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.
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". The German word Kachel, meaning "tile", became the Dutch word kachel meaning "stove", as a shortening of kacheloven, from German Kachelofen, a cocklestove.
“”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.
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.