Pedantic Brit strikes again

So is an entree an appetizer or a main course?

entree is the main course

Only in america. In the rest of the world an entree is an ‘opening’, the start of the meal. It’s from the French, like the word ‘entrance’.

Of course, if 4% of the world’s population want to use the word differently then that’s up to them. It’s how language evolves and I’m not trying to suggest that either usage is more correct than the other.

Please ignore this post. It’s in the wrong place, and I’m just venting 'cos I’m sick of being interviewed by shabby little men in shabby little offices who are advertising for teachers that they don’t actually need at the moment and aren’t willing to pay properly.

I could murder a bloody Indian, and several Taiwanese too.

… in America. [/quote]

Shit, really? I’ve ticked off many a Taiwanese restaurant for their inept English menus with appetizers & entrees but no main courses. :blush:

Just for clarification

Meals are no longer as “long” as they used to be. No longer 8 to 12 courses.

So the confusion.

An amuses gueules would be the first appetizer followed by say an entree followed by an hors d’oeuvres but all would be kinds of appetizers.

Then the pincipal or plat would be a main course

salad after dinner


petits fours (kind of dessert but served as well)

Can you imagine what any of us would look like if we all ate regular 8 to 12 course meals?!

Hope that helps

Like This

Forgive my lack of culture. In the US I have always heard and seen entree as being used to represent the main course. In the future I will put main course in parentheses after entree to avoid confusion, kind of like the automatic use of hanyu pinyin conversion after romanized Chinese is entered in these forums. :stuck_out_tongue:

Actually entrees are used extensively to mean main courses as well. I am not sure what the original wording would have been plat du entree or some such stuff. Anyway, I think as long as everyone is aware of that then it is okay. Languages change.

I think I’ll just stick with ‘appetizer’ and ‘main’.

Anyone have a problem with that?

I discovered this little turn about 10 years ago and have since always relegated my salad to the course betwixt main and sweet…

The salad is meant to be a palatte cleanser and you are not supposed to have wine during this course…

Try it…it’s lovely…

Languages change.

So, in the future we will see.

Entree - beer
Get the #$%# out of here - Welcome, come on in.
Welcome come on in - I have a gun and I’m not afraid to use it.

Languages develop mistakes from uneducated types or people that are too proud to admit their mistakes, and then we get left with a huge mess.

Hello - now means bye bye

[quote=“Boss Hogg”]Languages change.

Simple English rules by George Orwell:

  1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

  3. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

  4. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

  5. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Check out his brilliant essay “Politics and the English Language” at: … guage.html

I remember reading that essay. He has a clear, simple, effective, but also entertaining writing style. I kinda like Caesar’s writing too, just cuts right to the chase, sparse, but sufficient. Also made it a lot easier to translate too!

[quote=“Boss Hogg”]Languages change.

So, in the future we will see:[/quote]

“I could care less” will mean “I couldn’t mean less”, Oh wait…

Shouldn’t the topic be “Pedantic Briton Strikes” Or have you struck before ?

Orwell’s essay is brilliant. And it goes to show lazy writing was just as common in his day as it is in ours.

“If it is possible to cut a word, cut it.” surely? :unamused:

[quote=“salmon”][quote=“blueface666”]Simple English rules by George Orwell:
Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.[/quote]
“If it is possible to cut a word, cut it.” surely? :unamused:[/quote]
That however, would change the meani_ _.
See what I mean? :wink:


I have to agree with Mucha – one of my favorite novels (fantasty type) is Steven Brust’s “The Phoenix Guards”. He wrote it in the style of Dumas. It is wordy, verbose, abundandly phrased, overly long, and quite pleasant to read.

He writes it “in character” as a historian in the fantasy world he’s created. At one point, this historian remarks: “It would seem, therefore, that if we are to allow our readers, by virtue of being in the company of the historian, to eavesdrop on this interchange, we will have, in one scene, discharged two obligations; a sacrifice, if we may say so, to the god of Brevity, whom all historians, indeed, all who work with the written word, ought to worship. We cannot say too little on this subject.” :slight_smile:

I used this as the epigram for a resignation letter from my first job. :slight_smile:

Mapo, have you ever heard of or read Robert Burton’s “Anatomy of Melancholy”? Labyrinthine does not even begin to decribe his style. Yet, strangely, he is a master prose writer, writing somewhat as a superbly recondite scholar might talk (were he gifted with the gab so to speak).

A sample (refering to witches):

Many will not believe they can be seen, and if any man shall say, swear and stiffly maintain though he be discreet and wise,judicious and learned, that he hath seen them, they account him a timorous fool, a melancholy dizzard, a weak fellow, a dreamer, a sick or a mad man, they contemn him, laugh him to scorn, nd yet Marcus of his credit told Psellus that he had often seen them.

Orwell is spinning in his grave. “Too many adjectives, too many images piled on top of each other. The sentence is far too long. It’s a mess. It’s a heap.” And yet, it has beauty, style and endurance.