Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2010



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"Eating for Two"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
G Daeb - 28 Jul 2010 21:15 GMT
Foreword

This USENET post has been sent to
both ("cross-posted") the USENET
newsgroups news:alt.usage.english
and news:uk.media.tv.misc .

A long time ago the guides to nettiquette
were really easy to find. Last time I looked,
and that's a few years ago now, it took me
half a night or so, and that was because I
did know what I was looking for, not because
it was particularly easy to find.

As such, if this thread ends up irrelevant
to your group then kindly do one of the
following: ignore it. Or, edit the subject line
to only include the group for which it has
ended up relevant. And say so. Thankyou.

"Eating for Two"

'Eating for two' is traditionally an activity
advocated by friends, family and closer
associates of a newly pregnant female.

Today it has been reported that official
UK guidance is now not to 'eat for two'.

In some sense I find it reassuring that for
all the calls of "bias" when one or another
viewpoint isn't given full prominence, such
a news item can pass through an editing
suite of professional language users with
authoritative reference sources to hand
and not be remarked upon.

Whether or not it is a little phrase that
originated prior to the outbreak of mass
real-time broadcast media or not, it sure
is one which has enjoyed the fertile loam
of characterisations within narratives over
the course of the UK's film and televisual
dramatic arts' lifetime.

And is just about counter-intuitive enough
an allusion to prompt the naive and more
innocent (children, for example) to ask
what does "eating for two mean mummy?".

And I don't wish to pre-empt too much of
the condescension those more "socially-
aware" in The Medical Professions may
come to imbue the concept with, in time,
particularly given science now tells us it
is after all but an old wives' tale...

...the truth is that although poor nutrition
and unbalanced diets are still a concern
in some areas of the UK, the days when
normal physical development was retarded
or, indeed, prevented on a widespread
scale for want of the elements of a good
diet, rather than ignorance of how to compile
those elements into one, or neglect oin
being bothered, or simply a preference for
pork pie, chips, mushy peas, a bar of choccy
a few bottles of Guinness are, for now, but
a series of chapters in its history.

But it would be nice to know when and
where the phrase originated. I'm going
to guess very early 20th Century. And I'm
coming down in favour of a mass media
coining--film, book, newspaper, radio and
so on, rather than simultaneous preservation
of the concept amongst the varied weirding
sorts of yore in geogra[hically disparate
feudalisms.

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C0 2010 SIPSTON
--
HVS - 28 Jul 2010 22:07 GMT
On 28 Jul 2010, G Daeb wrote

> Foreword
> "Eating for Two"
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Today it has been reported that official
> UK guidance is now not to 'eat for two'.

-snip-

> But it would be nice to know when and
> where the phrase originated. I'm going
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> sorts of yore in geogra[hically disparate
> feudalisms.

A Google book search suggests that it appeared in guidance books to
marriage and pregnancy by the mid 1880s -- and also that it was almost
immediately challenged by other writers on the same grounds as today's
challenge:

American Institute of Homeopathy - 1885
"This answer involves an attention to several very important things :
First. The nursing mother must remember that she is eating for two."

Babyhood; the mother's nursery guide - 1889
...the false notion of "eating for two" can but increase discomfort. The
stomach can digest for but one, ...

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Ray OHara - 28 Jul 2010 22:25 GMT
> On 28 Jul 2010, G Daeb wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> ...the false notion of "eating for two" can but increase discomfort. The
> stomach can digest for but one, ...

Analness has always existed iyt seems.
Usually the culprits wear bow ties.
HVS - 28 Jul 2010 22:43 GMT
On 28 Jul 2010, Ray OHara wrote

>> A Google book search suggests that it appeared in guidance books to
>> marriage and pregnancy by the mid 1880s -- and also that it was almost
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Analness has always existed iyt seems.
> Usually the culprits wear bow ties.

Yup.

(Incidentally, I refuse to believe you could have read my reply to the bow-
tie thread in AEU, as I posted that a second or two before reading this...)

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Ray OHara - 28 Jul 2010 22:53 GMT
> On 28 Jul 2010, Ray OHara wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> tie thread in AEU, as I posted that a second or two before reading
> this...)

I haven't seen that thread.
It was visions of George Will passing through my brain as I thought about a
reply.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 28 Jul 2010 23:45 GMT
> On 28 Jul 2010, G Daeb wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> ...the false notion of "eating for two" can but increase
> discomfort. The stomach can digest for but one, ...

A bit earlier than that

   The popular fallacy indicated by the phrase "eating for two," has
   been responsible for more mischief, more downright harm to mothers
   and their offspring than almost any of the numerous superstitions
   connected with this subject.

            _The Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal_, March,
            1879

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The General Theorem of Usenet
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Information: If you really want to
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |know the definitive answer, post
                                      |the wrong information, and wait for
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |someone to come by and explain in
   (650)857-7572                      |excruciating detail precisely how
                                      |wrong you are.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |              Eric The Read

Don Phillipson - 28 Jul 2010 22:49 GMT
> 'Eating for two' is traditionally an activity
> advocated by friends, family and closer
> associates of a newly pregnant female.

Not really:
1.  Eating for two is a policy or plan rather than an
"activity,"
2.  And usually recommended in the second half of
a pregnancy (when busybodies can see the woman
is pregnant, which may not be observed in the
"newly pregnant female.")

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

R H Draney - 29 Jul 2010 02:11 GMT
Don Phillipson filted:

>> 'Eating for two' is traditionally an activity
>> advocated by friends, family and closer
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>is pregnant, which may not be observed in the
>"newly pregnant female.")

What's more, it's sound advice if you take it in its original sense, i.e. to
take into account the nutritional needs of both mother and unborn fetus in
planning the mother's diet (no alcoholic beverages, plenty of folic acid,
etc)....r

Signature

Me?  Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Peter Moylan - 29 Jul 2010 09:00 GMT
> As such, if this thread ends up irrelevant
> to your group then kindly do one of the
> following: ignore it. Or, edit the subject line
> to only include the group for which it has
> ended up relevant. And say so. Thankyou.

If this is going to stay in alt.usage.english, "thank you" needs a space.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Arcadian Rises - 29 Jul 2010 14:11 GMT
On Jul 29, 4:00 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
> > As such, if this thread ends up irrelevant
> > to your group then kindly do one of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> If this is going to stay in alt.usage.english, "thank you" needs a space.

No, it doesn't. But "Thankyou" does.
HVS - 29 Jul 2010 14:16 GMT
On 29 Jul 2010, Arcadian Rises wrote

> On Jul 29, 4:00 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No, it doesn't. But "Thankyou" does.

Well caught...

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Marcus Houlden - 30 Jul 2010 14:28 GMT
>> As such, if this thread ends up irrelevant
>> to your group then kindly do one of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> If this is going to stay in alt.usage.english, "thank you" needs a space.

Doesn't it also need to be in English?

mh.
Signature

http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.