Talk:Cullen skink

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
On the front page there is note that "This article or section appears to contradict itself". Can someone explain where the contradiction lies? I didn't spot one. Markjleonard (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shank, a modern English word
"Hall damien" in his recent edit claimed that 'Shank' isn't a 'modern' English word in that it's not very common in Modern English. I reverted his edit as I can find no evidence for his assertion. Maybe he does not use the word very frequently, but without extensive surveys of modern English usage it would seem premature to consign this word to obsolescence. I certainly use the word when purchasing meat from the butcher, and am puzzled as to how "Hall damien" buys that particular cut of meat without using the proper descriptive terminology. -- Euchiasmus (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL maybe he doesn't buy lamb shanks? Shank it certainly current enough and crops up in numerous compounds (redshank, longshanks...). Anyone who questions modern usage should just do a search for shank on the BBC Food site Akerbeltz (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the word 'modern' from this description again, as I really don't agree with you. If you want to mix it up with me about 'extensive surveys of modern English usage', bear in mind that I am a sociolinguist, someone who actually takes a professional interest in modern English usage, with a PhD.  I am actually engaged in just such a survey of English usage at the moment (140 interviewees to date in four locations along the English-Scottish border, and I do in fact ask whether or not they ever use the word shank for 'leg'!).

Anyway, Craig said tonite "Look it up on Google -- or whatever the CBS-approved search is. ... Oh, i can say that?" Screw Google; if you're looking only one place, WP is the more reliable and efficient, and if you're not, WP takes less effort before you're confident you haven't been suckered. Whassamatta, Craiggg? --Jerzy•t 06:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As to your specific points, perhaps I should have been clearer: shank is an archaic English word in that the usual word for limbs on which animals walk is now leg.  Shank is only found now in fossilised compounds like redshanks (referring to an animal with red legs, and formed at the time when the usual word for those limbs was in fact shank) and longshanks (an epithet of a mediaeval English king), and in isolated usages such as the cut of meat, and the Northern English / Scottish dialectal word for human leg (only some old people there still use it in that sense).  What this means is that you refer to the cut of meat as lamb shank (etc) because you have been taught to, but when you want to refer to someone's legs, I bet you would never use the word shank.  Linguists say that this means the word is not productive, and it can therefore be called archaic.  Hall damien (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm told shank's mare refers to traveling on foot, presumably a holdover of the "leg" sense. (And the Germans call "pork shank" Schweinhaxe, so i suppose my conjecture abt a relation between that and ham hocks gets a hint of support by the article's reference to "hough" -- rhyming with Scots 'loch'?).

--Jerzy•t 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the phrase "withered shanks" came to me; it seems to be in Lord Jim and (earlier) in Hawthorne's travel letters, but something made me think i'd find it in Shakespeare, then willing to follow up hints that it might be in Burns's verse. Seems to me to be a more-common-than-chance combination. Hmm.