Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!bobm
From: bobm@rtech.ARPA (Bob Mcqueer)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: tuna fish
Message-ID: <311@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 14:24:03 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.311
Posted: Tue Apr 23 14:24:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 08:13:21 EST
References: <395@ihu1m.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 23

[]--

> I heard (I think from John Ciardi) that "tuna" was an advertising
> ploy, you know, like Greenland.  The fish was commonly known (and

I wonder if somebody could verify or refute I story I've heard concerning
tuna and advertising ploys.  The way I've heard it, when tuna was first
introduced in the U.S., people were much more accustomed to canned
salmon, which was also price competetive at the time.  To get people
to buy tuna instead, one canner marketed it with a slogan like:

"Will not turn pink in the can"

which of course was literally a true statement, but was meant to imply
that salmon did "turn pink", rather than being pink in the first place.

And I don't know why "tuna fish" instead of just "tuna" either.  If that's
a regionalism, as someone suggested, I think it has a rather wide
distribution.  I've heard it quite often in different parts of the country.


Bob McQueer
amdahl!rtech!bobm