# Grammar - not even wrong

1. Dec 2, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

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?

Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
2. Dec 2, 2011

### phinds

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.

Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
3. Dec 2, 2011

### Chi Meson

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

4. Dec 2, 2011

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
with or without au jus? :rofl:

5. Dec 2, 2011

### micromass

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

6. Dec 2, 2011

### 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!)

7. Dec 2, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

That must be from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Or rather, the Department of Redundancy Département.

8. Dec 2, 2011

### Jimmy Snyder

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

9. Dec 2, 2011

### 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...

10. Dec 2, 2011

### Pengwuino

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

11. Dec 2, 2011

### Astronuc

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

12. Dec 2, 2011

### Jimmy Snyder

I can't, I forgot my PIN number.

13. Dec 2, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

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.

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. :grumpy: 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)

Last edited: Dec 2, 2011
14. Dec 2, 2011

### 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".

15. Dec 2, 2011

### 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.

16. Dec 2, 2011

My pet peeves:

"The deal is, is..."

"Faster Speed"

"First introduced"

"Different people are different"

"Cross collaborate"

"Intended purpose"

"I'll get there when I get there" $\infty$

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.

17. Dec 2, 2011

### zoobyshoe

Good one, hehehe.

18. Dec 3, 2011

### neural revolt

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.

Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
19. Dec 3, 2011

### turbo

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?

20. Dec 3, 2011

### zoobyshoe

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.

Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
21. Dec 3, 2011

### D H

Staff Emeritus
:surprised

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."

22. Dec 3, 2011

### MarcoD

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.

23. Dec 3, 2011

### 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 wouldnt 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

24. Dec 3, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

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.

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

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

25. Dec 3, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

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...:uhh:

I was born and raised in Texas, BTW.

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

Last edited: Dec 3, 2011