DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was at a restaurant when a solitary diner loudly admonished the neighboring table for talking too loudly. The two ladies in question were at the table next to me and their conversation was not intrusive in the least. They, as well as I, were nonplussed by this comment.

No one responded to the complainer and, after a startled look of disbelief, everyone went back to their meals and conversations. Should something have been said to this person?

GENTLE READER: You mean that someone should have admonished this person for the rudeness of having admonished others?

Satisfying as you may have found that, Miss Manners is afraid that it would have made your complaint difficult to define. The two ladies could have responded by saying, "We are so sorry to have disturbed you" and turned back to their meals. You could have said, "Perhaps you might want to have the waiter move you to a secluded table." But as you are not allowed to quash rudeness with rudeness, you were all best off tending to your dinners.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Recently, several friends and I met for lunch at a new restaurant in London. The owner has gone to a lot of effort to ensure that the service is up to the highest standards.

For our main courses, several of us had seared fish served on a bed of vegetables, while the rest had braised beef in broth. Before serving our meals, as is the custom in better restaurants, our waiter placed the appropriate cutlery next to our plates.

Here's where it gets tricky. To the right of the plate, beside the dinner knife, the waiter placed a utensil that seemed to be a cross between a "spork" and a fish knife. This utensil was roughly in the shape of a leaf, coming to a single point at the top, about the width of a tablespoon, with only the smallest of depressions in the centre. We assumed that it was a fish knife (albeit a wide one) initially, except for the fact that it was presented to the beef eaters, too. Our dinner knives remained by our plates.

Any idea what it was? There were five of us, all reasonably aware of etiquette, and we were all baffled. It was removed before dessert or cheese was served.

GENTLE READER: Much as she loves flatware guessing games (what else would you expect from a champion?), Miss Manners wishes you had asked the waiter. There is no disgrace in doing so. In England, particularly, it is a point of snobbery to be unfamiliar with utensils invented less than a century and a half ago, as proof that one's family had already acquired its silver by then.

Not having seen this item, Miss Manners nevertheless harbors the suspicion that what you had there was one of those new-fangled inventions from the end of the Victorian era: a sauce spoon. It is for spooning up that last bit of sauce rather than chasing it with a morsel of bread.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My spouse and I occasionally ask over for dinner a very bright friend of ours. However, once our guest sets foot into our house, he talks nonstop. We can't get a word in edgewise. We like our guest, but it so distracts from having a pleasant event when there is only a one-sided conversation! Is there anyway to politely tell our guest to bite his tongue and let others talk for a while?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is afraid that there is no such thing as a one-sided conversation. When one person does all the talking, it is not a conversation, but a performance. The curious thing is that it doesn't matter how interesting the material is -- listening to monologues that might be entertaining if they came from a performer who is watched in silence are wearisome face-to-face.

Still, one cannot tell one's guest to pipe down and let someone else have a chance. Your best hope is to keep announcing your desire to say something and your desire to hear from others with such statements as "May I tell you something?" and "Let's hear what Atalanta thinks about that."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Although our society has become quite informal in recent years, I still find occasions where the personal social card would be useful.

In the past, ladies indicated their day at home in the lower left-hand corner of the card. I do not have a regular day at home, but would, on occasion, like to use the card to indicate a day or series of days when I will be at home to callers.

Is it acceptable to pencil or ink that information in, or would it be more appropriate to have separate cards printed?

GENTLE READER: Are your friends familiar with this custom? Miss Manners remembers it fondly, but then her memory goes back a long way. Others might think that you accidentally sent out the card on which you had written your regular hair or therapy appointment.

She does not want to discourage you from allowing your friends to drop by informally on a specific day when they know they will always find you at home. It is a charming custom and peculiarly suited to today's bad habits, as it is one of the few recognized (or once-recognized) social events to which an advance commitment is unnecessary.

But you will have to make allowances for social change. To begin with, the mail service will no longer accept the tiny personal card, so you should use the larger-sized "informal" or "correspondence" card. This has more room for a message, which is fortunate, because you can no longer merely write "Tuesdays after five" or even "at home Tuesdays" and expect anyone to understand it as an invitation. If you ask people specifically over for the first such day and explain your plan to them, perhaps they will catch on, and you will have revived a very pleasant tradition.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: On several occasions I made a couple of short outfits and dresses for my two great-grandchildren (ages 2 and 4), the children of my grandson and his wife, who live out of state. I never received acknowledgements of these gifts but knew they did receive them.

My daughter-in-law told me that my grandson's wife expects my grandson to send a card of thanks because I am his grandmother and not hers. I feel that the mother in the family usually does the card sending (since these are her children, too), and the father usually leaves this up to his wife. Who is right?

GENTLE READER: Nobody. The great-grandchildren are held blameless on grounds of youth and presumed illiteracy, and the rest of you are all focused on the wrong question. Including you, Miss Manners regrets to say.

The point, surely, is that you were never thanked. Whether this is done by the lady of the house or the blood relative or whichever of them has legible handwriting is an issue for them to decide between themselves. To let the task go undone because they are unable to settle this is inexcusable.

: