| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Mexican Cooking (alt.food.mexican-cooking) A newsgroup created for the discussion and sharing of mexican food and recipes. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Mexican Cooking (alt.food.mexican-cooking) A newsgroup created for the discussion and sharing of mexican food and recipes. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
krusty kritter > wrote:
> A "wrap" is a symbol of yuppie decadence, denying traditional Mexican > cuisine in favor of a lithe physique... Oh! I live in a place where yuppies don't hang around long and so aren't catered to. One of 'em pulled up to the drive-up window of the liquor store where I used to spend two nights a week (my "hobby job") asking for directions to the nearest McDonald's. I told him, "Go out of the parking lot, turn left, and it'll be on your right in about 45 miles. You can't miss it." "Four or five miles, you say?" "No, forty-five miles." "FORTY-FIVE MILES?!?!" "Yep." "Howzabout Burker King?" "Go out of the parking lot, turn right, and at the traffic signal, turn right. It's about 50 miles to the traffic light, another two miles or so to the Burger King." "Okay, so where can a guy get a hamburger around here?" "Two blocks east, on the right. The drive-up window's on the right, but it's unmarked. You'll find it." > You may define "traditional" as you please... :-) Don't we all? > Eschewing any ingredients that might increase the size of the love > handles or enhance the spare tire, the yuppie "wrap" uses only the > flour tortilla to enfold the ingredients of the more fattening > traditional burrito... > > Anything can go into a wrap... Now I know, and I think I'll be avoiding them if ever I encounter a place that offers them for sale. I assume that many people enjoy them, but, for my money, if it's wrapped in a flour tortilla it'd better have something deliciously fattening in it. Thanks for the information, and for reminding me why it was that I escaped from southern California, where I grew up, as soon as I was able. -- Art Sackett, Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
krusty kritter > wrote:
> A "wrap" is a symbol of yuppie decadence, denying traditional Mexican > cuisine in favor of a lithe physique... Oh! I live in a place where yuppies don't hang around long and so aren't catered to. One of 'em pulled up to the drive-up window of the liquor store where I used to spend two nights a week (my "hobby job") asking for directions to the nearest McDonald's. I told him, "Go out of the parking lot, turn left, and it'll be on your right in about 45 miles. You can't miss it." "Four or five miles, you say?" "No, forty-five miles." "FORTY-FIVE MILES?!?!" "Yep." "Howzabout Burker King?" "Go out of the parking lot, turn right, and at the traffic signal, turn right. It's about 50 miles to the traffic light, another two miles or so to the Burger King." "Okay, so where can a guy get a hamburger around here?" "Two blocks east, on the right. The drive-up window's on the right, but it's unmarked. You'll find it." > You may define "traditional" as you please... :-) Don't we all? > Eschewing any ingredients that might increase the size of the love > handles or enhance the spare tire, the yuppie "wrap" uses only the > flour tortilla to enfold the ingredients of the more fattening > traditional burrito... > > Anything can go into a wrap... Now I know, and I think I'll be avoiding them if ever I encounter a place that offers them for sale. I assume that many people enjoy them, but, for my money, if it's wrapped in a flour tortilla it'd better have something deliciously fattening in it. Thanks for the information, and for reminding me why it was that I escaped from southern California, where I grew up, as soon as I was able. -- Art Sackett, Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Jan 2005 16:52:20 GMT, Art Sackett wrote:
> Now I know, and I think I'll be avoiding them if ever I encounter a > place that offers them for sale. I assume that many people enjoy them, > but, for my money, if it's wrapped in a flour tortilla it'd better have > something deliciously fattening in it. A "pastrami wrap, side o' gwock" would be deliciously fattening, whether the wrap is eaten or tossed. More properly made with rye bread (which contributes an relatively insignificant amount to the total calorie count*, as would the yuppie wrap) which helps to absorb a bit of excess grease (better tasting than if lean pastrami is used), it's more traditional to add spicy mustard with perhaps some cole slaw on the side or on the sandwich. It's also common for people to add Russian or Thousand Island dressing. I don't, but I'd be willing to try guacamole, which would seem to serve a similar purpose, and might be the way to go if one is unfortunate enough to have only lean pastrami on hand. * Perhaps not insignificant if you make your own sandwiches, but as served in the better restaurant's and delis, the pastrami is usually piled on so high that it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the sandwiches resemble footballs held between two tiny slices of bread.  |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Jan 2005 16:52:20 GMT, Art Sackett wrote:
> Now I know, and I think I'll be avoiding them if ever I encounter a > place that offers them for sale. I assume that many people enjoy them, > but, for my money, if it's wrapped in a flour tortilla it'd better have > something deliciously fattening in it. A "pastrami wrap, side o' gwock" would be deliciously fattening, whether the wrap is eaten or tossed. More properly made with rye bread (which contributes an relatively insignificant amount to the total calorie count*, as would the yuppie wrap) which helps to absorb a bit of excess grease (better tasting than if lean pastrami is used), it's more traditional to add spicy mustard with perhaps some cole slaw on the side or on the sandwich. It's also common for people to add Russian or Thousand Island dressing. I don't, but I'd be willing to try guacamole, which would seem to serve a similar purpose, and might be the way to go if one is unfortunate enough to have only lean pastrami on hand. * Perhaps not insignificant if you make your own sandwiches, but as served in the better restaurant's and delis, the pastrami is usually piled on so high that it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the sandwiches resemble footballs held between two tiny slices of bread. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Art Sackett wrote:
> krusty kritter > wrote: > > >>A "wrap" is a symbol of yuppie decadence, denying traditional Mexican >>cuisine in favor of a lithe physique... > snip >>Eschewing any ingredients that might increase the size of the love >>handles or enhance the spare tire, the yuppie "wrap" uses only the >>flour tortilla to enfold the ingredients of the more fattening >>traditional burrito... >> >>Anything can go into a wrap... > > > Now I know, and I think I'll be avoiding them if ever I encounter a > place that offers them for sale. I assume that many people enjoy them, > but, for my money, if it's wrapped in a flour tortilla it'd better have > something deliciously fattening in it. > > Thanks for the information, and for reminding me why it was that I > escaped from southern California, where I grew up, as soon as I was > able. > That first para can be misleading. Ut osunds just like a burrito. I think a better way might be: a sandwich rolled up in a plain or flavored flour tortilla instead of bread. Yes, I know a tortilla is a bread. For someone on the move, its shape is a benefit. Like an open-ended burrito. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Art Sackett wrote:
> krusty kritter > wrote: > > >>A "wrap" is a symbol of yuppie decadence, denying traditional Mexican >>cuisine in favor of a lithe physique... > snip >>Eschewing any ingredients that might increase the size of the love >>handles or enhance the spare tire, the yuppie "wrap" uses only the >>flour tortilla to enfold the ingredients of the more fattening >>traditional burrito... >> >>Anything can go into a wrap... > > > Now I know, and I think I'll be avoiding them if ever I encounter a > place that offers them for sale. I assume that many people enjoy them, > but, for my money, if it's wrapped in a flour tortilla it'd better have > something deliciously fattening in it. > > Thanks for the information, and for reminding me why it was that I > escaped from southern California, where I grew up, as soon as I was > able. > That first para can be misleading. Ut osunds just like a burrito. I think a better way might be: a sandwich rolled up in a plain or flavored flour tortilla instead of bread. Yes, I know a tortilla is a bread. For someone on the move, its shape is a benefit. Like an open-ended burrito. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
BillB > wrote:
> A "pastrami wrap, side o' gwock" would be deliciously fattening, > whether the wrap is eaten or tossed. I can buy the fattening part, but deliciously so? Pastrami inside a flour tortilla? Gack. Give me some Kosher rye so I'm picking seeds out of my teeth for a couple of days and I'll be happy. > More properly made with rye > bread (which contributes an relatively insignificant amount to the > total calorie count*, as would the yuppie wrap) which helps to > absorb a bit of excess grease (better tasting than if lean pastrami > is used), it's more traditional to add spicy mustard with perhaps > some cole slaw on the side or on the sandwich. NOW yer talkin'. I like finely sliced onion on there, too, and every now and then, maybe a razor thin layer of horseradish. Fresh from the oven roasted garlic goes well. Maybe some lettuce and tomato, if I'm in the mood for it. If the pastrami is that commercial crap that's low on flavor, which is all too common these days, I'll up the horseradish a bit, and sprinkle a bit of pepper on there, too. And, just to irritate my raised-Jewish mother, I might like a nice thin slice of swiss or provolone cheese on that sandwich. > It's also common for people to add Russian or Thousand Island > dressing. I grew up eating pastrami (and of course corned beef), but haven't ever seen anyone do that. Maybe it's more common in some locales than in others? -- Art Sackett, Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
BillB > wrote:
> A "pastrami wrap, side o' gwock" would be deliciously fattening, > whether the wrap is eaten or tossed. I can buy the fattening part, but deliciously so? Pastrami inside a flour tortilla? Gack. Give me some Kosher rye so I'm picking seeds out of my teeth for a couple of days and I'll be happy. > More properly made with rye > bread (which contributes an relatively insignificant amount to the > total calorie count*, as would the yuppie wrap) which helps to > absorb a bit of excess grease (better tasting than if lean pastrami > is used), it's more traditional to add spicy mustard with perhaps > some cole slaw on the side or on the sandwich. NOW yer talkin'. I like finely sliced onion on there, too, and every now and then, maybe a razor thin layer of horseradish. Fresh from the oven roasted garlic goes well. Maybe some lettuce and tomato, if I'm in the mood for it. If the pastrami is that commercial crap that's low on flavor, which is all too common these days, I'll up the horseradish a bit, and sprinkle a bit of pepper on there, too. And, just to irritate my raised-Jewish mother, I might like a nice thin slice of swiss or provolone cheese on that sandwich. > It's also common for people to add Russian or Thousand Island > dressing. I grew up eating pastrami (and of course corned beef), but haven't ever seen anyone do that. Maybe it's more common in some locales than in others? -- Art Sackett, Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message oups.com... > > I made tamales twice over the Christmas holidays, I used enough > ingredients to make about 4 dozen small tamales, but never used any > corn husks at all. I just made one *tamale gigante*, in a covered > casserole dish... Interesting Ernie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message oups.com... > > I made tamales twice over the Christmas holidays, I used enough > ingredients to make about 4 dozen small tamales, but never used any > corn husks at all. I just made one *tamale gigante*, in a covered > casserole dish... Interesting Ernie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message ups.com... > Dimitri suggested: > >>remember in Spanish the pronunciation (sound) of each letter > is for the most part consistent so the G in Guacamole is > pronounced the same as the G in Gringo. > > Sorry, Dimitri, but that site you suggested has a "gringo" trying to > *guess* > how to pronounce something that should be pronounced with a *glottal > stop* > at the very beginning of the word... > > The easiest way for those who just don't "do" glottal stops is to > pronounce > "guacamole" as a breathless-sounding "wha-ca-mow-lay"... > > The modern Spanish word "guacamole" has its roots in the Nahuatl > word "ahuacatl", meaning "testicle" for its resemblance to that part of > the > human anatomy... [...] > The letter "H" in Nahuatl transcriptions corresponds to the *glottal > stop* represented > by the apostrophe in Native American languages, such as Dine Bizaad, > the language > spoken by the so-called "Navajo Indians" or Arizona and New Mexico... [...] > The same rule applies to the letter "H" in Nahuatl. It's a glottal > stop... > http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/nahu...#pronunciation But Krusty, just look at the link you gave. According to that site, "h" is a glottal stop, but "hu" isn't, it's a /w/. And that's what we have in "ahuacamolli." No? Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message ups.com... > Dimitri suggested: > >>remember in Spanish the pronunciation (sound) of each letter > is for the most part consistent so the G in Guacamole is > pronounced the same as the G in Gringo. > > Sorry, Dimitri, but that site you suggested has a "gringo" trying to > *guess* > how to pronounce something that should be pronounced with a *glottal > stop* > at the very beginning of the word... > > The easiest way for those who just don't "do" glottal stops is to > pronounce > "guacamole" as a breathless-sounding "wha-ca-mow-lay"... > > The modern Spanish word "guacamole" has its roots in the Nahuatl > word "ahuacatl", meaning "testicle" for its resemblance to that part of > the > human anatomy... [...] > The letter "H" in Nahuatl transcriptions corresponds to the *glottal > stop* represented > by the apostrophe in Native American languages, such as Dine Bizaad, > the language > spoken by the so-called "Navajo Indians" or Arizona and New Mexico... [...] > The same rule applies to the letter "H" in Nahuatl. It's a glottal > stop... > http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/nahu...#pronunciation But Krusty, just look at the link you gave. According to that site, "h" is a glottal stop, but "hu" isn't, it's a /w/. And that's what we have in "ahuacamolli." No? Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Peter Dy wrote: >> That may be so, but are you saying that in Mexican *Spanish*, > "guacamole" starts with a glottal stop? > > Yes. The "G" at the beginning of "guacamole" and "Guatemala" > are also attempts to transliterate the glottal stop that is unfamiliar > to speakers of European languages... Could you cite some references? I've never heard them pronounced that way, but maybe I wasn't paying attention. Also, "Guatemala," according to my dictionary, possibly comes from Nahuatl "Cuauhtemallan." But "cu" is neither a glottal stop nor a /w/, it's /kw/, according to the link you gave. On the link below, this guy says both "gw" and "w" can be heard in Mexico for "guacamole" and "Guatemala." No mention of a glottal stop. And it also seems to have nothing to do with the words origins--he says that even "whisky" is sometimes spelled "güisqi." http://spanish.about.com/library/que...nounce-gua.htm In a recent Mexican movie (Y tu mamá también ?), the two young guys addressed themselves using the slang, "güey" (meaning "dude"), and they pronounced it with a "w" so it sounded like "whay." When I asked a friend in Oaxaca about the word, he didn't know what word I was talking about until I wrote it down. And he said, "Oh, gway!" Thus, I'm guessing, as the link I gave suggests, that indeed both are common, though probably "gw" is considered more standard. Peter [...] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Peter Dy wrote: >> That may be so, but are you saying that in Mexican *Spanish*, > "guacamole" starts with a glottal stop? > > Yes. The "G" at the beginning of "guacamole" and "Guatemala" > are also attempts to transliterate the glottal stop that is unfamiliar > to speakers of European languages... Could you cite some references? I've never heard them pronounced that way, but maybe I wasn't paying attention. Also, "Guatemala," according to my dictionary, possibly comes from Nahuatl "Cuauhtemallan." But "cu" is neither a glottal stop nor a /w/, it's /kw/, according to the link you gave. On the link below, this guy says both "gw" and "w" can be heard in Mexico for "guacamole" and "Guatemala." No mention of a glottal stop. And it also seems to have nothing to do with the words origins--he says that even "whisky" is sometimes spelled "güisqi." http://spanish.about.com/library/que...nounce-gua.htm In a recent Mexican movie (Y tu mamá también ?), the two young guys addressed themselves using the slang, "güey" (meaning "dude"), and they pronounced it with a "w" so it sounded like "whay." When I asked a friend in Oaxaca about the word, he didn't know what word I was talking about until I wrote it down. And he said, "Oh, gway!" Thus, I'm guessing, as the link I gave suggests, that indeed both are common, though probably "gw" is considered more standard. Peter [...] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Jan 2005 19:52:50 GMT, Art Sackett wrote:
> I can buy the fattening part, but deliciously so? Pastrami inside a > flour tortilla? Gack. Give me some Kosher rye so I'm picking seeds out > of my teeth for a couple of days and I'll be happy. Lets not get carawayed away. I'd never use a flour tortillaunless I had no bread (has to be decent rye) and all of the local stores are closed. > If the pastrami is that commercial crap that's low on > flavor, which is all too common these days, I'll up the horseradish a > bit, and sprinkle a bit of pepper on there, too. "If the pastrami is that commercial crap" I'll get something else. Almost anything (other than Spam) will do. >> It's also common for people to add Russian or Thousand Island >> dressing. > > I grew up eating pastrami (and of course corned beef), but haven't ever > seen anyone do that. Maybe it's more common in some locales than in > others? It's available in all of the east coast (NY, NJ) delis I've seen, including all of the more famous ones occasionally seen on the silver screen. Never tried it myself though. I'm not familiar with any regional differences other than having discovered "hot" sour/half-sour pickles (very hot little peppers included with the pickling spices in the barrel) in the Pittsburgh (Squirrel Hill) area. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hate to be a pain, and this pastrami wrap does sound great, but I'd
love to know what it has to do with food-mexican-cooking which I thought was the topic of this ng (at least it used to be). I live in upstate NY, and pastrami wraps sound wonderful, something I'd find in NYC, but how does Rye with pastrami and cheese and 1000 Islands relate to mexican cooking - actually it's getting close to a Reuben (corned beef) which is one of my favorites. As I said before, I don't care about authenticity of Mexican recipes (though if I can get a real Mexican recipe that's even better), and am happy to blend Mexican with Southwest and Texas because all that counts to me is if it tastes good. I'm just disappointed that this whole strange conversation that seems irrelevant to Mexican Cooking is going on while I've gotten no response to a question asking if anyone has a recipe for a Mexican style bean side dish that I could use instead of refried beans. Paul BillB wrote: > On 10 Jan 2005 16:52:20 GMT, Art Sackett wrote: > > >>Now I know, and I think I'll be avoiding them if ever I encounter a >>place that offers them for sale. I assume that many people enjoy them, >>but, for my money, if it's wrapped in a flour tortilla it'd better have >>something deliciously fattening in it. > > > A "pastrami wrap, side o' gwock" would be deliciously fattening, > whether the wrap is eaten or tossed. More properly made with rye > bread (which contributes an relatively insignificant amount to the > total calorie count*, as would the yuppie wrap) which helps to > absorb a bit of excess grease (better tasting than if lean pastrami > is used), it's more traditional to add spicy mustard with perhaps > some cole slaw on the side or on the sandwich. It's also common for > people to add Russian or Thousand Island dressing. I don't, but I'd > be willing to try guacamole, which would seem to serve a similar > purpose, and might be the way to go if one is unfortunate enough to > have only lean pastrami on hand. > > * Perhaps not insignificant if you make your own sandwiches, but as > served in the better restaurant's and delis, the pastrami is usually > piled on so high that it's not too much of an exaggeration to say > that the sandwiches resemble footballs held between two tiny slices > of bread. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Covey" > wrote in message .. . [...] > As I said before, I don't care about authenticity of Mexican recipes > (though if I can get a real Mexican recipe that's even better), and am > happy to blend Mexican with Southwest and Texas because all that counts to > me is if it tastes good. I'm just disappointed that this whole strange > conversation that seems irrelevant to Mexican Cooking is going on while > I've gotten no response to a question asking if anyone has a recipe for a > Mexican style bean side dish that I could use instead of refried beans. Man, do you always whine such? And you too never responded to my post asking what's wrong with someone wondering how guacamole is pronounced. I think it's certainly on-topic for this newsgroup, since it has to do with Mexican food. If you still dislike it, why don't you just ignore the thread? Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:31:40 GMT, Paul Covey wrote:
> I hate to be a pain, and this pastrami wrap does sound great, but I'd > love to know what it has to do with food-mexican-cooking which I thought > was the topic of this ng (at least it used to be). A little bit of thread drift (as long as it is neither excessive nor frequent) makes for a friendly atmosphere and is very likely to snare more passersby and result in more frequent visits and messages, with the majority of them being on-topic posts. I don't know if you noticed or not, but until recently (and for quite some time) this ng was pretty dead. In my opinion it would be much for the worse if all messages here were rigidly on topic, but the ng never accumulated more than 2 or 3 per week. And it's not as if the discussion suddenly veered wildly off-topic, discussing motorcycling, knitting or blackjack. It was still about *food*, and I allowed as how the idea of guacamole seemed more appealing to me (on pastrami) than dressing. Food evolves everywhere, and if that unlikely combination became popular, how would you describe it? Semi-Kosher? Semi-Mexican? I hope it wouldn't be ruled OT due to not being traditional enough. Then the Argentineans might claim it as their own. > As I said before, I don't care about authenticity of Mexican recipes > (though if I can get a real Mexican recipe that's even better), and am > happy to blend Mexican with Southwest and Texas because all that counts > to me is if it tastes good. With so many Mexicans now living in this NE area, I think it's valid to blend Mexican with something other than Southwest or Texan food, especially since, as you said, all that counts is if it tastes good. > I live in upstate NY, Oh I'm so sorry. Good delis must be few and far between. But what exactly does that have to do with Mexico? If you livedfarther south (NYC) not only would there be more and better delis, but more (and presumably more authentic if not necessarily better) Mexican restaurants as well. And the supermarkets here have quite a large selection of Mexican products. One which was new to me several years ago was cocoa. Instead of it being sold the normal way as a powder in a box or tin, it resembles a solid, small round hockey puck, scored to easily break off in sections, and often it's flavored with cinnamon. > I'm just disappointed that this whole > strange conversation that seems irrelevant to Mexican Cooking is going > on while I've gotten no response to a question asking if anyone has a > recipe for a Mexican style bean side dish that I could use instead of > refried beans. This isn't really a recipe, or at least one never existed until just now, but is something I tried from just a few odds & ends that were on hand. It may not be Mexican enough for you but I liked it enough to repeat it half-a-dozen times over the last year: Mix cooked black beans (mine originated as dried beans but I won't hold it against you if you use canned) with a little spaghetti sauce and an equal amount of hot habanero salsa. Maybe a little Valentina Salsa Picante if the other is too mild. No measurements. I always decide how much of each of the previous ingredients to use as I mix them in. Add your choice of meat (I vary it and use only a small amount), any spices you're fond of, heat, and serve on one side of a plate with rice on the other side. Only the beans are precooked for the occasion. The rest of the ingredients are usually on hand in small amounts in the refrigerator, but if not, anything similar can be substituted. And no, Minute Rice does not qualify as being similar enough. -- "Ok, all done. That's a wrap. See you later, guys." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter Dy wrote: > Also, "Guatemala," according to my dictionary, possibly comes from Nahuatl "Cuauhtemallan." But "cu" is neither a glottal stop nor a /w/, it's /kw/, according to the link you gave. Different scholars transcribed Nahuatl and other Mesoamerican languages as they saw fit, so you'll probably find variations in spelling... > On the link below, this guy says both "gw" and "w" can be heard in Mexico for "guacamole" and "Guatemala." No mention of a glottal stop. And it also seems to have nothing to do with the words origins--he says that even > "whisky" is sometimes spelled "g=FCisqi." > > http://spanish.about.com/library/que...nounce-gua.htm He's the fellow that has a webpage devoted to "Spanglish" and the infection of the Spanish language by English words... Problem is that Spanish has been infected before, by Romans and Goths and Vandals and Arabs and African languages, and, if you asked six different Latinos to pronounce the word "caballo" (horse) you'd get six different pronounciations and you could probably guess very well where the speaker learned Spanish... > > In a recent Mexican movie (Y tu mam=E1 tambi=E9n ?), the two young guys addressed themselves using the slang, "g=FCey" (meaning "dude"), and they pronounced it with a "w" so it sounded like "whay." When I asked a friend in Oaxaca about the word, he didn't know what word I was talking about until I wrote it down. And he said, "Oh, gway!" My 70-year old chicano friend who speaks Spanish very well (he's not a pocho) dislikes being addressed in Spanish by Mexican nationals. He will say to them, "Why are you talking to me in Spanish? What makes you think I speak Spanish?" Well, what the heck, he's half Mexican and half Apache or some border tribe, he doesn't know for sure, but he asserts that he is an American, unless he wants to argue that he's a Mexican... Once he made use of the term "guey", he pronounced it "way", and couldn't spell it. But from his usage, I gathered that a "guey" wasn't considered to be very masculine. He indicated that a "guey" was like a castrated bull, as I recall... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ernie wrote: > Interesting > Ernie My kitchen is so small, I bump into myself turning around and have to apologize. And, I hate to wash dishes, so I try to make my Mexican cuisine as simply as possible. The original Mexican cooks probably had no pots at all, and only limited utensils to prepare their tamales. When tamales were originally steamed in an earth oven by pouring water over hot rocks, the corn husks kept dirt out of the masa. Later, the steamed tamales could be conveniently carried. The corn husks are superfluous in modern Mexican cooking, in my opinion, though some claim they can taste the difference in tamales that were cooked some other way. I don't have to dig a hole in the ground and fill it with hot rocks, I can put the meat and sauce filling in a microwave safe casserole and steam it by heating it for fifteen minutes in the microwave and then letting the casserole sit until the masa is completely steamed. I don't have to carry the casserole anywhere, I'm not trying to sell tamales at a vending booth, or from my home as many of my neighbors do, they charge about $0.75 for a large tamale, I just dig into my casserole and get the freshest tamale taste possible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message
oups.com... I can put the meat and sauce filling in a microwave safe > casserole and steam it by heating it for fifteen minutes in the > microwave and then letting the casserole sit until the > masa is completely steamed. Very clever. I like the microwave for some things, but don't like what it does to some foods. I think half of the fun of making the tamales is the corn husks. I have never seen such big ones as I got from MexGrocer.com. Ernie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:17:36 GMT, "Ernie"
> wrote: >"krusty kritter" > wrote in message roups.com... >I can put the meat and sauce filling in a microwave safe >> casserole and steam it by heating it for fifteen minutes in the >> microwave and then letting the casserole sit until the >> masa is completely steamed. > >Very clever. >I like the microwave for some things, but don't like what it does >to some foods. I think half of the fun of making the tamales is >the corn husks. I have never seen such big ones as I got from >MexGrocer.com. >Ernie > Also, I like the grace note of flavor the corn husks add. I think I will try the casserole idea, but will line the dish and cover the top with husks. David |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Wright wrote: > Also, I like the grace note of flavor the corn husks add. I think I > will try the casserole idea, but will line the dish and cover the top with husks. I made the tamale casserole like a deep dish pie, with masa lining the bowl, meat/sauce mix filling the lining, and a masa lid covering the filling... The edges, where the two parts of masa came together wound up over-cooked and too hard, but the texture of the rest of the steamed masa was just perfect... The next time I make a tamale casserole, I plan to start with a layer of meat/sauce, add a layer of masa that doesn't touch the sides of the bowl, another layer of meat/sauce, then masa, etc... I hope that the masa will maintain its perfect texture for a few days in the refrigerator... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Wright wrote: > Also, I like the grace note of flavor the corn husks add. I think I > will try the casserole idea, but will line the dish and cover the top with husks. I made the tamale casserole like a deep dish pie, with masa lining the bowl, meat/sauce mix filling the lining, and a masa lid covering the filling... The edges, where the two parts of masa came together wound up over-cooked and too hard, but the texture of the rest of the steamed masa was just perfect... The next time I make a tamale casserole, I plan to start with a layer of meat/sauce, add a layer of masa that doesn't touch the sides of the bowl, another layer of meat/sauce, then masa, etc... I hope that the masa will maintain its perfect texture for a few days in the refrigerator... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message ups.com... Peter Dy wrote: > Also, "Guatemala," according to my dictionary, possibly comes from Nahuatl "Cuauhtemallan." But "cu" is neither a glottal stop nor a /w/, it's /kw/, according to the link you gave. Different scholars transcribed Nahuatl and other Mesoamerican languages as they saw fit, so you'll probably find variations in spelling... -->Nope, haven't found any variations--all the places I've looked have it start with "cu." It's hardly an uncommon word--the first part comes from the word "tree," "cuahuitl." [For some reason my reply couldn't format properly and isn't quoting your post. Hmmm...] [...] > > In a recent Mexican movie (Y tu mamá también ?), the two young guys addressed themselves using the slang, "güey" (meaning "dude"), and they pronounced it with a "w" so it sounded like "whay." When I asked a friend in Oaxaca about the word, he didn't know what word I was talking about until I wrote it down. And he said, "Oh, gway!" My 70-year old chicano friend who speaks Spanish very well (he's not a pocho) dislikes being addressed in Spanish by Mexican nationals. He will say to them, "Why are you talking to me in Spanish? What makes you think I speak Spanish?" Well, what the heck, he's half Mexican and half Apache or some border tribe, he doesn't know for sure, but he asserts that he is an American, unless he wants to argue that he's a Mexican... Once he made use of the term "guey", he pronounced it "way", and couldn't spell it. But from his usage, I gathered that a "guey" wasn't considered to be very masculine. He indicated that a "guey" was like a castrated bull, as I recall... -->Yeah, one should use it with caution, since it still has that negative side, especially outside of youth culture. Even it's use in a television ad in the US caused some problems recently. Never saw the commercial in question though...: http://www.borderlandnews.com/storie...8-115490.shtml Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"krusty kritter" > wrote in message ups.com... Peter Dy wrote: > Also, "Guatemala," according to my dictionary, possibly comes from Nahuatl "Cuauhtemallan." But "cu" is neither a glottal stop nor a /w/, it's /kw/, according to the link you gave. Different scholars transcribed Nahuatl and other Mesoamerican languages as they saw fit, so you'll probably find variations in spelling... -->Nope, haven't found any variations--all the places I've looked have it start with "cu." It's hardly an uncommon word--the first part comes from the word "tree," "cuahuitl." [For some reason my reply couldn't format properly and isn't quoting your post. Hmmm...] [...] > > In a recent Mexican movie (Y tu mamá también ?), the two young guys addressed themselves using the slang, "güey" (meaning "dude"), and they pronounced it with a "w" so it sounded like "whay." When I asked a friend in Oaxaca about the word, he didn't know what word I was talking about until I wrote it down. And he said, "Oh, gway!" My 70-year old chicano friend who speaks Spanish very well (he's not a pocho) dislikes being addressed in Spanish by Mexican nationals. He will say to them, "Why are you talking to me in Spanish? What makes you think I speak Spanish?" Well, what the heck, he's half Mexican and half Apache or some border tribe, he doesn't know for sure, but he asserts that he is an American, unless he wants to argue that he's a Mexican... Once he made use of the term "guey", he pronounced it "way", and couldn't spell it. But from his usage, I gathered that a "guey" wasn't considered to be very masculine. He indicated that a "guey" was like a castrated bull, as I recall... -->Yeah, one should use it with caution, since it still has that negative side, especially outside of youth culture. Even it's use in a television ad in the US caused some problems recently. Never saw the commercial in question though...: http://www.borderlandnews.com/storie...8-115490.shtml Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BillB" > wrote in message ... [...] And the supermarkets here have quite a > large selection of Mexican products. One which was new to me > several years ago was cocoa. Instead of it being sold the normal > way as a powder in a box or tin, it resembles a solid, small round > hockey puck, scored to easily break off in sections, and often it's > flavored with cinnamon. Chocolate is probably a better word for it, since cocoa usually refers to the powder you mention, where the fat, or cocao butter, has been removed. Before that, Europeans drank coffee just like Mexicans--with roasted beans, ground on a metate, blended with nuts and spices, and frothed up with a molinillo. Read about this recently in Sophie Coe's excellent _The True History of Chocolate_. Now I'm reading her _America's First Cuisines_, which is about the pre-hispanic Aztec, Maya, and Inca cuisines--really great book so far too. Oxacan chocolate is special, since it's made with almonds too--cacao beans, sugar, cinnamon, and almonds. Also, it is still a very popular drink there, something I didn't notice in other cities I've visited--though I've only been to a few other places in Mexico. I'd never seen it in the States, not on the web either, but a few months ago an upscale tacqueria in SF's new Ferry Building shops had some. If you can find it in your area, I'd definetely give it a try. (It would probably be Mayordomo brand, the largest producer.) Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, actually I virtually never whine about stuff. Usually sit back and
smile when the group goes crazy arguing about whether something is authentic Mexican or not. And absolutely nothing wrong with asking about pronunciation. All that can lead to interesting cultural discussions. Some of the best cooking ideas were provided by someone who went into long discussions about the entire day of preparing and enjoying a meal (David Wright maybe?). Just was frustrated that when I was asking for ideas for a recipe for an alternative to the usual refried beans side, nobody replied to that question but went into a long thing about pastrami wraps in this thread. Just seems like the group has gotten away from great recipes and great discussions that were more on topic. Sorry I expressed that frustration. Paul Peter Dy wrote: > "Paul Covey" > wrote in message > .. . > [...] > >>As I said before, I don't care about authenticity of Mexican recipes >>(though if I can get a real Mexican recipe that's even better), and am >>happy to blend Mexican with Southwest and Texas because all that counts to >>me is if it tastes good. I'm just disappointed that this whole strange >>conversation that seems irrelevant to Mexican Cooking is going on while >>I've gotten no response to a question asking if anyone has a recipe for a >>Mexican style bean side dish that I could use instead of refried beans. > > > > Man, do you always whine such? And you too never responded to my post > asking what's wrong with someone wondering how guacamole is pronounced. I > think it's certainly on-topic for this newsgroup, since it has to do with > Mexican food. If you still dislike it, why don't you just ignore the > thread? > > Peter > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:20:30 GMT, Peter Dy wrote:
> Chocolate is probably a better word for it, since cocoa usually refers to > the powder you mention, where the fat, or cocao butter, has been removed. > Before that, Europeans drank coffee just like Mexicans--with roasted beans, > ground on a metate, blended with nuts and spices, and frothed up with a > molinillo. Read about this recently in Sophie Coe's excellent _The True > History of Chocolate_. Now I'm reading her _America's First Cuisines_, > which is about the pre-hispanic Aztec, Maya, and Inca cuisines--really great > book so far too. Right. I guess I referred to it as cocoa because I was thinking of the end result in the cup. Before making it for the first time I thought it wouldn't be as easy as using cocoa powder, but a little immersion blender did the job in a couple of seconds (even the old one with the dull blade). Hadn't heard of Coe before, but the info. is saved and will soon make its way into my PDA. Useful to have when wandering through book and record store (I know - it's CD now) aisles. > Oxacan chocolate is special, since it's made with almonds too--cacao beans, > sugar, cinnamon, and almonds. Also, it is still a very popular drink there, > something I didn't notice in other cities I've visited--though I've only > been to a few other places in Mexico. I'd never seen it in the States, not > on the web either, but a few months ago an upscale tacqueria in SF's new > Ferry Building shops had some. If you can find it in your area, I'd > definetely give it a try. (It would probably be Mayordomo brand, the > largest producer.) Also noted. Thanks. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:20:30 GMT, Peter Dy wrote:
> Chocolate is probably a better word for it, since cocoa usually refers to > the powder you mention, where the fat, or cocao butter, has been removed. > Before that, Europeans drank coffee just like Mexicans--with roasted beans, > ground on a metate, blended with nuts and spices, and frothed up with a > molinillo. Read about this recently in Sophie Coe's excellent _The True > History of Chocolate_. Now I'm reading her _America's First Cuisines_, > which is about the pre-hispanic Aztec, Maya, and Inca cuisines--really great > book so far too. Right. I guess I referred to it as cocoa because I was thinking of the end result in the cup. Before making it for the first time I thought it wouldn't be as easy as using cocoa powder, but a little immersion blender did the job in a couple of seconds (even the old one with the dull blade). Hadn't heard of Coe before, but the info. is saved and will soon make its way into my PDA. Useful to have when wandering through book and record store (I know - it's CD now) aisles. > Oxacan chocolate is special, since it's made with almonds too--cacao beans, > sugar, cinnamon, and almonds. Also, it is still a very popular drink there, > something I didn't notice in other cities I've visited--though I've only > been to a few other places in Mexico. I'd never seen it in the States, not > on the web either, but a few months ago an upscale tacqueria in SF's new > Ferry Building shops had some. If you can find it in your area, I'd > definetely give it a try. (It would probably be Mayordomo brand, the > largest producer.) Also noted. Thanks. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BillB" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:20:30 GMT, Peter Dy wrote: > >> Chocolate is probably a better word for it, since cocoa usually refers to >> the powder you mention, where the fat, or cocao butter, has been removed. >> Before that, Europeans drank coffee just like Mexicans--with roasted >> beans, >> ground on a metate, blended with nuts and spices, and frothed up with a >> molinillo. Read about this recently in Sophie Coe's excellent _The True >> History of Chocolate_. Now I'm reading her _America's First Cuisines_, >> which is about the pre-hispanic Aztec, Maya, and Inca cuisines--really >> great >> book so far too. > > Right. I guess I referred to it as cocoa because I was thinking > of the end result in the cup. Yeah, it's a tricky linguistic situation, since most Americans would look at me weird if I said, "I like drinking chocolate." "Hot chocolate," sure, but that means the same as "cocoa" for most everyone. When Van Houten invented the technique for removing the fat from the beans in 1828, that was basically the death knell for "chocolate" and even hot cocoa drinking in Europe, since cocoa just tastes so pale in comparison; it's no wonder it wasn't able to compete with tea or coffee. Chocolate, the drink, is making a comeback though--in NYC there are several places that have it now. Very good, but Western style without spices. Though, on second thought, I think Jacques Torres's might have it spiced. Yes, here's a review that mentions it: http://www.tastingmenu.com/archive/2...r/20041101.htm Hadn't heard of Coe before, but the info. > is saved and will soon make its way into my PDA. You might be familiar withi her husband, Michael Coe, who is probably the greatest Mesoamerican scholar in the States. His books are also really good--nice, clear writing and presentation. In fact, she died before she could write the chocolate book, and he wrote it for her based on her notes. Her death is a real loss, since the info in her _America's First Cuisines_ looks pretty darn solid, though it was written in 1994. Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
BillB wrote: >One which was new to me several years ago was cocoa. Instead of it being sold the normal way as a powder in a box or tin, it resembles a solid, small round hockey puck, scored to easily break off in sections, and often it's flavored with cinnamon. I bought some of that "hockey puck" Mexican chocolate flavored with cinnamon a few years ago. It cost less than a buck at the 99 Cents Only Store, because most people don't know what it is... I tried it, thought that it was a lot of work to crush the thing and boil the milk, etc., so the box got shoved to the back of my pantry where it is probably still sitting... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
BillB wrote: >One which was new to me several years ago was cocoa. Instead of it being sold the normal way as a powder in a box or tin, it resembles a solid, small round hockey puck, scored to easily break off in sections, and often it's flavored with cinnamon. I bought some of that "hockey puck" Mexican chocolate flavored with cinnamon a few years ago. It cost less than a buck at the 99 Cents Only Store, because most people don't know what it is... I tried it, thought that it was a lot of work to crush the thing and boil the milk, etc., so the box got shoved to the back of my pantry where it is probably still sitting... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Jan 2005 13:55:29 -0800, krusty kritter wrote:
> I bought some of that "hockey puck" Mexican chocolate flavored with > cinnamon a few years ago. It cost less than a buck at the 99 Cents Only > Store, because most people don't know what it is... > > I tried it, thought that it was a lot of work to crush the thing and > boil the milk, etc., so the box got shoved to the back of my pantry > where it is probably still sitting... When it's time for spring cleaning, search the back of your pantry. The chocolate will probably still be good. I never thought of nor tried crushing it - seemed like too much work, as you discovered. It was easy to break off a piece (the pieces tend to be a bit ragged and not all exactly the same size), add to the pot of hot water/milk, and as mentioned in a followup: > Before making it for the first time I > thought it wouldn't be as easy as using cocoa powder, but a little > immersion blender did the job in a couple of seconds (even the old > one with the dull blade). |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
BillB > wrote:
> When it's time for spring cleaning, search the back of your > pantry. The chocolate will probably still be good. I hate to admit to knowing this, but if it's been around too long, long enough to become crumbly or develop a white (not moldy) layer, an "off" flavor develops. > I never thought > of nor tried crushing it - seemed like too much work, as you > discovered. Same here. I just whack it on the edge of the counter a time or three and use what seems to be the right amount. It's a good way to test the integrity of a formica countertop. :-) -- Art Sackett, Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
BillB > wrote:
> When it's time for spring cleaning, search the back of your > pantry. The chocolate will probably still be good. I hate to admit to knowing this, but if it's been around too long, long enough to become crumbly or develop a white (not moldy) layer, an "off" flavor develops. > I never thought > of nor tried crushing it - seemed like too much work, as you > discovered. Same here. I just whack it on the edge of the counter a time or three and use what seems to be the right amount. It's a good way to test the integrity of a formica countertop. :-) -- Art Sackett, Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Jan 2005 00:44:13 GMT, Whack-it Sackett wrote:
> I hate to admit to knowing this, but if it's been around too long, long > enough to become crumbly or develop a white (not moldy) layer, an "off" > flavor develops. The white coating that frequently is seen on chocolate is said to be a "bloom", or harmless migration of oils (or something) to the surface of the chocolate, and most experts say "ignore it and eat it". Is the white layer you've seen caused by something else? I too would ditch it if it became crumbly or developed an off flavor. > Same here. I just whack it on the edge of the counter a time or three > and use what seems to be the right amount. It's a good way to test the > integrity of a formica countertop. :-) I knew there had to be at least a method or two, since I'm pretty sure that when the Mexican manufacturers first produced those pellets they wouldn't assume their customers would have a hand blender or Cuisinart-type tool (whose invention would probably arrive decades later). Wouldn't you need to put the pellet fragments in some kind of a tough bag before whacking it? I can see slivers and tiny pieces flying off in all directions if you don't. Lastly, when you end up with lots of small fragments, do they blend easily in hot liquid or do you need to stir with a spoon or mini-whisk until exhausted? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Jan 2005 00:44:13 GMT, Whack-it Sackett wrote:
> I hate to admit to knowing this, but if it's been around too long, long > enough to become crumbly or develop a white (not moldy) layer, an "off" > flavor develops. The white coating that frequently is seen on chocolate is said to be a "bloom", or harmless migration of oils (or something) to the surface of the chocolate, and most experts say "ignore it and eat it". Is the white layer you've seen caused by something else? I too would ditch it if it became crumbly or developed an off flavor. > Same here. I just whack it on the edge of the counter a time or three > and use what seems to be the right amount. It's a good way to test the > integrity of a formica countertop. :-) I knew there had to be at least a method or two, since I'm pretty sure that when the Mexican manufacturers first produced those pellets they wouldn't assume their customers would have a hand blender or Cuisinart-type tool (whose invention would probably arrive decades later). Wouldn't you need to put the pellet fragments in some kind of a tough bag before whacking it? I can see slivers and tiny pieces flying off in all directions if you don't. Lastly, when you end up with lots of small fragments, do they blend easily in hot liquid or do you need to stir with a spoon or mini-whisk until exhausted? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
