Missed the edit window to add this:
As for the “with au jus” thing, here’s an even worse offender:
:dubious:
I think the reason it looks so wrong to Brits and would never appear on a British menu is that most of us are at least passingly familiar with French (being only 20-something miles away from the place) so “au” immediately signals “with” in our minds. In the USA, not so much - but I couldn’t imagine, say, “chilli with con carne” cropping up on a menu over there.
I know it’s authentic! I merely remarked on it because I think it’s funny.
:smack: I misread. I thought you meant French restaurants in America, where the menus were written by English-speakers who had, at best, a passing knowledge of French but still had the urge to pepper the menus with their own linguistic ignorance.
Ah yeah, I meant when I go to France. I find it cute, thinking about the lamb with its pet carrots and broccoli.
ETA: I would argue that “jus” is the sauce though.
You know, jjimm, I get a similar reaction when I hear someone in English saying “my head hurts!”… right, yeah, it’s not as if someone else’s head can have you in pain 
unless you’re tallking about having been headbutted and then your pain would be someplace else…
You guys realize this thread is now a likely candidate for the google list of hits for “free potatoes baked with a crust”, right?
[tangent]
If one speaks German, one does not say “My head hurts” or “My foot is broken” it’s “The head …” or “The foot …”
Very, very oddly detached from their own bodies those Germans are.
[tangent to tangent]
Also, one does not get a headache in German, but rather Kopfschmerzen, i.e. “head pains.” Note the plural.
[/tangent to tangent]
[/tangent]
Funny, because in the last couple years I’ve noticed that very few restaurants advertise that stuff is “with au jus” anymore. Some places have even changed back from that to simply “au jus”. I’m gladdened by this, as I’m not a prescriptivist, except when a phrase hurts my ears like the redundancy I automatically hear in “with au jus”.
We? Who’s this “we?” I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s correct. Googling “and et cetera” vs. “et cetera” (or “and etc.” vs. etc.) yields the same kind of disproportionate results reported in the OP. Sure, there are some clueless folks who use it, but that doesn’t mean any significant percentage of the population thinks it’s correct.
No, because Google doesn’t search SDMB threads.
I’ve not eaten enough authentic French restaurant food to have noticed this one, but it sounds interesting. Is it perhaps used to indicate that the potatoes were cooked with the chicken? (that would kind of make sense), or is it more widespread than that?
Gary, I think you missed the participle “in” on the front of the word “correct” when I used it. 
Mangetout, the usage is ubiquitous - almost every main course. Try this Google search! E.g.
:smack: I sure did! Ah well, gotta demonstrate my human frailties now and then.
Actually, Google does. Thats how I got here, looking up to see if “au gratis” was correct or not, on Google.
Um, unless I just got whooshed, sure it does.
edit: How did I miss Sicklidae’s post?
I like my braiiinnnss served au juice, with a side of faux grotton.
And this is why resurrecting two-year-old threads is bad.
Son of a bitch…
Aww, thanks. We have our moments.
Is this construction actually used in Britain? It does, indeed, sound completely bizarre to my American ears.
No, I think Colophon was just inventing it as an example of a clumsy macaronic construction that would sound just as weird and wrong to American ears as the phrase “with au jus” does to British ears.