On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:

On Sunday, September 8, 2013 7:07:31 AM UTC-7, Richard wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 07:28:16 +0100, Roland Perry

wrote:

Paris "Subway"? Wash your mouth out!

Roland should have been aware of the uk.railway Académie Anglais. Using the language of the Federal Union that gave us the internet. whatever next.

A late reply, but my (attempted) humour was not at all a pop at the
USA. Indeed, "Washington Subway" or "Glasgow Tube" would be as wrong
as each other. "London metro" would sound a bit odd, even though it
gave the world both the concept and the word. I suppose NYC's
dominance tends to lend "subway" some weight as the generic word in
the US. You'd know more about that than I.

Richard.

In article , (August
West) wrote:

The entity calling itself Richard wrote:

A late reply, but my (attempted) humour was not at all a pop at the
USA. Indeed, "Washington Subway" or "Glasgow Tube" would be as wrong
as each other.

Although for most of its length, the Glasgow Subway (as its now branded,
after a few decades of being Glasgow Underground) is, indeed, a tube.
Or, rather, a pair of tubes. Very _small_ tubes.

How many of the stations are tubes? Not many I suspect. I travelled on it
for the first time in many years last week.

--
Colin Rosenstiel