This weekend, I had the pleasure of touring parts of Manhattan with my husband. Times Square, St. Marks, Chelsea: These were some of the highlights. But the best part no matter where we were was the food.
We passed a little Italian place where diners were eating pizza pies al fresco and Frank Sinatra wafted out onto the sidewalk from the interior. "Let's come back here for lunch," I suggested, and we were not disappointed. For brunch we had planned an excursion to a well-touted bakery/restaurant, but the line was so long, we opted to duck down the block to a diner and take our chances. Not only were our omelettes delicious and the sausage links true links style, the potatoes were dressed up with peppers and onions that weren't overpowering, but just the right flair.
When we returned to our hotel room in the evening completely bushed, we decided to order in from a Thai place around the corner. He got the satay and I got the noodles; he went for brown rice while mine was jasmine. We were both in Nirvana.
No surprise that for the two of us, the subject of good food somehow led to a conversation on words. Specifically, he asked me if the correct antonym for "satiated" was "insatiated." Or was it "un-," he wondered. I looked it up on my phone just to be sure.
Logic had told me that it was going to be "in-," just like with "insatiable," however, I had never heard this particular conjugation used, so I wasn't certain it even existed. Turns out it's rare--probably newer--and isn't even listed in a lot of the bigger dictionaries (unlike "insatiable," which is). But "in-" is indeed proper.
Come back at the end of the week for links and more info.
© KiKi Productions, Inc. 2010