Sriracha really ought to be a separate item on its own, rather than counting it in the Chili category, so in truth it should go as follows:
5. Peanut sauce
6. Chili (excl. sriracha)
9. Cheese sauce
"What do you like to dip French Fries into?" would be better.
That said, the notion of not ending sentences with a preposition is nothing more than an attempt years ago to apply some rules from Latin grammar to English.
We're not using Latin and so it is absurd to think we should have to abide by the rules of using Latin grammar.
I had a gyro and fries two days ago, and it made me sick. I had to puke and shit at the same time, so I chose to puke in the toilet and let the wet shit dribble onto my legs and the floor.
>so it should be "With what do you like to dip french fries?"
no, thats a fake rule, the sentence is best constructed as OP had it (were he referring to what you dip with rather than into)
Ranch is pretty good, especially when it's cheese fries with bacon and green onion.
I like a good tartar sauce, but ketchup is always a winner as well.
tzatziki and fries is based as fuck
My default is usually a mix of mustard and mayo, around 2-3 parts mustard to one part mayo. Breddy gud.
Also, any DC/MD bros here? Fries and mumbo sauce is the shit
The definition is pretty ambiguous, the word preposition is usually used as a broader term also including postpositions
Its really fucking dumb though that pretty much only the upper midwest doesn't believe the myth that they cannot end sentences.How do so many people still propagate such a wrong idea?
UK schools and universities were certainly dead against using them when I was there.
Also your chart doesn't necessarily mean that they don't like using prepositions with which to end a sentence; they could equally just consider the elision of "us" to be unacceptably unclear and lazy.
>they could equally just consider the elision of "us" to be unacceptably unclear and lazy.
It could potentially be ambiguous with no other context. But, upper midwesterners in fact do not typically follow the no preposition to end a sentence myth. The whole myth began when a bunch of assholes a couple hundred years ago decided they wanted English to be more like latin which does not allow prepositions to end sentences, but the fact is English is a germanic language so they had no grammatical or historical basis for trying to apply this rule. Exact same thing applies to the persistent myth that split infinitives are improper
>the elision of "us" to be unacceptably unclear and lazy.
This is a ridiculous statement, cutting out superfluous words is not lazy, it is how all people should strive to speak and write, and it is in no way unclear
>cutting out superfluous words is not lazy, it is how all people should strive to speak and write, and it is in no way unclear
So basically you want everyone to use txt-speak. I'm afraid that's something I don't agree with.
And yet rather than just say "txt speak" you superfluously expanded it to "cutting out letters in words and making up abbreviations". Clearly brevity and the elimination of extraneous verbiage isn't something you're always into.
When we went to Germany, we found that they LOVE mayo on their fries and they just glob the stuff on top. I'm a dipper. I like to control the amount of sauce on my fry experience, so the protip is to ask for sauce on the side if you ever visit there.
It makes perfect sense. You claim that all people should strive to speak and write with as few superfluous words as possible (one of the Gricean Maxims, so as far as conventional linguistics is concerned you're correct subject to it still making sense to the intended audience) but then use 9 words to say what I had previously said in two, somewhat undermining your own adherence to said Maxims.
Beyond that I don't know what part of your argument you want me to address, since you're obviously correct in what you say about both "don't end a sentence with a preposition" and "don't split infinitives" being artificial rules made up by people who wanked off to the Classics rather than being based in any linguistic necessity. The only thing I'd note is that such self-appointed grammarians started popping up about 350 years ago rather than 200.
I can't comment specifically about whether Upper Midwesterners routinely avoid ending sentences with prepositions since my only exposure to the dialect was watching a documentary on Detroit and I wasn't really listening out for grammar, though I don't recall anyone saying "this is the pipe with which I smoke my crack".
>but then use 9 words to say what I had previously said in two
You were clearly confused so such action was necessary
Also, whether I do something correctly has no relevance on what the correct thing to do is, so I don't get why you are dwelling on this
Also, Detroit isn't really the upper midwest linguistically, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the UP would be
Your original argument was that speaking with brevity was lazy, now you are talking about all sorts of other things so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish
>speaking with brevity was lazy
It very often is. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing and its a major driver of grammatical change.
>You were clearly confused so such action was necessary
You can replace "cutting out letters in words and making up abbreviations" in your post with "txt speak" with no loss of clarity or meaning. In other words you utterly failed to do what you said all communication should strive to do, i.e. "be brief".
>Also, Detroit isn't really the upper midwest linguistically
Fair enough. I thought Detroit was on the glans of the flaccid penis lake but it turns out that was Chicago.
>You can replace "cutting out letters in words and making up abbreviations" in your post with "txt speak" with no loss of clarity or meaning.
You were confused at the difference between cutting out extra words which add no meaning to a sentence and abbreviating, so I clearly had to elaborate for you
>implying you should be using any shield at all instead of just waving a zweihander around
Ketchup. If I want to get fancy I'll mix some sriracha and BBQ sauce into the ketchup. Occasionally I'll mix Ketchup, BBQ sauce, and a tiny bit of mustard and mayo (I'm picky as fuck with both of those condiments so I do it in light amounts). If I'm eating them with fish then I mix Ketchup with lemon juice.
Most of the time now, though, I eat them plain. I do this because they come down heavier and makes me feel more full and in turn helps me eat less.
I live in an apartment in the city, no hose.
So my options were ruin a trashcan, or shit on a towel that I washed and used this morning to dry myself off after a shower?
Seems like I made the better financial choice in the long run.
>These nigs don't know 'bout remoulade
>not dipping your french fries in nutella
I drench the plate in malt, then dunk a forkful of fries into mayo at a time.
>where did everything go so right?
>What do you like to dip french fries with?
A 50/50 mix of Hunt's Ketchup and Sweet Baby Ray's BBQ sauce, which I also use for tater tots and fish sticks.
Personal Opinion: If I have to add a, most likely high sugar, condiment to a dish so salty and fatty and full of carbs as pommes frites, I might as well skip them. I'd rather use my dietary capacity on something that doesnt tase like shit.