Strangely enough I've never seen any of these snuffling around in the fields, even when I lived in East Anglia.
That's because they are eaten by the free range Haggis. These we voracious beasties are numerous until the glorious twelth, which is the start of the open season for shooting Haggis.
They're about outdoor-bred free-range sausages. Although they hardly gambol about the fields, as they're clearly not equipped with any of the necessary parts for gamboling. One assumes they're a sort of opportunistic foraging sort of creature, although like @Baptist Trainfan, I've never seen one in the wild (as it were).
@Amanda B Reckondwyth: Yes, I started things off by considering the label "free-range pork sausages" - it's the pigs that are free-range, not the sausages!
We then got forcibly wrenched northwards to Scotland where haggis is of course the national dish. Tradition says that they are small animals with one leg shorter than the other two so they can remain horizontal on the hills; however some modern killjoys insist that they two are a species of sausage. That is a lie Foul Lie, put about by the Sassenachs.
@Amanda B Reckondwyth: Yes, I started things off by considering the label "free-range pork sausages" - it's the pigs that are free-range, not the sausages!
We then got forcibly wrenched northwards to Scotland where haggis is of course the national dish. Tradition says that they are small animals with one leg shorter than the other two so they can remain horizontal on the hills; however some modern killjoys insist that they two are a species of sausage. That is a lie Foul Lie, put about by the Sassenachs.
Specifically, the two that are a species of sausage are the long legs of the Haggis. The short leg is a kind of chipolata, which although superficially similar to a sausage, is altogether an inferior animal.
Oh Mr (or is it Herr?) B. Thank you so much for the link. The posts are priceless and made me smile.
In RR land, sausages are always called 'sosinges'. What the grandminirockies think of this custom I do not know. But they do eat'em. I tell them never to prick their sosinges before cooking as it hurts them and they bleed. Grilling is more humane - it euthsnises them gently and without pain.
Then there are 'Gluten free sosinges'. I'm so pleased in the land of Gluten sosinges roam free. and cost nothing. Unlike in the cruel land of Vega. Which is why vegan sausinges taste so bad.
Many of us don't have a clue as to what the last half-dozen or so posts are all about. I guess that's a weakness of the English language.
If you've not eaten haggis, I can advise strongly that you don't give it a try. Revolting is not a strong enough description, but does set out what your stomach would be doing were you to eat some.
Many of us don't have a clue as to what the last half-dozen or so posts are all about. I guess that's a weakness of the English language.
If you've not eaten haggis, I can advise strongly that you don't give it a try. Revolting is not a strong enough description, but does set out what your stomach would be doing were you to eat some.
Many of us don't have a clue as to what the last half-dozen or so posts are all about. I guess that's a weakness of the English language.
If you've not eaten haggis, I can advise strongly that you don't give it a try. Revolting is not a strong enough description, but does set out what your stomach would be doing were you to eat some.
A chacun son goût*
De gustibus non est disputandum**
I like haggis!
(*Each to their own taste. **There’s no arguing about matters of taste.)
A good haggis is quite tasty. There are some awful ones around, though.
Re food, my Norwegian friend had the pleasure of introducing his Colombian wife to the traditional Christmas dish of lamb ribs boiled with birch bark. That appears to have been a one-off.
I stick with what I've said. Ariel may be correct, and we've never had a good one, but we did try. When we were spending some time outside Fort William a couple of years ago, we deliberately ordered haggis in the hope that one on its native ground would be enjoyable. Another dashed hope.
I stick with what I've said. Ariel may be correct, and we've never had a good one, but we did try. When we were spending some time outside Fort William a couple of years ago, we deliberately ordered haggis in the hope that one on its native ground would be enjoyable. Another dashed hope.
There's not a lot to dislike - it's basically spicy mince.
In an effort to coax this thread back to a discussion of English usage, I tried thinking of American dishes that approach it. I can think of nothing. But our Mexican friends have something called menudo, which looks like someone took a bowel movement into a bowl of soup.
And once, in a dim sum restaurant, I observed the waitress dishing out what looked like borscht. But when I asked her what it was, she replied, "Duck's blood." I didn't take any.
Meanwhile, has anyone mentioned the all-too-common error of confusing restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers? A well-placed comma can make all the difference in the world:
At the service I attended there were only three children, who were well behaved.
does not mean the same as
At the service I attended there were only three children who were well behaved.
Yes, I think here there’d be a slight pause where the comma goes (appropriately), or a word might be added, as in: At the service I attended there were only three children, who were all well behaved.
Or perhaps, At the service I attended there were only three children, and they were well behaved.
And while we're on the topic of restrictive vs. non-restrictive modifiers, I know I'm being extremely pedantic but I bristle when people confuse that and which:
The service, which the three children attended, was Holy Communion.
vs.
The service that the three children attended was Holy Communion.
Again, well placed commas are helpful.
Yes, yes, I know even the best writers use which restrictively, but it still makes me bristle.
I enjoy "snuck" and welcome our new participle overlord. Then again I enjoy language and am not the sort to sit around and bitch about things that I don't like, like some old man shouting at clouds. It appears to have first appeared in print in 1813, but it wasn't until about the 1980s that it really took off. This is a link to the Google n-gram. The OED says it is "originally and chiefly US". It's a very very rare case of a regular participle being dropped for an irregular one; almost universally that goes the other way. In short it's a fascinating case!
Good stuff, Karl. I do wonder if prescriptivism increased with the rise of the middle class, and mass education. Probably, this was accompanied by efforts to school the unwashed by their betters, so snobbery has been a factor. But this is guesswork.
Not guess work at all - you're barking up the right tree. I'm trying to remember the title of one book, about literacy and the growth of the popular press in the UK, ca. 1850-1950, but the one I do recall is A Culture For Democracy (superb book). Reith applied a Presbyterian ethic to BBC programming, with 'genetic' spillover to the CBC.
Recently I've noticed a few incidences of (for example):
"The event was ran last year"
"It had began at 8"
"I might have went back to bed"
"A lot of beer was drank."
No point in trying to correct this stuff, but when you was brung up to use English proper, like, it greats.
Recently I've noticed a few incidences of (for example):
"The event was ran last year"
"It had began at 8"
"I might have went back to bed"
"A lot of beer was drank."
No point in trying to correct this stuff, but when you was brung up to use English proper, like, it greats.
You are aware those forms are already correct? Just not the SE dielect?
One that grates with me is the confusion between "bought" and "brought" -
"They bought Sally with them to the party"
"I brought a new dress to wear at the party"
Perhaps the new dress was in my handbag, and I changed when I got there? No? Well, it was a thought.
I've heard brought used for bought (it was pretty much standard in the area I grew up in; I didn't hear the word "bought" until I was taught it at school) but never the other way around.
I have noticed people confusing "ancestor" and "descendent".
It's a bit like "A French plane carrying German tourists to Portugal goes down over Spain - where do you bury the survivors?" - if you use the words in isolation people don't confuse them.
Just one example from way back of how grammar and the order of words is important. A certain food manufacturer was doing quite well with their packet of pastry. The box stated proudly, "Enough to make a pie for four people or six small tarts".
Priceless.
I get perplexed by words that have evolved from nouns to verbs. I will use ‘to google’ even though it isn’t my search engine of choice and got very confused once searching for something as if it was a new google device/app after being told to ‘google xyz’.
My biggest pet peeve is ‘would of’’ used by someone who should know better. I inwardly cringe when I read this error in work emails written by proofreaders.
I visited a small café yesterday and was overcome with mirth at the large poster which advertised GRILLED KIDS MEALS. Mmmm tasty little kids!
I was reminded of a sign outside a butcher's shop which advertised BEEF MINCE, LAMB MINCE, PET MINCE. I wonder which pets would be minced up.
One that grates with me is the confusion between "bought" and "brought" -
"They bought Sally with them to the party"
"I brought a new dress to wear at the party"
Perhaps the new dress was in my handbag, and I changed when I got there? No? Well, it was a thought.
And, well, Sally. I mean, you know her. If the price is right...
Much like @Trudy I have become more tolerant of language usage over the years. My RL job involves listening to witnesses and I get annoyed when smart-aleck lawyers try to trip them up with the literal meaning of words they said rather than the clear unmistakable meaning of the testimony. Law is not a game of semantics. Not in my hearing room.
I do recall one case where I am certain the only reason we had the hearing was that the claimant was angry that the employer's doctor accused her of lying. She didn't dispute what she could physically do (the actual point of the hearing) but she wanted to come to our Board and explain that she did not lie to the doctor. It took a while before I finally figured out what the problem was: the doctor wrote in his report that she spoke in a "falsetto" and she took that as meaning that she was faking. I did drop a footnote in the decision to reassure her that that was just a descriptive term and implied no dishonesty.
Comments
Strangely enough I've never seen any of these snuffling around in the fields, even when I lived in East Anglia.
Was this thread before your time? http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000425
That's because they are eaten by the free range Haggis. These we voracious beasties are numerous until the glorious twelth, which is the start of the open season for shooting Haggis.
We then got forcibly wrenched northwards to Scotland where haggis is of course the national dish. Tradition says that they are small animals with one leg shorter than the other two so they can remain horizontal on the hills; however some modern killjoys insist that they two are a species of sausage. That is a lie Foul Lie, put about by the Sassenachs.
Specifically, the two that are a species of sausage are the long legs of the Haggis. The short leg is a kind of chipolata, which although superficially similar to a sausage, is altogether an inferior animal.
Oh Mr (or is it Herr?) B. Thank you so much for the link. The posts are priceless and made me smile.
In RR land, sausages are always called 'sosinges'. What the grandminirockies think of this custom I do not know. But they do eat'em. I tell them never to prick their sosinges before cooking as it hurts them and they bleed. Grilling is more humane - it euthsnises them gently and without pain.
Then there are 'Gluten free sosinges'. I'm so pleased in the land of Gluten sosinges roam free. and cost nothing. Unlike in the cruel land of Vega. Which is why vegan sausinges taste so bad.
If you've not eaten haggis, I can advise strongly that you don't give it a try. Revolting is not a strong enough description, but does set out what your stomach would be doing were you to eat some.
What are you on about? Haggis is great.
De gustibus non est disputandum**
I like haggis!
(*Each to their own taste. **There’s no arguing about matters of taste.)
If you want revolting ethnic delicacies, try,
- gefilte fish; an enormous amount of effort put into wrecking perfectly decent ingredients, and
- goats liver cooked in its own juices.
I was given the latter as a privileged guest and could still taste it over 48 hours later.That was in August 1979 and we're still together, so it must have had a beneficial effect.
Re food, my Norwegian friend had the pleasure of introducing his Colombian wife to the traditional Christmas dish of lamb ribs boiled with birch bark. That appears to have been a one-off.
There's not a lot to dislike - it's basically spicy mince.
Their visibility depends on how much Brecon gin or Penderyn whisky you've consumed.
More common, however, are Dragon Sausages - my local butcher has them.
I like the sound of that, but expect they're mostly chillis?
They're made of dragon presumably. I thought dragon hunting had been banned.
In an effort to coax this thread back to a discussion of English usage, I tried thinking of American dishes that approach it. I can think of nothing. But our Mexican friends have something called menudo, which looks like someone took a bowel movement into a bowl of soup.
And once, in a dim sum restaurant, I observed the waitress dishing out what looked like borscht. But when I asked her what it was, she replied, "Duck's blood." I didn't take any.
What are you basing that on? As I say, it's mostly spicy mince. I wouldn't even call it an acquired taste - it's pretty inoffensive.
The plural of 'Haggis' is 'Haggai'. They are, or were, popular in Isael for their wisdom and prophetic powers.
Not all the spices in the East Indies would make it palatable to Miss Amanda, she's afraid.
--Trudy, gently Host-nudging.
Meanwhile, has anyone mentioned the all-too-common error of confusing restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers? A well-placed comma can make all the difference in the world:
At the service I attended there were only three children, who were well behaved.
does not mean the same as
At the service I attended there were only three children who were well behaved.
Or perhaps, At the service I attended there were only three children, and they were well behaved.
The service, which the three children attended, was Holy Communion.
vs.
The service that the three children attended was Holy Communion.
Again, well placed commas are helpful.
Yes, yes, I know even the best writers use which restrictively, but it still makes me bristle.
Not guess work at all - you're barking up the right tree. I'm trying to remember the title of one book, about literacy and the growth of the popular press in the UK, ca. 1850-1950, but the one I do recall is A Culture For Democracy (superb book). Reith applied a Presbyterian ethic to BBC programming, with 'genetic' spillover to the CBC.
"The event was ran last year"
"It had began at 8"
"I might have went back to bed"
"A lot of beer was drank."
No point in trying to correct this stuff, but when you was brung up to use English proper, like, it greats.
You are aware those forms are already correct? Just not the SE dielect?
"They bought Sally with them to the party"
"I brought a new dress to wear at the party"
Perhaps the new dress was in my handbag, and I changed when I got there? No? Well, it was a thought.
I've heard brought used for bought (it was pretty much standard in the area I grew up in; I didn't hear the word "bought" until I was taught it at school) but never the other way around.
Lol, whatevs
It's a bit like "A French plane carrying German tourists to Portugal goes down over Spain - where do you bury the survivors?" - if you use the words in isolation people don't confuse them.
Oh, I think that that might be it.
Priceless.
My biggest pet peeve is ‘would of’’ used by someone who should know better. I inwardly cringe when I read this error in work emails written by proofreaders.
I was reminded of a sign outside a butcher's shop which advertised BEEF MINCE, LAMB MINCE, PET MINCE. I wonder which pets would be minced up.
And, well, Sally. I mean, you know her. If the price is right...
Much like @Trudy I have become more tolerant of language usage over the years. My RL job involves listening to witnesses and I get annoyed when smart-aleck lawyers try to trip them up with the literal meaning of words they said rather than the clear unmistakable meaning of the testimony. Law is not a game of semantics. Not in my hearing room.
I do recall one case where I am certain the only reason we had the hearing was that the claimant was angry that the employer's doctor accused her of lying. She didn't dispute what she could physically do (the actual point of the hearing) but she wanted to come to our Board and explain that she did not lie to the doctor. It took a while before I finally figured out what the problem was: the doctor wrote in his report that she spoke in a "falsetto" and she took that as meaning that she was faking. I did drop a footnote in the decision to reassure her that that was just a descriptive term and implied no dishonesty.