A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
get dropped. Obviously, this is just to shorten the name but originally,
there was a meaning to it and got even more meaningful as vegetarian dishes
became more the norm (chili sin carne). I've searched a few sites/recipe
books but found nothing with who actually shortened the name to simply chili
(which means really nothing I think?). Wikipedia of course has an
interesting page on it all but still leaves that one open.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_c...ns_and_history

I'm sure most/many of us remember our mums making chili con carne when we
were kids but today, nobody uses that term.

Anyone?

Yes, I know, I shouldn't worry about such things but that's my nature ;-)

--
Cheers!

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply

Ruddell wrote:
> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> get dropped. Obviously, this is just to shorten the name but originally,
> there was a meaning to it and got even more meaningful as vegetarian dishes
> became more the norm (chili sin carne). I've searched a few sites/recipe
> books but found nothing with who actually shortened the name to simply chili
> (which means really nothing I think?). Wikipedia of course has an
> interesting page on it all but still leaves that one open.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_c...ns_and_history
>
> I'm sure most/many of us remember our mums making chili con carne when we
> were kids but today, nobody uses that term.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Yes, I know, I shouldn't worry about such things but that's my nature ;-)
>
> --
> Cheers!
>
> Dennis
>
> Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply

I think they use that term frequently in UK to refer to the stuff
consists of red kidney beans/ mince meat/ and chili...

"Con carne" is Spanish for "with meat".

Lefty
--
Life is for learning

"Ruddell" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne'
first
> get dropped. Obviously, this is just to shorten the name but originally,
> there was a meaning to it and got even more meaningful as vegetarian
dishes
> became more the norm (chili sin carne). I've searched a few sites/recipe
> books but found nothing with who actually shortened the name to simply
chili
> (which means really nothing I think?). Wikipedia of course has an
> interesting page on it all but still leaves that one open.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_c...ns_and_history
>
> I'm sure most/many of us remember our mums making chili con carne when we
> were kids but today, nobody uses that term.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Yes, I know, I shouldn't worry about such things but that's my nature ;-)
>
> --
> Cheers!
>
> Dennis
>
> Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
>

Ruddell wrote:
> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> get dropped.

According to The Oxford Companion To Food by Alan Davidson "It first
appeared, with a slightly different spelling, in a book by S. Compton
Smith entitled Chile con Carne, or The Camp and the Field (1857).

"Ruddell" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne'
> first
> get dropped. Obviously, this is just to shorten the name but originally,
> there was a meaning to it and got even more meaningful as vegetarian
> dishes
> became more the norm (chili sin carne). I've searched a few sites/recipe
> books but found nothing with who actually shortened the name to simply
> chili
> (which means really nothing I think?). Wikipedia of course has an
> interesting page on it all but still leaves that one open.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_c...ns_and_history
>
> I'm sure most/many of us remember our mums making chili con carne when we
> were kids but today, nobody uses that term.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Yes, I know, I shouldn't worry about such things but that's my nature ;-)
>
> --
> Cheers!
>
> Dennis


Cheers.

Carne is Spanish for "meat", among other things. There's a clue.


carne f
1 flesh
2 (alimento) meat: no me gusta la carne de cerdo, I don't like pork
3 (de un fruto) pulp 4 carne de cañón, cannon fodder
figurado familiar carne de gallina, goosepimples ? LOC: familiar ser de
carne y hueso, to be only human
en carne viva, (despellejado) raw: tenía los pies en carne viva, her
feet were raw

In article > ,
Ruddell > wrote:

>
> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> get dropped. Obviously, this is just to shorten the name but originally,
> there was a meaning to it and got even more meaningful as vegetarian dishes
> became more the norm (chili sin carne). I've searched a few sites/recipe
> books but found nothing with who actually shortened the name to simply chili
> (which means really nothing I think?). Wikipedia of course has an
> interesting page on it all but still leaves that one open.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_c...ns_and_history
>
> I'm sure most/many of us remember our mums making chili con carne when we
> were kids but today, nobody uses that term.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Yes, I know, I shouldn't worry about such things but that's my nature ;-)
>
> --
> Cheers!
>
> Dennis

Whatever happened to Chili con' queso? ;-)
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> Ruddell > wrote:
>
> >
> > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne'
first
> > get dropped. Obviously, this is just to shorten the name but
originally,
> > there was a meaning to it and got even more meaningful as vegetarian
dishes
> > became more the norm (chili sin carne). I've searched a few
sites/recipe
> > books but found nothing with who actually shortened the name to simply
chili
> > (which means really nothing I think?). Wikipedia of course has an
> > interesting page on it all but still leaves that one open.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_c...ns_and_history
> >
> > I'm sure most/many of us remember our mums making chili con carne when
we
> > were kids but today, nobody uses that term.
> >
> > Anyone?
> >
> > Yes, I know, I shouldn't worry about such things but that's my nature
;-)
> >
> > --
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Dennis
>
> Whatever happened to Chili con' queso? ;-)
> --
> Peace, Om.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack
Nicholson


Chili con carne con queso con nata agriar con Corona con senorita con gusto.

Always one of my favorite lunches.

Lefty
--
Life is for learning
The worst I ever had was wonderful

One day, in a small company cafeteria, a sign said "Chili con Carne (with beans)". A guy in front of me
asked the cafeteria guy, "isn't that redundant? Chili 'with beans' with beans?" The cafeteria guy
stared at me for a second (like, "what a dope") and then said "'con carne' means 'with meat', so it
is chili with meat with beans." I added that chili started out as a stew of chilis, and meat was
added later, but the guy's brain had already checked out.

In article >, guy klose >
wrote:

> One day, in a small company cafeteria, a sign said "Chili con Carne (with
> beans)". A guy in front of me
> asked the cafeteria guy, "isn't that redundant? Chili 'with beans' with
> beans?" The cafeteria guy
> stared at me for a second (like, "what a dope") and then said "'con carne'
> means 'with meat', so it
> is chili with meat with beans." I added that chili started out as a stew of
> chilis, and meat was
> added later, but the guy's brain had already checked out.
>

With beans would be con Frijole's?
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, guy klose >
> wrote:
>
> > One day, in a small company cafeteria, a sign said "Chili con Carne
(with
> > beans)". A guy in front of me
> > asked the cafeteria guy, "isn't that redundant? Chili 'with beans' with
> > beans?" The cafeteria guy
> > stared at me for a second (like, "what a dope") and then said "'con
carne'
> > means 'with meat', so it
> > is chili with meat with beans." I added that chili started out as a stew
of
> > chilis, and meat was
> > added later, but the guy's brain had already checked out.
> >
>
> With beans would be con Frijole's?
> --
> Peace, Om.
>
> How about ...con Frijoles Para Musica?

Lefty
--
Life is for learning
The worst I ever had was wonderful

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:48:41 +0000 (UTC), guy klose >
wrote:

>One day, in a small company cafeteria, a sign said "Chili con Carne (with beans)"

Why wasn't the sign "Chili con Carne y frijoles"?

In article >,
"Lefty" > wrote:

> Chili con carne con queso con nata agriar con Corona con senorita con gusto.
>
> Always one of my favorite lunches.
>
> Lefty

I think I got most of that. ;-)

Chili with meat and cheese, beer and a beautiful woman.....

And no I did not cheat and look it up.

How'd I do? <G>
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

nata agriar - sour cream?
Lynn from Fargo

con cebollas tambien

On 22 Mar 2006 13:38:42 -0800, "Lynn from Fargo" >
wrote:

>nata agriar - sour cream?
>Lynn from Fargo
>
>con cebollas tambien

We have lived on and off in Mexico since the late sixties.... I have
never seen "sour cream" there...i.e. crema amarga. They still don't
have adequate refrigeration for that! Go to Zacatecas or Yelapa and
they don't know what you are talking about. If you are going to
WalMart in Acapulco...that is an entirely different story.

Sour Cream is something that Taco Bell put on their so called Mexican
food.

Onions/cebollas? what does that have to do with sour cream.

You nailed it, esp. with the .....ending. Gusto means pleasure :-)
Lefty
--
Life is for learning
The worst I ever had was wonderful



"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lefty" > wrote:
>
> > Chili con carne con queso con nata agriar con Corona con senorita con
gusto.
> >
> > Always one of my favorite lunches.
> >
> > Lefty
>
> I think I got most of that. ;-)
>
> Chili with meat and cheese, beer and a beautiful woman.....
>
> And no I did not cheat and look it up.
>
> How'd I do? <G>
> --
> Peace, Om.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack
Nicholson

You nailed it, esp. with the .....ending! (Gusto means pleasure :-)
Lefty
--
Life is for learning
The worst I ever had was wonderful

In article >,
"Lefty" > wrote:

> You nailed it, esp. with the .....ending. Gusto means pleasure :-)
> Lefty
> --
> Life is for learning
> The worst I ever had was wonderful

Via con' pollo...... <g>
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Ruddell wrote:
>
> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> get dropped. Obviously, this is just to shorten the name but originally,
> there was a meaning to it and got even more meaningful as vegetarian dishes
> became more the norm (chili sin carne). I've searched a few sites/recipe
> books but found nothing with who actually shortened the name to simply chili
> (which means really nothing I think?). Wikipedia of course has an
> interesting page on it all but still leaves that one open.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_c...ns_and_history
>
> I'm sure most/many of us remember our mums making chili con carne when we
> were kids but today, nobody uses that term.
>
> Anyone?
>
The term is still in common use. Although the books I have refer to
'carne con chile' which makes more sense.
Chile is the red or green hot pepper that goes into making carne con
chile.

Ruddell wrote:

> A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> get dropped.

Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of just
plain chilli.
That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con (with)
carne (meat).

In article >,
says...
> > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
> > get dropped.
>
> Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of just
> plain chilli.
> That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con (with)
> carne (meat).
>
>

Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
frijoles.

Peter Aitken

In message >, Peter A
> writes
>In article >,
>says...
>> > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
>> > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
>> > get dropped.
>>
>> Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne
>>instead of just
>> plain chilli.
>> That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli
>>con (with)
>> carne (meat).
>>
>>
>
>Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
>They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
>frijoles.
>
>Peter Aitken

When I visited Austin, Texas, I was told 'If you know beans about chili,
you know chili don't have no beans' -- and the only recipe I have ever
used beans in is - Chili Con Carne.

But what do I know...?
--
Chris Hughes
"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist."
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:19:43 -0600, Chris Hughes wrote
(in article >):


> When I visited Austin, Texas, I was told 'If you know beans about chili,
> you know chili don't have no beans' -- and the only recipe I have ever
> used beans in is - Chili Con Carne.

Dave's question was interesting because I had always though the con carne was
the original? Con carne meaning 'with meat' makes sense yet I guess somehow
it got dropped along the way with most assuming meat was one of the essential
ingredients (along with chili pepper(s) of course). I did find that Texas
is where the dish started and beans aren't really thought of that highly in
it. Of course, the only think I know about Texas is that tv soap and the
Cowboys (I'm a Bengals fan so I guess I can stop here).

> But what do I know...?

Oh good grief. So many questions today...



--
Cheers!

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:25:04 -0600, Ruddell
> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:19:43 -0600, Chris Hughes wrote
>(in article >):
>
>
>> When I visited Austin, Texas, I was told 'If you know beans about chili,
>> you know chili don't have no beans' -- and the only recipe I have ever
>> used beans in is - Chili Con Carne.
>
>Dave's question was interesting because I had always though the con carne was
>the original? Con carne meaning 'with meat' makes sense yet I guess somehow
>it got dropped along the way with most assuming meat was one of the essential
>ingredients (along with chili pepper(s) of course). I did find that Texas
>is where the dish started and beans aren't really thought of that highly in
>it. Of course, the only think I know about Texas is that tv soap and the
>Cowboys (I'm a Bengals fan so I guess I can stop here).
>
>> But what do I know...?
>
>Oh good grief. So many questions today...


First there was straight chili. Then meat,. Someone added beans and
still called it chili because saying chili con frijoles took too long.
To clear up the confusion, chili con carne came along, erroneously,
because all (excepting vegetarian chili) had meat in it.


jim
who has some 700 chili recipes and no vegetarian before the 1960s and
none with beans before 1880.

So, if you have a provable pre-1960 vegetarian chili recipe, send it
my way. If you have a provable pre-1880 chili recipe with beans in it,
send it my way.

In article >,
Peter A > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
> > > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne'
> > > first
> > > get dropped.
> >
> > Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of
> > just
> > plain chilli.
> > That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con
> > (with)
> > carne (meat).
> >
> >
>
> Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
> They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
> frijoles.
>
> Peter Aitken

I have to concur with that. <G>
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:25:08 GMT, Peter A >
wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>> > A short discussion with a friend left us without an answer and rather
>> > dumbfounded/shocked about chili. Where/when did the term 'con carne' first
>> > get dropped.
>>
>> Maybe the question should be when did it become chilli con carne instead of just
>> plain chilli.
>> That would be when they added meat to it and the chilli became chilli con (with)
>> carne (meat).
>>
>>
>
>Some purists claim - falsely - that "real" chili contains only meat.
>They would say that chili with beans should be called chili con
>frijoles.
>
>Peter Aitken


Of course not - it has chili in it. What a dumb comment! Otherwise
you would just call it "meat." ;->


jim