Re: [CH] Entree Food in Oz
GarryMass@aol.com
Wed, 02 May 2001 12:28:51 EDT
In a message dated 05/02/01 8:58:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, xrated@amerite=
ch.net writes:
If you look up the French meaning of entree, it indicates the opening or
> > beginning. No wonder our Ozzie waiters get confused when serving
> Americans
> Because they don't speak french, but like to use french words, sautee bein=
g another used incorrectly.
I am perplexed on how such an obvious mistake has become mainstream. Is the=
re some kind of logical explanation for this?
fellow Ch.D.s:
(from Take Our Word for It)
Actually, there is indeed a good explanation for why Americans do this. The=
y got it from the English. At some point in the 18th century, the English b=
egan using entree to mean "a ‘made dish’, served between the fis=
h and the joint". But in French, entr=E9e was defined as "qui se servent=20=
au commencement du repas" ("serving at the beginning of a meal"). So the En=
glish got it wrong first, and that "wrong" meaning simply stuck in America o=
nce it arrived here, while the French doubtless harangued the English so muc=
h about misuse of the term that the meaning was corrected in the U.K. (well,=
maybe not, but...).
In America the word eventually came to refer not to the 'made dish' (which w=
as often a ham) but to the main course (usually a ham or some other meat).
=20
For me, the rationalization for our (American) lack of savoir faire (a polis=
hed sureness in social behavior) is to consider the "grand entrance" of the=20=
main course as "l'entree." =20
And, not to be pedantic, I translate entrance, beginning, and opening, respe=
ctively, as entr=E9e, commencement, et ouverture. And for the sake of on-to=
picness, I translate chilies, chiles, and hot peppers as piments, chiles, et=
poivres chauds. =20
Gareth the ChileKnight
=20
=20