Talk:Scone (bread)

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Dutch word?

Just wondering... what's with the Dutch Loanwords here? I'm Dutch and can't think what word this would be based on, and the article doesn't seem to give any clues. Anyone? :-) 82.139.89.208 18:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman?

This is sort of a wild hunch... but were scones invented to celebrate a victory over the ottoman empire? Can anybody confirm/debunk this?

[edit] U.S. vs. UK

Is there any truth to the difference between American and British scones? I have searched the web and can't seem to see any difference in pictures or recipes. See British and American. Can someone post some evidence for any difference? Rmhermen 16:47, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've eaten scones in Canada, Texas and Britain and haven't noticed much difference -- I would even say that the American biscuit is just a big savoury scone. It does seem odd to me to see talk of "Commonwealth" scones and "American" scones. I've never seen the terms used outside this article. After all, it's not like there are official government approved recipes. -- Derek Ross

I know what you mean about the whole Commonwealth and American thing. It is used all over Wikipedia! I have never heard of Commonwealth this and Commonwealth that. It seems to me that is was just invented on Wikipedia, as a way to group the non-Americans...--HTait 05:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Off topic, Commonwealth's a well-understood phrase among native English speakers...outside of America.
As I understand it, the difference is between a scone and what's called a "rock cake" -- American scones apparently tend to fall into the latter category. I'm inclined to agree there isn't a whole lot of difference, but then I make scones with Bisquick. Haikupoet 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the main difference is that in America you can't get scones with currents in them. I may be wrong though. Mintguy (T) 15:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

From the article: In the UK, the pronunciation is split along geographical lines, with the south rhyming with "own" and northeners rhyming with "on".

Utter rot. I would guess this was written by someone who hasn't been south of Watford. The distinction is more an indicator of class than what part of the country you come from Mintguy (T)
No no, it's all much simpler than that. It's a 'scoan' when eaten with butter and a 'scon' when eaten with margerine ;-) Adambisset 12:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most British people pronounce it as sk'on (to rhyme with gone), but some people from an upper or upper middle-class background (or with pretensions to such a background) choose to pronounce it as sk'own. I'm working class, and I say sk'own. I don't think there is as strong a distinction anymore, and the wording is fairly provactive anyway ('or with pretensions to such a background)

It depends where you live to what you say. In Surrey its usually sk'own then in Liverpool its sk'on

I asked the maid, in dulcet tone
To bring to me a buttered scone.
The silly girl has been and gone
And brought instead a buttered scone.

I am from Luton (England), and I would call it a sk'own, but my mother and father disagree over this matter. My mother, of Yorkshire/Scottish ancestry, pronounces it "sk'own", whereas my father, from the South Coast (it doesn't get any more Southern than that!) pronounces it "sk'on".

I'm more inclined to pronounce it "sk'own", because it contains the word "cone", and everyone knows how to pronounce that. If it was called a "sgone", then perhaps it would be pronounced "sg'on" by everyone since it contains the word "gone". Crunchysaviour 15:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I pronounce it sk'on, but I don't see what difference it makes. Sk'own sounds awefully American or attempting to sound pretentious, but I think this changes generationally depending on which one is 'common' and the class basis evolves around this. My father says 'Sk'own' whereas my mother says 'Sk'on', but this is because my mum came to England after it was 'posh' to say 'sk'own' and thought it was 'sk'on', whereas my father grew up thinking 'sk'own' was posh. Nick Kerr 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In Oldham (and possibly other areas of the north west) people with a local accent pronounce it sk'own, but the accent's inflexion causes the word to sound very similar to 'scorn'. The plonkers. (80.229.190.214 13:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I think that there should be a section about different pronounciations in the article. It would inform people of how the terms came about and stuff. I'm too tired to do this so somebody else should do it. Also it's pronounced "skon" not "s'own".

On Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, the 'skon' pronunciation prevails. Generally the term refers to oat (oatmeal) scones. —OtherDave 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm mainly a southener, but both parents hail from Yorkshire, we all would say sk'one (like sk'own, but a softer 'o', I asume that's what's meant here). MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In Australia (or at least in my part of it), it's "skon". If you say "sk'own", then you are referring to the town in NSW. - 52 Pickup (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely different in USA

These are not at all what I'm used to calling scones. In the US, or at least in the greater Philadelphia area, a scone is a dark, irregularly shaped cake-like breakfast food. I'll have to take a picture the next time I have one, but does anyone know what the universal term for these kinds of scones are called?

Is it anything like this: [1] which is an example of an Americqn-style scone? I don't consider that dark, though. Rmhermen 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In America (at least where I live in Florida), stores sell scones that are thick triangle shaped, dense, floury pastries with a tendancy to crumble, often with bits of fruit and spice in them. They are nothing like biscuits in either shape, texture, or flavor. When a British friend was visiting, he commented that our scones were nothing like the ones he was used to at home.

I don't have a cite for this, but I've heard it said that the American scone is closer to the British rock cake. The recipes (see Jane Garmey's Great British Cooking) seem to be vaguely similar, although I note that rock cakes have eggs in them and scones apparently don't. All I can really say is that when I make scones I use Bisquick, which I admit is pretty much a total cop-out and wouldn't be accepted by traditionalists on either side of the pond. Haikupoet 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm from the greater Philadelphia area, and have no idea what you're referring to. Inhumer (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Scone-Faced"

The term "scone-faced" means someone who is dour (sullen or grim) looking. I always thought it was stone-faced, and it seems to make much more sense in context. 82.3.196.17 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circular reference

OK, the article defines a scone as "a bread thicker than a bannock". I've no idea what a bannock is, but when I went to its article, I was told that a bannock is "a bread thinner than a scone".... The Holy ettlz 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GMTA, or there's a harmonic convergence coming on. I just discovered the same thing and posted a request for clarification at Talk:Bannock (food). Lou Sander 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... now it says a scone is thicker than a bannock in scone, and that they're the same thickness in bannock. I'd fix it, but I've eaten or seen neither. Udi Raz 18:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always related to scones as a food of Scottish origin, and though my family roots are in Blandford, Dorset and Emsworth, Hants (home of P.G. Wodehouse), we are firmly in the "rhymes with John" camp. Though I think a comparison with "gone" and "cone" is more apt, since the difference in pronunciation is quite clear despite the similar spelling. If the preamble is shortened, please keep the section on pronunciation. It's hard to convince these savages here in California that they've got it all wrong.

[edit] Walmart in the UK

I've noticed that in Asda supermarket in the UK, which was taken over by Walmart recently, they have started to sell things they call 'scones' which are not like what we know in britain as scones, but are just like the American scones described here. They also give me terrible indegestion. (I have to say the selection and choice of bread in Asda is poor). 80.2.222.188 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch, vs 'Flemish' etymology.

First of all some inrefutable evidence, by a reputable site on etymology on the origin of 'scone'. Then the statement, no a linguistic fact, that Flemish isn't or ever was another, different language, but merely Dutch.

Yet User:ErikWarmelink, claims that the origin is 'Flemish', without any sources to back up his POV by the way. Although I've already proven my POV, and given that there is no way he'll ever be able to back up his, I'll gladly go into details why exactly it makes no sense:

He makes the following, unfounded and unreferenced, claim:

Flemish at least was a language, ABN is a creole of Brabantic, Flemish and (West-)Frisian
  1. Flemish is not a language, not even a dialect.
  2. ABN (A name for the standardized form of Dutch) is not identical with 'the Dutch language'. The Dutch language is the name for all Dutch dialects, among them Brabantic, West/East Flemish.
  3. 'ABN' isn't a creole. Not only does it even come close to the definition of a creol language, it is merely a written standard.

Rex (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One source (how reputable it may be) isn't "inrefutable" (sic!). I do not (and did not) claim the origin is Flemish, I merely reverted an unfounded deletion: the article stated that the word entered Scots via Flemish. After that, a certain user (Personal attack removed) claimed on User talk:ErikWarmelink#Unfounded reversions that Flemish never was a language. Please note that my revert does not state that Flemish is a language, it merely links to Flemish Language (because the original did). Of course my reaction should have been more constructive, but, frankly, I have had it with the POV-pusher. If he has problems with "Flemish Language", he can change the link to Flemish (linguistics).
Rex, if the word didn't enter Scots through Flemish, how do you explain that it is scone and not shone? Of course, it could also be through Frisian, but during the time of the first attestation in Scots, there was more trade with Flanders. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You are the unconstructive, unsourced POV editor here. These are your exact words:Flemish at least was a language, ABN is a creole of Brabantic, Flemish and (West-)Frisian. You therefore claim exactly what you deny claiming: that Flemish is a language. Also, you changed Dutch to (UNSOURCED CLAIM BTW) Flemish twice, thereby changing its origin to Flemish. Something you also deny. I suggest you drastically alter your behavior towards me. Fast.Rex (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) My revert in the article space doesn't say that Flemish is a language (well, perhaps the hidden link does), but I definitely didn't change Dutch to Flemish as the first revert shows. The summary for the second revert could have been more careful, I will try to (Personal attack removed) Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
How old are you? I'm seriously beginning to doubt you're even an adult. I am here to disprove (done, BTW) your nonsense and to make wikipedia reliable. My log has nothing to do with the matter at hand and is a (futile) attempt to discredit me. Sad you need to hit that level. You say 'you'll try'? You merely will, or you'll be made, because I will report you next time I see even the smallest personal attack. Cheers.Rex (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed). Your log hasn't a lot to do with the matter at hand, which is the etymology of "scone", but it does relate quite a bit stronger to the point you keep making: Flemish should not be called a language differing from Dutch. Once again, how do you explain that it is scone and not shone?
If you want to report me: Indeed, it would be futile (Personal attack removed). Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you really seem to have problems understanding this, I wasn't making a point, I was presenting a fact. There's a monumental difference between those two. I could go on to explain to you that to Anglophones k and x sound similar, and that k was common in early modern Dutch but what you really should do is go to the library and get a book on the subject, that way, in the future, you'll actually be able to start or take part in discussions concerning this field of expertise. I'm assuming of course that that was your intention, to discuss, if you merely looking for trouble, I wouldn't go to the library at all.Rex (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Finally about the subject at hand. Could you propose a good book on the pronunciation of early modern Dutch before 1513, especially the pronunciation north of Flanders and Brabant? Anyway, the Scots language does differentiate k and x, so if scone entered English via Scots, the difference seems important. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My edits were always about the subject at hand. You were the one with personally fueled edits. Remember? Cheers.Rex (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ow btw, Scots (as does English) differentiates between k and x, however they are not interchangable (unlike in certain early modern Dutch dialects) i.o.w, no single Scotish word will begin with x, that's why schoon (sxo:n) became k.Rex (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That explains why the word changed. It doesn't explain scone instead of shone. BTW, when will you report me? Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If it explained why the word changed, then it also explained why it became shone.Rex (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That is the problem with your explanation: it only explains why it changed, it doesn't explain why it became scone, instead of shone. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It does exactly that. Apart from that, if you think I'm wrong just present a book that proves me wrong. Simple as that.Rex (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Low German

The OED gives the etymology as "Perh. a shortened adoption of MDu. schoonbrot, MLG. schonbrot ‘fine bread’." Middle Dutch / Middle Low German can perhaps offer a solution to the Dutch/Flemish debate? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that would explain scone instead of shone. Inititial 'sk' does exist in current Low Saxon, but in the Netherlands, it is limited to a narrow line along the Vecht and Regge Rivers. Besides, there was limited contact between Scotland and that region around 1500, as far as I know. On the other hand, I don't know much about the pronunciation in Hanse cities further to the east (or even if that initial 'sk' was more widespread in the Netherlands) around 1500. The OED is definitely a more reliable source than I am. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Very likely so, but it's not our job to speculate on how the change took place, just to provide an accessible digest of established secondary material; likely as your explanation is, it remains WP:OR. Since "Middle Dutch" is a collective name for all the West-Germanic dialects of the Low Countries we can perhaps leave it at that and put our energies into more constructive edits? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Middle Dutch was not a term for all the West-Germanic dialects of the Low Countries. Let's all try to stick to what we know. Like always I see a lots of vague claims by EWarmelink while no sources to back anything up. Not how Wikipedia works.Rex (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps you should go and edit Middle Dutch. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, this : "Middle Dutch is a collective name for a number of closely related West Germanic dialects (whose ancestor was Old Dutch)" Is a very different statement from "Middle Dutch" is a collective name for all the West-Germanic dialects of the Low Countries". Very different.Rex (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
@Rex Germanus: a source for "limited to a narrow line": http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/weij005nede01/weij005nede01ill60.gif Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your point being ... ?Rex (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
My point being that no sources to back anything up was a bit premature. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you think you've just backed up with that link?Rex (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
@Paularblaster: Both the original and Rex' version of the article (and all three sources) agree that the origin of the word is (well, OED says "Perh.") Middle Dutch. Middle Low German and Middle Frisian were spoken in the Low Countries, but as far I know no sources consider them part of Middle Dutch. The difference between the original and Rex' version is whether the borrowing was directly from Middle Dutch or through an intermediate language. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, 'Flemish' is not an intermediate language. You say it is a language, I say provide literature, you refuse. That's this discussion in a nutshell. Rex (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about scone, not whether Flemish is (and more importantly, was at the time of the borrowing) a language. But if that is your main reason for deleting itself via Flemish, why didn't you react to my proposal to change the link from Flemish language to Flemish (linguistics) (the former is a redirect to the latter anyway)?
Whether Flemish is and/or was a language (in each of the meanings of the word "language") is an interesting debate, but this (the article about the English/Scottish word scone) is not the best place to have it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed Flemish: A) Because it suggest Flemish is a language, B) It had no references.Rex (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I quote the article (both your and my version): According to Merriam-Webster. Erik Warmelink 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're not supposed to qoute wikipedia, you're supposed to qoute sources. MW is an authority on what exactly that applies here? Rex 19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
MW may not be the authority on the etymology of English words, but it certainly is an authority on it, far more than almost all contributors to wikipedia (including us). Erik Warmelink 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You really don't get the essence of the English Wikipedia do you? Even if I was 'the' authority on English etymology it wouldn't matter. Wikipedia requires SOURCES not OPIONIONS.Rex 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What reason is it which does disqualify MW as a source in your opinion? Erik Warmelink 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
@Paularblaster: You have not yet reacted to the point made by both Rex Germanus and me that Middle Low German isn't the same language as Middle Dutch. This edit seems to quote your source rather selectively. Erik Warmelink 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I never "made that point". Get your facts straight.Rex 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, then. What point point did you try to make? Erik Warmelink 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't even know what you're talking about do you?Rex 08:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are any Scones American?

I've lived in the USA all of my life and I've never considered a scone anything but British. In fact I never ate a scone until, in my 20's, I lived in Canada for a few years. Of course these days you can get anything anywhere. And all quick breads are similar. However when I think of American quick breads I think of biscuits (in the American sense), muffins, corn bread and perhaps griddle cakes and johnny cakes. But I don't think of scones as an American food.20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

They have them at Whole Foods. My local grocery store has also started baking them from time to time, and it is a pretty low-end store. I think the scone has arrived. Lou Sander (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scones Popularity?

Here in New Zealand, you could have scones served in tearooms before the 1990s. As tearooms are being steamrolled by cafes they have disappeared from dining out scenes. These days you have to buy them in supermarkets or bakeries, or make your own at home. Is it the case as well in other countries? --JNZ (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not such a good photo

The article's lead photo, "Runny hunny.jpg," is from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and was taken to illustrate the honey, not the baked item. Since scones are not common in the U.S., and since such scones as there are in that country tend to be triangular in shape, I think it's safe to say that the baked goods in the photo are "biscuits," not "scones." While it is recognized that the two items are similar, IMHO a different photo, more legitimately an image of "scones," should be used at the top of the article. Lou Sander (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)