Oh, well, maybe if we put some shredded loin fat on our blended nut and fruit preserve sandwiches and left them sitting in a pot of brandy for a couple of months it would be less weird.
Again, I'm familiar with mincemeat.
And it's in part because I'm familiar with it that I don't blame anyone for not doing a reality check when they think a ?British recipe is telling them to make a pie out of ground beef and apples.
And it's in part because I'm familiar with it that I don't blame anyone for not doing a reality check when they think a ?British recipe is telling them to make a pie out of ground beef and apples.
I mean, they still use "minced meat" to refer to meat chopped fine.
And many still put minced meat (not shredded suet but actual meat in addition to it) in their "mincemeat".
It's the kind of thing that if you included in world building would ring fake.
And many still put minced meat (not shredded suet but actual meat in addition to it) in their "mincemeat".
It's the kind of thing that if you included in world building would ring fake.
Etymologically, "meat" doesn't refer specifically to animal flesh to begin with. At the time that mincemeat originates it would not have been strange to refer to the edible bits of nuts and fruit as "meat" (and it's still not wholly wrong, just dated and weird).
So depending on context the English word meat can refer to:
1. Basically any edible part of any once-living thing.
2. Edible parts of animals.
3. Edible parts of land animals. ("Fish, or meat?")
4. Edible parts of land mammals ("Fish, fowl, or meat?")
1. Basically any edible part of any once-living thing.
2. Edible parts of animals.
3. Edible parts of land animals. ("Fish, or meat?")
4. Edible parts of land mammals ("Fish, fowl, or meat?")
Just as the word "tea" can mean:
1. A particular plant.
2. The leaves of that plant.
3. The dried and chopped leaves of that plant.
4. A beverage made from the above.
5. A meal at which the beverage is traditionally served.
1. A particular plant.
2. The leaves of that plant.
3. The dried and chopped leaves of that plant.
4. A beverage made from the above.
5. A meal at which the beverage is traditionally served.
Most Americans, reading a British reference to "having tea", "having someone round for tea", "invitation to tea", etc., are thinking mainly of the beverage.
The idea that this is more like a dinner invitation than having someone by for coffee is a nuance the average US reader will miss out on *but not in a way that fundamentally affects the reading*... because if it did, we would find it strange, and figure out where we went wrong.
Same thing with references to people eating "mince pies" or "mincemeat pies", along with references to lamb mince or minced beef or what have you. The reference scans fine as a meat pie, something we know is more common in UK cuisine than in ours anyway.
It's only when the person doing the misunderstanding is a food blogger actually attempting a recipe that the disconnect becomes visible and apparent.
Otherwise it's like an orphaned reference that can live on divorced from context indefinitely.
Otherwise it's like an orphaned reference that can live on divorced from context indefinitely.
"Mincemeat" not meaning the same thing as "a meat that has been minced" is not the weirdest thing about language, but people from a different culture not grasping the difference on sight is hardly dunkworthy.
If I can be less feisty for a bit:
Maybe when people from outside your cultural context don't immediately and intuitively grok the weird twists and turns language took to get to the point things are at today, take a moment to reflect upon and appreciate that history.
Maybe when people from outside your cultural context don't immediately and intuitively grok the weird twists and turns language took to get to the point things are at today, take a moment to reflect upon and appreciate that history.
