entr ées

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

my friend steven levine wrote in his livejournal today --

   http://unzeugmatic.livejournal.com/111715.html

that

Like most American visitors to Australia, when I was there I took
note of the fact that restaurant menus describe as "entrees" what are
noted as "appetizers" in American menus, and what American menus
categorize as "entrees" the Australian menus call "main courses". My
friend rsc just returned from a trip to New Zealand where he noted
this same thing holding true -- as it does everywhere but the US --
and said that he had no idea how the US designation came about.

-----

steven then went back to the 1907 _Modern Hostess_, which describes a
"formal hotel dinner" of ten courses, in which the entrée course was
fifth, in between the fish course and the roast course.  steven's
idea was that as these dinners got pared down, the entrée course
"increased in importance and quantity and became more generalized".

as it happens, the *only* subentry the OED currently has for "entrée"
in cookery is from a time when the entrée course came between the
fish and the roast (though the meal might have only five courses,
rather than ten):
  2. Cookery. A ‘made dish’, served between the fish and the joint.
Also attrib., as entrée dish. (Littré explains entrées as ‘mets qui
se servent au commencement du repas’.)

1759 W. VERRAL Cookery 46 Roasted ham. For this entrée is generally
provided a new Westphalia or Bayonne ham. 1773 J. WEDGWOOD Let. 21
Nov. (1965) 156 Poach'd Egg Cups; Entre Dishes; Cover'd Dishes. 1846
A. SOYER Gastron. Regenerator 713 (heading) New pagodatique entrée
dish. 1850 THACKERAY Pendennis xxiii, Two little entrées of
sweetbread and chicken. 1880 SIR H. THOMPSON Food & Feeding 84 A
family dinner may..consist of soup, fish, entrée, roast and sweet.
1901 Connoisseur Dec. 275/2 A nice pair of Sheffield plate entrée
dishes.

------

it's easy to see how the entrée course might have merged with the
roast/joint course (and possibly the fish course as well) and become
the main event; that's promoting the role of the entrée (the american
system).  or since the entrée was a light introductory course, it
could have merged with the earlier courses; that's demoting the role
of the entrée (the british/antipodal system).  if we reduce the
number of courses to three, which i'll refer to as I, II, and III, we
get either the american system

   first course - entrée - dessert

or the british/antipodal system

   entrée - main course - dessert (or whatever term you use)

I can be an appetizer/starter/hors d'oeuvre, soup, or salad, or can
embrace several of these in succession.  (in another variant, a salad
course comes after II.)  a fish course can be inserted before II, or
a cheese course after it.  I and III are optional.

in any case, the current OED entry is grossly inadequate as a
description of the modern usage of "entrée" in everyday life in *any*
part of the english-speaking world.  it should probably be maintained
as a definition of "entrée" in formal dining (as it is in AHD4 and
NOAD2), but the everyday american 'main course' sense (also in AHD4
and NOAD2) and the everyday british/antipodal 'first course' sense
(in neither AHD4 nor NOAD2, since they're *american* dictionaries)
should be added.

probably the OED staff are already on the case, and i'm just
repeating things that they know perfectly well.  but i'm more than a
bit surprised that the current everyday senses didn't make it into
OED2 (1989).

arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org