Off-Premise vs Off-Premises: ¿Qué frase es correcta (importa?)
Restauración fuera del establecimiento, Blog QSR, Operadores de restaurantes, Segmentos de restaurantes
Sometimes it’s important to have frank, honest discussions about pressing issues. Unfortunately, these discussions can be awkward and might dredge up painful feelings or tainted memories. Folks can get passionate, fiery, and aggressive, taking personal potshots and losing a sense of decorum. We’ve probably all seen a pleasant social interaction ruined by someone clumsily lobbing a hot topic into the fray. The discussion focuses on a rampant development within the hospitality industry, one you’ve very likely experienced over the past year. Obviously, I’m speaking about the grammatical divide between the terms “off-premise” vs. “off-premises.” (What did you think I was talking about?).
Pero necesitamos estas discusiones; nos ayudan a crecer. El crecimiento es doloroso, y también lo es el cambio personal, pero el viaje de mil millas comienza con mil monos con mil máquinas de escribir... Odio los clichés. Lo que sea. Off-premise vs off-premise. Allá vamos.
Cosas que se aprenden en la escuela
Alrighty. Remember writing high school papers? State your topic thesis, “Websters defines [topic] as ______,” come up with three backing sentences and a conclusion? That’s a little lazy for an adult writer, I concede. I promise not to mimic that formula entirely, but to proceed, we must define the two terms with a definitive source. In this case, the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Premise: a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based; something assumed or taken for granted. Premises: a: a tract of land with the buildings thereon b: a building or part of a building usually with its appurtenances (such as grounds). The words have entirely different meanings. A premise is not tangible; it has no definite form. One might ask, “what is the premise of Star Wars?” or “I don’t agree with the premise that ‘longer hours means harder work.'” A premises is more physical; it’s something you could (feasibly) touch, photograph or draw. A security guard might ask a group of skateboarders to leave the premises, i.e. the building or buildings they’re managing. Premises still derives from premise, though its particular definition has evolved. Note for language enthusiasts: When you have more than one premise, you will pluralize it as premises. In context, this pluralized version of premise holds a different definition than the premises above. In fact, the term “premises” originally derives from the initially-written proposition of a deed, i.e. the various premises that compose the agreement. Confused?.Off-Premise vs Off-Premise
As these terms relate to the restaurant and hospitality industry, off-premises is logically the “correct” definition of the two. Because the term premises refers to a physical location, off-premises dining accurately describes the process of customers ordering food, restaurants preparing it on site, and then routing it for delivery, takeout or pickup. The premises we’re describing is the restaurant’s physical location, and the customer consumes that food in another location — they’re eating off-premises. I shan’t belabor that point any further.Vale, ¿por qué sigo viendo a la gente decir "fuera del local"?
You will find many instances of the term off-premise dining in this blog and our website. We’re aware of the distinction between the terms and can see this discussion happening more. Though we’d indeed debated the relative correctness of the two terms, we also looked at its prevalence in the industry. What terms are customers, restaurant operators, and other folks within the industry saying? Perhaps it is time to shift to using the more “correct” term rather than the common, accepted version, but hear me out. The squirmy truth is that language, though ostensibly bound by rules, tends to “do its own thing.” Advances in technology, cultural shifts, convenience, and the simple passage of time can bend and mutate words into new forms. In the modern age, this phenomenon happens more frequently with the proliferation of internet communication, social media, text messaging, and myriad other ways for us to speak, write, tweet, and TikTok our thoughts into the ether. Look at that last sentence. What was “tweeting” in the year 2005? Sure, the word existed, but would we have used it the same way we do now? What about TikTok, which I used as a verb. I also said “myriad,” a term that denotes “many.” Long ago, the word was a literal measurement reserved for 10,000 units of an item. An ancient Grecian restaurant operator may have ordered a myriad of napkins. Who knows? Words, and the way we use them, evolve quickly and purposefully.Malapropismos: No son intrínsecamente malos
Malapropisms, the simple misuse of a word, are abundant in the English language and pop culture. Yogi Berra famously confirmed Texas’s vast number of electrical votes to George Bush. Mike Tyson once vowed to “fade [his opponent] into Bolivian . Shakespeare famously infused his work with comedic malapropisms. And while many malapropisms are one-off errors, “slips of the tongue,” occasionally they can take hold, eclipsing the correct term. Many years ago, the term awful meant full of awe (logically). We find examples of the term “awful” describing positive feelings of wonderment or majesty throughout classic literature. Over time, this definition has shifted to mean “unpleasant or off-putting” exclusively, and one would rarely use it in conjunction with beauty or splendor. In this case, the term evolved, and the new definition stuck; Now, we use the term awesome to denote a positive sense of wonderment. The “telephone game” is a potent example of how malapropisms can happen more actively through a simple mishearing of a term and then passing it on. Sometimes sloppy grammar proliferates through consumer culture and marketing. True grammatical sticklers should bristle at Apple’s Think Different campaign or the “Got Milk?” ads, both grammatically dubious. Yet, the phrases endured. I could riff on this for hours, but the point is: language is organic. Words are born, they evolve, they’re sometimes misshapen and obscured, and sometimes they die.La lengua "inglesa
While many folks in the United States, Canada, England, and Australia speak “English,” we know that the “English” each speaks contains several nuances. These nuances make up what’s called a dialect. Dialects are like the varying flavors (Some might say “flavours!”) that all descend from one initial recipe. Think about how spelling, pronunciations, terminologies, grammar, and even accents can shift — the English you’d hear in Louisiana (USA) has a distinct identity from the English in Liverpool, in Sydney, and so on. Of course, this phenomenon occurs throughout all languages, not just English. Dialects tend to be regionally-bound — Of course, in the modern age, regional slang can travel much more quickly, permeating a larger culture than it could in antiquity.¿Quién empezó a decir "fuera del local"?
Sometimes we can trace the literal introduction of a word into the public consciousness, and sometimes words creep in. For example, the words premise and premises are similar, with only one letter — keystroke — of distinction. It’s possible to mishear or mistype the phrase very easily. One might assume that if premises refers to a group of buildings, premise might refer to a single site or building. Though this assumption would be mistaken, it’s a logical mistake that anyone could make. Inconsistencies like these run rampant through English. Why do we refer to more than one mouse as “mice” but more than one house as “houses?” Perhaps it began when someone mistyped the word, another person copy/pasted it, and it spread forth from there. Maybe it happened with branding. Occasionally, a company can create a branded phrase that forms the mold for others of the ilk. An example is the “10 Items or Less” signs you frequently see in large retail or grocery stores. While grammatists would insist that the signs read 10 Items or Fewer to be genuinely correct, the rhetorical flub doesn’t preclude shoppers from using it or understanding it. At this point, the term “Off-premise dining” might be just as common as “off-premises” in the vernacular. I can’t quantify that, but the “flub” occurs enough to inspire discussion. Maybe someone said “Off-Premise” once in an email; someone copied it, pasted it, and spread it from there. Perhaps a company used it in a presentation at a trade show, sealing that particular version of the word in attendee’s minds. Maybe a computer program only had room for seven digits or characters (p-r-e-m-i-s-e). Who knows?¿Cómo podemos vivir con una gramática "incorrecta"?
Some find the technical incorrectness of “off-premise” a massive bother, and they’re justified in feeling that way. “Off-premise dining” is, technically, a nonsensical phrase. Technically. A line once breathlessly issued in Futurama “You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.” These folks feel that by perpetuating the “false” word, one might be diluting the meaning. So while these folks aren’t wrong in their assertions, they aren’t necessarily 100% correct either; They’re technically correct (Save comments for the end, please!).Lenguaje prescriptivo frente a descriptivo
To oversimplify, linguists (those who study language) suggest various lenses through which we can examine language and communication. We’ll focus on two prominent ones. Prescriptive linguists put serious stock in the “rules” of language. When we learned grammar back in grade school, we did so under a prescriptive lens. Our teachers taught us the correct rules and where to apply them, and we received grades to measure our understanding of those rules. Prescriptivists look at slang, malapropisms, and loose grammar as “corrupted” language, areas in which users break or bend the rules. These folks tend to insist upon a “correct” way of speaking and take great umbrage with those who don’t. They may be the types to correct people in a discussion. And to be clear, we need rules. Without some universally agreed-upon principles, we couldn’t understand one another. But we must also acknowledge that language only evolves when circumstances permit. One person cannot simply begin misappropriating a word and hope for it to catch on. Numerous events facilitate these phenomena. Chiefly among these circumstances are that despite the word’s changing, folks should still be able to understand it. This distinction leads us to the opposite side of the linguistics coin. Descriptive linguists describe language “as it is” rather than “as it should be.” A descriptive linguist can acknowledge that terms and phrases might not follow the traditional grammar “rules,” but they more closely resemble the way people speak. Descriptive linguists posit that slang words, or corrupted words, reveal profound truths about cultures and the folks and circumstances that create them. Moreover, descriptive linguists tend to quibble less with folks using “correct” language and more in understanding why folks speak the way they do. If you want to think of these linguists as salt and pepper on the proverbial grammatical steak, you can. There’s room for both!Sobre la "policía gramatical"
We need good grammar. We need editors and English teachers, and friends to let us know when our Facebook posts are too rambly. But to the folks who aren’t editors, professors, or writers, those who wrote a few papers in college internalized the various applications of “there,” “their,” and “they’re” and built a personality over smugly correcting grammatical slips without solicitation— we need them far less. A veces es importante corregir la gramática de la gente y, en esos casos, puedes hacerlo amablemente para concienciarla. Pero no hace falta ser desagradable ni condescendiente. Es sólo gramática. Nadie lo aprecia, y no soy la primera persona en afirmar que quienes se fijan en la gramática a menudo ocultan su incapacidad para comprometerse con las implicaciones más significativas del tema. A veces todo es cuestión de óptica.Off-Premise vs. Off-Premise y el futuro
Los que sienten que se les eriza la piel al leer o escuchar "fuera de establecimiento" se preguntan colectivamente si podemos dar la vuelta al barco para navegar hacia costas gramaticalmente sanas. Otros son un poco más escépticos: es muy fácil introducir una palabra nueva en el vocabulario. Es un poco más difícil eliminarla. Entonces, ¿tenemos los hosteleros la obligación de "arreglar" este error? ¿Debemos corregir a nuestros colegas cuando utilizan mal el término? ¿O estamos hablando de algo irrelevante? Lo pregunto sinceramente. Luego, otros no saben la diferencia entre los términos o (susurros) no les importa. Pero os necesitamos a todos en este debate. Les damos la bienvenida. Pero, ya sabéis, tranquilos. Si le gustan las conversaciones apasionantes sobre juegos de palabras relacionados con la restauración, consulte nuestro artículo sobre términos y jerga de restaurantes.Términos y jerga de la restauración
Richard J. Pennenga dice
Dylan, siento un parentesco espiritual contigo después de leer este post. Me estremecí cuando mi hija, entonces adolescente, utilizó por primera vez la palabra "mayoritariamente" en mi presencia, y todavía me estremezco. Sin embargo, me ha gustado tu visión equilibrada del lenguaje, que es tanto una norma de la que dependemos como un medio cuya definición depende de nosotros. Percibo un trasfondo de bienvenida y aceptación, tanto para los "cringers" como para los "corrupters". Que todos nos llevemos bien. Gracias por escribir el post y leer mi respuesta. No tengo ninguna relación con la hostelería, pero si este es el tipo de cosas que escribes con regularidad puede que me las ingenie para seguirte 🙂 .
P.D. Lo siento, apenas sé deletrear "Black Sabbath" :-/