On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:27:50 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:

> Steve Pope > wrote:
>
>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>>
>>>"Bulk sausage" is utter nonsense and a totally unnecessary one, too.
>>
>> I disagree. It's just terminology, no more or less valid
>> than other terminology.
>
> It is not about a validity of anything; it is about "bulk sausage" being
> semantic nonsense. The term is perfectly well understandable by anyone,
> but is semantically ridiculous.
>
>>>The "term" was probably first used by someone with a limited knowledge
>>>of both English and cooking (and it was surely the very same harmful
>>>drudge who started to use "hamburger" in a similar sense). "Sausage" is
>>>defined by its casings. The minced meat that goes into the casings or
>>>is used for many other related or unrelated products and dishes is
>>>correctly called "forcemeat" throughout the English-speaking world,
>>>America including.
>>
>> "Forcemeat" is a pretty uncommon term among Americans.
>
> It appears to be about as common or uncomon as everywhere else. When
> people are not very knowledgeable about cooking and its terminology,
> they tend to resort to semantic crutches, of which "bulk sausage" is an
> example. The same is, of course, also true of any other area of human
> knowledge.
>
>> This does not mean they are full of nonsense. (And there's
>> so many other ways to demonstrate that, so why bother with
>> this one..)
>
> Do I detect a typical defensiveness engendered by a perceived slight to
> America or Americans? Yes, I do. Yet, the only "slight" would appear
> to reside in the incidental fact that the ridiculous term "bulk sausage"
> appears to be in use in America only.
>
> Victor

....and everyone in america seems to know what it means. i fail to see the
problem, or 'semantic nonsense' involved.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:27:50 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

>Do I detect a typical defensiveness engendered by a perceived slight to
>America or Americans? Yes, I do. Yet, the only "slight" would appear
>to reside in the incidental fact that the ridiculous term "bulk sausage"
>appears to be in use in America only.

We are also not on the metric system, but we're surviving anyway.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:27:50 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> >> Victor Sack > wrote:
> >
> > It is not about a validity of anything; it is about "bulk sausage" being
> > semantic nonsense. The term is perfectly well understandable by anyone,
> > but is semantically ridiculous.
> >>
> >>>The "term" was probably first used by someone with a limited knowledge
> >>>of both English and cooking (and it was surely the very same harmful
> >>>drudge who started to use "hamburger" in a similar sense). "Sausage" is
> >>>defined by its casings. The minced meat that goes into the casings or
> >>>is used for many other related or unrelated products and dishes is
> >>>correctly called "forcemeat" throughout the English-speaking world,
> >>>America including.
>
> ...and everyone in america seems to know what it means. i fail to see the
> problem, or 'semantic nonsense' involved.

Explained above.

Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
to general moral turpitude. Ha!

Really, this particular case may be a triviality, but even here there is
more to English than "sausage" and "hamburger". There is no good reason
to imitate what is effectively pidgin English, or the language of a
five-year-old child. A language that limits itself to just getting a
general idea across would be a very poor language indeed.

Victor

Victor Sack wrote:
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:27:50 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:
>>>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>>> It is not about a validity of anything; it is about "bulk sausage" being
>>> semantic nonsense. The term is perfectly well understandable by anyone,
>>> but is semantically ridiculous.
>>>>> The "term" was probably first used by someone with a limited knowledge
>>>>> of both English and cooking (and it was surely the very same harmful
>>>>> drudge who started to use "hamburger" in a similar sense). "Sausage" is
>>>>> defined by its casings. The minced meat that goes into the casings or
>>>>> is used for many other related or unrelated products and dishes is
>>>>> correctly called "forcemeat" throughout the English-speaking world,
>>>>> America including.
>> ...and everyone in america seems to know what it means. i fail to see the
>> problem, or 'semantic nonsense' involved.
>
> Explained above.
>
> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>
> Really, this particular case may be a triviality, but even here there is
> more to English than "sausage" and "hamburger". There is no good reason
> to imitate what is effectively pidgin English, or the language of a
> five-year-old child. A language that limits itself to just getting a
> general idea across would be a very poor language indeed.
>
> Victor

Are you for real? I've respected many of your posts over the years. But
this is likely one I will not recall, except for the fact I did not
respect it.

Language is there to communicate, to pontificate that the usage has some
greater purpose than to get your point across is well, pompous.

Bob

Victor Sack wrote:
>
> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
> to general moral turpitude. Ha!

So what should we say? Uncased sausage meat?
Sausage meat precursor? Ground meat with sausage
seasoning? Any of those terms would be more awkward
than the handy term "bulk sausage".

> Really, this particular case may be a triviality, but even here there is
> more to English than "sausage" and "hamburger". There is no good reason
> to imitate what is effectively pidgin English, or the language of a
> five-year-old child. A language that limits itself to just getting a
> general idea across would be a very poor language indeed.

English was primed to become the world language during
the period after the Norman conquest. Custody of the
English language was passed to illiterate farmers,
manual laborers, and servants. It was during this time
that English lost gender flexion for words. In the hands
of these uneducated serfs, English became the optimized
language, lacking the frills and pendantry of Germanic
and Romance languages.

"Bulk sausage" is a very English term, following a
proud history of development. But English is certainly
not lacking in the ability to express highly specific
concepts. For example, in the American dialect, "bulk
sweet Italian sausage", "bulk hot Italian sausage", and
"bulk taco meat". These are all highly specific terms
that have precise meaning in American culinary tradition.

Victor Sack wrote:

> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
> to general moral turpitude. Ha!


Perhaps we should call it "ground-meat-blended-with-herbs-and-spices
which-would-be-called-sausage-if-it-were-in-a-casing."


gloria p

gloria.p wrote:
> Victor Sack wrote:
>
>> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
>> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
>> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
>> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>
>
> Perhaps we should call it "ground-meat-blended-with-herbs-and-spices
> which-would-be-called-sausage-if-it-were-in-a-casing."
>
>
> gloria p

You are rockin' gurl :-)

I like how you roll.

Bob

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:51:35 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:

>Victor Sack wrote:
>
>> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
>> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
>> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
>> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>
>
>Perhaps we should call it "ground-meat-blended-with-herbs-and-spices
>which-would-be-called-sausage-if-it-were-in-a-casing."
>
>
>gloria p


Yea! That's the ticket! Make Victor happy anyway ...

V

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Victor Sack wrote:
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:27:50 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:
>>>>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>>>> It is not about a validity of anything; it is about "bulk sausage"
>>>> being semantic nonsense. The term is perfectly well understandable
>>>> by anyone, but is semantically ridiculous.
>>>>>> The "term" was probably first used by someone with a limited
>>>>>> knowledge of both English and cooking (and it was surely the very
>>>>>> same harmful drudge who started to use "hamburger" in a similar
>>>>>> sense). "Sausage" is defined by its casings. The minced meat that
>>>>>> goes into the casings or is used for many other related or
>>>>>> unrelated products and dishes is correctly called "forcemeat"
>>>>>> throughout the English-speaking world, America including.
>>> ...and everyone in america seems to know what it means. i fail to see
>>> the problem, or 'semantic nonsense' involved.
>>
>> Explained above.
>>
>> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
>> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
>> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
>> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>>
>> Really, this particular case may be a triviality, but even here there is
>> more to English than "sausage" and "hamburger". There is no good reason
>> to imitate what is effectively pidgin English, or the language of a
>> five-year-old child. A language that limits itself to just getting a
>> general idea across would be a very poor language indeed.
>>
>> Victor
>
> Are you for real? I've respected many of your posts over the years. But
> this is likely one I will not recall, except for the fact I did not
> respect it.
>
> Language is there to communicate, to pontificate that the usage has some
> greater purpose than to get your point across is well, pompous.
>
Well, but in order to communicate and/or to get your point across you
need to use the correct words, not some semantic nonsense like
"bulk sausage". Humpty-dumptying the language hinders communication.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
>>
>> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
>> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
>> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
>> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>
> So what should we say? Uncased sausage meat?
> Sausage meat precursor? Ground meat with sausage
> seasoning? Any of those terms would be more awkward
> than the handy term "bulk sausage".

You did not even read the post to which you are replying - and not any
of the preceding ones, either. Had you done so, you might have found an
answer to your question. The word is "forcemeat", much in use since the
17th century.

Victor

gloria.p wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
>
>> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
>> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
>> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
>> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>
> Perhaps we should call it "ground-meat-blended-with-herbs-and-spices
> which-would-be-called-sausage-if-it-were-in-a-casing."

Cute. The word you are seeking is "forcemeat".

Victor

Victor Sack wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
>>> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
>>> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
>>> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>>
>> So what should we say? Uncased sausage meat?
>> Sausage meat precursor? Ground meat with sausage
>> seasoning? Any of those terms would be more awkward
>> than the handy term "bulk sausage".
>
> You did not even read the post to which you are replying - and not any
> of the preceding ones, either. Had you done so, you might have found an
> answer to your question. The word is "forcemeat", much in use since the
> 17th century.
>
Some posters don't seem to realize that semantic nonsense can become
everyday language.
Slogans come to mind, like "Fight For Peace !". Well, fighting for
peace is like ****ing for virginity, but it's standard usage.
I predict that soon someone will market a product named
"BUSIC" - "BUlk Sausage In Casings" ;-)

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:58:47 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:27:50 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not about a validity of anything; it is about "bulk sausage" being
>>> semantic nonsense. The term is perfectly well understandable by anyone,
>>> but is semantically ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>>The "term" was probably first used by someone with a limited knowledge
>>>>>of both English and cooking (and it was surely the very same harmful
>>>>>drudge who started to use "hamburger" in a similar sense). "Sausage" is
>>>>>defined by its casings. The minced meat that goes into the casings or
>>>>>is used for many other related or unrelated products and dishes is
>>>>>correctly called "forcemeat" throughout the English-speaking world,
>>>>>America including.
>>
>> ...and everyone in america seems to know what it means. i fail to see the
>> problem, or 'semantic nonsense' involved.
>
> Explained above.
>
> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>
> Really, this particular case may be a triviality,

ya think?

> but even here there is
> more to English than "sausage" and "hamburger". There is no good reason
> to imitate what is effectively pidgin English, or the language of a
> five-year-old child. A language that limits itself to just getting a
> general idea across would be a very poor language indeed.
>
> Victor

if google fails, you can always ask.

for that matter, 'pidgin' developed because it was effective in basic
communication. we're not writing poetry or engineering specifications
here.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:51:35 -0600, gloria.p wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
>
>> Besides, using terms such as "sausage" or "hamburger" for things that
>> are neither sausage nor hamburger only shows one's limited vocabulary,
>> laziness, or a lack of respect to one's own language - and maybe leads
>> to general moral turpitude. Ha!
>
> Perhaps we should call it "ground-meat-blended-with-herbs-and-spices
> which-would-be-called-sausage-if-it-were-in-a-casing."
>
> gloria p

i think you mean "ground-meat-blended-with-herbs-and-spices
which-would-be-called-sausage-if-it-were-in-a-casing," sir!

your pal,
blake

Michael Kuettner > wrote:

> Some posters don't seem to realize that semantic nonsense can become
> everyday language.
> Slogans come to mind, like "Fight For Peace !". Well, fighting for
> peace is like ****ing for virginity, but it's standard usage.

This one might just be a dumbed-down derivative of the Latin "si vis
pacem, para bellum."

> I predict that soon someone will market a product named
> "BUSIC" - "BUlk Sausage In Casings" ;-)

Ha! Could well be already on the market somewhere.

Victor

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:56:21 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

>Michael Kuettner > wrote:
>
>> Some posters don't seem to realize that semantic nonsense can become
>> everyday language.
>> Slogans come to mind, like "Fight For Peace !". Well, fighting for
>> peace is like ****ing for virginity, but it's standard usage.
>
>This one might just be a dumbed-down derivative of the Latin "si vis
>pacem, para bellum."
>
>> I predict that soon someone will market a product named
>> "BUSIC" - "BUlk Sausage In Casings" ;-)
>
>Ha! Could well be already on the market somewhere.
>
>Victor


Heads up, Victor. Someone else is using "bulk .... sausage" in
another thread. I suggest you don't let them get away with it.

I already warned them you were coming.

V

Victor wrote:

> You did not even read the post to which you are replying - and not any
> of the preceding ones, either. Had you done so, you might have found an
> answer to your question. The word is "forcemeat", much in use since the
> 17th century.

The problem with the word "forcemeat" is that only about 10% of cooks in the
USA have ever heard the term. And some of them are like Sheldon, assuming
that the term has something to do with rape. So if communication is your
goal, using the term "forcemeat" is just a way to fail.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> The problem with the word "forcemeat" is that only about 10% of cooks in the
> USA have ever heard the term. And some of them are like Sheldon, assuming
> that the term has something to do with rape. So if communication is your
> goal, using the term "forcemeat" is just a way to fail.

This is probably true of many, if not most, of other specific culinary
terms - and not just in the USA, but perhaps particularly so there.

It would perhaps be similar to arguing that since such a large part of
people's idea of dining is some kind of "fast food", ready-to-heat
dishes, or, at best, something cooked from mostly prepared ingredients,
any discussion of traditional restaurants, or cooking even relatively
made-from-scratch meals would reach only relatively few. This would, of
course, be true - it is obvious even - and it would be just as true with
a discussion of any subject requiring specific knowledge. In fact, I'd
say that such a discussion would be mostly pointless.

If we were to stay with specifically forcemeat, particularly if called
"bulk sausage", of which there exist any number of different recipes and
compositions, we would have to forget all about rissoles, ptés,
quenelles, etc, etc., any of these terms/dishes probably less known than
"forcemeat" to the cooks in the USA you have in mind. So, about the
only things left to discuss would be "sausage patties", hamburger (or
even "hamburg"), meat loaf, meatballs - and hardly anything else.
Hardly worth reading or posting even on rfc, where more "exotic" recipes
and dishes are still sometimes discussed. (The funny thing, is
"forcemeat" has been there for centuries, whereas "bulk sausage" and
"hamburger" [when misused in the similar fashion] appear to be very
recent arrivals, relatively speaking).

The question, ultimately, is what you want to communicate and to whom.
Communication, to me, is not necessarily something reduced to the lowest
common denominator. If this sounds "elitist", so be it. Ha! However,
none of this was the original purpose of my getting into this whole
discussion at all - it was just pointing out the obvious semantic
nonsense of "bulk sausage".

Victor

Victor wrote:

> If we were to stay with specifically forcemeat, particularly if called
> "bulk sausage", of which there exist any number of different recipes and
> compositions, we would have to forget all about rissoles, ptés,
> quenelles, etc, etc., any of these terms/dishes probably less known than
> "forcemeat" to the cooks in the USA you have in mind.

I think the term "pté" is fairly well-known. And rissoles are generally
called "croquettes" here; that term is also fairly well-known, though it is
slightly different than the term "rissole".


> So, about the only things left to discuss would be "sausage patties",
> hamburger (or even "hamburg"), meat loaf, meatballs - and hardly anything
> else. Hardly worth reading or posting even on rfc, where more "exotic"
> recipes and dishes are still sometimes discussed. (The funny thing, is
> "forcemeat" has been there for centuries, whereas "bulk sausage" and
> "hamburger" [when misused in the similar fashion] appear to be very recent
> arrivals, relatively speaking).

'Sblood! An ye would not let language change as it will? By my halidom, I'd
sooner try to hold back raindrops in a tempest!


> The question, ultimately, is what you want to communicate and to whom.
> Communication, to me, is not necessarily something reduced to the lowest
> common denominator. If this sounds "elitist", so be it. Ha! However,
> none of this was the original purpose of my getting into this whole
> discussion at all - it was just pointing out the obvious semantic
> nonsense of "bulk sausage".

Yet you have no problem with semantic abominations like spag bol, lollie,
barbie, and chip-butty?

Bob

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> I think the term "pté" is fairly well-known.

People have heard of it and maybe have eaten it at restaurants. I do
not think many of them have actually made it (though some ptés and
terrines are not all that much different from meat loaf - and I wonder
if many people have made the connection).

> And rissoles are generally
> called "croquettes" here; that term is also fairly well-known, though it is
> slightly different than the term "rissole".

It is a bit more than just slightly different. It is a matter of the
general and the particular. Croquettes are defined by their breading or
flouring. Rissoles needn't necessarily be breaded or floured, but may
contain breadcrumbs or similar in their mixture. Croquettes are
effectively a subset of rissoles. Rissoles can be enclosed in a pastry
shell, so a pasty or similar is a rissole, too, but then so is a
hamburger, in a sense (it is a particular rissole in a bun). Such
things as the French fricadelles, the German Frikadellen and Buletten,
etc. are rissoles, too. There are also some such things as a particular
kind of French rissoles (so named even) that are made with a slice of
pté de foie gras placed between two slices of fresh foie gras and
enclosed in a pastry shell (there is such a recipe in a Bocuse
cookbook).

> 'Sblood! An ye would not let language change as it will? By my halidom, I'd
> sooner try to hold back raindrops in a tempest!

Not every semantic nonsense on a Usenet newsgroup need be indicative of
any general language change. This one is indicative of ignorance, first
and foremost, but, indeed, ignorance may well be one of the engines of
language change. Considering that ever fewer people cook or have even a
rudimentary knowledge of cooking, such nonsense might multiply, but who
knows what will remain? After all, "bulk sausage," at least in the
sense it is used now, actually requires some cooking, unless it is
destined for such a dish as steak tartare or a raw variation of the
German Mett (spiced minced pork, raw in this case).

Also, as I posted in the preceding message, it is a question of people
who know what they are talking about - trade, vocation, or hobby - and
using appropriate terms - and this is true of any subject requiring
specific knowledge.

> Yet you have no problem with semantic abominations like spag bol, lollie,
> barbie, and chip-butty?

They are different kinds of abominations, not being oxymorons. I wonder
if it occurred to anyone that "sausage meat," also fairly often used, is
perfectly correct, semantically and otherwise, even if somewhat limited
in its meaning.

BTW, spag bol is perhaps not quite an abomination culinarily, but is not
a very happy combination either, spaghetti being by far not the best
pasta shape to go with ragù alla bolognese.

Victor