# I noticed there was a KFC outside, so I had one.



## Couch Tomato

I noticed there was a KFC outside, *so I had one*, as I needed something that reminded me of home.
(_An Idiot Abroad: The Travel Diaries of Karl Pilkington _- Karl Pilkington)

Does the boldfaced part make sense to you? He had one? One what? A KFC?  How can you have a KFC? I can have a burger, a whopper or a milkshake, but a KFC? 

Do people really talk like that?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Bevj

I wouldn't say it myself, but I understand it.
KFC - Kentucky Fried Chicken.
I had a (ration/piece/helping of) Kentucky Fried Chicken.


----------



## Miss Julie

It's just an inelegant way of saying that he *purchased something to eat* at a KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken).

Yes, some people do talk like this.


----------



## Couch Tomato

Thanks, Bevj and Miss Julie. 

I did understand what he meant - he ate something at KFC. The way he said bother me. I've never heard anyone say, 'I had a Burger King/Jack-in-the-Box/McDonald's.'


----------



## Loob

The thing that puzzles me slightly is "outside" - outside _what_? But I assume the context explains that....

That apart, I have no difficulty with the sentence.  I would interpret it as "I saw there was a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet outside, so I had a Kentucky Fried Chicken".

-------

EDIT: Oh, I wish I could type faster.

I would also have no problem with "I had a McDonald's"....


----------



## Couch Tomato

Loob said:


> The thing that puzzles me slightly is "outside" - outside _what_? But I assume the context explains that....



Yes, he was in a museum. I didn't post the rest because it wasn't relevant to my question.



Loob said:


> I would also have no problem with "I had a McDonald's"....



Thanks, Loob.

Wow, English _is _really flexible! In the two other languages I speak, one could not say "I had a McDonald's." That would be meaningless. You could say, 'I ate at McDonald's and I had a McFlurry.' But perhaps I'm comparing apples and oranges. It's just that I've always thought that "I had a" is followed by a particular food, not the name of the restaurant at which you ate it.


----------



## Copperknickers

This is a common informal construction, meaning literally 'I had a KFC meal'. You might also say 'I had an Italian' or 'I went for a chippy', meaning the same thing (an Italian meal and a chip shop meal respectively).


----------



## Chasint

Couch Tomato said:


> ...You could say, 'I ate at McDonald's and I had a McFlurry.' But perhaps I'm comparing apples and oranges. It's just that I've always thought that "I had a" is followed by a particular food, not the name of the restaurant at which you ate it.


Don't forget that a lot of the sales at these outlets are for take-away food. There is no obligation to eat on the premises.

Sample conversation
_Two students living in a flat together._
Jane: I'm hungry!
Mary: We could cook something.
Jane: I can't be bothered.
Mary: Okay, why don't we go for a McDonald's.  (a McDonald's meal)
Jane: I don't want to go out.
Mary: Okay, let's phone for a chinese.  (request delivery of a chinese meal)
Jane: Okay


----------



## JJohnson

Yes, people (especially teenagers) use this shorthand style:
"I had a KFC"
"I had a McD"
"I had a Micky-D"
"I had a Taco Bell"

Nobody cares to know exactly what I ate there, just where I was and what I did.


----------



## ribran

That sounds so British to me, JJohnson!

At least in Austin, we say, "I had (some) KFC."


----------



## Couch Tomato

Thank you, Copperknickers, Biffo, JJohnson and ribran.



ribran said:


> At least in Austin, we say, "I had (some) KFC."



That I have heard, at least with "some".


----------



## Loob

"I had some KFC" wouldn't work for me.


----------



## JustKate

I'm going to differ somewhat with my AmE compatriots and say that while I would never say "I had a McDonald's"...OK, bad example because I generally dislike McDonald's food. So let me back up...while I would never say "I had a Del Taco," I definitely do say "I had Del Taco," without the article. I don't think I'd say "I had some Del Taco," but it's not completely impossible.


----------



## Loob

Ouf - fascinating, Kate!

It all goes to show that CT is right when he says that English is very flexible!


----------



## Yankee_NLPer

"Have a Coke!"  or "Enjoy a Coca-Cola"  Perhaps saying "Have a..." began with Coke in the 1940's WWII advertising.


----------



## Chasint

According to Google Ngram "have a beer" was in use in the 1800s http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...50&year_end=1850&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

It wouldn't be much of a step to extend that to 'have a Coke.'


----------



## JustKate

Now I'm confused because I don't see how "Have a Coke" (much less "Have a beer") is comparable to "Have a KFC" or "Have Del Taco." Both Coke and beer are products, so there's nothing any odder about saying "I'll have a Coke" than there is about saying "I'll have an apple." What happens with chain restaurants is that the name of the restaurant chain can be in some cases used to represent the product. There's nothing new about "I had a taco," but "I had Del Taco" is a completely different thing...unless I'm misunderstanding Yankee and Biffo? Could be.


----------



## Couch Tomato

Thank you, JustKate and Yankee_NLPer.



JustKate said:


> Now I'm confused because I don't see how "Have a Coke" (much less "Have a beer") is comparable to "Have a KFC" or "Have Del Taco."



I agree. For me, "Coca-Cola" is first and foremost the product. I wouldn't object to "Have a Coca-Cola" because when I hear that I think of "Coca-Cola" as a product, not the company, even though it's both. KFC is not a product and neither is Del Taco.


----------



## Yankee_NLPer

I was pointing out the evolution of the language patterns. It may have evolved from  "Have a Coke or a beer" to "Let's go for some KFC" to "Let's go for a Big Mac" ... uhhh, to what? Have a Happy Meal?  lol   I just wish the plurals and singulars would be consistent.


----------



## Chasint

Loob said:


> ...It all goes to show that CT is right when he says that English is very flexible!


In passing, I think it is worth pointing out that this flexibility is not a free-for-all. On the forum I have noticed one or two non-native-speakers attempting to invent their own flexibility and it doesn't work. Neologisms evolve in English and only the fittest survive and prosper. A clear example here is the distinction between JustKate's "I had Del Taco" which sounds weird in BrE and "I had a Del Taco" which sounds strange to her. These have presumably evolved separately in different countries.

I can only justify the BrE version:

"I had a KFC" simply means "I had a KFC meal" but for speed we miss out 'meal'.  Note that this would not work for a drink bought from KFC, only for a meal.


----------



## JuanEscritor

I could never say _had *a *KFC_.  The _a_ indicates that the amount is singular, and so without an actual unit of measure mentioned, the whole thing falls apart. 

I cansay _had *some* KFC_.  This works for me because _som__e_ simply indicates an unspecified amount or mass and so no unit of measure is required.

To me the difference would be like say _had a money _vs _had some money_.  I can say _had a two-piece chicken meal_ and we can say _had a fifty-cent piece_, but I can't say _had a KFC_ and _had a money_.

So for me, at least, it has nothing to do with not associating the name of the restaurant with its food; it's purely grammatical.

JE


----------



## natkretep

But as Biffo said, 'I had a KFC' can be justified grammatically if we say that 'KFC' stands for 'KFC meal'. JE, could you also not say 'I had an Indian', etc.?


----------



## Copperknickers

Indeed you could, as I said on the previous page.


----------



## Chasint

JE - I'm afraid you have just provided an excellent example of the _straw-man fallacy_.

I could counter by saying that "I have a dollar in my hand" makes no sense because what I actually have in my hand is a dollar bill.

Arguments of this type are invalid.


----------



## JuanEscritor

natkretep said:


> JE, could you also not say 'I had an Indian', etc.?


No.  Not in the sense of 'Indian food'.

JE


----------



## JuanEscritor

Biffo said:


> JE - I'm afraid you have just provided an excellent example of the _straw-man fallacy_.
> 
> I could counter by saying that "I have a dollar in my hand" makes no sense because what I actually have in my hand is a dollar bill.
> 
> Arguments of this type are invalid.


You have missed the point.  _Bill_ is a count noun.  The purpose of my post was to explain that because I don't see KFC as a count noun, I cannot count it.

There are clearly people who can understand KFC as a count noun when referencing the restaurant's food.  I cannot.

Take a gander through Wikipedia's page on the strawman fallacy when you get a free moment.

JE


----------



## sdgraham

As an unreconstructed pedant,  I don't like "had a KFC," either. although I'm afraid JE and I will be overwhelmed by the language of the unwashed horde of fast-food aficionados.


----------



## Chasint

JuanEscritor said:


> You have missed the point.  _Bill_ is a count noun.  The purpose of my post was to explain that because I don't see KFC as a count noun, I cannot count it.
> 
> There are clearly people who can understand KFC as a count noun when referencing the restaurant's food.  I cannot.
> 
> Take a gander through Wikipedia's page on the strawman fallacy when you get a free moment.
> 
> JE


1. 'Bill' is a count noun and so is 'meal'. I directly equate *dollar ---> dollar bill* with *KFC ---> KFC meal*.

2. I know what the straw man fallacy is. It is the setting up of a false premise (particularly a false representation of someone else's argument) in order to knock it down. That is what you did.


----------



## Chasint

sdgraham said:


> As an unreconstructed pedant,  I agree with this, although I'm afraid JE and I will be overwhelmed by the language of the unwashed horde of fast-food aficionados.


I don't eat fast food. My objection is purely on the grounds that the 'grammatical' argument doesn't stand up. In fact JE was confounding semantics and syntax.


----------



## Imber Ranae

natkretep said:


> But as Biffo said, 'I had a KFC' can be justified grammatically if we say that 'KFC' stands for 'KFC meal'. JE, could you also not say 'I had an Indian', etc.?



No, not it AE. We always say "had Italian" or even "had some Italian", probably because the uncountable word "food" is implied rather than the countable "meal". This seems to account pretty well for the difference between our varieties, and hence it applies to names of restaurant chains just as well as to types of food.


----------



## JuanEscritor

Biffo said:


> 1. 'Bill' is a count noun and so is 'meal'. I directly equate *dollar ---> dollar bill* with *KFC ---> KFC meal*.


And I don't.  Names of restaurants cannot stand as countaible items of food; not for me.

In my speech _KFC_ is a non-count noun and so can only be used as such.  The only exception is when talking about an actual restaurant (e.g., _There's *a *KFC down the street_.), but that exception is not relevant here.



> 2. I know what the straw man fallacy is. It is the setting up of a false premise (particularly a false representation of someone else's argument) in order to knock it down. That is what you did.


As far as I am concerned there is no argument here.  We are all just giving our opinion on the sentence.  I have given everyone mine as well as the reasons for holding it.

What about my posts do you find so unsettling?

JE


----------



## JuanEscritor

Imber Ranae said:


> No, not it AE. We always say "had Italian" or even "had some Italian", probably because the uncountable word "food" is implied rather than the countable "meal". This seems to account pretty well for the difference between our varieties, and hence it applies to names of restaurant chains just as well as to types of food.


Yes, this is definitely the preferred way to state this for me: _I had KFC for lunch_.  However, the example in the original post doesn't word it that way, it says: _There was a KFC outside; so I had one_.

I think you are absolutely correct in stating that the difference of opinions on this is coming down to whether people regard the noun as countable or not.  It is clear that some people do and some people do not and that there might be a few people in between who understand the construction but don't use it themselves.

That the assessment of countable or non can apply to new cases (insert any restaurant name and someone will be able to tell you whether it is countable or not), tells me you are on to something with saying there is some sort of other noun implied in the phrase (_food_ or _meal_, etc.) that is responsible for people's assessments of the nouns _KFC _or _Italian_ as countable or non when referring to food/meals.

JE


----------



## Cagey

This book is supposed to be humorous.  It seems to me quite possible that the author is making deliberately comical use of language.  The abrupt switch here surely is intentional nonsense:  KFC [=building] outside, *so I had one* [= KFC building?].


----------



## ribran

I think this is just another AmE/BrE difference.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Cagey said:


> This book is supposed to be humorous.  It seems to  me quite possible that the author is making deliberately comical use of  language.  The abrupt switch here surely is intentional nonsense:  KFC [=building] outside, *so I had one* [= KFC building?].


I also think that the abrupt switch was deliberate and for humorous effect. I suspect that he was tickled by the idea of having one whole Kentucky fried chicken; feathers, beak and all.

I'm sure you can have a KFC, McDonalds, a kebab, and Indian ... possibly an Italian at a stretch. I don't think you can have a French or a Lebanese though.


----------



## Yankee_NLPer

I too would say *some KFC* and never* a KFC*. I'm old school. We used to say a bucket of chicken... now a bucket with all the trimmings is more than $50!! YIKES!!


----------



## Cagey

A Google search for "had a KFC for dinner" returned 58 actual results, including twitter posts. 

A Google search for "had KFC for dinner" returned 501 actual results, also including twitter posts, but a larger proportion of them were blogs and forum postings. 

I would only use the second, but I suspect that the twitter posts reflect more casual speech, while more care is taken in posting on blogs.  

*[Note*: When you click the links above, Google will redo the search, so the exact numbers you see may be different for various reasons.  I would expect the proportions to remain about the same.]


----------



## natkretep

Michele Hume, an American who blogs about food has this to say about the construction: 


> It is a quirk of British English that a meal eaten in an Indian or a  Chinese restaurant is referred to, respectively, as “an Indian” and “a  Chinese.” As in, “Let’s go for an Indian.” There’s something I find  vaguely demeaning about this phraseology, although I can’t say quite _what_, but the truth is that even these somewhat sneering epithets are relatively genteel.


Many examples of 'Let's go for an Indian' on the web. BrE speakers are less keen on KFC!


----------



## Chasint

Cagey said:


> A Google search for "had a KFC for dinner" returned 58 actual results, including twitter posts.
> A Google search for "had KFC for dinner" returned 501 actual results, also including twitter posts, but a larger proportion of them were blogs and forum postings.
> ....  I would expect the proportions to remain about the same.]


Nice try but how does that relate to the respective numbers of KFC outlets in Britain and North America? You're not doing a fair comparison.


----------



## Cagey

When I do the searches for _site:UK_, my results are:
"had a KFC for dinner" --- 19
"had KFC for dinner" --- 58


----------



## Chasint

Cagey said:


> When I do the searches for _site:UK_, my results are:
> "had a KFC for dinner" --- 19
> "had KFC for dinner" --- 58


Interesting. How do we get 'actual' results?  (I usually use Ngram but it doesn't help in this case)


----------



## panjandrum

I wouldn't pay much attention to counts for "had (a) KFC for dinner".
In my experience, the "for a dinner" addition would be very odd.


natkretep said:


> Michele Hume, an American who blogs about food has this to say about the construction:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a quirk of British English that a meal eaten in an Indian or a   Chinese restaurant is referred to, respectively, as “an Indian” and “a   Chinese.” As in, “Let’s go for an Indian.” There’s something I find   vaguely demeaning about this phraseology, although I can’t say quite _what_, but the truth is that even these somewhat sneering epithets are relatively genteel.
> 
> 
> 
> Many examples of 'Let's go for an Indian' on the web. BrE speakers are less keen on KFC!
Click to expand...

That's a very helpful observation - clearly we're not the first to establish the AE/BE difference 

With  regard to Beryl's point about the range of food to which the "had a <...>" applies,  it really has to be something that is generally eaten as a take-away.


----------



## sound shift

panjandrum said:


> With  regard to Beryl's point about the range of food to which the "had a <...>" applies,  it really has to be something that is generally eaten as a take-away.


I'm not sure that Indian meals are generally eaten as take-aways in the UK, panj. At all events, in the well-known, role-reversing, British television comedy sketch "Going for an English", a cast of actors of Indian extraction sits down at a restaurant table - before one of them tells the English waiter that he doesn't want anything too bland to eat and the others proceed to abuse the poor bloke in typical lager-loutish fashion.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_Gracious_Me_(BBC)


----------



## ewie

Cagey said:


> This book is supposed to be humorous.  It seems to me quite possible that the author is making deliberately comical use of language.  The abrupt switch here surely is intentional nonsense:  KFC [=building] outside, *so I had one* [= KFC building?].


That's exactly how I read it too.  (I like your use of _supposed to be_)


natkretep said:


> *sneering *epithets are relatively genteel.
Click to expand...

I have *never* thought of this particular usage as 'sneering', or even _sounding_ 'sneering'.  I wonder if it sounds that way to other AE-speakers, or if it's just Michele Hume ... ?


----------



## natkretep

panjandrum said:


> I wouldn't pay much attention to counts for "had (a) KFC for dinner".
> In my experience, the "for a dinner" addition would be very odd.



I changed the search phrase (still with site:UK):
had a KFC yesterday - 430
had KFC yesterday - 601

had a KFC today - 233
had KFC today - 201


----------



## JustKate

ewie said:


> That's exactly how I read it too. (I like your use of _supposed to be_)
> 
> I have *never* thought of this particular usage as 'sneering', or even _sounding_ 'sneering'. I wonder if it sounds that way to other AE-speakers, or if it's just Michele Hume ... ?



It doesn't sound even slightly "sneering" to me. How is "Let's go for an Indian" any more (or less) demeaning than "Let's have some Indian"? Weird. "An Indian" is not something I would ever say, but that's because it sounds odd to me, not  because it sounds sneering. Either there is some connotation that I'm missing or else Hume is really...touchy.


----------

