• Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

Fat Guy

Common Food Mispronunciations and Misnomers

294 posts in this topic

A waiter in an LA restaurant actually put down the gravy boat of jus three nights ago and remarked, "And here's more au jus on the side."

In a French restaurant that might be a faux pas, but in American English "au jus" is thought of as a side sauce, not its literal French meaning.

If you are at a deli and the waitress asked you "would you like jus, with your sandwich?", you would think her an idiot or pretentious. She is going to ask, "would you like au jus, with your sandwich?"

You can buy packets of "au jus" in any supermarket in the U.S., you are not buying a packet labeled "jus".

If a waitress knows enough to ask whether I want something with jus, she'll ask whether I want it 'au jus'; this isn't idiotic or pretentious, it's acknowledging a well-recognized convention.

I haven't seen packets of any substance marked 'au jus' in US supermarkets; where does this happen?

Mass misuse doesn't make something okay. If someone can't wrangle terms in other language, better to stick with what they know; there's nothing so damn special about being multilingual, so attempting it, only to fail, is silly.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic of superfluous French prepositions, can we talk about the number of times in the Alinea cookbook it says "cook en sous vide"? :wink:


Matthew Kayahara

Kayahara.ca

@mtkayahara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A waiter in an LA restaurant actually put down the gravy boat of jus three nights ago and remarked, "And here's more au jus on the side."

In a French restaurant that might be a faux pas, but in American English "au jus" is thought of as a side sauce, not its literal French meaning.

If you are at a deli and the waitress asked you "would you like jus, with your sandwich?", you would think her an idiot or pretentious. She is going to ask, "would you like au jus, with your sandwich?"

You can buy packets of "au jus" in any supermarket in the U.S., you are not buying a packet labeled "jus".

If a waitress knows enough to ask whether I want something with jus, she'll ask whether I want it 'au jus'; this isn't idiotic or pretentious, it's acknowledging a well-recognized convention.

I haven't seen packets of any substance marked 'au jus' in US supermarkets; where does this happen?

Mass misuse doesn't make something okay. If someone can't wrangle terms in other language, better to stick with what they know; there's nothing so damn special about being multilingual, so attempting it, only to fail, is silly.

It is not a well recognized convention, the well recognized convention is that "au jus" is a sauce in the U.S. so asking someone if they want the sandwich "with au jus" would be the correct, idiomatic U.S. usage.

You can buy Lawry's, or McCormick's or your store brand (Krogger, Safeway, etc.).

Here is an example from Red Robin. Their prime rib dip comes "with au jus", which is the correct, idiomatic American English usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a well recognized convention, the well recognized convention is that "au jus" is a sauce in the U.S. so asking someone if they want the sandwich "with au jus" would be the correct, idiomatic U.S. usage.

You can buy Lawry's, or McCormick's or your store brand (Krogger, Safeway, etc.).

Here is an example from Red Robin. Their prime rib dip comes "with au jus", which is the correct, idiomatic American English usage.

It is incorrect usage, no matter how common it may be, as documented in Common Errors in English Usage.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a well recognized convention, the well recognized convention is that "au jus" is a sauce in the U.S. so asking someone if they want the sandwich "with au jus" would be the correct, idiomatic U.S. usage.

You can buy Lawry's, or McCormick's or your store brand (Krogger, Safeway, etc.).

Here is an example from Red Robin. Their prime rib dip comes "with au jus", which is the correct, idiomatic American English usage.

It is incorrect usage, no matter how common it may be, as documented in Common Errors in English Usage.

Exactly right. Linguists have this asinine assumption that if enough people say something incorrectly, it then becomes acceptable (is it Farve or Favre?). This reflects a bigger problem in modern thought, that there are no absolutes. Fortunately this isn't the place for that rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a well recognized convention, the well recognized convention is that "au jus" is a sauce in the U.S. so asking someone if they want the sandwich "with au jus" would be the correct, idiomatic U.S. usage.

You can buy Lawry's, or McCormick's or your store brand (Krogger, Safeway, etc.).

Here is an example from Red Robin. Their prime rib dip comes "with au jus", which is the correct, idiomatic American English usage.

It is incorrect usage, no matter how common it may be, as documented in Common Errors in English Usage.

Exactly right. Linguists have this asinine assumption that if enough people say something incorrectly, it then becomes acceptable (is it Farve or Favre?). This reflects a bigger problem in modern thought, that there are no absolutes. Fortunately this isn't the place for that rant.

While I agree with part of your sentiment, the fact is that language changes because mass usage does eventually alter what is proper. It's why Shakespeare doesn't sound much like what we speak today and how different languages develop in the first place.

EDIT: too many Ss in the bard's name


Edited by BadRabbit (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with part of your sentiment, the fact is that language changes because mass usage does eventually alter what is proper. It's why Shakespeare doesn't sound much like what we speak today and how different languages develop in the first place.

And that's the way of it, isn't it? One doesn't have much choice in the matter. There are a few words that I used to use all the time to mean what they originally meant that I can no longer use in that context at all. Often, there are other words one can substitute that mean the same thing as the original. But, for a few, there is nothing else that conveys quite the same message.

I feel sadder about the loss of some than others, but there's nothing to be done.

One example (about which I don't feel such sentimental sadness, I should add) is that every time I ask my children if they've seen my "thongs," they blanch, then redden. Keeping in mind that I am a granny "of size," I suppose that mental image is just too much.

When, of course, I'm only asking if anyone has seen my shower flipflops.

:cool:


Edited by Jaymes (log)

I don't understand why rappers have to hunch over while they stomp around the stage hollering.  It hurts my back to watch them. On the other hand, I've been thinking that perhaps I should start a rap group here at the Old Folks' Home.  Most of us already walk like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a well recognized convention, the well recognized convention is that "au jus" is a sauce in the U.S. so asking someone if they want the sandwich "with au jus" would be the correct, idiomatic U.S. usage.

You can buy Lawry's, or McCormick's or your store brand (Krogger, Safeway, etc.).

Here is an example from Red Robin. Their prime rib dip comes "with au jus", which is the correct, idiomatic American English usage.

It is incorrect usage, no matter how common it may be, as documented in Common Errors in English Usage.

Language, like food, does not stand still. It evolves and what was once unacceptable becomes acceptable with common usage. If it did not we'd all sound like characters from Beowulf, or the Canterbury Tales, or whatever time period you feel freezing the language is appropriate. To quote Professor Brians, "When you reach the point that nobody seems to agree with your standard of usage any more, you may have simply been left behind." It may not be "nobody" on that "au jus" island yet, but the population is getting thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen "apple pie ala mode with ice cream" on a menu before. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a well recognized convention, the well recognized convention is that "au jus" is a sauce in the U.S. so asking someone if they want the sandwich "with au jus" would be the correct, idiomatic U.S. usage.

You can buy Lawry's, or McCormick's or your store brand (Krogger, Safeway, etc.).

Here is an example from Red Robin. Their prime rib dip comes "with au jus", which is the correct, idiomatic American English usage.

It is incorrect usage, no matter how common it may be, as documented in Common Errors in English Usage.

It is not a well recognized convention, the well recognized convention is that "au jus" is a sauce in the U.S. so asking someone if they want the sandwich "with au jus" would be the correct, idiomatic U.S. usage.

You can buy Lawry's, or McCormick's or your store brand (Krogger, Safeway, etc.).

Here is an example from Red Robin. Their prime rib dip comes "with au jus", which is the correct, idiomatic American English usage.

It is incorrect usage, no matter how common it may be, as documented in Common Errors in English Usage.

Exactly right. Linguists have this asinine assumption that if enough people say something incorrectly, it then becomes acceptable (is it Farve or Favre?). This reflects a bigger problem in modern thought, that there are no absolutes. Fortunately this isn't the place for that rant.

Hell yes and concurred!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Language, like food, does not stand still. It evolves and what was once unacceptable becomes acceptable with common usage. If it did not we'd all sound like characters from Beowulf, or the Canterbury Tales, or whatever time period you feel freezing the language is appropriate. To quote Professor Brians, "When you reach the point that nobody seems to agree with your standard of usage any more, you may have simply been left behind." It may not be "nobody" on that "au jus" island yet, but the population is getting thin.

But the US is not the only island where 'au jus' crops up (for example, there are entire countries where they speak French correctly), it isn't even your own language you're mucking about with.

There's a substantial difference between trying to freeze a language at a point in time (a few countries have made that effort), and avoiding the perpetration of wilful mistakes. I'm a copyeditor, so I hear the argument you've made all the time; it's as though people believe that no nation exists other than their own. You might argue that with the many idiotic terms that are are tolerated in the culinary world, this is nothing, but if you visit France, and ask for your whatever 'with au jus', and your waiter rolls his or her eyes, are you then going to complain the French are rude and arrogant?

Language shifts, it's natural. But if you know that something is incorrect, it just makes no sense to defend the mistake, you suck it up, and avoid it in the future. I know what I'm talking about, because for a lot of my life, I've been learning one new language or another. Some of my mistakes (e.g. 'snot papir' to mean tissues) have been adopted by friends in a joking way, because they're funny and communicate clearly; most are dinner stories (my confusing the Danish for 'bra' and 'necessity').

Most countries do odd things to culinary terms from other languages, I've heard some beauts in Italy (I once spent most of a day trying to figure out 'peenat batr') and Denmark (Danes use 'grape' to mean 'grapefruit', which makes for some confusion when they travel outside DK); this isn't unique to the US. But regardless of where you are, or whose language you are attempting to use/incorporate into your own, it just makes no sense to run with what you know to be incorrect, then say 'Eeverybody is doing it' (unless you're 14 or so, then you get a pass :wink: ). That's not an argument: It's a really weak excuse for laziness.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

au jus isn't a French word any more, it's an English word with French origins. I think we've all pretty much given up on "paninis" and au jus is about at the same point.


PS: I am a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying 'paninis' if you know it's incorrect is ridiculous (what's wrong with the words 'roll' or 'sandwich'?); so is 'with au jus'. There may be no way to get people to get their shit together about these things, but they're incorrect. It all makes me think of Miss Piggy using 'moi'. Absurd.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

au jus isn't a French word any more, it's an English word with French origins. I think we've all pretty much given up on "paninis" and au jus is about at the same point.

It's at times like this I wish you Americans would find another word for the language you use and abuse. "Au jus" is not an English word (or even a word) it's a phrase...


Itinerant winemaker

Follow me on Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

au jus isn't a French word any more, it's an English word with French origins. I think we've all pretty much given up on "paninis" and au jus is about at the same point.

It's at times like this I wish you Americans would find another word for the language you use and abuse. "Au jus" is not an English word (or even a word) it's a phrase...

Well, to be fair, the tendency to misuse/mispronounce foreign lanaguage terms isn't unique, or even most pronounced in the US, it's prevalent the world over (e.g. upthread, I mentioned the use of the word 'grape' for 'grapefruit' in Denmark; I could also mention 'expresso' pronounced as 'exPRAHso', and heaps of other misuses and mispronunciations... and don't get me started on the things that happen to foreign language terms in Italy). But for better or worse, the American language is still English.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying 'paninis' if you know it's incorrect is ridiculous (what's wrong with the words 'roll' or 'sandwich'?); so is 'with au jus'. There may be no way to get people to get their shit together about these things, but they're incorrect. It all makes me think of Miss Piggy using 'moi'. Absurd.

Panini doesn't mean roll or sandwich, it means a sandwich that's been toasted on a panini press and panini is the most succinct word for it. If I'm going to be ordering at an American restaurant, I'm going to say "give me one chicken panini and two ham paninis". I'm not going to say "give me one chicken panino and two ham panini" because I care more about the other person understanding me than trying to follow the grammar rules of a language that I'm not currently speaking.


PS: I am a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. 'Panini' is a loan word. Loan words tend to follow the grammatical pattern of the language they've been adopted into.

Indeed, hence why "on mange les sushis" in French. Pluralizing "sushi" always makes me cringe, but it is perfectly grammatically correct French!


Matthew Kayahara

Kayahara.ca

@mtkayahara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying 'paninis' if you know it's incorrect is ridiculous (what's wrong with the words 'roll' or 'sandwich'?); so is 'with au jus'. There may be no way to get people to get their shit together about these things, but they're incorrect. It all makes me think of Miss Piggy using 'moi'. Absurd.

Panini doesn't mean roll or sandwich, it means a sandwich that's been toasted on a panini press and panini is the most succinct word for it. If I'm going to be ordering at an American restaurant, I'm going to say "give me one chicken panini and two ham paninis". I'm not going to say "give me one chicken panino and two ham panini" because I care more about the other person understanding me than trying to follow the grammar rules of a language that I'm not currently speaking.

That's a 'toast'! (as I said, other nations muck about with foreign terms, too) :raz:

In Italian, a panino is a roll. The word is also used to describe a sandwich made with a roll. Not toasted.

If someone doesn't care what a word actually means, why even use it?

The things called 'paninis' in the US seldom resemple what you'd get in Italy, why not call it a toasted sandwich? Seriously, this makes no sense, unless it's just a question of thinking it sounds fancier if a foreign languge is used. Which is pretty silly.

Indeed. 'Panini' is a loan word. Loan words tend to follow the grammatical pattern of the language they've been adopted into.

Indeed, hence why "on mange les sushis" in French. Pluralizing "sushi" always makes me cringe, but it is perfectly grammatically correct French!

The 's' pronounced, then? I'm a little surprised, since there are French words that sound the same in plural form as they do in the singular, even if they're written differently.


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For better or for worse, the "panini" ship has sailed. When speaking English in the United States, a panini is a toasted sandwich cooked in a press, no matter what it means in Italian. Just as "martini" now means "that which is served in a martini glass", whether or not gin and vermouth are involved.


"There is nothing like a good tomato sandwich now and then."

-Harriet M. Welsch

Visit my food blog! http://goodformeblog.blogspot.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"farm egg".

Seen duck eggs, ostrich eggs, emu eggs, frog eggs, fish eggs, chicken eggs, even pullet eggs, but never a farm egg have I seen. ;)


"You dont know everything in the world! You just know how to read!" -an ah-hah! moment for 6-yr old Miss O.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"farm egg".

Seen duck eggs, ostrich eggs, emu eggs, frog eggs, fish eggs, chicken eggs, even pullet eggs, but never a farm egg have I seen. ;)

In the south, we have "yard eggs" which are eggs that someone's "yard birds" have produced as opposed to eggs produced on commercial farms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone!

I'm mostly a lurker around here, but I've been enjoying this thread so immensely, I couldn't stand it and had to chime in. I'm a total linguistic nerd.

I grew up in Southeast Michigan, where we add an "s" to most words. I might say, "anyways, where does your dad work?" and get a reply "he works at Fords." We shop at Nordstrom's and Kroger's. Now, I'm half Polish (my Mom's side)and so the pierogi question comes up a lot. My Grandma was born in Detroit in 1915. She went to a Catholic school where they spoke Polish in the morning and English in the afternoon (I may have that backwards) but my Mom and her siblings never spoke Polish and though she could pronounce things, she and my Grandfather had pretty much lost the language by the time I was a kid. So I did once ask her, knowing that peirogi is plural, though we always say pierogies, what the singular is in Polish. She shrugged and said she didn't know because nobody ever eats just one. (for the record, it's pierog).

I pronounce it per-oh-gee (with a hard "g"), and so do most of my relatives, but she pronounced it more like pee-ro-gee, with a bit of softer "r" sound. We also say "kuh-ba-sa" whereas she would say "kee-ba-sa" so that follows the general trend of the vowel shift. Actually though, we mostly call it Polish Sausage (probably at least 75% of the time). Side note, my Grandmother's step-mother worked at a hotel in Detroit as a cook and therefore mostly used the English terms for words at home, so that may be why.

O.K., but now for what I want to really lay out: My culturo-linguistico-geographic theory on Pączkis (again, with a superfluous "s" on the end).

I love pączkis (jelly doughnut eaten on Fat Tuesday) because I took Polish dance lessons when I was a kid. The first week of Lent or the week before, someone would bring in pączkis for the class. However, my Mom says it is all marketing and that they never ate them when she was a kid. Don't get me wrong, she didn't grow up eating only American food, but none of her aunts made or bought them.

I've concluded that pączkis are a regional Polish treat. Here is why:

1. My family comes from Southern Poland, not very far east of Krakow.

2. My Grandparents grew up in Southwest Detroit (specifically, the St. Hedwig's Parish--and yes, St. Hedwig's and not Swa. Jadwiga's).

3. Everyone in their neighborhood/Parish was from the same area of Poland. I know this because:

a. I once asked my Grandma why she didn't know anyone from Hamtramck and she said that all of their people lived in Southwest Detroit. When asked why she said probably because people came at different times from different areas to different areas.

b. This makes sense because before WWI Poland was not a country and was divided up and ruled by three different nations.

c. I did a paper on St. Hedwig's in college and there is a story that they ran the first priest assigned there off because they claimed they couldn't understand his Prussian-Polish accent (that is to say, he spoke a Prussian dialect of Polish). Whether this was the reason they didn't like him is anyone's guess, but that's the reason they gave. Ergo, no Prussian Poles in that neighborhood.

4. Hamtramck is what everyone thinks of when they think of Polish people in Detroit, but clearly there were many different Polish neighborhoods.

5. My mother said that nobody in her family ever ate pączkis.

6. My Grandmother's maiden name is Swiatek (pronounced Swy-teck) or Swiątek (pronounced Svyunh-teck, with both the y and the n having a very light sound).

7. Pączki is pronounced Poonch-kee.

8. The vowel "ą" is pronounced differently by pączki-eating Poles than by Poles from Southwest Detroit who come from the Krakow area, or just 30 or 40 miles East of there.

9. Therefore, pączkis are a regional dish. Probably the part of Poland from which the Hamtramck Poles came from.

So sorry that was so long. I don't get to tell my theory often! I've never actually looked into the validity of it though.


Judy Wilson

Editorial Assistant

Modernist Cuisine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Chris Hennes
      Over in the Cooking with "Eat Mexico" topic I've posted a about things I've made from Lesley Téllez's recently-published book about street food in Mexico City. I finally had time to go down to "CDMX" (as they are now trying to rebrand themselves) this weekend and went on two of the Eat Mexico food tours. On Friday we went on the street food tour, and on Saturday on the San Juan market tour. The pope was also in town this weekend which made the city crazier than usual and drove the tour selections as we tried to not be where he was, with limited success.
       
      Street Food Tour
      I have limited photos of this one because our hands were usually full! There are ten "normal" stops on the tour plus a couple of optional ones. One of the vendors was closed for the day, but we definitely had no shortage of food. I think the tour lasted something like four hours, and we were basically eating the whole time. Most of it was standing and walking, but we did stop into a local coffee shop and sit down for a short time. Our guide, Arturo, was excellent. He is from the city, has attended culinary school, and is very well versed in both the local street food culture as well as Mexican cuisine overall. 
       
      While the tour was mostly eating, we did walk through one small neighborhood market just to get the feel for the thing, and we stopped at one local tortilleria:


       
      The classic tortilla-delivery vehicle:

       
      We chatted up a local store owner who was making "antojitos" ("little cravings") for breakfast:

       
      Ate some tamales, walked a bit, then had some tlacoyos: here are the condiments...

       
      We also had some fresh juices. They really like their pseudo-medicinal juices.. we had the one that was "anti-flu" (and delicious):

       
      For the tlacoyos I had a huitlacoche and my wife has the chicken tinga. The huitlacoche was disappointingly non-descript. The remedy, of course, was to douse it in salsa, which fixes everything. A few blocks down we had carnitas tacos:
       
       
      And then some mango and watermelon with chile powder:

       
      Arturo tried to ply us with more food at the nearby burreria, but at this point we were on the verge of exploding:

       
      So we stopped for some locally-roasted coffee:

       
      Then on to a burrito place (of all things!) -- the guy running the burrito place was hilarious, and totally frank about stealing the burrito thing from Texas and then "fixing it." He's had the stand for something like 20 years. We split a squash blossom burrito (squash blossoms, onions, salsa, and cheese are the only ingredients, no rice or beans) which he makes on the griddle and then covers in a cheese blend and fries until the cheese browns and crisps. Definitely an improved burrito! Yeah, no photos there. Second to last was an absolutely terrific octopus tostada:

       
      And then a final stop for dessert (which we took back to the hotel rather than eating it there):

       
       
      ETA: A couple more photos. Also, there was a turkey and pork sandwich of some kind that I have no photos of and can't quite remember where it fit into the tour. Just in case you were worried about us starving.


    • By cyalexa
      Salsa Para Enchiladas  
      3 ancho chiles
      2 New Mexico chiles
      2 chipotle chiles
      1 clove garlic, sliced
      2 TB flour
      2 TB vegetable oil
      1 tsp vinegar
      ¾ tsp salt
      ¼ tsp dried oregano
      2 cups broth, stock, or (filtered) chili soaking liquid
      Rinse, stem and seed chiles. Place in saucepan and cover with water. Bring to boil. Cover and remove from heat and let soften and cool. While the chiles are cooling, gently sauté garlic slices in oil until they are soft and golden brown. Remove the garlic from the oil, with a slotted spoon and reserve. Make a light roux by adding the flour to the oil and sautéing briefly. Drain the chilies and puree them with the garlic slices and half of the liquid. Strain the puree back into the saucepan. Pour the remainder of the liquid through the sieve to loosen any remaining chili pulp. Add the roux to the saucepan and whisk to blend. Add the rest of the ingredients to the pan, bring to a boil then and simmer 15-20 minutes. Taste and add additional salt and vinegar if necessary.
    • By IowaDee
      The February issue of Sunset Magazine has a great article about the beans of Mexico.  And guess who is featured.....our own Steve Sando.  Nice write up and lots and lots of recipes.  I have been a Sunset subscriber for more than 25 years and I finally :"know" someone in it.  Cool Beans as they say.
       
      I hope someone with more skills than I have can post a link. 
    • By gfron1
      A friend gifted me a book written by someone I know of but only loosely. The acquaintance is a former missionary who has lived in Oaxaca for 15 years and co-authored this book with Susana Trilling (famous Oaxacan cooking instructor). The book is self published and really surprised me with its quality. The whole thesis is saving the indigenous foods of the area and combatting GMO infiltration of the area. Those of you who know the area might know of one of my hero restaurants - the like-minded Itanoni in Oaxaca City - surely they all travel in the same circles.
       
      Recipes are average fare - not fancy - clearly recipes from regular local folk, but very authentic, not fusion. They start with basic fresh masa, run you through all sorts of things including molé  and salads and end up with stuff like yucca and egg tacos. The chapters include: Wild Greens (purslane, amaranth, etc), Beans & Squash, Salsa, Nopal and Maguey, Food and Fiesta, Medicinal uses. About 300 pages in all (so figure 150 in English and 150 in Spanish).
       
      This book is not available through Amazon. It is bilingual. I highly recommend it. 
       
      Side note: Quite frankly these guys are goofs. They don't know how important and well produced this book is and aren't marketing it worth crap. Go buy it. Tell them I sent you. And enjoy this book.
       
      HERE
       
       
    • By worm@work
      Hi,
      I am a newbie both to this board and to the world of mexican cooking. I love tamales but the place where I live distinctly lacks good mexican restaurants. The best tamales I've tasted were made by my mexican friends mom at home and served fresh and they tasted like something that'd be served only in heaven. Am dying to try making them myself but I don't have the slightest idea how to get started. Can someone give me a tried and tested recipe using ingredients that I'm likely to be able to buy in the US? I'd be really really really grateful. Oh and I'm a vegetarian although I do eat eggs from time to time. So I need a vegetarian recipe too . Really looking forward to some help!!!
      Thanks a million,
      worm@work
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.