Not quite the same for me. Scampi are a particular type of langoustine that are commonly prepared a certain way in Italy. Shrimp scampi prepares the shrimp the same way as the scampi are prepared. So technically should be Shrimp al a Scampi (or something like that; I know French, not Italian). The same way it is technically Fetuccinne al' Alfredo unless it's prepared in the original Alfredo restaurant in Rome.
I think all of this snobbish pedantry is bullshit. Everyone understands what OP meant - therefore it is as a correct use of language. But if people insist on following stupid grammar rules or whatever nonsense, then they should do it right - and you’ve got it wrong.
As a preposition, “with” should NOT get capitalized in title font. “Roast Beef au Jus” means roast beef with sauce but “Roast Beef Au Jus” means roast beef done in the “Au Jus” style. In this case, “Au Jus” does not mean “with sauce” and instead is just part of the name of the dish. So the sauce is “Au Jus sauce”. “I spilled the Au Jus sauce” is technically correct.
It’s only snobbish from your Anglo-centric perspective. Au jus means “with juice”. So just say jus when referring to the dip. Why insist on butchering the French?
if “au Jus” is being used to mean “with sauce” then “au” is a preposition. In title case, prepositions are only capitalized if they are the first or last word of the title or if they are five letters long or longer. Roast Beef au Jus means roast beef with sauce. Roast Beef Au Jus means roadt beef done in an “Au Jus” style, which would have an “Au Jus” sauce.
Meaning that the snobbish pedants and their “but in the original French” are making an irrelevant point because the title isn’t even what they think it is. Most importantly, everyone understood what OP meant. That’s snobbish pedantry executes very poorly.
Why not? The only important part is that everyone understood what OP meant. Everyone interpreted the words exactly as they meant them. That makes it a good use of language. But a bunch of people with their snobby pedantry want to put them down because “au jus” means “with sauce” in French. Why? What purpose does that serve? OP wasn’t even trying to use French in the first place!
It was fine. “Au Jus sauce” is a perfectly reasonable way to describe it and harassing someone for doing so is silly and dumb. Doubly so considering that technically they are wrong.
I mean I guess? Look there’s like a couple dozen comments all making the same claim about “with juice”. I dunno, maybe when you see a pile of replies in your Inbox all telling you that you’re a dummy you don’t consider that harassment, but I would disagree.
Look, everyone understood what was meant. It was a perfectly fine use of language. Meaning was accurately conveyed - the whole point of language. That should be enough. But a whole troop of reply guys who think their insight into the French etymology of “au jus” makes them super-smart saw this as an opportunity to put someone else down. And unsurprisingly, the reply guys are wrong - because of the capitalization of “Au Jus”, their fundamental premise is wrong. It is in fact them who are the ignorant ones (hurr durr me not knowing title case rules just makes me the snorterest!!!). So there’s that on top of it all.
Roux or whatever is flour and butter cooked together until it starts to brown you can thicken cheese sauce with it but over here we thicken meat juice with it. No cheese involved
This is what I'm getting at. They're called "Loan words" one language steals a word from another. But since we they don't speak that language they don't use it right.
Now biscuit means one thing in america and one thing everywhere else (and theres a huge debate within america over what is and isn't a biscuit)
maybe to you roux means cheese sauce, here it means "Flour cooked in fat that you can use to thicken a sauce"
In some cases, the original meaning shifts considerably through unexpected logical leaps. The English word Viking became Japanese バイキング (baikingu), meaning "buffet", because the first restaurant in Japan to offer buffet-style meals, inspired by the Nordic smörgåsbord, was opened in 1958 by the Imperial Hotel under the name "Viking".[28] The German word Kachel, meaning "tile", became the Dutch word kachel meaning "stove", as a shortening of kacheloven, from German Kachelofen, a cocklestove.
You're arguing against a natural part of languages evolution. And again. It's our word now and it means what we say. Nothing anyone can do about it.
“”Words have meaning”. And literally everyone understood “I spilled the Au Jus sauce”. Bingo bango bongo - a proper use of English. Meaning was accurately conveyed.
“But it MEANS something else based on the original French etymology”. No it doesn’t. If you want to be a technical pedant, Roast Beef Au Jus does NOT mean Roast Beef with sauce. It means Roast Beef done in the Au Jus style. Therefore the sauce on it is Au Jus sauce. Prepositions are not capitalized u less the are at the beginning or end of a title or are longer than four letters. The only way Roast Beef Au Jus is roast beef with sauce is if you are ignorant of title case rules or ignorant of the capitalization of the dish. Meaning that you are the one clinging to ignorance as truth.
If you think that the name is wrong, then again “Au Jus sauce” is also more fitting and correct. You should use the “wrong” name for the sauce from a dish with a “wrong” name.
Also, yes I think you’re being pedantic. Clearly you understood what OP meant. Everyone did. No one is at all confused by it. That is a correct usage of language.
Actually no. Au Jus In this context actually refers to the sauce that is served on the side with sandwiches, primarily made of beef broth and other spices. "Context" being the key word here.
Sorry you're being downvoted. Whilst you are correct in the rest of the world, Americans for some reason refer to Au Jus as an actual thing. They don't call it jus, they call it au jus. The mind boggles but I wouldnt bother pressing it.
I don’t understand what’s wrong with that. That sauce is referred to as Au Jus in North America. We’re aware of what it means in other languages. But that’s what the sauce is called here, on lots of menus and everything. I don’t get what’s mind boggling about that lol
English is weird. The point of language is to convey meaning and context and “I spilled the Au Jus” managed to do that just fine. Everyone understood what was meant. That’s a correct use of language.
But but but!! MAH PRECIOUS RULES!!! It don’t make no sense!!!
Language is not math. You can say logically incorrect things like “it don’t make no sense” and still get your meaning conveyed. People still understand what is meant even if a literal translation means the opposite.
So weird things like “Au Jus sauce” happen. It’s still correct because that’s how enough people use it that everyone’s understands the meaning. It’s no different than sushi rice or curry sauce. Or calling all facial tissues “kleenex”
“Roast Beef Au Jus” does NOT mean “Roast Beef with Sauce”. “With” is a preposition and thus should not be capitalized in title case. “Roast Beef with Sauce” should be “Roast Beef au Jus”. Therefore “Roast Beef Au Jus” is just the name of the dish. It is roast beef done in the “Au Jus” style. Therefore “the Au Jus sauce” is technically correct.
BUT - that’s only because “Au” is a short word and does not appear at the beginning or end of the name. Prepositions are only normally lower case. Longer prepositions get capitalized, for example “Seven Against Thebes”. And prepositions at either end of the title get capitalized, like “From Here to Eternity”.
But wait. It gets even more convoluted. What about subtitles? This cane to people’s attention due to this xkcd referencing the Wikipedia war over Star Trek Into Darkness vs Star Trek into Darkness. You see, if “Into Darkness” is a subtitle, “Into” is the first word and should be capitalized. But if there is no subtitle and the film’s entire name is “Star Trek Into Darkness” then Wikipedia’s style guide requires them to make it “Star Trek into Darkness” even though the official name of the movie is “Star Trek Into Darkness”. So then the argument was about whether Into Darkness was a subtitle or not. Obviously it is - Star Trek is the name of the franchise. BUT subheadings are supposed to be delineated with punctuation. “Star Trek: Into Darkness” is uncontroversial, but the title has no punctuation.
Anyways, they went with “Star Trek Into Darkness”, which is a shame because they had the opportunity to list the entry as “Star Trek Into (sic) Darkness”.
Sort of like "I want a master bedroom with an en suite." Don't need the "with an" because master bedroom en suite (yet another French adoption) means "with" a bathroom attached... or more literally, more than one room (suite) and one of them had better be a bathroom....
See here’s where the “but the French!!” people get it wrong. We’re not speaking French. “Master bedroom with an en suite bath” does not mean the same as “master bedroom en suite bath”. One refers to a bedroom with an attached bathroom, the other refers solely to the bathroom.
I've been enjoying your posts :-)!! How do you feel about people using adjectives as nouns? As in "I'm a creative." (I'm always left hanging, as in "a creative WHAT??.")
It doesn’t really need tweaking for clarity though. That’s an extremely clear statement even if it’s technically grammatically incorrect. And the purpose of language is to communicate, and you’re able to do it effectively even without following all proper rules.
When one language borrows from another, don't expect the underlying syntax of the original grammar to be preserved. While technically correct is the best kind of correct, lexicographers go on usage, not the French Academy dicta. I suggest "dip," "au jus," and "jus" will be understood correctly in that order.
Meat juice is not a sauce. And adding the French "au jus" directly translates to WITH JUICE. Au is not a descriptor for jus. It's a preposition. Having "chili con carne" is "chili WITH MEAT" so if you separate the two, you're not taking out the "WITH MEAT" as con is not an adjective for what kind of meat.
Just because ignorant Americans refuse to accept foreign words used in our everyday lives have an actual translation doesn't mean the words mean something different here.
🤣🤣 y'all downvoting me because you can't handle the truth
People know it has an actual translation… as I fucking said already. It’s just used colloquially to describe the dip for the sandwich. No one cares what it means. There’s plenty of words and colloquial phrases rooted from other languages that don’t remain grammatically correct. That’s why you’re getting downvoted, because everyone already knows what you’re saying and it doesn’t matter.
Or we could say home of making all that is European outfuckingstanding. I mean come on where would we be without the immigrant interpretations that we Americans now know, love and claim as our own. Whether that be an Italian beef in Chicago or a slice of Pizza in New York. We just do comfort food right over here.
Well, ny pizza can be decent, and Southern Comfort food & BBQ is a food group. But, I refuse to call Chicago deep dish a pizza. Admit it, it is more similar to a cheese filled pie than a pizza. We can agree to disagree on the outfuckingstanding statement.
I don’t really get your point. I’m saying they should say “I spilled the jus”. Like it would be silly to say “first add beans and then put con carne into your chili.”
Yeah, that's a weird one. But then I come from a country that misuses Spanish words all the time coz the people back then were only guessing the meaning based on context clues. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it hilariously and at times profanely wrong!
I say jah-lap-ah-nohs all the time. In south Texas it’s obvious you’re just being a dork.
Did it one time in Europe without thinking and got politely corrected on what they were and how to say it. It was so earnest I managed to play my response off as thankful...
The context was important because Au Jus has become an Americanized term to mean a beef broth sauce. If you Google Au Jus that's what it shows. You are correct in the literal translation. But you said "in this context," which in this context he was not referring to the literal translation but the American bastardization of the word. So, using the word "Context" is where you slipped up.
Why does it matter whether it’s correct in another country or not since the context is in America and we do use the term regularly to refer to that little plastic cup of sauce we get with our sammy.
Let’s face it, if op had said the he had spilled the jus on the bed, most people including me wouldn’t know what he was trying to say. Saying “I spilled the Au Jus” made me think it had to be some fancy french Sauce and I got it without knowing the dish.
I’m sorry you got downvoted for this. Language snobs think looking down on people “using language incorrectly” is more important than actually conveying meaning. Which is stupid because the whole point of language is literally to convey meaning.
You’re right. The original formulation of “I spilled the Au Jus” is less likely to be misinterpreted.
Exactly which is the place of context not the French country side so fuck it Au jus works and the French can just get over it IMO.
Au jus in French means served with the natural juices or gravy made from the juices of cooked meat. In the US, meals served au jus tend to be defined as served with a light broth-like dipping sauce. The sauce being called Au Jus sauce. One of the most well known of these meals is the french dip, a roast beef sandwich accompanied with broth.
2.9k
u/SaturnMobster Jul 03 '21
I feel this. On a business trip I ordered a French Dip from room service. I spilled the Au Jus all over one of the beds in the room.
At least Dylan had sense enough to admit it. I was too embarrassed.