Any difference between fried chicken and chicken fry?

[Dingbat]

People in India seem to eschew the former in favor of the latter.

The dictionary gives this as one meaning of fry:
a dish of something fried.

That would make chicken fry a dish of chicken fried.

[Peter Young]

In Indian English undoubtedly, but not in BrE.

Peter

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Os)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Peter T. Daniels]

AmE has an event called a "fish fry," where fried fish and accoutrements are
served. Compare "clambake."

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:33:04 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Young wrote:

> On 17 Feb 2016 Dingbat wrote:
>
> > People in India seem to eschew the former in favor of the latter.
>
> > The dictionary gives this as one meaning of fry:
> > a dish of something fried.
>
> > That would make chicken fry a dish of chicken fried.
>
> In Indian English undoubtedly, but not in BrE.
>

It was not an Indian English dictionary. What would Chicken fry mean in BrE? Even if no one uses it, it should mean something since the dictionary lists such a possible usage.

[GordonD]

I was going to suggest that "Chicken Fry" is a dish consisting of fried
chicken and a whole lot of other stuff as well. Not that it's a term
I've actually heard, though.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[pensive hamster]

That's what "Chicken Fry" suggests to me too, though I haven't heard
the term used either. Something like "Chicken Stir Fry", and probably
Chinesey in style.

[Lewis]

In message <0d22e455-d765-42e6...@googlegroups.com>

I've never heard "a chicken fry" but it would mean to me (AmE) an event
in which chickens were fried, because "a fry" is a gathering for the
consuming of fried foods.

However, I am reasonably sure that I've only ever encountered 'fish
fry' even though fried chicken is much more common than fried fish.

--
Varium et mutabile semper Femina.

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <slrnnc92i3....@amelia.local>,
g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies says...

In my BrE "fish fry" refers to very small/young fish.
I'm not sure how I would interpret the phrase "Chicken fry".

[Dingbat]

Thank you.

[Tony Cooper]

To amplify on that, a fish fry is usually an event where some group -
like a church - holds a fund-raising event. Members of the group do
the frying.

Individuals fry fish, but groups have fish frys.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Ross]

Surely it's time for a word from Mr Jordan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1QfXQakX2w


Now...if a steak can be "chicken-fried"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_fried_steak

could "Chicken-Fry" possibly refer to _anything_ (including
possibly chicken) which has been "chicken-fried"?

[bill van]

In article <olr9cblf3esc1u508...@4ax.com>,

I would feel compelled to change that to fish fries. Any objections?
--
bill

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:54:01 -0800, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

I debated. "Fish fries" seems to much like a item like French Fries,
so I went with "frys".

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 4:24:04 AM UTC+5:30, bill van wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:13:35 -0800 (PST), Dingbat wrote:

> > >On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:42:09 PM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:50:02 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > People in India seem to eschew the former in favor of the latter.
> > >> >
> > >> > The dictionary gives this as one meaning of fry:
> > >> > a dish of something fried.
> > >> >
> > >> > That would make chicken fry a dish of chicken fried.
> > >>
> > >> AmE has an event called a "fish fry," where fried fish and
> > >> accoutrements are served. Compare "clambake."
> > >
> > >Thank you.
> >
> > To amplify on that, a fish fry is usually an event where some group -
> > like a church - holds a fund-raising event. Members of the group do
> > the frying.
> >
> > Individuals fry fish, but groups have fish frys.
>
> I would feel compelled to change that to fish fries. Any objections?
> --
> bill

Are you asserting that a group that holds what PTD and Tony Cooper call "a fish fry" should announce a gathering for "fish fries" rather than a gathering for "a fish fry" on their bulletin board or in their newsletter?

[bill van]

In article <c556046d-c7a8-4e88...@googlegroups.com>,

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 4:24:04 AM UTC+5:30, bill van wrote:
> > Tony Cooper wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:13:35 -0800 (PST), Dingbat wrote:
> > > >On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:42:09 PM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:50:02 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > People in India seem to eschew the former in favor of the latter.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The dictionary gives this as one meaning of fry:
> > > >> > a dish of something fried.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That would make chicken fry a dish of chicken fried.
> > > >>
> > > >> AmE has an event called a "fish fry," where fried fish and
> > > >> accoutrements are served. Compare "clambake."
> > > >
> > > >Thank you.
> > >
> > > To amplify on that, a fish fry is usually an event where some group -
> > > like a church - holds a fund-raising event. Members of the group do
> > > the frying.
> > >
> > > Individuals fry fish, but groups have fish frys.
> >
> > I would feel compelled to change that to fish fries. Any objections?
>

> Are you asserting that a group that holds what PTD and Tony Cooper call "a
> fish fry" should announce a gathering for "fish fries" rather than a
> gathering for "a fish fry" on their bulletin board or in their newsletter?

Of course not. But if Tony is invited to a fish fry this Friday and
another fish fry next Saturday, is he invited to two fish frys, or two
fish fries? My spill chucker and I believe it is the latter.
--
bill

[Janet]

In article <dc82dc89-c364-40e4...@googlegroups.com>,
benl...@ihug.co.nz says...

If you google indian chicken fry, you'll see it's a term cooks in
India use for a whole group of their recipes which contain sauces,
spices, vegetables etc as well as the chicken.

Not the equivalent of br E fried fish.

Janet

[Robert Bannister]

"Salmon fry" are not fried salmon.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Ross]

A little more like a themed "fry-up"?

[RH Draney]

Or is "fish fry" perhaps one of those phrases with inverted word order,
like "attorney general" or "court martial", where the noun is the first
part and takes the plural...and since "fish" is a noun with a null
plural, Tony might be invited to two or more fish fry....r

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:54:21 AM UTC+5:30, Janet wrote:
> If you google indian chicken fry, you'll see it's a term cooks in
> India use for a whole group of their recipes which contain sauces,
> spices, vegetables etc as well as the chicken.
>
> Not the equivalent of br E fried fish.
>

The equivalent of EnUK (or KFC) fried chicken too is called chicken fry by Indians. Chicken roast in India, on the other hand, is never like what roast chicken might mean (if the term were used) in EnUK/EnUS; it's a pot roast, not a dry roast, and what makes it roast seems to be more water and less oil used in the cooking vs. the fry which uses more oil.

[Ross]

You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
Or are "EnUK" and "EnUS" obscure Uralic languages I haven't heard of?

[Fred]

Lamb's fry is common enough.

[Dingbat]

I've seen roast beef and rotisserie chicken in a store. Sure, there are ways other than a rotisserie to roast a chicken but I haven't seen such in a store.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:22:11 -0800 (PST), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

There is an organization in the US (New York City) called "The Friars
Club". It is for hams, not chickens.

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:41:24 AM UTC+5:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> There is an organization in the US (New York City) called "The Friars
> Club". It is for hams, not chickens.
>

Must be fake friars:-) A friar fries fryer and fries fry on Friday.

[Janet]

In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
benl...@ihug.co.nz says...

We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
at home). It's not fried.

We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.

Janet

[Janet]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+Indian+fish+fry&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
&gws_rd=cr&ei=bK_FVvqTLIT6ac2UkbAI

http://www.vahrehvah.com/indianfood/best-indian-fish-fry-recipes/

Nothing like what Brits mean by a fry-up.

http://www.shortlist.com/food-drink/how-to-make-the-perfect-fry-up

Janet

[Richard Tobin]

In article <f5364864-fb1f-49ce...@googlegroups.com>,

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> There is an organization in the US (New York City) called "The Friars
>> Club". It is for hams, not chickens.

>Must be fake friars:-) A friar fries fryer and fries fry on Friday.

Is the fish friar a colleague of the chip monk?

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
> benl...@ihug.co.nz says...

> > You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
>
> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
> at home). It's not fried.
>
> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.

Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.

The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."

Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
(I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant
all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'condesed'.

Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.

[CDB]

On 18/02/2016 12:40 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:

>> There is an organization in the US (New York City) called "The
>> Friars Club". It is for hams, not chickens.

> Must be fake friars:-) A friar fries fryer and fries fry on Friday.

A fraile exceedingly fried
Fell into the frier and died.
The supper burritos
Evoked devout "neat-oh"s:
Divine grease cannot be denied.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:45:32 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:

>In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
>benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
>>
>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 3:00:09 PM UTC+13, Dingbat wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:54:21 AM UTC+5:30, Janet wrote:
>> > > If you google indian chicken fry, you'll see it's a term cooks in
>> > > India use for a whole group of their recipes which contain sauces,
>> > > spices, vegetables etc as well as the chicken.
>> > >
>> > > Not the equivalent of br E fried fish.
>> > >
>> > The equivalent of EnUK (or KFC) fried chicken too is called chicken fry by Indians. Chicken roast in India, on the other hand, is never like what roast chicken might mean (if the term were used) in EnUK/EnUS; it's a pot roast, not a dry roast, and what makes it roast seems to be more water and less oil used in the cooking vs. the fry which uses more oil.
>>
>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
>
> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
>at home). It's not fried.
>

In the UK, if someone wants to have a complete roast chicken to eat they
will typically buy a raw chicken and roast it at home.

Apart from that, roast chicken is available in vaious forms in
supermarkets and convenience stores in the UK.

Search results for "roast chicken" on the Sainsbury's website:
http://tinyurl.com/jek54cb

Some of the results -

These need to be cooked in an oven:
http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/sainsburys-just-cook-chicken-breast-mini-roast-with-rich-chicken-gravy-410g

http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/roasting-joints-218916-44/sainsburys-butter-basted-stuffed-chicken-800g

The following do not need to be cooked but can be warmed -

Roast chicken fillets:
http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/sainsburys-roast-chicken-135g

Sliced roast chicken:
http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/sainsburys-roast-chicken-slices-210g

http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/sainsburys-roast-chicken-135g

> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
>different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container
>

> Janet

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

If two of the people at the fish fry have the surname "Fry" they are
"the Frys".

Is "fish fry", the event, treated as a name and therefore invariant?

[Janet]

In article <9b923a2b-75af-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

You were confused by potted shrimps, perhaps.

>
> Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.

You must be smoking one.

Janet

[Janet]

In article <na4ekt$1s75$3...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
says...

<groan>

janet

[ansp...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 9:57:10 AM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:
> In message <0d22e455-d765-42e6...@googlegroups.com>

> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:33:04 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Young wrote:

> >> On 17 Feb 2016 Dingbat wrote:
> >>
> >> > People in India seem to eschew the former in favor of the latter.
> >>
> >> > The dictionary gives this as one meaning of fry:
> >> > a dish of something fried.
> >>
> >> > That would make chicken fry a dish of chicken fried.
> >>

> >> In Indian English undoubtedly, but not in BrE.
> >>
> > It was not an Indian English dictionary. What would Chicken fry mean
> > in BrE? Even if no one uses it, it should mean something since the
> > dictionary lists such a possible usage.
>
> I've never heard "a chicken fry" but it would mean to me (AmE) an event
> in which chickens were fried, because "a fry" is a gathering for the
> consuming of fried foods.
>
> However, I am reasonably sure that I've only ever encountered 'fish
> fry' even though fried chicken is much more common than fried fish.
>

> --
> Varium et mutabile semper Femina.

In Texas, and other places in the USA, they have an event known as a
"steak fry." People gather and cook steaks, and eat them.

This is not to be confused with a particular cut of fried potatoes
known in the plural as "steak fries." They might serve those as
a side dish with the actual steak.

There are also "chicken fries," most notably from Burger King.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_fries

Essentially, chicken nuggets in a french fried potato shape.

I suppose one might say "let me have a chicken fry" if you were
mooching off your friend's lunch.

Kevin R

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:18:24 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> In article <9b923a2b-75af-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
> gram...@verizon.net says...
> >
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > > In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
> >
> > > > You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
> > >
> > > We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
> > > at home). It's not fried.
> > >
> > > We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
> > > different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
> >
> > Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
> > with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
> >
> > The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
> >
> > Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
> > (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant

> > all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'conde[n]sed'.

>
> You were confused by potted shrimps, perhaps.

Don't know what those are. Especially since you call them "prawns," no?

> > Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.
>
> You must be smoking one.

I'm sorry that you're more unfamiliar with American usage than I am with British.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:47:16 AM UTC-5, ansp...@gmail.com wrote:

> There are also "chicken fries," most notably from Burger King.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_fries
>
> Essentially, chicken nuggets in a french fried potato shape.

The point is, those _aren't_ nuggets (which they also have, 10 for $1.49 on
special), but strips of breast cooked _nuggetoise_. Others call them "chicken
fingers," but BK perhaps sought to avoid the jokes.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:38:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:18:24 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>> In article <9b923a2b-75af-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
>> gram...@verizon.net says...
>> >
>> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>> > > In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
>> >
>> > > > You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
>> > >
>> > > We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
>> > > at home). It's not fried.
>> > >
>> > > We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
>> > > different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
>> >
>> > Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
>> > with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
>> >
>> > The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
>> >
>> > Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
>> > (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant
>> > all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'conde[n]sed'.
>>
>> You were confused by potted shrimps, perhaps.
>
>Don't know what those are. Especially since you call them "prawns," no?

No. We have both shrimps and prawns in Br&IrE. They are similar and
related but "shrimp" is used for smaller beasties and "prawn" for
larger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawn

Prawn is a common name, used particularly in the United Kingdom,
Ireland, and Commonwealth nations, for large swimming crustaceans or
shrimp, especially those with commercial significance in the seafood
industry. Shrimp that fall in this category often belong to the
suborder Dendrobranchiata. In North America, the term is used less
frequently, typically for freshwater shrimp.

In the United Kingdom, prawn is more common on menus than shrimp,
while the opposite is the case in the United States. The term prawn
also loosely describes any large shrimp, especially those at 15 (or
fewer) to the pound (such as king prawns or jumbo shrimp).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp#Shrimp_versus_prawn

The terms shrimp and prawn are common names, not scientific names.
They are vernacular or colloquial terms which lack the formal
definition of scientific terms. They are not taxa, but are terms of
convenience with little circumscriptional significance. There is no
reason to avoid using the terms shrimp or prawn when convenient, but
it is important not to confuse them with the names or relationships
of actual taxa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawn#Prawn_versus_shrimp

>
>> > Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.
>>
>> You must be smoking one.
>
>I'm sorry that you're more unfamiliar with American usage than I am with British.

[Katy Jennison]

What are you on about now? You don't know that we call the little ones
shrimps and the bigger ones prawns; you don't know what "potted shrimps"
are, and you don't bother to look them up; and you don't know that a
joint (of meat) is a term that's perfectly alive and well in Brit-land;
and yet you think you know our language better than we know yours??

--
Katy Jennison

[ansp...@gmail.com]

We in the USA use "fish sticks" in preference to "fish fingers,"
so chicken sticks , or even chicken stix, would be more likely.

http://www.google.com/#q=%22chicken+stix%22

There is the "chicken tender," which has always conjured up for
me images of Col. Sanders branching out and starting a naval service.
Make a ship-to-shore phone call, and a KFC chicken tender will
tie up at your cabin cruiser and deliver a bucket and sides. :)

Kevin R

[Janet]

In article <9a41d41d-f1d9-4b12...@googlegroups.com>,

gram...@verizon.net says...
>
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:18:24 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > In article <9b923a2b-75af-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
> > gram...@verizon.net says...
> > >
> > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > > > In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
> > >
> > > > > You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
> > > >
> > > > We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
> > > > at home). It's not fried.
> > > >
> > > > We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
> > > > different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
> > >
> > > Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
> > > with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
> > >
> > > The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
> > >
> > > Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
> > > (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant
> > > all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'conde[n]sed'.
> >
> > You were confused by potted shrimps, perhaps.
>
> Don't know what those are. Especially since you call them "prawns," no?

No. That's why I said shrimps, not prawns.

http://www.booths.co.uk/producer/forgotten-foods-morecambe-bay-potted-
shrimps/

Janet.

[RH Draney]

On 2/18/2016 6:19 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>>
>> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
>> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
>
> Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
> with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
>
> The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."

Not to be confused with "chicken pot pie"....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Was it "unfamiliar" that was unfamiliar to you?

You questioned my assertion that "joint" is not used that way in AmE.

I guess the folks in Britcoms never encounter "the little ones."

[Peter T. Daniels]

"forgotten foods"

Since I've never encountered "potted shrimps" (seems like a horrible thing
to do to shrimp* [mass noun]), how could I have been "confused" by them?

*"dippy toast"???

[Peter T. Daniels]

mmmm ... chicken pot pie ...

[Katy Jennison]

Er, no. You responded to Janet's use of "joint" by claiming that it was
only used in Dickens. That's why I was careful to say that, on the
contrary, it is still used in present-day BrE. I said nothing about AmE.


--
Katy Jennison

[Peter T. Daniels]

Absolutely nothing I said can be construed that way.

> That's why I was careful to say that, on the
> contrary, it is still used in present-day BrE. I said nothing about AmE.

No, I said that AFAAmEIC, it's a Dickens word.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <f5364864-fb1f-49ce...@googlegroups.com>,
Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The Great Race:

"He escaped with a chicken?!"

--
charles

[Robert Bannister]

On 18/02/2016 10:39 am, Fred wrote:

> On 18/02/2016 3:54 a.m., Lewis wrote:
>> In message <0d22e455-d765-42e6...@googlegroups.com>
>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:33:04 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Young
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 17 Feb 2016 Dingbat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> People in India seem to eschew the former in favor of the latter.
>>>>
>>>>> The dictionary gives this as one meaning of fry:
>>>>> a dish of something fried.
>>>>
>>>>> That would make chicken fry a dish of chicken fried.
>>>>
>>>> In Indian English undoubtedly, but not in BrE.
>>>>
>>> It was not an Indian English dictionary. What would Chicken fry mean
>>> in BrE? Even if no one uses it, it should mean something since the
>>> dictionary lists such a possible usage.
>>
>> I've never heard "a chicken fry" but it would mean to me (AmE) an event
>> in which chickens were fried, because "a fry" is a gathering for the
>> consuming of fried foods.
>>
>> However, I am reasonably sure that I've only ever encountered 'fish
>> fry' even though fried chicken is much more common than fried fish.
>>

> Lamb's fry is common enough.

I thought that was a strictly Australian term. I doubt it would be
understood in the UK.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

How would we translate "roast joint" into AmE?

[Dingbat]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:26:22 AM UTC+5:30, Charles Bishop wrote:

> Dingbat wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:41:24 AM UTC+5:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > > There is an organization in the US (New York City) called "The Friars
> > > Club". It is for hams, not chickens.
> > >
> > Must be fake friars:-) A friar fries fryer and fries fry on Friday.
>
> The Great Race:
> "He escaped with a chicken?!"
>

For the edification of those who haven't watched the movie:
Professor Fate: Escaped?
General Kushter: With a small friar.
Professor Fate: Leslie escaped with a chicken?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Great_Race

In funnies, Dick Dastardly is similar to Professor Fate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Dastardly

[Dingbat]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:18:20 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 18/02/2016 9:19 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:

> >> benlizro says...

> >
> >>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
> >>

My observation was restricted to a store; I saw only "Rotisserie" and not "Roast" chicken for sale.

>
> >> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
> >> at home). It's not fried.
> >>
> >> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
> >> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
> >
> > Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
> > with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
> >
> > The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
> >
> > Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
> > (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant
> > all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'condesed'.
> >
> > Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.
> >
> How would we translate "roast joint" into AmE?
>

Roast dive:-)

Joint/ dive:
A run down/ cheap/ unclean restaurant or hotel.

How would you translate "Let's split this joint" to EnUK?

P.S. It's a pun; if you can't keep it that way, you need more than one translation.

[David Kleinecke]

Just day before yesterday I ate a Hangtown Fry.

[Fred]

Certainly common in New Zealand but it might be not as widely known
outside Australasia, although I note Jamie Oliver has a recipe for it,
so I suppose it's known to some degree in the U.K.

[Peter T. Daniels]

"A roast," I think. (It doesn't refer to an actual osseous articulation, does it?)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:00:05 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> > >> benlizro says...

> > >>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
>
> My observation was restricted to a store; I saw only "Rotisserie" and not "Roast" chicken for sale.

A rotisserie chicken is roasted on a rotating spit, and the excess fat mostly
drips off. A roast chicken sits in a roasting pan, like a roast turkey,
probably on a wire rack or grille so the fat drips to the bottom, to be
incorporated (in part) into the gravy.

[Dingbat]

Sure it's roasted; all I was saying was that I didn't see the word <roasted> used to describe it.

[RH Draney]

On 2/18/2016 5:51 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:26:22 AM UTC+5:30, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> Dingbat wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:41:24 AM UTC+5:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is an organization in the US (New York City) called "The Friars
>>>> Club". It is for hams, not chickens.
>>>>
>>> Must be fake friars:-) A friar fries fryer and fries fry on Friday.
>>
>> The Great Race:
>> "He escaped with a chicken?!"
>>
> For the edification of those who haven't watched the movie:
> Professor Fate: Escaped?
> General Kushter: With a small friar.
> Professor Fate: Leslie escaped with a chicken?

There's also the Kliban (?) cartoon showing a horde of barbarians
running amok, with one in the foreground calmly holding a chicken under
his arm, and a second (his commander, one assumes) berating him: "You
call that pillage?! A *chicken* is pillage?!"...r

[Snidely]

After serious thinking Peter T. Daniels wrote :

That was my reading, but I think I've also run into the word in DE
Stevenson novels, or maybe Elizabeth Goudge. But I could be confused,
because I also read a lot Georgette Heyer, and the vocabulary there is
pre-Dickensian (or at least the dialog is).

/dps

--
Trust, but verify.

[Snidely]

Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen:

Just as a "roast", probably. Pot roast is the tough cut that needs to
simmer a lot, rump roast is something else (I think the obvious one,
off the top of the bovine rear end, roughly mapping to human buttocks).
We do speak of leg of lamb or (steering back to beef) shoulder cuts,
but "joint" isn't as common a term here.

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

[Snidely]

On Thursday, Peter T. Daniels queried:

seconded

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

[Janet]

In article <f46c9df1-efd9-4be7...@googlegroups.com>,

More likely, your ludicrous assertion that "joint" is a Dickens word.

Janet

[Katy Jennison]

Indeed it does. A whole chicken is not a joint. A leg of lamb is.

To be fair, "joint" is also used these days of a large piece of meat
(which will be carved after it's cooked, and serve several people) from
which the bone has been removed. Google "joint of beef", for instance.

It's much older than Dickens, by the way. The OED offers:

1576 G. Gascoigne Hundred Flowers in Wks. (1587) 40 An olde
frutedish is bigge ynough to hold a ioynte of meate.
1592 T. Nashe Pierce Penilesse (Brit. Libr. copy) sig. G, There
being one ioynt of flesh on the table.


--
Katy Jennison

[Janet]

In article <382cefa0-057e-4025...@googlegroups.com>,

Not by me

>
> Since I've never encountered "potted shrimps" (seems like a horrible thing
> to do to shrimp* [mass noun]), how could I have been "confused" by >
them?

You've been confused by potted chicken, so why not shrimps?

Potted shrimps are rather like potted history; something from the past
that's been all mixed up, confused and condensed into something small,
much appreciated by the cognoscenti.

Janet.

[Janet]

In article <din6m7...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

yes it is; lamb offal has always been popular here

www.simplybeefandlamb.co.uk/sites/default/files/OffalGuide.pdf

Janet.

[ansp...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:40:20 AM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:
> On 19/02/2016 04:21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:48:20 PM UTC-5, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> On 18/02/2016 9:19 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> >>>> In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
> >
> >>>>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
> >>>> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
> >>>> at home). It's not fried.

Ever see thus credit on a film: "A Spike Lee Joint."

"Joint" is also used for a musical sound recording,
much like a "cut" or "track" from an album.

Kevin R

[Janet]

In article <mn.98557e027f5538ef.127094@snitoo>, snide...@gmail.com
says...

In UK we still have butcher shops which buy beef pork and lamb on
the carcase, the customer can ask for a specific cut prepared to their
requirements. Roasting joints of beef from different carcase areas;

http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/stories/the-best-cuts-for-roasting-
beef-plus-tips-on-how-to-do-it/


Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

No, you said you didn't see <roast>.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Oo, two more names I never heard of and don't care about that Tony Cooper
can look up for me! (I wonder whether he can figure out which one of the
three I _have_ heard of.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

So now you're claiming that "joint" does NOT occur in Dickens???

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:40:20 AM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:

> On 19/02/2016 04:21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:48:20 PM UTC-5, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> On 18/02/2016 9:19 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> >>>> In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz says...

> >>>>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
> >>>> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
> >>>> at home). It's not fried.
> >>>> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
> >>>> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
> >>> Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
> >>> with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
> >>> The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
> >>> Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
> >>> (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant
> >>> all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'condesed'.
> >>> Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.
> >> How would we translate "roast joint" into AmE?
> > "A roast," I think. (It doesn't refer to an actual osseous articulation, does it?)
>
> Indeed it does. A whole chicken is not a joint. A leg of lamb is.

Someone above mentioned "chicken."

Do you serve the pastern (or whatever that word was that got Dr. Johnson
in trouble) as part of a "leg of lamb"?

> To be fair, "joint" is also used these days of a large piece of meat
> (which will be carved after it's cooked, and serve several people) from
> which the bone has been removed. Google "joint of beef", for instance.

In that case, there's _definitely_ no joint involved.

> It's much older than Dickens, by the way. The OED offers:
>
> 1576 G. Gascoigne Hundred Flowers in Wks. (1587) 40 An olde
> frutedish is bigge ynough to hold a ioynte of meate.
> 1592 T. Nashe Pierce Penilesse (Brit. Libr. copy) sig. G, There
> being one ioynt of flesh on the table.

In fact we don't regularly read Gascoigne or Nashe, either. Nor Thackeray.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:50:44 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> In article <382cefa0-057e-4025...@googlegroups.com>,
> gram...@verizon.net says...

> > Since I've never encountered "potted shrimps" (seems like a horrible thing
> > to do to shrimp* [mass noun]), how could I have been "confused" by >
> them?
>
> You've been confused by potted chicken, so why not shrimps?

Because, as I patiently explain again, I have never heard of them.
Potted chicken, OTOH, is something my grandmother would make.

> Potted shrimps are rather like potted history; something from the past
> that's been all mixed up, confused and condensed into something small,
> much appreciated by the cognoscenti.

So "potted history" _is_ an insult after all? Even though I've seen '
it used neutrally, as perhaps in publishers' advertisements or in
reviews in the TLS? "All mixed up, confused" is not a nice thing to say
about a book.

[CDB]

On 19/02/2016 1:35 AM, RH Draney wrote:

> Dingbat wrote:
>> Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> Dingbat wrote:
>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:

>>>>> There is an organization in the US (New York City) called
>>>>> "The Friars Club". It is for hams, not chickens.

After dinner, AIUI. They tuck in first.

>>>> Must be fake friars:-) A friar fries fryer and fries fry on
>>>> Friday.

>>> The Great Race: "He escaped with a chicken?!"

>> For the edification of those who haven't watched the movie:
>> Professor Fate: Escaped? General Kushter: With a small friar.
>> Professor Fate: Leslie escaped with a chicken?

> There's also the Kliban (?) cartoon showing a horde of barbarians
> running amok, with one in the foreground calmly holding a chicken
> under his arm, and a second (his commander, one assumes) berating
> him: "You call that pillage?! A *chicken* is pillage?!"...r

It isn't in one of his collections; I think I've got all of those.

Larsen?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That's not my understanding.

You said "No, I said that AFAAmEIC, it's a Dickens word."

That seems to suggests a word that occurs only or mainly in Dickens
rather than having much wider currency in BrE, both then and now.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

To me, it can be used as an insult, but is not necessarily one.

[Peter T. Daniels]

You understand "AFAIC," right? You understand "AmE," right? So there should
be no problem with "As Far As American English Is Concerned," right? The
most likely place an American would encounter "joint" is in Dickens. Probably
in *A Christmas Carol*. Probably in one of the gazillion British movies of it.
But probably not in any of the umpteen American movies of it.

Unlike Tony Cooper, most Americans do not spend their days enrapt in BBC
America, absorbing Briticisms with their morning crumpets.

[CDB]

On 19/02/2016 9:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> PeterWD wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>> Janet wrote:
>>>> gram...@verizon.net says...
>>>>> Katy Jennison wrote:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> Janet wrote:
>>>>>>>> gram...@verizon.net says...
>>>>>>>>> Janet wrote:,

What you said first was 'Of course we don't say "joint." That's a
Dickens word.' I suspect that was what people were reacting to.

You can check for yourself; it's near the top of this page.

> Unlike Tony Cooper, most Americans do not spend their days enrapt in
> BBC America, absorbing Briticisms with their morning crumpets.

That's one reason we like him.

[James Hogg]

It's by Kliban but he didn't want to say he saw it in Playboy.

--
James

[LFS]

On 18/02/2016 14:36, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:37:17 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2016 5:10 PM, bill van wrote:
>>> In article <c556046d-c7a8-4e88...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 4:24:04 AM UTC+5:30, bill van wrote:
>>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Individuals fry fish, but groups have fish frys.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would feel compelled to change that to fish fries. Any objections?
>>>>
>>>> Are you asserting that a group that holds what PTD and Tony Cooper call "a
>>>> fish fry" should announce a gathering for "fish fries" rather than a
>>>> gathering for "a fish fry" on their bulletin board or in their newsletter?
>>>
>>> Of course not. But if Tony is invited to a fish fry this Friday and
>>> another fish fry next Saturday, is he invited to two fish frys, or two
>>> fish fries? My spill chucker and I believe it is the latter.
>>
>> Or is "fish fry" perhaps one of those phrases with inverted word order,
>> like "attorney general" or "court martial", where the noun is the first
>> part and takes the plural...and since "fish" is a noun with a null
>> plural, Tony might be invited to two or more fish fry....r
>
> If two of the people at the fish fry have the surname "Fry" they are
> "the Frys".
>
> Is "fish fry", the event, treated as a name and therefore invariant?
>

Just to confuse the issue, fish fry are baby fish, shirley?

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[ansp...@gmail.com]

I expect many people learned the idiom "small fry" without
ever learning about the tiny fish.

http://disappearingidioms.com/small-fry/ is a fun comment on the term.

Kevin R

[Janet]

In article <6fbe1c7e-b0b3-4702...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

>
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:50:44 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > In article <382cefa0-057e-4025...@googlegroups.com>,
> > gram...@verizon.net says...
>
> > > Since I've never encountered "potted shrimps" (seems like a horrible thing
> > > to do to shrimp* [mass noun]), how could I have been "confused" by >
> > them?
> >
> > You've been confused by potted chicken, so why not shrimps?
>
> Because, as I patiently explain again, I have never heard of them.

So now you're confused about Dickens, chickens, shrimps, prawns,
pancakes, crepes and roast joints.

> > Potted shrimps are rather like potted history; something from the
past
> > that's been all mixed up, confused and condensed into something small,
> > much appreciated by the cognoscenti.
>
> So "potted history" _is_ an insult after all? Even though I've seen '
> it used neutrally, as perhaps in publishers' advertisements or in
> reviews in the TLS? "All mixed up, confused" is not a nice thing to say
> about a book.

Is it true that some Texas schools use potty history books?

Janet.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Linguistician PeteY "Herpes" Daniels wrote:

>
> Janet wrote:
>>
>> More likely, your ludicrous assertion that "joint" is a Dickens word.
>>
> So now you're claiming that "joint" does NOT occur in Dickens???
>

Typical PeteY Daniels. What an unbearable asshole.

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[Peter T. Daniels]

That is what I said, and that is what I meant, and the inferences that that
statement said anything at all concerning British usage are absurd.

[RH Draney]

I'd've had no trouble admitting it if I had in fact remembered it...as
it was I couldn't be sure it wasn't one of Revilo's or Barsotti's
instead....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

I thought James was saying that Kliban omitted the cartoon from all his
collections because he (Kliban) didn't want it generally known that he
was published in the formerly salacious magazine *Playboy* (which now
_will_ be read for the articles).

[James Hogg]

I think I still have it somewhere among my cartoon collection. I'll see
if I can dig it out tomorrow.

--
James

[Robert Bannister]

Of course, "liver and onions", "liver and bacon" or just "liver" usually
(though not always) referred to lambs liver, but I never heard the
phrase "lamb's fry" while I lived in England. I understood it was used
Down Under because butchers had discovered that the word "liver" was too
off-putting. It used to be dirt cheap here too when I arrived, but the
price has gone up a bit since.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/02/2016 9:10 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> So "potted history" _is_ an insult after all? Even though I've seen '
> it used neutrally, as perhaps in publishers' advertisements or in
> reviews in the TLS? "All mixed up, confused" is not a nice thing to say
> about a book.
>

I think it's true to say that "potted history" could be insulting in the
same way that "Readers Digest" can be insulting, but I don't think a
"potted" or condensed version of anything needs to be so. It's all a
question of context and how it's used.

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/02/2016 9:00 am, Dingbat wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:18:20 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Bannister wrote:

>> On 18/02/2016 9:19 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:

>>>> benlizro says...

>>>
>>>>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
>>>>

> My observation was restricted to a store; I saw only "Rotisserie" and not "Roast" chicken for sale.
>>

>>>> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
>>>> at home). It's not fried.
>>>>
>>>> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
>>>> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
>>>
>>> Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
>>> with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
>>>
>>> The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
>>>
>>> Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
>>> (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant

>>> all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'condesed'.

>>>
>>> Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.
>>>

>> How would we translate "roast joint" into AmE?
>>

> Roast dive:-)
>
> Joint/ dive:
> A run down/ cheap/ unclean restaurant or hotel.
>
> How would you translate "Let's split this joint" to EnUK?

"I've got some cigarette papers. Let's cut this marijuana cigarette in
half and make two joints out of it". OK, I know it also means, "Let's
leave this [possibly unsavoury] place".

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/02/2016 12:53 pm, Dingbat wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:54:13 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:00:05 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
>>>>>> benlizro says...
>>
>>>>>>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast chicken"??
>>>
>>> My observation was restricted to a store; I saw only "Rotisserie" and not "Roast" chicken for sale.
>>

>> A rotisserie chicken is roasted on a rotating spit, and the excess fat mostly
>> drips off. A roast chicken sits in a roasting pan, like a roast turkey,
>> probably on a wire rack or grille so the fat drips to the bottom, to be
>> incorporated (in part) into the gravy.
>
> Sure it's roasted; all I was saying was that I didn't see the word <roasted> used to describe it.
>

My local supermarket doesn't use any of those words. It used to
advertise "Hot Chicken", but now it's just "Chicken only $8" and you are
expected to deduce that have been cooked in some way, which is not
immediately obvious since each chook sits in a sort of plastic handbag.

[Robin Bignall]

During the war we'd have had to become vegetarians, or starve, if it
hadn't been for offal.

--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/02/2016 5:26 pm, Snidely wrote:
> On Thursday, Peter T. Daniels queried:
>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:48:20 PM UTC-5, Robert Bannister

>> wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2016 9:19 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:

>>>>> In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz says...

>>
>>>>>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast
>>>>>> chicken"??

>>>>> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the
>>>>> oven
>>>>> at home). It's not fried.
>>>>> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
>>>>> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
>>>> Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
>>>> with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
>>>> The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
>>>> Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many
>>>> years
>>>> (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant
>>>> all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'condesed'.
>>>> Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.
>>>
>>> How would we translate "roast joint" into AmE?
>>

>> "A roast," I think. (It doesn't refer to an actual osseous
>> articulation, does it?)
>

> seconded

The relationship between "joint" = wrist, elbow, ankle, etc. and a piece
of meat ready to go in the oven used to puzzle me when I was a boy, and
it is true that an English "joint" doesn't necessarily even contain a
single bone.

Your translation of "roast joint", therefore, seems fine, but what would
you call a "joint" before it is cooked? Would you have to stipulate
exactly which part of the animal it was?

[Janet]

In article <dipof0...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

My grandmother cooked lamb fries, sweetbreads and hearts for economy
sake. My mother cooked lamb liver, and kidney(ox)tongue and tripe
because she liked them. I cooked tongue when the children were at home
(rather too large just for two of us) but I still cook lamb kidney and
liver, haggis which contains sheeps heart liver and lungs, and ox tail.

Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

We never had anything but calves` liver.

[Dingbat]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:51:03 PM UTC+5:30, ansp...@gmail.com

>
> I expect many people learned the idiom "small fry" without

> ever learning they are little fish.
>
Yea, they don't know big fish are no fishier than small fry:-)

>
> http://disappearingidioms.com/small-fry/ is a fun comment on the term.
>

Pismire can be an uncomplimentary epithet, but it's not so in Proverbs 6:6 where the pismire (i.e, the ant) is upheld as an epitome of industriousness, to men inclined to laziness.

Go to the pismire, O sluggard: behold her ways - Geneva Bible (1599)

[Snidely]

Janet formulated the question :

Looks like they left the 'r' on your keyboard, but the ',' is fading
away.

>> I understood it was used

[Broken quote repaired]

>> Down Under because butchers had discovered that the word "liver" was too
>> off-putting. It used to be dirt cheap here too when I arrived, but the
>> price has gone up a bit since.

/dps "can't fix my own mistakes, though"

--
Trust, but verify.

[Snidely]

Peter T. Daniels noted that:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:20:52 AM UTC-5, Snidely wrote:
>> After serious thinking Peter T. Daniels wrote :
>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:49:38 PM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:

>>>> On 18/02/2016 22:21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:35:52 PM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:

>>>>>> On 18/02/2016 16:38, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:18:24 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <9b923a2b-75af-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>> gram...@verizon.net says...

>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast
>>>>>>>>>>> chicken"??
>>>>>>>>>> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the
>>>>>>>>>> oven at home). It's not fried.
>>>>>>>>>> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
>>>>>>>>>> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
>>>>>>>>> Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
>>>>>>>>> with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
>>>>>>>>> The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
>>>>>>>>> Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many
>>>>>>>>> years (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it
>>>>>>>>> meant all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means

>>>>>>>>> 'conde[n]sed'.
>>>>>>>> You were confused by potted shrimps, perhaps. Don't know what
>>>>>>>> those are. Especially since you call them "prawns," no?

>>>>>>>>> Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.

>>>>>>>> You must be smoking one.
>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you're more unfamiliar with American usage than I am
>>>>>>> with British.
>>>>>> What are you on about now? You don't know that we call the little ones
>>>>>> shrimps and the bigger ones prawns; you don't know what "potted shrimps"
>>>>>> are, and you don't bother to look them up; and you don't know that a
>>>>>> joint (of meat) is a term that's perfectly alive and well in Brit-land;
>>>>>> and yet you think you know our language better than we know yours??
>>>>> Was it "unfamiliar" that was unfamiliar to you?
>>>>> You questioned my assertion that "joint" is not used that way in AmE.

>>>> Er, no. You responded to Janet's use of "joint" by claiming that it was
>>>> only used in Dickens. Absolutely nothing I said can be construed that
>>>> way. That's why I was careful to say that, on the
>>>> contrary, it is still used in present-day BrE. I said nothing about AmE.

>>> No, I said that AFAAmEIC, it's a Dickens word.
>>

>> That was my reading, but I think I've also run into the word in DE
>> Stevenson novels, or maybe Elizabeth Goudge. But I could be confused,
>> because I also read a lot Georgette Heyer, and the vocabulary there is
>> pre-Dickensian (or at least the dialog is).
>
> Oo, two more names I never heard of and don't care about that Tony Cooper
> can look up for me! (I wonder whether he can figure out which one of the
> three I _have_ heard of.)

I don't care what you don't care about.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Snidely]

Janet used thar keyboard to writen:
> In article <mn.98557e027f5538ef.127094@snitoo>, snide...@gmail.com
> says...
>>
>> Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen:

>>> On 18/02/2016 9:19 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>>>>> In article <cf96d82a-1509-431c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying En speakers in US and UK don't use the term "roast
>>>>>> chicken"??
>>>>>
>>>>> We do; we made roast chicken for lunch yesterday (roasted in the oven
>>>>> at home). It's not fried.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also use the term pot roast for a bird or beef joint cooked a
>>>>> different way, sitting in liquid in a closed container.
>>>>
>>>> Our pot roast is a (cheap) cut of beef, probably tied into a cylinder
>>>> with string, in my yout' cooked in a pressure cooker.
>>>>
>>>> The fowl equivalent is "potted chicken."
>>>>
>>>> Which is why your expression "potted history" confused me for many years
>>>> (I think I first saw it on *1066 and All That*); I thought it meant

>>>> all mixed up and confused, but it turns out it just means 'condesed'.

>>>>
>>>> Of course we don't say "joint." That's a Dickens word.
>>>>

>>> How would we translate "roast joint" into AmE?
>>

>> Just as a "roast", probably. Pot roast is the tough cut that needs to
>> simmer a lot, rump roast is something else (I think the obvious one,
>> off the top of the bovine rear end, roughly mapping to human buttocks).
>> We do speak of leg of lamb or (steering back to beef) shoulder cuts,
>> but "joint" isn't as common a term here.
>
> In UK we still have butcher shops which buy beef pork and lamb on
> the carcase, the customer can ask for a specific cut prepared to their
> requirements. Roasting joints of beef from different carcase areas;
>
> http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/stories/the-best-cuts-for-roasting-
> beef-plus-tips-on-how-to-do-it/
>

We have butcher shops, too. These days mainly for the shoppers who
want to pay a premium for the extra choice.

Larger supermarkets still have real butchers, too, even though the
Front Office types prefer to have the chop job done by underpaid people
in West Kansas.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

[Snidely]

Janet is guilty of <MPG.31310c7...@news.individual.net> as of
2/19/2016 3:27:27 AM

> <URL:http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/stories/the-best-cuts-for-roas
ting- beef-plus-tips-on-how-to-do-it/>
[Attempted repair of URL wrap]


I think this is typical of American charts:
<URL:https://thefoodsnobuk.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/image143.jpg>

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The cut of meat that is most obviously "a joint" that comes to mind is
"a shoulder of lamb". Then there is a "knuckle".

I wonder whether the use of "joint" has been extended to include the
meat from a joint that has had the bone removed, and to a "shank" (the
leg between knee and ankle) with or without bone.

Is the distinction now between a joint which is a complete lump of meat
from part of a limb which is cooked "as is", and meat which is cut into
smaller sections before being cooked?

This says:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/joint

joint noun [C] (MEAT)

a large piece of meat that is cooked in one piece:
"a joint of beef/pork"

a piece of meat for cooking, usually containing a bone:
"Fry four chicken joints in a pan with some mushrooms and garlic."