On 2014-12-16 04:51:45 +0000, Julie Bove said:
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:33:30 -0600, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/15/2014 7:28 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:20:12 -0500, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been craving this soup. It's been years since I made it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.food.com/recipe/byerlys-w...ce-soup-178083
>>>>>
>>>>> Byerly's Wild Rice Soup
>>>>>
>>>>> 6 tablespoons butter
>>>>> 1 tablespoon minced onion
>>>>> 1/2 cup flour
>>>>> 3 cups chicken broth
>>>>> 2 cups wild rice, cooked
>>>>> 1/3 cup cooked ham, diced
>>>>> 1/2 cup carrot, finely shredded
>>>>> 3 tablespoons slivered almonds (chopped)
>>>>> 1/2 teaspoon salt
>>>>> 1 cup half-and-half
>>>>> 2 tablespoons dry sherry
>>>>> snipped parsley (for garnish) or chives (for garnish)
>>>>
>>>> Is that 2 cups of cooked wild rice, or do you cook 2 cups of wild
>>>> rice?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Funny man.
>>
>> Ahh, but It really IS ambiguous. Especially when the same recipe uses
>> terms such as:
>>
>> 1 tablespoon minced onion
>> 1/3 cup cooked ham, diced
>> 1/2 cup carrot, finely shredded
>> 3 tablespoons slivered almonds (chopped)
>>
>> We would assume it's 2 cups of cooked wild rice (judging by the amount
>> of liquid in the recipe), but then look at the "cooked ham" ingredient
>> which is specifically cooked before measuring. And the onion is
>> measure minced, so then why isn't the carrot listed as "1/2 cup finely
>> shredded carrot"? Then we have a third form of ambiguity using
>> parenthesis as in "almonds (chopped)".
>>
>> The order of the terms used in this recipe are not consistent and
>> could be confusing to some people. As an editor yourself I would
>> think you would consider this bad form.
>>
>> -sw
>
> Yep. Certainly wouldn't work as written. The wild rice that I cooked
> yesterday called for 2 cups of broth to 1/2 cup of rice. And it wasn't
> soup.
It would work as written. Properly done, this soup is very thick
indeed. Almost a rice casserole in texture.
I'm not sure if t