cocktail measurements - parts
Keiko Kurihara
In cocktail recipe, what does "part(s)" mean?
For instance,
Mojito
2 parts Rum
1/2 fresh lime
12 mint leaves
2 heaped tsp. fine white sugar
splash club soda
I understand tsp means "teaspoon", then what does the "parts" mean?
Is this some kind of ratio? then what is the base? the size of
cocktail glass?
Or is this something like "杯"？ then, what kind of measuring cup is
used? jigger or something ?
Any suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Keiko Kurihara
Alan Siegrist
> In cocktail recipe, what does "part(s)" mean?
> For instance,
>
> Mojito
> 2 parts Rum
> 1/2 fresh lime
> 12 mint leaves
> 2 heaped tsp. fine white sugar
> splash club soda
>
> I understand tsp means "teaspoon", then what does the "parts" mean?
> Is this some kind of ratio? then what is the base? the size of
> cocktail glass?
> Or is this something like "杯"？ then, what kind of measuring cup is
> used? jigger or something ?
I think something is missing in the recipe, or it was improperly copied or adapted from somewhere else.
In such a recipe, "parts" is used only when indicating a ratio. For example, if the recipe said "2 parts rum" and "1 part club soda" then the bartender would know to add 2 ounces of rum for every 1 ounce of club soda, or 2 shot glasses of rum and 1 shot glass of club soda, etc. Using "parts" instead of a measure like "ounces" lets the bartender make the drink as large or small as desired, while keeping the ratios and the taste of the drink the same.
But the way the recipe above is written, it does not give the reader enough information to allow them to make the drink properly.
I think you should make a note to the client.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Marc Adler
But the way the recipe above is written, it does not give the reader enough information to allow them to make the drink properly.
Also, aside from the missing instructions (muddling etc.), unless I'm missing something, I think there is enough information in the recipe, as far as ingredients go.
--
Marc Adler
http://www.linkedin.com/in/adlerpacific
Anthony Bryant
On Jun 4, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Keiko Kurihara wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> In cocktail recipe, what does "part(s)" mean?
> For instance,
>
> Mojito
> 2 parts Rum
> 1/2 fresh lime
> 12 mint leaves
> 2 heaped tsp. fine white sugar
> splash club soda
That is a really BAD recipe.
Usually, "parts" is just a ratio tool. "One part X and two parts Y" means that if you use a gallon of X, you use two gallons of Y, or if a cup of X, you use TWO cups of Y.
The thing is, "part" only works in flat ratios, and has no intrinsic value. It really just means "unit" -- and it's whatever unit you are using.
The rest of the recipe here is all for specific amounts, which means it would be a HORRID tasting drink if you took a part to be a jigger, or if you took a part to be a gallon.
Seriously -- this is a VERY BAD recipe.
The only time you can do that is like making a Cuba Libre (1 part rum, 2 parts Coke), or a wine spritzer (1 part white wine, 3 parts 7-Up), as no matter what unit you use (jigger, ounce, pint, gallon, ton) the thing will come out the same. Once you start throwing in specific numbers of things (e.g., 2 mint leaves, teaspoon sugar, 1 jigger of vodka, 1 splash of rum, etc.) you REQUIRE specific measures, not relativistic ones.
Seriously, this recipe SUCKS.
As a person who likes to cook and likes to make drinks, I *hate* people who write recipes like that, because they are, literally, useless.
Tony
Masako Sato
http://cocktails.about.com/od/mixology/f/parts_explained.htm
Masako Sato
Mika J.
ラム２に対してソーダ水1の割合で・・・式の表現なら道理にかなうんだけど、という話なんですね。
絶対単位と相対単位が混在しているわけです。
「だからできるわけないじゃん！」とエラーモードを決め込むか、
それともちゃっちゃとカクテルを作っておいしくいただくか。
（うーん、悩みどころですね、と考えるふりをしましょう。）
ここは絶対単位と相対単位をあえて混在させたレシピの風格を認めてあげて
和訳はダブルぐらいでどうでしょうか。
（さりとてダブルとは60mlであるからにして・・・なんて堅い話はよしにしましょう。）
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Marc Adler
As I say, this isn't that uncommon. People who have experience making cocktails will have no problem with this. In fact, even Japanese bartenders will write cocktails this way. (Yes, you can put your eyeballs back in your head: even the Japanese, who have raised accuracy and precision to the level of a national trait, write cocktail recipes this way.)
Incidentally, the "splash" of soda in this cocktail is actually a bit more than a "splash," but either way 適量 is common for this ("fill the rest of the glass up with soda").
Incidentally, a couple of people have said this cocktail is wrong, but I don't see any problem with it. What exactly is the problem with it? (Aside from the fact that the actual instructions are missing, but I'm guessing the OP left those out on purpose, because they were irrelevant to her question.)
Anthony Bryant
On Jun 5, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
>
> Incidentally, a couple of people have said this cocktail is wrong, but I don't see any problem with it. What exactly is the problem with it? (Aside from the fact that the actual instructions are missing, but I'm guessing the OP left those out on purpose, because they were irrelevant to her question.)
The problem, as I've said, is that it says "parts" -- which is a measure of ratio, not quantity.
You can't give a recipe that is partly ratio and partly quantity. It's chimpunkampun.
If you don't cook or don't make drinks, I can understand why it wouldn't mean anything to you, but to *me* it's total gibberish. It's like that line in Star Wars where "she makes the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs." A parsec is a measure of DISTANCE, not TIME. Also, like those people who say "It's light years ahead of XYZ" -- again, a light year is a measure of DISTANCE, not TIME.
A recipe that calls for things in "parts" is indicating that it is ratios. One part of this, one part of that, two parts of the other. It doesn't tell you how MUCH -- it tells you WHAT RELATIVE AMOUNTS go in. But when everything else is specific quantities, there is no indicator what the writer of the recipe considered to be the basic "part."
As I said earlier, "one part rum, two parts Coke" will yield a drink that tastes the same if you make one part a jigger, or a gallon. There is no WAY to tell what quantity is intended, as it's up to you based on how much you want to make.
Recipes such as this, where there is one thing mentioned as "a part" but everything else is specified in terms of quantity, are USELESS.
Tony
Marc Adler
Recipes such as this, where there is one thing mentioned as "a part" but everything else is specified in terms of quantity, are USELESS.
Again, anyone with any experience making cocktails will have no problem understanding the OP's recipe.
Minoru Mochizuki
The expression "parts" is often seen in descriptions related to chemistry,
in particular, mixing of several ingredients typically to form a solution.
If an ingredient is introduced in "parts," e.g., two parts or three parts,
then there must be other ingredients that are introduce by the unit of
"parts." A part means a part of the entirety, i.e., the solution or the
alcoholic drink, in this case.
Lacking description of other ingredients in "parts" form, the original
sentence is a faulty one. If the author thinks that it is understandable for
intended readers, the author must have a certain assumption/premise in
his/her mind, which is obviously not known in this case for the translator.
Translators are always the victims of poor original writing.
Minoru Mochizuki
Nora Stevens Heath
> Also, like those people who say "It's light years ahead of XYZ" -- again,
> a light year is a measure of DISTANCE, not TIME.
Except this isn't really a valid example here, since we do indeed use
distance in this sense: "Sue's piano ability is miles ahead of John's."
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22miles+ahead+of%22
Same goes for "miles behind", incidentally.
Nora
--
Nora Stevens Heath <no...@fumizuki.com>
J-E translations: http://www.fumizuki.com/
Anthony Bryant
On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Nora Stevens Heath wrote:
> Anthony Bryant wrote:
>
>> Also, like those people who say "It's light years ahead of XYZ" -- again,
>> a light year is a measure of DISTANCE, not TIME.
>
> Except this isn't really a valid example here, since we do indeed use
> distance in this sense: "Sue's piano ability is miles ahead of John's."
Yeah, except in nearly every instance of this example (i.e., "Light-year") they are clearly intending it to be taken as TIME.
Keiko Kurihara
As Mr. Adler pointed out, I omitted the actual instruction (I didn't
think it so important), but this seems rather important.
In the actual instruction, it says "Cut the lime in wedges and place it
in a large highball glass....." "Large Highball Glass", this should be
very important.
probably the full capacity of this glass is 300ml or so, and the actual
cocktail itself should be 200ml~250ml. Then, the 2 parts means
approximately 20% of the glass (
2 parts = 40ml ~ 50ml)? If so, that makes sense to me. (Is this correct?)
Mr. Adler says "even Japanese bartenders will write cocktails this
way...." but I have never seen it before. In books or on the web,
Japanese recipes only show the unit, ml (15ml, 30ml, or 45ml...).
So, I wonder if it is okay when I translate "2 parts" into 40ml ~ 50ml?
Keiko Kurihara
Joseph Kei Nagai
that one part refers to one jigger.
But some sites explain that a jigger is "usually" 1-1/2 ounces, which is
about 45 mL in US and 42 miL in UK) ounces). What would be the size of
an "unusual" jigger? Would a generous bar use a larger jigger? What are
the UK or Japanese jigger sizes?
Joseph Kei Nagai
Doreen Simmons
>
>probably the full capacity of this glass is 300ml or so, and the actual
>cocktail itself should be 200ml~250ml.
Sounds like my kind of drink -- especially hedged in with generous wedges of lime. Where are they serving them? ;-}
Doreen the unrepentant
Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
Marc Adler
So, I wonder if it is okay when I translate "2 parts" into 40ml ~ 50ml?
Keiko Kurihara
Maybe professional bartenders would easily understand this recipe, but
for ordinary people, this seems hard to understand. Just indicating
specific quantity would be easier for us (for me).
As for the jigger, a combination of 30ml / 45ml is common, but there
are other sizes, like 30ml / 50ml.
Anyway, thanks again for all the help.
Keiko Kurihara
Anthony Bryant
On Jun 6, 2010, at 3:05 AM, Joseph Kei Nagai wrote:
> You are incorrect. The site quoted by Masako Sato moments ago.informs that one part refers to one jigger.
If that is the case, I maintain -- and always will -- that the recipe should say "one jigger" and not "one part."
That is simply incorrect. It matters not that many people, apparently, use it incorrectly.
Many people also say "had went" and that's also wrong.
Tony
Marc Adler
If that is the case, I maintain -- and always will -- that the recipe should say "one jigger" and not "one part."
Anthony Bryant
On Jun 6, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Anthony Bryant <ajbr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> If that is the case, I maintain -- and always will -- that the recipe should say "one jigger" and not "one part."
>
> No recipe today uses "one jigger."
I guess that box of cookbooks and bar guides in my closet doesn't exist, then.
I've seen lots of recipes that use parts -- it's just that those recipes are *exclusively* parts. I've never (that I can recall) ever seen a recipe that mixed measurements in non-specific units ("parts") and specific ones (splash, teaspoon, wedge...).
I really don't understand that concept. To my mind, it is just totally and irreparably wrong.
Tony
Marc Adler
I guess that box of cookbooks and bar guides in my closet doesn't exist, then.
I've seen lots of recipes that use parts -- it's just that those recipes are *exclusively* parts. I've never (that I can recall) ever seen a recipe that mixed measurements in non-specific units ("parts") and specific ones (splash, teaspoon, wedge...).
I recently translated a book that does, by probably the most famous Japanese bartender. He mixes parts with specific units. The reasoning isn't that outrageous, really. As I said, you can't use "parts" for certain ingredients (lime wedges and mint leaves), and more fundamentally, you just have to apply a teensy bit of common sense to figure it out.
Alan Siegrist
absolute units ("teaspoons") in such a recipe was a result of an error or
sloppy writing on the part of the author.
But now it occurs to me that there might be another explanation. The goal of
writing the recipe might be obfuscation rather than clarification.
Even if we make the assumption that Marc Adler does, that a "part" is
supposed to be the size of a shot glass, this actually makes the amount of
rum in the drink no less clear. There is evidently no standard size for a
shot glass in the US at least. I spoke to my ex-bartender sister about this,
and she said that a shot glass is sometimes 1 ounce and sometimes 1.5 ounce,
and sometimes even more or less than this.
She also mentioned that liquor may also be measured by the "pour" or how
many seconds the bottle is inverted. The pour may be a "long pour" or a
"short pour" (done by counting the "seconds" quickly). There are also
several sizes of pour spouts, adding further to the confusion and opacity.
In short, the recipe appears to be deliberately uninformative about how much
rum is actually in the drink; it is simply twice something which is
unstated.
Perhaps the reason for this obfuscation is rooted in the motives of the
bartender and bar owner. The liquor is the most expensive ingredient in the
drink, so it is the interest of the bar owner to pour as little liquor as
possible while charging as much as possible for each drink.
I know of this firsthand because I recently paid an exorbitant amount of
money at a bar/restaurant for a fishbowl-sized drink to share with guests,
but the amount of alcohol in the whole thing could not have been more than a
shot or two.
If the author of the recipe (presumably a bartender) is deliberately obscure
about the amount of booze in the drink, his/her patrons have less grounds
for coming back to complain about not getting as much alcohol in the drink
as they may have wanted.
So if intentional obfuscation is the intent of the recipe, this uncertainty
should certainly be carried over into the translation.
Alan Siegrist
as given, but the original poster understandably wants to provide a definite
recipe that the readers of the translation can easily follow to prepare a
tasty drink.
So my solution (thanks to an off-list tipster) is field research and
testing!
I would hope that the client would fund this valuable research, as it will
certainly contribute to the high quality of the translation.
So anyone who wants to join the Honyaku Mojito 研究会, please contact me
off-list and we can arrange something.
Marc Adler
But now it occurs to me that there might be another explanation. The goal of
writing the recipe might be obfuscation rather than clarification.
Um, yeah, so this is the last thing I'm going to say about this. The OP can translate "parts" as 光年 or 反 for all I care, since if she thinks that changing the units is going to "correct" the recipe she knows as little as anyone else here does about cocktails, but as I said before, an experienced bartender (which I will point out none of you are) will automatically translate "part" as approximately 1 oz., or 30 ML, or whatever fits.
Mixing cocktails is an art. It requires flexibility. Anyone who's going to throw a hissy fit because the "units aren't right" isn't going to make a cocktail worth drinking anyway, so the whole question is moot.
Even if we make the assumption that Marc Adler does, that a "part" is
supposed to be the size of a shot glass, this actually makes the amount of
Yeah, uh, never said that.
Cliff Bender
> I've never (that I can recall) ever seen a recipe that mixed measurements in non-specific units ("parts") and specific ones (splash, teaspoon, wedge...).
>
Sounds like much ado about nothing, but here's one example, which took
about 10 seconds to find.
http://www.cocktail.uk.com/Cocktail-Recipe/Mojito.htm
Here's a Japanese version that mixes 絶対単位 and 相対単位 and even a
no-単位 for good measure.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/モヒート
Cliff Bender