Restaurant/Bar Annoyances

[Pan]

So what's the difference between a cafe au lait and a caffe latte and a plain old coffee with milk (hold the sugar)?[...]

←

We should add cafe con leche. These expressions all have the same literal meaning. I'm not a coffee drinker and therefore not an expert in the differences between versions of coffee with milk, but one might consider the fact that bread, pain, pane, and pan also have the same literal meaning, but everyday bread isn't the same in the U.S., France, Italy, and Spain, for example.

[NulloModo]

By now if your average US consumer asks for chai, they expect masala chai.  If they want plain tea, they as for tea.  Again, just the way it has been adopted into the language, no real reason to change it...

←

what's so difficult about saying "tea" and "spiced tea".

that's what chai and masala chai translate to....

if it is sooo hard to remember / pronounce / etc.

milagai

←

I don't think there is anything difficult about using either, but neither sounds as exotic as 'chai' and exotic (to a degree) sells.

Also, there are lots of way you can spice tea. I am sure that in India there are a multitude of variations on chai masala, but when most people hear 'chai' they think of clove, ginger, cardamom, cinnamon, etc, the spices common to chai masala blends. So, in this case saying 'chai' gives the potential customer a much better idea of what they are ordering than just 'spiced tea' which could be anything.

[Nick Soapdish]

So what's the difference between a cafe au lait and a caffe latte and a plain old coffee with milk (hold the sugar)? I know that there's gonna be some steaming in here somewhere, but I'm not sure where. 

I squirm when people say 'pita bread.' It's just pita, folks. The 'bread' part is a given, pita ain't gonna be anything else. Same with 'challa bread.' Oy.

←

cafe au lait is half brewed coffee, half steamed milk

cafe latte is espresso with steamed milk

coffee with milk(hold the sugar) is exactly as it sounds

ns

[Marlene]

So what's the difference between a cafe au lait and a caffe latte and a plain old coffee with milk (hold the sugar)?[...]

←

We should add cafe con leche. These expressions all have the same literal meaning. I'm not a coffee drinker and therefore not an expert in the differences between versions of coffee with milk, but one might consider the fact that bread, pain, pane, and pan also have the same literal meaning, but everyday bread isn't the same in the U.S., France, Italy, and Spain, for example.

←

Cafe con leche = coffee with milk

Cafe con crema = cofee with cream

If you're in Mexico that is.

[Daniel]

Hey eGullet,

Oh, and did I mention the same fellow kept talking about his restaurant's "steak ah pwah?"  Webster's again:  O-'pwäv(r&)  Of course I find the pretentious gits funny, and the truly ignorant just, well.....slightly dismaying.  Heard any good/frustrating ones lately?

←

Call it whatever you want, the bottom line is, did the man cook a good steak or not?

Its how you bring it, not sing it, that counts..

Edited June 30, 2005 by Daniel (log)

[*Deborah*]

A new Italian restaurant opened last week--menu lists "Muscles Marinara".  Someone at work was raving about their chicken "Fran-CHAYZ".

←

Francese = French in Italian, no? pronounced roughly fran-chayz in English? or -chayzeh or something like that.

(edited because I cannot type on this laptop)

Edited June 30, 2005 by *Deborah* (log)

[afn33282]

Now, if the menu is entirely in the foreign language perhaps it is different, but when it is just an add on to an english language menu item, whats the big deal?

←

Well, my generally incoherent thoughts on this are as follows:

Words are nothing but tools. This idea behind this thread was not the romantization or beauty of words, which you can usually enjoy in an appropriate context. It has more to do with clean versus sloppy thinking to me. There are those who prefer working in a chaotic environment. They might let their dishes pile up when they cook, and then clean it all at the end of the night, or more likely or often, get somebody else to do it for them. (Though I am sure you are a true dish dog [a complement, where I am from], NulloModo). Not me. I prefer to clean as I go--keeping my tools clean, and I prefer to use my tools well, as they were designed to be used. Sure, you can use the butt of your Wusthof as a pestle, but me, I'll get the pestle out of the drawer. This subject at hand has less to do for me with using a French word as the French would use it because, well oooh, how French of me, but because I get a particular, if grim, joy out of precision in application of technique, and out of efficiency. Why make up another prononciation when there is already a perfectly good one? To me, somebody who says they want their French Dip "with au jus," is either a) ignorant of the word's original origin, meaning, or usage (most likely), or b) intimidated by the idea of using a foreign word and is responding to an instinct to Americanize it, or c) plain lazy. I think the reastaurant manager (a dubious category if I ever heard of one) who boasted about his chef's "verblanc" probably has never picked up a book on French cooking, but was jazzed by the idea of being associated with French food somehow. That to me is laziness combined with ignorance.

When one misuses words taken from another language, it also shows I think just a bit of disrespect for the language that gave us the word in the first place. Now I am no linguist, but I suspect that either we borrowed it because we didn't have an acceptable substitute in the first place, or the word came in organically through cultural mixing, or the foreign word just sounded so much cooler than ours did. Misusing the term I think lends to a sort of cultural isolationism for which we Americans are often reviled. I like the idea of paying a bit of respect to the language from which the word came by using it correctly. It makes me feel mindful of the influence that that particular culture contributed to my vocabulary and what it contributed to the subject at hand. I enjoy the concommitant feelings of gratitude and connectedness to that culture, in such a case, not because I want to sound or be French, but because I like the idea of different cultures/cuisines being linked in many ways and contributing to each other.

I do believe that once a word's usage has become firmly entrenched, it is often a waste of energy to struggle against the common tide. My mother has constantly reminded me since my childhood that the proper prononciation of forte is "fort," but as 99% of the people I have ever met say "for-TAY," and I am really not interested in getting in a discussion on prononciation with 99% of the people I meet I don't bother to say anything. At this point, too, "for-TAY" has been so much accepted, that nothing I or any number of "grammar nazis" say is going to change much. See the following entry for forte at Webster's Online for some enlightening commentary. I have long heard that a new word often gains permanent credibility when it is used in a publication such as the New York Times. Perhaps an editorial in the Times or some other similar media source might change the direction of things with regards to the usage of any give word, but it would take a true wordsmith with uncanny powers of argument and a knack for the popular voice to really start any momentum, I think. What I am saying is that past a certain point there is often no going back. Also, you have to choose your battles, and forte is a word that is so seldom used that its fate doesn't matter too much to me.

On the other hand, when one becomes personally invested in any realm of human endeavor to a certain degree, one often begins to appreciate specificity. Describing something accurately is part of appreciating it well, and the further you wade into a subject and the broader and deeper and more complex it becomes in your sights, the greater the need for explicit and exact terms to sort out all the phenomina that you are presented with. The better your word for something, the better you can think about it, I say, and the better you can engage in what the word refers to. I generally regard eGullet as a community of such dedicated folks, who care about perpetuating and advancing the notion of integrity in all things culinary. I mean, goodness' sake, they made me write an essay to get on here! If there were ever a community which would be interested in promoting quality of thought when it comes to food, it might be something like this one. And part of high quality thinking is living by high standards when it comes to expression. While it may be a waste of time to expect everybody to go around correcting perfect strangers on their use of "au jus," I think people like us are perfect canidates for standing against this rising wave of ignorance that will likely add one more element of ambiguity in the already often unclear realm of communication. I mean, I don't care enough about politics (sheepish grin) to get into it with anybody on who our next presidential canidates should be. My supply of resources is not great enough and personal scope of interests is not wide enough to devote myself to complete rigor and richness of knowledge in all subjects. But I care about food, and as best I can I will try to be an example of clarity in expression and faithfulness to meaning when it comes to discussing it.

After all this, I must concede that every language has its own rythms and often-unconciously-felt natural aesthetic lines. It is no surprise to me that words morph when they have been in the context of a different language's aethetic for long enough. I think that it is part of the give-and-take involved in the growth of any culture. I think, though, that it is more on the "take" side. The "give" side has to do with, I would say, staying connected to the history of the features of any given culture, and that includes its terminology.

Chris, word nazi, who had to look up how to spell "rhythm."

Edited June 30, 2005 by afn33282 (log)

[michaeldauphinais]

How about "cheese quesadilla"?

or "Beef carne asada"?

←

Especially the cheese quesadillas at the place near the ATM machine.

←

The ATM machine?

You mean the place where they ask for your PIN number?

[michaeldauphinais]

Another pet peeve buzzword: panini

as in: "Try a panini."

panino = sandwich

panini = sandwiches

[Pan]

That was very eloquent, and I hope you'll pardon me for not responding in kind.

The same things that bother you bother me (except for "forte," which I pronounce "FOR-tay" without a real "y" sound [quite similar to how I pronounce it in Italian], whether I'm using the musical meaning or not), but let's keep in mind that beef and veal come from boeuf and veau or common ancestors thereof and that we English speakers don't generally form the "z" in "zucchini" with a "ts" sound. "With au jus" bugs me because it's so unnecessary and also because, until I saw threads like that, I might have wondered whether "with au jus" stood for "with orange juice" (I'm guessing that the "s" in "jus" is often pronounced by English-speakers). Isn't "gravy" a perfectly good English word? But that's not the way language works. Usage changes over time and thus is language shaped and reshaped.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Pan (log)

[*Deborah*]

Hear, hear, afn33282.

[*Deborah*]

That was very eloquent, and I hope you'll pardon me for not responding in kind.

The same things that bother you bother me (except for "forte," which I pronounce "FOR-tay" without a real "y" sound [quite similar to how I pronounce it in Italian], whether I'm using the musical meaning or not), but let's keep in mind that beef and veal come from boeuf and veau or common ancestors thereof and that we English speakers don't generally form the "z" in "zucchini" with a "ts" sound. "With au jus" bugs me because it's so unnecessary and also because, until I saw threads like that, I might have wondered whether "with au jus" stood for "with orange juice" (I'm guessing that the "s" in "jus" is often pronounced by English-speakers). Isn't "gravy" a perfectly good English word? But that's not the way language works. Usage changes over time and thus is language shaped and reshaped.

←

Isn't there a difference between gravy and jus in any case? gravy to me implies thickening, where jus is just the juices...they could say in English "with drippings" but that would be a whole nother can of worms, no doubt

Edited June 30, 2005 by *Deborah* (log)

[Almass]

Isn't there a differene between gravy and jus in any case? gravy to me implies thickening, where jus is just the juices...they could say in English "with drippings" but that would be a whole nother can of worms, no doubt

←

Can of worm now officially open!

Au jus purist definition implies two concurrent factors:

1- Cooking in natural juices and dripping with no thickening agent e.g. Cream-Wine...etc

2- Served and presented swimming in it's own jus and not in a separate sauciere.

You will find a menu entry as:

- **** au jus

- **** servis au jus

As of late, it is also acceptable to signal that the dish has been cooked with the addition of other ingredients and thus is called: **** au jus de Cepes or **** au jus de tomates ...etc

As for gravy, and rightly as you said, this is thickened sauce and thus not the same as Au jus.

Drippings, provided not thickened, would be a better word for Au jus.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Almass (log)

[OwnReward]

Isn't there a differene between gravy and jus in any case? gravy to me implies thickening, where jus is just the juices...they could say in English "with drippings" but that would be a whole nother can of worms, no doubt

←

Can of worm now officially open!

Au jus purist definition implies two concurrent factors:

1- Cooking in natural juices and dripping with no thickening agent e.g. Cream-Wine...etc

2- Served and presented swimming in it's own jus and not in a separate sauciere.

←

I've always wondered how menus can say "in its own juices" when describing the item...I've never seen a roast (the home size version all the way up to a steamship round) give off more than minimal pan drippings...certainly not the quantity one gets when consuming a main course "au jus"... what ever it is, it's not natural and (for the majority of places) it comes from a can.

(And for the grammar police...have you read 'Eats Shoots and Leaves: The zero tolerance apporach to Good Grammar'...a truly hysterical book... If you were not a grammar snob before, you will be afterwards...)

KV

[Milagai]

I don't think there is anything difficult about using either, but neither sounds as exotic as 'chai' and exotic (to a degree) sells.

Also, there are lots of way you can spice tea. I am sure that in India there are a multitude of variations on chai masala, but when most people hear 'chai' they think of clove, ginger, cardamom, cinnamon, etc, the spices common to chai masala blends. So, in this case saying 'chai' gives the potential customer a much better idea of what they are ordering than just 'spiced tea' which could be anything.

←

In India too, there is a specific set of variations on masala chai,

not "anything goes".

And when "most people" who have any respect for word usage,

or Indian food, of Chinese or Japanese languages etc etc say "chai"

they think of plain old "tea". That's what the word means, after all.

So, saying masala chai or spiced tea (if masala chai has too many syllables

as touregsand suggested) should evoke a specific preparation,

not "just anything".

Why on earth would a potential customer think "just anything"?

And if you mean "North American customers" by "most people"

it seems that people in North America (judging by the threads here)

go out of their way to mangle perfectly straightforward words

rather than get them right......

Milagai

(sorry to keep harping on this point, I shold probably stop,

but some of these arguments I just don't get.

People seem to want to stick to a wrong or lazy usage instead

of making a small adjustment;

which evokes thoughts of "cultural appropriation",

"downright disrespect" and other highly useless notions

in my head that I need to stay away from)

[cakewalk]

I think it will come as no surprise to most of us to say that the same word can mean something entirely different in different cultures. (Even the U.S. and England.) I mean, this is not a revelatory statement. Words evolve. Language evolves. And it evolves differently in different locales. That's why language is said to be "alive." Not only is it alive, it is kicking and screaming. And I happen to like it that way, thank you very much. (Even though I can't stand the current craze of using nouns as verbs. No, I do not want to dialogue with you.)

Ten years ago if you walked into a restaurant in the States and asked for a cup of chai, no one would have known what the hell you were talking about altogether. So now English has added a new word to its vernacular. Its meaning in English is less specific than its original meaning. That's because English is a different language than Hindi (assuming Hindi as the original language, I'm not sure about that so please correct me if I'm wrong.) It would be wrong in India. It is correct in the U.S. So we've created something new. Language lives. Long live language. Now say that ten times fast.

Edit: misplaced apostrophe. Wrong thread for that.

Edited June 30, 2005 by cakewalk (log)

[BarbaraY]

Spaghetti noodles!

[therese]

I'm generally with NulloModo and cakewalk on this issue. Languages change constantly, it's one of the cool things about them. I do find some things jarring: the use of the plural Italian in English instead of the singular, for instance, but that's because I speak Italian and hearing it used incorrectly sounds as strange as saying "I'd like a sandwiches, please." I don't expect somebody who is non-italophone to have the same reaction, and I don't think less of them for not having made the effort to figure out the fine points of Italian grammar.

I do expect pretty much perfect spelling and at least reasonable sentence structure in printed material, particularly when the text is in the local predominant language, written by a native speaker and directed at other native speakers. The following text is from a glossy advert for a local upmarket-ish retaurant (that I've never visited):

"Mosaic is a coastal Mediterranean restaurant with exciting worldly charm and cuisine. Our handcrafted menu and ambience take your pallet on a foreign voyage stopping at various French, Italian, Spanish and North African ports of flavor and decadence."

They do, fortunately, offer "ample and secure parking".

[Laksa]

"Mosaic is a coastal Mediterranean restaurant with exciting worldly charm and cuisine. Our handcrafted menu and ambience take your pallet on a foreign voyage stopping at various French, Italian, Spanish and North African ports of flavor and decadence."

←

Mosaic? I know them. They're a totally new concept -- a one-stop-shop for all your fine dining and cargo shipping needs (but you have to supply your own pallets).

Milagai,

I bet some marketing type followed a train of thought like this one when they came up with "chai tea":

masala chai - all words are foreign in this term. Will only confuse potential customers

spiced tea - too generic and not exotic enough

chai tea - exotic, yet familiar. Everyone knows that tea is a beverage! Bingo!

[therese]

"Mosaic is a coastal Mediterranean restaurant with exciting worldly charm and cuisine. Our handcrafted menu and ambience take your pallet on a foreign voyage stopping at various French, Italian, Spanish and North African ports of flavor and decadence."

←

Mosaic? I know them. They're a totally new concept -- a one-stop-shop for all your fine dining and cargo shipping needs (but you have to supply your own pallets).

←

Exactly. I think the idea is to outfit the pallet as a raft, the better to visit all those decadent ports of call. Just throw a couple of them in the back of your Hummer and you're all set.

[therese]

"Chai" is used in these parts (Atlanta, GA) to describe any sweet milky spiced version of hot black tea. I've not seen it called "chai tea", though I don't usually drink it away from home (where I make it with a commercially-prepared masala that I also add to hot cocoa) so may just be missing that. Some people know that it means tea and some people do not, but everybody knows that when you ask for chai around here you're asking for the sweet milky spicy beverage, not for plain black tea. If you appeared to be Indian and were in an Indian restaurant and asked for chai the waiter might ask you to clarify your order.

[NulloModo]

I think it will come as no surprise to most of us to say that the same word can mean something entirely different in different cultures. (Even the U.S. and England.) I mean, this is not a revelatory statement. Words evolve. Language evolves. And it evolves differently in different locales. That's why language is said to be "alive." Not only is it alive, it is kicking and screaming. And I happen to like it that way, thank you very much. (Even though I can't stand the current craze of using nouns as verbs. No, I do not want to dialogue with you.)

Ten years ago if you walked into a restaurant in the States and asked for a cup of chai, no one would have known what the hell you were talking about altogether. So now English has added a new word to its vernacular. Its meaning in English is less specific than its original meaning. That's because English is a different language than Hindi (assuming Hindi as the original language, I'm not sure about that so please correct me if I'm wrong.) It would be wrong in India. It is correct in the U.S. So we've created something new. Language lives. Long live language. Now say that ten times fast. 

Edit: misplaced apostrophe. Wrong thread for that.

←

That was exactly my point. As another example (after reading the Rob Walsh Tex-Mex book) apparently 'enchiladas' used to mean only 'covered in chiles' or something to that effect. Now it refers to the dish of tortillas wrapped around something covered in a chile sauce, the word has evolved, and now enchilada is an accepted proper term for what we now know as the dish.

Milagai -

I never said that masala chai was "anything goes" in India, just that there were variations, which is pretty much the same thing you said. Also, I'd bet serious money that in many Indian homes people aren't measuring out exact quantities of each spice to fit a certain recipe for the stuff, they do what they have grown up on, maybe suited to individual tastes, and the beverage continues to evolve.

A customer would think that 'spiced tea' could mean 'just anything' because it could. All it requires are tea and spices. One could take green tea, load it up with ginger and allspice, and call it 'spiced tea'. Chai, on the other hand, brings a certain specific beverage to mind because what is known in India as masala chai has already been accepted in the US as simply 'chai'. I suppose one could call it 'Indian spiced tea' but Chai sounds somewhat more authentic (even if the usage of the word in that way isn't).

There is nothing disrespectful about borrowing and adapting terms from other languages. I'm also positive that those of us in the US aren't the only ones in the world who do it.

As for cultural appropriation, what is wrong with it? That is a big part of what we do around here. As a melting pot culture we find things we like, perhaps adapt them a bit to suit local tastes, and run with it. So maybe some words get changed, some ingredients shift, and the methods of preparation aren't authentic, who cares? The authentic stuff lives on where it originally came from, and we can enjoy our adopted and adapted version. If you want to order authentic masala chai I am sure there are a number of Indian restaurants in the US and even more in India and other points around the world where you can do so. Copying and playing with a concept doesn't diminish the original in any way, it adds to it by exposing more people to it. Calling it chai instead of just 'spiced tea' or 'Indian spiced tea' is a nod of respect to the original dish.

[abadoozy]

Yes, they could. I'm convinced this town has the worst restaurants (with one or two bright, shining exceptions) in the country.

←

now there's an idea for a new thread: a competition for the

town with the worst restaurants

what is your town, do you mind sharing?

←

I'm in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan... a great place for many things, but any attempt at food other than bar food seems just doomed. Except, of course, the one or two bright shining exceptions I mentioned above, one of which is run by an e-Gulleter.

[Pan]

[...]

A customer would think that 'spiced tea' could mean 'just anything' because it could.  All it requires are tea and spices.  One could take green tea, load it up with ginger and allspice, and call it 'spiced tea'.[...]

←

Or it could be black tea with cinnamon or cinnamon sugar.

[Pan]

Spaghetti noodles!  

←

Spaghetti are a variety of noodles, aren't they?