# pranzo alla buona



## underhouse

Come si potrebbe tradurre in inglese "pranzo alla buona", cioè un pasto senza pretese, ad esempio a base di qualcosa che è avanzato il giorno prima più qualcos'altro che si prepara velocemente sul momento?
Mi viene in mente solo "quick lunch" (che poi penso non sia necessariamente la stessa cosa)...c'è qualcosa di più idiomatico?
Grazie!


----------



## lingogal

Maybe "to have leftovers", but it doesn't sound too elegant or appetizing!


----------



## k_georgiadis

I have heard euphemisms such as "a re-edited meal."


----------



## baldpate

How about "an impromptu lunch" ?  Strictly it means "unplanned", but as a result it can include the sense of unpretentious, modest.


----------



## underhouse

baldpate said:


> How about "an impromptu lunch" ? Strictly it means "unplanned", but as a result it can include the sense of unpretentious, modest.


 
Forse "unpretentious lunch" è addirittura meglio di "impromptu lunch"...
Cosa ne pensi, baldpate?


----------



## tj4652

I like quick lunch better than impromptu. It would be the most likely to be said in the US, I thimk. I hear quick lunch often; I can't remember hearing impromptu lunch.

Tom


----------



## k_georgiadis

If the leftover aspect is not the main focus, I would call it "a simple and improvised lunch."


----------



## NorthernLimitation

How about 'a spot of lunch' - simply means a quick lunch, normally unplanned, something modest?


----------



## tj4652

If the expression is being used in conversation, I cannot imagine "simple and improvised lunch" ever being said. But, in a literary work, definitely.

For conversational use, I have decided I like "simple lunch" the best. It fits with the meaning of "alla buona" as "semplice" and, I think, gives the right impression. For example, "we had a simple lunch of bread and cheese with a bottle of wine." I don't see any need to mention that a meal is left-overs unless you want to emphasize that fact.

Tom


----------



## NorthernLimitation

I would agree that a spot of lunch is British English, but then again, what's wrong with that? As an actual phrase, it expresses the detals of what underhouse is meaning.


----------



## Alxmrphi

NorthernLimitation said:


> I would agree that a spot of lunch is British English, but then again, what's wrong with that? As an actual phrase, it expresses the detals of what underhouse is meaning.



Oh how we differ, never ever heard that, I'd probably laugh at someone if I heard that it sounds so unusual to me.
I think "bite to eat" fits well here, only a little food.


----------



## You little ripper!

I think a *simple lunch* describes it best, but it's not what I would actually say. I would say, _*Let's have a quick lunch..........or Let's have a quick snack*_.......(to me a snack can be something a bit more elaborate than cheese and crackers or a sandwich)


----------



## NorthernLimitation

A quick lunch is probably best, simple lunch suggests that the food will be simple which it doesn't necessarily have to be in this case.


----------



## underhouse

Perfetto...userò "simple", "improvised" or "quick" If I need an informal term, while I will use "unpretentious" if I need something a little more "erudite".
Grazie di cuore a tutti!


----------



## london calling

Hello, Alex!

I thought we spoke the same brand of English!?

_A spot of lunch_ is rather old-fashioned, but common enough....! I must admit, however, that I personally would normally say it jokingly in a (passable) imitation of the Queen!

Otherwise I'd say:

_Let's have a bite to eat_, or any of the other suggestions you've all made!

Jo


----------



## renminds

Please, correct me if I am wrong  but I know that "homely" translates "alla buona".

Could it be "homely lunch"?

Thank you,
Renminds


----------



## Memimao

I think I have I heard _homely_ used mostly to describe fenales whose looks were less than spectacular. I think _homey_ might be closer.

When I have been offered "un pranzo alla buona" the phrase that has come to mind is "lunch _as it comes". _

Any advance?


----------



## london calling

renminds said:


> Please, correct me if I am wrong  but I know that "homely" translates "alla buona".
> 
> Could it be "homely lunch"?
> Renminds


Nice idea, but we wouldn't use it to talk about a meal.

_Homely_ usually means ordinary, "alla buona" in that sense. _A homely (looking) woman_ è una donna dall'aspetto normale, rassicurante, che non spaventa i maschietti!

EDIT: I see memimao has given the same example!


----------



## renminds

Thanks Memimao and London Calling.

Now I know how to use "homely". 

Thanks again and bye,
Renminds


----------



## housecameron

Non concordo su "quick" e "bite to eat".
Un _pranzo alla buona_ può durare ore, e non consiste propriamente in un "boccone".
Si tirano fuori dal frigo salumi e formaggi, si prepara un'insalata, e poi pane e un bottiglione di vino, il tutto servito magari su una tovaglia a quadretti  
"lunch _as it comes"_ suggerito da Memimao è ciò che si avvicina di più.


----------



## You little ripper!

housecameron said:


> Non concordo su "quick" e "bite to eat".
> Un _pranzo alla buona_ può durare ore, e non consiste propriamente in un "boccone".
> Si tirano fuori dal frigo salumi e formaggi, si prepara un'insalata, e poi pane e un bottiglione di vino, il tutto servito magari su una tovaglia a quadretti
> "lunch _as it comes"_ suggerito da Memimao è ciò che si avvicina di più.


A *quick lunch* to someone who generally cooks quite elaborate meals could mean something that doesn't take that long to prepare as you describe - it doesn't necessarily mean that the eating of it is a hurried affair. *Lunch as it comes* probably does describe it well, but it's not a phrase I've ever used or heard in this context.


----------



## tj4652

I agree. "lunch as it comes" is not idiomatic. We would understand it, but never say it. I still prefer "simple lunch."

Tom


----------



## NorthernLimitation

A simple lunch is probably the best to go for, this is lunch after all, something that happens every day. If there was a phrase to better describe this situation, we would definitely have remembered it by now.


----------



## miri

How about "a casual lunch"? Would it have negative implications?


----------



## You little ripper!

miri said:


> How about "a casual lunch"? Would it have negative implications?


 I notice that there are 125,000 Google listings for it, miri. If I was describing the sort of lunch I had to someone I might say that *it was a casual lunch*. I wouldn't say, however, *Let's have a casual lunch. *


----------



## miri

Charles Costante said:


> I notice that there are 125,000 Google listings for it, miri. If I was describing the sort of lunch I had to someone I might say that *it was a casual lunch*. I wouldn't say, however, *Let's have a casual lunch. *


 
Thank you, Charles! 
So would "Join us for a casual lunch" be something you'd read only in a restaurant advertisement, for example? And would it  be an understatement?
Instead, would asking friends to come over for a casual lunch be considered somehow impolite, as though you had leftovers you don't want to throw away?


----------



## You little ripper!

miri said:


> Thank you, Charles!
> So would "Join us for a casual lunch" be something you'd read only in a restaurant advertisement, for example? And would it be an understatement?
> Instead, would asking friends to come over for a casual lunch be considered somehow impolite, as though you had leftovers you don't want to throw away?


I think it a case of personal taste. I personally wouldn't say, *Join us for a casual lunch.* I would say, however, *Join us for lunch - It's only going to be a casual affair, nothing elaborate.*

Oh, it's all so complex! The lunch I'll be having today will definitely be a casual/simple/quick affair - I don't have the mental fortitude for anything more complicated!


----------



## miri

Thank you, your replies are always clear and ehaustive! 
Take it easy, Charles ! I wish I could buy you a *luxurious* lunch!


----------



## tj4652

I think this may be a British-American difference, but I disagree with Charles about the meaning of casual lunch. It is a lunch that may be in the garden or at a table in a piazza, or even in an elegant setting with a "gourmet" menu. For example, the recent Bush-Sarcozy lunch in Paris was described in the press as a "casual lunch," as if to say no one is transacting business here, just two old friends having lunch. When I lived in Roma I had many casual lunches that started in a trattoria at 13:00, and where by 15:00 we were finally getting around to having a digestivo. "Casual" refers to the mood of the lunch, the style of the lunch, the character of the lunch, but not to the type of food at the lunch.

"Simple lunch," on the other hand, refers to the type of food being prepared. An omelette made with leftover asparagus. A grilled sandwich of ciabatta, leftover pork, lettuce and onion. My favorite, prosciutto e melone with a simple green salad. Tonight for dinner we had quaglia alle brace and fagioli all'uccelletto. Simple? My wife thinks so, but others might disagree. The point "simple" is a matter of perspective, but it means easily done, not elaborate, relatively quick, without trouble to the cook, etc.

I'm sorry for the long discussion, but examples are much easier to produce than iron-tight definitions.

Tom


----------



## lsp

housecameron said:


> Si tirano fuori dal frigo salumi e formaggi, si prepara un'insalata, e poi pane e un bottiglione di vino, il tutto servito magari su una tovaglia a quadretti



What about a potluck lunch? It means that a meal is made from whatever happens to be available. "You're welcome to come back to my house after the movie, but I didn't plan anything, so dinner will be potluck."

It can also means a meal at which each guest brings some food, and everything is shared by all the guests. Sometimes that's a "potluck party."


----------



## lingogal

French seems to have the same expression and the same trouble translating it. One of the WR translations from there called it a meal "without any fuss". Same concept, just another way to phrase it.


----------



## You little ripper!

tj4652 said:


> I think this may be a British-American difference, but I disagree with Charles about the meaning of casual lunch. It is a lunch that may be in the garden or at a table in a piazza, or even in an elegant setting with a "gourmet" menu. For example, the recent Bush-Sarcozy lunch in Paris was described in the press as a "casual lunch," as if to say no one is transacting business here, just two old friends having lunch. When I lived in Roma I had many casual lunches that started in a trattoria at 13:00, and where by 15:00 we were finally getting around to having a digestivo. "Casual" refers to the mood of the lunch, the style of the lunch, the character of the lunch, but not to the type of food at the lunch.
> 
> "Simple lunch," on the other hand, refers to the type of food being prepared. An omelette made with leftover asparagus. A grilled sandwich of ciabatta, leftover pork, lettuce and onion. My favorite, prosciutto e melone with a simple green salad. Tonight for dinner we had quaglia alle brace and fagioli all'uccelletto. Simple? My wife thinks so, but others might disagree. The point "simple" is a matter of perspective, but it means easily done, not elaborate, relatively quick, without trouble to the cook, etc.
> 
> I'm sorry for the long discussion, but examples are much easier to produce than iron-tight definitions.
> 
> Tom


Tom, I agree that *casual* doesn't necessarily mean *simple,* but most people who are invited around for a casual lunch (at least in Australia) would expect something relatively uncomplicated. Besides, one of the meanings given by _underhouse_ for *"*pranzo alla buona" is, "che si prepara velocemente sul momento". Another meaning of the word *casual* is *unplanned*.


----------



## london calling

tj4652 said:


> I agree. "lunch as it comes" is not idiomatic. We would understand it, but never say it. I still prefer "simple lunch."


I agree as well! Definitely not English...I do however agree with housecameron that _quick_ isn't quite right here: _alla buona_ translates to simple or ordinary in English. Actually, it makes me think of everyday cooking, or cooking whatever happens to be in the fridge, nothing elaborate, no "haute cuisine", no fancy tablecloths and silverware!

I also vote for a simple lunch!

EDIT Yes, Tom, simple is a relative thing! The other night  I prepared "filetto al pepe verde", for my family and friends. That to us is a "cena alla buona" because a) it is simple (and very quick!) b) I didn't serve pasta, I only served various veggie dishes and c) I didn't lay the table as if the Queen were invited!!


----------



## wonderment

underhouse said:


> Come si potrebbe tradurre in inglese "pranzo alla buona", cioè un pasto senza pretese, ad esempio a base di qualcosa che è avanzato il giorno prima più qualcos'altro che si prepara velocemente sul momento?


As others have said, I think a "simple lunch" fits this description best. 



housecameron said:


> Non concordo su "quick" e "bite to eat".
> Un _pranzo alla buona_ può durare ore, e non consiste propriamente in un "boccone".
> Si tirano fuori dal frigo salumi e formaggi, si prepara un'insalata, e poi pane e un bottiglione di vino, il tutto servito magari su una tovaglia a quadretti


I would call this a "leisurely lunch" or a "simple and leisurely lunch". It's unhurried, relaxed, comfortable, restful, and the food is 'simple' yet satisfying--we could linger for hours. 

For me, a "casual lunch" stresses more the easy-going and informal nature of the meal. It's anything but "quick".


----------

