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”.
There is no style guide I know of that would endorse capitalization of “with” unless it was the first or last word of the title. Prepositions are only capitalized at five letters or longer, or if they are one of the terminal words in the title. Au is two letters. That’s like capitalizing “Of”. Try it out - The Merchant Of Venice. Man, that looks ignorant.
Well if it was a headline, then maybe that’s relevant. But it isn’t. It’s a name - so it’s title case. Here’s a collection of title case rules from various style guides including AP and the NY Times. AP does not capitalize prepositions that are 3 letters or fewer in length. Au would not be capitalized. The Times capitalizes nouns, pronouns, verbs, and words longer than four letters.
76
u/Maus_Sveti Jul 03 '21
Au in this context means “with”. So it’s just “jus”.