Oh, Bev. We may have fallen into the intellectual deep end here. And if you try to grab on to me, we'll both drown.
Oh, Bev. We may have fallen into the intellectual deep end here. And if you try to grab on to me, we'll both drown.
36
You'll have to pretend that's Neelix because I don't know how to Photoshop a GIF.
20
Because it’s so people won’t be confused with tuna piano.
I’ll see myself out. 🏃♂️💨
27You can tuna piano but you can't piano a tuna.
25...i mean, you can piano tuna, but the tuna probably won't appreciate it unless it's a former-game-show-tycoon-politician...
3
18Chicken of the cave
13Apparently, it is an Americanism that refers to the processed tuna flakes in tinned containers.
13We say it that way to clearly distinguish them from chicken fish and tuna birds, duh.
11
7
Ha! That's what I call my pet chicken when she's being sassy.
Which, being a chicken bird means 25/8
That's not a typo, she's just extra
10I don't know anyone over the age of 9 says "tuna fish".
10I say tooterfish popkin.
7Tell me you're American without telling me you're American.
5Lol. I guess the term 'chicken bird' just didn't cross the pond.
2It's "tuna fish". Most everywhere else it's just "tuna", like a "tuna sandwich." 😉
3
5Around here, people call it sea chicken
5that's easy.
A tuna is a fish, while tuna fish is a dish.
4Sometimes I just want to blaze one with Bev snd chill in a mud bath. But life can't afford me those simple pleasures.
4Why don’t we just call it “bombay” instead of “bombay duck”? It’s obviously a duck.
4Why isn't it Mumbai?
4
Prickly pear cactus are called tuna (maybe just in Spanish?) --- I wouldn't want to confuse tuna fish with tuna fruit...
Also, I think tuna fish refers to certain preparation, e.g., as used in a tuna fish sandwich. This is in contrast to sushi ("tuna roll") or a tuna steak, which typically don't have the "fish" qualifier.
4Because we can't agree on what a fish is.
3There's no such thing as a fish indeed.
9
The people who say "tuna fish" do so because they heard someone else say it, and are the kind of people to blindly follow others rather than engage in critical inquiry and actively eliminate redundancy.
Intelligent people say neither of those redundancies.
-18This is the dumbest thing I've read on the internet in a bit.
12Are you going to suggest that the phrase "tuna fish" is not redundant, or some other nitpick?
-3
Your message could have been more efficient:
- "who say" already implies people, so you could have said "those who say" to be less redundant.
- "do so" is needlessly making a reference to exactly what you just said. Try "They say 'tuna fish' because".
- "someone else" is redundant because the only person that's not "else" is the person in question, and they wouldn't have heard it from themselves.
- "the kind of people to" is redundant because you already established that they're people. "the kind who" would be more efficient.
- "blindy follow others" doesn't need to say "others" because it's obvious that they'd be following someone other than themselves.
- "neither of those redundancies" is also a tad redundant, referring back to the established redundancies and then calling them redundancies again.
So a less redundant version of your message:
They say "tuna fish" because they heard someone say it, and are the kind who blindly follows rather than engage in critical inquiry and actively eliminate redundancy.
Intelligent people say neither redundancy.
Of course, I'm just poking fun. I don't expect anyone to eliminate all redundancy from their speaking; some of it has use, especially in verbal communication. For example, saying "datil pepper" even though datil also refers to the pepper is useful because someone may not recognize that a datil is a pepper upon hearing it (though you'd be hard pressed to find that scenario with tuna outside of ESL.)
9I don't have a particularly strong distaste for redundancy but people blindly saying things without thinking nor any concern toward being readily understood is a bit of a peeve of mine. Particularly, I get offended when people expect one person to handle all of the effort for all sides of a conversation without supplying their sides' tools for doing so. Partly as an example, I have to wonder if you're getting downvoted by people who think that "n times as many as" "n times more than" are the same amount despite the obvious fact that "one time more than" is, by that standard, not at all more than the thing it's compared to. They just refuse to consider that what they're saying is plainly wrong and insist that people learn their wrong way of speaking. Grr.
Anyway, I assume I'm hopping onto the train to Karma Hell with you (as always; people who hate thinking really hate having their "thinking" questioned) so let's meet in the food car and get a sandwich together, yeah? You're already ahead on indignant downvotes so you can buy :P
1