Plus I find that definition lacking, I initially picked that example for a reason......
You're kind of proving my point, Allan. Above I said I didn't know what etuver meant, and was told "sweat with a lid." You object to that as not being precise enough. So, that's two meanings of the word so far, both from people versed in French cookery.
If we take your expanded definition, "sweat partially covered" pretty much does it, cuz a cookbook would then say, "when liquid evaporates, add the butter."
I'd also suggest that once you learn a technique it is rare, as a cook, that you call it by name. I'd bet good money that when you use this method, for instance, you don't say to yourself, "well, I'm gonna etuver these veggies." You just do it automatically. The key is understanding the technique, not putting a name to it.
I'm sorry you missed the blanc conversation. In a book directed at beginning home cooks it suddenly appeared in a salad recipe. In the entire book there is no other use of the word, it doesn't even appear in the book's glossery. So I asked here, and got a diversity of responses.
A perfect example of what I'm saying. Here is one or your one-word French cooking terms (well, technically two words. But in the book it says to "create a blanc") that was suddenly introduced without a fare-thee-well, in a book where it didn't belong. It was used unnecessarily in that particular recipe. And a group of otherwise knowledgeable cooks differed in what it meant and why it is ever used. Just how precise is that?
I think where you and I differ is merely in outlook. You want to confine the discussion to your training and inclination, whereas my outlook is more universal. If you're trained in classic French cooking, and are comfortable with the language, I have no kick with you. If your cooking style is French classic, again, I have no problems with you. Or anyone who needs to know both the techniques and their names.
But your personal experience is, more and more, not shared by the bulk of professional cooks. And certainly not by home cooks. Trying to force-feed a foreign langage on these people is merely counter productive----especially, as we've seen in this thread, even those who do cook your way are either confused by some of the terms, or have different ideas of exactly what they mean.
Let me use a practical example. The bulk of my professional experience came as a short-order cook. I'm fully aware that the idea horrifies anyone with classic training, but I've cooked many an omelette on a flat top. No precisely shaped copper pan. No folding the eggs just so. But guess what? My patrons didn't much care that I was using the wrong tool, and not serving the way a hundred-fold chef would have.
My point: For someone like you, I wasn't making omelettes. After all, the word "omelette" has a precise meaning, which describes not only a dish but the way it's supposed to be cooked. For my customers, however, I was providing exactly the meal they had asked for.
Does this make me right and you wrong? Not hardly. It isn't a question of right and wrong. It's a question of orientation. And what I'm saying is that the majority of professional cooks and chefs, in this country, are not French trained, and are not cooking French food. For them, many---perhaps most---of the terms French chefs bandy about are not only not precise, they are confusing.