# Using correct terminology



## brittany (Dec 23, 2006)

So I've been looking at other chef's menus here in Toronto and can't help but notice how many of them are using terminology that doesn't apply to thier food. Like celery civiche. Huh? Or how if anything is towered, it suddenly becomes a napoleon. I could go on for hours, really, but I am a little too busy for that. I just gotta let this out though.
It's a trend that is really starting to get on my nerves. Are they trained like me? Do they know what civiche really is and that it kind of has to contain a protein and an acid in order for it to become civiche. It's just so downright dishonest and ignorant. Not only that, Napoleon is a dessert, not something fringing layered. Yes, I am using my "nice" language. 
I can understand if you want to stretch the lines a little to make your food sound more exciting but really now! 
Some ones that I can think of off the top of my head.
Carpaccio: Anything that is thinly sliced and laid out on a plate, anything!!
fricasse: Anytime vegtables are served with a little bit of sauce, 
****ing waiters using the term, mise en place: There goes my nice language.
Brunoise: Pureed crap.
Truffle infused, fennel scented, corriander dusted, mind as well say you just charge the customer for something that isn't in the actual plate.

waiter, could I please have the civiche celery and polenta crustini napoleon to start with, then I would like the carrot carpaccio and salmon nicoise salad. That has no french beans or tuna in it, does it? No, oh good. I hate it when they make it like that. Than I would like to finish with a peach melba, oh wait, I mean fig melba. And I would like to palate cleanse with the heated lemon granite. Thank you very much and be sure to keep your mise en place coming.


----------



## ras1187 (Oct 3, 2006)

One of my personal favorites is tomato bisque.

One of my teachers put it this way. You can charge $2-$3 for tomato soup, or $4-$5 for tomato bisque.

Personal observation leaves me with the feeling that Chefs want to include exotic terminology in the menu to justify charging more per plate.

When advertising a salad, brunoise vegetables sells the salad a little better then just saying diced or chopped vegetables.

I have yet to see how pureed vegetables can translate to brunoise on a menu, but I would have to agree that this one is pushing the border of honesty.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

I don't think this is a particularly new problem. And it mostly stems from two groups: people in my end of the business, who don't understand the terms they are using; and poorly trained chefs who think food writers know what they're talking about. Then, like topsy, it just grows.

What happens, far too often, is that they take the technique or approach used in a specific dish, and apply the name to anything using that technique.

I was, for instance, in a chain restaurant about a year ago that has a whole covey of Eggs Benedict variations---when the fact is, Eggs Benedict refers to a very specific assemblage of ingredients. Anything else may use the same approach, but it's a different dish.

Then there's the problem of trying to apply a familiar name to a different technique. My personal teeth-gnasher is when they say, "saute in wine (or juice, or water)." Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing! To saute means to cook quickly in a little oil. Cooking in a little water may or may not be healthier; but it is _not _sauteing. Similarly, any sauce made by reducing something and adding butter to it has now become a beurre blanque (one of these days I _will _learn how to spell that). And to get real trendy, anything with either gin or vodka is now a martini. Yeah, right!

Part of the problem, too, is that there's a poorly educated consumer who has heard these terms, seen them misused on the Food Network and in magazines, and thinks he knows what they mean. And when he goes to a restaurant, he expects to see them on the menu. If he sees a menu item listing "carpaccio of poached celeraic with bernaise sauce," he doesn't think, "hey, there's no such thing." He thinks, "hey, didn't Bobby Flay just make something similar." And happily orders it.

So, I don't think, in general, that most chefs are using these terms to intentionally mislead. I think they're dealing with the unfortunately reality of meeting their customers' expectations.


----------



## brittany (Dec 23, 2006)

You might be right about satisfying an uneducated population. But most chefs that do know the difference between a bernaise sauce and a hollandaise sauce, like to brag about it thier superior knowledge which leads me to think that the majority of chefs don't have a clue as to what they are doing or talking about.
Now who do we blame for this. Our over priced, over rated, culinary schools. The chefs that are training the next generation. Either way, I'm still a little annoyed and tickled by the situation. One of these days I will ask to see the chef and ask him, what on earth are you talking about. Do you even know what these terms really mean?


----------



## dirk skene (Feb 13, 2007)

This is a pet peve of mine as well. Along with the theam ofthis thread I have a question. Why do we in the US call it "shrimp scampi." I always ask is it shrimp or is it scampi? I get blank staires.


----------



## tcapper (Aug 29, 2006)

Hi

The term Mise en place can be used by anyone, quite simply this is getting your preperation done for a task. So a builder getting his sand, cement, stones and bricks together can quite rightly say he has got his Mise en place ready. it is not an exclusive food term.

My two cents worth, sorry to burst the bubble.

Il pour vivre mange, ne pas mange vivre !

www.chefsworld.net


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

I'm always reluctant to use the words "majority", "most," etc. without documentation. I don't know what kind of clue the majority of chefs do or don't have.

But keep in mind two things: 

First: The title "chef" applies to anybody from the guy flipping pancakes in a chain restaurant, to the top kitchen executive in a 5-star restaurant. So the level of training, skill, knowledge and creativity varies greatly.

Two: Given that, and considering that chefs all stea... eh, borrow, from each other (how do you think food trends get going?), it's understandable that widespread misuse takes place. 

Let's posit this scenario: A mid-level line chef picks up the misuse of a particular term. To use one of yours, let's say carpaccio. He watches Iron Chef and hears the term applied to, oh, a vegetable. Then he gets the opportunity to open his own place, or is hired as a senior chef in a different restaurant. He wants to impress. So he develops his own vegetable-based "carpaccio." He thinks anything thinly sliced and laid out on a platter is a carpaccio. And so, too, will anyone he trains from that point on. And the ripple effect takes over.

Who is to blame? Nobody you can point a finger at. It's part of the generalized dumbing down of culinary skills throughout North America. I recently went through 25 years worth of cooking magazines all at once. Seven or eight titles that I'd been collecting through the years. When you do that certain things glare out at you. One is the accelerating misuse of terms and techniques. 

Another is the simplistic way many recipes are presented---with the recognition that today's audience is coming back to cooking, rather than growing up with it. But, at what point does "In a small pan, over high heat, saute the onions in a little oil" stop being necessary and become insulting? And when does ".....saute in a little stock" become acceptible usage?

Another is that few printed recipes are proofread---either that or they're not kitchen tested. Maybe both. But the fact remains that an incredibly high percentage of them contain errors in either the ingredients list, the directions, or both. Many of them misuse terms and techniques. Then other magazines pick them up (so much for the copyright laws), complete with errors, and perpetrate the crime. 

The question is, how many people coming into the industry as chefs and caterers learned their basic skills from those magazines? Obviously we can't answer that question. But it certainly has contributed to the problem.


----------



## zimmermann (Feb 13, 2007)

I agree with most of your comments but professional people involved in this service area (gastronomy and cooking) must try to keep some main classical terminology (related mainly with techniques) in order to maintain a common and clear language. The limits between applying some terms in "wrong" ways can be not a problem in some marketing strategies, except if you are being unfair or dishonest with you customer - even if you, as a poor (trainned) professional are not aware of what really you are doing.
:bounce:


----------



## blueschef (Jan 18, 2006)

One of my little sayings is "whats the difference between a sauce and a gravy?"

The price!


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

I believe this statement falls under this topic. The word "chef" _does not_ apply to just anybody. In terms of kitchen usage, it is a shortening of chef de cuisine. In the U.S., it should only apply to someone in a management or supervisory role, preferably with menu control (without menu control, my opinion is that you are a kitchen manager, not a chef, per se). Everybody else is a cook.

As far as misusing terminology goes, food and language are both things that are in a constant change of evolution. I don't view this as a bad thing, as long as the knowledge of the correct usage is kept alive. The misuse of the title "chef" is intolerable, however. At least when confit is not used correctly, there is a relation in the technique used. The translation of chef is "chief" and I fail to see what exactly a cook flipping pancakes is chief of, other than the pancakes. Maybe not even those if they're not particularly good at it.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

We used to have Scampi a la something or other in the restaurant. People would always ask, is that shrimp scampi? NO PEOPLE! Scampi IS shrimp!

The servers were no better.


----------



## erik (Jan 23, 2006)

One of my first jobs out of culinary school, a grocery store hired me to restart their scratch baking program. The bakery/deli manager wanted to refer to me as 'the pastry chef', but I flat refused!
They didn't quite get why. It made me a little sad.


----------



## psycho chef (Feb 1, 2007)

Here's the one that really gets under my skin...Chef's (or pancake flippers) calling salmon roe caviar. Caviar is sturgeon roe....that's it. Salmon eggs are not caviar and I hate to see this term misused. Just an obvious ploy to feign luxury. Certain terminology is used do define quality or exclusivity, and to dining chefs and an increasingly discerning public, bastardization of these words will undoubtedly cause a dumbing down effect. Like when a menu description says "truffles" or "truffle essence" when it's just a spritz of some crappy white truffle oil, kept in a warm bright place in the kitchen, in all of it's half rancid glory. If the menu says truffles i expect them. Say "truffle oil" and all the luxury and $10 extra your charging goes out the window.


----------



## mikeb (Jun 29, 2004)

How about this: no one should be allowed to use terms in a language they can't speak... This definitely applies to you here.

Mise en place literally means "to put into place". So a server setting cutlery on tables IS doing his mise en place....

One definition of fricassée: "Mélange particulièrement confus de choses diverses". Which means a "confused mixture of diverse things".

There are a few other definitions of the word in French, culinary and other.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Greg, I'm fully aware that language is a living, evolving thing. Words are, after all, my business. 

But, when words are continually misused, or are, for whatever reason, misapplied, then pretty soon we're not communicating at all. 

And speaking of evoluting words; putting aside questions of respect and ego, in American usage "chef" and "cook" are (or can be) synonyms. Thus:

"chef (shef)n. A cook; especially, the chief cook of a large kitchen staff."

So, no matter how much your ego rebels at the thought, the guy running the kitchen at Waffle House is just as much a chef as the top kitchen executive at a 5 star restaurant in New York or Paris. 

>Mise en place literally means "to put into place". So a server setting cutlery on tables IS doing his mise en place....<

Mike, you also have to consider industry usage of terms, rather than just literal translations. The fact is, mise en place, according to industry standards, is a term belonging to the kitchen. 

Again, it's a matter of communications. If we want to understand each other we have to talk a common language. 

"Which means a "confused mixture of diverse things"."

Uh, huh. Like a salad? Or a compote? Or even a stew? Guess that to be correct next time I'm in a French restaurant, I better ask for a garden vegetable friccasee?


----------



## brittany (Dec 23, 2006)

So we all agree that it is necessary to use common terms in order to communicate to our customers and our co workers what it is we will be serving them. That is my point exactly. 
Incidently, mise en place is not to put into place but is everything is in place. And according to the culinary gastrominique -- something I think that a person who calls themselves a chef should invest in -- fricassee is a white stew made with chix, veal, fish or vegtables. I don't care what the translation is in french, I care how a chef is suppose to make it. You cannot just throw a bunch of vegtables on a plate and call it a fricassee. It contains none of the original ingrediants or prepartion methods.
And I also think you nailed the problem on the head. People are calling themselves chefs when they have no right. 
Person "A" studies and apprentices for 15 years and becomes a chef. They have this vast amount of knowledge and skill that they have worked their *** off to obtain so they can feel confident in running a kitchen. They call themselves a chef.
Person "B" works in some higer end chain for 5 years, works their way into management position, doesn't have a clue where their dishes come from, has no say in the menu and all they are really in charge of is running the food cost and labour reports, they call themselves a chef.
There is a difference. And as a person that has trained and endured all the long hours with very little pay, if any in some circumstances, I have a problem with this. It's not my ego, its a representation of all the hard work and time that I have put in to become what I am. I have earned this tittle, person B has not. 
It all boils down to this. These terms are not just terms, they are a language. They are here to communicate an idea. When we start using these words compleatly out of definition, we loose the language. Not only that, but we loose the methods. 
I have no problem with creative interpretation of these terms. But know what you are talking about before putting a spin on an idea so that you can at least use the same ingrediants.
I think this is more about having respect for the trade than using correct terminology.


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

If we have to, as you said, consider industry usage of terms, then the guy running a kitchen at a Waffle House is not a chef. He is, at best, a kitchen manager.


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

Just so we're clear here, please keep the discussion to the topic at hand and refrain from statements bordering on ad hominem attacks. Suffice it to say that you know nothing of me or my alleged egotism.


----------



## piracer (Jun 22, 2006)

just wondering, what if your not really sure on how to name it?

lets say a peice of fish perhaps cooked in duck fat. can we call it a confit even though its not its own fat that its being cooked in?


----------



## mikeb (Jun 29, 2004)

Actually, if we want to get technical, "Mise" is a noun referring to the action of the verb "Mettre". (French translations can be tricky at times)

Well, I've been speaking French all my life (despite living in North America). I've also worked in kitchens were the primary language spoken was French, not English. We would communicate during service in French. We'd address the service staff in French, and the chef would give instructions to me in French (he could barely speak any English) so as far as I'm concerned, the actual French word is more important than the 'trade' definition. 

If you speak English in the kitchen, you should use English terms. Period. Right now I'm working in an English kitchen, so I use English terms exclusively. Makes for less confusion. And strait up, when I'm making a menu item, it's always either completely English, or completely French (although I will admit sometimes it gets tricky when theres a word for which there is no translation). I personally think it's silly to dress up a dish with fancy words. If I put a chicken stew on the menu, I'll call it a chicken stew. If I'm serving mixed vegetables, I'll say mixed vegetables. One thing I can't stand about fine dining is the pretense of it all.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

The duck is being preserved, not cooked, so I would say no to the piece of fish.


----------



## sgmchef (Sep 30, 2006)

OK, I'll add my two cents! When did entrée become the main course? The word literally translates to "to enter". I mean really folks, even those that don't speak French, but are learning culinary French (needed to do our jobs) know this, but most continue with this as a way to classify their main courses. This is an entry point before the plat prinicpal. I know, that battle was lost long ago but it still bothers me!

I have also never understood why folks don't call an interpretation or variation of a classic dish a name of their own! My GOD, use the name of the owner's daughter, a nearby river, a prominent local citizen, or your own name. It can become a selling point by adding a local flavor to your dish. To be a successful Chef you have to have some sort of imagination! What do these people do with leftovers or items you end up long on? Get creative! If you decide to add Stilton, Sherry, and Chervil to a Hollandaise sauce make up a name! Please don't call it Hollandaise.

The word Chef also has a special place in my heart. I still remember looking up the definition as a 13 year-old and thinking to myself "My GOD a Chef has to know how to do everything!" Not only does a Chef have to learn every aspect of ordering, handling and storage, and preparing and serving food, but knowledge about the business implications, front of house, bar operations, food cost, people skills, etc. A working Chef doesn't have to be a Pastry Chef but he still has to be able to produce at least some baked goods like breads and rolls and at least a few desserts! WOW what a job! I want to do that! Until I was doing the ordering and implemented my own menu, I _KNEW_ that I only aspired to being called Chef.


----------



## mikeb (Jun 29, 2004)

Reminds me of my very first cooking job. French kid working in an English kitchen - I was wondering WTF the main courses were called 'entrées'... I even asked another cook what was up, that 'entrée' actually refers to the first course. I was told I was an idiot, and berated for it... Needless to say it was a relief leaving that job, and eventually ending up in a French kitchen.


----------



## mikeb (Jun 29, 2004)

Every thursday we used to bring in 120 fresh sardines from our fish supplier because the owner loved them (Italian restaurant, although everyone in the kitchen was French). Well, needless to say they never sold (I don't know what's wrong with people...). So after the owner ate a couple dozen, we'd have a bunch of sardines we couldn't just let rot away... So we salted them, then cooked them in oil to preserve them and use them later (in pastas, on antipasto platters, etc...). So yes, you can confit fish. We also bought a very good Tuna confit from a specialty supplier.


----------



## piracer (Jun 22, 2006)

hold on, i thot confit was to cook in its own fat?

so down confit mean to preserve now? and if so, then why cant we confit a peice of fish?


----------



## castironchef (Oct 10, 2005)

IIRC, the American use of "entree" for the main course is a historical anomaly. Back in the day, when the rich feasted on huge multiple course extravaganzas, the "entree" was a savory course of meats and veggies designed to introduce (after the appetizers, soup, etc.) the main course of a giant "joint" of meat. When simpler service became the order of the day, the giant joint disappeared as a separate course and was downsized and integrated into the "entree."


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

Jams are confitures, or preserves in general are called confitures. Maybe the more accurate meaning is preserving in its own juices. In the case of duck or goose, its own fat.


----------



## the_seraphim (Dec 25, 2006)

eh... sauce and gravy only difference being price?

uh are you sure... dont gravies have to be meat based whereas sauces dont?
i dunno

anyway the exec chef (or head chef and is also KM w/e) where i work started to train me proper the other day... my god, he went through so many sauces, burnaise, hollandaise, um... loads god at least 30 then he went on to stock, then eggs... gah my brain was ready to pop!

and hes the first person ive worked with so far who says "nee swar" not "ni koi ys" when they read nicoise


----------



## piracer (Jun 22, 2006)

^haha, btw, i read that a sauce is just something u cover on a peice of meat, veg, whatever. Gravy however has to contain juice from the peice of meat. So no vegetarian gravy im assuiming.


----------



## powers (Dec 7, 2006)

You mean people will call themselves chefs when they have never worked a 100 hour week in a kitchen, let alone worked in a kitchen at all. 

So here in Mississippi, I don't need to explain how backwards we are (have you ever seen deliverance?). I was Exec at a restaurant here, the owners were a married couple (one was preety good floor manager, other was a culinary school drop out that worked for a caterer for a year) so these people finally had backed temselves in a corner and needed some good food to make up for everything else that they lacked. I went in and fired the convicts that "worked" there and stared from scratch. Found a decent sous and we tackled the entire place, FOH included. For the budget we had, ended up doing a decent job in only 3 months. So, New Years eve rolls around. I put a spin on a few classic dishes, knowing my limits with an uneducated demographic. Well, the night was over, my sous wanted a copy of the menu to take home (i had requested his name go on it) when we got it, wouldn't you know that the owners were also the chefs, WOW!! They even put cute little stories next to each dish with there first memories of said dish. Needless to say I was pi$$ed. So I go to the owner (not the culinary dropout, but her husband). I said no explanation needed because I know your type, But [email protected]$% YOU!!!!! I challenged him to work just ONE shift in the kitchen, he FAILED. I wouldn't hire him to peel potatoes. Just goes to show you, we were cooking before it was "cool", the others just won't EVER understand, so we're back where we started. 
It's easy to put on a coat and look pretty on the line and call yourself a chef. Im still confused, Brittany, about who would brag about knowing the difference in holloldaise and beurnaise??? hahaha 
Well, that was my book for the day.


----------



## eponodyne (May 30, 2006)

I agree. And, for what it's worth, Thomas Keller calls everybody in his kitchen either by their first name, or he addresses them as "chef." It's a gesture of res[pect. Think he might know something we don't?

I don't even want to get started on the "Martini" thing (to me a martini is gin and vermouth in a 5:1 ratio, well chilled, neat, with three pimiento-stuffed olives. Anything else is something else.) but I think it's an outgrowth of the grocery-list menus, where everything you've got in dry storage and in the coolers is listed, along with a brief description of how it's prepared, who developed it, where the guy cooking it came from, and a picture of his smokin' hot little sister.


Pffft. Some days it's not even worth dislocating my shoulders to get out of the straitjacket.


----------



## the_seraphim (Dec 25, 2006)

god what gall... thanks for clearing up the sauce gravy thing lol...

my exec would brag about the diff between beurnaise and hollandaise

and even i dont call myself a chef, i say im a line cook if im talking to someone who would understand the difference or a chef in training to idiots...


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

You should probably change your "Culinary Experience" thing to line cook then.


----------



## cacook (Jan 18, 2006)

This I disagree with. Just because something is listed in an online dictionary...doesn't lead it to be true. I've looked up that several words that were partially or completely misdefined. A chef is the boss, and while the guy at the waffle house in our technical definition of the word can be considered a chef, I don't beleive him to be. Chefs realistically do little or no cooking unless it's a pretty small place. The guy flipping the pancakes most likely is only in charge of the pancakes as said above. Also, if it's a chain restaurant...what menu planning is involved? The corporate chef and/or headquarters makes the menu for him. All he has to do is order enough produce and everything to keep executing that menu every day and night.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

Fools, allya! Gravy is another mother sauce. There are two kinds, white and brown. From their you derive all your smaller gravies.

What?? Do I have to teach you people everything?!?!??


----------



## jayme (Sep 5, 2006)

Unless you are Mredikop and then gravy is the ONLY sauce- suitable for use on EVERYTHING! LOL


----------



## jayme (Sep 5, 2006)

AMEN!!!!!!!


----------



## greyeaglem (Apr 17, 2006)

Had to laugh at bluechef's difference between a sauce and a gravy. When someone brags they went to culinary school and now they're a chef, that's what I ask them. If they don't know, I just nod and walk away. There is a difference and that's my litmus test for how much they actually know. My own pet peeve for misuse of terminology (especially by people who should know better) is celery stalk. I hate when I'm reading a recipe (and it can be for a substantial amount of something) that calls for 6 stalks of celery. Are they sure? Or do they mean ribs? I don't mind it so much if it's for something your Aunt Betty gave me the reciped for, but when it's in a culinary publication or commercial recipe, I just want to tear my hair out. That's my rant.


----------



## piracer (Jun 22, 2006)

i dont get the celery stalk thing... Unless you would say 500 grams of celery?


----------



## bluedogz (Oct 11, 2006)

I think he means that one thingy of celery is a "rib", not a "stalk."

Reminds me of trying to cook with my Icelandic (read: metric) wife... "Pass me 1/2 a cup of.... no, a cup is THAT cup, not just whatever cup is in the dishwasher. I don't know how many liters it is, dammit." :crazy:


----------



## eeyore (Nov 26, 2000)

Ok just so I know:

when I was in charge of the pastry dept at a country club (did all the planning, ordering, time management, even food cost) I was a pastry chef? :chef: 

But now where I work I dont do much ordering or food cost so Im not a pastry chef any more? :suprise: 

But soon I plan on leaving to go out on my own...so then I will have to do all those things, so I will be a chef again? :chef: Except, Ill be working by myself mostly so....hmmmm.... I dunno. Please let me know. I dont want to offend anyone. lol  

oh no! If I'm not a chef will I still be allowed to post on this forum? 

eeyore


----------



## mochefs (Mar 8, 2007)

While I think many of the posts are spot on, there are others that seem a bit overboard to me. Same as the grammar police that I get emails from every day so I'm a bit sensitive to it 

Using 'over the top' language to try and impress on your menu? Fine, I don't like it either. But I do usually consider it an attempt to impress rather than explicitly mislead. I've just never liked the snobbery of it all.

Ignorance in the kitchen by someone who should know better? Fine, educate them or be rightly annoyed.

But, there is another category that I have no issue with. And that's those examples of items like the 'carpaccio', or the 'confit', etc. While it's true that words start with very explicit meanings, it's also true that when they become common enough in the lexicon that they can be used to describe the 'style of' a dish, or even a 'method'. Particularly in inventive kitchens. 

I don't think it's necessary for the chef to go into detail on a menu that he/she knows that the see-through slice of beet served with a little olive oil and salt isn't strictly carpaccio, nor do I think the customer is going to surprised when the dish arrives. Both parties are clear on why it's being used in the way it is, and that's because it helps to clarify in the consumers mind what they are ordering. It's a descriptive 'representation' of a dish on the menu, and the menu is not a dictionary. Are you going to really say that Ferran Adria should be taken to task because of his apple 'caviar'? Methinks thou doest protest too much.


----------



## eeyore (Nov 26, 2000)

I see what you are saying. It's like when I ask for a kleenex and someone says: "you know, its not technically a 'kleenex', its a tissue" Im like: get over it, you know what I mean.

However, I once ordered a fruit napolean (years ago) and I got some fresh fruit stacked with some slightly sweetened cracker type things. I was VERY disappointed. I felt like I had been misled. I mean it was nothing more than a fruit salad without any dressing. It certainly wasn't a dessert.

eeyore


----------



## shroomgirl (Aug 11, 2000)

I hate naming shtuff......when you create dishes sometimes names relagated to something specific don't fit then you're scratching your head going, ok how many Julie's surprises are there going to be on the menu.......ugh, it is what it is, so most of the time the ingrediants are listed and no esoteric nor technical name is given. 

What do you guys do?

Funny we were talking about calling sodas, Coke.....when it's some other brand, guess that's when you know you're a household name.


----------



## goldenchef (Mar 7, 2007)

how about the term "chef" how come every cook is "a chef" you are either "the chef" or you are a cook and whats wrong with being a cook is it too lowly so when you are b*tching about terms remember we are in the world of image over substace. P.S is it a whip or a whisk I keep My whip in the bedroom where it belongs:crazy:


----------



## greyeaglem (Apr 17, 2006)

Hear, hear! You said it! I'm sorry, but there was a guy running around my area calling himself a chef (he got fired from a chain restaurant for burning toast). I finally had enough of him and asked what the difference between a sauce and a gravy was. He didn't know, so I told him until he did know at least that much, he had no business calling himself a chef. That would be like me referring to myself as a medical doctor because I can apply a band aid.


----------



## cookermacgregor (Jan 11, 2006)

You guys all need to lighten up a bit. Language, especially in our transitory culture, is ever evolving. I would argue it's even encouraged to mutate. I think most customers find pleasure in the changing vocabulary. I'm not a big fan of the overly wordy menus of young chefs, but with experience and confidence usually comes restraint. What we need to focus on is the "Deliciousness Factor" resulting from thoughtful cooking of the freshest ingredients. That is what impresses the customers most!


----------

