Clearly some things can be described as “crisp” but not “crispy” – an autumn day for example, or a dollar bill.
Can anything be described as “crispy” but not “crisp”? Is there a difference between, say, a side of crisp bacon and one of crispy bacon? What does “crispy” add to the English language that isn’t already there with “crisp”? It seems like every food writer wouldn’t dream of using “crisp” if “crispy” applies, which I admit kind of irks me.
It seems to me that vegetables can be crisp without being crispy. Though I’m not sure what the actual distinction is.
“Crisp bacon” is quite awkward to say with the aspirated “p” next to the identical but unaspirated “b”. The insertion of the extra vowel sound makes the expression easier to articulate, and perhaps aurally more attractive.
By the same token, what does “irk” add to the English language, when we already have annoy, irritate, vex, gall & exasperate? Nothing semantically, but it’s a stylish word with a sound that somehow seems to fit its meaning.
i think that I found a distinction that I like here. crisp / crispy | WordReference Forums
[QUOTE=foxfirebrand]
Think of a “crispy” food item as something that has been made crisp. That will make it clear why food items have been singled out as almost exclusively “crispy.” But “fresh, crisp lettuce” is better-- the lettuce simply has that texture, and is not “crispy” from being baked or fried.
Other than food, I agree that “crisp” is preferred, and very often “crispy” would sound wrong. Just imagine the deep frier, and it may help you remember why a dollar bill isn’t “crispy,” even though it was “made,” i.e., is artificial.
Figurative uses of “crispy” are very few, and I think it will help to keep in mind the idea of frying.
“You look sunburned.”
“Yeah, I’m feeling a little crispy.”
[/QUOTE]
it works for other words and their ending in -y counterparts as well.
If we say “this is a watery sandwich,” that tells us a sandwich had too much liquid seeping out of it, but we would not say “this is a water sandwich,” as that would be… what? ice between slices of bread?
“the attic is moldy” and “the attic is mold” conjure two different pictures, don’t they?
But water and mold are nouns. Adding -y turns them into adjectives.
The OP’s point is that crisp is already an adjective without the -y.
Adding the -y to crisp might be logically superfluous, but it’s probably mimicking the algorithm followed elsewhere to turn nouns into adjectives.
It seems that we can apply crispy when only part of the food is crisp. Fried chicken is crispy, but only the skin is crisp. Lettuce and bacon can be crisp but a BLT is crispy.
It’s possible I haven’t considered all possible consequences of this distinction.
Thinking through usage, it seems that “crispy” is reserved for foodstuffs that have a softer texture inside, but a crisp outside?
As Chronos mentioned, you would call a piece of raw carrot or celery crisp, not crispy - it’s crisp all the way through.
But crispy bacon, crispy chicken (skin), crispy donut - all have a crisp outside only.
Does this hold up, or are there counterexamples of crispy things that are crisp all the way through?
ETA - ninja’d by Dr Strangelove
I’ve noticed that both crisp and crispy come up on some word aversion lists. Word aversion has nothing to do with the interminable moaning about the “misuse” of words like literally, or dislike of neologisms or slang. Word aversion is the strange phenomenon of visceral negative reaction to some undefined intrinsic quality of a word - the sound or feel of a word. I hope that I’ve described that accurately, since I don’t seem to suffer from it. The most commonly reported aversion is to the word moist.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004835.html
When I looked at the OP, the first example that came to my mind is paper money. A brand new bill of any denomination, handed to you by the bank teller, fresh from the Bureau of Printing and Engraving… that is incredibly crisp, but is not at all crispy.
I notice that this is the first example in this thread that isn’t edible. I don’t know if that is significant or not.
In UK English the word “crisp” is a noun (potato chip or certain desserts) and “crispy” is an adjective applied to fried foods, which seems far more logical than the American use of the words. Personally, I use “crunchy” for vegetables and reserve “crispy” for fried foods and don’t apply either word to non-edible objects or weather. Autumn is “brisk” and new money is “stiff.”
Krispy Kremes are neither crispy nor crisp (and many aren’t even creamy).
Let’s not confuse matters here. Your personal preferences notwithstanding, there is no difference in standard UK usage for the adjectives crisp and crispy that we are discussing here:
crisp winter morning
crisp banknote
crisp lettuce leaf
crisp [or] crispy bacon
crispy [fried food with a crisp outside]
are all standard UK & US English, no difference at all
I think the point might stand, though. As was pointed out, water and mold are nouns, which are then adjectified with the addition of ‘-y’. In Britain, a crisp is a noun, and something that is crispy shares the crunchy characteristics that a crisp displays.
Agreed entirely. ‘Crisp’ is a perfectly valid, and not uncommon adjective in UK English.
The snow in the Christmas carol Good Kind Wenceslas is ‘deep and crisp and even’, for example.
Watery and mouldy don’t mean like water or mould. They mean containing water or mould.
Color me highly skeptical that the etymology of crispy is from “like a potato crisp”! It certainly doesn’t have any connotation of that in modern British usage. If there were such a word, it seems like it should be crisp-like, not crispy.
That doesn’t match the history of the word, as best I can tell.
Crisp the adjective has been in the language since Old English, and only later became a noun. However, originally it meant “curly” and only after becoming a noun did it take on the meaning “brittle”. So one possibility is that cooked flat things were called crisps because they became curly in the oven; that they also became brittle in the process may have influenced the usage of the adjective form to include brittleness.
But the adjective form was still first, even if the word didn’t have quite the same meaning originally. Crispy came much later.
Sources:
crisp (adj.)
Old English crisp “curly,” from Latin crispus “curled, wrinkled, having curly hair,” from PIE root *(s)ker- (3) “to turn, bend” (see ring (n.)). It began to mean “brittle” 1520s, for obscure reasons, perhaps based on what happens to flat things when they are cooked. Figurative sense of “neat, brisk” is from 1814; perhaps a separate word. As a noun, from late 14c. Potato crisps (the British version of U.S. potato chips) is from 1929.
crispy (adj.)
late 14c., “curly,” from crisp (adj.) + -y (2). Meaning “brittle” is recorded from 1610s.
The Old English period ended in the 11th century and so crisp-as-curly was established by then. Crisp-as-noun and crispy-as-curly didn’t appear until the 14th century, and crisp-as-brittle in the 16th century. Crispy-as-brittle took until the 17th century, and potato crisps only appeared in the 20th.
It seems crispy could still mean curly in Shakespeare’s time
[QUOTE=Shakespeare in Measure for Measure ]
So are those crispy snaky golden locks
[/QUOTE]
I believe TipTapTwo’s quotations of foxfirebrand explains it well enough. For the most part we use crispy to refer to foods that have been prepared in a way that makes them crisp, so to answer the OP’s question, I would say “no.” Something cannot be crispy without being crisp, because that is essentially its definition.
It is not some kind of taxonomy of material existence, either. It’s simply semantics.
I have no idea what this means. Is this supposed to be some kind of put-down of the discussion here?
I thought the OP’s curiosity about the usage was valid and it has been a rather worthwhile and interesting discussion, especially eventually learning that crisp & crispy used to mean curly.