A sumptuous buffet spread was accompanied by light-hearted performances – including a skit by young PSP members and a hearty rendition of “I Will Survive” by the party’s “karaoke veteran” Khoo Boo Keong.
Is “sumptuous buffet” correct or should it be “scrumptious buffet” instead? I don’t think a buffet can be described as sumptuous?
Thanks.
I think a buffet can be both – sumptuous as well as scrumptious at the same time. As a matter of fact, ideally a buffet is both lavish as well as delicious. But then again, if you consider the fact that every ten second a child dies of malnutrition your sumptuous buffet probably gets stuck in your throat.
Let’s see what @Alan, @Anglophile and @RyanBell have to say on the matter.
Perfect explanation, Torsten.
Yes, Torsten, you are right. Both the adjectives are acceptable.
But I see ‘sumptuous buffet/food/lunch/dinner’ as a common collocation.
While sumptuous is related to the luxurious appearance of the food for the onlooker, scrumptious is related to the palatial deliciousness of the food for the eater.
I like your way of using sumptuous and scrumptious. Perfect ways of using them. And lavish and delicious being used as synonyms. This would be a good paragraph to teach students more complex vocab. @Torsten
Please give me more paragraphs like this.
@Kohyoongliat Torsten has a good way of describing the words as I’ve listed below. Sumptuous and scrumptious can both describe a buffet. It just depends on if you want to describe it as “lavish/luxurious” or “delicious/delectable”. In all honesty. I think it is up to the writer to describe the buffet as scrumptious or sumptuous. What your experience or idea of it is.
I remember where and when I learned the word ‘lavish’. It was in the 1990s when I read the book ‘How to win friends and influence people’ by Andrew Carnegie. One of the principles Carnegie describes is called ‘Be lavish in your praise’.
Carnegie also held a monopoly on the steel industry before the government was involved. Which also meant his workers weren’t treated the best. Considering the time, but nevertheless. He was a smart man.
And he was a huge influence on American industry
Yes, however the steel magnate was Andrew Carnegie while ‘How to win friends and influence people’ was written by Dale Carnegie. (I confused both in my earlier post).
Perhaps I should still give it to both men for being smart. And for reaching it to an international level over 100 years later teaching a non-native speaker English.
Absolutely. But while we talk about Dale and Andrew Carnegie we should also mention Napoleon Hill who was commissioned by Andrew Carnegie to conduct the most extensive research project on the principles of success in modern history and who was also good friends with Dale Carnegie.
I can only say, that as famous of an author of his manner is, he knew how to be successful and how to make men successful. But, what can we, 100 years later, take from such a publishment of success? Especially when we consider the considerably huge advances in technology compared to their times.
Are his accomplishments of success still applicable to today’s society?
Absolutely. As a matter of fact, the principles he describes in his work are universal and more applicable today than ever. They actually are laws rather than principles.
I must ask. If these books are existent and they are so old. Why are there not more people “successful”? Is it, because the lack of knowledge of such educations? I want a personal opinion as to why they may or may not be “popular” amongst the common people and why they may or may not be successful.
A personal perspective if you will.
People are so called ‘ultra-social beings’. This means, we need very strong hierarchies and formal structures. Look at any ‘developed society’ a bit closer and you will find a huge system of bureaucracy that requires ever more resources while producing next to nothing of value. Why is this? All because people don’t want to think for themselves and they are afraid of taking decisions for themselves too.
If more people started getting interested in the principles of success and if they were ready to increase their level of self-discipline the percentage of happy people would increase dramatically and most problems of modern societies would disappear.