"Oregonian Haruspex" > wrote in message
...
> On 2014-12-17 23:49:21 +0000, Julie Bove said:
>
>> "Oregonian Haruspex" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2014-12-17 20:21:27 +0000, Julie Bove said:
>>>
>>>> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:09:21 -0600, Sqwertz >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:46:45 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She took the photo last night so here we go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://i.imgur.com/nsvBZLc.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See how that's written? "2 cups COOKED wild rice".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That recipe was written correctly. But as it gets poassed through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> grapevine it's gets all mangled by idiots. That's a real peeve of
>>>>>> mine (can you tell?).
>>>>>
>>>>> "2 cups COOKED wild rice" means exactly the same as "2 cups wild rice,
>>>>> cooked". Like most people the dwarf hasn't a clue about comma usage.
>>>>> Truth is either is culinarily incorrect, wild rice is best cooked in
>>>>> the soup... but first I toast wild rice in a dry pan.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't, Sheldon. Go back to cooking 101.
>>>
>>> Please tell me the difference between these then:
>>>
>>> 1 medium chopped onion
>>>
>>> 1 medium onion, chopped
>>>
>>> Most people would agree that they are identical in meaning. One has to
>>> also penetrate into the meaning of a recipe in order to be successful.
>>> Some recipes lack certain information that is vital, others advocate
>>> treatments that would result in underdone, overdone, flavorless, or
>>> overly-seasoned food. Sometimes this isn't even the fault of the recipe
>>> writer. A recipe written in Denver could easily fail at sea level.
>>>
>> That's the same because it's a medium onion. But 2 cups of something
>> uncooked is not usually the same as 2 cups of something that has already
>> been cooked. If you take 2 cups of raw wild rice and cook it, the end
>> result will be 6-8 cups of rice. So if the recipe is written as 2 cups,
>> cooked...then it means 2 cups of raw rice, cooked. But if it says 2
>> cooked cups of wild rice then it means 2 cups of rice after it has been
>> cooked. That's just basic knowledge.
>
> No, it's not "basic knowledge."
>
> What about this then:
>
> 1 onion, chopped
>
> 1 chopped onion

Again, not the same thing. One would always presume that the onion was raw
as there is no mention of cooking. The probem in the case of the wild rice
is the placement of the comma.
>
> By your reasoning above these indicate different things because they don't
> say "medium." That makes no sense, as I hope you can see.

No. You just don't get it.
>
>>> USE YOUR BRAIN WHEN READING A RECIPE!
>>
>> I do.
>
> If the rice was to be uncooked there wouldn't be any comma or the word
> "cooked" at all. In fact, if the recipe writer wanted to avoid ambiguity,
> he would specify uncooked rice if that was what he meant. Not only that
> but the recipe would indicate that the rice be cooked in the instruction
> steps!

Actually you are wrong on that. This goes back to what I learned in
learning to read a cookbook and it was reiterated in Home Ec class.