conuly | More random fiction complaints!

I have never had more than a salad fork, and a regular fork, I think, presented to me at one meal.

To be honest - given the option of a salad fork, vs a regular fork, I will pick the salad fork EVERY TIME and use it for the entire meal - it's smaller and fits nicer in my mouth, LOL.

All of the forks in my house, are salad forks! I got rid of all the normal sized ones ages ago!

I am with you! Our cutlery has big forks and small forks, and the big forks have languished in the drawer for a long time. Beast occasionally has to use one when for some reason there is only one of MY forks in the drawer. The small ones are the right size. Mind, I regard them as dessert forks rather than salad forks, but the principle holds.

My friend T specifically pulls out a dessert/salad fork and puts it at my spot on the table when we have dinner at her house. In fact - she bought a new set of cutlery, which only came with regular sized forks - and specifically kept a couple of the small forks from the old set, JUST for me :D

THAT's how you do hospitality!

Absolutely. I've remembered that rule whenever I was seated at a formal dinner with lots of silverware, and I've never had any trouble figuring out which utensil to use.

It's a good hill.

Pausing only for the anecdote of Queen Victoria drinking out of the finger-bowl to make her guest, who had done so, feel at ease, I have a recollection from somewhere in Katharine Whitehorn's work - I think it might be in Whitehorn's Social Survival - an anecdote about her rather too grimly and without due observation working from the outside in at some elaborate meal and finding herself stuck with the asparagus tongs to eat her dessert with...

Oh dear.

Ah. Non-U! Asparagus can properly be eaten with the fingers. Or melted butter, which is nicer.

this reminds me about a story i heard about one of the U.S. presidents (cleveland or garfield).

he invited some friends he had from before he was president for dinner. they were all nervous about what to do at dinner in such a fancy place that they decided amongst themselves to do what the the president did. they put their napkins on their laps in the same way, they ate using the same fork he did, etc.

when coffee was served after dinner, the president poured some from his cup into his saucer & added cream. the guests did the same.

and then he set it on the floor for his cat.

All of this!

Yeah, I think the habit of putting out every piece of silverware owned for every meal went out about the time Downton Abbey gave up their staff...

It was always trashy, even then.

This reminds of a date I went on once with a guy in college, who was a bit full of himself. He felt the need to mess with me - and kept telling me I was using the wrong spoon and the wrong utensils at a restaurant.

what a jerk!

Gonna assume there was no second date.

Nope. I had a crush. He killed it. LOL! I had a tendency to like intellectual assholes, hence the reason I'm still single.

This is a great hill. Too many people forget that the biggest overarching rule is that of GRACIOUSNESS AND GENEROSITY on the part of the host to their guest. If a host is doing this kind of thing to shame their guest, they're a shit host, I'm judging the hell out of them, and I'm going to suspect that they wouldn't think twice about fully desecrating the entire concept of hospitality.

yes! this!

As host, your priority is to ensure your guests are having a good time!

Mmm. This was actually prompted by a rash of amnesia fics where people have this done to them by their parents, which puts a whole different element on it, but all the same....

...It sure does. Yikes.

Ah, the excesses of Victorian cutlery. A pox upon it.

Back in the really old days (some authors speculate), people ate with their hands. If they were fortunate, they might have had a knife. If they were incredibly fortunate, they could have had a spoon.

When they had both, they were using the knife, or spike (since languages change, it was sometimes pronounced "spick") and the spon (also sometimes pronounced "span"). Thus, a cleanly eaten meal was "spic and span."

(I believe that came from The Evolution of Useful Things.)

That's a folk etymology, not a real one.

It's true that both the word "spick" and the word "span" are related to the words for spike and spoon, but it's not the case that this set phrase has anything to do with dishes.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/spick-and-span

Any word or phrase etymology that you don't get from an actual dictionary should be checked against a dictionary, because, honestly, people just make those up.

Any word or phrase etymology that you don't get from an actual dictionary should be checked against a dictionary…

I had to laugh. Words are created because people make them up. For that reason, I'm inclined to accept Henry Petroski's shared origin story. It's as good as any; otherwise, one might be locked into a trap created by too much source pedantry, where a true word origin was lost to history, but a likely one is rejected because not enough documentation.

Actually, I stumbled on a perfect example. My wife used to sing in a choral led by a pretty unusual dude who would occasionally use archaic words in context. In his old music research, he would stumble upon a word no longer used, and then… just use it.

He referred one night to my wife (choral president, and thus in charge of the details of the shows) as "perpentious." I know, not a word, right?

She asked me if I'd heard of it. I hadn't, but I started to dig. Based on various definitions, it turns out the dictionaries may well have the word exactly wrong. The problem lies (perhaps in a manner similar to "spic and span") between the learned definition and the verbal, unwritten. In other words, yes, scholars like to look to books for meaning. But what if the people who coined the phrase couldn't read or write?

With that, I discovered that the definition of the word I suspected to be the root was all over the place. Is it "a vertical layer of mortar between two bricks?" (Oxford Languages) How about "to reflect on carefully?" (Merriam Webster) I think Collins got it right, but cited some of the wrong reasons: "a large stone that passes through a wall from one side to the other." That should be the correct origin; but that origin passed to the written language from the illiterate masons that originally coined it, not the other way around. Therefore, it is not, as Collins notes, based on the root "pendere to weigh."

Yes! This is all speculation! Absolutely true!

And that doesn't matter! The meaning, or spelling, or useage that people adopt will be the new!

I recounted this speculative journey on my podcast. What's fun for me is simple: if I'm right, search entries on "perpentious" that pull up the various places the podcast can be found will be the only accurate entries. All the others? Completely wrong, wrong, wrong, some of them amazingly and glaringly so.

My reconstructed definition: "Considerate of the details necessary to the success of an event or completion of a task."

It's as good as any, and better than most alternatives.

In other words, it's cleaner… like eating with a knife and spoon. ;-)

Words are created because people make them up.

Yes, but they don't usually make them up from scratch. I'm not saying that *never* happens - there are several very well-known examples! - but the vast majority of words come from other words which can be traced back to proto-IE or some other proto-language contemporary to it.

It's as good as any; otherwise, one might be locked into a trap created by too much source pedantry, where a true word origin was lost to history, but a likely one is rejected because not enough documentation.

It's not as good as any, because it's false. We have ample documentation of the etymology of this phrase. If it had some other origin then either we'd have documentation of that origin or it'd show up with a little note saying "origin unclear"

Edited 2023-02-13 05:07 (UTC)

We have ample documentation of the etymology of this phrase.

Uh, I looked at your source, but saw nothing in it that denied Petrosky's possible origin tale. I would appreciate any clarifying information.

...why would you expect to see that?

Seriously, why do you think that's a reasonable expectation?

For every true etymology, there is a potentially infinite number of false ones. Why would anybody waste time refuting them all? Perhaps one or two, if they're particularly well-known and pernicious - but I'm guessing this one is neither.

It is enough to simply cite the evidence we have for what we *do* know. We don't need to then go on and say "Okay, and there's no evidence for this, and there's no evidence for that" - which is what refutation would amount to anyway, stating that there is no evidence for a certain position.

Edited 2023-02-13 23:59 (UTC)

...why would you expect to see that?

Uh, because it would be necessary? No, scratch that: it should be necessary. Otherwise, why repeat it? Seriously. "Spic & span!"

"What does that mean?"

"It means clean."

"Why?"

"Because."

And with enough "because" as an answer, I drop it from my vocabulary, because I see no reason to repeat what I don't understand. Petrosky gave me enough information for me to not drop the term.

I went back to your source, the Collins. I found the definition, along with the ME word origins. What I didn't see is the important part: why did folks in the Middle English period refer to neat and tidy with the words spic & span? Really? You're going to refer to a tidy kitchen (which is usually is, in usage) with terms that refer not to broom or mop, but to fork and spoon?

That makes zero sense, so one is——well, I am drawn to a better explanation. Discovering a probable reason behind a term fleshes out its background. So, yeah, for me, that would be a reasonable expectation.

I'm not saying that Bible-like, because Petrosky said it, I believe it. I'm saying it's the best explanation for the term that I've heard. And he shared that observation in the part of his book dealing with, well, eating implements and when they were used. He even managed to explain why the English swap out their forks and knives between eating and cutting food, something that drove Germans I knew batty.

Turns out, according to his book, using both knives and scooping gadgets started in the Middle English period. Huh. There's a coincidence.

If this were a valid etymology, there would be evidence for it, and you'd be able to find that presented in a reputable dictionary rather than a pop ling book.

It is not necessary for dictionaries, especially those which don't have a significant etymology focus, to disprove every folk etymology other people made up in their heads.

I know you like this story because it has a nifty little story attached to it, but the truth is, most etymologies don't. Why do people today sometimes like to say "Netflix and chill" rather than "sex"? You could probably spin a silly story about that, but the answer boils down to "because".

If this were a valid etymology….

Aaaand we're back where I started. It's why I mentioned the illiterate masons with their perpend bricks, who used a word the literate only partially understood (as you can well tell with their "valid" definitions that are built on assumptions, and therefore seriously all over the place, often even contradictory).

If it's written down, it's valid. If not, if it was first and foremost used by the illiterate, it's… something else.

I'd have to re-read Petrosky to see exactly how he shared the term, and since I don't think I still own the book, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Bottom line: dictionary definitions have shown themselves to be faulty too many times in my life for me to take them that seriously. (Look up the recent Oxford English definition of "syphon" for a good example.) I'd much rather violate the dictionary well than adhere to it poorly.

It's a living language. It ain't skookum. It's possible for things to go cattywampus, and in the process get all jury rigged.

We're not talking about definitions, we're talking about etymology. Speculation with no evidence is, frankly, nonsense. You cannot say, with any justification, that since lots of people are illiterate, therefore, evidence or the lack thereof is meaningless. And that *is* what you're trying to say. That whole attitude is irresponsible. It's the sort of attitude that, when normalized, gets us antivaxxers and flat-earthers, who think that what they make up in their heads about vaccines and geology is just as valid as what we know from looking at the facts. Your speculation based on no evidence is not as valid as actual evidence.

We have evidence that the phrase span-new existed in writing before the phrase spick and span. We have evidence that the phrase spick and span new existed in writing before the phrase spick and span. You are saying that because some people can't read, then what exists in writing doesn't mean anything, that we can't actually know things or prove things. There is no logic to this! If your speculation had any basis in reality, then these other phrases would not exist in writing at all.

Meanwhile, there is approximately a zero percent chance that people were using the term "spike" to mean "knife" at any point in England and nobody wrote this down. That's a sort of evidence on its own.

You like this story because there's a story. Well, yeah. We all like stories. But the sad truth is that word histories don't usually have clever just-so stories attached to them. We can make those up all the time, and that's a popular historical pastime, but it's still nonsense. I could make a story right now that it has to do with fibercraft because when something is "spun" (or "span") cleanly there are no "specks". But it's just a story. I made it up. And even if I call it speculation - it's not. It's me making stuff up.

And if this person is willing to make stuff up and publish it like speculation when it's only storytelling, then everything he writes is suspect because he's not doing history, or even pop history - he's doing fiction. He may as well say that spoons and spikes were given to us by ancient aliens at that point, because after all, nobody can prove otherwise.

Edited 2023-02-15 20:20 (UTC)

But you are welcome to look through any reputable dictionary you like. Options include, but are not limited to, Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and the OED.

We know that the earliest written citation is "spick, and span-new", Sir Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's Lives. If it had anything to do with spoons and licking plates we'd see that after "spick and span" or not at all. We also know that "span-new" predates "spick and span-new", which again makes any derivation that relies on both words to start spurious.

We'd also see, if the phrase had anything to do with knives, people using the term "spick" or at least "spike" to refer to knives outside of this phrase.

He even managed to explain why the English swap out their forks and knives between eating and cutting food, something that drove Germans I knew batty.

That's typically an American custom. We imported it over from Europe before the non-zigzag method became popular. In my experience, Brits make fun of Americans for doing it.

Edited 2023-02-15 00:20 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you might not have access to the OED via your library, so I looked up the various elements for you. The OED *is* the be-all and end-all of the etymology world. You're going to have to show quite a lot of evidence if you think they're mistaken.

On span-new: Origin: A borrowing from early Scandinavian. Etymon: Norse spán-nýr.
Etymology: < Old Norse spán-nýr, < spán-n chip + ný-r new, with normal shortening of the first element.
Dialect variants are spander- (spanther- ), spanker- , spang-new . See also bran-span-new brand-new adj.; spank span-new adj.; and spick and span adj., n., and adv.
(Show Less)

Oldest citation is ▸ c1300 Havelok (Laud) (1868) 968 Þe cok bigan of him to rewe, and bouthe him cloþes, al spannewe.

On spike which, as I said, if it means "knife" in the phrase "spick and span" we will expect to see evidence that it meant "knife" independently as well. I'll only quote the definitions with citations prior to ~1600, at which point we already know spick and span was in circulation:

a. A sharp-pointed piece of metal (esp. iron) or wood used for fastening things securely together; a large and strong kind of nail.

b. A pointed piece of steel used for driving into the touch-hole of a cannon in order to render it unserviceable.

2a. A sharp-pointed piece of metal (or other hard material) which is, or may be, so fixed in something that the point is turned outwards; a stout sharp-pointed projecting part of a metal object.

Notice no use of spike to indicate "knife" - and "spick" alone is just the same.

On the specific phrase "spick and span new":

Etymology: Emphatic extension of span-new adj. The same first element appears in the synonymous Dutch and Flemish spikspeldernieuw, -splinternieuw (West Flemish -spankelnieuw).

Does anybody suggest that splinter in Dutch means knife? Does it mean knife?

And then the derivation of "spick and span" refers us back to "spick and span new".

If another etymology is valid, then we'd expect to see evidence. Can you go back to your source and tell me what, exactly, they cite as evidence? Or is it just speculation without quotations to back it up?

Can you go back to your source and tell me what, exactly, they cite as evidence? Or is it just speculation without quotations to back it up?

As I said in the other comment, if I find the book, I'll do that. As I said before, I doubt he stated the phrase definition as fact, but rather offered it as shared speculation. (My books are currently overflowing from shelves, and it's a tiny thing, that book, but I'll make an effort.)

I did find the North quote from his Plutarch thing. Interesting. That's enough evidence for me to dig for Petrosky just a bit more skookum.

As I said before, I doubt he stated the phrase definition as fact, but rather offered it as shared speculation.

If he's any sort of actual historian he should know better than to speculate without evidence. That's basically just making things up.

In the rare instances where the table ends up set with the "wrong" cutlery (e.g. at a restaurant where you order seafood or steak), they take the wrong stuff away and give you the right stuff. And everywhere else, you can do outside in just fine. And as you say, unless your dining companion is a complete and utter dickhead, they'll point out that you've used the wrong thing, rather than making snide comments.

I did know to work from the outside in, but also, in that kind of situation, the other thing that comes with it is "if you don't know what to do, observe your host and mimic them," on the assumption that the host does know what to do and isn't the kind of jerk who will do something and then tell you you're doing it won't, regardless of whether you are or not. If the house is that kind of jerk, they're not going to have dinner guests for very long.

FYI, if you ever need to live in a place with fewer hills, I'd suggest Chicago. Flatter than even a pancake. (There's a street called "Ridge" because it is one.)

But then where will I die!?

I'm the kind of person who takes whichever utensil looks most pleasing to me and uses it, not giving a thought nor caring about which one is *supposed* to be used.

Well. The thing is, an array of utensils isn't just about showing off "Wow, I've sure got a lot of silverware!"

Form follows function. At least in theory, the slightly different shapes of the slightly different forks and spoons has to do with the different jobs they do, and the right utensil does the job a little more efficiently and better than the wrong one.

Eating your dinner with a salad fork instead of a dinner fork isn't as obviously error-tastic as eating with a fork when you ought to be using a spoon, of course.

And if you do have an array of utensils set in front of you, switching utensils between courses means your utensils are fresh and clean at the start of each course, so you're not tasting salad dressing as you eat your fish.

I've never been at one of those ostentatious dinners where they put out 20 utensils per person, and I have also noticed that when dining in a higher-end restaurant, they bring the utensils you need for each course right before that course. I don't know if that's a newer thing, but it's much more practical as well as being more gracious.

It's more practical if they're bringing each course out one by one.

If you're setting your table family-style, as most families without hired help would do, then every course is set out and people serve themselves either course by course or all at once and then it makes more practical sense to put out all the utensils from the start as well.

More random fiction complaints!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject