Talk:1774: Adjective Foods - Revision history

172.70.86.73 at 00:17, 21 July 2023

2023-07-21T00:17:56Z

L-Space Traveler at 23:41, 20 July 2023

2023-07-20T23:41:41Z

172.68.244.90 at 10:14, 6 October 2019

2019-10-06T10:14:50Z

Netherin5 at 14:02, 21 March 2019

2019-03-21T14:02:21Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For at 23:34, 24 December 2016

2016-12-24T23:34:10Z

Tbc: OSASCOMP?

2016-12-23T15:09:43Z

OSASCOMP?

141.101.107.126 at 05:47, 23 December 2016

2016-12-23T05:47:25Z

Davidy22 at 22:45, 22 December 2016

2016-12-22T22:45:04Z

108.162.215.88 at 21:18, 22 December 2016

2016-12-22T21:18:50Z

Davidy22 at 14:20, 21 December 2016

2016-12-21T14:20:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:17, 21 July 2023
Line 55:		Line 55:

	I’m disappointed in myself. I thought the product was called bespoke.... [[User:Netherin5\|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5\|talk]]) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)		I’m disappointed in myself. I thought the product was called bespoke.... [[User:Netherin5\|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5\|talk]]) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	;Authentic
		+	I fairly regularly pass a road-side advert for something like "Authentic New York-style bagels" (though admittedly not regularly enough to be totally sure it's actually bagels, rather than pizza/whatever). I'm not anywhere near New York (much, much closer to the old York!), but the "-style" does so easily allow the "Authentic" to swap its actual meaning from something like "genuine" (which may be desirable, but also would mean correct usage being enforcable) to "copy" (which renders it meaningless either as an attraction or as regulator-bait that might provoke advertising standards prosecutions). So, without actually telling lies, they're attempting to evoke some mythical/illusiary status. Though I've no real idea what makes a bagel(/whatever) New York-style, anyway, so I really don't think I'd be able to identify 'inauthentic' ones either, except maybe containing less weasel... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.73\|172.70.86.73]] 00:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :I'd generally agree.  If we are to list them, the 'sack' should probably designate it as 'Flour or meal,' as cereals are sometimes steel-cut, but not usually stone-ground, and stone-ground wheat is flour.  Also, while there are lots of kosher foods here, I've never seen kosher eggs.  Rule seems to be it must come from a live kosher chicken, but I think all chickens are kosher while they are alive, & 'kosher chicken' refers to the manner of their slaughter.  [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 23:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 :I don't think you are meant to be able to tell what is in the package as some of it makes no sense. Why would "cage free" be applied to flour or wheat? That is typically applied to chickens and their eggs to indicate the chicken/hen isn't trapped in a cage. But I have never heard of someone grinding a chicken. The only thing I can think of all those adjectives actually referring to would be ground up chicken such as for fertilisers. I think it is just a collection of adjectives which make no sense.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.160|108.162.249.160]] 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 Hear, hear; in fact I think the explanation should note that part of the joke is that no product could be described as cage free and stone-ground. similarly, fire-roasted and flamb&eacute; are inconsistent. Also, smoked, sun-dried, <em>and</em> barrel-aged are very nearly mutually inconsistent. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.29|162.158.79.29]] 01:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 :: Disagree, fois gras could be made from cage free ducks and then ground with stone implements. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.64|108.162.221.64]] 14:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 6 October 2019
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The can of Lite is a real thing, of course, and trademarked, which is why other beers can call themselves "light" but not "Lite". [https://www.beeradvocate.com/mag/2627/lite-beer-vs-light-beer/ This article has more on that.] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.4\|162.158.75.4]] 16:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)		The can of Lite is a real thing, of course, and trademarked, which is why other beers can call themselves "light" but not "Lite". [https://www.beeradvocate.com/mag/2627/lite-beer-vs-light-beer/ This article has more on that.] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.4\|162.158.75.4]] 16:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
		+	I thought Lite could be a name for a drink itself, and then i found you. Cool.

	Italics is totally fine, and Glazed and Lite ''are'' in white. [[User:Jacky720\|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720\|contribs]]) 16:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)		Italics is totally fine, and Glazed and Lite ''are'' in white. [[User:Jacky720\|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720\|contribs]]) 16:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 21 March 2019
Line 51:		Line 51:
	;OSASCOMP		;OSASCOMP
	At first glance not all of these adjective orderings look natural. Has anyone checked? Opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, purpose. ''— [[User:Tbc\|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc\|talk]]) 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)''		At first glance not all of these adjective orderings look natural. Has anyone checked? Opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, purpose. ''— [[User:Tbc\|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc\|talk]]) 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)''
		+
		+	I’m disappointed in myself. I thought the product was called bespoke.... [[User:Netherin5\|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5\|talk]]) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 ;Trivia
 The link in the trivia section seems to point to the current comic image, not the older version.---- {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.100}}
 Is it just me or is "original flavor" not an adjective?  It seems to act as a noun, "flavor", being modified by an adjective "original", not as a phrase.
@@ Line 47: / Line 46: @@
 It's hard to read it as a noun phrase in context. In another context it could be, for example if a soda-can were a likely container for flavoring. Here it reads most naturally as an adjectival phrase: imagine 'Original flavor Coca Cola'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.126|141.101.107.126]] 05:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Adam
 ;OSASCOMP
 At first glance not all of these adjective orderings look natural. Has anyone checked? Opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, purpose. ''&mdash; [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 23 December 2016
Line 47:		Line 47:

	It's hard to read it as a noun phrase in context. In another context it could be, for example if a soda-can were a likely container for flavoring. Here it reads most naturally as an adjectival phrase: imagine 'Original flavor Coca Cola'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.126\|141.101.107.126]] 05:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Adam		It's hard to read it as a noun phrase in context. In another context it could be, for example if a soda-can were a likely container for flavoring. Here it reads most naturally as an adjectival phrase: imagine 'Original flavor Coca Cola'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.126\|141.101.107.126]] 05:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Adam
		+
		+	;OSASCOMP
		+	At first glance not all of these adjective orderings look natural. Has anyone checked? Opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, purpose. ''— [[User:Tbc\|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc\|talk]]) 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 23 December 2016
Line 45:		Line 45:
	Is it just me or is "original flavor" not an adjective? It seems to act as a noun, "flavor", being modified by an adjective "original", not as a phrase.		Is it just me or is "original flavor" not an adjective? It seems to act as a noun, "flavor", being modified by an adjective "original", not as a phrase.
	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.88\|108.162.215.88]] 21:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.88\|108.162.215.88]] 21:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	It's hard to read it as a noun phrase in context. In another context it could be, for example if a soda-can were a likely container for flavoring. Here it reads most naturally as an adjectival phrase: imagine 'Original flavor Coca Cola'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.126\|141.101.107.126]] 05:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Adam

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
 Nobody has edited since I started this? Wow. I must have been ''early''. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 15:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 :Nice to see somebody helping out! Thanks! [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 15:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 44: / Line 41: @@
 ;Trivia
 The link in the trivia section seems to point to the current comic image, not the older version.---- {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.100}}

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 This is the opposite of 993: Brand Identity. {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.75}}
-"Stune-ground" might reffer to a "Ground stone" so its probably Flour. (PS hope i edit this correctly)
+"Stune-ground" might reffer to a "Ground stone" so its probably Flour. (PS hope i edit this correctly) {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.106}}
-== Lite ==
+;Lite
-The contents of the Lite can could also be soda, as it's well possible to produce a lite soda (though I don't think anyone has).
+The contents of the Lite can could also be soda, as it's well possible to produce a lite soda (though I don't think anyone has). {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.106}}
 :Coca Cola has a Lite variety, so it certainly could be. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.219|141.101.104.219]] 14:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
-== Original flavor ==
+;Original flavor
-'Original flavor' actually isn't a noun phrase (in context). It's an adjectival phrase, which is why Randall has used it as he has. I'd suggest deleting this sentence in the explanation.
+'Original flavor' actually isn't a noun phrase (in context). It's an adjectival phrase, which is why Randall has used it as he has. I'd suggest deleting this sentence in the explanation. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.162}}
-== Trivia ==
+;Trivia
-The link in the trivia section seems to point to the current comic image, not the older version.----
+The link in the trivia section seems to point to the current comic image, not the older version.---- {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.100}}