Talk:French cuisine/Catalogs

From Citizendium
< Talk:French cuisine
Revision as of 00:26, 21 December 2009 by Peter Schmitt (Talk | contribs) (Tete de veau: new section)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is basically copied from an external source and has not been approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
  • I see french fries is on the list. Are french fries considered French cuisine? They didn't originate in France, though they may eat them there. --Charles Sandberg 17:20, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
In the article about them, the first paragraph (written by me) says that they probably originated in Belgium. I've been wondering about this entry, however, and will now modify it.... Hayford Peirce 17:26, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
    • Thanks for adding that. It makes more sense now. Thank you! :) --Charles Sandberg 17:29, 20 June 2007 (CDT)


Are we going to have capitals beginning all entries? It would be more educational not to, but many people would say it looks better with caps for each entry. And if we're going to have em dashes, please, Monsieur Efford, could you type them in please, as this is at least one European restaurant that doesn't have them. Merci mille fois. Ro Thorpe 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it *looks* better, so let's have all caps. As for the em dashes, I'll try to get around doing them. I used them before, but I think other people who put in items haven't been using them. Hayford Peirce 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Seems the same applies to many others, which I suppose is why you often see two en dashes -- instead. It looks almost the same, but not quite. Ro Thorpe 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC) - Looking better already!

I'm not really sure that the dash - is exactly the same as the en dash – Is it? If so, then why do we have an en dash thingee down in the Special Characters section? Hayford Peirce 01:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hah! It's not the same, just take a look above.... Hayford Peirce 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that some time ago, but didn't feel it was important, I suppose. What do we call this then? - the hyphen dash? Ro Thorpe 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe the dash-dash, or the hyphen-hyphen. Or maybe whatever the hell they call it French -- une tray or something like that? Tré? I could look it up, I suppose, but I'm too lazy.... (By the way, in the Brit/Merkin usage article, do we have "dash or dashboard" and "fascia"? Hayford Peirce 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't have that. How is fascia pronounced? Fâysha? Ro Thorpe 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why all the items in the catalog should have caps, beyond the fact that they look better....

En principe, all of those listed items *ought* to have an eventual article about them. And that article, of course, will be starting with a Cap. Yes, yes, I *know* that we could have [Hot dog|hot dog]] so that it doesn't show as a cap in the list, but why bother? Hayford Peirce 01:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[ [hot dog]] would also work. In a printed lexicon or encyclopedia the entry would be lowercase, unless it is a proper name. Peter Schmitt 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, there's no need to capitalise links, though a lot of people put [ [Hot dog|hot dog]] where [ [hot dog]] would link just as well. But they do look better as first-word-of-sentence capitals. Ro Thorpe 02:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, now that I've sorted out the "discussion"/"Talk" conundrum, at least to MY satisfaction, I'll take care of this list when I've recovered my strength. Hayford Peirce 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that isn't consistent in the list

In some cases the list has a name that is French (Cuisses de grenouilles - frog legs) and in other cases we have English translations (French fries). It should be one or the other, not both. Hayford Peirce 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be the normal English usage, whichever that may be. But we might not have the same: I say 'frog's legs', with the possessive. So I suppose some alternative forms will have to be there. Messy, but c'est la vie. Ro Thorpe 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I myself think it should be standard English usage, BUT, as in the case of bourguigon, what, precisely is the standard? Plus, of course, the frog's leg example. So, to keep things simpler, I'll go along with Peter and agree that everything should lead in French, the way he's done it now. After all, these *are* French dishes we're talking about. I have, for instance, already written an article called Blanquette de veau. I don't think we want to turn that one into Veal stew a la francaise or some such. Et ainsi de suite with all the others. Peter wins this round on points.... Hayford Peirce 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's perfectly logical. No pandering to the masses! Ro Thorpe 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess that if we really pandered, it would have to be Veal stew in the French manner. Hayford Peirce 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that you agree. It seemed to be the logical (and only) way to do it. Peter Schmitt 22:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Peter, the word "hot-pot" is really unknown in America. Let's think of something else to use instead. Hayford Peirce 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't like it, either. It is what my dictionary offered for German "Eintopf", and the Collins said "covered with a layer of potatoes" - not quite it. How would you call (neutrally) a "fish soup" that has pieces of fish in it? Or something like a chili con carne? Unfortunately, knowing a dish is not enough to briefly describe it properly (even in one's own language). Peter Schmitt 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already started replacing "hot pot", generally but not always with "stew", which covers just about everything. Some stews (bouil.) are not as thick as others (cassoulet). But even stew is a word like "pate" -- it can be used to describe many, many things, some of them contradictory if you think about them. Some "fish soups" really are fish soups, though. I've had "soupe de poisson" in France, generally pretty awful. In New England (and in cans) we have "fish chowder", a delectable dish. A chili con carne is most certainly a stew, as is, for that matter, "Boston baked beans," even though no one actually calls it that. It's all a pain in the neck! Hayford Peirce 21:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
A word that can be used for (almost) everything is convenient - but (because of it) does not say much. :-) Peter Schmitt 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
True, but think of French: we have ragout, daube, casserole, fricasse, etouffarde, civet, salmi, and at least a couple of others whose names don't immediately come to mind, all of which overlap or describe somewhat different things if you're a purist but which are almost interchangeable in ordinary speech. Even if you find one "expert" who will narrowly define each of them, you can then find another expert to take issue with him. Hayford Peirce 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Pot-au-feu, marmite? True, as well. Talking about cuisine is difficult -- in any language. (My remark was just an observation, not a criticism.) Peter Schmitt 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
They're certainly in the ballgame. Plus, probably, dozens of regional variations. I'm going to add three more to the list. Hayford Peirce 00:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Kirsch is a spirit, not a liqueur. And if it is the best among the various eaux-de-vie is debatable. If we are going to collect beverages (and all types of cheeses, etc.) as well, then separate catalogs are needed. Peter Schmitt 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my source said spirit, not liqueur. I mistyped it. I just put it in because it started with K and there are almost NO other French items with a K at the start. I'll correct it. And no, at least for the moment, I don't intend to start putting in a million kinds of cheeses etc, just the most famous ones, brie, camembert, and roquefort, all of which are already there, I think. Hayford Peirce 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Peter, you misread what I wrote about Kirsch -- I was merely repeating what the Larousse Gastronomique says: that the best Kirsch comes from Alsace, NOT that the best liqueurs came from Alsace. Prosit! Hayford Peirce 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
But Germany (Schwarzwälder Kirsch, from the Black Forest) and Switzerland may dispute it (and even we in Austria have some we are proud of ...) Peter Schmitt 00:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Larousse *also* mentioned the Black Forest -- I could change the wording a little.... Hayford Peirce 00:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tete de veau

It is also served "chaud" -- I leave it to you how to phrase it.

Old lexica have advantages, too. They often contain information that has been purged later. My Larousse is French, 1984. Peter Schmitt 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)