"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:33:30 -0600, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>> On 12/15/2014 7:28 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:20:12 -0500, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been craving this soup. It's been years since I made it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.food.com/recipe/byerlys-w...ce-soup-178083
>>>>
>>>> Byerly's Wild Rice Soup
>>>>
>>>> 6 tablespoons butter
>>>> 1 tablespoon minced onion
>>>> 1/2 cup flour
>>>> 3 cups chicken broth
>>>> 2 cups wild rice, cooked
>>>> 1/3 cup cooked ham, diced
>>>> 1/2 cup carrot, finely shredded
>>>> 3 tablespoons slivered almonds (chopped)
>>>> 1/2 teaspoon salt
>>>> 1 cup half-and-half
>>>> 2 tablespoons dry sherry
>>>> snipped parsley (for garnish) or chives (for garnish)
>>>
>>> Is that 2 cups of cooked wild rice, or do you cook 2 cups of wild
>>> rice?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Funny man.
>
> Ahh, but It really IS ambiguous. Especially when the same recipe uses
> terms such as:
>
> 1 tablespoon minced onion
> 1/3 cup cooked ham, diced
> 1/2 cup carrot, finely shredded
> 3 tablespoons slivered almonds (chopped)
>
> We would assume it's 2 cups of cooked wild rice (judging by the amount
> of liquid in the recipe), but then look at the "cooked ham" ingredient
> which is specifically cooked before measuring. And the onion is
> measure minced, so then why isn't the carrot listed as "1/2 cup finely
> shredded carrot"? Then we have a third form of ambiguity using
> parenthesis as in "almonds (chopped)".
>
> The order of the terms used in this recipe are not consistent and
> could be confusing to some people. As an editor yourself I would
> think you would consider this bad form.
>
> -sw

Yep. Certainly wouldn't work as written. The wild rice that I cooked
yesterday called for 2 cups of broth to 1/2 cup of rice. And it wasn't
soup.