Sorry, but Jelly and Jello again
Caps
news server and those aren't on topic.
Just want to synchronize the idea,
Jelly is the word for that kind of stuff.
All jellies are gels, but the word gel is not used for this
food.
Jello (Actually Jell-O) is a brand name for one kind of
jellies.
Calling jellies "Jell-O" at cafeteria isn't correct when a
person isn't sure if its brand is Jell-O. Instead, he
should say "jelly".
R Fontana
No, this is not true for American usage though it may be true elsewhere.
No one calls jello "jelly", and no one cares what brand name jello is when
deciding what to call it. No one here thinks of jello as jelly or a kind
of jelly.
Bob Cunningham
said:
[...]
>> Calling jellies "Jell-O" at cafeteria isn't correct when a
>> person isn't sure if its brand is Jell-O. Instead, he
>> should say "jelly".
>No, this is not true for American usage though it may be true elsewhere.
>No one calls jello "jelly", and no one cares what brand name jello is when
>deciding what to call it. No one here thinks of jello as jelly or a kind
>of jelly.
You put Jell-O in a dish and eat it with a spoon. You spread jelly on
bread. Anyway, that's true in the US. British dictionaries seem to
suggest that jelly can also be eaten with a spoon. To me that would
be like eating a bowl of granulated sugar with a spoon.
"Jell-O" is a trademark, so it should never be written uncapitalized.
However, the entry in _The New Oxford Dictionary of English_ (_NODE_)
is thought-provoking, in that it has for the main entry:
jello (also trademark Jell-O)
This implies that you can drop the hyphen and become free of the
trademark restriction. This leads me to wonder if I can insert a
hyphen in any trademark name and thereby cause it to no longer be a
trademark. "xe-rox"? "pola-roid"? "ko-dak"? Doesn't seem right to
be able to do that.
_NODE_ reminds me that Jell-O is prepared from a powder. That is, you
buy a package of Jell-O powder, mix it with water -- and possibly
mixed fruit, put it in the refrigerator, and wait for it to gel.
_The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ (_NSOED_) also has "jello"
and "Jell-O". But the best part of the _NSOED_ entry is the usage
example:
_Black Scholar_ Her firm young breasts quivering like a
dish of molded jello.
Makes me wonder if a less-prurient lexicographer would have chosen a
blander example.
Interesting to see, _The Chambers Dictionary_ (1993) says that "jello"
was "formerly a trademark", but they say nothing about "Jell-O". Does
this imply that the proprietors of the name "Jell-O" have been able to
make it remain a trademark, but not "jello"?
Idle thought: If I can change a trademark into a generic by removing
a hyphen, and if someone has taken care to register a capitalized word
as a trademark, why can't I make it generic simply by uncapitalizing
it? If I want to register a trademark, like "Xerox", would it be wise
to also register "xerox"? Is there a lawyer in the house?
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
I before E except after C, unless:
a. E precedes I and does not follow C, or
b. I precedes E and follows C.
-- Woody Wordpecker
Alan Jones
"Bob Cunningham" <malgran...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:llcl8t8ulm3cvb33b...@4ax.com...
[much snipped]
> _NODE_ reminds me that Jell-O is prepared from a powder. That is, you
> buy a package of Jell-O powder, mix it with water -- and possibly
> mixed fruit, put it in the refrigerator, and wait for it to gel.
Then UK jelly (as a wobbly dessert, not a pulpless jam) is not the same as US
Jell-O/jello. The UK version comes as a very stiff, rubbery block, divided
into cubes which are not quite separated as packed. You tear the required
number of cubes apart (an extra one may be needed to pacify any watching
child as a stop-gap sweetie) and put them into a bowl, adding the prescibed
amount of hot (?boiling) water. Stir until the cubes finally dissolve; wait
until set. (The purist will naturally prefer to use gelatin[e] dissolved in
real fruit juice, wine etc, as liked.)
There is a powdered kind of "jelly", sold in smaller quantities for making a
jellified glaze for fresh-fruit tarts and the like.
Alan Jones
Spehro Pefhany
> Idle thought: If I can change a trademark into a generic by removing
> a hyphen, and if someone has taken care to register a capitalized word
> as a trademark, why can't I make it generic simply by uncapitalizing
> it? If I want to register a trademark, like "Xerox", would it be wise
> to also register "xerox"? Is there a lawyer in the house?
I'd also like to know this. I do know that a fellow here in Ontario was
unable to register the company name "Hi-Res" (computer graphics hardware),
because it would infringe on the trademark owned by Cadbury-Schweppes.
Best regards,
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Contributions invited->The AVR-gcc FAQ is at: http://www.BlueCollarLinux.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Donna Richoux
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:59:15 -0500, R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu>
> said:
>
> "Jell-O" is a trademark, so it should never be written uncapitalized.
> However, the entry in _The New Oxford Dictionary of English_ (_NODE_)
> is thought-provoking, in that it has for the main entry:
>
> jello (also trademark Jell-O)
>
> This implies that you can drop the hyphen and become free of the
> trademark restriction.
Well, it means that NODE thinks that "jello" has become a word in its
own right, a generic term. People are free to write and spell however
they like. There's no criminal penalty involved in putting "jello" into
your personal writing. It's when someone starts putting "jello" or
"Jell-o" or "Jel-lo" or "Jillo" or "Jelilo" on the labels of food
products that they manufacture, hoping to fool the customer into
thinking that this is really a General Foods Jell-o product, that
General Foods gets mad and prosecutes them for trademark infringement.
I have read up a small amount about trademark law in the past year or
two, trying to understand where these lines are drawn. The Nolo Law
Center has some very good explanations, such as these links and related:
http://www.nolo.com?a=goto00000311000/encyclopedia/tc_ency.html#Subtopic
71
http://www.nolo.com?a=goto00000311000/encyclopedia/articles/tc/PCT27.HTM
L
Unfortunately, their Dictionary section doesn't seem to be working
today. That's the part where Nolo does the best job, in my opinion, of
explaining how trademarks must not "confuse" the customer (all these
terms are defined, what it means to confuse, what it means to be
distinctive, what is infringement, etc). Maybe another time.
Now, if you wanted to register the trademark of Jello welding tools or
Jello mousetraps, you quite likely would be allowed because the line of
business is so different from General Foods' products. However...
apparently the ins and outs of choosing an acceptable name can get
complicated, and someone truly going into business should probably pay
for top-notch advice.
>This leads me to wonder if I can insert a
> hyphen in any trademark name and thereby cause it to no longer be a
> trademark. "xe-rox"? "pola-roid"? "ko-dak"? Doesn't seem right to
> be able to do that.
If you tried to register a trademark that could easily be confused with
an existing trademark -- whether by little changes you describe, a
hyphen or a capital letter, or changing a single letter, or even more
changes -- you would almost certainly not be approved. If somehow you
got it approved, I imagine this would be challenged as trademark
infringement (*) by the prior owner.
(*) I am not a lawyer, and there are probably lots of fine points here
that I could be corrected on, like the exact way you would get in
trouble for trying to establish a trademark that was too much like
another trademark.
> If I want to register a trademark, like "Xerox", would it be wise
> to also register "xerox"? Is there a lawyer in the house?
What you register is the name you are going to use. The nature of
trademark law itself prevents other people from taking on similar names,
in the same line of business.
Now, there's an entirely different issue to consider, and this may be
what you were thinking of all along. Not about labelling products, but
just casual uses of the name in ordinary writing -- articles,
advertisements, song lyrics, whatever. Haven't we all heard of lawyers
for Xerox and others writing stern letters telling people they need to
change their wording? To put in a (R) or (TM) or to make other changes?
What that has to do with is something else. Xerox is trying hard to keep
its trademark from becoming a generic term. (It's kind of funny that
first companies spend millions to make their brand become a household
word, then they spend billions trying to keep it from being too much of
a household word!) They want you to say Xerox photocopier, and to
photocopy on a Xerox machine, to preserve the viability of the Xerox
trademark. If a court decides (and I'd love to see sometime how such a
case is decided) that a company has not made sufficient effort to defend
its trademark as a trademark, and has allowed it to become a generic
term, then anyone can use it. We could then have Joe's Xerox Company,
Canon's Xerox Machines, Classic Xerox, Inc., and so on. Exactly the same
for Kleenex (brand) facial tissues as opposed to generic "kleenex."
Right now, the only company legally entitled to use "Kleenex" on its
packages is the holder of the "Kleenex" brand (Kimberly-Clark?). They
want to keep it that way, in spite of the public's tendency to
genericize it.
So that's why these big companies spend a lot of money on educational
efforts and legal warnings, to try and make an impact in the correct use
of the word. "Correct" from their point of view.
This pretty much exhausts what I know about this. As Evan shows us, you
can locate actual records of current and expired trademarks on the Web.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Alex Chernavsky
> Xerox is trying hard to keep its trademark
> from becoming a generic term.
I went to business school with a woman who used to work for Xerox, and we
once had a conversation about this topic. This conversation took place
around 1994. My classmate claimed that the company specifically objects to
the use of the verb "to Xerox" meaning "to make a photocopy" because such
usage serves to unfairly limit the public's perception of the range of
services and products supplied by the Xerox Company.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Mike Barnes
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:59:15 -0500, R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu>
>said:
>
>[...]
>
>>> Calling jellies "Jell-O" at cafeteria isn't correct when a
>>> person isn't sure if its brand is Jell-O. Instead, he
>>> should say "jelly".
>
>>No, this is not true for American usage though it may be true elsewhere.
>>No one calls jello "jelly", and no one cares what brand name jello is when
>>deciding what to call it. No one here thinks of jello as jelly or a kind
>>of jelly.
>
>You put Jell-O in a dish and eat it with a spoon. You spread jelly on
>bread. Anyway, that's true in the US. British dictionaries seem to
>suggest that jelly can also be eaten with a spoon. To me that would
>be like eating a bowl of granulated sugar with a spoon.
Bob, you normally express yourself unambiguously, so I hope you don't
mind if I clarify what I think might be your meaning, by quoting a few
relevant thoughts from the right side of the pond. Jell-O does not, as
far as I know, exist in the UK. The jelly that we eat with a spoon is
not Jell-O (the brand I know best is Chivers) and is not prepared from a
powder - it comes as a concentrated jelly (shaped like a giant chocolate
bar, with a tough rubbery consistency) which is dissolved in boiling
water and allowed to cool.
>[...]
>
>_The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ (_NSOED_) also has "jello"
>and "Jell-O". But the best part of the _NSOED_ entry is the usage
>example:
>
> _Black Scholar_ Her firm young breasts quivering like a
> dish of molded jello.
>
>Makes me wonder if a less-prurient lexicographer would have chosen a
>blander example.
The jello definition is qualified "Chiefly N. Amer.", and I'm not
surprised to find that the usage example seems to be N. Amer. as well
(note the spelling of "molded").
If you're interested in a "Chivers Jelly" usage example, try this
extract from BBC's "Top Gear"'s review of the Chevrolet Blazer. This is
typical Top Gear prose:
"Sit atop a large beanbag placed on a Jacuzzi full of well-set Chivers
jelly and then trundle the whole ensemble off down the road on a set of
unsprung pram wheels, and you'll get close to the ride characteristics
of a Blazer. Soft, wallowy old nonsense and the mid-bend roll of
tumbleweed in a typhoon are underpinned by harsh little judders and
thumps over all but the smoothest surfaces."
http://www.topgear.com/1stdrive/blazer/1stdrive_blazer_page.html
--
Mike Barnes
Matti Lamprhey
In Britain the generic verb was certainly "to xerox" during the 1970s. "To
photocopy" took over in the early 1980s, and I haven't heard "xerox" as a
verb for many years. I think they were wrong to object to the
genericization.
What's the Latin for "How are the mighty fallen"?
Matti
Gene Wirchenko
>The renowned Bob Cunningham <malgran...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> Idle thought: If I can change a trademark into a generic by removing
>> a hyphen, and if someone has taken care to register a capitalized word
>> as a trademark, why can't I make it generic simply by uncapitalizing
>> it? If I want to register a trademark, like "Xerox", would it be wise
>> to also register "xerox"? Is there a lawyer in the house?
>
>I'd also like to know this. I do know that a fellow here in Ontario was
>unable to register the company name "Hi-Res" (computer graphics hardware),
>because it would infringe on the trademark owned by Cadbury-Schweppes.
Huh? But they're not in the same area of business! Many
companies could have trademark rights to a given name, just not if
they conflict.
But I would reject "Hi-Res" for computer graphics hardware as it
is a generic term.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>"Alex Chernavsky" <al...@astrocyte-design.com> wrote...
>> Donna Richoux wrote, in part:
>>
>> > Xerox is trying hard to keep its trademark
>> > from becoming a generic term.
>>
>> I went to business school with a woman who used to work for Xerox, and we
>> once had a conversation about this topic. This conversation took place
>> around 1994. My classmate claimed that the company specifically objects
>to
>> the use of the verb "to Xerox" meaning "to make a photocopy" because such
>> usage serves to unfairly limit the public's perception of the range of
>> services and products supplied by the Xerox Company.
AFAIK, it's because of the trademark issue.
>In Britain the generic verb was certainly "to xerox" during the 1970s. "To
>photocopy" took over in the early 1980s, and I haven't heard "xerox" as a
>verb for many years. I think they were wrong to object to the
>genericization.
They'd have lost the trademark then.
>What's the Latin for "How are the mighty fallen"?
Sincerely,
N.Mitchum
-----
Julius Caesar.
----NM
Alex Chernavsky
>> I went to business school with a woman who used to work for Xerox,
>> and we once had a conversation about this topic. This conversation
>> took place around 1994. My classmate claimed that the company
specifically
>> objects to the use of the verb "to Xerox" meaning "to make a photocopy"
>> because such usage serves to unfairly limit the public's perception of
the range
>> of services and products supplied by the Xerox Company.
Gener Wirchenko replied:
> AFAIK, it's because of the trademark issue.
I find my friend's explanation to be plausible, and she was an insider. If
you have evidence that contradicts my hypothesis, I'd like to hear it.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Donna Richoux
Couldn't you both be right? Your friend might indeed have heard people
within Xerox make that particular objection to the verb "to Xerox." They
probably talked about this phenomenon a lot and had all sorts of
opinions and, even more, policies as to how employees should speak of
and write about the company and its products.
I can't prove right this minute that Xerox has been trying for decades
to prevent the trademark "Xerox" from becoming a generic term, but it's
consistent with everything I've read about trademark law. What is
generic about "to xerox" is that it means simply to photocopy on any
machine, not to photocopy on a Xerox brand machine. Xerox has a strong
interest in keeping the word to mean their brand of machines only, not
any photocopier.
N.Mitchum
-----
> >> My classmate claimed that the company specifically
> >> objects to the use of the verb "to Xerox" meaning "to make a
> >> photocopy" because such usage serves to unfairly limit the
> >> public's perception of the range of services and products
> >> supplied by the Xerox Company.
>
> Gener Wirchenko replied:
>
> > AFAIK, it's because of the trademark issue.
>
> I find my friend's explanation to be plausible, and she was an insider. If
> you have evidence that contradicts my hypothesis, I'd like to hear it.
Xerox may have had special objections to the verbing of its name,
but the trademark issue is indeed the point on which they would
have moved against trespassers. Unless they are seen occasionally
to make an effort at preventing unfair use of their names, they could
be held to have relinquished their claims.
"Nike" could become a synonym for sneakers. The Nike company
could let the public use their name without hindrance. After a
few years the company may wish to stop the public from taking such
liberties, but by now it's too late; it can be argued their
previous inaction allowed their brand name to pass into the public
domain.
Companies have banded together in ad campaigns warning writers not
to use their names without permission. Lawyers send out tough
letters to encroachers. Every now and then they actually take
legal action, even knowing that individual court victories won't
stem the tide. It does put them on record, though.
What matters is not that the owners of tradenames win their suits,
but that they demonstrate their intention to retain exclusive
rights.
----NM
Alan J. Flavell
> "Matti Lamprhey" <ma...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>
> >What's the Latin for "How are the mighty fallen"?
>
> Sincerely,
Sorry, I don't follow the logic of that.
Alex Chernavsky
> Sorry, I don't follow the logic of that.
I guess you don't own any Xerox stock. You should be thankful.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
mplsray
"Mike Barnes" <mi...@senrab.com> wrote in message
news:CBC5XBA2...@senrab.com...
[snip]
I found the following on the Chivers Jelly page at
http://www.chivers.ie/chiverstest/products-jelly.html
[quote]
Everyone in the family loves a bowl of Jelly & Ice Cream on a hot summer's
day and with eight flavours to choose from you're spoiled for choice.
[end quote]
Then , under the entry for _jelly_ in the _Cambridge International
Dictionary of English,_ at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ I found:
[quote]
(_British and Australian_) Jelly (Am *Jell-O*) is a soft, coloured sweet
food made from sugar, gelatine and fruit flavours.
I've made a raspberry jelly for the children's tea. [C]
He had a hamburger and chips and then jelly and ice cream for dessert. [U]
[end quote]
I tried to find a recipe for "jelly and ice cream" (I presume you don't just
plop them together into a bowl), but without success: So, can someone
familiar with this dessert describe how it's made?
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Peter Moylan
>I tried to find a recipe for "jelly and ice cream" (I presume you don't just
>plop them together into a bowl), but without success: So, can someone
>familiar with this dessert describe how it's made?
You just plop them together into a bowl. Sorry to be the bearer of
bad tidings.
Now that you mention it, we don't usually eat jelly and ice cream here.
It's always ice cream and jelly.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Alex Chernavsky
> Now that you mention it, we don't usually eat jelly and ice
> cream here. It's always ice cream and jelly.
I once had vanilla ice cream covered with a sweet sauce made from red beans.
It was surprisingly good.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Michael West
"Alex Chernavsky" wrote
>
> I once had vanilla ice cream covered with a sweet sauce made from red
beans.
> It was surprisingly good.
"Red beans" as in red beans 'n' rice?
"Surprisingly good" in that case would
be anything better than just "weird". Was
it better, even, than just "not weird"?
MW
Alex Chernavsky
>> I once had vanilla ice cream covered with a sweet sauce
>> made from red beans. It was surprisingly good.
Michael West replied:
> "Red beans" as in red beans 'n' rice?
I don't know what kind of beans these were, but they were dark red.
Actually, I can't even remember where I had this dessert. I think it was
either in Japan or Thailand, about 6 years ago.
> "Surprisingly good" in that case would
> be anything better than just "weird". Was
> it better, even, than just "not weird"?
It was a little weird at first, but it grew on me quickly. I liked it.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Spehro Pefhany
> "Red beans" as in red beans 'n' rice?
> "Surprisingly good" in that case would
> be anything better than just "weird". Was
> it better, even, than just "not weird"?
"Red bean", sweetened with copious quantities of sugar (almost 1:1), forms
part of a lot of Chinese deserts. Deep fried sesame balls are stuffed with
it, it's part of some fancy drinks, and is served on crushed ice. Steamed
buns may be filled with it. Korean and Japanese mochi cakes are filled
with it. The latter are chewy, sticky, stretchy soft globs (a bit like raw
sesame balls dusted with flour) made from glutinous rice dough. They have
roughly the consistency and resiliency of a breast (to the touch), and
respond even better to biting.
Michael West
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote>
> "Red bean", sweetened with copious quantities of sugar (almost 1:1), forms
> part of a lot of Chinese deserts.
Now that you explain all this, I recall having had some
Chinese steamed buns filled with sweet bean paste.
But are these Asian dishes you mention using the same
legume that Americans call "red beans"?
MW
Alex Chernavsky
> Japanese mochi cakes are filled with [red bean paste].
Yes -- that's called daifuku. Excellent stuff. I haven't had it since I
moved out of Manhattan some three years ago. Now you've gone and triggered
a craving for it!
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Spehro Pefhany
> Now that you explain all this, I recall having had some
> Chinese steamed buns filled with sweet bean paste.
> But are these Asian dishes you mention using the same
> legume that Americans call "red beans"?
From looking at some web sites and consulting a few books in my library,
I'm still not sure. It definitely is made from "Azuki" red beans
(Vigna angularis) that are apparently available in health food stores (and
which have a whole bunch of other names in Asian languages), but I'm not
sure that is the same as the "red beans" that might otherwise be
available. In Canada, I've not run into anything called "red beans" in
non-Asian cooking, possibly outside of mixed bean salads and
"President's Choice Too Good to be True 12-bean Soup" and that sort of
thing. They are quite small and naturally red, similar in colour to a
kidney bean, but much smaller and rounder.
Dangerously close to being on topic for the thread, most sources refer to
the sweet filling as "red bean paste", but a few call it "red bean jam".
Spehro Pefhany
> Yes -- that's called daifuku. Excellent stuff. I haven't had it since I
> moved out of Manhattan some three years ago. Now you've gone and triggered
> a craving for it!
There's a Korean shop (relatively) locally that makes it fresh
on-premises so it's extra-stretch/gooey. If you get too much of a
craving, I can always FedEx a package down to you. ;-)
An aquired taste, it seems, most people seem to reject it on the grounds
of the texture.
iwasaki
Spehro Pefhany <sp...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:_gMj6.169283$KP3.43...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> The renowned Michael West <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > Now that you explain all this, I recall having had some
> > Chinese steamed buns filled with sweet bean paste.
> > But are these Asian dishes you mention using the same
> > legume that Americans call "red beans"?
My English-Japanese dictionary says "red bean" (English) is
"azuki" (Japanese), and Japanese-English dictionary says
"azuki" (Japanese) is "adzuki" (English).
> From looking at some web sites and consulting a few books in my library,
> I'm still not sure. It definitely is made from "Azuki" red beans
> (Vigna angularis) that are apparently available in health food stores (and
> which have a whole bunch of other names in Asian languages), but I'm not
> sure that is the same as the "red beans" that might otherwise be
> available. In Canada, I've not run into anything called "red beans" in
> non-Asian cooking, possibly outside of mixed bean salads and
> "President's Choice Too Good to be True 12-bean Soup" and that sort of
> thing. They are quite small and naturally red, similar in colour to a
> kidney bean, but much smaller and rounder.
>
> Dangerously close to being on topic for the thread, most sources refer to
> the sweet filling as "red bean paste", but a few call it "red bean jam".
In Japanese, it's called "(azuki) an" or "anko".
--
Nobuko Iwasaki
Mike Barnes
>Peter Moylan wrote, in part:
>
>> Now that you mention it, we don't usually eat jelly and ice
>> cream here. It's always ice cream and jelly.
>
>I once had vanilla ice cream covered with a sweet sauce made from red beans.
>It was surprisingly good.
Just this afternoon I had a jelly made from dessert wine (Australian)
flavoured with lemon grass. Scrummy. Cream would have ruined it.
--
Mike Barnes
Brian J Goggin
Mike Barnes
>>flavoured with lemon grass. Scrummy. Cream would have ruined it.
>
>Recipe! Recipe!
It's from Nigella Lawson's _How to Eat_ (ISBN 0 7011 6911 7) - highly
recommended.
<NIGELLA>
SAUTERNES AND LEMON BALM JELLY
Charlotte Brand, friend and cook, put me on to this recipe from the
_Gastrodrome Cookbook_. I've got masses of lemon balm in my garden, but
you can substitute an equal amount of lemon grass.
I use a 1/4 litre, or 2-pint, ring mould, and pile pale fruit -
golden raspberries and white currants if I can get them - dusted with
icing sugar to fill the hole.
Turn to the recipe for rhubarb and muscat jelly (page 345) for
comments about gelatine.
340g caster sugar bottle Sauternes or pudding wine
675ml water 8 leaves gelatine
35-40g lemon balm juice from 1 1/2 lemons.
Bring the sugar and water to the boil and boil for 5 minutes. Remove
from the heat and pour off 125ml (or dip in and fill an American half-
cup measure). Infuse the lemon balm in the remaining syrup until cold.
Of course you don't have to choose Chateau Yquem, but do select wine
good enough to give to friends without making wry-mouthed apologies for
it. You don't need a full bottle for the jelly, but since you want some
pudding wine to drink with the pudding, there's no point buying a half
bottle.
Strain the lemon-balm syrup, measure it and add enough Sauternes, or
whatever you're using, to make 900ml. Soak the gelatine leaves in cold
water for about 5 minutes, until they're soft. Warm 75ml Sauternes and
squeeze out the gelatine leaves, then dissolve them in the hot (not
boiling) Sauternes. Mix the lemon-balm syrup, gelatine-wine mix and
lemon juice (which should bring the liquid up to 1.2 litres), check the
sweetness and add more sugar if needed.
Dab a kitchen towel with vegetable oil (in other words, an oil with
as little taste as possible) and smear the inside of the ring mould with
it. This will make it easier to unmould later. Pour the jelly mixture in
and put it in the fridge and chill for 4-6 hours (or until set, as this
depends on the shape of the mould). If it helps, make it the day before.
You might need to place the mould quickly in a sink slightly filled
with hot water turn the jelly out. But make sure it is only quickly.
It's better to keep putting it back in if doesn't come out cleanly and
easily rather than leave it in and have it start to melt.
</NIGELLA>
There are certain practical problems with this recipe - just what *do*
you do with the 125ml of syrup that you take off at the beginning? Is it
for use later where you might have to "add more sugar if needed"? And I
can't get the ingredients to add up to 1200ml without resorting to
mutant giant lemons. But we winged it and it worked.
We've made this twice - once with lemon balm and once with lemon grass.
We preferred the lemon grass. We used powdered gelatine once, that
worked fine. The other time we used a vegetarian alternative, which
didn't work well until we used twice the recommended amount - probably
the acidity of the wine and lemon was inhibiting the action of the
setting agent.
We made individual jellies in ramekins (setting time about 1 hour)
turned out onto serving plates with a little fruit at the side.
Bon appetit!
--
Mike Barnes
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>>Recipe! Recipe!
>
>It's from Nigella Lawson's _How to Eat_ (ISBN 0 7011 6911 7) - highly
>recommended.
[...]
Joy! Many thanks: I must try it.
bjg
Mike Barnes
> I use a 1/4 litre, or 2-pint, ring mould, and pile pale fruit -
Make that 1 1/4 (one and a quarter) litres. The OCR gagged on ΒΌ and I
failed to spot it until now.
--
Mike Barnes