DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I were invited to a small dinner at the official residence of a head of state and spouse. What is the correct form in which to frame a thank-you letter? Should it be signed by me (the wife) on behalf of my husband and I, and couched as "Harold and I wish to thank you...blah blah blah..."? Or, should it come from both of us ("We wish to thank you...") and be signed "Harold and Harriet Blah blah blah..."?

My husband is the reason we were invited to this dinner, if that matters, and they know him better than they do me. We have only recently become acquainted with them, and while they do seem to be informal people, I would like to be correct. Any other guidelines you can offer (approximate length?) will be appreciated.

GENTLE READER: Here is a guideline that you did not request: It is never safe to assume that a head of state and his wife are "informal people."

Modern leaders have mastered apparently informal behavior so as not to appear to their constituents as if they are full of themselves. But it is not in the nature of human beings to be truly indifferent to rank after they have achieved its highest level. So you should address them formally, unless you have expressly been told to do otherwise.

Another guideline (after which Miss Manners promises she will answer your actual question): It is important to maintain the social fiction that people are invited solely because of their charm. So although you realize that it was your husband's position that got you invited, you must act as if both of you were invited for a purely social evening by these informal people, simply because they happen to like you.

The letter of thanks need not be long, but it should be of the usual kind about having had a lovely evening. Unlike invitations and cards, letters are always written by one person alone, and most formally it is the lady who writes, on behalf of herself and her husband, to the hostess, thanking both her and her husband.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: It seems we need some rules about when to stop an e-mail exchange:

Person 1: What is the budget code for Legal fees?

Person 2: 62120-920-92100

Person 1: Thanks!

Person 2: You're welcome.

I personally believe that the third and fourth lines are unnecessary. It clutters up in-boxes and serves little purpose. In your opinion, is it OK to stick with the question/answer style of e-mail relating and skip all the "thank yous" and "you're welcomes"?

GENTLE READER: Unaccustomed as she is to bargaining over courtesies, Miss Manners understands the problem of in-box clutter. She therefore proposes a deal: The inquirer adds "please" to his request, and retains the obligation to respond with thanks, which serves the additional purpose of confirming that the e-mail arrived. Then she might be willing to consider the reply of "You're welcome" to be optional.

:

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."

: