On 22-May-22 1:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2022 01:04:48 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21-May-22 22:50, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> I don't recall seeing "cafeteria" being used by Brits. The concept,
>>> yes, but not the word.
>>
>> One of the terms for eating places for employees and other inmates.
>>
>> Canteen, cafeteria, staff dining room, refectory.
>
> In the US, there are restaurants that are cafeterias. For the public,
> not for the employees of a particular company.
>
> The same in the UK?
>
I can't recall ever seeing an eating place, open to the general public,
which called itself a cafeteria. Maybe others here have had a different
experience.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 2:11:03 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2022, at 10:26:19, Tony Cooper posted:
> >On Sun, 22 May 2022 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>
> >>Not surprisingly, he has failed to understand the question.
> That's a bit harsh. He probably understood it but declined to answer it.
> >>
> >>He _describes_ a cafeteria but fails to say whether it is _called_
> >>a "cafeteria" or maybe something like "tray restaurant."
> "Fails" or more likely "decides".
> >
> >I agree with you, and have even added a post specifying the queston.
> >But, he was not the only one to not see the question.
> >
> >My question is not about what is found in a business, school, or other
> >facility that serves just people in that facility. It is whether or
> >not there are public restaurants in the UK that are called
> >"cafeterias".
> I read that as asking whether those establishments had 'Cafeteria' in
> their names. (Let's not get into 'their name is called...etc.) I'm not
> aware of any these days, but fifty years ago it's possible that 'The
> Golden Arch Cafeteria' (substitute your own suggestion) had an
> existence.
>
> But the word 'cafeteria' is well used by talking people in the UK. So
> they may well be calling the establishment a cafeteria, even when the
> proprietor isn't using the term. I'd say that 'cafeteria' is perfectly
> apt in modern BrE for the meal-serving area of a franchised British
> motorway service station, and that will be open to the whole of the
> general British public.

That suggests they're not cafeterias -- such franchises at US "plazas"
or "oases" are quite unlikely to use the "push your tray along the serving
line" format that defines "cafeteria,"

> >I know, because I've been in one, that the cafeteria style of serving
> >at least did exist in the UK, but I'm trying to determine if that's a
> >term that is used to describe a type of restaurant that the general
> >public can go to.
>
> It seldom comes up in my own conversations with friends. If it did, it
> would imply an eatery within some sort of other organisation - as in my
> para above.

As Tony said, a significant difference from AmE usage.

On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:51:04 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>On 22-May-22 1:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 01:04:48 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21-May-22 22:50, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I don't recall seeing "cafeteria" being used by Brits. The concept,
>>>> yes, but not the word.
>>>
>>> One of the terms for eating places for employees and other inmates.
>>>
>>> Canteen, cafeteria, staff dining room, refectory.
>>
>> In the US, there are restaurants that are cafeterias. For the public,
>> not for the employees of a particular company.
>>
>> The same in the UK?
>>
>I can't recall ever seeing an eating place, open to the general public,
>which called itself a cafeteria. Maybe others here have had a different
>experience.

There's the answer I was looking for. Not that one person's
experience nails down all experiences, but it's a good indication.

Florida used to have several cafeteria chains. They were popular with
the "blue hair" set because of the variety of options to make up a
meal. The diner can choose as many or as few things on the plate, and
pay for as many or as few, as he or she wants. Also, no tipping.

When the "4:10" meme became popular, the joke in this area was:

Q: What happens at 4:10?

A: Dinner rush at Morrison's.

Morrison's was a very popular cafeteria chain.

There don't seem to be as many cafeterias anymore. None that I know
of in Orlando. Their popularity was waning for some time, and COVID
was the death knell.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>I can't recall ever seeing an eating place, open to the general public,
>which called itself a cafeteria. Maybe others here have had a different
>experience.

From an English dictionary:

|*caf·e·te·ri·a* /ˌkæfəˈtɩriə/ n. [C] a restaurant
|where people get their own food at a COUNTER and
|take it to a table themselves: /the school cafeteria/
|[ORIGIN: 1800—1900 American Spanish "coffee
|shop," from Spanish /café/ "coffee"]

; from a German dictionary, but translated into English
(except for the headword, determiners, and such):

|*Ca|fe|te|ri̲a*, die; -, -s u. "...ien" ...i̲en
|[American cafeteria < Spanish cafetería = "coffee shop"]:
|snack bar; restaurant with self-service.

. But, for me, a "Cafeteria" in Germany is intended for
members of an organization working near it, while - sometimes -
visitors or the general public /may/ have access too.

ɩ more open and back than [i], between [i] and [ə], unrounded [Y]
(I have edited this one symbol above)

I should add that a final [ə] before a pause (even a short
one), is realized as if it were the (unstressed) phoneme /ʌ/
(AmE [ʌ], BrE [ɐ]). So, when said in isolation, "cafeteria"
is /ˌkæfəˈtɩriʌ/.

On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:05:18 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 May 2022, at 10:26:19, Tony Cooper posted:
>>On Sun, 22 May 2022 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>
>>>Not surprisingly, he has failed to understand the question.
>
>That's a bit harsh. He probably understood it but declined to answer it.
>>>
>>>He _describes_ a cafeteria but fails to say whether it is _called_
>>>a "cafeteria" or maybe something like "tray restaurant."
>
>"Fails" or more likely "decides".
>>
>>I agree with you, and have even added a post specifying the queston.
>>But, he was not the only one to not see the question.
>>
>>My question is not about what is found in a business, school, or other
>>facility that serves just people in that facility. It is whether or
>>not there are public restaurants in the UK that are called
>>"cafeterias".
>
>I read that as asking whether those establishments had 'Cafeteria' in
>their names. (Let's not get into 'their name is called...etc.) I'm not
>aware of any these days, but fifty years ago it's possible that 'The
>Golden Arch Cafeteria' (substitute your own suggestion) had an
>existence.
>
>But the word 'cafeteria' is well used by talking people in the UK. So
>they may well be calling the establishment a cafeteria, even when the
>proprietor isn't using the term. I'd say that 'cafeteria' is perfectly
>apt in modern BrE for the meal-serving area of a franchised British
>motorway service station, and that will be open to the whole of the
>general British public.
>>

I haven't been in "motorway service station" with cafeteria service.
Buffet style, yes, but not cafeteria style.

I'm interpreting "motorway service station" to include both the ones
on controlled access highways (like a tollway) and the ones accessible
by leaving an Interstate at an off ramp.

To me, there are important distinctions between cafeteria style and
buffet style.

Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
fixed price.

Cafeteria style provides uniform portions doled out by the cafeteria
worker, and a charge for an additional portion. But, the end cost is
usually less than the buffet style.

Buffet items, though, are usually replenished by one worker and often
not tended frequently enough. The cafeteria style means one worker
per food type, so the replenishing is more timely.

My interest in the subject of cafeterias is that I like to sample new
things, but I'm hesitant to confine my order to something new. I'd
rather have one portion of the new thing with other things on the
plate that I know I like.

>>I know, because I've been in one, that the cafeteria style of serving
>>at least did exist in the UK, but I'm trying to determine if that's a
>>term that is used to describe a type of restaurant that the general
>>public can go to.
>
>It seldom comes up in my own conversations with friends. If it did, it
>would imply an eatery within some sort of other organisation - as in my
>para above.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:36:45 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>On 22-May-22 1:13, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> It is the westernmost key in the chain, but not by much. It is the
>> southernmost city in the contiguous U.S., so if geographical placement
>> was the determiner, it would be Key South, not Key West.
>
>A minor quibble, but an island isn't exactly part of the "contiguous U.S.".
>
>Does an island stop being an island if you build a bridge connecting it
>to the mainland?

The entirity of Monroe County, Florida, is considered part of the
contiguous United States. The terms "Mainland United States" and
"Continental United States" do exclude the Keys and Long Island NY.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sat, 21 May 2022 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 2:10:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 18:44:22 +0100, Paul Wolff
>> <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 21 May 2022, at 07:29:58, Peter T. Daniels posted:
>> >>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:32:42 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>
>> >>> Looking at it another way, which wasn't even mentioned in the BBC news,
>> >>> our liberal western democratic values ought to applaud democracy in
>> >>> action, should they not? Or should we stamp on democracy when it makes
>> >>> the wrong decision. Tricky one, that. I offer N. Ireland in evidence.
>> >>In the latest (NPR/PBS/NORC) poll, 64% of Americans say that abortion
>> >>should be legal in all or most cases. [NORC is the National Opinion Research
>> >>Center, a U of Chicago outfit]

Further, the trend across nations for decades has been the
liberalization of abortion laws. That is true even in countries
with Roman Catholic majorities. Were these countries following
an American precedent?

>> >>The problem is that (I think this is how a senator put it on one of the Sunday
>> >>shows last week) 75% of the senators represent 44% of the people.
>> >>> >> And it's still undecided, by the way.
>> >>> >It's now clear how the decision will go.
>> >>> We've been spared the updates, thank goodness.
>> >>No "updates." The decision will be announced at the end of June or the
>> >>beginning of July -- they always save the biggest ones for last. We don't
>> >>know how much of Alito's venom had already been taken out between
>> >>the writing in February and the publication in May. Or in what way the
>> >>public reaction will influence any further changes.
>> >I thought the leaker might make a habit of it. Still, no court judgment
>> >is a judgment until it's been delivered, and no point in crying over the
>> >milk before it's been spilt.
>>
>> There are two theories of why the leaker leaked.
>>
>> One is that the leaker is in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned, and
>> wanted Alito's draft to be public to lock in Alito's position. In
>> this theory, Alito can't soften his position later bowing to pressure.
>
>Rather, to keep any of the other four from being seen to switch their position.
>Note that the Chief is not among the assenters.

Explicitly - the worry was that Roberts would convince Kavanaugh
or Barrett to switch.

>
>> The other theory is that leaker doesn't want Roe v Wade to be
>> overturned, and leaked the draft as a means of mobilizing opposition
>> to Alito's opinion in the draft.
>
>That, at least, is working.

On consideration of the contents of the opinion, and the fact
that there have been no later drafts since February, I've come
up with another theory: It was leaked by a friend of Alito, in
hopes (at least) that it would be re-writtien. Else, Alito is doomed
to replace Taney (Dred Scott, fugitive slave law) as the author of
the most arrogant, wrong-headed, consequential decision ever.

Alito fancies himself as a historian, but he cherrypicks carelessly.
Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) predicts that Alito will drop the
citations to Matthew Hale, the 17th century witch-hunter,
misogynist and famous British jurist.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 22 May 2022 19:08:10 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

>Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>>I can't recall ever seeing an eating place, open to the general public,
>>which called itself a cafeteria. Maybe others here have had a different
>>experience.
>
> From an English dictionary:
>
>|*caf·e·te·ri·a* /?kæf??t?ri?/ n. [C] a restaurant
>|where people get their own food at a COUNTER and
>|take it to a table themselves: /the school cafeteria/
>|[ORIGIN: 1800—1900 American Spanish "coffee
>|shop," from Spanish /café/ "coffee"]

That is not a good working definitiion of a cafeteria. There are many
restaurants where the customer both orders their food and picks up
their food at the counter that are not cafeterias.

Using that definition, a McDonald's is a cafeteria.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sun, 22 May 2022 15:07:58 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:51:04 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>>On 22-May-22 1:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 01:04:48 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21-May-22 22:50, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> I don't recall seeing "cafeteria" being used by Brits. The concept,
>>>>> yes, but not the word.
>>>>
>>>> One of the terms for eating places for employees and other inmates.
>>>>
>>>> Canteen, cafeteria, staff dining room, refectory.
>>>
>>> In the US, there are restaurants that are cafeterias. For the public,
>>> not for the employees of a particular company.
>>>
>>> The same in the UK?
>>>
>>I can't recall ever seeing an eating place, open to the general public,
>>which called itself a cafeteria. Maybe others here have had a different
>>experience.
>
>There's the answer I was looking for. Not that one person's
>experience nails down all experiences, but it's a good indication.
>
>Florida used to have several cafeteria chains. They were popular with
>the "blue hair" set because of the variety of options to make up a
>meal. The diner can choose as many or as few things on the plate, and
>pay for as many or as few, as he or she wants. Also, no tipping.
>
>When the "4:10" meme became popular, the joke in this area was:
>
>Q: What happens at 4:10?
>
>A: Dinner rush at Morrison's.
>
>Morrison's was a very popular cafeteria chain.
>
>There don't seem to be as many cafeterias anymore. None that I know
>of in Orlando. Their popularity was waning for some time, and COVID
>was the death knell.

There also used to be several here in Tucson, but they all seem to be
gone now. Gone well before COVID.

On Sun, 22 May 2022 15:34:26 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:05:18 +0100, Paul Wolff
><bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 May 2022, at 10:26:19, Tony Cooper posted:
>>>On Sun, 22 May 2022 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>
>>>>Not surprisingly, he has failed to understand the question.
>>
>>That's a bit harsh. He probably understood it but declined to answer it.
>>>>
>>>>He _describes_ a cafeteria but fails to say whether it is _called_
>>>>a "cafeteria" or maybe something like "tray restaurant."
>>
>>"Fails" or more likely "decides".
>>>
>>>I agree with you, and have even added a post specifying the queston.
>>>But, he was not the only one to not see the question.
>>>
>>>My question is not about what is found in a business, school, or other
>>>facility that serves just people in that facility. It is whether or
>>>not there are public restaurants in the UK that are called
>>>"cafeterias".
>>
>>I read that as asking whether those establishments had 'Cafeteria' in
>>their names. (Let's not get into 'their name is called...etc.) I'm not
>>aware of any these days, but fifty years ago it's possible that 'The
>>Golden Arch Cafeteria' (substitute your own suggestion) had an
>>existence.
>>
>>But the word 'cafeteria' is well used by talking people in the UK. So
>>they may well be calling the establishment a cafeteria, even when the
>>proprietor isn't using the term. I'd say that 'cafeteria' is perfectly
>>apt in modern BrE for the meal-serving area of a franchised British
>>motorway service station, and that will be open to the whole of the
>>general British public.
>>>
>
>I haven't been in "motorway service station" with cafeteria service.
>Buffet style, yes, but not cafeteria style.

I have, in several places in Europe, but I don't remember their names
of their places.

* Sam Plusnet:

> On 21-May-22 16:38, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 20/05/22 23:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:40:54 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You haven't supported that claim and no native BrE-speakers here
>>>>>> have confirmed it. The only transpondian difference in
>>>>>> pronunciation is the shift of the stress from the first (BrE) to
>>>>>> the second (AmE) syllable.
>>>>> The BrE pronunciation is more "authentic"? The stress shift occurred
>>>>> in AmE?!?!?!?!
>>>>
>>>> That's part of a fairly widespread phenomenon. Words of relatively
>>>> recent French origin tend to acquire final-syllable stress in AmE, but
>>>
>>> They don't "acquire" it. That's where the stress _is_ in French words
>>> (well, breath-groups). But in French it isn't phonemic, so Frenchpersons
>>> don't hear it and therefore claim it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>> not in BrE. That's because the British, who have much greater exposure
>>>> to French, are more likely to copy the French pronunciation, while
>>>
>>> They do not copy the French pronunciation. They throw the stress
>>> onto the first syllable and screw up the vowels, as in "garridge."
>>
>> The one with stress on the first syllable, but an [a] in the second also
>> exists, and is common in some places (Australia?)
>
> He has been told, a score of times, that _both_ pronunciations are
> commonly used in BrE, and the same person might use either one,
> depending on the context.
>
> I'll stick to arguing with cats, it's more productive.

I'm just watching a (US) show ("Better Things") where Celia Imrie (born
in Guildford, Surrey) says it this way multiple times. Her accent on the
role sounds rather posh to me.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Sun, 22 May 2022, at 15:34:26, Tony Cooper posted:
>On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:05:18 +0100, Paul Wolff
>>On Sun, 22 May 2022, at 10:26:19, Tony Cooper posted:
>>>
>>>My question is not about what is found in a business, school, or other
>>>facility that serves just people in that facility. It is whether or
>>>not there are public restaurants in the UK that are called
>>>"cafeterias".
>>
>>I read that as asking whether those establishments had 'Cafeteria' in
>>their names. (Let's not get into 'their name is called...etc.) I'm not
>>aware of any these days, but fifty years ago it's possible that 'The
>>Golden Arch Cafeteria' (substitute your own suggestion) had an
>>existence.
>>
>>But the word 'cafeteria' is well used by talking people in the UK. So
>>they may well be calling the establishment a cafeteria, even when the
>>proprietor isn't using the term. I'd say that 'cafeteria' is perfectly
>>apt in modern BrE for the meal-serving area of a franchised British
>>motorway service station, and that will be open to the whole of the
>>general British public.
>
>I haven't been in "motorway service station" with cafeteria service.
>Buffet style, yes, but not cafeteria style.
>
>I'm interpreting "motorway service station" to include both the ones
>on controlled access highways (like a tollway) and the ones accessible
>by leaving an Interstate at an off ramp.
>
>To me, there are important distinctions between cafeteria style and
>buffet style.
>
>Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
>they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
>fixed price.
>
>Cafeteria style provides uniform portions doled out by the cafeteria
>worker, and a charge for an additional portion. But, the end cost is
>usually less than the buffet style.
>
>Buffet items, though, are usually replenished by one worker and often
>not tended frequently enough. The cafeteria style means one worker
>per food type, so the replenishing is more timely.
>
>My interest in the subject of cafeterias is that I like to sample new
>things, but I'm hesitant to confine my order to something new. I'd
>rather have one portion of the new thing with other things on the
>plate that I know I like.
>
Based on the above, in a typical British motorway services area, which
is inside the controlled access highway limits and includes coffee
shops, gambling machines and retail outlets as well as the expected
restaurant services and petrol and diesel pumps, the restaurant is
cafeteria and not buffet. You tell a server what food item you want and
are given it in a standard portion at a standard price. Then you do the
same with the next server controlling the next selection. Some things
you can help yourself to but they are still pre-portioned (I'm thinking
of things like slices of apple pie or pastries) at clear prices.
>
>>>I know, because I've been in one, that the cafeteria style of serving
>>>at least did exist in the UK, but I'm trying to determine if that's a
>>>term that is used to describe a type of restaurant that the general
>>>public can go to.
>>
It is - but 'cafeteria' is not likely to be used in the name of the
outlet. The word's rather old-fashioned and decidedly untrendy. We all
know what it means, though, and I can't think of a better word for what
it represents.
--
Paul

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 1:34:32 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:05:18 +0100, Paul Wolff
....

> Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
> they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
> fixed price.
>
> Cafeteria style provides uniform portions doled out by the cafeteria
> worker, and a charge for an additional portion. But, the end cost is
> usually less than the buffet style.

Not when I was in my teens and twenties. Or thirties. Probably not
forties. (I'm referring to the damage I could do, not changes in
pricing.)

I agree with your distinctions.

> Buffet items, though, are usually replenished by one worker and often
> not tended frequently enough. The cafeteria style means one worker
> per food type, so the replenishing is more timely.
....

Not sure I ever noticed much difference. The food being kept warm is
replenished when it runs out, either way.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 23/05/22 05:47, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> Further, the trend across nations for decades has been the
> liberalization of abortion laws. That is true even in countries with
> Roman Catholic majorities. Were these countries following an American
> precedent?

The Catholic countries aren't as Catholic as they used to be, and that
reflects a global trend. All over the world, apart from a few holdouts
like Afghanistan, the traditional religions are losing ground.

On top of that, there is finally growing concern about world
overpopulation. In the face of that, the "every sperm is sacred" mindset
is losing supporters.

Then there's the matter of woman-power. The anti-abortion group is seen
as supporting male privilege, and women will no longer stand for that.
In particular, there's been some focus on pregnancies that are the
result of rape or domestic violence, plus the fact that unplanned
pregnancies are mainly concentrated in underprivileged groups.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 23/05/22 05:08, Stefan Ram wrote:

> From an

unspecified

> English dictionary:

Why do you persist in citing anonymous sources? There have been multiple
complaints about this. It only takes a few more keystrokes to say which
dictionary it is, or which web site, or which book.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 23/05/22 04:51, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 22-May-22 1:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 01:04:48 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21-May-22 22:50, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I don't recall seeing "cafeteria" being used by Brits. The
>>>> concept, yes, but not the word.
>>>
>>> One of the terms for eating places for employees and other
>>> inmates.
>>>
>>> Canteen, cafeteria, staff dining room, refectory.
>>
>> In the US, there are restaurants that are cafeterias. For the
>> public, not for the employees of a particular company.
>>
>> The same in the UK?
>>
> I can't recall ever seeing an eating place, open to the general
> public, which called itself a cafeteria. Maybe others here have had
> a different experience.

Some big department stores here used to have cafeterias open to the
public, but as far as I know they have all disappeared. The notion of
"company cafeteria" still exists, I believe, because those have a more
predictable clientele.

About once a fortnight my wife and I go with a group of friends to a
club for dinner. What they call the club "bistro" has some similarities
to a cafeteria, in that you line up to put in your order, and then later
go back to get the food when your buzzer buzzes, but it's not really a
cafeteria.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 23/05/22 04:36, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 22-May-22 1:13, Tony Cooper wrote:

>> It is the westernmost key in the chain, but not by much. It is
>> the southernmost city in the contiguous U.S., so if geographical
>> placement was the determiner, it would be Key South, not Key West.
>
> A minor quibble, but an island isn't exactly part of the "contiguous
> U.S.".
>
> Does an island stop being an island if you build a bridge connecting
> it to the mainland?

In my opinion, yes. The bridge makes it part of the mainland, even if it
still continues to be called an island.

Here's a trickier case. There is a huge undersea power cable that runs
between Tasmania and mainland Australia. Popular opinion says that the
cable is there to keep Tasmania tethered, to stop it floating away. Is
that sufficient to call it part of the mainland?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

In message <t6emkh$rhd$2@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/05/22 04:36, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 22-May-22 1:13, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> It is the westernmost key in the chain, but not by much. It is
>>> the southernmost city in the contiguous U.S., so if geographical
>>> placement was the determiner, it would be Key South, not Key West.
>>
>> A minor quibble, but an island isn't exactly part of the "contiguous
>> U.S.".
>>
>> Does an island stop being an island if you build a bridge connecting
>> it to the mainland?

> In my opinion, yes. The bridge makes it part of the mainland, even if it
> still continues to be called an island.

Even without the bridge I'd consider it part of contiguous USA, just as
I would Long Island, Treasure Island, Catalina Island, and other islands
that are near the coast. Hawaii, on the other hand, is not.

Being able to drive to it on a bridge is not a requirement.

> Here's a trickier case. There is a huge undersea power cable that runs
> between Tasmania and mainland Australia. Popular opinion says that the
> cable is there to keep Tasmania tethered, to stop it floating away. Is
> that sufficient to call it part of the mainland?

Cable or not I would call Tasmania part of Australia's contiguous area,
just as I would call Vancouver Island part of British Columbia's
contiguous area.

The word mainland, however, is not one that I use enough to have a good
sense of if that makes sense or not. Certainly if you are ON a island,
you refer to the mainland as the part that is not the island.

--
'It must have been Fate that brought you here,' said Twoflower. 'Yes,
it's the sort of thing he likes to do,' said Rincewind.

On 23/05/22 10:48, Peter Moylan wrote:

> About once a fortnight my wife and I go with a group of friends to a
> club for dinner. What they call the club "bistro" has some
> similarities to a cafeteria, in that you line up to put in your
> order, and then later go back to get the food when your buzzer
> buzzes, but it's not really a cafeteria.

I don't know why this slipped out of my mind, but it was only about
three years ago that this club eatery was a true cafeteria, the sort
where you pushed your tray along. It was remodelled at just the time
that covid-19 became a problem. Cause and effect? I don't know.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

In article <slrnt8lpub.1a9g.g.kreme@m1mini.local>,
Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> In message <t6emkh$rhd$2@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> > On 23/05/22 04:36, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 22-May-22 1:13, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >>> It is the westernmost key in the chain, but not by much. It is
> >>> the southernmost city in the contiguous U.S., so if geographical
> >>> placement was the determiner, it would be Key South, not Key West.
> >>
> >> A minor quibble, but an island isn't exactly part of the "contiguous
> >> U.S.".
> >>
> >> Does an island stop being an island if you build a bridge connecting
> >> it to the mainland?

> > In my opinion, yes. The bridge makes it part of the mainland, even if it
> > still continues to be called an island.

> Even without the bridge I'd consider it part of contiguous USA, just as
> I would Long Island, Treasure Island, Catalina Island, and other islands
> that are near the coast. Hawaii, on the other hand, is not.

> Being able to drive to it on a bridge is not a requirement.

> > Here's a trickier case. There is a huge undersea power cable that runs
> > between Tasmania and mainland Australia. Popular opinion says that the
> > cable is there to keep Tasmania tethered, to stop it floating away. Is
> > that sufficient to call it part of the mainland?

> Cable or not I would call Tasmania part of Australia's contiguous area,
> just as I would call Vancouver Island part of British Columbia's
> contiguous area.

> The word mainland, however, is not one that I use enough to have a good
> sense of if that makes sense or not. Certainly if you are ON a island,
> you refer to the mainland as the part that is not the island.

on the tiny island (1,21 sq miles) of Little Cumbrae, i the Clyde estuary,
the minister was reputed to pray for 'the inhabitants sf the of the
neighbouring islands of Great Cumbrae & Great Britain'.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <g7hk8hpf6r78phhsfvugn5k1mtktv3go5g@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2022 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 1:17:32 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 22/05/2022 3:00 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 21 May 2022 17:31:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> >> > <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 3:50:16 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> >>> "Cafeteria-style" is where the patrons go through a line pushing a
> >> >>> tray along a rail, and point to and order the particular dishes they
> >> >>> want. The food is handed over by an employee.
> >> >> Although in most cafeterias I've been to, some foods are available
> >> >> in servings on plates etc., and customers help themselves.
> >> > In my experience (and I speak for no one else) the customer points or
> >> > asks for something, the cafeteria worker puts a portion of that on the
> >> > plate, the plate is then passed to the next cafeteria worker, the
> >> > customer asks for somethng else to be added, and so on.
> >>
> >> In my experience (and I speak for no one else) there is no
> >> general rule, and on entering an unfamiliar establishment one
> >> simply casts an exploratory eye over the layout, taking into
> >> account such factors as positioning of tills, tray stacks, tray
> >> rails, food cabinets, drinks machines, bloody great signs bearing
> >> instructions, staff positioning, customer queues, and other such
> >> helpful hints to work out how to acquire and pay for one's food,
> >> drink, or both with minimum fuss. There being a limited number of
> >> sensible possibilities, this is rarely a weighty burden on the
> >> intellectual prowess of even the establishment's densest patrons,
> >> and thus is the Empire forged and fed.
> >
> >Not surprisingly, he has failed to understand the question.
> >
> >He _describes_ a cafeteria but fails to say whether it is _called_
> >a "cafeteria" or maybe something like "tray restaurant."
>
> I agree with you, and have even added a post specifying the queston.
> But, he was not the only one to not see the question.
>
> My question is not about what is found in a business, school, or other
> facility that serves just people in that facility. It is whether or
> not there are public restaurants in the UK that are called
> "cafeterias".

Yes, there are.

Janet

* Tony Cooper:

> To me, there are important distinctions between cafeteria style and
> buffet style.
>
> Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
> they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
> fixed price.

In some places, you're charged by weight. I would still call it buffet
if you fill your plate yourself with any combination of items.

--
"THIS IS IMPORTANT," one of the homunculi said to me. "THERE ARE
NO MEN AND NO WOMEN AND NOTHING ELSE."
-- Mieko Kawakami, Breast and Eggs

On Mon, 23 May 2022 10:09:03 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> To me, there are important distinctions between cafeteria style and
>> buffet style.
>>
>> Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
>> they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
>> fixed price.
>
>In some places, you're charged by weight. I would still call it buffet
>if you fill your plate yourself with any combination of items.

Yes, but that was stated as part of my description of a buffet. At a
buffet, the customer fills the plate. At a cafeteria, the cafeteria
employee fills the plate.

The "by weight" thing is common here, but it's not the type of buffet
where you can return to the line for a second helping at no charge.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Le lundi 23 mai 2022 à 16:47:23 UTC+2, Tony Cooper a écrit :
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 10:09:03 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
> >* Tony Cooper:
> >
> >> To me, there are important distinctions between cafeteria style and
> >> buffet style.
> >>
> >> Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
> >> they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
> >> fixed price.
> >
> >In some places, you're charged by weight. I would still call it buffet
> >if you fill your plate yourself with any combination of items.
> Yes, but that was stated as part of my description of a buffet. At a
> buffet, the customer fills the plate. At a cafeteria, the cafeteria
> employee fills the plate.
>
> The "by weight" thing is common here, but it's not the type of buffet
> where you can return to the line for a second helping at no charge.

The latter case is specifically referred to as "buffet à volonté" (= you
can have as many helpings as you want at the same price) in French.
Has the phrase by any chance made it into English?

> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:10:59 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 23 mai 2022 à 16:47:23 UTC+2, Tony Cooper a écrit :
> > On Mon, 23 May 2022 10:09:03 -0400, Quinn C
> > <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >
> > >* Tony Cooper:
....

> > >> Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
> > >> they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
> > >> fixed price.
> > >
> > >In some places, you're charged by weight. I would still call it buffet
> > >if you fill your plate yourself with any combination of items.

> > Yes, but that was stated as part of my description of a buffet. At a
> > buffet, the customer fills the plate. At a cafeteria, the cafeteria
> > employee fills the plate.
> >
> > The "by weight" thing is common here, but it's not the type of buffet
> > where you can return to the line for a second helping at no charge.

> The latter case is specifically referred to as "buffet à volonté" (= you
> can have as many helpings as you want at the same price) in French.
> Has the phrase by any chance made it into English?

I'd call it an all-you-can-eat buffet.

--
Jerry Friedman