Thursday, August 30, 2007

to smoke or not to smoke (2)


Believe it or not, one of the very first ever "blog" posts mentioned this sign (well, this one is in Crescent City CA, but a similar one). Now, thanks to Syd, we have visual evidence. Rock on.

6 comments:

Elisabeth said...

I love your "blog."

A. J. Luxton said...

As opposed to a restaurant which is smoldering and letting off smoke, I guess.

Jack Pendarvis said...

Click on the interview here: http://jackpendarvis.blogspot.com/2007/03/elements-of-style.html - It's quotation mark heaven! And, incidentally, exclamation point heaven. I'm so happy to have found your blog.

Anonymous said...

Well, I am not really ("really"?) sure... It is not the restaurant that is non-smoking, but rather the patrons and (we hope!) the staff. Thus, it is not a non-smoking restaurant, literally. It is a no -smoking-allowed restaurant. So maybe in this case I would have to go with the quotes as identifying a phrase of art or jargon rather than a literal statement. Or is that wrong? Hmmmmm... Help me out here! "Dave"

Anonymous said...

i agree with "dave" i think the quotes were intended to identify a phrase of art or jargon. it could be that when those signs were created referring to a restaurant as non-smoking was new and unfamiliar terminology (albeit not that difficult to figure out). nevertheless, the quotes are unnecessary at this point. it's not like the layman doesn't understand what non-smoking means.

Travis said...

Disagree. It makes perfect sense, althought non-smoking is a pretty broad term (and not really colloquial) it still can be quoted correctly. Plus, isn't it used as an adjective?