# "Au Jus" as a noun **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 17, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945 "2006-02-17T14:47:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/61 "2006-02-17T20:43:33Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Any of us familiar with and respectful of the original usage find this corruption annoying and ignorant, however snooty we may be for finding it thus. > > Is there a term like [Engrish](http://www.engrish.com) that applies to Americans incorrectly using French? In the sense that “corrupt” means [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corrupt]“change the original form of,” I agree, of course. I’m not sure it’s the best word to use here, due to its connotations. I, however, am familiar with and respectful of the original usage, and I do not find this “corruption” to be annoying or ignorant. Instead, I find it to be a cool example of the ability of language to transform itself through the innovations of its speakers. The only thing I find annoying or ignorant, to be honest, is the idea that English speakers must hold to the rules of other languages when it mugs those languages for their vocabulary. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/62 "2006-02-17T20:50:13Z")
> [@Mindfield](#): > > _Au jus_ isn’t a noun by itself though; it is preceded by a preposition. If you’re speaking French, it is. If you’re speaking English, it’s not: in English, “au” is not a preposition. This is not a nitpick: this is central to the argument I’m making. > [@](#): > > _I would like a slice of pie in the style._ > _I would like a shaved beef sandwich with juice._ > > The first is a sentence fragment. The second is ambiguous. You therefore create a peculiar dichotomy when you mix the two languages. We know what pie is. We know what _a la mode_ means. We therefore transparently understand _pie a la mode_ despite the above. It just doesn’t stand up to grammatical scrutiny. Just so with _au jus_. Nitpick: the first isn’t a sentence fragment. It’s got a subject (I), a verb (would like), a direct object (a slice), an adjectival phrase (of pie), and another adjectival phrase (in the style). The last adjectival phrase is ambiguous, but it’s not grammatically incomplete. I believe that “a la mode” is best considered in English as a single-word adjective, not (as it is in French) a prepositional phrase: you can’t break it apart and still have meaning. That is, I cannot order “a slice of pie a la berry” and have people understand that I’d like berries on my pie. If folks started using “a la mode” as a noun (“Hold the pie, please, and just give me the a la mode”), then I’d consider it to be a one-word noun. I apply the same analysis to “au jus.” In English, it’s not a prepositional phrase: it’s a foreign phrase we’ve appropriated for our own use. As such, we treat it as one unit, and that unit can apparently be either an adjective or a noun. Granted, it’s an irregular adjective, inasmuch as it normally follows after the noun it modifies; but it still acts as an adjective, not as a prepositional phrase that may be divided into component pieces. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/63 "2006-02-17T21:18:47Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If you’re comparing the two, you’re factually wrong. When you say “this sentence violates breaks,” you’ve used two verbs in a row in an ungrammatical fashion that no native English speaker would do without intentionally trying to break the language’s grammar. A person who uses “au jus” as a noun is doing nothing of the sort. Yes, “au” in a preposition in French, but it’s not in English, so there’s no repetition. > > Daniel I’m not talking about “au jus,” I’m talking about “Rio Grande.” Keep up, man! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/64 "2006-02-17T21:19:01Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If you’re speaking French, it is. If you’re speaking English, it’s not: in English, “au” is not a preposition. This is not a nitpick: this is central to the argument I’m making. Then that means “I would like a beef dip au jus” is grammatically incorrect since it lacks an english preposition; you are effectively saying “I would like a beef dip juice.” > [@LHoD](#): > > I believe that “a la mode” is best considered in English as a single-word adjective, not (as it is in French) a prepositional phrase: you can’t break it apart and still have meaning. That is, I cannot order “a slice of pie a la berry” and have people understand that I’d like berries on my pie. If folks started using “a la mode” as a noun (“Hold the pie, please, and just give me the a la mode”), then I’d consider it to be a one-word noun. > > I apply the same analysis to “au jus.” In English, it’s not a prepositional phrase: it’s a foreign phrase we’ve appropriated for our own use. As such, we treat it as one unit, and that unit can apparently be either an adjective or a noun. Granted, it’s an irregular adjective, inasmuch as it normally follows after the noun it modifies; but it still acts as an adjective, not as a prepositional phrase that may be divided into component pieces. _a la mode_ can not be broken down that way though. Your sentence is essentially asking for “a slice of pie in the berry.” Obviously this is nonsensical. _Au jus_ can be used in this instance, however. Asking for something “a slice of pie _aux baies_” make perfectly good sense in the same way asking for a beef dip _a la mode_ would. (The latter is disgusting, but at least it’s grammatically correct. :)) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/65 "2006-02-17T21:37:29Z")
> [@Mindfield](#): > > Then that means “I would like a beef dip au jus” is grammatically incorrect since it lacks an english preposition; you are effectively saying “I would like a beef dip juice.” Not at all. “au jus” as an adjective means “served with thin beefy gravy.” The standard English construction would be to say, “I’d like an au jus beef sandwich,” but adjectives occasionally appear after the word they modify; I’d say this is one of those cases (although I can’t think of other adjectives that **habitually** follow their nouns–this may be a weakness in my analysis). > [@](#): > > _a la mode_ can not be broken down that way though. Your sentence is essentially asking for “a slice of pie in the berry.” Obviously this is nonsensical. _Au jus_ can be used in this instance, however. Asking for something “a slice of pie _aux baies_” make perfectly good sense in the same way asking for a beef dip _a la mode_ would. (The latter is disgusting, but at least it’s grammatically correct. :)) “Aux baies” means “with berries,” right? That’s a French phrase, not an English phrase. Asking for “a slice of pie aux baies” would be under most circumstances an indication of an incompetent speaker, because under most circumstances, the audience isn’t going to understand what you’re saying. Incidentally, although you’re correct that “a” in French is usually translated as “in,” that’s not necessary. Look at “au jus,” the contraction of “a le jus,” which is not translated as “in the juice.” 🙂 I’m wondering whether anyone would mind if I served them some beef with _au jus_ as an _hors d’oeuvre_. After all, “_hors d’oeuvre_” is French for “outside the work,” another prepositional phrase; the same objections to treating _au jus_ as a noun ought to apply equally. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/66 "2006-02-18T00:35:41Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Not at all. “au jus” as an adjective means “served with thin beefy gravy.” The standard English construction would be to say, “I’d like an au jus beef sandwich,” but adjectives occasionally appear after the word they modify; I’d say this is one of those cases (although I can’t think of other adjectives that **habitually** follow their nouns–this may be a weakness in my analysis). An adjective can follow a noun if the two are conjoined by an adverb. (“The sea so blue.”) I can’t think of any that don’t follow an adverb though. However, this is a means of using _au jus_ as an adjective, which sounds a bit more proper. I am not aware of anyone who actually uses it as an adjective, however; everyone orders “beef dip au jus” or “beef dip with au jus” depending on how it’s listed in the menu. > [@LHoD](#): > > “Aux baies” means “with berries,” right? That’s a French phrase, not an English phrase. Asking for “a slice of pie aux baies” would be under most circumstances an indication of an incompetent speaker, because under most circumstances, the audience isn’t going to understand what you’re saying. Because _aux baies_ is not a commonly understood phrase like _au jus_ or _a la mode_ is. If ordering pie with berries as _aux baies_ was just as common, the same rules would apply. This isn’t a perfect example because _aux baies_, like _a la mode_ already has a perfectly good English phrase by which to refer to it, so there’s no good reason for anyone to order “Pie _aux baies_” when they could just say “Pie with berries.” Especially when few people would even know how to pronounce _baies_. On the other hand, if you created some kind of chunky coulis using berries, oranges, mangoes and pureed beef tripe, and simply referred to it as _au boue_ (“with slime”) you’d have the same problem as _au jus_. > [@LHoD](#): > > Incidentally, although you’re correct that “a” in French is usually translated as “in,” that’s not necessary. Look at “au jus,” the contraction of “a le jus,” which is not translated as “in the juice.” 🙂 Technically, no. “au” (and the plural “aux”) means “with.” (the synonym would be “avec” though I’m not entirely sure the context in which one or the other would be used) “a le” (and the masculine “a la”) translate as “(it) has.” Thus, _pâté a la mode_ transalates literally as “pie has the fashion.” I’m not sure if “in the fashion” is just a common mistranslation or if there is some commonly understood rule in French that changes the “has” to “in.” My french is _comme-si, comme-ça_. > [@](#): > > I’m wondering whether anyone would mind if I served them some beef with _au jus_ as an _hors d’oeuvre_. After all, “_hors d’oeuvre_” is French for “outside the work,” another prepositional phrase; the same objections to treating _au jus_ as a noun ought to apply equally. _Hors-d’oeuvre_ translates literally as “out of work.” Not that it makes a big difference. 🙂 I’d be interested in the etymology of _Hors-d’oeuvre_ as it relates to an appetizer though. Seems a curious phrase to apply to little comestibles. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/67 "2006-02-18T00:57:12Z")
> [@Mindfield](#): > > Technically, no. “au” (and the plural “aux”) means “with.” (the synonym would be “avec” though I’m not entirely sure the context in which one or the other would be used) “a le” (and the masculine “a la”) translate as “(it) has.” Thus, _pâté a la mode_ transalates literally as “pie has the fashion.” I’m not sure if “in the fashion” is just a common mistranslation or if there is some commonly understood rule in French that changes the “has” to “in.” My french is _comme-si, comme-ça_. I think you’re wrong on this, but my own French isn’t good enough. [Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=a%20la%20mode) agrees with me: > [@](#): > > [French : à, in + la, the + mode, fashion.] > [@](#): > > _Hors-d’oeuvre_ translates literally as “out of work.” Not that it makes a big difference. 🙂 > > I’d be interested in the etymology of _Hors-d’oeuvre_ as it relates to an appetizer though. Seems a curious phrase to apply to little comestibles. 🙂 My etymology was actually correct–you’re translating it overliterally. The work referred to by “hors d’oeuvre” is the main dish. The hors d’oeuvre is that which is served outside the main dish of the evening. THe point I’m making, however, is that it’s a French prepositional phrase treated in English as a noun. If you’re going to object to treating _au jus_ as a noun because of its meaning in French, I don’t understand how you can fail to object to _hors d’oeuvre_ for precisely the same reason. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/68 "2006-02-18T01:00:16Z")
A better translation of “à la mode” would be “in style” even though that’s not the word-for-word translation. Like how we say, “In the stretch limo, he was riding in style.” > [@Mindfield](#): > > I’d be interested in the etymology of _Hors-d’oeuvre_ as it relates to an appetizer though. Seems a curious phrase to apply to little comestibles. 🙂 I don’t know the factual etymology but “outside of work” means, in this case, outside of the main meal (don’t even get me started on saying _entrée_ to mean main course). I do not know how the French came to use the word oeuvre for this (my French dictionary is at home; maybe “main” is another meaning for ouevre). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/69 "2006-02-18T01:02:07Z")
> [@Mindfield](#): > > Technically, no. “au” (and the plural “aux”) means “with.” (the synonym would be “avec” though I’m not entirely sure the context in which one or the other would be used) “a le” (and the masculine “a la”) translate as “(it) has.” Actually I didn’t read this carefully enough. You make a more basic mistake: “au” is simply a contraction of “à le.” You’ll never see “à le” in French, for essentially the same reason that you’ll never see “a apple” in English. (It’s a hard thing to google for a cite, unfortunately). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/70 "2006-02-18T01:18:52Z")
You bastards. You made me want a French Dip sub _so bad_, and there’s no Quizno’s around here. FWIW, though, I tried Submarina across the street; I asked the guy working there if they had “a French Dip sub” and his reply was “What, you mean like _an au jus?_ No.” > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > For the record, I used to get that sort of dumbass mockery all the time when I was a kid, and for awhile I made an effort to simplify my own vocabulary in order to avoid it; it got to the point where sometimes I’d be rendered silent by my inability to think of a monosyllabic synonym of a word that I wanted to use. So I don’t approve of that angle, either. I’m in the same boat with you. I was the kind of kid who had more fun reading the dictionary than playing football. My diction has relaxed as I’ve pulled myself away from books and computers somewhat over the last couple of years (as well as living in Southern California); nobody calls my language stuffy anymore. But when I’m in what I perceive to be a formal situation I can really lay it on pretty thick without realizing it. > [@mhendo](#): > > I’m no hard-line prescriptivist, but i also don’t have much time for the attitude that anything goes as long as we can get used to it. The thing is that it comes from another language. IMO, as such the way it comes into English is the correct way to speak it in English. I’ll give you another example from Spanish: “comprende”. Saying “Comprende?” to someone familiar, particularly if they’re younger than you or lower on the social ladder than you, would be incorrect. It would also be incorrect to ask the same to more than one person at a time, and anyway if you were speaking Spanish you would probably slap a “me” or at least a “lo” in front. (Not to mention that you’d probably be more likely to use entender than comprender, at least if you were in Mexico.) The way “comprende” is used in English is incorrect in Spanish, as is the way we spell “jalapeno” and “companero”. But that doesn’t matter because when you’re speaking English, they’re not Spanish words. Comprende? > [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Is there a term like Engrish that applies to Americans incorrectly using French? I humbly submit Fransoise. (Rhymes with Detroit, the way NFL broadcasters say it.) ---
**Author:** ![Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7993a0/32.png) [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/71 "2006-02-18T01:24:06Z")
I know this is irrelevant now, but when I got Italian beef sandwiches in the greater Chicagoland area, and everyone called the stuff ‘juice’ (jus?). Also, that was an unhelpful link to maps of Texas. That is, the Rio Grande wasn’t labeled on many of them. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/72 "2006-02-18T02:19:43Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > The thing is that it comes from another language. IMO, as such the way it comes into English is the correct way to speak it in English. Well, first of all, i was making a general observation about descriptivism, not just about this particular case. Second, until i heard the Quiznos ad, the only time i had ever heard “au jus” in English-speaking countries (Australia, UK, Canada, the US) was in the more proper sense, essentially the same way they use it in France. Not as a compound noun. > [@fetus](#): > > The way “comprende” is used in English is incorrect in Spanish, as is the way we spell “jalapeno” and “companero”. But that doesn’t matter because when you’re speaking English, they’re not Spanish words. Comprende? Shouldn’t that be ¿Comprende? 🙂 Anyway, i think it’s different, because “comprende” in generally used colloquially or somewhat ironically. Also, i don’t know about you, but i spell it “jalapeño” and “compañero.” And, while not many people use the word “compañero” on a regular basis, i see the word “jalapeño” a lot, and it is, more often than not, spelled with the accent. And most people i know also pronounce it “-enyo.” YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/73 "2006-02-18T03:24:06Z")
> [@Jamaika a jamaikaiaké](#): > > Also, that was an unhelpful link to maps of Texas. That is, the Rio Grande wasn’t labeled on many of them. [Map](http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/texas_physical_map.jpg) [Map](http://texas.state-capitals.com/state_ref2/texas.jpg) [Map](http://www.nps.gov/applications/parks/foda/ppMaps/Texas%20map%202%201000.jpg) [Map](http://www.1clickhotels.com/maps/Texas%20Map.gif) [Map](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.paleoresearch.com/Maps/USA%2520States/Pics/Texas.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.paleoresearch.com/Maps/USA%2520States/Texas.html&h=767&w=800&sz=97&tbnid=7TmgTXLjnEig3M:&tbnh=136&tbnw=142&hl=en&start=65&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtexas%2Bmaps%26start%3D60%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN) [Mappity](http://texas.state-capitals.com/state_ref2/texas.jpg) [map](http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/bochum-aggies/bilder/texas_map.gif) [map](http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/texas_map.gif) [map](http://www.countymapsoftexas.com/aagifs/texas.gif) [map](http://www.bradynationalbank.com/images/texas-map.gif) [map](http://www.christmasih.org/images/edit_tx_large_map.gif). Also, [map](http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/reference/maps/images/txredbk4.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![missbunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/76d3ee/32.png) [@missbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/missbunny)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/74 "2006-02-18T05:40:23Z")
> [@Mindfield](#): > > Technically, no. “au” (and the plural “aux”) means “with.” (the synonym would be “avec” though I’m not entirely sure the context in which one or the other would be used) “a le” (and the masculine “a la”) translate as “(it) has.” \* “Au” doesn’t actually mean “with,” not the same way that “avec” means “with.” “Au” or “aux” or “à la” when used to describe food or methods of cooking mean “in the style of” or “in the fashion of.” I guess you could shortcut it to sometimes mean “with” but that’s a colloquialism. > [@](#): > > Thus, _pâté a la mode_ transalates literally as “pie has the fashion.” I’m not sure if “in the fashion” is just a common mistranslation or if there is some commonly understood rule in French that changes the “has” to “in.” It’s not a mistranslation in French, but _you_ are translating it incorrectly into English. The phrase “à la mode” doesn’t mean “has” anything - the “à” is the article “to,” not the third-person singular conjugation of _avoir_. And neither “a le” nor “a la” means “it has.” Not sure if you made a typo or really think this, but in no way is “a la” masculine. Anyway, there’s no rule that changes the “has” to “in” because the “a” (sic - it’s à not a) doesn’t mean “has” at all. Someone earlier said that “à la mode” means “in the popular fashionable style.” He is exactly right: “à la mode” in French, in that context, means “pie in the way that is fashionable right now.” ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/75 "2006-02-18T06:17:02Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Shouldn’t that be ¿Comprende? My point exactly. > [@mhendo](#): > > And, while not many people use the word “compañero” on a regular basis, i see the word “jalapeño” a lot, and it is, more often than not, spelled with the accent. And most people i know also pronounce it “-enyo.” YMMV. Sure, everyone knows to throw the “y” sound in there, but I’d wager that a survey of common American English in areas with low Hispanic populations would turn up a lot of “jalapeno” and “companero” spelled like so. But you’re right–mileage does vary. ---
**Author:** ![Ignatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3be4f8/32.png) [@Ignatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ignatz)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/76 "2006-02-18T13:35:48Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I’m trying to figure out if that’s a left-handed compliment. > > Anyway, [Sahara](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=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 How about “_au plus de jus_”? It even rhymes. These ads also bothered my sense of “prescriptiveness” from the git-go, but I thought it too mundane (or “prescriptive”) to bring to this fine medium. Glad I renewed, but I have broken the habit. I now only get here about every couple of weeks. By the way, the first Quiznos ads I saw actually said, “with au jus sauce”!!! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/77 "2006-02-18T14:32:02Z")
Does anyone disagree that _au jus_ is analogous to _hors d’oeuvres_, and may be nounificated in the same fashion? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/78 "2006-02-18T15:50:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Does anyone disagree that _au jus_ is analogous to _hors d’oeuvres_, and may be nounificated in the same fashion? > > Daniel I disagree. Please understand what I’ve been trying to explain–I do not claim there are fixed unchanging rules for the language, but rather, that at any given time, there are certain judgments speakers will tend to make about their language as to what sort of _new usages_ “feel right” and which ones “feel wrong” given knowledge of the facts as to their origins. In general, if our use of a phrase is based on a mistake, we want to correct that mistake–because we like to correct mistakes _in general_. If the best way to correct some particular mistake is to stop using the phrase in the way that was based on that mistake, then we will think of that usage as one of those which don’t, so to speak, “feel right.” Tell a person “you know, au jus means with juice,” and there’s a good chance he’ll come to see his usages of phrases like “with au jus” as based in a mistake. Tell him “you know, hors doeuvres means outside the main,” though, and he’s not likely to see _his use_ of the term as based in a mistake–because he’s using it as a longstanding, normal English word. Not so with “with au jus.” There he’s using a newish phrase, and probably knows it. Enough people know this at the present that there is so to speak a “community standard” by virtue of which it is right to say that “with au jus” is incorrect–not that the community actually judges it so, but that in general, the community would judge it so were they in posession of the facts and were they to think about it for a while. Give it another 10 or 20 years or so, though and au jus will probably become just like hors deouvres, and you won’t find me complaining though you will find me laughing in fond memory of myself complaining about it 10 or 20 years ago. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/79 "2006-02-18T16:59:13Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Please understand what I’ve been trying to explain–I do not claim there are fixed unchanging rules for the language, but rather, that at any given time, there are certain judgments speakers will tend to make about their language as to what sort of _new usages_ “feel right” and which ones “feel wrong” given knowledge of the facts as to their origins. In general, if our use of a phrase is based on a mistake, we want to correct that mistake–because we like to correct mistakes _in general_. If the best way to correct some particular mistake is to stop using the phrase in the way that was based on that mistake, then we will think of that usage as one of those which don’t, so to speak, “feel right.” > > Tell a person “you know, au jus means with juice,” and there’s a good chance he’ll come to see his usages of phrases like “with au jus” as based in a mistake. I just don’t see how this is correct. I asked my wife to use “au jus” in a sentence, and she used it as a noun. She knows what it means in French, but she doesn’t see why that should matter to her when she uses it in English. I suspect that the judgment she makes on this matter will be at least as common as the judgment you’re making; your jugment seems to me to be based on faulty logic, the same faulty logic that leads to people thinking split infinitives are unacceptable in English. The ability folks have to use language in the most useful manner is very cool, is a feature of language in general but especially of English, which borrows so heavily from other languages. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945/80 "2006-02-18T17:52:23Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I just don’t see how this is correct. I asked my wife to use “au jus” in a sentence, and she used it as a noun. She knows what it means in French, but she doesn’t see why that should matter to her when she uses it in English. I suspect that the judgment she makes on this matter will be at least as common as the judgment you’re making; your jugment seems to me to be based on faulty logic, the same faulty logic that leads to people thinking split infinitives are unacceptable in English. > > Daniel If you’re assimilating what you’re calling my “logic” to the “logic” that leads to people thinking split infinitives are unacceptable in English, then its hard for me to believe you’ve understood my reasoning at all. I don’t think there was _ever_ a time when it was appropriate to call split infinitives “incorrect.” That notion was just basically made up. I’m curious what you think my reasoning _is_. Here’s what you may be right about: “with au jus” may be further along as an established usage than I thought. This would suprise me. I first heard the usage _this year_ and no one I know personally thinks it sounds right. > [@daniel](#): > > The ability folks have to use language in the most useful manner is very cool, is a feature of language in general but especially of English, which borrows so heavily from other languages. I don’t know why you keep telling me this feature of language is “cool.” I don’t see the relevance of this judgment. (A judgment I tend to agree with, though with reservation since I don’t think it’s true that language always gets used in “the most useful manner.” Still, I do feel that the ways and means of language change are, in general, “cool.” But so what? This has nothing to do with anything I’ve been saying.) -FrL- [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/au-jus-as-a-noun/344945.md?page=5)