Loraine enjoys her quiche

On a recent outing for brunch my wife asked my mother whose name is Loraine if she had enjoyed her quiche, which happened to be Quiche Lorraine. Amusingly, the cadence of the words in the query might have made it unclear whether my wife actually addressed my mother by her name. The written question would have posed no problem (see further below). To my ear, the question sounded thus:

"Did you enjoy your quiche Loraine?"

Clearly, the pronunciation and intonation of "Loraine" made it obvious that my wife omitted the kind of quiche in favor of the name of the in law eating it who carried an equivalent name, though one spelled with only one "r." "Loraine" was spoken with an accent on the second syllable and with a rising vocal tone, yet with no noticeable pause between the words "quiche" and "Loraine." This lack of strong pause led to the possible confusion.

Had my wife asked the question in this way:

"Did you enjoy your Quiche, Loraine?" still with an accent on the second syllable, still with a rising tone in her voice, and with a slight pause between the words "Quiche" and "Loraine," there would have been no possibility of confusion. It is also true that only three persons were present, who else could my wife have addressed? Furthermore, I had just enjoyed a savory meatloaf soaked in port wine, and my wife had witnessed the event.

From Wikipedia: Quiche Lorraine is perhaps the most common variety of a French baked dish that is made primarily of eggs, and milk or cream in a pastry crust. In addition to the eggs and cream, it includes bacon or lardons. Cheese is not an ingredient of the original Lorraine recipe, as Julia Child informed Americans: "The classic quiche Lorraine contains heavy cream, eggs and bacon, no cheese." Of note, most contemporary quiche recipes include Gruyère cheese, technically called quiche au Gruyère. Also of note, the addition of onion to quiche Lorraine makes quiche Alsacienne.

Subscribe to Sentenceparts How's your English today?

What kind of "thing" is contemporary news reporting?

The word "thing" can be used with good effect. See 5/8/08 Keith Olbermann, "The Fuel Tax Thing." However, when used indiscriminately, as had a Los Angeles television reporter while reporting on a fire threatening the ruin of nearly completed condominiums, "things" like using language to actually name a solid object can cause alarm.

As the reporter from local station KTLA channel 5 approached a harried construction worker her microphone at-the-ready, the fire was still a concern. Lives could have been imperiled. Firemen were seen scurrying in the background. What was the point of the reporter thrusting herself directly into the activity? We seem to have an explanation by her choice of words given the gravity of the situation.

Reporter to construction worker: "Did you smell the security thing? She said, looking at the construction worker stopped from his progress, not fully understanding, What thing? What smell? He must have thought.

The reporter seemed to be merely searching for "action images" and found one, a man, presumably engaged in an important action. The reporter stopped the man, pushed the microphone in his unlucky face and used the word "thing" to describe some sort of olfactory security mechanism. We are used to calling the auditory variety fire alarms. How difficult is it to say, "fire alarm," or "security alarm?" whether it be the smell or sound variety?

"Security thing"? Reporters should be communicating concrete information to the public by both questions and descriptions. "Thing" says very little. Use a noun which squarely names that which is spoken of. Provide a precise mental picture, please! Simply because television mostly concerns visual images, when language is used, we should expect the same clarity a camera may provide.

We might say the reporter presented a nuisance to the firefighter, and certainly to her audience.


Thing: n. object, fact; idea. (Concise Oxford Dictionary). A "thing" can name any object, fact, or idea in the abstract. When it counts, use the concrete name.

Charlie Sheen & Denise Richards..."The most nastiest couple"?

Serafin means "Angel of the highest order" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). Kim Serafin, a reporter and commentator of the Entertainment subculture (In Touch Weekly) who possesses a serafin smile, recently lost touch when proved guilty of the commission of a most unangelic grammatical error--the double superlative.

Comparitive and Superlative forms of adjectives "are used to emphasize or intensify meaning as well as merely to indicate literal differences of degree" between and among things (Harper's English Grammar, John B. Opdycke). If we didn't have these forms, usually formed by either adding suffixes: -er, -est, or by using the adverbs: more, most, how would we know which of a thing was least or most of some quality among other things?

Usually, when a thing is already the better or best of something, how could it be "more better," or "most best." I say "usually" because of course, exceptions occur; but tread carefully because we are no longer in the Elizabethan era when double comparatives and double superlatives were commonly used, even by William Shakespeare.

Back to Kim Serafin. She said of the most unseemly divorce proceedings between Mr. Sheen and Ms. Richards,

"There's no doubt this must be one of the most nastiest divorces..."

Ms. Serafin could have said, "one of the more nasty divorces," or "most nasty divorces," but not "most nastiest" which is redundant. You've said it once, Kim, no need for twice in one sentence, even if the substance of your reportage is largely blather and hyperbole.

For the record, when we express differences of degree upward, we use: more/most for the comparative (between two things), and most (among three or more things).

I would say that Ms. Serafin is among the best Entertainment reporters, but since there are no more than two good ones, I shall say she is usually the better between them.

 Subscribe in a reader