I see a Quiznos commercial where it is stated that one of their sandwiches is “served with au jus.”
At the grocery store, I see a packet of “au jus mix.”
Do I understand correctly that these usages are incorrect?
“Au jus” itself means “with jus,” right? So “au jus” should be used adverbially, not as a noun. Right?
I hope I’m right, because I’ve gone around griping about this…
-FrL-
They’re correct in the sense that most people know what they’re talking about, and therefore communicated their meaning successfully.
The fact that in French it’s an adjectival (or adverbial, depending on context) phrase is irrelevant: the commercials you saw were in English.
However, I looked in two dictionaries and saw it listed in both as an adjective; if you believe that dictionaries prescribe correct usage (as opposed to describing current usage), then “with au jus” is as ungrammatical as saying, “My sandwich is served with tasty!”
I, of course, believe it’s the dictionary that’s behind the times, as “au jus” appears to be used in English as a noun describing a certain type of meat dripping.
Daniel
Yes, you’re right. “With au jus” is like “Rio Grande River.” The correct way should just be “served au jus.” I get the impression that market research must show that most people don’t understand it that way, so “with au jus” is frequently used in advertising. Just my impression, though.
It grates on my ears, too, but unfortunately, a long-held linguistic custom becomes language. Right now, though, it’s just wrong 
As I tend to prescriptivism I think it’s wrong, and as someone who took 5 years of French (30 years ago ), I think it’s wrong. It’s pandering to ignorance.
They should just say “with dipping sauce” or something. It’s an inane attempt to make it sound exotic.
I hear it all the time too and it drives be nuts. Every time I hear it my head constructs the sentence as “Served with Awe Juice!” Maybe it’s just my deranged mind, but that is a vaguely disturbing construct.
For its irritating redundancy factor, it ranks right up there with “RAM memory.”
Despite being sick, I laughed heartily at “with tasty!” I think that’s how I should describe most of my cooking from now on. Thanks :).
Since this appears simply to be a prescription vs. description debate, I feel entitled to ask a related, but hijackal, question. Do people do this with “a la mode”? Could I find a place advertising pie “with a la mode”?
Yeah, it’s the same sort of thing: ATM Machine, PIN Number, Sahara Desert. This kind of redundant construction is fairly common in English; while the presecriptivists like to say they’re wrong, I don’t think they ever impede understanding. Given that English speakers seem to migrate toward these constructions, I think the right question isn’t, “Is this wrong?” but rather, “Why does English work like this?”
(Glad to help, Speaker, I try to temper my posts with hilarious. Hope you feel better!)
Daniel
It may be technically wrong, but it’s functionally right.
So you order your “roast beef au jus” and comes with its* natural juices. You want some more of that tasty liquid. How do you ask for it? Juice? In English, that usually mean fruit juice. Gravy? Gravy is thickened with flour (or something). Sauce? What sauce - steak sauce, taco sauce, horseradish sauce? Drippings? Drippings incude bits and pieces from the bottom of the pan. The natural juices from cooking? Too many words.
If you ask for more “au jus,” the waiter instantly and clearly knows what you want. No confusion, no misunderstanding, no long-winded description. Human beings are going to use the shortest, simplest term that effectively communicates what they mean. In this case, “au jus” (as a noun) is it. Bitch all you want, but it’s going to stay that way unless and until a better replacement term is found (don’t hold your breath).
We don’t do this with “a la mode” because we have a simple, well-established term in “ice cream.” Even so, “a la mode” doesn’t mean “with ice cream” in French, it means “in the fashion/style [of].” But in English, it now means “with ice cream.” Likewise, “au jus” meaning “with juice” is a French term, but we aren’t speaking French. While “au jus” is still used that way in English, it’s ALSO used as an English noun, with no claim that it was a noun in French. The Spanish phrase “la reata” - “the rope” - morphed into the English word “lariat.” We talk about “the lariat” and no one gets bent out of shape about redundancy. I don’t hear anyone griping about “au pair” used as a noun.
This is part of the natural development of language. Get used to it.
*I know, most restaurants serve au jus bought in large containers from a supply company rather than what the particular piece of meat was cooked in.
ATM and PIN I get, and find them grating also, but tell me about “Sahara”, oh wise and left handed one.
Thanks for the replies everyone.
I understand this is how language works. I understand there is an interesting question, as LHoD pointed out, as to “why English works this way.”
But I don’t think there is a choice I have to make between prescriptivism and descriptivism. I can say, “Yep, this is how colloquial English gets spoken,” and I can say, “No, you shouldn’t say things that way.” There’s no contradiction here–no choice to be made at all.
So I know, descriptively, that the usage in question describes normal English usage. But that doesn’t mean it is aesthetically pleasing to use English that way, and it doesn’t mean that I’m wrong to intuit that pretty much any English speaker would, if they thought about it, agree with me that its not aesthetically pleasing.
Someone asked how you would ask for more of the stuff that’s being referred to as “au jus.” I would say “juice” would do just fine. In conversational context, it would be clear you aren’t talking about orange juice. Or maybe you have a glass of juice in front of you as well–then you say “more juice for my roast, please.” No ambiguity.
-FrL-
I’m trying to figure out if that’s a left-handed compliment.
Anyway, Sahara:
Sahara Desert means, literally, Desert Desert.
I don’t eat red meat, but those of you that do, I’d be interested in an experiment. Flip a coin: heads is “extra au jus,” tails is “with extra juice.” Go somewhere and order some roast beef, and order it as the coin directs you to. Pay attention to the face of your waiter. My tentative guess is that “with extra juice” will give them a moment of confusion until they parse the phrase, while “extra au jus” won’t. But I dunno.
The comparison to “la reata” is great.
Daniel
I’ve never seen it described as such; it’s always “Pie a la mode” (or less correctly “ala mode”) in every menu I’ve seen that serves it. Literally, it translates as “Pie in the style” or “Pie in the fashion” which is rather ungrammatical in English anyway, but contextually it is understood in its native language as something like “Pie in the popular style.”
That doesn’t stop it from setting off my Hukt On Fonix alarm, though. Certain constructs are understandable – the vast majority of anyone you ever ask will probably give you a blank stare if you told them that “Sahara” already means “Desert.” Acronyms, though they grate on my nerves, can be undestood too as many people still get confused as to their usage in a sentence, often from not properly understanding what the acronym means in the first place. Although I should attribute “with au jus” to the same lack of understanding whence came “Sahara Desert,” au jus, like a la mode, is a very commonly understood Anglicanism, and most people also know that au jus specifically refers to a dish coming with a bowl of beef drippings to dip one’s sandwich in.
The problem I think comes from the fact that, in order to refer specifically to the beef drippings, most people, being at a loss for anything else to call it, use it as a noun. “Excuse me, where can I find the au jus?” In this sense it can be understood – if one were to ask for “beef drippings” or simply “jus” all you’d get for your trouble is a blank stare or directions to the frozen drinks section.
You may well be right, I haven’t meant to say anything that would bring this into doubt. (Though incidentally, I myself would understand ‘with extra juice’ immediately. Growing up, this is what we would always say in my family in such situations.)
But again, I’ll reiterate–I take the question of actual usage and the question of correct usage to be two different questions, both of which can be asked, both of which lead to informative answers useful for their purposes.
So say I find out everybody understands “with extra au jus” immediately and clearly. Fine. This has no bearing, however, on the correctness of my intuition that, were I to go to all these people and explain the etymological facts, they’d say something like, “Hey, you’re right, we really shouldn’t be using the word the way we do!” Even if some are staunch descriptivists, they surely wouldn’t be able to (honestly) deny the force of the prescriptivist intuition in this case.
-FrL-
You might be right on this, but I hadn’t heard the term until some time in my mid-twenties–and I’m a guy who likes to cook and who has a pretty large vocabulary (admittedly, being a vegetarian may account for not knowing this term). I wonder whether it’s a term that’s been more popular in some regions than in others, and if the term’s migration between regions may account for the novel usage?
Daniel
Well, we’re in IMHO territory now, but I disagree. The fact that it’s a foreign phrase (rather than, say, an English acronym) and the fact that it’s perfectly understood by virtually everyone, whereas its suggested synonyms are not, would probably have most people saying “so what?”
Really? What’s wrong with that? :dubious:
And what’s wrong with “Sahara Desert”?
Gary T has it right: the meaning of a word or phrase in another language is irrelevant in determining if its usage is correct in English.
Frylock, if I come up with a new word, let’s say, Schpicklepack, to describe the specific kind of beef-juice-drippings that are often served alongside roast beef, and if the word catches on until a majority of roast-beef-eaters in the US understand the word, would you consider the word to be incorrect? On what basis would you make that determination?
Daniel
Well, it’s wrong. Not just in grammar, but in common usage. Check these Texas maps. If you live within a thousand miles of it, calling it the “Rio Grande River” identifies you as a rube.