Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
> Bob/Pastorio:

What/Jerry?

> At the risk of insulting you,

<LOL> Little late to be looking at that, no...?

> I have only a single response in that
> regard. Your fixation with words, and what they "should mean" borders
> on the anal. I suggest that you take as much time looking at that
> part of your psyche as you do the words used by others.

<LOL> Nice try, Jerry. I've heard that a lot from people who
had sloppy command of the language. But I will admit that
most of them didn't use the word "fixation" with that silly
patina of psychobabble. Goes along with sloppy command of
thinking, I say. I guess engineers shouldn't worry about
exactitude and musicians shouldn't bother to tune their
instruments. Too anal. Anything goes, anytime, anywhere.

Like I already said to you, "Don't write it so they can
understand it, write it so they can't misunderstand it."

And, not to put too fine a point on it, to quote you from
another post,
> You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or
choose not to, as
> I have posted a number of references that contradict your
assertion of
> what Carpaccio is, or should be.

So I went to your web site and I found this:
<http://www.theartisan.net/FauxPas_Frameset.htm>
"What are Faux Pas? Better still, what are Faux Pas to The
Artisan. Generally speaking, Faux Pas are mistakes, or as
defined in Webster's..."False remark; A social blunder;
error in etiquette: Tactless act or remark..." For us, they
are recipes which purport to be Italian, but are so in name
only and not execution."

So, ok. Jerry can make words mean what he wants them to. Got it.

But wait... <http://www.theartisan.net/faux_pas_the_first.htm>
"Panzanella is a salad made with bread and tomatoes and
number of other ingredients. It is made all over Tuscany
and is made in a particular way....otherwise it is not
Panzanella.
[...]
"Is this salad any good? Since we have chosen not to make
it, we cannot say that it might not be a good salad. The
ingredients, per se, are tasty. We probably would not have
used any chicken broth, but the rest sound plausible in a
salad. Regardless, it is not Panzanella. It might be
called Insalata Panzanella Americana."

<LOL> In a note yesterday, you said, "PS - before you bitch
about a recipe, try it. If it's good, the name is irrelevant"

Hmmm. So being precise *is* important. And the correct name
does matter. Go figure. I get so confused...

> As far a your comment:
>
>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>> saying what they mean
>
> I really enjoy disagreement. It is part of my nature. As a person of
> Southern Italian extraction I was reared to defend my views and to do
> so happily. I still enjoy a good argument, and hopefully will
> continue to do so until they close the cover on my box.

So you say. Yet, your stance in these posts is defensive and
derisive. You are obviously unable to grasp that words mean
things while simultaneously insisting that *some* words can
only mean one thing. For you, any old word is fine and you
shouldn't be accountable for using it any old way. Except
when it isn't. Or doesn't. Or something.

I'm half Alpine Italian and half Sicilian. That brings the
Germanic punctiliousness along with the Mediterranean
presentation.

> When I am wrong I say so. In this case I do not believe that I am.

Fair enough. But right or wrong is too polar since we're
dealing with connotation, not denotation. I'm saying it's a
bad idea to name things with words that don't actually
describe them and, further, are likely to confuse the
reader. The crux of this disagreement is that you think it's
ok to call a dish anything at all, no matter the antecedent.
I say doing that removes useful terms from the language and
reduces them to mere nouns with no content. Might as well
call it Zucchini a la Flerche.

But here, your note starts to be pure nonsense.

> If it bothers you that all food (and the terms used to describe these
> changes) is derivative,

Whether food is derivative or not is not at issue. There
aren't too many absolutely original recipes. The terms are
at issue. It has apparently escaped your notice that
culinary terms are created to be technical terms. They're
created to be specific, and misuse dilutes and finally voids
the definitional value of them. So nowadays, a "Napoleon"
isn't any longer a specific pastry for which the name was
coined, it's any pile of stuff to eat. A "clafouti" can be a
chicken dish that doesn't even have pastry, custard or
fruit. It escapes you that misusing words like that reduces
them to mere sounds with no meaning beyond that exact dish.
In which case, it's pure romance and moonlight on the
curtains, and as such, is an indefensible name, describing
nothing and only worth the noise escaping from the mouth
when saying it.

> and evolves as those making and eating it determine,

The fact that someone decides to make a change in the
meaning of a word or of a term doesn't automatically confer
a new correctness. Doesn't generate respect for the change.
That's what people who write text messages and IM's to each
other say. They reduce the language to a collection of
primitive textual grunts.

no wat i meen? we 8 a rutabayga carpotcheo @ jeryz hows. u
wuda luvdit.

Here, Jerry, the good reverend had it right...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather
scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean,
neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words
mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be
master - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a
minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of
them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives
you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can
manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I
say!'
'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty,
looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability"
that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just
as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I
suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in
a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said
Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any
other remark.
'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,'
Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to
side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you
see I can't tell you.)
'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir' said Alice.
'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called
"Jabberwocky"?'
'Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. 'I can explain all the
poems that ever were invented just yet.'
This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:--
'Twas brillig and the slithy toves,
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.

'That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted:
'there are plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four
o'clock in the afternoon - the time when you begin broiling
things for dinner.'
'That'll do very well,' said Alice: 'and "slithy"?'
'Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the
same as "active." You see it's like a portmanteau - there
are two meanings packed up into one word.'
'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are
"toves"?'
'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're
something like lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.'
'They must be very curious-looking creatures.'
'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their
nests under sundials - also they live on cheese.'
'And what's to "gyre" and to "gimble"?'
'To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To
"gimble" is to make holes like a gimlet.'
'And "the wabe" is the grass-plot round a sundial, I
suppose?' said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
'Of course it is. It's called "wabe," you know, because it
goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it-----'
'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
'Exactly so. Well then, "mimsy" is "flimsy and miserable"
(there's another portmanteau for you). And a "borogove" is a
thin shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all
around - something like a live mop.'
'And then "mome raths"?' said Alice. 'I'm afraid I'm giving
you a great deal of trouble.'
'Well, a "rath" is a sort of green pig: but "mome" I'm not
certain about. I think it's short for "from home" - meaning
that they'd lost their way, you know.'
'And what does "outgrabe" mean?'
'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and
whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however
you'll hear it done, maybe - down in the wood yonder - and,
when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content. Who's
been repeating all that hard stuff to you?'
'I read it in a book,' said Alice.
From Through The Looking Glass
by Lewis Carroll

I bet he liked Carpaccio made from glormies and forbuns. Not
to mention Angel's Food meatloaf. Sashimi of broiled grapes
on the vine. Dessert Souffle of cubed corned beef and whole
cabbage. Tagine of raw tofu gelato.

> there is noting I can say that will fit into your world
> view.

<LOL> Finally. As long as you consider this kind of
helter-skelter nomenclature rational, we ain't gotta lotta
talk about. Your bread stuff ain't bad, but I'd hold off on
throwing stones on this subject were I you.

> Regards

Likewise, I'm sure.

Jerry of the angels, go in peace.

Pastorio



> "Bob (this one)" > wrote
>
>> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>>
>>> It is important to correct all incorrect food/bread information,
>>> especially when provided with an air of
>>> infallibility.
>>
>> Not clear what this means, Jerry. If you're trying to take a shot,
>> your aim is almost as good as your "chef" friend. Your bread info is
>> a lot better than this offering.
>>
>>> Consequently I will add a bit to this note
>>> as an addendum to my last to demonstrate that the fellows
>>> who responded to me are both wrong and perhaps a bit narrow-minded.
>>
>> "Narrow minded" = concerned with clear expression. Concerned with
>> words having meaning. Concerned with describing something so it
>> won't be confusing.
>>
>> "Wrong" means they disagree with Jerry - and are more desirous of
>> saying what they mean.
>>
>>> Carpaccio according to "The Silver Spoon" (Il Cucchiaio
>>> d'Argento), the most successful cookbook in Italy, and
>>> originally published in Italian in 1950 (and in English
>>> in 2005) the following are "Carpaccio" recipes and are
>>> listed in the index: Carpaccio Cipriani (the original beef
>>> carpaccio), celery root carpaccio, fish carpaccio,
>>> scamorza carpaccio, and yellow fin tuna carpaccio.
>>> Celery root and scamorza are vegetables. The Artisan has
>>> added a zucchini Carpaccio to the list. We are not
>>> suggesting that our recipe belongs in The Silver Spoon,
>>> but only that another Carpaccio has been added to a list
>>> of possibilities.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers the following
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio) notation:
>>> "Carpaccio refers to a dish made of thinly sliced raw
>>> beef or tuna, usually served as an appetizer.....Today
>>> the term Carpaccio is used variably
>>
>> See, Jerry. The magic word is "variably." It means that it no longer
>> has a substantial meaning. It's a near-meaningless word.
>>
>>> and often
>>
>> See, Jerry. "Often." That means that more bozos like your "chef"
>> friend are using it just as carelessly.
>>
>>> refers to
>>> any very thinly sliced presentation of foods which can
>>> range as widely as apple, kangaroo, tomatoes,
>>> langoustine, and trout-and a great many more. Similarly
>>> the amount of cooking the "subject" receives varies from
>>> none at all to searing, to rare cooking, to fully cooked..."
>> And poor, earnest Jerry misses the entire point.
>>
>> Here's the point.
>>
>> The more the name used for utterly different preparations, the less
>> it means. So a carpaccio can be cooked, raw or anyhing in between.
>> It can be fruit, vegetables, meat, fin fish, shell fish "and a great
>> many more." So the origin of the name drawn from the colors used by
>> the painter Carpaccio has devolved merely to "thin slices." It no
>> longer has a referent that creates a definition beyond thin slices.
>> And, Jerry, you may be surprised to learn that thin slices already
>> had a name.
>>
>> Thin slices.
>>
>>> We at The Artisan thank all of you on this group for
>>> allowing us to respond.
>> <LOL> Unmoderated. The word of the day...
>>
>> Pastorio