You can snack on a snack.
Breakfast for breakfast. Lunch with lunch. Dine on dinner.
Is that not just cooking?
Asking the real questions
Hah random hungary facts go: Hungarian is an agglutinative language which means we form much more of our active grammar with affixes than english for example. This means you can sorta just glue stuff together. “Inni innivalót”: to drink a drink; “enni ennivalót”: to eat food. But this also means you can for example form something like: “elintézni az elintéznivalót” which means “to deal with the thing that has to be dealt with”. These are all nouns formed from verbs but you can also do the opposite by forming a verb from a noun “titkot titkol: hides a secret”(lit.: secrets a secret). Thank you for reading another of my linguistic rants 👍
You drink a drink and you eat an eat. Like in the show Good Eats.
Pathetic. In german(y) you can essen Essen in Essen.
But you can’t getränk Getränke
But you can “trinken Trinken” but sadly there is no city called Trinken afaik
Tis a silly place
If you’re saying “Food a food”, then a closer pairing would be “beverage a beverage”
This is canon now.
Let’s food. I’ll also beverage some water
I bring up nouns you can verb all the time. It’s a great ice breaker, especially because so many are bodily functions. You can poop a poop. You can pee pee. You can fart a fart.
You can smell a smell, you can run an run, you can cough a cough, you can text text, you can photograph a photograph…
In arabic they say to food food.
In norwegian we say to butter butter.
But you can feed food.
We don’t use the word “comestible” enough.
Is “feed on food” close enough?
Sweetmeat is candy but sweetbread is offal meat, discuss!
Eat an eats?