"aem" > writes:
>Yeah, but language is supposed to communicate meaning, food names
>included. If I make lasagna and call it chocolate mousse the lasagna
>may taste good but I have misled whoever heard me say mousse. This is
>not the old argument about so-called 'authenticity,' it's just a plea
>to avoid misleading terms. If they called it "Greek style meat sauce
>for spaghetti" I'd have no quibble coming (even if I don't like its
>taste), but slapping the "chili" label on something it barely resembles
>was deceptive, whether intended to be or not. Hence my calling it
>"fake." -aem

I understand your position (because I've heard it so many times in
the 20 or so years that I've been on usenet) and you are certainly
welcome to your pet peeves (I have my own to nurture). But this
isn't calling lasagna by the name chocolate mousse. When this
stuff was invented (prob. prior to 1922), I don't even know that
the concept of Texas chili was all that widespread at that time.

(although this would be a hotly disputed statement, one cookbook
I read once attributed the origins of chili to Cincinnati --
the non-Greek kind -- and that it travelled to the West via the
river drivers that were heading down the Ohio River)

I can only suppose that the history here is that when this stuff
was invented by Greeks in Cincinnati, they tried to pick a name that
related as closely as possible to something else known at the time.

If you think about it, pasta wasn't even all that popular prior
to WWII in the US.

So, the bottom line is "I don't know." On the other hand, nobody
walks around with trademarks on these names.

Guy