# Tortelli di ricotta e formaggio di fossa al pesto di rucola



## MEscher

*Tortelli di ricotta e formaggio di fossa al pesto di rucola
*
Sto scrivendo un menu. Il piatto è un po' difficile da tradurre. Allora, i tortelli sono ripieni di ricotta e formaggio di fossa, e sono guarniti con pesto di rucola.

Provo:


> Ricotta and fossa cheese stuffed tortelli pasta with crushed rocket


Che ne dite?

Grazie mille,
Lorenzo


----------



## Gianfry

_Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese, served with a rocket pesto sauce._
Ma ci serve la voce originale completa del menu...


----------



## MEscher

Gianfry said:


> _Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese, served with a rocket pesto sauce._
> Ma ci serve la voce originale completa del menu...


La voce è nel titolo: "Tortelli di ricotta e formaggio di fossa al pesto di rucola"

La tua traduzione mi sembra eccellente!

Grazie!


----------



## Gianfry

Giusto, però la prossima volta ricorda di riprodurla nel primo post (è la regola!), se no ci confondiamo 
Quindi il pesto ricopre i tortelli, immagino...
In questo caso direi:
_Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese, topped with a rocket pesto sauce_


----------



## MEscher

Gianfry said:


> Giusto, però la prossima volta ricorda di riprodurla nel primo post (è la regola!), se no ci confondiamo
> Quindi il pesto ricopre i tortelli, immagino...
> In questo caso direi:
> _Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese, topped with a rocket pesto sauce_


La prossima volta sarò corretto, promesso!

Riguardo a questa tua traduzione, quel "topped" non mi convince (ma forse sono io che sbaglio!). "Topped" mi fa pensare che i tortelli vengano cotti e messi nel piatto, e che poi venga messa in cima al mucchietto dei tortelli la salsa al pesto. Non è così: i tortelli vengono "tirati" (= cotti insieme per un certo periodo) con la salsa al peso, dunque il pesto è dappertutto, non solo in cima al piatto. Sbaglio?


----------



## Tegs

MEscher said:


> Riguardo a questa tua traduzione, quel "topped" non mi convince (ma forse sono io che sbaglio!). "Topped" mi fa pensare che i tortelli vengano cotti e messi nel piatto, e che poi venga messa in cima al mucchietto dei tortelli la salsa al pesto. Non è così: i tortelli vengono "tirati" (= cotti insieme per un certo periodo) con la salsa al peso, dunque il pesto è dappertutto, non solo in cima al piatto. Sbaglio?



Si usa topped perché suona meglio di "covered" (il che mi fa venire in mente un piatto dove i tortelli nuotano in un lago di salsa!) - e comunque non vuol dire che la salsa è _solo _in cima  Va benissimo per un menu


----------



## Gianfry

_Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese in a rocket pesto sauce_ 

EDIT: That's it, Tegs... I've found "topped" for a variety of uses. Anyway, for mescher's further peace of mind, would my last try work as well?


----------



## elfa

Gianfry said:


> _Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese, topped with a rocket pesto sauce_



Ciao Gianfry  

in teoria, avrai ragione. Ma secondo me dipende quanto sia formale/informale il ristorante. _Topped _mi fa pensare a per esempio _Burger topped with red island dressing_ (pensaci un po'! ), cioè un piatto che si trova in un Burger Bar o qualcosa di simile. Se Lorenzo dovesse tradurre il menù di un ristorante più esclusivo diciamo, andrebbe meglio quello che hai suggerito prima: _served_.

come ti trovi a Brighton? C'è stato bel tempo oggi, vero? 

Edit: visto l'ultimo post, preferisco "served with" ma dipende naturalmente dal piatto che sta descrivendo Lorenzo


----------



## MEscher

Gianfry said:


> _Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese in a rocket pesto sauce
> _


The simple, the better! I think I'll use this one! 

Thanks to all of you people! ;-)



elfa said:


> in teoria, avrai ragione. Ma secondo me dipende quanto sia formale/informale il ristorante. _Topped _mi fa pensare a per esempio _Burger topped with red island dressing_ (pensaci un po'! ), cioè il tipo di pietanza che si trova in un Burger Bar o qualcosa di simile. Se Lorenzo dovesse tradurre il menù di un ristorante più esclusivo diciamo, andrebbe meglio quello che hai suggerito prima: _served_.


Il ristorante è informale, ma non è un fast food: è un'osteria tipica del luogo! 

Riguardo a "served" l'unica ambiguità è che potrebbe far pensare che il pesto sia a parte. In altre parole, se leggo:


> Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese, in a rocket pesto sauce


non ho dubbi, è chiaro che i tortelli sono tutti coperti di pesto. Invece con


> Tortelli stuffed with ricotta and fossa cheese, served with a rocket pesto sauce


potrei avere il dubbio (mi metto nei panni di uno straniero che non conosce la buona cucina italiana!) che mi vengano serviti i tortelli con, a parte, un piattino di pesto.

O mi sbaglio?

Grazie!


----------



## Tegs

elfa said:


> Ciao Gianfry
> 
> in teoria, avrai ragione. Ma secondo me dipende quanto sia formale/informale il ristorante. _Topped _mi fa pensare a per esempio _Burger topped with red island dressing_ (pensaci un po'! ), cioè il tipo di pietanza che si trova in un Burger Bar o qualcosa di simile. Se Lorenzo dovesse tradurre il menù di un ristorante più esclusivo diciamo, andrebbe meglio quello che hai suggerito prima: _served_.



"Served with an X sauce" or "in an X sauce" both work well. Elfa makes a good point - "topped" might not be posh enough for some nicer restaurants


----------



## MEscher

Tegs said:


> "Served with an X sauce" or "in an X sauce" both work well. Elfa makes a good point - "topped" might not be posh enough for some nicer restaurants


Ok, understood!

Thanks a lot!


----------



## elfa

MEscher said:


> Riguardo a "served" l'unica ambiguità è che potrebbe far pensare che il pesto sia a parte. In altre parole, se leggo:
> 
> non ho dubbi, è chiaro che i tortelli sono tutti coperti di pesto. Invece con
> 
> potrei avere il dubbio (mi metto nei panni di uno straniero che non conosce la buona cucina italiana!) che mi vengano serviti i tortelli con, a parte, un piattino di pesto.
> 
> O mi sbaglio?



A dir vero, senza la virgola, tutte e due vanno bene e "served" non fa pensare (a me almeno) che il piattino di pesto è a parte. Ma "in" è più comune.


----------



## Gianfry

Ciao Elfa!
As to "served with", I have the same doubts expressed by MEscher...


I love it here, thanks! All the more now that summer has finally decided to come and see us...


----------



## Tegs

Gianfry said:


> Ciao Elfa!
> As to "served with", I have the same doubts expressed by MEscher...



No no, served with is ok - when the sauce (or anything else for that matter) is on the side, it usually specifies this: "served with X on the side"


----------



## elfa

Tegs said:


> No no, served with is ok - when the sauce (or anything else for that matter) is on the side, it usually specifies this: "served with X on the side"



Sorry but I don't agree with you there, Tegs. If I ordered a dish "served with vegetables and rice", I wouldn't expect them to arrive on a separate plate. To me "on the side" is a Stateside expression, which admittedly has migrated to the UK, but I wouldn't call this expression the norm in my neck of the woods.


----------



## Rival

As for  "Tortelli stuffed with ... ", may I suggest "Tortelli *filled* with ... ".
.


----------



## Gianfry

Rival said:


> As for  "Tortelli stuffed with ... ", may I suggest "Tortelli *filled* with ... ".
> .



Yes, that sounds better to me as well. But how would you explain that "tortelli stuffed with" gets nearly as many hits on search engines?
Maybe the usual AE/BE thing?


----------



## elfa

Gianfry said:


> Yes, that sounds better to me as well. But how would you explain that "tortelli stuffed with" gets nearly as many hits on search engines?
> Maybe the usual AE/BE thing?



I don't know - "stuffed" sounds more natural to me.


----------



## Tegs

elfa said:


> Sorry but I don't agree with you there, Tegs. If I ordered a dish "served with vegetables and rice", I wouldn't expect them to arrive on a separate plate. To me "on the side" is a Stateside expression, which admittedly has migrated to the UK, but I wouldn't call this expression the norm in my neck of the woods.



I don't think we're disagreeing here - crossed wires maybe?  If I get lamb "served _with_ vegetables", I will expect the vegetables to come on the same plate as the lamb. It is only if they say that the vegetables are "served _on the side_" that I would expect them to come in a separate dish (e.g. when shared with other people on your table). If I wanted to ask for the sauce not to be poured on the dish beforehand, I would ask "can I get the sauce on the side?" You're probably right that this comes from AE originally. 

PS. I also prefer stuffed rather than filled. It sounds more tasty somehow, I haven't a clue why!


----------



## pescara

elfa said:


> I don't know - "stuffed" sounds more natural to me.



Ciao Elfa,
"Filled" sounds more natural to me, so maybe it really is an AE/BE thing.  An alternative construction that avoids that issue could be: Ricotta and fossa cheese tortelli...

Ciao.


----------



## Rival

Gianfry said:


> Yes, that sounds better to me as well. But how would you explain that "tortelli stuffed with" gets nearly as many hits on search engines?
> Maybe the usual AE/BE thing?




How would I explain it ???. I wouldn't.. I'm not responsible for what can be found on search engines.  

Just a guess, however -- we do use "stuffed" in English for dishes like _peperoni ripieni_ and we also talk about stuffing a chicken.

My feeling is that 'stuffed' is for situations where we put a filling into an already-existing cavity, as opposed to 'filled' when we wrap a covering (pasta, pastry) around a dollop of 'content' (which I think is how tortelli are made).
.


----------



## Gianfry

Rival said:


> My feeling is that 'stuffed' is for situations where we put a filling into an already-existing cavity, as opposed to 'filled' when we wrap a covering (pasta, pastry) around a dollop of 'content' (which I think is how tortelli are made)..


Uhm, I had the same feeling... That's why I thought that "filled" worked better in this situation.
But maybe it's just because I've read "filled" more often than "stuffed" on menus


----------



## Tegs

Rival, your explanation makes perfect sense - I salute you  Having heard those words of wisdom, I've changed my mind - I agree that "filled" is better, since we aren't stuffing a turkey here


----------



## You little ripper!

pescara said:


> Ciao Elfa,
> "Filled" sounds more natural to me, so maybe it really is an AE/BE thing.  An alternative construction that avoids that issue could be: Ricotta and fossa cheese tortelli...
> 
> Ciao.


I also prefer 'filled'. 'Stuffed' sounds so gluttonous!


----------



## Holymaloney

Hi  
Maybe someone has already suggested it (...haven't gone through the whole thread as I can't bring myself to read about tortelli at this hour of the morning....) but I was just wondering if _*'...tortelli with ricotta and fossa cheese filling, served with rocket pesto sauce...'*_ could also work here?


----------



## anglomania1

Hi there, 
I've been reading this thread with great interest and among all the questions/doubts/problems etc I'm stunned no one mentioned "fossa cheese"!
I mean, would an English speaker understand it? I didn't know what it was and I live here in Italy!

I have to revise a wine tech sheet that is already written in English (so I don't have the original Italian sentence) but under "serving suggestion" it says the wine "goes well with all kinds of cheeses, fresh or aged, mild or mature, *di fossa*, with herbs,  gorgonzola...."
I personally would'n't leave it in Italian - unless with an explanatory note eg. *pit-aged cheese
*
Any ideas or comments?
Thanks, 
Anglo


----------



## alicip

Ciao Anglo. 
Io direi di lasciarlo in italiano, visto che gli è stata riconosciuta la denominazione di origine protetta, e di aggiungere la nota in inglese. Vedi anche *qui *e *qui*.


----------



## anglomania1

alicip said:


> Ciao Anglo.
> Io direi di lasciarlo in italiano, visto che gli è stata riconosciuta la denominazione di origine protetta, e di aggiungere la nota in inglese. Vedi anche *qui *e *qui*.


Hi alicip, 
I think you're right, it's the best option!
Unfortunately the links are both Italian websites, so I still think an English speaker wouldn't understand "fossa", but the explanatory note should solve the problem.
Thanks, 
Anglo


----------



## Mike1980

Personally I would say "Ricotta and Fossa Cheese Tortelli with Arugula Pesto" and avoid the stuffed/filled dilemma altogether.

And I wouldn't translate "Fossa" Cheese, the same way I wouldn't translate "Cheddar" or "Brie". Sounds much more exotic...


----------



## anglomania1

Mike1980 said:


> Personally I would say "Ricotta and Fossa Cheese Tortelli with Arugula Pesto" and avoid the stuffed/filled dilemma altogether.
> 
> And I wouldn't translate "Fossa" Cheese, the same way I wouldn't translate "Cheddar" or "Brie". Sounds much more exotic...


Hi there, 
The stuffed/filled dilemma is fortunately not my question!
As for the "fossa" cheese, I don't think it's a name like Cheddar or Brie, but rather the way it's made. It should be something like "pit-aged" or "aged in a ditch/pit". 
I agree it shouldn't be translated completely, but whereas Cheddar and Brie are well-known, I'm not convinced many English speakers would know what "fossa" is - in that case, we may as well just put "cheese" without "fossa"!
Just a thought
Thanks, Anglo


----------



## MR1492

anglo,

Those English-speakers who know what fossa cheese is will love it.  Those who don't will be turned off if they know it means "aged in a ditch!"  So, better to leave it untranslated.  The "knowers" will eat it and the "unknowers" will think it's exotic and eat it too.  

Phil


----------



## Backstreets

MR1492 said:


> anglo,
> 
> Those English-speakers who know what fossa cheese is will love it.  Those who don't will be turned off if they know it means "aged in a ditch!"  So, better to leave it untranslated.  The "knowers" will eat it and the "unknowers" will think it's exotic and eat it too.
> 
> Phil



That's a good reason  Anyway I would not translate it as you don't translate camembert or cheddar.


----------



## anglomania1

Backstreets said:


> That's a good reason  Anyway I would not translate it as you don't translate camembert or cheddar.


Hi Phil and Backstreets
I can see your points, but I still say that "di fossa" is not a name of a cheese like Cheddar or Camembert (which of course I'd never translate) but more of a way of making it,  a style of cheese. 
I mean, we translate "erborinato" as "blue cheese", don't we? (Which incidentally puts a lot of people off )
Just a thought!
But I agree, there's no point in translating it as it would not give you an idea of what the cheese is like anyway, so we might as well just put "cheese"!!
Anglo


----------



## MR1492

Anglo,

I agree.  Sometimes, we have to appeal to the desire of others for the exotic!  So, while some things are best translated others just sound (and perhaps taste) better in their native language.  I was once in an Indonesian restaurant in Amsterdam enjoying a rijsttafel.  One dish was especially tasty and I asked my friends (two Dutchmen who had lived in Indonesia) what it was.  One asked if I liked it and when I said yes, the response was, "Then you don't want to know what it is."  

So, lesson learned.

Phil


----------

