Talk:Au jus

message: A local restaurant offers veal jus lie. Is this the same? JimScott 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  jus lie 

message: The section made the correct analysis of English use of "au jus" as meaning "broth", not "with broth". Given that, as an English word, it's not considered to have a preposition, it can't be said to be incorrect to use the preposition "with" in front of it. Being an adopted, English word, it no longer can be judged by French grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.164.119 (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perceived intention notwithstanding, if a word is indeed incorporated into the English vernacular, even a word that's not originally English, the grammatical rules very well can change, as the first poster correctly observed. As compelling an argument as "Just... no" is, and while the cited blog is interesting (if a little self-congratulating,) - the fact remains that if a word is incorporated into the English lexicon, the grammatical rules often change from those of its language of origin. I'm sure there are dozens of examples of other similarly "misused" words and phrases that are accepted as being the "correct use" in common English. I suppose, before making a judgment, you have to decide which viewpoint you're judging it from - its mother language, or the language of the contextual use (in this case, English.) I'd love to edit the main page to reflect this, but I can't think of a good way to say it right now, and it's not worth devoting more than a minute or so to something that'd just get reverted anyway. 71.204.49.76 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Acq3 is mistaken in assuming that most English-speakers  who use the phrase au jus "are clearly intending to use this french 'phrase' to sound fancy." Au jus is the normal English term for meat juice (usually beef) without an added thickening agent like flour when served on or with other food. It is not a pretentious use of a foreign phrase but an ordinary use of an English word. (Note that the French phrase has become an English word, which is not at all uncommon in any language.)When used in French, the phrase follows French custom; when used in English it follows English custom. In English, the normal pronunciation is something like either "awe Jew" or "awe juice," and the fact that it already contains a French preposition meaning "with" does not prevent English speakers from adding their own preposition if they're more comfortable doing so. In English ears, the word au does not have any particular meaning, so although au jus is a prepositional phrase in French, in English it is often used as a simple noun, requiring the addition of an English preposition to construct a prepositional phrase.If every word and phrase that has been assimilated into English had to be used and pronounced according to the rules of its language of origin, English would not even be a distinct language. The pretentious argument in this discussion is that a term that originated in French must forever be used and pronounced as if it were still exclusively French, which is—to use another originally French word "incorrectly"—naive. I'm not afraid of reversions, so I have deleted the pretentious sentence about how wrong English speakers are.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your explanation documents usage in American English. In British English, the word 'jus' is used as a noun as in French and 'au jus' is unknown in English language menus. Possibly this just reflects the greater familiarity with French in Britain. The term is arguably just a pretentious chef's affectation and isn't in widespread usage.--Ef80 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed a pretentious affectation, but probably that of marketing types rather than chefs. In the USA it's very widespread, alas. I'm on the side of those who say with au jus is totally incorrect usage but that view hasn't (so far) found consensus. El Ingles (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrase "with au jus" is grammatically incorrect, of course. To compound the problem, it is also a tautological error. It should never be said and serves merely to draw attention to the ignorance of the speaker. — O'Dea (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

text: "Au jus" is not a normal English term for meat juice.  Using the term that way is simply an incorrect use of a French phrase.  Jim10701, you are right that grammar and pronunciation change when borrowed words are imported into other languages.  That's simply not what's going on here.  Not every malapropism becomes enshrined as a part of "correct" usage.  Here's the dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/au+jus. Abraitberg (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section claims "often" and El Ingles claims "very widespread", yet I have never seen it, and am unable to find a source claiming "often" or "very widespread". Just because it is incorrect and bothers us when we see it, doesn't mean that it occurs more frequently than "rarely".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.27.253 (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

text: From an American context, "au jus" can be used pretentiously, but by no means is that always the case. My local diner - where patrons and staff would consider you a highfalutin' intellectual just for being able to spell "pretentious" - has an "au jus" beef sandwich on the menu, for example. Anyway, Jim10701 has the right of it imo: when borrowing words and phrases into English from other languages, English grammar applies. Whatever its literal meaning in French, "au jus" is commonly (typically?) treated as a single word noun in English. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. -- Hux (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical correctness of "With au jus", etc. 

message: This article really needs an IPA pronunciation of "au jus." --Bando26 (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronounciation as currently given in the article got it the wrong way round: it's often pronounced as "oh jus", while it should be "aw / or jus". As heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Xtx9qOe1U. This needs to be fixed. 89.166.142.65 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The cited Youtube track is FAR closer to "oh zhoo" than "aw jus". El Ingles (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Isn't the term "grammatically interesting" an oxymoron? Gutch220 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: Isn't the French phrase au jus naturel, greatly in contrast to the American abomination of "with au just" that has nothing natural about it? I consider it to be on a par with "chicken pollo", another common piece of pretentious but uninformed labeling. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The AE use of this term has absolutely nothing to do with French usage. Pretentious American cuisine is very inward looking and picks foreign terminology almost at random with little relevance to correct usage in the original language. "Bleu cheese" anyone? --Ef80 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural?