dogmatic statement

[substitute]

A restaurant, the name of which is formed by making a possessive out of a noun not traditionally used as a given name, but which is descriptive or evocative of the restaurant's food or entertainment or the ethnic group which produces said food, will be a bad restaurant. Examples: Chili's, TGI Friday's, Taquito's. Corollary: A restaurant named similarly but with a plural instead of a possessive will be more expensive and marginally better, but rarely worth it. Examples: Plums, Scallions, Tapas. Second corollary: Any business named in the former naming category is sure to be an unpleasant franchise and should be avoided. Example: Tire's Warehouse.

Comments

vis-a-vis

[mrhinelander.livejournal.com]

That's an unimpeachable use of vis-a-vis.

Some time ago I decided that it's too hard for me to decide when (ever?) it's proper to use vis-a-vis to mean "with respect to," so I stopped, and for many years I've made myself say "with respect to" exclusively in that context.

Your post reminds me that I also gave up the perfectly sensible way to use vis-a-vis that you used! So, well, thanks.