Hugh wrote:
>
> "MargW" >> wrote in
> message ...
> > Hugh wrote:
> >> "Sqwertz" >>
> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Hugh >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Sqwertz"
> >> wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> Hugh >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Curry is British, not Indian.
> >>>>>> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/curry
> >>>>> You seem to have trouble comprehending your own cite.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "... Along with tea, curry is one of the few dishes or drinks that
> >>>>> is truly "Pan-Asian", but specifically, its roots come from India. "
> >>>> The term "curry" did not exist in Asia until the British arrived.
> >>> The term 'curry' doesn't exist in Asia, either (except when
> >>> described by English-speakers). Each stew-like dish has a more
> >>> specific name. The terms 'stir-fry' or 'fried rice' don't exist in
> >>> Asia, either. The dishes, however, do.
> >>>
> >>> That was a terrible attempt to dodge your own brain-fart.
> >>>
> >>> -sw
> >>
> >> Curries were created to suit the English palate.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 'Some' curries were created to suit the English palate. The actual
> > English word does predate the British going to Indian, and describes a
> > sauce, but what even the Indians today describe as curry is specifically
> > Indian.
> >
> > MargW
>
> The word comes from “Kari” which is from the Tamil language and was
> later anglicized into “curry”. The "curry" dishes from India, Thailand,
> Malasia, and others were tempered to suit the British.
>
>


The word partially comes from the word Kari. I wish I could find the
source, but one of my food history books noted that the word curry was
used in English before the Brits went to India, and was applied to a sauce.

And, I note that you have changed your line - quote "and others were
tempered to suit the British."

MargW