What are some common mistakes in grammar and brewing?

[Evo]

I watch a lot of cooking shows and the misuse of the term au jus drves me crazy. In the last 30 minutes 8 people have misused the term 20 times. Au jus means "with juice", you can serve something "au jus" but you cannot serve something "with au jus", you cannot make an "au jus", AAARRRGHH!

Au jus is a French phrase that means “with or in (usually its own) juice”. It is an adjective phrase, not a noun. You can serve roast beef au jus, but not “roast beef with au jus”, and there’s nothing such as “au jus sauce”.

I started reading this list of common mistakes and thought I'd share, but knowing the grammar Nazis we have here, I wonder what mistakes members will find?

http://www.thetruthaboutgrammar.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-grammar

 

[phinds]

I watch a lot of cooking shows and the misuse of the term au jus drves me crazy. In the last 30 minutes 8 people have misused the term 20 times. Au jus means "with juice", you can serve something "au jus" but you cannot serve something "with au jus", you cannot make an "au jus", AAARRRGHH!



I started reading this list of common mistakes and thought I'd share, but knowing the grammar Nazis we have here, I wonder what mistakes members will find?

http://www.thetruthaboutgrammar.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-grammar

I'm with you on that Evo. I have seen on menus "extra au jus". Makes me want to find the person who wrote it and hurt them.

 

[Chi Meson]

So you know how I feel when people, meaning nearly everybody, use the terms "energy," "force," and "power" interchangeably.

 

[Astronuc]

So you know how I feel when people, meaning nearly everybody, use the terms "energy," "force," and "power" interchangeably.

with or without au jus?

 

[micromass]

That site is actually very useful for non-english speakers!

 

[turbo]

I want my roast beef sandwich with au jus, please... even with extra au jus, if you're not feeling generous with the au jus...

(Runs and hides from Evo!)

 

[jtbell]

"with au jus"

That must be from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Or rather, the Department of Redundancy Département.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you feel that strongly about it, then order it without au jus.

 

[turbo]

Many years ago, I had my oldest friend and his wife over for dinner, and served chili and biscuits. His wife made a comment about why there was so much meat in the chili, and I said that it wouldn't be chili without the meat. Thereupon, I was "treated" to an explanation of how "chili con carne" meant chili with meat, and that chili should normally come with no meat. I'm glad my friend ditched her - wish it hadn't taken so long...

 

[Pengwuino]

Don't order your sandwich with au jus juice unless you can pay for it with money from an ATM machine.

 

[Astronuc]

This thread reminds me of the U2 song - With or without au jus

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Don't order your sandwich with au jus juice unless you can pay for it with money from an ATM machine.

I can't, I forgot my PIN number.

 

[Evo]

One of my pet peeves that he missed is the misuse of the word recur. People constantly write and say reoccur when they mean recur. When something happens repeatedly it recurs, as in recurring rates. The rates don't reoccur.

Something that recurs happens repeatedly, perhaps at regular intervals. Something that reoccurs happens again, but not necessarily repeatedly or at regular intervals. For example, the sunrise recurs, and an unpredictable event that happens to occur more than once—such as an earthquake or a financial crisis—reoccurs.

http://www.grammarist.com/usage/recur-reoccur/

What was so annoying was that it was our company's corporate attornies that ALWAYS got this wrong in contracts. I would reject the contract and ask them to use the correct term and had to explain the difference to them.

I was always finding errors in our contracts. In one with Disney, one paragraph negated the prior paragraph, in essence giving them use of a new technology free for eternity. Another had far more devastating effects as it gave preditory pricing (below our costs) to unlimited clients unlimited times. It was essentially an error on par with the SDN debacle. It really shook things up at a high level and I was thanked repeatedly by Executive management but never financially rewarded. How can these high paid lawyers not understand English? (and I'm awful when it comes to proper English, I misuse parenthesis and quote marks, but at least I can read)

 

[Proton Soup]

there is a simple solution. just do what the french do, change the word to your native tongue. so now "au jus" becomes "with freedom juice".

 

[turbo]

What was so annoying was that it was our company's corporate attornies that ALWAYS got this wrong in contracts. I would reject the contract and ask them to use the correct term and had to explain the difference to them.

The last guy that I worked for was a complete moron. He used to use the word "subsequently" instead of "because" just because it was a longer word. Unfortunately, he used to to use "subsequently" interchangeably with "consequently" which gave me fits when dealing with customers. I made that moron millions (net) every year, but it was in spite of him, not because of him.

 

[Dembadon]

My pet peeves:

"The deal is, is..."

"Faster Speed"

"First introduced"

"Free gift"

"Different people are different"

"Cross collaborate"

"Intended purpose"

"I'll get there when I get there" ^{[itex]\infty[/itex]}

I'm disgustingly nit-picky when it comes to grammar. Most of the time I don't point out half of the things I notice because then people wouldn't want me around, and it'd be quite pretentious of me to be constantly correcting people during casual conversations. Most people would hate it. I feel differently, though. I'd rather be corrected so I don't continue using language incorrectly. Different people are different, I guess.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Different people are different, I guess.

Good one, hehehe.

 

[neural revolt]

I watch a lot of cooking shows and the misuse of the term au jus drves me crazy. In the last 30 minutes 8 people have misused the term 20 times. Au jus means "with juice", you can serve something "au jus" but you cannot serve something "with au jus", you cannot make an "au jus", AAARRRGHH!



I started reading this list of common mistakes and thought I'd share, but knowing the grammar Nazis we have here, I wonder what mistakes members will find?

http://www.thetruthaboutgrammar.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-grammar

Without being a native french speaker (or a cook-even a bad one at that), I would take a guess that "au jus" means "in juice" as in own juice (i.e. something cooked in its own dribbling fat). Then again, I might be the one dribbling here.

Not sure if this alters the required grammar around it.

 

[turbo]

The last guy that I worked for was a complete moron. He used to use the word "subsequently" instead of "because" just because it was a longer word. Unfortunately, he used to to use "subsequently" interchangeably with "consequently" which gave me fits when dealing with customers. I made that moron millions (net) every year, but it was in spite of him, not because of him.

My assistant and I had to "clean up" (meaning completely re-write) every piece of transcription that came through our department just because the boss was such a pompous uneducated windbag. We saved a tape for a while in which he proclaimed the qualities of a dresser, "the frontis elaborated with incredulous col'YUms". (emphasis added to accentuate his perpetual mispronounciation of "columns". What the hell is a frontis? And why is it elaborated? And why are the col'YUms so incredulous?

 

[zoobyshoe]

My assistant and I had to "clean up" (meaning completely re-write) every piece of transcription that came through our department just because the boss was such a pompous uneducated windbag. We saved a tape for a while in which he proclaimed the qualities of a dresser, "the frontis elaborated with incredulous col'YUms". (emphasis added to accentuate his perpetual mispronounciation of "columns". What the hell is a frontis? And why is it elaborated? And why are the col'YUms so incredulous?

I'm guessing your boss was saying "The front is elaborated with incredulous columns." For some reason, incredulously, he didn't invocalate the s. "Col'YUms" is the correct enuncification of "columns" for anyone who suspects the n is some sort of bastilleization of what should be an e. A common red erring many people fish for. (Because, were there an e at the end, the word would be elaborated in close relativity to the word "volumes") Subsequently, I wouldn't extinctly caricaturize this as a perpetual mismotion of the word "columns". More like a mismalaproprietization of it.

 

[D H]

His wife made a comment about why there was so much meat in the chili, and I said that it wouldn't be chili without the meat.

Your retort should have been "If you know beans about chili, you know that there ain't no beans in chili."

Sorry for the bad grammar, Evo. That's just how the saying goes. So what's it mean? One could say "There ain't any beans in chili" or "There are no beans in chili," but neither of those is emphatic enough to indicate how strongly Texans (and honorary Texans, too) feel about the utter travesty of putting beans into that grand red dish. This atrocity needs to be called out with double emphasis, and hence "There ain't no beans in chili."

Contrary to what logicians have to say about double negatives, double negatives in speech typically serve to strengthen rather than cancel the negativity. Some examples in song: "This ain't no disco," "Ain't no sunshine when it rains," and (ahem) "We don't need no education."

 

[MarcoD]

I'm disgustingly nit-picky when it comes to grammar. Most of the time I don't point out half of the things I notice because then people wouldn't want me around, and it'd be quite pretentious of me to be constantly correcting people during casual conversations. Most people would hate it. I feel differently, though. I'd rather be corrected so I don't continue using language incorrectly. Different people are different, I guess.

Well, feel free to correct any mistake you find in my use of English grammar. I'm not a natural writer, and probably have a mild case of lousy education, sloppiness, and a tad dyslexia. (I read intention not words.) But I am always grateful for people correcting my use of language.

Honestly, I write at forums partly to improve my language skills, so everybody helping me out gets a free cuddle.

 

[queenstudy]

i think you people are right , but i thought that writing proper english is not stressed on but i will do my best, because i really care about this forum and i really wouldn't like to be kicked out
I just want to thank every person which helped in making this forum the best forum . I really meant it

 

[Evo]

Without being a native french speaker (or a cook-even a bad one at that), I would take a guess that "au jus" means "in juice" as in own juice (i.e. something cooked in its own dribbling fat). Then again, I might be the one dribbling here.

Not sure if this alters the required grammar around it.

It's a culinary term meaning "with (a meat's own juices, broth)". Like "veronique" as a culinary term means "with grapes". As in the classic Sole Veronique. I have a cousin named Veronique, it's a girl's name, go figure.

“Au jus” means “with broth” so adding “with” to “au jus” is redundant.

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/french.html

A French phrase describing meat served "with its own natural juices"

http://www.epicurious.com/tools/fooddictionary/search?query=au+jus&submit.x=15&submit.y=13

 

[Evo]

Your retort should have been "If you know beans about chili, you know that there ain't no beans in chili."

Sorry for the bad grammar, Evo. That's just how the saying goes. So what's it mean? One could say "There ain't any beans in chili" or "There are no beans in chili," but neither of those is emphatic enough to indicate how strongly Texans (and honorary Texans, too) feel about the utter travesty of putting beans into that grand red dish. This atrocity needs to be called out with double emphasis, and hence "There ain't no beans in chili."

THANK YOU!

I have been fighting this battle here for years. There ain't no stinking beans in chili! Chili was invented in Texas and Texas chili has NO BEANS. And yes, chili con carne is correct for chili with meat, although the word "chili" has come to mean anything soup-like that doesn't even remotely contain anything resembling chili. GAH!

And then there was that recipe for sausage and cheese baklava...

I was born and raised in Texas, BTW.

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Chili/ChiliHistory.htm

 

[Evo]

Ahahaha! This is a great thread about faux food (yes I'm hijacking my own thread).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=177795

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Ahahaha! This is a great thread about faux food (yes I'm hijacking my own thread).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=177795

My wife just made me a bowl of chili. You're right. No beans, no meat. And since I don't like hot spices, no chili sauce. I'll get her back this summer. I'm going to get her some sugar-free cotton candy.

 

[Evo]

my wife just made me a bowl of chili. You're right. No beans, no meat. And since i don't like hot spices, no chili. I'll get her back this summer. I'm going to get her some sugar-free cotton candy.

lol!

 

[turbo]

My wife just made me a bowl of chili. You're right. No beans, no meat. And since I don't like hot spices, no chili sauce. I'll get her back this summer. I'm going to get her some sugar-free cotton candy.

It should be easy to eat. You'll have to pay a couple of cents for the cardboard "stick", but the look on her face when you hand it to her - priceless.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ahahaha! This is a great thread about faux food (yes I'm hijacking my own thread).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=177795

yeah this here thread ain't not supposed 2 b about no au jus and stuff and its about bad grammar what's not even wrong and like that so why do every body talk about au jus when that's off topic and every thing and not about bad grammar which b what this here thread is supposed 2 b about;

 

[Evo]

yeah this here thread ain't not supposed 2 b about no au jus and stuff and its about bad grammar what's not even wrong and like that so why do every body talk about au jus when that's off topic and every thing and not about bad grammar which b what this here thread is supposed 2 b about;

LOL! You fergot to spit yer chaw jus into that there spittoon.

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

Contrary to what logicians have to say about double negatives, double negatives in speech typically serve to strengthen rather than cancel the negativity. Some examples in song: "This ain't no disco," "Ain't no sunshine when it rains," and (ahem) "We don't need no education."

Personally, I never had the impression that a double negative had a stronger emphasis than a single negative, it was just slang. But that's just me.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

LOL! You fergot to spit yer chaw jus into that there spittoon.

Oops. I dun swallered it and ah think ahm going to be sick!

 

[turbo]

Personally, I never had the impression that a double negative had a stronger emphasis than a single negative, it was just slang. But that's just me.

Ain't no sunshine when she's gone is a pretty strong statement. But maybe that's just me.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Personally, I never had the impression that a double negative had a stronger emphasis than a single negative, it was just slang. But that's just me.

A double negative is really a positive. But a triple negative is logically negative. So "I can't get no satisfaction." logically means you can get satisfaction. But "I can't not get no satisfaction." means you can't get any. (Satisfaction that is.)