Talk:Au jus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Food Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Food and drink task list: Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Food, Bread, Beef, Curry, Drink, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yoghurt, Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom) Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: , Italian cuisine, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Coffee, Milk, Pasta, French cuisine, Chocolate Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Burger King Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food Review articles currently up for GA status: Burger King legal issues, Chocolate Review articles currently up for FA status: Butter

[edit] jus lie

A local restaurant offers veal jus lie. Is this the same? JimScott 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical correctness of "With au jus", etc.

The section made the correct analysis of English use of "au jus" as meaning "broth", not "with broth". Given that, as an English word, it's not considered to have a preposition, it can't be said to be incorrect to use the preposition "with" in front of it. Being an adopted, English word, it no longer can be judged by French grammar.

— Oh god. Just... no. http://v3.dirkz.de/archives/2004/12/19/with-au-jus/ It's not an english word. The metric for a word joining English isn't that people are using it wrong. In fact, most of the time they are clearly intending to use this french 'phrase' to sound fancy. - Acq3 (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perceived intention notwithstanding, if a word is indeed incorporated into the English vernacular, even a word that's not originally English, the grammatical rules very well can change, as the first poster correctly observed. As compelling an argument as "Just... no" is, and while the cited blog is interesting (if a little self-congratulating,) - the fact remains that if a word is incorporated into the English lexicon, the grammatical rules often change from those of its language of origin. I'm sure there are dozens of examples of other similarly "misused" words and phrases that are accepted as being the "correct use" in common English. I suppose, before making a judgment, you have to decide which viewpoint you're judging it from - its mother language, or the language of the contextual use (in this case, English.) I'd love to edit the main page to reflect this, but I can't think of a good way to say it right now, and it's not worth devoting more than a minute or so to something that'd just get reverted anyway. 71.204.49.76 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)