French vs English culinary terminology - resources and interest?

Part of the problem is that many french culinary terms do not have a direct (or at least one word) translation.  I think you're better off using the french terms as "lingo."  Its way more precise to say to somebody "cook these vegetables etuver" than it would be to describe the whole process.  Fact is, french is the language of cuisine.  Just like Italian is for music, german for psychology, greek and latin for philosophy and english for computer science.  

--Al

Trouble with that, Allan, is that it presumes a classic education, which is less and less the case in the culinary world. Most professionals, nowadays, don't understand half those terms. And home cooks, by and large, haven't a clue.

Lingo and jargon is all well and good, providing it's useful as a communications tool. But if it just confuses, then it needs replacing.

F'rinstance, I'm not embarrased at all to admit I have no idea what etuver means.

I'm reminded, too, of when I asked, here, what a "blanc" was, and got a half dozen different answers---all from people who supposedly understood "the language of cuisine."

What you seek is not really a translation but rather an interpretation.

Fries,

Sometimes (often?) merely understanding the term is a huge aide to mastering the technique.  Eet eez zee great point you make, mon ami.     

The Larousse Gastronomique is pretty good.  Some of the cooking school text books have good glossaries.

As far as I know, the interwebs is pretty catch as catch can.  A comprehenisve web site would be helpful and would (I imagine) get a steady and large stream of hits over the long term.  It would be very nice to have a resource that went beyond French. 

Buena Suerte,

BDL

I'm fluent in French.

For example, "Mis en place"

Translation: put into place, place setting.

Interpretation: setup of both equipment and foodstuffs for preparation.

Originally Posted by kokopuffs 

Zut alors!

BDL

Kokopuffs,

I am not getting technical here but I believe its "Mise en Place".

FF,

I wished there was such a book. I hate having to translate all the time. I have been watching French TV (cooking)  for years now ( for the culinary terms) and it has not really helped much. They do not teach you this in French school, as much I enjoyed it. I buy French Cooking magazines and at least I have been able to pick up on many terms. The Library has been kind enough to bring in from other French librairies ,cookbooks where I have been able to study, but even at that its only for two weeks and only to return them .

There have been times when I wanted to post recipes but sometimes not even the translation makes sense when trying to write it in  English. I know some of you reading this might have wanted to pull your hair out because of my bad translating.....I am sorry for that, I will try to do better.

Chef BDL,

Your French is pretty good from what I remember....and Spanish and.....

Habiller is the Montreal hockey team.

BDL

Other examples: tourage, cardinalisation, habiller, vanner, prâlin, foisonner, corner, maizena, detendre, travers, calotte, luter, etc...

Would you believe I don't know what a single one of them means?

KYH, Etuver = Sweat, with a lid on. See that's exactly the type of thing I'd have on such a resource.

I appreciate the problem for those of you jumping back and forth from French to English. But if it's a, say, American cookbook, and it said "etuver," I'd be lost----and think the author was a snob, because he/she, in those circumstances, should have said, "sweat the vegetables, covered."

No matter how good you are with language there is always somebody who can outdo you. I used to play Scrabble with a former boss and had to make a rule that no classic Latin be allowed. He readily accepted that, because when he played with his brother in law they did use classic Latin---but Jack had to insist there be no classic Greek. 

You reckon a little thing like translating French would have bothered either of them?

Chef BDL,

Hockey ? Grrrrrrrrr....I must bite .....the bait you dangled before my eyes. 

 French Verb : Habiller - to dress

As far as the Habs go....(Wiki--a reference source you do not enjoy) Speaks of my favorite team:

"French nicknames for the team include Les Canadiens (or Le Canadien), Le Bleu-Blanc-et-Rouge, La Sainte-Flanelle,^[2]Le Tricolore, Les Glorieux (or Nos Glorieux), Les Habitants, Le CH and Le Grand Club. In English, the team's main nickname is the Habs, an abbreviation of "Les Habitants". (Note: Even in English, the French spelling, Canadiens, is always used.)"

Zut Alors ! (good one by the way )

FF,

You are right, my focus at the moment was not the term "Habiller" but it was :

"is the Montreal Hockey team"......in any event the game is over and my expectatations were short lived.

KYH:  All valid points.

the jeremiah tower"s cookbook "jeremiah tower COOKS!" he discusses creating our own language or translation to the typical french terminoligy. most of what he talks about are terms that any professional would know, but the home cook wouldn't understand. it's all about america having started to define it's own cuisine. yes, obviously taken from other cuisines from all over the world and the food that was here when colombus arrived, but meshing them into something that is our own.

i couldn't agree more with what he says. of course, french is what is beat into all of heads and for good reason. but there is no reason why we need to use these terms to define our food. in my experience (i cook and my lady is a server), it only confuses the guest and makes them ask unnecessary questions. "what is beurre blanc?" why can't we just say white wine butter sauce, for example.

my biggest problem with is that most of the european terms for cooking have no relevance other than someone's name or catchy phrase.

other examples:

sauce robert:white wine/dijon veal stock reduction

mirepoix {named after some dude} -aromatic vegetable foundation

saltimbocca-to jump in the mouth

and forget about pasta shapes...

although, i will say that having a food named after you would be pretty sweet.

KH,

Maybe its a side affect of living in a bilingual country (though I am uni-lingual anglo) I don't bristle at the thought of using terminology from another language.  I also wouldn't accuse somebody using classic culinary terms as being a snob (well, unless they were...flaunting "expertise" is noxious).  Sometimes the french terms are just so precise that translation into another language gives short shrift to the concept.  Like the beurre blanc example above.  That term doesn't just describe the sauce, it describes the entire technique behind it.  An english translation wouldn't be "white wine and butter sauce"  it would be more like "a sauce of reduced white wine emulsified with butter." That is a mouthful.

Now, my background is french food and I had kitchen french beaten into me.  But I would assume that other great food cuisines have cooking concepts that are very specific and reduced to a word or two.  I'd be willing to bet there is a term for the mexican flavour building technique of "super-roasting" or nearly burning aromatics and using that as a base in a sauce or braise.  I'd like to know it so I wouldn't have to fumble around (like the sentence above) to describe the concept.

--Al

Merde! C'est "mise" et non pas "mis".  I'm certainly fluent but my spelling doth indeed sucketh.

Koko,

my spelling doth indeed sucketh as well.

Merde is what you call a dish when it does not turn out like you expected !!!!!!!!! 

A very popular Kitchen word by the way.

On the reverse side of  things:

There were several "food words", not so much cooking terms but food discriptors that many of the french staff at school had a strange way of translating into english.  For instance the feedback we would get from our Chefs class.  I would get something like "your sauce is interesting" and assume that this was a back-handed compliment or that they thought it was strange or off in some way. Turns out, no, they used the word far more on the nose that any english speaker I know would.  "Tastey" was the opposite.  It took me months to realize that didn't mean my food was tasting good.  It actually meant that it was over seasoned.

Petals, I think the direct translation of merde is "yummo."

--Al

Al,

You know that was  so funny !!!!!!!!!  Then "Yummo " it is.  Strange how it all works, "Kitchen lingo" ...

I get nervous when I hear someone say "Really" ? After I have just descibed what they put in their mouth and swallowed. One of the restaurants here, "Chez Levesque", have a whole new language in their kitchen. Some of their Chefs are from France and when I listen to them speak, there are phrases I never even knew existed. A wonderful team working there.....

Allen, I'm sorry if you took my comments personally. But that's more a reflection of how you read them than what I said.

I don't bristle at the thought of using terminology from another language.

Nor do I. I just feel there is a time and place for it, and in American cookery, most of the time they do not communicate because the people using them, themselves, aren't sure what they mean; let alone the people they're directed at.

You need go no further than the incredible misuse of the word "saute," by healthy cooks and authors. Directions like, "saute in a little wine....."

"Saute" is probably the most commonly used French culinary term. And they don't have much more precise meanings than it. But if it's so widely misused, what chance do some of the other, more arcane ones, have?

 I also wouldn't accuse somebody using classic culinary terms as being a snob (well, unless they were...flaunting "expertise" is noxious).

Again, time and place apply. I drew a very specific case, and, in that case, the user would either be a snob or just showing off. (s)he certainly wouldn't be communicating.

 Sometimes the french terms are just so precise that translation into another language gives short shrift to the concept.

They are only precise if the listener/reader understands them. Which means a more-or-less classic cooking education. But, as I said above, that describes fewer and fewer cooks and chefs in America, and darn few cookbook writers.

tourage, cardinalisation, habiller, vanner, prâlin, foisonner, corner, maizena, detendre, travers, calotte, luter, etc...may all be very precise terms for those trained in their use. But for those, like me, who lack such education they not only are imprecise, they are meaningless.

Or see my example about "blanc" above. That's one of the words you would contend has a precise meaning. And yet, I was inable to determine that meaning, because a number of French-trained cooks provided various, and widely disparate, meanings.

You also seem to feel that if it takes more than one word to describe a process or technique that the concept suffers. I can't think of anything further from the truth. Again, using a former example, just how does "sweat the vegetables, covered," detract from the concept? It is clear, concise, to the point, and understandable. It's only "fault" is that it's four words instead of just one.

"Running shoes" as opposed to "sneakers".

KH,

You have no idea how long I debated with myself over the use of the word "bristled" in my previous post.  I didn't intend it to come off as weighted as it may have.   I totally agree with your point that non-english cooking terms get thrown around merely to sound authoritative or just grafted onto recipe instructions willy nilly.  

I guess the big rift is in the home cook / working cook dichotomy.  I cannot help but think as a working cook.  Yet at the same time I am a home cook too, in so far the kinds of food I cook at home do not reflect my paid work (for good or ill).  My concerns are in both camps.   Strangely enough I find I employ more classical technique in my off hours than at work.  

"You also seem to feel that if it takes more than one word to describe a process or technique that the concept suffers. I can't think of anything further from the truth. Again, using a former example, just how does "sweat the vegetables, covered," detract from the concept? It is clear, concise, to the point, and understandable. It's only "fault" is that it's four words instead of just one."

I can't help but wear the working hat here.  I like the directness of a one word procedure.   Plus I find that definition lacking, I initially picked that example for a reason.  Its a deceptively simple technique that involves cooking vegetables in a shallow pan in a scant amount of water, with a loose fitting lid (such as parchment) that partially steams the veg while allowing the water to evaporate.  When the veg is tender the lid is removed to dry the dish and fat (butter or oil) mounted to complete.  The end result is moist but not sopping in liquid.  That is well more than four word long and would be an abject pain to describe in a case by case basis.

I'll be the first to admit I have an irrational romantic attraction to formalist french food.  But behind that there is a pragmatic "don't reinvent the wheel" logic to it.  I missed out on the au blanc thread that you referenced before.  I assume you mean the water mixed with flour (and occasionally acid) solution used for cooking things like artichoke or salsify.  The flour renders the water opaque and slows the photosensitive discolouration of certain vegetables.  I don't have a word to express that (in english).  Heck, I don't have a phrase that is catchy enough to express that.  Facing facts, how often is a non-obsessive home cook going to be using burdock and artichokes not out of a can anyway?  And if you are that obsessive is it really that much of a stretch to think that the employ of a non mother tongue  based term is going to slow you down?

Again I totally agree that saute is badly abused.  As is poach.  Or even boil.  Not to mention quauntam, karma, zeitgeist, or tipping point.  This is more a product of slip shod use than actual meaning of the trope.

Temper anything I say by realizing that I was a Librarian for ten years before becoming a professional cook.  And that George Steiner sits beside Charlie Trotter on my bedside bookshelf. 

--Al

Ohh, that one... I still occasionally slip back into my early days with: "Saute--Er... Pan fry that."
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer 

You need go no further than the incredible misuse of the word "saute," by healthy cooks and authors. Directions like, "saute in a little wine....."

 

"Saute" is probably the most commonly used French culinary term. And they don't have much more precise meanings than it. But if it's so widely misused, what chance do some of the other, more arcane ones, have?

And "tennis shoes" are NOT "tenor shoes."
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokopuffs 

"Running shoes" as opposed to "sneakers".

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.

KH,

We've reached that point in any good conversation where I can say that I agree with you completely.  Any cookbook geared to home cooking should have a decent glossary with appropriate see notes if any more than the most standard terminology gets used in a recipe.  That's just good writing (and editing).  And if a technique is used as a one off (like in your "make a blanc" example)  there is no real need to refer to the term at all, only the procedure and the logic behind it.  Heck, even common terms should be defined.  How many people talk about searing meat or caramelize onion and then do it horribly wrong?   My mother will read an instruction for a "hot oven" and set it to 375.  Even assumed knowledge comes out skewed, let along the obscuria.

While I may not say to myself "I'm going to cook these mixed peppers etuver"  I certainly do with my staff.  Again homecook / workcook thing.  But we do live in a time when home cooks are attempting to simulate restaurant cooking more and more and in publications geared to this sort of audience more precise language is called for.

I guess that my issue is not with the idea of correct (or internally consistant) glossary notes or french-to-english culinary dictionaries (hey, former Librarian here, Live for good reference works!) but the desire to create exact translations on a word for word basis. And, no I don't think you or the OP was calling for that. Where as many of these words would essentially require the creation of "new" english words from wholecloth we might as well just "lift" the original.

--Al

(P.S. I worked at Perkins for longer than I care to think about so I know my way around flattop too!)  

I worked at Perkins for longer than I care to think about so I know my way around flattop too!)  

A friend of mine, one of the most accomplished chefs I know (in everything from high-end resorts to remote Alaskan work camps) is fond of saying, "short order cooks are the God's of the kitchen."

Modesty forbids me from commenting. But I reckon you'd appreciate what that means.

Well, there's a great example of a vague statement making absolute perfect sense to me!

Thanks KH,  it can be difficult for a person to really get to crux of what they mean to say when they don't have somebody of wit and integrity to force them to.  I appreciate the time.

--Al

Quote:

Originally Posted by French Fries 

I often have a hard time translating culinary terms from French to English or English to French.

 

Are there any resources out there to translate specifically culinary terms? I know there are several online translators but they can only go so far...

 

If there is no such resource, do you think there would be an interest for a website that would help translate culinary terms from English to French and vice versa?

Well I have the original "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" by Julia Child ,Simone Beck and Loisette Bertholle Volumes 1 and 2 ......quite thorough in french/english terms.The Dione Lucas Book of French Cooking is also very informative. Take a look see

Gypsy