On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:11:34 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Cindy Hamilton wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 7:41:45 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:29:47 -0500, "cshenk" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Bruce wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> > >
>> > >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:58:44 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > On 2017-09-28 12:34 PM, wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >>> https://s26.postimg.org/oxkbqwlzd/prime_dinner.jpg
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> >>> I also got a cup of asparagus/brie soup (wonderful stuff, I
>> > need >> to >>> replicate it).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Looks very good. Only thing missing is some au jus.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > No. What is missing is jus. If there is no jus it is not au
>> > jus. >>
>> > >> That's it.
>> > >
>> > > Not sure what you mean. Au Jus is what they call a fairly thin
>> > > broth served with meat here. Considered in the family of gravy
>> > > types. I don't know of any that aren't meat derived Au Jus but
>> > > there may be some.
>> >
>> > Then 'au jus' means 'in broth'. So it doesn't make sense that there
>> > isn't enough 'in broth' (au jus) with the meat. You want to say that
>> > there's not enough 'broth' (jus) with the meat.
>>
>> In U.S. usage (which completely ignores the French transliteration),
>> "au jus" means "unthickened beef broth":
>>
>> A helluva lot of restaurants use this:
>>
>> <http://www.customculinary.com/bases/...detail.cfm?lni
>> d=4&catid=44&pId=609#.Wc4R7U3D_ys>
>>
>> Let the whining about fake food begin!
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>Actually we are saying the same thing. Bruce is just getting wierd.
>Claiming the 'Au' should be dropped off then quoting what seems a USA
>dictionary that adds it in then saying I'm wrong or something.
>
>Whatever.

Merriam-Webster dictionary (an American dictionary) says "au jus"
means "served in the juice obtained from roasting ".

Ok so far?