On Sunday, 31 March 2013 08:34:59 UTC+10, Farm1 wrote:
> "Timo" wrote:
> > On Saturday, 30 March 2013 09:14:02 UTC+10, Farm1 wrote:
> >
> >> Neeldess to say, I dont' live in Queensland and would never even think of
> >> doign so. I also know not to call a dish based on meat, curry powder and
> >> fruit an "English curry".
> >
> > What would _you_ call an "English curry"?
>
> A Chicken Tikka Masala or a Beef Vindaloo. But I'd only attach the
> adjective to either of them because I know they are so popular in the UK.

Indian or modern Anglo-Indian. Why wouldn't you call the kind of curry cooked in England for a couple of centuries "English"?

> > Why mention Cotta's book? Isn't it an _Indian_ cookbook?
>
> Cotta's book was written, published and printed n Australia and repeats the
> recieps he cooked in his restaurant here in Aus.

Isn't it an _Indian_ cookbook. What does that have to do with English curries? Do you think that English curries are Indian?

> 'English curry' is a meaningless term. It didn't apply in Australia in the
> 1980s and still doesn't.

Why meaningless? The English had been cooking curries, divorced from Indian food, for centuries. You think those dishes weren't "English", or they weren't "curries"?

It's a distinctive group of dishes, cooked and eaten by the English (and appeared in colonial cuisines), and except for the sub-class of them that was adopted by the Japanese (and Koreans), quite "English".

Why aren't they "English curries"?

What would Cotta's book have to do with any of that? Isn't Cotta's book an _Indian_ cookbook? Do you think Indian curries are "English"? That English curries are Indian?