guy klose wrote:
> "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) [snip]

[white flag is hoisted from the trench and begins to wave slowly back
and forth]
On due consideration I believe my lexicological pickiness is misplaced,
and that Cincinatti chili is just as valid a name for that dish as
Texas chili is for the other dish. I will continue to believe that
specific recipes with well-established names shouldn't be seriously
altered unless you change the name but that is not the case here. -aem