Wordsmith.org
Posted By: wow Transmorgrification - 04/02/01 04:39 PM
transmogrify : 2nd meaning OED : astonish, confound.
(edit) - Thanks Jackie for sp correction ... (/edit)

On that note, I was looking at the Shorter OED CD list and came upon "ambigu" a banquet at which a medley of dishes are served together.
Naturally, I looked up "buffet" entries : a blow; a low stool; a sideboard or recessed cupboard for china; beat, strike, thump, knock about.
Not a word about food in the buffet list!
So how come we don't have have ambigus instead of buffets?
And , stating the obvious, could it have something to do with the English custom of having breakfast foods set out on a side table or buffet as opposed to the US custom of a buffet's being a meal laid out on a main table from which people select the food for their plate?
OR, maybe Buffet because you have to knock someone down to get to the food before they scoff it all up!
wow

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Transmorgrification - 04/02/01 05:36 PM
Being a great fan of mystery novels & stories, particularly English ones, I gather from their description of breakfast in a country house that it was laid out like you describe because breakfast was not regimented as to time or even attendance (unlike dinner, which had a warning in the form of the dressing gong and then announced by a gong). Apparently it was available from 8:00 a.m. or so up to 10:00 for those who cared for it and you had a wide choice of foods, from toast, coffee and juice (like modern breakfasts) up to devilled kidneys (ugh!) and broiled tomatoes.

As to what is served how, I have read that in the 19th century it was customary at dinner to have almost everything that was to be served on the table at once and the diners served themselves and passed the plates around. This was called, I believe, Continental or French service. It was replaced in the last couple decades of the century by Russian service, which was to have the various courses succeed one another and served by the butler/footmen/maids who presented platters to each guest in turn, who helped themselves, leaving no platters on the table. This, of course, has become standard restaurant service.

Posted By: BeingCJ Re: Transmorgrification - 04/02/01 09:21 PM
In one of my previous careers, I was in the catering business. We used to promote either buffet or family style service. Buffet service could be managed with 3 service people for about 300 guests. With family style "almost everything that was to be served on the table at once and the diners served themselves and passed the plates around" I could get away with about 1 wait person per 6 tables. Formal / "Russian service" the most 1 wait person could handle was 2 tables.

CJ
Posted By: wow Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/03/01 01:50 PM
So how come we don't have have ambigus instead of buffets?
wow

Posted By: Hyla Re: Transmorgrification - 04/03/01 04:03 PM
I've heard transmogrify used to mean "to change something into something else." In the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip, Calvin had a cardboard box which was his "Atomic Transmogrification Device" or something, and he'd jump into it and emerge as a monster or some other non-little-boy creature.

So, this sense of the word may not be correct, but at least my reference is impeccable.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Transmorgrification - 04/03/01 04:14 PM
In the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip, Calvin had a cardboard box which was his "Atomic Transmogrification Device"

Or just plain Transmogrifier as I remember it. It may have changed from incarnation to incarnation.

I remember one episode wherein he and Hobbes transmogrified each other (they hand a hand-held model) so many times that they forgot which was who.

Posted By: Hyla Re: Transmorgrification - 04/03/01 05:09 PM
Transmogrifier it was - and sometimes I know how they feel, not knowing who's who.

So - is this a legitimate use of this word, or did our cartoon heroes just adopt it for their own uses?

I know I could LIU - but I always do that, so this time I just ain't gonna.

Hey - it seems that the original sense of this, as presented by wow, does end up being applied in the comic. The comic strippers end up using the transmogrifier to astonish and confound themselves - perhaps that was the purpose of the device all along.

Perhaps I should refrain from posting for a bit.

[/ramble]

Posted By: Sparteye Re: Transmorgrification - 04/03/01 05:45 PM
In reply to:

So - is this a legitimate use of this word, or did our cartoon heroes just adopt it for their own uses?


The confound and astonish sense of transmogrify is the secondary meaning. The primary meaning is as used by Mr Waterson: to change into a different shape or form, especially one which is fantastic or bizzare. (American Heritage) Webster's says its origin is unknown. I wonder at the redundancy of meaning among transmogrify, transmute, and transform. Now, where is that philosopher's stone???

Posted By: wow Re: Transmorgrification of threads - 04/03/01 06:12 PM
I wrote : transmogrify : 2nd meaning OED : astonish, confound.
(edit) - Thanks Jackie for sp correction ... (/edit)
On that note, I was looking at the Shorter OED CD list...


The transmogrify bit was an introduction to my astonishment at a different set of words : ambigu vs buffet.

Now the subject (ambigu/ buffet) transmorphs into Calvin and Hobbs!
Oh! the delightful Magical Mystery Tour of the Board.
wow


Posted By: Hyla Re: Transmorgrification of threads - 04/03/01 06:17 PM
Maybe we don't have ambigus because you'd never be sure what you were eating, or how you felt about it.

Posted By: tsuwm Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/04/01 12:00 AM
>So how come we don't have have ambigus instead of buffets?

the short answer is that ambigu went obsolete (and didn't mean exactly the same thing) before buffet table/meal/supper/party was shortened to buffet meaning the refreshments themselves rather than where they were laid out.

ambigu - An entertainment at which the viands and dessert are served together; or at which a medley of dishes are set on.

and with regard to transmogrify, OED says "origin uncertain", but has this [Note. If the original form was (as suggested in quot. 1725) transmigrafy, this may have been a vulgar or uneducated formation in -fy from transmigure, or transmigrate v. (cf. transmigration 3b). Apparently, it was originally persons that were ‘transmografied’, or metamorphosed.]



Posted By: maverick Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/04/01 11:06 AM
and FWIW, traditional country-house English would never entertain a fearsome Froggy ambiguity like buffet when the solid vernacular of sideboard would do, doncha know old bean?

Posted By: wwh Re: collation vs buffet - 04/04/01 01:16 PM
A long time ago, I had an invitation to a collation, but did not attend so cannot describe it, but it was evidently a light meal. So I cannot compare it to a buffet.

Posted By: Sparteye Service a la Russe - 04/04/01 02:12 PM
In reply to:

As to what is served how, I have read that in the 19th century it was customary at dinner to have almost everything that was to be served on the table at once and the diners served themselves and passed the plates around. This was called, I believe, Continental or French service. It was replaced in the last couple decades of the century by Russian service, which was to have the various courses succeed one another and served by the butler/footmen/maids who presented platters to each guest in turn, who helped themselves, leaving no platters on the table. This, of course, has become standard restaurant service.


To expand on Bobyoungbalt's summary:

The four types of service are French, Russian, American (known to the English as English) and Restaurant.

In French service, huge numbers of dishes are set out in symmetrical patterns on the dining table, and guests help themselves and one another from what they find within reach. This was standard until the late nineteenth century, and is perhaps still manifest in modified form as buffet.

In Russian service, which replaced the French, food is arranged on platters which are taken around to the seated guests, who serve themselves. More on service a la Russe later.

In American service, a nod is still given to the old ritual of personally carving for one's guests, after inquiring about the preferences of each guest. If the vegetables are also put on the plate by the host, and everyone passes the plates down the table, it is "family style." If servers do it, it is formal.

In Restaurant service, food is placed in predetermined portions and selections on plates before they are brought to the table. It is a service of efficiency only and has no formal table service pedigree.

Now, as to service a la Russe, if you want a really formal dinner, this is the way to go. All formal dinner invitations and responses must be on paper - no phones, no faxes, no Emails. There should be seating charts in the hallway which the guests may study, cards with each lady's name in a little envelope bearing the name of the gentleman who is her dining partner, and place cards on the table. The charts and cards permit the guests to fake remembering each other, and to avoid their dining partners before dinner (so they haven't talked each other out before the main event). [pop quiz: who knows what I mean when I refer to the hostess turning the table?] There should be menu cards on the table, and real traditionalists will insist that they be in French. The centerpiece should be of flowers and candles, on white or offwhite linen, with small dishes of candy and fruit strategically and symmetrically placed. Guests should be announced upon arrival, and dinner served (or, as the butler should say, "Madam is served") 20 minutes after the arrival time. There should be footmen and identical platters for each four to six guests.

The place setting for each guest is a "cover," and consists of a service plate (a charger), all the flatware except for dessert (up to three pieces of each type of utensil), and stemmed glasses for water and two or three wines. On the service plate is a rolled napkin (never in a napkin ring - that is for family meals) with the place card on top. Above the plate, an individual saltcellar, ash tray (well, not any more), nut dish and menu.

After the guests are seated and the napkins removed, the oyster plate is placed on the service plate, and when that is cleared, the soup plate is placed on the service plate. Those two are removed together, and a heated plate is put in the place. Fish and meat courses are served from platters; the footmen present the platters and the guests take portions for themselves. No seconds.

No place is ever without a plate until just before dessert. At that point, everything is removed except the wine and water glasses. The dessert plate is brought in with a doily on top, a finger bowl on top of that, and a fork balanced on the left side of the plate and a spoon on the right. The guest removes the doily and finger bowl, and places the bowl to the left of the plate and the fork and spoon on either side of the plate. Dessert consists of ices, sweets and fruit.

Warning. Food post follows

Here are courses for a traditional formal dinner:

1. Oysters or clams on the half shell.
2. Soup, with a choice of clear or thick.
3. Radishes, celery, olives and salted almonds.
4. Fish, served with fancifully shaped potatoes and cucumbers with oil and vinegar.
5. Sweetbreads or mushrooms.
6. Artichokes, asparagus, or spinach in pastry.
7. A roast or joint, with a green vegetable.
8. Frozen Roman punch (to clear the palate).
9. Game, served with salad.
10. Heavy pudding or other creamed sweet.
11. A frozen sweet.
12. Cheeses, with biscuits and butter.
13. Fresh, crystallized and stuffed dried fruits, served with bonbons.
14. Coffee, liqueurs, and sparkling waters.

Posted By: wow Re: Service a la Russe - 04/04/01 02:39 PM
I'll have to chew on that awhile ....
wow

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Service a la Russe - 04/04/01 02:52 PM
Sparteye, what a great post. Did you work your way thru college & law school waiting on tables?

As to your pop quiz, when the guests were seated at table, each was expected to begin making polite conversation with the person on his/her right (ladies and gentlemen alternated and it would have been a most serious breach of propriety if a man were seated next to his own wife). The male guest of honor, or the highest-ranking male guest was seated at the right of the hostess, so she started conversing with him. About midway thru the meal, the hostess would "turn the table" by switching to the guest on her left, and the rest of the diners followed suit.

Two things that occur to me: 1. You omit the fact that following the last of the courses you list, the hostess rose and the ladies left the table, to take coffee in the drawing room while the men circulated the port or cognac and maybe enjoyed cigars, joining the ladies in due course.
2. The oysters served as openers were de rigueure; oysters, in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th, were eaten in quantities and frequency unheard of today. Of course, they were plentiful and cheap then. Diamond Jim Brady, a well-known financier and man-about-town (his mistress was Lillian Russell, whom he presented with a gold-plated and diamond-encrusted bicycle), used to start dinner nearly every day with 4 or 5 dozen oysters. No wonder the urology dept. at Johns Hopkins Hospital is called the Brady Institute; he did such a number on his urinary tract that he needed extensive treatment there around the turn of the last century and got such good results he gave them a huge wad of money and they named the department for him.

Posted By: wow Re: Service a la Russe-passing the Port - 04/04/01 03:01 PM
Sparteye and BobY,
Gulp!

Now, when the gentlemen were passing the Port
(it is my understanding all servants withdrew so the gentleman could talk freely)
did the host pour for himself first? If not, who did? And in which direction was the bottle then properly passed ... to left or to right?
I cannot remember!
wow

Posted By: Sparteye Re: Service a la Russe - 04/04/01 04:47 PM
In reply to:

You omit the fact that following the last of the courses you list, the hostess rose and the ladies left the table, to take coffee in the drawing room while the men circulated the port or cognac and maybe enjoyed cigars, joining the ladies in due course.


The custom of separating by gender after dinner has gone the way of the reason for the separation. Current etiquette authorities suggest that, if there is a division to be made, it is between smokers and nonsmokers. I tend to agree.

That assumes, of course, that you can manage to stand and walk out of the room after eating all that food. I don't know how they ate even a bite or two of every course while wearing corsets.

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Service a la Russe - 04/04/01 04:57 PM
Of course, there were other reasons for the separation of sexes as well. It was customary not to rise from the table during the meal; it was regarded as unpolite. When the ladies "withdrew" to the "(with)drawing" room after the meal, they had the opportunity to relieve themselves. The men had no such opportunity. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centures, any man who wished to relieve himself did so in a chamber pot usually kept in one of the side boards, in full public view. And, of course, no one washed their hands.

Hmmm.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Service a la Russe - 04/04/01 07:59 PM
men relieving themselves at dinner
and while wearing corsets, as Sparteye notes. Of course, they didn't wash their hands -- they wore gloves (which must have got pretty funky by the end of the evening).

Posted By: of troy Re: Service a la Russe - 04/04/01 10:08 PM
A standard NY joke has two "gentlemen" in a public restroom relieving themselves. After, one starts to leave with out washing-- the first gentleman states "I went to Harvard, and was taught to wash my hands after urinating" the second man replies "I went to City College--and learned not to piss on my hands!"

Posted By: wwh Re: Service a la Russe - 04/05/01 12:24 AM
I didn't have to go to college to learn to wash my hands.

Posted By: shanks Ummm... - 04/05/01 08:08 AM
Sparteye and Bobyoungbalt

Is the Russian service you describe akin to the Silver Service used by catering professionals in the UK?

Does anyone in the US use the term cutlery instead of silverware?

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Posted By: wwh Re: Ummm... - 04/05/01 02:23 PM
" Does anyone in the US use the term cutlery instead of silverware?"

Nobody uses silverware. It's too expensive and too likely to be stolen.


Posted By: Sparteye Re: Ummm... - 04/05/01 02:28 PM
Shanks, I am unfamiliar with the term "silver service" in the sense you indicate, but it strikes me that it is a term invented by the caterers to market Service a la Russe.

I think you will find that "cutlery" refers to knives, and - if a person does not speak of "silverware" regardless of the metallic composition of the item - "flatware" refers to non-silver eating utensils.

I think you might find some prior discussion of this from a couple of months ago, assuming you are better with the searches than I.

Posted By: wow Re: Ummm...silverware - 04/05/01 03:04 PM
Sparteye wrote :I think you will find that "cutlery" refers to knives

Yes, Sparteye is "spot on" cutlery is used for the kitchen knives, forks, etc. although the word is not in general circulation, so to speak. It is a phrase used mostly by professional cooks, chefs that ilk.

Silverware is in general use in NE US meaning the knives, forks, spoons that are used for any meal even if the "silverware" is stainless steel, pewter or even the plastic-ware you get with fast food or at picnics.
In the early decades of the 1900s brides often received sterling silver table service either in "place settings" or as single pieces such as cake knives, demitasse spoons, sugar shells, trays, sugar and cream servers ....on and on.
I think the practice changed when the price of sterling went through the roof in the late 1970s and stainless steel in handsome patterns became more popular and affordable.
There is actually a difference in the size of dinner knives, forks, spoons and luncheon size knives, forks, spoons. But I digress (Sorry) ...
When my children were young I had what we called "kitchen silverware" for everyday meals and the "real" (meaning the sterling or very good silver plate) silverware was pulled out, polished and used for special occasions and holidays.
"Ware" has seven entries in my SOED and one meaning is an article of merchandise so I'd guess silverware as a combined word has some interesting history.
wow

Posted By: rodward Re: Service a la Russe - 04/06/01 03:02 PM
Never missing an opportunity to post an old joke:
I had heard that oysters were an aphrodisiac, so I ate a dozen; but the last four didn't work!
Rod
PS. and "cutlery" is the term used in UK for all the knives, forks, spoons, etc. that are used to eat or serve meals.

Posted By: wwh Re: Service a la Russe - 04/06/01 03:45 PM
"that oysters were an aphrodisiac, so I ate a dozen; but the last four didn't work!"
Dear Rod: If the first eight did work, what are you complaining about?








Posted By: of troy Re: Service a la Russe - 04/06/01 06:44 PM
Rod-- this is bordering on a YART--but it was a fun one-- all about the names of common household items-- alot were kitchen items-- cookers vs stoves-- closets vs wardrobes-- since you have traveled here (US) you might think of other common items that have different names-- but your new thread on rubbers (UK version vs US version) should be interesting--the same sort of idea-- but out of kitchen!--







Posted By: des Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/06/01 11:56 PM
My dictionary says (regarding buffet) "a meal at which guests serve themselves from a buffet or table". I think that is what many of us expect a "buffet" at home or in a restaurant to be. I think this may be what you were talking about.

Posted By: wow Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/07/01 11:56 AM
Dear des, Welcome aBoard.
I found ambigu while checking spelling of another word. I was using the Oxford English. I was having some fun with my post and, at same time, considering using "ambigu" on my next invitation to friends and thereby have an opening conversation and a few laughs built in to each arrival at the party since many of my chums are "wordies."
Hang around, des, you'll find I do love to shake the beehive every now and then to get everyone buzzing.
Aloha to you, dear newbie!
wow

Posted By: inselpeter Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/07/01 12:54 PM
ambigu

Then, is a buffet an ambiguous dinner? Is an invitation to one an ambiguous invitation?

These and other potentially painful misunderstandings could all be avoided by adopting the more exotic "smorgasbord."


Posted By: wwh Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/07/01 01:34 PM
" smorgasbord."
Dear IP: You would have a hard time finding the traditional things to make a genuine smorgasbord. It is Scandinavian, and many of the things are fish next to impossible to buy.It is self-service with many things to choose from.

>smor[gas[bord or sm;r[gBs[bord 7smCr4g!s bCrd#, sm%r$38
n.
5Swed sm;rgBsbord < sm;rgBs, buttered bread < sm;r, butter (akin to SMEAR) + dial. gBs, a clump (of butter), lit., goose (akin to GOOSE) + bord, table (akin to BOARD)6
1 a wide variety of appetizers and other tasty foods, as cheeses, fishes, meats, salads, etc., served buffet style
2 a meal composed of these
3 a restaurant serving smorgasbord
4 any widely varied assortment or collection




Posted By: inselpeter Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/07/01 01:47 PM
Dear IP: You would have a hard time finding the traditional things to make a genuine smorgasbord. It is Scandinavian, and many of the things are fish next to impossible to buy.It is self-service with many things to choose from.

You're right, of course. The Family of the Danish fiancée of the cousin of my two god children (honestly) once prepared the nearest thing they could for us of the Danish equivalent of a smorgasbord in Vermont. (Whew). I think they brought some of the items with them and I know they weren't impressed with the herring, here. There was something like schnapps, which you are obliged to drink; you have the meal in circuits. Not everything was put out at once, although once it was out, it stayed out. You could have as many helpings as you wanted of any course. And a good meal it was.


Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: ambigu vs buffet - 04/09/01 05:35 PM
In reply to:

something like schnapps


The something is akvavit, a strong clear spirit similar to acqua vitae, eau-de-vie [cognate terms] and, as you note, schnapps. It is served very cold, right out of the freezer, in small glasses. You toss it back and chase it down with a beer. I ate a lunch similar to a smorgasbord years ago with the officers of a Norwegian freighter. We started with a lavish spread of smoked and pickled fish, most of which, as Dr.Bill notes, are unobtainable in the U.S., all delicious. This was followed up by filet mignon from Buenos Aires and homemade French Fries, accompanied by the akvavit/beer routine. One of the most fabulous meals I have ever eaten. I have no idea how I got down the gangway or how I got home.

Posted By: TEd Remington Re: Service a la Russe - 04/17/01 02:32 PM
>so I ate a dozen; but the last four didn't work


Reminds me of the guy who went into a pharmacy and said to the woman at the back counter: "May I have a dozen condoms, Miss?"

The woman replied, "Don't you 'Miss' me, young man."

"OK, make it thirteen."


Posted By: Jackie Re: Service a la Russe - 04/17/01 03:24 PM
"Don't you 'Miss' me, young man."

"OK, make it thirteen."


Oh, Ted! I am so glad you're back, Sweetie! I didn't think anybody could get me to laugh today, but you did.




Posted By: Bridget Re: Ummm... - 04/19/01 09:55 AM
Is the Russian service you describe akin to the Silver Service used by catering professionals in the UK?


Shanks, I don't think so. Or at least, I don't think it's exactly the same thing. To me, silver service entails more than waiting on individuals at table. It also requires all those super trendy things like being able to balance half a dozen different plates up the length of your left arm, whilst serving the different vegetables from them onto diners' plates with two spoons held in the right hand and used in a way I can best describe as a cross between scissoring and using chopsticks. (One of the spoons stays firm as a base under whatever you pick up, the other closes down on the food on the first one and holds it in place.)

...off to consult my sister, who not only works in catering, but does so in the US. Always knew she'd come in useful one day...

Posted By: wow Re: Silver Service with a smile... - 04/20/01 07:37 PM
whilst serving ...with two spoons held in the right hand ... a cross between scissoring and using chopsticks.

A group of distinguished people were dining in the Empire Room of New York's premier hotel, the Waldorf Astoria, surrounded by attentive waiters.
One lady had on a dress with very deep decolletage and suddenly the fabric slipped, exposing her breast.
A young waiter immediately came to her aid and handily popped her breast back into her gown. Nobody blinked. The people carried on as if nothing had happened.
After the guests departed, leaving a generous tip, the Head Waiter called aside the young waiter and told the young waiter he had handled the incident pretty well.
"However", he said, "if such a thing ever happens again you should know that, at the Waldorf, we use two warmed spoons."

Now, THAT is Silver Service!
wow

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Silver Service with a smile... - 04/20/01 09:06 PM
I guess I rail against lawyers as much as anyone else. You know, rapacious, unethical, all that sort of thing. And this in spite of having two lawyers who are close friends. I can't resist lawyer jokes. On the other hand, they can never resist jokes about IT and IT professionals either, so I guess we're even-stevens on that one.

However, my overall view of the legal profession was probably coloured somewhat by an incident at a formal dinner I went to many years ago. It was a Law Society do, and there was quite a large number of lawyers - and judges - at it, all merrily throwing large quantities of quality hooch down their necks.

One of the more attractive female lawyers was both well-endowed at chest level and wearing a halter neck dress that was secured behind her neck with a bow. She was seated between two judges, one High Court and the other an SM (stipendiary magistrate). I was sitting opposite and along to the side a little. After about an hour, the High Court judge got up to go to the little boys' room and as he walked pass our lady lawyer, he pulled the end of the bow. Down came the top of the dress. I have to admit that although she was clearly annoyed, she handled it with considerable sang froid, pulling the top up and retying the bow. However, when the SM got up and did the same thing, she was clearly very annoyed. She did her top up again, this time with a knot. But she didn't say a word.

I've never gone to a Law Society do again, although I've had frequent invites. Now, what was the point of this? I've forgotten. Ah yes, Wow's story about silver service.

Anyway, form your own opinions (as I'm sure you will).

Posted By: rodward Re: Silver Service with a smile... - 04/23/01 09:35 AM
re: use of spoons for other purposes, gutter police lookout!

A guy dining in a restaurant spoke to a waiter; "Why does each waiter and waitress have a knife, fork, and spoon, in their breast pocket?"
The waiter answered, "A time and motion study found that diners were often dropping cutlery, and the waitpeople were spending time fetching new ones. Now we can immediately hand a clean item to the diner and pick up a new one on our next trip past the rack."
"And why do all the waiters have a black thread protruding from their flies?"
"Well, the same time and motion study found that we were spending a lot of time washing our hands after using the toilets. This way we can pull out the member without using our hands, thus saving more time"
"I can see that works for getting it out, but what about putting it away?"
"Well, I don't know about the other waiters, but I use the spoon"
Apologies, but it does fit the topic, Rod

Posted By: wow Re: Silver superstitions - 04/23/01 03:47 PM
Oh, Rodward you naughty boy! But, re your joke :

Thinking about never accepting a spoon in those circumstances I remembered an old superstition
"Stir with a knife, stir for strife."
Anyone have any other cutlery superstitions.... oh! oh! and dropping a spoon means "a new baby" and dropping a knife "a man will come to your door."
Do you all know those or similar? Or are they new-to-you?
wow

Posted By: rodward Re: Silver superstitions - 04/23/01 03:52 PM
re cutlery superstitions. The only one that come to mind is that you must never give a knife as a present, presumably because if they cut themselves it will be your fault. So they must give you at least a penny for the knife; and then when they chop their fingers off, you have a clear conscience. Never did understand that one. Or can someone provide a better reason.
Rod

Posted By: wow Re: Silver superstitions - 04/23/01 04:25 PM
never give a knife as a present, presumably because if they cut themselves it will be your fault.

I know that one -- at least one version -- if you give a knife/knives it will cut/end the friendship .. "paying" for the gift is the antidote.
wow

Posted By: of troy Re: Silver superstitions - 04/23/01 05:13 PM
All things that "cut" and things in pairs are taboo for Japanese wedding gifts-- the idea of "cutting" being the opposite of "joining"-- and things are given in odd numbers too-- not easy to divide--so by their nature- joined together. Household sets of dishes, glasses, and flatware (cutlery) are sold in sets of 5, or 10, not 4 and 8 as in common in US.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Silver superstitions - 04/23/01 07:27 PM

Things are given in odd numbers too-- not easy to divide--so by their nature- joined together... Household sets...are sold in sets of 5, or 10, not 4 and 8 as in common in US.


yeah, dividing ten by two always gives me problems.

but don't you know... here in CA the division of the estate after a divorce is simple: The wife gets the stuff, the husband gets the bills.

~Wife#2


edit: how funny, it only just now occurred to me that my husband did somehow wind up with exactly one (1) bowl, one (1) knife and one (1) spoon from his previous marital pot, and i only recently realized the source of these odd pieces and returned them to Wife#1, who was delighted to once again have a complete set. bet they got those knives for a wedding gift... *EG*
Posted By: of troy Re: Silver superstitions - 04/23/01 08:36 PM
well as a #1 wife, I can't say I am all that well off-- but I did get the best of the bargain--I got rid of him-- Poor wife#2-- she is married to him!

(this of course is a personal view-- my divorce was rather ugly-- but in the end I was finally divorced! now that kid are independent and not an issue-- i never really have to have any dealings with him -- truly divorced!)

Posted By: rodward Re: Silver superstitions - 04/24/01 08:04 AM
the division of the estate after a divorce is simple: The wife gets the stuff, the husband gets the bills

which leads to the story about the guy buying a Barbie doll for his daughter. The assistant explained that they had all sorts, Barbie on the Beach, Barbie the trial lawyer, Barbie the Supermodel, all the same price except Barbie the new divorcee, which was 5 times the price, because she came complete with Ken's convertible, Ken's house, Ken's Luxury camper van, etc.

And back on Knives as presents. The reason you shouldn't give them as WEDDING presents is because you might get charged as an accessory when the marriage turns a little sour.

Which segues onto a mixed metaphore I heard recently refring to a favoured project: "Now the honeymoon period is over. it's about time we started learning the facts of life"

Rod

Posted By: Geoff Re: Silver superstitions - 04/24/01 01:08 PM
well as a #1 wife, I can't say I am all that well off-- but I did get the best of the bargain--I got rid of him-- Poor wife#2-- she is
married to him!


Hmmmm..... When I hear post-matrimony acrimony I wonder why the bitter one thought it a good idea to marry in the first place!

There's a country song that says something to the effect that every few years (the singer) finds a woman whom he passionately hates, and he buys her a house!

"Divorces are made in heaven." Oscar Wilde

"Zsa Zsa Gabor is an excellent housekeeper. Every time she gets divorced, she keeps the house." Henny Youngman

It has been said that a woman marries a man thinking, "I can change him." A man marries a woman thinking, "She'll always be just as she is." They're both wrong. Attribution unknown, but spot-on!

Geoff the divorced

Posted By: wow Re: Silver superstitions - 04/24/01 07:10 PM
When I hear post-matrimony acrimony I wonder why the bitter one thought it a good idea to marry in the first place!

You never had an idea that seemed like a good one and turned out not so ?
Lucky you! What's your secret?
wow

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Silver superstitions - 04/24/01 08:09 PM
A number of years ago, I worked with a couple who were in the process of divorce. The divorce went through and they held a party in a local pub on the strength of the decree nisi.

Nothing seemed to change, however. They still sat together in the lunch room, had the usual kind of in-jokes that couples do, and the woman dropped the guy off at his flat on the way home. They did date other people, but there was no evidence of seriousness.

Nine months later (after a pregnant pause?) they remarried. To my knowledge they're still together.

It makes you wonder. Maybe acrimony is the only way to have a good divorce! And maybe it's no coincidence that acrimony and alimony share so many letters ...

Posted By: BeingCJ Re: Silver superstitions - 04/27/01 02:05 AM
-- i never really have to have any dealings with him -- Me too. Marriage gave me debt, 2 great girls, and a bunch of cool 'sort of' relatives. With divorce the problem (him) out of not only my life, but has also walked (ran) away from, girls and his sibling and their families. Hopefully they'll all reconnect someday, but his walking away has my life easier.

Someone not to long ago tried to tell that marriage is all about luck if that is true that I'm lucky that ones is over.

CJ
© Wordsmith.org