. Trying
> for the world championship cheffie troll?

And in another burst of brilliance, JimLane posted:
> Well, ****oir, to use your childishness on you, you are still
> displaying your moroness.
>
> You think yourself the final arbiter on cooking and language. Wanna
> go for a third display of your megalomania and moroness?

And still another near-Shakespearean missive, in reply to his reply
above (shouting over himself, he is. I can almost see him sitting at his
desk, fist upraised shouting "Curse you, Pastorio..."):
> Following up on this sub-thread, here's the RD Oxford, ****torio,
> read it and go argue with a dictionary, because I, and default user
> are correct:
>
> requisite: required by circumstances; necessary for success, a thing
> needed
>
> Now, pay attention here, moron,
>
> prerequisite: required as a precondition (preparatory act)

Nice try, especially with the misspelled insults. But riddle me this,
JimLane, if the oven needs to be hot to bake, isn't that a condition
"required by circumstances; necessary for success, a thing needed?"

It's needed before the other things are put into the oven, usually, but
the distinction seems more apparent than real. It's a necessary part of
a procedure. Period.

My Webster's Unabridged says that:
requisite, a. required by the nature of things or by circumstances;
necessary for some purpose; so needful that it cannot be dispensed with.

Given that a hot oven for baking is "required by the nature of things or
by circumstances; necessary for some purpose; so needful that it cannot
be dispensed with," it sure looks like it's requisite to "heat" the oven.

Thank you for playing and thank you for totally losing your cool,
flailing about like some beached fish. I realize that messes with the
picture above of raised fist, so maybe it's rare kind of fish, with, um,
fists.

The Kid just took the leftover pasta and scattered it on a thin pizza
crust. Scattered gorgonzola cheese over top, chucks of Roma tomato,
sauteed onion and grated Asiago over top.

Pastorio

Dimitri wrote:

> The other very common mistake is over mixing the quick bread recipes making for
> a really tough end product. You really want to minimize the gluten formed.

I generally cheat a bit. Most of my quick breads are formulated with 75%
AP flour and 25% cake flour. Tends to a more tender product but doesn't
rise so high. I prefer mine to be on the moist side and I'll sacrifice
height for that. This is also more forgiving of overmixing.

To make them taller (and a bit more dry), do the 75-25 split with the
addition of bread flour or go 100% AP flour and add a tablespoon of
wheat gluten. But don't work it too much. The protein matrix will form
quickly with either of these formulations.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>
>>> JimLane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JimLane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bwah...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns
>>>>>>> and people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about
>>>>>>> it. In keeping with the foodie nature of
>>>>>>> it all, I've told several people to bite me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
>>>>>> caught with their pants down. You must like running around
>>>>>> bare-assed and embarrassed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with is
>>>>> ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try to take
>>>>> a cheap shot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bite me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pastorio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for illustrating your moroness.
>>>
>>>
>>> It should be moronness. But how would you know that?
>>>
>>>> You could not have done it more eloquently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure I could. You just aren't worth the effort.
>>>
>>> IKYABWAI... how eloquently JimLame of you
>>>
>>> Pastorio
>
>
> JimLane replies with typical wit and wisdom:
>
>> How childish of you and yet another display of your moroness. Trying
>> for the world championship cheffie troll?
>
>
> And in another burst of brilliance, JimLane posted:
>
>> Well, ****oir, to use your childishness on you, you are still
>> displaying your moroness.
>>
>> You think yourself the final arbiter on cooking and language. Wanna go
>> for a third display of your megalomania and moroness?
>
>
> And still another near-Shakespearean missive, in reply to his reply
> above (shouting over himself, he is. I can almost see him sitting at his
> desk, fist upraised shouting "Curse you, Pastorio..."):
>
>> Following up on this sub-thread, here's the RD Oxford, ****torio, read
>> it and go argue with a dictionary, because I, and default user are
>> correct:
>>
>> requisite: required by circumstances; necessary for success, a thing
>> needed
>>
>> Now, pay attention here, moron,
>>
>> prerequisite: required as a precondition (preparatory act)
>
>
> Nice try, especially with the misspelled insults. But riddle me this,
> JimLane, if the oven needs to be hot to bake, isn't that a condition
> "required by circumstances; necessary for success, a thing needed?"
>
> It's needed before the other things are put into the oven, usually, but
> the distinction seems more apparent than real. It's a necessary part of
> a procedure. Period.
>
> My Webster's Unabridged says that:
> requisite, a. required by the nature of things or by circumstances;
> necessary for some purpose; so needful that it cannot be dispensed with.
>
> Given that a hot oven for baking is "required by the nature of things or
> by circumstances; necessary for some purpose; so needful that it cannot
> be dispensed with," it sure looks like it's requisite to "heat" the oven.
>
> Thank you for playing and thank you for totally losing your cool,
> flailing about like some beached fish. I realize that messes with the
> picture above of raised fist, so maybe it's rare kind of fish, with, um,
> fists.
>
> The Kid just took the leftover pasta and scattered it on a thin pizza
> crust. Scattered gorgonzola cheese over top, chucks of Roma tomato,
> sauteed onion and grated Asiago over top.
>
> Pastorio

And where's your definition for prerequisite? have you omitted that for
any particular reason, like it also illustrates the that one is a
condition, the other a pre-condition?

That is the bottom line: condition and precondition. Of course, you may
choose to argue with your dictionary over that as well.

So, ****torio, still playing cheffie troll? I thought you might have
grown up. Apparently not. I don't spell check, ****torio; we have had
that discussion before, but of course, old age you know, the memory goes
first and you have clearly forgotten.


jim

JimLane wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
> > JimLane wrote:
> >
> >> Bob (this one) wrote:
> >>
> >>> JimLane wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> JimLane wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bwah...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've been promoting this idea for years. I did it in my columns
> >>>>>>> and people objected. On my radio program, I've gotten calls about
> >>>>>>> it. In keeping with the foodie nature of
> >>>>>>> it all, I've told several people to bite me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've found that response to be the one morons use when they are
> >>>>>> caught with their pants down. You must like running around
> >>>>>> bare-assed and embarrassed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Funny thing. I say "bite me" when the person I'm dealing with is
> >>>>> ill-informed, not too bright and likes to swoop in and try to take
> >>>>> a cheap shot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bite me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pastorio
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for illustrating your moroness.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It should be moronness. But how would you know that?
> >>>
> >>>> You could not have done it more eloquently.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sure I could. You just aren't worth the effort.
> >>>
> >>> IKYABWAI... how eloquently JimLame of you
> >>>
> >>> Pastorio
> >
> >
> > JimLane replies with typical wit and wisdom:
> >
> >> How childish of you and yet another display of your moroness. Trying
> >> for the world championship cheffie troll?
> >
> >
> > And in another burst of brilliance, JimLane posted:
> >
> >> Well, ****oir, to use your childishness on you, you are still
> >> displaying your moroness.
> >>
> >> You think yourself the final arbiter on cooking and language. Wanna go
> >> for a third display of your megalomania and moroness?
> >
> >
> > And still another near-Shakespearean missive, in reply to his reply
> > above (shouting over himself, he is. I can almost see him sitting at his
> > desk, fist upraised shouting "Curse you, Pastorio..."):
> >
> >> Following up on this sub-thread, here's the RD Oxford, ****torio, read
> >> it and go argue with a dictionary, because I, and default user are
> >> correct:
> >>
> >> requisite: required by circumstances; necessary for success, a thing
> >> needed
> >>
> >> Now, pay attention here, moron,
> >>
> >> prerequisite: required as a precondition (preparatory act)
> >
> >
> > Nice try, especially with the misspelled insults. But riddle me this,
> > JimLane, if the oven needs to be hot to bake, isn't that a condition
> > "required by circumstances; necessary for success, a thing needed?"
> >
> > It's needed before the other things are put into the oven, usually, but
> > the distinction seems more apparent than real. It's a necessary part of
> > a procedure. Period.
> >
> > My Webster's Unabridged says that:
> > requisite, a. required by the nature of things or by circumstances;
> > necessary for some purpose; so needful that it cannot be dispensed with.
> >
> > Given that a hot oven for baking is "required by the nature of things or
> > by circumstances; necessary for some purpose; so needful that it cannot
> > be dispensed with," it sure looks like it's requisite to "heat" the oven.
> >
> > Thank you for playing and thank you for totally losing your cool,
> > flailing about like some beached fish. I realize that messes with the
> > picture above of raised fist, so maybe it's rare kind of fish, with, um,
> > fists.
> >
> > The Kid just took the leftover pasta and scattered it on a thin pizza
> > crust. Scattered gorgonzola cheese over top, chucks of Roma tomato,
> > sauteed onion and grated Asiago over top.
> >
> > Pastorio
>
> And where's your definition for prerequisite? have you omitted that for
> any particular reason, like it also illustrates the that one is a
> condition, the other a pre-condition?
>
> That is the bottom line: condition and precondition. Of course, you may
> choose to argue with your dictionary over that as well.
>
> So, ****torio, still playing cheffie troll? I thought you might have
> grown up. Apparently not. I don't spell check, ****torio; we have had
> that discussion before, but of course, old age you know, the memory goes
> first and you have clearly forgotten.
>
>
> jim

"Greasy Guidos"... pre-lubed condoms... eleven to the dozen. <G>

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

> JimLane wrote:

>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>Thank you for playing and thank you for totally losing your cool...

>>So, ****torio, still playing cheffie troll? I thought you might have
>>grown up. Apparently not. I don't spell check, ****torio; we have had
>>that discussion before, but of course, old age you know, the memory goes
>>first and you have clearly forgotten.
>>
>>jim
>
> "Greasy Guidos"... pre-lubed condoms... eleven to the dozen. <G>
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
>
> Sheldon

Res ipsa loquitur.

I never expected to see such richly definitive self-portraits and
character studies in such a small amount of space... or thought.

Pastorio

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:19:54 -0700, JimLane >
wrote:

>Bob (this one) wrote:

>> It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It must
>> predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the definition. The
>> "pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning and pre-heating add
>> no information.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
>
>Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a requisite? Pre
>might be an indication of order.

Despite what Mr. Language Person (apologies to Dave Barry) declares,
there is a difference between requisite and prerequisite.

Consider the difference:

"Heating oil to a suitable temperature is a requisite step in cooking
french fries."

"Heating oil to a suitable temperature is a prerequisite step for
cooking french fries."

"Preheating oil to a suitable temperature is a requisite step in
cooking french fries."

I believe that many people can see a distinction between the first
sentence and the other two and "pre-" does serve a useful function
there, and in the other instances cited.

An example from another situation: those who have taken college
courses in the US are likely to be familiar with the difference
between prerequisite and corequisite (courses).

Having said all that, I confess that I am against the euphemism
"pre-planning" (to make your own funeral arrangements) since
"planning" already is "pre-".


Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:19:54 -0700, JimLane >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>
>>>> It's like pre-requisite. Anything that's requisite is required. It
>>>> must predate whatever it is required for; inherent in the
>>>> definition. The "pre" adds no information. Just like pre-seasoning
>>>> and pre-heating add no information.
>>>>
>>>> Pastorio
>>>
>>>
>>> Like, there's no difference between a pre-requisite and a
>>> requisite? Pre might be an indication of order.
>>
>> Despite what Mr. Language Person (apologies to Dave Barry) declares,
>> there is a difference between requisite and prerequisite.
>>
>> Consider the difference:
>>
>> "Heating oil to a suitable temperature is a requisite step in cooking
>> french fries."
>>
>> "Heating oil to a suitable temperature is a prerequisite step for
>> cooking french fries."
>>
>> "Preheating oil to a suitable temperature is a requisite step in
>> cooking french fries."
>>
>> I believe that many people can see a distinction between the first
>> sentence and the other two and "pre-" does serve a useful function
>> there, and in the other instances cited.
>>
>> An example from another situation: those who have taken college
>> courses in the US are likely to be familiar with the difference
>> between prerequisite and corequisite (courses).
>>
>> Having said all that, I confess that I am against the euphemism
>> "pre-planning" (to make your own funeral arrangements) since
>> "planning" already is "pre-".
>>
>>
Yes the planning is.. the pre refers in this instance refers to before
death. Most funerals are planned after the person the dies. Hence
pre-planning the funeral. This one makes sense to me. :-)

Debbie