dogmatic statement

A restaurant, the name of which is formed by making a possessive out of a noun not traditionally used as a given name, but which is descriptive or evocative of the restaurant’s food or entertainment or the ethnic group which produces said food, will be a bad restaurant. Examples: Chili’s, TGI Friday’s, Taquito’s. Corollary: A restaurant named similarly but with a plural instead of a possessive will be more expensive and marginally better, but rarely worth it. Examples: Plums, Scallions, Tapas. Second corollary: Any business named in the former naming category is sure to be an unpleasant franchise and should be avoided. Example: Tire’s Warehouse.

9 thoughts on “dogmatic statement

  1. i really like plums! 🙁 in fact, i took there for brunch yesterday morning. they also have a grilled romaine-heart/apple/walnut/gorgonzola salad that is just really, really killer.
    on another note, i missed actually meeting you vis-a-vis again this weekend! i’ll be around again next weekend, though. we should get coffffeeeee!

    1. vis-a-vis
      That’s an unimpeachable use of vis-a-vis.
      Some time ago I decided that it’s too hard for me to decide when (ever?) it’s proper to use vis-a-vis to mean “with respect to,” so I stopped, and for many years I’ve made myself say “with respect to” exclusively in that context.
      Your post reminds me that I also gave up the perfectly sensible way to use vis-a-vis that you used! So, well, thanks.

    1. I had exactly that one of the few times I went there. It was indeed very good, but was about 500 g of sugar and fat. I thought I was going to die.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.