Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. Does anyone know
how this usage came about and why?

Thanks in advance.

Tom

--
Tom Royer
If you're not free to fail, you're not free. -- Gene Burns

"Tom Royer" ha scritto nel messaggio
> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become
> curious > as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing
> cooking steps. We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil
> off", "...to saute > off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is
> superfluous. Does anyone know > how this usage came about and why?

Doesn't matter how it came about, it's incorrect and lazy use of jargon.
Even Ruhlman uses it and he should know better. Maybe burning off alcohol
might be valid, but the rest is bad Engliah.

Giusi wrote:
> "Tom Royer" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become
>> curious > as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing
>> cooking steps. We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil
>> off", "...to saute > off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is
>> superfluous. Does anyone know > how this usage came about and why?
>
> Doesn't matter how it came about, it's incorrect and lazy use of jargon.
> Even Ruhlman uses it and he should know better. Maybe burning off alcohol
> might be valid, but the rest is bad Engliah.
>
>

How about "this fish is off".

</British>

"Tom Royer" > wrote in message
...
> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become
> curious as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing
> cooking steps. We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil
> off", "...to saute off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is
> superfluous. Does anyone know how this usage came about and why?
>
> Thanks in advance.

It's used by egotistical jerk-offs who think the world of themselves.

On Feb 7, 6:36*am, "Tom Royer" > wrote:
> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
> as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
> We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
> off", etc. *In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. *Does anyone know
> how this usage came about and why?
>
It has occurred to me that this usage might reflect the tendency to
think of cooking in steps, and the prep-in-advance mindset of
professional cooks. So, you might hink of breading some cutlets,
browning them, finishing their cooking, making a sauce, reheating the
cutlets in the sauce, and plating them. Rather than doing all those
things one step immediately following the other, a restaurant kitchen
might break the process into several steps done with long waits in
between. Somehow, the "-off" term leans in that direction in my
mind..... -aem

x-nop-archive: yes

zara wrote:
> "Tom Royer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become
>> curious as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing
>> cooking steps. We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil
>> off", "...to saute off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is
>> superfluous. Does anyone know how this usage came about and why?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> It's used by egotistical jerk-offs who think the world of themselves.
>
>

It bugs me, too, but Ina Garten uses it, and that doesn't describe her
at all.

Susan

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:08:43 -0500, Susan > wrote:

>It bugs me, too, but Ina Garten uses it, and that doesn't describe her
>at all.

Ian Garten has the best show on TV....truly a class act. No drama, no
hysterics...just good basic cooking. I would love to study under
her!!

Mr. Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:08:43 -0500, Susan > wrote:
>
>> It bugs me, too, but Ina Garten uses it, and that doesn't describe her
>> at all.
>
> Ian Garten has the best show on TV....truly a class act. No drama, no
> hysterics...just good basic cooking.

.....and a really phony "rent-a-friend" type party each show, and an
annoying laugh. Otherwise I like her food a lot. Oh, and I love the
shine of her hair, LOL.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:56:56 -0500, Goomba >
wrote:

> Oh, and I love the
>shine of her hair

Can we all say "superficial"?

Her food and presentation is great...what else would count?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:05:12 -0800 (PST), aem >
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Feb 7, 6:36*am, "Tom Royer" > wrote:
>> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
>> as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
>> We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
>> off", etc. *In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. *Does anyone know
>> how this usage came about and why?
>>
>It has occurred to me that this usage might reflect the tendency to
>think of cooking in steps, and the prep-in-advance mindset of
>professional cooks. So, you might hink of breading some cutlets,
>browning them, finishing their cooking, making a sauce, reheating the
>cutlets in the sauce, and plating them. Rather than doing all those
>things one step immediately following the other, a restaurant kitchen
>might break the process into several steps done with long waits in
>between. Somehow, the "-off" term leans in that direction in my
>mind..... -aem

While "bake-off" and "cook-off" can have other meanings, I think
you're on the right track. But just to be a bit contentious, I've also
heard chef's "mouth-off" in the kitchen.

Personally, I always looked forward to my "day-off."

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:10:16 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:56:56 -0500, Goomba >
>wrote:
>
>> Oh, and I love the
>>shine of her hair
>
>Can we all say "superficial"?
>
>Her food and presentation is great...what else would count?

I love the shine of her hair, too. I wonder what she uses on it?

Carol, sitting next to Goomba on the Superficial Bench

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Tom Royer wrote:
>
> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
> as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
> We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
> off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. Does anyone know
> how this usage came about and why?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Tom
>


Doesn't seem to go back all that far in time. Sounds stupid and
amateurish and certainly is bad use of English. But it is trendy

"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:10:16 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:56:56 -0500, Goomba >
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, and I love the
>>>shine of her hair
>>
>>Can we all say "superficial"?
>>
>>Her food and presentation is great...what else would count?
>
> I love the shine of her hair, too. I wonder what she uses on it?


If you eat lots of fat, your hair will be shiny also.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:15:45 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:
>
>Tom Royer wrote:
>>
>> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
>> as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
>> We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
>> off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. Does anyone know
>> how this usage came about and why?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
>
>Doesn't seem to go back all that far in time. Sounds stupid and
>amateurish and certainly is bad use of English. But it is trendy

and the rest of us can be ****ed off whenever we hear it.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:15:45 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
> >
> >Tom Royer wrote:
> >>
> >> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
> >> as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
> >> We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
> >> off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. Does anyone know
> >> how this usage came about and why?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >
> >
> >Doesn't seem to go back all that far in time. Sounds stupid and
> >amateurish and certainly is bad use of English. But it is trendy
>
> and the rest of us can be ****ed off whenever we hear it.
>

Only annoyed me the first few times. Now we don't listen anyway. Few TV
cooks have a decent command of English in any case.

> Doesn't matter how it came about, it's incorrect and lazy use of jargon.
> Even Ruhlman uses it and he should know better. *Maybe burning off alcohol
> might be valid, but the rest is bad Engliah.

In addition to being EXTREMELY annoying.

N.

On Feb 7, 8:36*am, "Tom Royer" > wrote:
> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
> as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
> We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
> off", etc. *In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. *Does anyone know
> how this usage came about and why?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Royer
> If you're not free to fail, you're not free. -- Gene Burns
=============================================
Possibilities: One - Making maple syrup/sugar is called "sugaring
off" and in Door County Wisconsin, folks do community fish boils over
big open wood fires.
Two - When the fish is done they throw kerosene or other fuel on the
flame and the huge pot boils up and over the top and takes the top
scum with it - leaving nice "clean" fish.
See Also: see Pillsbury,com

;-) Lynn in Fargo

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:34:02 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:15:45 -0700, Arri London >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Tom Royer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Having watched more cooking shows that I care to think, I've become curious
>> >> as to the history of usage of the word "off" when describing cooking steps.
>> >> We hear "... to sear off", "...to bake off", "...to boil off", "...to saute
>> >> off", etc. In every case, the word "off" is superfluous. Does anyone know
>> >> how this usage came about and why?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance.
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Doesn't seem to go back all that far in time. Sounds stupid and
>> >amateurish and certainly is bad use of English. But it is trendy
>>
>> and the rest of us can be ****ed off whenever we hear it.
>>
>
>Only annoyed me the first few times. Now we don't listen anyway. Few TV
>cooks have a decent command of English in any case.


It was just a feeble joke... a play on words so to speak.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:19:15 -0500, "zara" >
wrote:

>"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:10:16 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:56:56 -0500, Goomba >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and I love the
>>>>shine of her hair
>>>
>>>Can we all say "superficial"?
>>>
>>>Her food and presentation is great...what else would count?
>>
>> I love the shine of her hair, too. I wonder what she uses on it?
>
>
>If you eat lots of fat, your hair will be shiny also.

Very helpful. Thank you so much!

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:35:46 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:19:15 -0500, "zara" >
>wrote:
>
>>"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:10:16 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:56:56 -0500, Goomba >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and I love the
>>>>>shine of her hair
>>>>
>>>>Can we all say "superficial"?
>>>>
>>>>Her food and presentation is great...what else would count?
>>>
>>> I love the shine of her hair, too. I wonder what she uses on it?
>>
>>
>>If you eat lots of fat, your hair will be shiny also.
>
>Very helpful. Thank you so much!
>
There are actual hair products that make hair shiny. Your local drug
store or Target probably has something, but my guess is she uses a
high end product that's sold in high end salons.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>
> There are actual hair products that make hair shiny. Your local drug>
> store or Target probably has something, but my guess is she uses a> high
> end product that's sold in high end salons.

When I worked in a fashion-conscious US career, I used a product called
Shine. Knock your eyes out. My mother had used a Helen somebody creme, but
then her hair was dry and never moved and that was not what I was going for.

On Feb 7, 9:57*am, "Giusi" > wrote:

> Doesn't matter how it came about, it's incorrect and lazy use of jargon.
> Even Ruhlman uses it and he should know better. *Maybe burning off alcohol
> might be valid, but the rest is bad Engliah.

It's English? I thought it was Russian: Boyloff, Baykoff, Siroff,
Sotayoff...

Giusi wrote:
> "sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>
>> There are actual hair products that make hair shiny. Your local
>> drug> store or Target probably has something, but my guess is she
>> uses a> high end product that's sold in high end salons.
>
> When I worked in a fashion-conscious US career, I used a product
> called Shine. Knock your eyes out.

Too bad I can't find something like that for my formica
countertops.

nancy

On Feb 12, 12:51*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Giusi wrote:
> > "sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> >> There are actual hair products that make hair shiny. *Your local
> >> drug> store or Target probably has something, but my guess is she
> >> uses a> high end product that's sold in high end salons.
>
> > When I worked in a fashion-conscious US career, I used a product
> > called Shine. *Knock your eyes out.
>
> Too bad I can't find something like that for my formica
> countertops.
>
> nancy

Remember "Jubilee Kitchen Wax" ??? - shiny porcelain, enamel,
ceramic tile, stainless steel, chrome . . .
Lynn in Fargo

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:24:49 -0800 (PST), "
> shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Feb 7, 9:57*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter how it came about, it's incorrect and lazy use of jargon.
>> Even Ruhlman uses it and he should know better. *Maybe burning off alcohol
>> might be valid, but the rest is bad Engliah.
>
>It's English? I thought it was Russian: Boyloff, Baykoff, Siroff,
>Sotayoff...

Or the word understood and looked forward to in all languages ...
Dayoff.


--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

Lynn from Fargo wrote:
> On Feb 12, 12:51 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> Too bad I can't find something like that for my formica
>> countertops.

> Remember "Jubilee Kitchen Wax" ??? - shiny porcelain, enamel,
> ceramic tile, stainless steel, chrome . . .

No, I don't really remember that ... does it make countertops
shiny?

nancy

"Lynn from Fargo" ha scritto nel messaggio
"Nancy Young" wrote:
> Giusi wrote:
> > When I worked in a fashion-conscious US career, I used a product called
> > Shine. Knock your eyes out.
>
> Too bad I can't find something like that for my formica countertops.
>
> nancy

Remember "Jubilee Kitchen Wax" ??? - shiny porcelain, enamel,ceramic
tile, stainless steel, chrome . . .
Lynn in Fargo

Don't tell me they don't make it anymore? I loved that stuff! I bet if I go
to some little old hardware store in Appalachia I'll find a bottle.

Giusi wrote:
> "Lynn from Fargo" ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Nancy Young" wrote:
>
>>Giusi wrote:
>>
>>>When I worked in a fashion-conscious US career, I used a product called
>>>Shine. Knock your eyes out.
>>
>>Too bad I can't find something like that for my formica countertops.
>>
>>nancy
>
>
> Remember "Jubilee Kitchen Wax" ??? - shiny porcelain, enamel,ceramic
> tile, stainless steel, chrome . . .
> Lynn in Fargo
>
> Don't tell me they don't make it anymore? I loved that stuff! I bet if I go
> to some little old hardware store in Appalachia I'll find a bottle.
>
>

They don't make it anymore. My husband's aunt wanted some and couldn't
find it. I did some research. It's no longer being made.

Kathleen wrote:
> Giusi wrote:
>> "Lynn from Fargo" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Nancy Young" wrote:
>>
>>> Giusi wrote:
>>>
>>>> When I worked in a fashion-conscious US career, I used a product
>>>> called Shine. Knock your eyes out.
>>>
>>> Too bad I can't find something like that for my formica countertops.

>> Remember "Jubilee Kitchen Wax" ??? - shiny porcelain,
>> enamel,ceramic tile, stainless steel, chrome . . .

>> Don't tell me they don't make it anymore? I loved that stuff! I bet
>> if I go to some little old hardware store in Appalachia I'll find a
>> bottle.

> They don't make it anymore. My husband's aunt wanted some and
> couldn't find it. I did some research. It's no longer being made.

Vermont Country Store has a version. They are able to sell things
that are out of circulation by buying the 'recipe' and producing it
themselves. FWIW, here's the link:

http://www.vermontcountrystore.com/b...8?evar3=SEARCH

or just go to vermontcountrystore.com and search on Jubilee.

No, it's not cheap.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

> Kathleen wrote:
>
>> Giusi wrote:
>>
>>> "Lynn from Fargo" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> "Nancy Young" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Giusi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When I worked in a fashion-conscious US career, I used a product
>>>>> called Shine. Knock your eyes out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Too bad I can't find something like that for my formica countertops.
>
>
>>> Remember "Jubilee Kitchen Wax" ??? - shiny porcelain,
>>> enamel,ceramic tile, stainless steel, chrome . . .
>
>
>>> Don't tell me they don't make it anymore? I loved that stuff! I bet
>>> if I go to some little old hardware store in Appalachia I'll find a
>>> bottle.
>
>
>> They don't make it anymore. My husband's aunt wanted some and
>> couldn't find it. I did some research. It's no longer being made.
>
>
> Vermont Country Store has a version. They are able to sell things
> that are out of circulation by buying the 'recipe' and producing it
> themselves. FWIW, here's the link:
>
> http://www.vermontcountrystore.com/b...8?evar3=SEARCH
>
>
> or just go to vermontcountrystore.com and search on Jubilee.
>
> No, it's not cheap.

Wow, thanks! It's pretty pricey for a cleaning product but I'm going to
order a bottle to surprise Aunt Janet with anyhow because I know how
tickled she'll get.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:21:51 +1300, bob wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:24:49 -0800 (PST), "
> > shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>On Feb 7, 9:57*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't matter how it came about, it's incorrect and lazy use of jargon.
>>> Even Ruhlman uses it and he should know better. *Maybe burning off alcohol
>>> might be valid, but the rest is bad Engliah.
>>
>>It's English? I thought it was Russian: Boyloff, Baykoff, Siroff,
>>Sotayoff...
>
> Or the word understood and looked forward to in all languages ...
> Dayoff.

let's not forget jagoff.

your pal,
blake