 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Hamburgers as Sandwiches in California
From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American sandwich". That it's not just the headline-writer is attested to by the fact that in the article itself we fine For those who are indecisive -- or develop brain freeze -- the menu lists a half-dozen Signature Burgers and a few other sandwiches, like a Stacked BLT with garlic aioli ($6.50), to help ease the burden. I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich.  SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's not coherent, it's merely 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |focused. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Keith Moore kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant > specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters > complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. It will now. SignatureDavid ===== >Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> like a Stacked BLT with garlic aioli ($6.50), to help ease the >> burden. Has no one noticed that the writer also doesn't understand the meaning of the term "brain freeze"? AFAIK it is the numbing sensation in your upper palate from eating too much ice cream too fast. BW >>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: [quoting] >>> For those who are indecisive -- or develop brain freeze -- the >>> menu lists a half-dozen Signature Burgers and a few other [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > AFAIK it is the numbing sensation in your upper palate from eating > too much ice cream too fast. I've seen the other sense, too. Checking Google Books When you get to the essay section, the last thing you want to happen is a _brain freeze_. You know the feeling: You look at the page, you see the words, your brain doesn't register, you stare into space...you can't think of a thing to write about. _Kaplan SSAT & ISEE 2005_ Do you get brain freeze when you see variables? Shake the cold sweats by pretending they're real numbers and do your stuff. Frieder, _Mastering Math Skills_, 2002 He checked this flop, and I had my second brain freeze of the final table (the first was worse, more like a hallucination than a brain freeze, but fortunately it cost me only a few chips) and moved in. Hellmuth, _Bad Beats and Lucky Draws_, 2004 "I have been staring at that top for twenty minutes. It was just a top. You walk in, and in three seconds, it's an outfit." "It comes from years of experiencing fashion brain freeze just like the one you had," she said. _Gilmore Girls: Like Mother, Like Daughter_, 2000 Unless you are some kind of linguistic Houdini, you will experience the same brain freeze as everyone else who ever tried to learn Spanish and gave up. _Learning Construction Spanglish_, 2005 On a date, food isn't just food anymore. There's so much more importance placed upon it that deciding what to order can give you brain freeze. Kimes, _Dating Sucks_, 2005 The earliest I see on Usenet is from 1990 in alt.sex: A few months ago, a friend of mine who always seems to find just the right things to annoy me did it again with a simple question. He asked me to name a girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel ("y" included). Yeah, I know this is easy for a lot of you out there. But I went into a major brain freeze. After staring at the walls for about half an hour, I finally came up with "Amber." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > The earliest I see on Usenet is from 1990 in alt.sex: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there. But I went into a major brain freeze. After staring at the > walls for about half an hour, I finally came up with "Amber." My sister's name is "Ruth". This took less than 3 minutes to recall and type. But I do't know who posted the original. >> The earliest I see on Usenet is from 1990 in alt.sex: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >My sister's name is "Ruth". This took less than 3 minutes to recall and >type. I gave up after 20 minutes and asked my wife, Kathleen, and she couldn't come up with one either. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> The earliest I see on Usenet is from 1990 in alt.sex: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I gave up after 20 minutes and asked my wife, Kathleen, and she > couldn't come up with one either. Ah, well. Is she as old as you and I? Did you celebrate your 70th yet? >>>> The earliest I see on Usenet is from 1990 in alt.sex: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >Ah, well. Is she as old as you and I? Much younger. I was born in early May, and she was born in late December. Of the same year. > Did you celebrate your 70th yet? No. I haven't celebrated my 68th yet. It passed, but I didn't celebrate. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > there. But I went into a major brain freeze. After staring at the > walls for about half an hour, I finally came up with "Amber." OK. I will whoosh myself. I hadn't read the basic question. But, any way: Sarah, Hannah, Esther. Are all of these coming out of the bible? >> A few months ago, a friend of mine who always seems to find just >> the right things to annoy me did it again with a simple question. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > any way: Sarah, Hannah, Esther. Are all of these coming out of the > bible? To non-rhotic speakers, all of these end with a vowel sound. (And, for that matter, few rhotic speakers pronounce the final 'h'.) This leaves us with the question of whether we're talking about pronounced or written vowels. You, unsurprisingly, were able to remember the name of your sister, which qualifies by either criterion. By coincidence, both of my sisters (Anne and Jane) have names that end with a silent 'e'. Still, that's beside the point. The original topic, which I have accidentally snipped, was about brain freeze, and I'm sure we've all had plenty of those. When writing to this newsgroup, I'll often spend ages trying to think of a word I want to use, and then have to use an inferior alternative because le mot juste simply won't come to mind. Typically I think of it a few minutes after doing the "send", but there are other cases where the desired word pops into my mind a week or so, to the utter confusion of those around me. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > When writing to this newsgroup, I'll often spend ages trying to think of > a word I want to use, and then have to use an inferior alternative > because le mot juste simply won't come to mind. Typically I think of it > a few minutes after doing the "send" ... And the word for *that* is treppenwitz, or l'esprit de l'escalier, depending on whether you'd rather say it in German or French. SignatureMark Brader | "I realised... at the traditional time -- Toronto | just after clicking on Send." msb@vex.net | --Peter Duncanson Evan Kirshenbaum wrote (quoting somebody else): > A few months ago, a friend of mine who always seems to find just > the right things to annoy me did it again with a simple question. > He asked me to name a girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel > ("y" included). Yeah, I know this is easy for a lot of you out > there. But I went into a major brain freeze. After staring at the > walls for about half an hour, I finally came up with "Amber." How about Abigail, Agnes, Alexis, Alison, Ann, April, Beth, Beulah, Bridget, Caitlin, Carmen, Carol, Carolyn, Cheryl, Colleen, Crystal, Dawn, Deborah, Dolores, Doreen, Doris, Edith, Eileen, Eleanor, Elizabeth, Ellen, Erin, Esther, Ethel, Evelyn, Faith, Francis, Gail, Ginger, Gladys, Gretchen, Gwendolyn, Hannah, Harriet, Hazel, Heather, Helen, Inez, Ingrid, Iris, Isabel, Jacquelyn, Jan, Janet, Jean, Jennifer, Jewel, Jill, Joan, Joann, Judith, Karen, Kathleen, Kathryn, Kim, Kristen, Krystal, Laurel, Lauren, Leah, Leigh, Lillian, Lois, Lynn, Mabel, Margaret, Marian, Marilyn, Maryann, Maureen, Megan, Mercedes, Meredith, Mildred, Miriam, Muriel, Nell, Opal, Pam, Pat, Pearl, Phyllis, Rachael, Raquel, Rebekah, Robin, Ruth, Sarah, Shannon, Sharon, Sheryl, Susan, Violet, Vivian, or Winifred? -- Ben >How about Abigail, Agnes, Alexis, Alison, Ann, April, Beth, Beulah, Bridget, >Caitlin, Carmen, Carol, Carolyn, Cheryl, Colleen, Crystal, Dawn, Deborah, >Dolores, Doreen, Doris, Edith, Eileen, Eleanor, Elizabeth, Ellen, Erin, >Esther, Ethel, Evelyn, Faith, Francis, Gail, Ginger, Gladys, Gretchen, Francis isn't a girl's name. Says he with a daughter called Frances. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon Ben Rudiak-Gould filted: >Evan Kirshenbaum wrote (quoting somebody else): >> A few months ago, a friend of mine who always seems to find just [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Pam, Pat, Pearl, Phyllis, Rachael, Raquel, Rebekah, Robin, Ruth, Sarah, >Shannon, Sharon, Sheryl, Susan, Violet, Vivian, or Winifred? Thank you for that.... Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. ... } Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r Ronchan. Signaturerjv > ... > } Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r > > Ronchan. Technically, that's "Ron" + "chan" (diminuitive suffix), and I strongly suspect the 'Ron' is short for something that does end in a vowel. The suffix in a Japanese name is not part of the name proper, For instance, iwasaki-san's name is not 'iwasaki-san', it's 'iwasaki'; I just call him 'iwasaki-san' to be polite. Of course, the real point here is that only Japanese has only one syllable that does not end in a vowel sound-- ン or 'n'. So, unless one's name ends in 'n', which is unusal for any Japanese name, it's impossible for it to not end in a vowel when written in English. However, it might not end in a vowel sound, but that's a matter of pronunciation, not orthography. -=Eric Eric Schwartz filted: >> ... >> } Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >For instance, iwasaki-san's name is not 'iwasaki-san', it's 'iwasaki'; >I just call him 'iwasaki-san' to be polite. Unless I've been led wildly astray, "Iwasaki" is a common Japanese surname, and "Nobuko" a reasonably standard *female* given name....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > Unless I've been led wildly astray, "Iwasaki" is a common Japanese > surname, and "Nobuko" a reasonably standard *female* given name....r So it is; I'd misremembered it as "Nobuo", which is a male name. My apologies. -=Eric > Eric Schwartz filted: >>> On 15 Nov 2006 22:01:04 -0800 R H Draney [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Japanese surname, and "Nobuko" a reasonably standard *female* > given name....r While there are some masculine names that end in /-ko/, most of them are femine, and, yes, Iwasaki is a reasonably common family name and Nobuko is a standard and reasonably common female given name. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r My city just elected Margaret Abe-Koga to its city council. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Representatives is done by means of a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic |strip on the back--like a VISA card, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely (650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit. | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r > > My city just elected Margaret Abe-Koga to its city council. Did she campaign as "Honest Abe-Koga"? > Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r Jun. I can't think of any other common ones. It's just as hard for boys' names. -- Ben "Ben Rudiak-Gould" wrote in message ... > > Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r > > Jun. > > I can't think of any other common ones. It's just as hard for boys' names. Jun can be used for a boy's name as well as a girl's name. Your name, Ben, can also be used for a Japanese boy's name. Other Japanese boys' names that end with "n" are: Ken, Ren, Sen, Kan, Jin, and there must be more. As for Japanese girls' names, I can only think of Karin and Ran as not-so-rare ones, but R H has probably heard of the famous twin sisters, Kin san and Gin san, who lived more than 100 years. SignatureNobuko Iwasaki > Your name, Ben, can also be used for a Japanese boy's name. Really? I'd hate to have that name in Japan -- it sounds vaguely scatological. I do like the fact that my full given name (Benjamin) sounds like a three-kanji compound. My surname, on the other hand... > Other Japanese boys' > names that end with "n" are: Ken, Ren, Sen, Kan, Jin, and there must be > more. Are those used in modern Japan? I guess I've heard Ken, but usually I assume it's short for something like Kentarou. -- Ben "Ben Rudiak-Gould" wrote in message ... > > Your name, Ben, can also be used for a Japanese boy's name. > > Really? I'd hate to have that name in Japan -- it sounds vaguely > scatological. Ah, yes, you might not want to introduce yourself in a rest room. But there's Ben Wada (TV show director), and Ben Goto (nonfiction writer -- because of his book about Nostradamus, I grew up believing the world would come to an end in July, 1999), and both of them use the kanji character roughly meaning "trying hard" ("ben" in "benkyo" (=study)) for their given name. > I do like the fact that my full given name (Benjamin) sounds > like a three-kanji compound. Yes, you could use three nice-sounding kanji for it. > My surname, on the other hand... Ahh.... > > Other Japanese boys' > > names that end with "n" are: Ken, Ren, Sen, Kan, Jin, and there must be > > more. > > Are those used in modern Japan? Sure. And then there are Shin, Dan, Rin, and Kon. > I guess I've heard Ken, but usually I assume > it's short for something like Kentarou. It's not a shortened form for many people. I know an Australian guy whose name is Ken and who is married to a Japanese woman and has lived in Japan for years. I've heard someone asking him if he adopted his name because Ken was a Japanese name. SignatureNobuko Iwasaki > Ben Rudiak-Gould filted: >> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote (quoting somebody else): [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r Considering that, outside of 'ん' (or 'n'), every Japanese syllable ends in a vowel, that's not exactly an equivalent challenge. SignatureClark S. Cox III clarkcox3@gmail.com Clark S. Cox III filted: >> Now find a *Japanese* girl's name that doesn't end with a vowel....r > >Considering that, outside of 'ã‚“' (or 'n'), every Japanese syllable ends >in a vowel, that's not exactly an equivalent challenge. We hereby bestow upon you the Order of the Blindingly Obvious....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >Clark S. Cox III filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >We hereby bestow upon you the Order of the Blindingly Obvious....r It was not obvious to me. I do not know Japanese. Sinerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new > restaurant specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of > letters complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. You're talking about California, where nothing is what it seems to be, even up in Mountain View. Areff is talking about the real world. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." Areff is talking about the real world. Which reminds me...have we ever discussed the origin of the phrase "passing strangers"? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote: > > Areff is talking about the real world. > > Which reminds me...have we ever discussed the origin of the phrase > "passing strangers"? Is that related to "passing gas" or "passing prohibited"? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." >> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Is that related to "passing gas" or "passing prohibited"? Many of Areff's pronouncements about the "real world" do involve gas. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant > specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters > complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem to meet the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal". SignatureClark S. Cox III clarkcox3@gmail.com > > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant > > specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with > meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal". Indeed. A hamburger is a sandwich. I'm sure that I've heard it called a sandwich at several UK burger restaurants, eg. McDonald's, and when I'm asked "Do you want the meal?" I often reply, "Just the sandwich." Adrian > While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem to meet > the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with > meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal". For me, a sandwich is an item of food consisting of two SLICES of bread... If I were trying to explain some other food item like a hamburger to someone who didn't know what it was, I might use "like a sandwich", but in normal conversation, I don't even call filled rolls sandwiches. A sandwich is a sandwich; a roll is a roll (except when it's a bun). I was rather taken aback when I discovered that "un sandwich" usually referred to French bread - I don't really have a word for a sandwich made of French bread, but I still don't want to call it a sandwich. SignatureRob Bannister >> While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem to meet >> the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >usually referred to French bread - I don't really have a word for a >sandwich made of French bread, but I still don't want to call it a sandwich. There's no rule, you know, that a hamburger has to be served on a bun. It can be served between two slices of bread. My wife does that, in fact. We don't keep hamburger buns around because we end up eating two of them, and the rest of the package goes stale. She usually has ground beef in the fridge, though, and will make hamburgers when we have no buns. So. Is my wife's hamburger between two SLICES of bread then a sandwich? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem to meet >>>the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So. Is my wife's hamburger between two SLICES of bread then a > sandwich? Oh, yes. BTW, do you toast the bread first? I find that hamburgers, sausages or steak tend to make ordinary bread very soggy. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem to meet >>>>the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Oh, yes. BTW, do you toast the bread first? I find that hamburgers, >sausages or steak tend to make ordinary bread very soggy. No, we don't. That "soggy" is meat-juice-soggy and improves the flavor of the experience. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>>> While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem >>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > No, we don't. That "soggy" is meat-juice-soggy and improves the > flavor of the experience. A "hamburger" isn't worth the trouble if you don't have those juices dripping off your elbows. SignatureFrank ess >>> So. Is my wife's hamburger between two SLICES of bread then a >>> sandwich? >> Oh, yes. BTW, do you toast the bread first? I find that hamburgers, >> sausages or steak tend to make ordinary bread very soggy. > No, we don't. That "soggy" is meat-juice-soggy and improves the > flavor of the experience. The most common hot meat in a sandwich in Britain is the bacon sandwich. made, of course, with back bacon not streaky bacon (US "bacon"). Yes, the sogginess of the bread is part of the experience, but I contend that the best bacon sandwich has to compensate for this by being made with very slightly stale bread to be a bit firmer. Matthew Huntbach >>>> So. Is my wife's hamburger between two SLICES of bread then a >>>> sandwich? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the best bacon sandwich has to compensate for this by being made with very > slightly stale bread to be a bit firmer. Still, bacon, and for that matter even sausages, don't make the bread quite as soggy as steak does. Fat good; meat juice bad (for sandwiches). SignatureRob Bannister >> A sandwich is a sandwich; a roll is a roll (except when it's a >> bun). I was rather taken aback when I discovered that "un sandwich" >> usually referred to French bread - I don't really have a word for >> a sandwich made of French bread, but I still don't want to call it >> a sandwich. I don't have a problem with the French sandwich. It's two bits of bread with the ingredients in between. The bread just happens to be a different shape from bread sliced from a loaf. On the other hand, I do follow the distinction you make with respect to rolls and buns; by having more specific names than "bread", they move into a new category. That's inconsistent, I know, but it still makes sense to me. One of the things that stops me from calling hamburgers and hot dogs "sandwiches" is that I classify them as junk food, whereas a sandwich is healthy. Not that that stops me from eating hamburgers; I rather enjoy them. McDonald's hamburgers fail to qualify for a different reason. The outside part is so fairy-floss sweet that it's some sort of sugar confection that falls outside the generic "bread" class. It's something that you might have as dessert but not as a main meal. > There's no rule, you know, that a hamburger has to be served on a > bun. It can be served between two slices of bread. My wife does [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So. Is my wife's hamburger between two SLICES of bread then a > sandwich? Some Australian sandwich shops serve this, and they call it a "rissole sandwich". I might stretch to calling it a hamburger if the meat were fatty and you added things like egg and bacon. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. [...] > There's no rule, you know, that a hamburger has to be served on a bun. > It can be served between two slices of bread. My wife does that, in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So. Is my wife's hamburger between two SLICES of bread then a > sandwich? Put cheese on it, and call it a patty melt. I spent all last week trying to remember that one, and even had someone dig up a '60s drive-in menu, to no avail. 1 whole day away from the computer, and the name pops back in. /dps >>> While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem to meet >>> the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >There's no rule, you know, that a hamburger has to be served on a bun. >It can be served between two slices of bread. A hamburger needn't have a bun at all, but if the patty is served between two slices of bread, it is no longer a hamburger of any kind, it is simply a beef patty between two slices of bread; who can account for taste? > My wife does that, in >fact. We don't keep hamburger buns around because we end up eating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So. Is my wife's hamburger between two SLICES of bread then a >sandwich? That doesn't follow from the above, it seems to me, but yes. SignatureCharles Riggs >>There's no rule, you know, that a hamburger has to be served on a bun. >>It can be served between two slices of bread. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it is simply a beef patty between two slices of bread; who can account >for taste? That twists up the question. Is the patty the hamburger or is the patty-in-a-bun the hamburger? If the latter, that's a strong case for "a hamburger is a sandwich" because without the enclosure it's something else. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [...] > That twists up the question. Is the patty the hamburger or is the > patty-in-a-bun the hamburger? If the latter, that's a strong case for > "a hamburger is a sandwich" because without the enclosure it's > something else. The mantra is "patty melt". "Sourdough Bacon Cheeseburger" is similar, but the mantra is "patty melt". /dps >[...] >> That twists up the question. Is the patty the hamburger or is the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The mantra is "patty melt". "Sourdough Bacon Cheeseburger" is similar, >but the mantra is "patty melt". A "patty melt" has another requirement: rye bread. We (in my family), toast the buns when we grill hamburgers, but separately from the meat. A patty melt is grilled or fried with the rye bread in place surrounding the meat. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>[...] >>> That twists up the question. Is the patty the hamburger or is the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the meat. A patty melt is grilled or fried with the rye bread in > place surrounding the meat. It is thus grilled (BrE griddled?) after the patty itself has been cooked, however! In most places it comes with cheese (which is the part that melts) and usually grilled chopped onion unless you ask for one or both to be excluded. I suppose you could request a bread other than rye and be accommodated, but why? SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson filted: >> A "patty melt" has another requirement: rye bread. We (in my >> family), toast the buns when we grill hamburgers, but separately from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >excluded. I suppose you could request a bread other than rye and be >accommodated, but why? Because sourdough is yummy too....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > Roland Hutchinson filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Because sourdough is yummy too....r Obviously, the solution is to go to a joint that's upscale enough to offer a sourdough rye as one of its choices for bread. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson filted: >> Roland Hutchinson filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Obviously, the solution is to go to a joint that's upscale enough to offer a >sourdough rye as one of its choices for bread. If the joint is upscale enough, you can have it on raisin toast if that's your preference.... Just don't expect me to watch you eat it....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. The R H Draney entity posted thusly: >Roland Hutchinson filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >If the joint is upscale enough, you can have it on raisin toast if that's your >preference.... I tried raisin' toast, but I couldn't get the buggers to grow at all. >It is thus grilled (BrE griddled?) after the patty itself has been cooked, >however! To answer the ? I need to know what your meaning of "grilled" is. BrE grilled - cooked on a rack under a radiant element. I don't think we'd normally say "griddled" anyway. Fried on a griddle would be more likely, for me at least. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon >>It is thus grilled (BrE griddled?) after the patty itself has been cooked, >>however! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think we'd normally say "griddled" anyway. Fried on a griddle > would be more likely, for me at least. "Grilled" in the context of American short-order cooking (approx. BrE cafe cooking) means cooked on a gridle, a heated flat cooking surface. Its locus classicus is the "grilled cheese sandwich": cheese (or more commonly, "cheese") between two slices of factory-made white bread, spread butter or marge or some similar substance sold only to commercial restaurants thinly on the outside of the resulting sandwich, grill on the griddle (or, at home, in a skillet) on medium-low heat, turning once, until the outside is golden and the cheese melted. Cut in half and server promptly. BrE "grilled" = AmE "broiled". Your reply confirms my suspicion that "griddled" isn't the right word; perhaps, as you suggest, BrE doesn't have a one-word equivalent. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>It is thus grilled (BrE griddled?) after the patty itself has been cooked, >>>however! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Grilled" in the context of American short-order cooking (approx. BrE cafe > cooking) means cooked on a gridle, a heated flat cooking surface. This certainly does seem to correspond to usage found only in fast-food places - for years, I couldn't understand why fish&chip shops sold "grilled" fish that was clearly fried on a hot plate. As I am sure you are aware, "grilled" in BrE means cooked without fat under an overhead heating element. Its > locus classicus is the "grilled cheese sandwich": cheese (or more commonly, > "cheese") between two slices of factory-made white bread, spread butter or > marge or some similar substance sold only to commercial restaurants thinly > on the outside of the resulting sandwich, grill on the griddle (or, at > home, in a skillet) on medium-low heat, turning once, until the outside is > golden and the cheese melted. Cut in half and server promptly. I would most definitely call that a fried sandwich. > BrE "grilled" = AmE "broiled". This seems even more confusing, as I was sure that AmE "broiled" meant either cooked on the grid part of a barbecue or spit-roasted. > Your reply confirms my suspicion that "griddled" isn't the right word; > perhaps, as you suggest, BrE doesn't have a one-word equivalent. The only meaning I know for "griddled" seems to be restricted to certain industries and refers to sieving through a coarse grid, which is sometimes known as the "griddly". On the other hand, "griddle-" (as in griddle-cake), I would recognise as something the King Alfred burnt or that possibly Scottish cooks might make. SignatureRob Bannister >> BrE "grilled" = AmE "broiled". > > This seems even more confusing, as I was sure that AmE "broiled" meant > either cooked on the grid part of a barbecue or spit-roasted. No, that's "grilled". SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> BrE "grilled" = AmE "broiled". >> >> This seems even more confusing, as I was sure that AmE "broiled" meant >> either cooked on the grid part of a barbecue or spit-roasted. > > No, that's "grilled". Such a difficult language, American. Will I ever learn it? SignatureRob Bannister >>>> BrE "grilled" = AmE "broiled". >>> >>> This seems even more confusing, as I was sure that AmE "broiled" meant >>> either cooked on the grid part of a barbecue or spit-roasted. >> >> No, that's "grilled". Also called (though only on restaurant menus, never in reference to home cooking) "char(-)broiled" -- which may be over a proper charcoal fire, or on a some sort of gas-fired grill (in the AmE sense). This may be the source of your confusion. But neither "grilled" nor "charbroiled" includes spit-roasted as far as I know. > Such a difficult language, American. Will I ever learn it? You will learn enough to make yourself understood. Passing for native fluency is probably an unattainable goal. Also, AmE barbecue purists (such as hang out in alt.food.barbecue) will insist that "barbecued" "barbecuing" etc. properly refers only to slow cooking over (normally) indirect heat in the presence of wood smoke. Yum! BrE barbecuing is AmE grilling (and, truth to tell, many American backyard cooks call this barbecuing, too). SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > Also, AmE barbecue purists (such as hang out in alt.food.barbecue) will > insist that "barbecued" "barbecuing" etc. properly refers only to slow > cooking over (normally) indirect heat in the presence of wood smoke. This sounds like a Webber with added wood chips. SignatureRob Bannister >> Also, AmE barbecue purists (such as hang out in alt.food.barbecue) will >> insist that "barbecued" "barbecuing" etc. properly refers only to slow >> cooking over (normally) indirect heat in the presence of wood smoke. > > This sounds like a Webber with added wood chips. That, indeed, is one way to do it. (Or chunks instead of chips if you're talking about a charcoal-burning Weber as opposed to a gasser.) It's easier to do the long cook times required (ca. 5 hours for pork spareribs, 9 hours for pork shoulder, 12 hours for beef brisket) with something that holds more fuel or is easier to refuel than a Weber "kettle" charcoal grill, but you can make very successful 'cue on one. The main drawback is that if you have to open the kettle up several times to add fuel, every time you open it heat escapes and the cooking time gets longer. Here's how I got started, doing ribs on a Weber kettle: http://bbq.netrelief.com/tips/how_to_cook_bbq_ribs_on_a_weber_gill.shtml Here's the scoop on the simple smoker I now use, also by Weber: http://virtualweberbullet.com/tour.html And here's a primer on technique using the same smoker: http://www.wiviott.com/ SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>Also, AmE barbecue purists (such as hang out in alt.food.barbecue) will >>>insist that "barbecued" "barbecuing" etc. properly refers only to slow [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://www.wiviott.com/ Interesting. I've only tried smoking a couple of times and wasn't all that happy with the results. What is the purpose of the water? SignatureRob Bannister >>>>Also, AmE barbecue purists (such as hang out in alt.food.barbecue) will >>>>insist that "barbecued" "barbecuing" etc. properly refers only to slow [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Interesting. I've only tried smoking a couple of times and wasn't all > that happy with the results. What about them made you less than happy, and what kind of equipment, fuel, and wood did you use? A few points to check: One common beginner's mistake is using too much smoke. The thinnest of bluish wisps coming out of the vent suffices (and you don't evern really need that after the first couple of hours, when most of the smoke that is going to be absorbed is absorbed). Also, leave the meat resting out of the refrigerator for at least half an hour before putting it on (but, for safety's sake, no more than an hour or so so that bacteria don't get too much of a chance to grow); a too-cold surface tends to attract the nasties in the smoke (e.g. creosote), with unpleasant results. Your fire could probably stand to burn down that extra half hour, too -- most of the nasties burn off that way. I'm also a great believer in lump charcoal rather than briquettes as a way of minimizing the nasties. Open the smoker or kettle as little as possible -- every time you open it and things cool off extends the cooking time by the better part of half an hour. > What is the purpose of the water? The water pan catches drippings so they don't fall on the coals and burn and smoke. You want a mild dose of wood smoke, not a heavy dose smoke from burning fat and grease. The water also provides some humidity, and provides some thermal mass, stabilizing the temperature -- it's also a brake against too-high temperature through its evaporation: if the fire gets too hot it will just boil off more vigorously at circa 212F/100C and hopefully keep the smoker from getting outrageously hot. Some folks will omit the water pan, if they are skilled enough to control the fire very closely without it, or use sand in the pan instead of water. I'm no expert, so I try to do it by the book, with the water pan in place as the manufacturer instructs. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>Interesting. I've only tried smoking a couple of times and wasn't all >>that happy with the results. According to the instruction booklet, which I haven't read for 20 years, the Webber always burns at about 175° C, which may have been too hot. I don't like the taste of hot-smoked food. I used "genuine Webber" (ie high-priced) hickory chips, a tree that is not native to our shores. I can't remember exactly what sort of meat I tried to smoke, but that could have been the problem: I like smoked pork and fish, but I'm not all that keen on the smoked flavour with beef, lamb or chicken. > What about them made you less than happy, and what kind of equipment, fuel, > and wood did you use? >>What is the purpose of the water? > > The water pan catches drippings so they don't fall on the coals and burn and > smoke. You want a mild dose of wood smoke, not a heavy dose smoke from > burning fat and grease. Not that water pan, but the other one which you seem to be describing below. > The water also provides some humidity, and provides some thermal mass, > stabilizing the temperature -- it's also a brake against too-high [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm no expert, so I try to do it by the book, with the water pan in place > as the manufacturer instructs. I might give it another go then. It's not yet Summer, but we've been getting a lot of unusually warm days, so outside cooking is definitely in my mind. SignatureRob Bannister >>>Interesting. I've only tried smoking a couple of times and wasn't all >>>that happy with the results. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > could have been the problem: I like smoked pork and fish, but I'm not > all that keen on the smoked flavour with beef, lamb or chicken. 175 C is high for smoking. It's perfect ok for roasting, of course -- about the normal oven temp for that, and normal for a kettle in that application. BBQ smoking is a different beast, and you're about 50 degrees too hot. (It's still hot enough to both cook and smoke, though -- hotter than a cold-smoke for cured meats, which requires special equipment.) I try for a reading around 250 _Fahrenheit_ on a meat thermometer (dial-type, not instant-reading) inserted in a cork and then through the upper vent of my WSM, bearing in mind that the temperature down at the grate will be about 20 degrees F lower. That's 130 C, near enough. On a kettle there won't be quite as great a distance between lid and food, so you can aim for a slightly lower reading on the thermomoter. Control the temperature by adjusting the _lower_ vents (not the vent in the lid: that needs to be fully open at all times, though you can probably leave the thermometer stuck through one of the holes for extended periods without a problem); then wait half an hour before checking and readjusting as needed. If you re-adjust too soon, you'll over-adjust and start getting wild fluctuations that will never settle down to a stable temp. Bear in mind that it's always easier to get the fire hotter by giving it more air than to get it back down once it's too hot. On the other hand, expect fluctuations when you open the lid to add fuel (fire heats up); just close and wait for it to stableize. It will also fluctuate at other times. If you keep it within, say 25 deg F or 15 deg C on either side of your target temp, you're controlling quite adequately. When you start the fire, get the coals going well, then close the lid, close the bottom vent almost fully, wait for stability, open vent a bit more if needed. Allow for at least an hour in your schedule from lighting the coals (preferably in a chimney-type starter; no ligheter fluid!) to putting on the meat. Pork spareribs are pretty forgiving. Use a simple dry rub: salt (to taste), ground pepper, garlic powder is enough. The salt helps the smoke penetration, so I'd suggest that you use at least some even if you don't normally salt roast meats. You don't really need to baste or mop -- if you want to, keep it simple (apple juice). On the other hand, you could try just putting the meat in naked and not mopping; it will give you a good idea of what the smoke does all by itself. I'm with you on the chicken and beef question. You can try native hardwoods or fruitwoods (oak, apple), and you can try chunks instead of chips (soaking in water is optional for chunks if you let them burn a bit before adding food; mandatory for chips, which should be placed in a foil packet with holes in it before being placed among the coals). >> What about them made you less than happy, and what kind of equipment, >> fuel, and wood did you use? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not that water pan, but the other one which you seem to be describing > below. They are one and the same water pan, whether in the Smokey Mountain water smoker or in a Webber kettle -- even if you bank the coals on one side of the kettle as that web page I sent you to suggests (and I do recommend that!), smaller ones will fall through into the middle of the lower part of the kettle. >> The water also provides some humidity, and provides some thermal mass, >> stabilizing the temperature -- it's also a brake against too-high [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > getting a lot of unusually warm days, so outside cooking is definitely > in my mind. Let me know how it turns out! Here it's not quite winter, but we've been having unseasonably warm late-fall weather this week; if not for the mandatory roast turkey yesterday that we are still eating for the foreeable future, I would be tempted to defrost the two picnic shoulders in our freezer and have a go myself. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > Let me know how it turns out! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tempted to defrost the two picnic shoulders in our freezer and have a go > myself. Went out with friends for a most enormous Indian meal last night, so it's a bit hard to think about food at the moment. Thanks for all the tips. I will give it go, but probably after Christmas and New Year. SignatureRob Bannister >"Grilled" in the context of American short-order cooking (approx. BrE cafe >cooking) means cooked on a gridle, a heated flat cooking surface. Its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Your reply confirms my suspicion that "griddled" isn't the right word; >perhaps, as you suggest, BrE doesn't have a one-word equivalent. My cooker has a griddle - you stick it over two of the rings - but I'd never think to call cooking on that griddling. There's no reason why not, maybe I'll start doing so. What is AmE for the part of the cooker (which, in passing, I'm pretty isn't called a cooker) that broils things? BrE would have that as a grill. I'm guessing it's not broiler, because I thought that was a chicken. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon The Nick Atty entity posted thusly: >>"Grilled" in the context of American short-order cooking (approx. BrE cafe >>cooking) means cooked on a gridle, a heated flat cooking surface. Its [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >grill. I'm guessing it's not broiler, because I thought that was a >chicken. A broiler is the upper element in an oven. One broils a steak, for example, by placing it in close proximity to the upper element, resting it on a grate of some sort to allow the juices to drip away from the meat. The element gets very hot, usually hotter than it would if baking or roasting with the oven. A grill, on the other hand, is either: A barbecue A grating on a stovetop with heating elements under. One of those things that gold in half, trapping the meat between two heated, patterned plates. >>"Grilled" in the context of American short-order cooking (approx. BrE cafe >>cooking) means cooked on a gridle, a heated flat cooking surface. Its [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > never think to call cooking on that griddling. There's no reason why > not, maybe I'll start doing so. I wouldn't have called it that, either, but as you say, what-the-hey, why not! > What is AmE for the part of the cooker (which, in passing, I'm pretty > isn't called a cooker) By us, a cooker is yclept a "stove". Or perhaps a "range" (pretty much in advertizing copy and manufacturer's catalogs only). The usual type consists, as it does in the UK, of an oven below and a cooktop (BrE hob?) with a number of gas burners (BrE gas rings?) or their electric ersatzen immediately above. The broiler either is inside the oven (on electric or some newer gas stoves) with its own element or burner at the top of the oven, or it is a separate drawer that uses the same gas burner beneath the oven that heats the oven from below to broil the meat (or what have you) beneath. It practically unknown with us to have a separate broiler unit above the cooktop or elsewhere unless you're talking about a very fancy home kitchen with exceedingly expensive, professional restaurant-style equipment--and maybe not even then. > that broils things? BrE would have that as a > grill. I'm guessing it's not broiler, because I thought that was a > chicken. It is in fact the "broiler". I guess that word can mean either the thing that broils or a thing suitable for broiling (i.e. for being broiled). Same deal with "roaster", "fryer", and, getting away from chickens as such, "keeper". Actually, the common or garden supermarket chicken here is an all-purpose carcass called a "broiler/fryer" in the trade. I am sorely tempted to characterize it as being neither fish nor fowl; well, I'm pretty sure it's not fish. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>There's no rule, you know, that a hamburger has to be served on a bun. >>>It can be served between two slices of bread. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "a hamburger is a sandwich" because without the enclosure it's > something else. I'd say a hamburger is the patty in a bun/roll, plus at least one other ingredient which may vary from region to region. As I have said before, I don't consider cheese, for example, in a roll to be a cheese sandwich, but I would have to consider a patty between 2 slices of bread as a sandwich. SignatureRob Bannister > I'd say a hamburger is the patty in a bun/roll, plus at least one other > ingredient which may vary from region to region. Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. on a bun) with nothing on it (which I frequently used to do when I was a child), so that it comes as a cooked "naked" patty on a bun, it ceases to be a hamburger? That doesn't seem right. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> I'd say a hamburger is the patty in a bun/roll, plus at least one >> other ingredient which may vary from region to region. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That doesn't seem right. Hear, hear. A hamburger is always a hamburger. Disguises, costumes, and coverings don't change that. SignatureMaria >>> I'd say a hamburger is the patty in a bun/roll, plus at least one >>> other ingredient which may vary from region to region. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hear, hear. A hamburger is always a hamburger. Disguises, costumes, and > coverings don't change that. I basically agree, although I think there are circumstances in which a naked hamburger (not served on a bun) can be characterized as something other than a hamburger. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >>>> I'd say a hamburger is the patty in a bun/roll, plus at least one >>>> other ingredient which may vary from region to region. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > naked hamburger (not served on a bun) can be characterized as something > other than a hamburger. It becomes a "chopped steak platter" in some establishments. When I were a lad, I seem to recall that the standard coffee-shop "diet plate" featured this, possibly with a side of cottage cheese and a few lettuce leaves and other bits of garnish? SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >When I were a lad, I seem to recall that the standard coffee-shop "diet >plate" featured this, possibly with a side of cottage cheese and a few >lettuce leaves and other bits of garnish? You could have been a lad yesterday and ordered it at Dan's Diner. I did. Cottage cheese with a pear half as a side. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>When I were a lad, I seem to recall that the standard coffee-shop "diet >>plate" featured this, possibly with a side of cottage cheese and a few >>lettuce leaves and other bits of garnish? > > You could have been a lad yesterday and ordered it at Dan's Diner. I > did. Cottage cheese with a pear half as a side. I must be younger than I look. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>I'd say a hamburger is the patty in a bun/roll, plus at least one other >>ingredient which may vary from region to region. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That doesn't seem right. It wouldn't seem right as a hamburger to me. I expect lots of trimmings and sauces. However, I do remember when Wimpy (spelling?) first appeared in Britain, and they did serve "hamburgers" with optional onion - very dry and unappetising, but we didn't know any better in those days. SignatureRob Bannister The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >>>I'd say a hamburger is the patty in a bun/roll, plus at least one other >>>ingredient which may vary from region to region. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >in Britain, and they did serve "hamburgers" with optional onion - very >dry and unappetising, but we didn't know any better in those days. Must have been difficult to get used to eating something that was not boiled. > The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >>I do remember when Wimpy (spelling?) first appeared >>in Britain, and they did serve "hamburgers" with optional onion - very >>dry and unappetising, but we didn't know any better in those days. > > Must have been difficult to get used to eating something that was not > boiled. Who says they weren't? SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >>It wouldn't seem right as a hamburger to me. I expect lots of trimmings >>and sauces. However, I do remember when Wimpy (spelling?) first appeared [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Must have been difficult to get used to eating something that was not > boiled. I don't get that. Is it a general American belief that all English food is boiled? That would make the old French slang for an Englishman (rosbif) a bit hard to understand unless you thing "roast(-ed)" means "boiled". Perhaps it's time for a language check: BrE AustralianE AmE roast roast/bake ? bake bake bake grill grill broil fry fry fry or grill (as in sandwich) boil boil boil barbecue barbecue grill barbecue BBQ (in a kettle) barbecue Corrections and additions welcomed. I've an idea that "steaming" may vary. SignatureRob Bannister Rob Bannister: > BrE AustralianE AmE ... > fry fry fry or grill (as in sandwich) Ah, but the British translation of "grilled cheese sandwich" is "toasted cheese" sandwich. Also, "fry" describes two methods of cooking; deep-fat frying is not what is done to sandwiches. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "'Run me,' Alice?" msb@vex.net -- Tom Neff > Rob Bannister: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ah, but the British translation of "grilled cheese sandwich" is "toasted > cheese" sandwich. It is confusing. The other day, a US member described grilling a sandwich, which involved frying in butter. I agree that a BrE grilled sandwich is likely to be toasted. Then again, many of us have various kinds of "sandwich makers", which may be jaffle irons that you stick in the fire or something more like a waffle maker. > Also, "fry" describes two methods of cooking; deep-fat frying is not > what is done to sandwiches. Do any of us use a special word for deep-fat frying, apart from spelling it out? There's a word on the tip of my tongue, but it won't come. SignatureRob Bannister Mark Brader: > > Ah, but the British translation of "grilled cheese sandwich" is "toasted > > cheese" sandwich. Rob Bannister: > It is confusing. The other day, a US member described grilling a > sandwich, which involved frying in butter. I agree that a BrE grilled > sandwich is likely to be toasted. Then again, many of us have various > kinds of "sandwich makers", which may be jaffle irons that you stick in > the fire or something more like a waffle maker. The thing is that we still call it a "grilled cheese sandwich" if one of those is used, and they still call it a "toasted cheese sandwich". SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Canada... likes to sit up there looking harmless, msb@vex.net | like the USA's hat... --Anthony McCarron >> Rob Bannister: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Do any of us use a special word for deep-fat frying, apart from spelling >it out? There's a word on the tip of my tongue, but it won't come. I think a lot of people have it the other way round (morning, vicar!), with "fry" referring to deep-fat by default and "shallow fry", "stir fry" and "sauté" being preferred when there's little oil. (There are exceptions to this -- the traditional "fried" breakfast and its components being an obvious one.) SignatureBrad Germolene > I think a lot of people have it the other way round (morning, vicar!), > with "fry" referring to deep-fat by default and "shallow fry", "stir > fry" and "sauté" being preferred when there's little oil. (There are > exceptions to this -- the traditional "fried" breakfast and its > components being an obvious one.) Maybe that was what I was trying to think of. It's funny really: I use my wok at least as much, if not more often than my frying pans, but for some reason, I don't think of it as "frying". "Fried potatoes" (which I think you might call "home fries") are done in the frying pan, but I often do bacon in the microwave if it's only a small amount. SignatureRob Bannister >>Do any of us use a special word for deep-fat frying, apart from spelling >>it out? There's a word on the tip of my tongue, but it won't come. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >exceptions to this -- the traditional "fried" breakfast and its >components being an obvious one.) I don't know anyone who regards frying as "deep-fat" by default. The majority of recipes I get from people in the UK that involve cooking things in shallow fat are described as frying although occasionally onions are sauteed. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>>Do any of us use a special word for deep-fat frying, apart from spelling >>>it out? There's a word on the tip of my tongue, but it won't come. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > things in shallow fat are described as frying although occasionally > onions are sauteed. This implies that you see a difference in meaning between "fry" and "sauté". I always thought that the latter was simply a posh word for "fry" with a possible implication that was in butter. Etymologically, I suppose the the "jumping" of the pan is more akin to stir-frying, but when I looked the word up in One-Look, the only entry at all was in Wiktionary, which surprised me. SignatureRob Bannister [...] > This implies that you see a difference in meaning between "fry" and > "sauté". I always thought that the latter was simply a posh word for > "fry" with a possible implication that was in butter. > Etymologically, I suppose the the "jumping" of the pan is more akin > to stir-frying, but when I looked the word up in One-Look, the only > entry at all was in Wiktionary, which surprised me. That would be "sautee", wouldn't it? I get many entries for "saute". >> I don't know anyone who regards frying as "deep-fat" by default. The >> majority of recipes I get from people in the UK that involve cooking [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >when I looked the word up in One-Look, the only entry at all was in >Wiktionary, which surprised me. Here's Wikipedia: "Sautéeing is a method of cooking food using a small amount of fat in a shallow pan over relatively high heat. Sauter means "to jump," in French, and the food being sautéed is kept moving, not unlike the stir fry technique using a wok." That's how I'd use the word, and the salient feature is the movement. Onions are sautéed, eggs are fried. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >That's how I'd use the word, and the salient feature is the movement. >Onions are saut\351ed Unless they are sweated. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness Garrett Wollman skrev: >> That's how I'd use the word, and the salient feature is the movement. >> Onions are saut\351ed > > Unless they are sweated. > > -GAWollman I would have thought that MIT CS/AI employees have access to more advanced news clients than trn (2001 version). At least they should know how to deal with iso-8859-1. >I would have thought that MIT CS/AI employees have access to more >advanced news clients than trn If there were a "more advanced news client", I'd be using it. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>>I don't know anyone who regards frying as "deep-fat" by default. The >>>majority of recipes I get from people in the UK that involve cooking [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's how I'd use the word, and the salient feature is the movement. > Onions are sautéed, eggs are fried. Right. I am opposed to James Bond on this one: my onions are stirred but not shaken. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> had it: > Do any of us use a special word for deep-fat frying, apart from spelling > it out? There's a word on the tip of my tongue, but it won't come. "fat" is not included in my form - fish and chips are "deep fried". The alternative is "shallow fried" although this involves a significant amount of oil, perhaps 3 mm across the bottom of the pan (I cooked some whole plaice this way last weekend). If I use a small amount of oil, e.g. to cook diced chicken and onions, they are just "fried". SignatureDavid ===== the Omrud filted: >Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >amount of oil, e.g. to cook diced chicken and onions, they are just >"fried". Your "shallow fried" is "pan fried" over here....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net> had it: > the Omrud filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Your "shallow fried" is "pan fried" over here....r That's a common term in restaurants, e.g. "pan fried plaice", but I don't think I'd use it to describe something I'd cooked. SignatureDavid ===== > the Omrud filted: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Your "shallow fried" is "pan fried" over here....r So that's what that means. I quite often see the phrase at fast-food places and even at some restaurants, and fondly imagined it was some new, fancy way of cooking. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> the Omrud filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >places and even at some restaurants, and fondly imagined it was some >new, fancy way of cooking. The Omrud's impression that it's a restaurant-only term notwithstanding, I have three forms of frying in my kitchen repertoire: "deep fry" (the food is completely submerged in boiling fat), "pan fry" (a shallow layer of oil is heated in a pan on the cooktop and the food has to be turned at some point), and "oven fry" (the oil is brought up to temperature in an oven-safe dish, the food added, and the whole thing returned to the oven to equilibrate the temperature).... Unqualified, "fry" implies the pan....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. > on a bun) Never having seen it in use before, I've checked the meaning of "sc." (My deduction was right, I'm happy to say.) Is "sc." more common than "i.e." in UK usage? SignatureMaria There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. >> Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. >> on a bun) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is "sc." more common than "i.e." in UK usage? I doubt it, but only because I don't think I have ever seen it before. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. >>> on a bun) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I doubt it, but only because I don't think I have ever seen it before. I am shocked -- to the point of momentarily entertaining the hypothesis that perhaps you are not my long-lost sister after all. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>> Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. >>> on a bun) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I doubt it, but only because I don't think I have ever seen it before. I agree. It's not common here at all. It wasn't til I read Roland's post that I realised what it was abbreviating. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. >>> on a bun) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I doubt it, but only because I don't think I have ever seen it before. Nor me. I didn't know what it meant except from context and also had to look it up. SignatureRob Bannister >> Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. >> on a bun) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is "sc." more common than "i.e." in UK usage? Heck, no. I'm just showing of my good ol' all-American latinity, such as it is. "Sc." doesn't mean the same thing as "i.e.", though I suppose either would have been possible in the quote above, with little effective difference in meaning in this particular case. The usual pronunciation, for those of us who can't be bothered to decide if we prefer "silly-set" (traditional) or "skilly-ket" (pedantic), is "supply": as in a Latin school text where some words additional to the text are to be mentally _supplied_ by the reader in order produce an intelligible reading or idiomatic English translation (though the kind editor has in fact supplied them, perhaps in a footnote beginning with the abbreviation "sc."). Here, then, I am making it explicit that "hamburger" is to be understood as "hamburger (patty) on a bun", even though I would only say "hamburger" when ordering it, with the bun taken for granted by both me and the server or counterperson. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >intelligible reading or idiomatic English translation (though the kind >editor has in fact supplied them, perhaps in a footnote beginning with the >abbreviation "sc."). Here, then, I am making it explicit that "hamburger" >is to be understood as "hamburger (patty) on a bun", even though I would >only say "hamburger" when ordering it, Aha. So in normal idiomatic English writing, it would be "read:". -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>intelligible reading or idiomatic English translation (though the kind >>editor has in fact supplied them, perhaps in a footnote beginning with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Aha. So in normal idiomatic English writing, it would be "read:". But this (and Roland's interpretation) conflicts with dictionary definitions which mainly plump for "to wit, namely". SignatureRob Bannister >> Let's get this clear: you're saying that if I order a hamburger (sc. >> on a bun) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is "sc." more common than "i.e." in UK usage? No. Never seen it before. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary Tony Cooper wrote, in part: > That twists up the question. Cute. <smile> SignatureMaria > A hamburger needn't have a bun at all, but if the patty is served > between two slices of bread, it is no longer a hamburger of any kind, > it is simply a beef patty between two slices of bread; who can account > for taste? Do buns taste better than slices of bread? Or, are bun-users better bred? What do you mean, sir? Actually, I find that buns are too thick, too bready, too filling, and often, too bland. Thus, I prefer hamburgers on bread -- or just on the plate. Mustard only, or ketchup/catsup only, or maybe a bit of A-1 sauce. Salt and pepper, of course. No onions, ever. No pickles. I was just thinking of "Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun" and want to ask the group this question: Why sesame seeds? (All they do is get in between one's teeth. They add nothing good that I can tell.) SignatureMaria http://www.familyhomefront.net/ There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. > I was just thinking of "Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce > cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun" and want to ask the group > this question: > > Why sesame seeds? (All they do is get in between one's teeth. They add > nothing good that I can tell.) Unclear. I think the history of the Big Mac would have largely been the same had McDonald's corporate decided to go with a non-seeded bun (= ApproxBrE "seedless bap"). It might add a touch of specialness, given that the standard practice up till the time of the introduction of the Big Mac, I'm guessing, was to use a non-seeded bun. SignatureSalvatore Volatile The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >> While I've never called a hamburger a "sandwich", it does seem to meet >> the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with >> meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal". > >For me, a sandwich is an item of food consisting of two SLICES of >bread... And presumably, something in between them, right? Well, the last time I made a hamburger, I did put it between two slices of bread. That the slices consisted of a top and a bottom of a hamburger bun, makes it a sandwich, innit? I'm intrigued, though. Next time I'll make one using two unsliced hamburger buns, just so I can report to you that I did make a hamburger than could not be called a "sandwich" by your rules. > I was rather taken aback when I discovered that "un sandwich" >usually referred to French bread - I don't really have a word for a >sandwich made of French bread, but I still don't want to call it a sandwich. Really? So a sandwich can only be made with.. what? Whole wheat bread? White bread? What about sourdough? Pumpernickel? Cracked Wheat? 7-grain? 12-grain? Sunflower/Flax? Italian? Why not French? > Really? So a sandwich can only be made with.. what? Whole wheat bread? > White bread? What about sourdough? Pumpernickel? Cracked Wheat? > 7-grain? 12-grain? Sunflower/Flax? Italian? > > Why not French? Yes to most of the above, although I am not at all sure about pumpernickel. It depends on what sort of pumpernickel you're used to: the sort I'm most familiar with is black, slightly sticky and very filling - no way you could eat 2 slices together. On the national origins of the bread, I meant in stick form like a very long roll, so since most of our Italian bakers make a "stick", I'd discount them as sandwich material. It all boils down to (a) whether it is sliced and (b) whether you can actually eat 2 slices of the stuff. For example, I can think of some heavy rye loaves that wouldn't be suitable for sandwiches, while some "sticks" and rolls are so thick than you can slice them horizontally and make an acceptable sandwich. Then again, there's the "open sandwich", but I'm afraid I don't think of them as sandwiches at all. In fact, many have to be eaten with a knife and fork, which rather destroys the entire point of a sandwich. SignatureRob Bannister The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >> Really? So a sandwich can only be made with.. what? Whole wheat bread? >> White bread? What about sourdough? Pumpernickel? Cracked Wheat? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the sort I'm most familiar with is black, slightly sticky and very >filling - no way you could eat 2 slices together. I have, and loved it. Mind you, it was sliced so as to be very thin indeed. It formed the outer covering of a pastrami sandwich, and I would not have hesitated to call it a sandwich. > On the national >origins of the bread, I meant in stick form like a very long roll, so >since most of our Italian bakers make a "stick", I'd discount them as >sandwich material. Ahh.. you are speaking of one particular form of bread sometimes made by the French. I think they call it a baguette, and it is usually sliced , if at all, horizontally, rather then vertically. French bread, however, does come in other forms, some of which are sliced vertically, giving you slices of bread that are slices in every sense of the word, the only difference being that of shape, determined by the cross-section of the loaf at the point of slicing. I don't think I've ever had better Bacon & Tomato sandwiches than those made with French Bread, still warm from the oven in the bakery on the ground floor of the building I lived in, with plenty of Dutch (or sometimes Danish) butter, and a little mayonnaise. That was not only a sandwich, but an almost unsurpassable sandwich. >It all boils down to (a) whether it is sliced and (b) whether you can >actually eat 2 slices of the stuff. For example, I can think of some >heavy rye loaves that wouldn't be suitable for sandwiches, while some >"sticks" and rolls are so thick than you can slice them horizontally and >make an acceptable sandwich. Well, there we are again. I reiterate; hamburger buns are sliced bread. Anticipating your argument, which may be a mistake, I would point out that even though the two pieces of a hamburger bun are sliced only on one side, that is also the case when making a sandwich out of a "standard" loaf of white bread when the "heels" are used. Does the rest of the world call an end piece of a loaf "the heel"? >Then again, there's the "open sandwich", but I'm afraid I don't think of >them as sandwiches at all. In fact, many have to be eaten with a knife >and fork, which rather destroys the entire point of a sandwich. I agree. I think the term sandwich should be restricted to something between two other things, those other things being similar. > Ahh.. you are speaking of one particular form of bread sometimes made > by the French. I think they call it a baguette, and it is usually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sense of the word, the only difference being that of shape, determined > by the cross-section of the loaf at the point of slicing. Certainly. I believe hundreds of different types of loaf are baked in France, but, if I may be RFish for a moment, what we call "French bread" means baguette and not bread from France. > Well, there we are again. I reiterate; hamburger buns are sliced > bread. Anticipating your argument, which may be a mistake, I would > point out that even though the two pieces of a hamburger bun are > sliced only on one side, that is also the case when making a sandwich > out of a "standard" loaf of white bread when the "heels" are used. > Does the rest of the world call an end piece of a loaf "the heel"? It's more a question of what you call "bread" and I don't call rolls or buns that even though they are a subset of bread substances. SignatureRob Bannister >Certainly. I believe hundreds of different types of loaf are baked in >France, but, if I may be RFish for a moment, what we call "French bread" >means baguette and not bread from France. In my misspent youth, there were two things that both were called "French bread". One was a crusty loaf (sort of a crusty version of "Italian bread") and one was the baguette. In supermarkets today, baguettes are sold as "baguettes" and the other kind has fractured into a dozen or more different varieties (none of which seem to be called "French", although I may be shopping at the wrong supermarket to see that). -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >> Ahh.. you are speaking of one particular form of bread sometimes made >> by the French. I think they call it a baguette, and it is usually [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >France, but, if I may be RFish for a moment, what we call "French bread" >means baguette and not bread from France. For sufficiently narrow definitions of "we", I suppose. The "French" in "French Bread" does not necessarily mean that it's from France; rather that the other characteristics of "French Bread" are present. The essential Frenchness of the bread lies in the crust, the ingredients, and in the manner of baking. I often pick up a loaf of French Bread at the supermarket, though it bears only a superficial resemblance to the true product. If I were to look for a baguette in that same supermarket, I would find it inside a bag that says, surprisingly enough, "baguette" on the outside. >> Well, there we are again. I reiterate; hamburger buns are sliced >> bread. Anticipating your argument, which may be a mistake, I would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It's more a question of what you call "bread" and I don't call rolls or >buns that even though they are a subset of bread substances. So if it isn't the ingredients, what differentiates rolls/buns from bread? Shape? If I made bread in a home "bread maker", and sliced it, using the two heels as the outer part of the recipe, it would look as close as be damned to a hamburger bun, but would clearly be two slices of bread. So what would you call it? > The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The essential Frenchness of the bread lies in the crust, the > ingredients, and in the manner of baking. This could be something that has not yet reached Australia. It's not that the word "baguette" is never seen, but that most people still call them French bread or French sticks. Although at one time, we had two French bakeries in Perth, I never noticed that their non-baguette bread was terribly different from other bread. Italian bakeries produce loaves with fiercesome outsides. The main thing about real French baguettes is that the crust goes quite leathery within a matter of hours, which is why, I suppose, that bakeries in France are open from dawn till nearly bedtime. >>>Well, there we are again. I reiterate; hamburger buns are sliced >>>bread. Anticipating your argument, which may be a mistake, I would >>>point out that even though the two pieces of a hamburger bun are >>>sliced only on one side, that is also the case when making a sandwich >>>out of a "standard" loaf of white bread when the "heels" are used. >>>Does the rest of the world call an end piece of a loaf "the heel"? I would call it the crust. >>It's more a question of what you call "bread" and I don't call rolls or >>buns that even though they are a subset of bread substances. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > close as be damned to a hamburger bun, but would clearly be two slices > of bread. So what would you call it? The crust, to my mind at least, still has a slightly different texture to a roll, but I try to avoid using them for sandwiches. The new crust is best eaten with something simple like just butter or cheese. The old crust I usually throw away. SignatureRob Bannister The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >> So if it isn't the ingredients, what differentiates rolls/buns from >> bread? Shape? If I made bread in a home "bread maker", and sliced it, >> using the two heels as the outer part of the recipe, it would look as >> close as be damned to a hamburger bun, but would clearly be two slices >> of bread. So what would you call it? >The crust, to my mind at least, still has a slightly different texture >to a roll, but I try to avoid using them for sandwiches. Hmm... I do believe I have figured out the problem here. You [1] are extremely bread-deprived. I don't particularly like the packaged "hamburger buns", and if I am making hamburgers myself, I usually use another form of bun, or roll (I don't make any differentiation in the two). I am partial to "kaiser buns", AKA "kaiser rolls", if they are fresh. The crusts on the buns should be like that on French Bread, or like baguettes. Sometimes I like to use an Italian roll, which is not as good, but it makes a nice change. > The new crust >is best eaten with something simple like just butter or cheese. The old >crust I usually throw away. Yikes! I have often wished my wife would feel that way, as there is always a competition to get the crust (heel) for sandwiches, toasting, or yes, eating with butter or cheese, or butter and jam or marmalade. [1] I don't, of course, know if it's just you that is bread-deprived, or the folks in your area, or perhaps even the folks in the entire continent. We have a stunningly huge choice of breads, and even limiting the choices to what is available in the supermarket we usually patronize, I often spend between 5 and 10 minutes deciding what sorts of bread, buns, or bagels to buy. >two). I am partial to "kaiser buns", AKA "kaiser rolls", if they are >fresh. The crusts on the buns should be like that on French Bread, or >like baguettes. Sometimes I like to use an Italian roll, which is not >as good, but it makes a nice change. There's a local bakery here (Iggy's Bread of the World) that makes brioche hamburger buns, and that's what I usually buy, when available. They come four to a package, but I'll usually toast two up at a time, and eat one with butter and one with burger. (Of course, the proper condiment for use with a burger is aioli, or mayonnaise if you can't get/make that, unless it's a cookout, in which case ketchup and mustard are acceptable since you won't usually be having top-quality ingredients anyway.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: > > Hmm... I do believe I have figured out the problem here. You [1] are > extremely bread-deprived. One of the main reasons I bake most of my bread myself is because of the appalling choice at supermarkets and bakeries. I do know where to get good Kaiser rolls and rye bread, but good white bread is a rarity. SignatureRob Bannister >> From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant >> specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the definition: "an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with > meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal". Yabbut open sandwich? What's that, the sandwich you eat when you're not eating a sandwich? > I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters > complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. Couple of hits at Google-News for "hamburger sandwich:" Waleg.com, Tunisia - Oct 28, 2006 ... He managed to mix food & fashion & come out with a very interesting outcome. Take your pick, a bacon sandwich or a hamburger sandwich? ... White Castle Honored with Food Industry Award PR Newswire (press release), NY - Oct 18, 2006 ... over the years, the company still remains true to its signature, 2 1/2" square, five- holed, steam-grilled-on-a-bed-of-onions hamburger sandwich that its ... I'll check Google-books search. Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego > I'll check Google-books search. 249 hits at Google-books: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22hamburger+sandwich%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego >> I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters >> complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ... He managed to mix food & fashion & come out with a very interesting > outcome. Take your pick, a bacon sandwich or a hamburger sandwich? ... That was a hamburger between 2 slices of white bread. Stupot > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant > specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters > complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. Isn't garlic a necessary ingredient of aioli? If they mean mayonnaise they should say so. Alan Jones The Alan Jones entity posted thusly: >> From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant >> specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Isn't garlic a necessary ingredient of aioli? If they mean mayonnaise they >should say so. What, you got a problem with someone saying "garlic garlic sauce"? I think I'll just head out to the barn and feed my four-legged quadrupeds. > > "For those who are indecisive -- or develop brain freeze -- the menu > > lists a half-dozen Signature Burgers and a few other sandwiches, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Isn't garlic a necessary ingredient of aioli? Indeed, isn't it the "ai"? > If they mean mayonnaise they should say so. I suspect they're worried that if they said "aioli", some people wouldn't expect garlic, and if they said "garlic mayonnaise", other people would expect non-olive-oil mayonnaise, which is only slightly less disgusting if you put garlic in it. Belt and suspenders (or braces, to make sure nobody misunderstands). SignatureJerry Friedman > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant > specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like a Stacked BLT with garlic aioli ($6.50), to help ease the > burden. Yeah? So what? A hamburger is a sandwich. Let's take it a step at a time. 1) "Hamburger" is an adjective meaning "of or like Hamburg, Germany". 2) Steak ground up and fried like they do it in Hamburg is "Hamburger steak". 3) English-speakers sometimes leave the noun out of an adjective-noun phrase, and let the adjective alone stand for the combination. So "hamburger" is "Hamburger steak". 4) Now "hamburger" has become a noun. 5) Now use "hamburger" as an adjective to modify "sandwich", and you get a "hamburger [steak] sandwich". 6) Apply step (3) again, and "hamburger" means "hamburger steak sandwich". It's a sandwich. Get used to it. -- Stefano "Help stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy!" -- Peter P Peters > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant > specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters > complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. A hamburger is a sandwich. But a sandwich isn't necessarily a hamburger. I'm one of those who feels that a hamburger is a sandwich but that "sandwich" is not a word you'd normally ever use to refer to it. I was therefore surprised last night when I went into a Harvey's, ordered some burgers, and was asked "Just the sandwiches?" -- just as was mentioned in one of these threads recently in relation to some foreign places. The wording I would have expected, if they were going to ask this question, is "Just the burgers?" And the *question* I would have expected, based on my other visits to Harvey's in the last few months at least, is the reverse one: "Combos?" (Or "Do you want combos?" or "Are those combos?" etc.) SignatureMark Brader | "And remember, my friends, future events such as Toronto | these will affect you, in the future." msb@vex.net | -- Ed Wood, Plan 9 from Outer Space My text in this article is in the public domain. Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > From this week's _Mountain View Voice_, a review of a new restaurant > specializing in hamburgers with the headline "That glorious American [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'll let you know if next week's issue includes a flood of letters > complaining that a hamburger isn't a sandwich. It occurs to me that I have never brought to the attention of the panel the "Quick N Toast" (there's an apostrophe somewhere), which is a long-standing menu item at the French/Belgian burger place "Quick". If it weren't so obviously a burger, you might be forced to consider it a sandwich. The meat and cheese are encased between two toasted slices of what my granny used to call Milk Loaf. This is a soft white loaf of circular cross section with ridges running around the loaf, as though discs had been stacked next to each other. Getting to a photo isn't easy. There are some cached by google images, but the originals have disappeared: http://tinyurl.com/yj6cjf The best photo is on Quick's own web site, but you'll have to navigate the French. Go to http://www.quick-restaurants.com/consumer/fr-fr/main.asp click on "A Votre Gout" and then "Burgers". Choose the Quick N Toast from the scrolling list at the bottom. We're very partial to these and usually find a good excuse to eat one during our trips to France. SignatureDavid ===== > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > click on "A Votre Gout" and then "Burgers". Choose the Quick N Toast > from the scrolling list at the bottom. Strangest French I've ever read. Stupot |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.