# ham fried rice and egg fried rice



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

Ham fried rice and egg fried rice are common dishes in a Chinese restaurant. I'm wondering whether the way the forms are created has a foreign feel to it.
Do they sound more natural than "minced pork rice"?

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## Egmont

Egg fried rice, pork fried rice, etc., are the standard ways to refer to those dishes in Chinese restaurants in the U.S. Chinese restaurants in other parts of the world may use different English names for the same dishes.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Do they sound more natural than "minced pork rice"?


----------



## dojibear

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do they sound more natural than "minced pork rice"?


Yes. The word "fried" is needed.

Many rice dishes (from many countries) use cooked rice (steamed rice). So "minced pork rice" means "minced pork served on plain rice". Rice is not normally fried, anywhere in the world.

"Fried rice" means "cooked rice with finely cut vegetables mixed in, fried together in a wok". So the rice is cooked twice. First it is steamed, then it is fried. If "egg" or "pork" or some other word is added, that is one of the finely cut ingredients that is fried with the rice.

Note that "minced pork rice" sounds like a foreign dish. In American cooking, the meat, the rice, and the cooked vegetable are 3 seperate parts, not mixed together. They are served on the same plate, because Americans put all their food on one plate. But they are not mixed. The meat might be thinly-sliced pork or "pork chops" or large pieces of pork. If there is a sauce, it is put on the meat.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Doesn't "pork fried rice" sound like a foreign dish as well?


----------



## Ponyprof

Yes, of course the names of these dishes sound a little "foreign" in English. That's because they come from a different culture. They *are* foreign. English speaking countries have absorbed a lot of foods from other countries, and often keep a version of the foreign name attached.

Palak paneer. Baguettes. Panini. Pho. Chicken chow mein. Bratwurst. Kimchee. Tortillas. All things I can buy within 5 miles of my suburban condo and all things that we happily call by their foreign names, maybe Anglicized a bit.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I'm interested to know whether "pork fried rice"  and "minced pork rice" are anglicized to the same extent. If not, which is more so?


----------



## DonnyB

You see "egg fried rice" on the menu of most Chinese restaurants and takeaways in the UK.

I don't_ remember_ seeing "pork fried rice or "minced pork rice" on a menu anywhere locally but I imagine that's how they would be shown.


----------



## dojibear

OP, can you explain why you keep asking about the phrase "minced pork rice"? Is that a dish where you live? Is that a Mandarin name, or a Cantonese name, or a Shanghainese name?

"<anything> fried rice" is a very common dish in American "Chinese restaurants". I don't know if it is a common dish in China. Certain dishes are very common in Chinese restaurants here, but are not Chinese.

"Minced pork rice" is not a common dish in any restaurant. I've never eaten it or seen it on a menu. I've never seen or heard the phrase "minced pork rice".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Egg fried rice is a kind of fried rice, just as the apple pie is a kind of pie.
But minced pork rice, i.e., rice topped with braised minced pork, is not a kind of rice. For this reason, "egg fried rice" is a more English-like name than "minced pork rice," isn't it?

This is a question about the relative naturalness of those meaning-form combinations.


----------



## natkretep

Why are you interested in this? Are you putting together a menu for an event?

Are you thinking of a dish like this one?




It is called 'minced pork rice' in some recipes and menus. That is what you see in Wikipedia: Minced pork rice - Wikipedia - with its Taiwanese (Hokkien) name, lo bah png (=braised meat rice).

Others might use 'minced pork over rice' or 'minced pork on rice' or 'minced pork and rice'. Yet others say 'braised pork' or 'braised minced pork'. (Note that Americans might prefer 'ground pork' to 'minced pork'.)

Compare this with a similar dish that I've had in Scotland.



This is often called 'mince and tatties' - braised (beef) mince with carrots and peas, and a lump of mash.


----------



## Ponyprof

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Egg fried rice is a kind of fried rice, just as the apple pie is a kind of pie.
> But minced pork rice, i.e., rice topped with braised minced pork, is not a kind of rice. For this reason, "egg fried rice" is a more English-like name than "minced pork rice," isn't it?
> 
> This is a question about the relative naturalness of those meaning-form combinations.



My understanding is that all these three or four word names in English for Chinese dishes are fairly direct translations of the 3 or 4 character names of the dishes in Chinese. Our local menus have everything in English and Chinese.

Egg fried rice does not sound like an English food. It is not an English sounding food. There is no fried rice in English cuisine.

I've lived in Vancouver and Hong Kong, and traveled in China. My impression is that the variety of Chinese dishes and ingredients is almost infinite  when you consider all the regional cuisines. Looking at a typical Chinese menu in Canada, I'd expect to see familiar things like chicken fried rice, but I wouldn't be surprised to see almost any ingredient listed.

So it's fair to say that Anglo Canadians might find egg fried rice or chicken fried rice or shrimp fried rice more familiar than squid fried rice or duck's blood on noodles, but it's not because egg fried rice *sounds* more English. It doesn't, it's just that it's been a staple of suburban takeout Chinese food for 60 years and we know what it is.

If your dish is made with minced braised pork in fried rice, then you call it what it is. Minced pork fried rice is descriptive (barbecue pork rice here tends to be pork on white rice).

Maybe minced pork fried rice isn't as common as egg fried rice, but both food items sound equally Chinese to me. Neither sounds like an English dish. Eggs are breakfast and rice is dinner in English cooking!


----------



## Szkot

Pork (and chicken) fried rice are established 'Chinese' dishes in Britain with lots of menus available online.  We don't say minced because that's what we expect.  Larger chunks of meat would be called pork with fried rice, the rice being seen as an accompaniment to the meat.

This is descibed as Chinese-style pork fillet with fried rice



This is pork fried rice


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

natkretep said:


> Why are you interested in this? Are you putting together a menu for an event?
> 
> Are you thinking of a dish like this one?
> . . .
> 
> It is called 'minced pork rice' in some recipes and menus. That is what you see in Wikipedia: Minced pork rice - Wikipedia - with its Taiwanese (Hokkien) name, lo bah png (=braised meat rice).



Yes, that's what I'm referring to. I know it's called that on Wikipedia. But I suspect that's a coinage by Taiwanese people. And I'm wondering if that's a properly anglicized name.

Just think about typical food names like "chicken noodle soup." It's a kind of noodle soup, with chicken in it. But "minced pork rice" isn't a kind of rice, which makes me suspect the name is Chinglish. Compare "egg fried rice," which refers to a type of fried rice. This formation fits the pattern of "chicken noodle soup."

I hope people here can look beyond ingredients and determine whether a food name sounds English on the basis of its syntax and meaning.




natkretep said:


> Others might use 'minced pork over rice' or 'minced pork on rice' or 'minced pork and rice'. Yet others say 'braised pork' or 'braised minced pork'. (Note that Americans might prefer 'ground pork' to 'minced pork'.)



Yes, I am trying o determine whether the versions with a preposition or conjunction would be more English-like than "minced (or braised) pork rice."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Szkot said:


> Pork (and chicken) fried rice are established 'Chinese' dishes in Britain with lots of menus available online.  We don't say minced because that's what we expect.  Larger chunks of meat would be called pork with fried rice, the rice being seen as an accompaniment to the meat.
> 
> This is descibed as Chinese-style pork fillet with fried rice
> 
> View attachment 49990



Now that you brought up pork fillet, would you say a dish named "pork fillet rice" sounds English (again, ignoring the ingredients and focusing on the grammar and meaning)?


----------



## heypresto

If I saw "pork fillet rice" on a menu, I would assume the pork is minced. 

But "pork fillet _with _rice" would suggest a piece of pork with rice as an accompaniment.

I agree with Szkot.


----------



## Ponyprof

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Yes, that's what I'm referring to. I know it's called that on Wikipedia. But I suspect that's a coinage by Taiwanese people. And I'm wondering if that's a properly anglicized name.
> 
> Just think about typical food names like "chicken noodle soup." It's a kind of noodle soup, with chicken in it. But "minced pork rice" isn't a kind of rice, which makes me suspect the name is Chinglish. Compare "egg fried rice," which refers to a type of fried rice. This formation fits the pattern of "chicken noodle soup."
> 
> I hope people here can look beyond ingredients and determine whether a food name sounds English on the basis of its syntax and meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am trying o determine whether the versions with a preposition or conjunction would be more English-like than "minced (or braised) pork rice."



Why do you want a Chinese food to sound English? All the translated names on the menu of a Chinese restaurant are a bit "Chinglish" and that's a large part of their charm. 

It's true that chicken noodle soup and beef barley soup, etc., have the similar
word order structure, and I never thought of that before. But what makes them more English sounding is that they are part of traditional English cuisine. 

I'm not clear on the distinction you want to draw between egg fried rice and minced pork rice.

Both dishes contain rice, correct?

Are you saying that the egg is mixed into the fried rice, while the pork sits on the rice?

So it should be "minced pork on rice," not "minced pork rice?"

Really, there is no "properly Anglicized name" for Chinese food. All the foods sound to us like they are translated from Chinese. Some of the foods are familiar in North America, some may not be. 

And as I said earlier, some cusines don't even get translated. When we eat Indian, we order saag paneer.


----------



## Ponyprof

heypresto said:


> If I saw "pork fillet rice" on a menu, I would assume the pork is minced.
> 
> But "pork fillet _with _rice" would suggest a piece of pork with rice as an accompaniment.
> 
> I agree with Szkot.



If I see pork fillet rice, I think it's Chinese food.

If I see "Sustainably sourced local filet of pork on a bed of organic brown basmati rice with sauteed kale," I know I'm in a trendy Anglophone restaurant.


----------



## dojibear

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Just think about typical food names like "chicken noodle soup." It's a kind of noodle soup, with chicken in it.


And "egg drop soup" is a kind of soup, with egg dropped in it. And "green tea" is tea that is green in color.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I hope people here can...determine whether a food name sounds English on the basis of its syntax and meaning.


None of these food names "sound English" to me. I honestly have no idea what "sounds English" means to you. That's an idea inside your head, that I don't understand.

What about "egg drop soup"? Is that different from "chicken noodle soup"? Is one "English syntax" and the other "Chinglish"? 

I know you are NOT talking about "traditional European cuisine" and "traditional Chinese cuisine", so that doesn't matter.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

But some Chinese dishes are properly translated. E.g. "beef noodle soup"  is an accurate translation of what would be literally "beef noodles" in Chinese.


----------



## dojibear

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> E.g. "beef noodle soup" is an accurate translation of what would be literally "beef noodles" in Chinese.


Is it a soup with beef and noodles in it?
Or is it a soup with [noodles made with beef] in it?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> And "egg drop soup" is a kind of soup, with egg dropped in it. And "green tea" is tea that is green in color.



Set relation is what I have in mind. That's a necessary, though not sufficient, condition.  Is egg drop an established term? If not, egg drop soup remains a Chinglish term that has gained some acceptance, though.  "Green tea" is a fixed name.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> Is it a soup with beef and noodles in it?
> Or is it a soup with [noodles made with beef] in it?



The following parse will clarify which is meant:

[beef  [noodle soup] ]

But "minced pork rice" is not amenable to such a parse.


----------



## dojibear

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The following parse will clarify which is meant:
> 
> [beef [noodle soup] ]
> 
> But "minced pork rice" is not amenable to such a parse.



[[minced pork] rice]


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> [[minced pork] rice]



That parse would fail to display the set relation holding between "chicken soup" and "soup," for example.

But maybe there are food names in your version of American English where [X Y] does not need to be a kind of [Y]. If so, I'd like to know what they are.


----------



## dojibear

In general, food names are noun phrases. In English, each nounphrase usually has one of these forms: 
- noun
- adjective+nounphrase
- noun1+nounphrase (where noun1 modifies nounphrase)

Those fit your X Y pattern.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> That parse would fail to display the set relationship holding between "chicken soup" and "soup," for example.


They are part of a set? What do you call that set? How many members does it have in it?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> In general, food names are noun phrases. In English, each nounphrase usually has one of these forms:
> - noun
> - adjective+nounphrase
> - noun1+nounphrase (where noun1 modifies nounphrase)
> 
> Those fit your X Y pattern.



The noun is the head of the noun phrase. So a red book is a kind of book. But is "minced pork rice" a kind of rice?
This is different from typical examples like "chocolate cake," which rightly conforms to the standard pattern.




dojibear said:


> They are part of a set? What do you call that set? How many members does it have in it?



A chocolate cake is a member of the set of cakes. The set also contains other kinds of cakes.


----------



## dojibear

Maybe I was too restrictive. Many food dish names are noun phrases in English (apple pie, fried rice). But others are not. For example these are all common dishes in the US:
- chicken kiev
- chicken parmigian
- eggplant parmigian
- spaghetti carbonara
- pasta alfredo
- beef wellington
- apple pie a la mode
- ice cream cone
- oysters Rockefeller
- beef tartar



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But is "minced pork rice" a kind of rice?


No, definitely not. This phrase does not fit the noun phrase model. A more natural American name would be "minced pork on rice". or "minced pork over rice". We often say "on rice" or "over rice" to describe a dish. We also use "and" in some dish names: pork and beans, spaghetti and meatballs, chicken and rice.


So "minced pork rice" sounds foreign. But it fits a well-known pattern for (foreign) food dish names. It is easily understood as meaning "minced pork on rice". It sounds foreign, but Americans are familiar with foreign food names.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> Maybe I was too restrictive. Many food dish names are noun phrases in English (apple pie, fried rice). But others are not. For example these are all common dishes in the US:
> - chicken kiev
> - chicken parmigian
> - eggplant parmigian
> - spaghetti carbonara
> - pasta alfredo
> - beef wellington
> - apple pie a la mode
> - ice cream cone
> - oysters Rockefeller
> - beef tarta
> 
> . . .
> 
> So "minced pork rice" sounds foreign. But it fits a well-known pattern for (foreign) food dish names. It is easily understood as meaning "minced pork on rice". It sounds foreign, but Americans are familiar with foreign food names.



The above dish names come in two types. Type A: head-initial, with the head noun preceding the modifier; type B: head noun originally referring to a container but metonymically describing the food it holds.

Only "ice cream cone" on the list belongs to Type B.  (Another example I can think of is "platter," as in "seafood platter.")
All the Type A examples still demonstrate the set relation in question. Chicken Kiev refers to a type of chicken prepared in a particular way, spaghetti carbonara refers to a particular type of spaghetti, etc.

I don't see where "minced pork rice" would fit on the list. Is "rice" treated a post-nominal modifier?


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Hi,
> 
> Ham fried rice and egg fried rice are common dishes in a Chinese restaurant. I'm wondering whether the way the forms are created has a foreign feel to it.
> Do they sound more natural than "minced pork rice"?





raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The above dish names come in two types. Type A: head-initial, with the head noun preceding the modifier; type B: head noun originally referring to a container but metonymically describing the food it holds.
> I don't see where "minced pork rice" would fit on the list. Is "rice" treated a post-nominal modifier?



So this is now a thread about grammar nomenclature (not my favourite subject) and not about how "foreign" something is (as a dish) or how foreign (or natural) it sounds as a phrase? Since these area all "foreign" dishes, some information before the word "rice" puts them all in the same category, for me.  _Minced pork_ rice is a type of rice dish. _Pork_ fried rice is a type of fried rice dish.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

This thread is about how foreign a particular expression sounds as far as its grammar and grammatically induced meaning are concerned.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Brits accept "minced pork rice," as they also accept "macaroni cheese," which for some people would be "macaroni and cheese." 

On second thought, maybe Type A names are not in head-noun first order, but with the "and" omitted like "macaroni (and) cheese."

Anyway, you seem to allow "rice" to be extended to mean a rice dish. What about "spaghetti"? Would you say "meatball spaghetti"?


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> This thread is about how foreign a particular expression sounds as far as its grammar and grammatically induced meaning are concerned.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to see Brits accept "minced pork rice," as they also accept "macaroni cheese," which for some people would be "macaroni and cheese."
> 
> Anyway, you seem to allow "rice" to be extended to mean a rice dish. What about "spaghetti"? Would you say "meatball spaghetti"?


Do you think the people who come up with the names for "foreign" dishes talk about modiifiers and head-initial anything?  The grammarians come AFTER the speakers and try to deduce/formulate rules for the language, and don't always get it "right".  And yes, meatball spaghetti *is* a thing, although I usually see "spaghetti with meatballs" (no mention of sauce  )


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> Do you think the people who come up with the names for "foreign" dishes talk about modiifiers and head-initial anything?  The grammarians come AFTER the speakers and try to deduce/formulate rules for the language, and don't always get it "right".  And yes, meatball spaghetti *is* a thing, although I usually see "spaghetti with meatballs" (no mention of sauce  )



I'm sure that grammarians of the English language wouldn't come after Chinese speakers who try to translate a Chinese dish name into English.

Constructs like modifiers are in the speaker's mind, although subconsciously. Without training, a person has great difficulty explaining how they work.

Come to think of it, "spaghetti" is not a good example, as it is already a dish name. How does "beef noodles" sound to you?


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I'm sure that grammarians of the English language wouldn't come after Chinese speakers who try to translate a Chinese dish name into English.


The AFTER in my post was intended as _chronologically_ after, not in chasing after.  People develop and speak a language independently of grammarians and do not consult them when naming dishes, whether it is a native speaker or a Chinese chef in an English-speaking country.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

OK. The generalizations grammarians described may not keep up with language change. 
Maybe "macaroni cheese" and "minced pork rice" are possible in an innovative speech variety. There are speakers from the US and Australia who find the term "minced pork rice" odd.  (Some don't like the word "minced," but even if it is replaced with something else, they still don't like the term.)


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> OK. The generalizations grammarians described may not keep up with language change.


  Perhaps your balance of "descriptive versus prescriptive" favours the latter more.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Maybe "macaroni cheese" and "minced pork rice" are possible in an innovative speech variety. There are speakers from the US and Australia who find the term "minced pork rice" odd.  (Some don't like the word "minced," but even if it is replaced with something else, they still don't like the term.)


Having grown up in the UK, minced is quite normal, but I agree not so common in the US (ground is preferred) so it's an AE/BE thing. I've seen ground beef, ground turkey but I don't think I've seen ground pork in meat counters here (I've neither looked nor noticed), so their reaction may not be a language issue.


----------



## Ponyprof

JulianStuart said:


> Perhaps your balance of "descriptive versus prescriptive" favours the latter more.
> Having grown up in the UK, minced is quite normal, but I agree not so common in the US (ground is preferred) so it's an AE/BE thing. I've seen ground beef, ground turkey but I don't think I've seen ground pork in meat counters here (I've neither looked nor noticed), so their reaction may not be a language issue.



I agree.

The only difference between the dishes you are mentioning is whether they are historically familiar in English speaking countries.

I would expect chicken fried rice and shrimp fried rice in every old fashioned Chinese restaurant, though not necessarily in the new waves of more authentic regional Chinese cuisine in my city. I must say I am not sure I have ever seen egg fried rice, or at least ordered it. But it probably exists. I am not familiar with ham fried rice!

If minced pork rice sounds unusual to an English speaker, it's because that particular dish wasn't a staple in the old style "Cantonese and Canadian cuisine" diners where most of us Anglophones learned to eat Chinese food. However, the description is very clear, and if we ate it once and enjoyed it, we wouldn't think twice about the name in future. There is the fact that BE uses the word mince where AE uses the word ground or hamburger meat, but the idea of finely chopped cooked meat, chopped after cooking, does not exist in English cuisine. 

So there is nothing at all going on with grammar that makes egg fried rice "correct" English and "minced pork rice" somehow "Chinglish." There just isn't. 

I don't see the point in going down a rabbit hole of grammar analysis on this. If you want to make your menu really clear, you can distinguish between "minced pork on rice" and "minced pork fried rice." Or minced pork noodles.

English is a capacious language and will have idioms, specialized terms, and foreign derived or translated words or phrases that don't follow grammar book rules. No one worries about that. If minced pork rice is an accurate translation of the food, no English speaker will be thinking it sounds any more or any less Chinglish than egg fried rice.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> Perhaps your balance of "descriptive versus prescriptive" favours the latter more.
> Having grown up in the UK, minced is quite normal, but I agree not so common in the US (ground is preferred) so it's an AE/BE thing. I've seen ground beef, ground turkey but I don't think I've seen ground pork in meat counters here (I've neither looked nor noticed), so their reaction may not be a language issue.



What is a language issue is people's acceptance or rejection of "[minced, braised, etc.) pork rice." Not everyone accepts it. "Minced" is not my concern. It's the construction without displaying the set relation that is at issue.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What is a language issue is people's acceptance or rejection of "[minced, braised, etc.) pork rice." Not everyone accepts it. "Minced" is not my concern. It's the construction without displaying the set relation that is at issue.


Some accept it, some don't. Some find it "natural" others don't.  That's language for you   I won't participte in a discussion of what's right or wrong in such a contaxt - of describing a "foreign" dish.  Those who reject it might go for "minced pork with (or and) rice", or "minced pork rice bowl" etc.  The last couple of paragraphs in #34 sum it up well.


----------



## dojibear

How about "kapanja"? That sounds delicious! I'll have two! By the way, what is that dish? Oh, it's minced pork in a spicy sauce, served over white rice.

I like sushi, and sashimi, and sukiyaki, and strudel, and spotted dick, and bratwurst, and rottini alfredo, and tarte tatin, and paella (I love paella!), and countless other food dishes whose names are not English descriptive phrases. Many (most?) food dish names are not English descriptive phrases. 

So (in my opinion) you are talking about 2 different things if you talk about "a dish's name" and "an English description of the dish". If you equate those two things, you are making a flawed assumption. Logic based on flawed assumptions gives flawed conclusions.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> Some accept it, some don't. Some find it "natural" others don't.  That's language for you   I won't participte in a discussion of what's right or wrong in such a contaxt - of describing a "foreign" dish.  Those who reject it might go for "minced pork with (or and) rice", or "minced pork rice bowl" etc.  The last couple of paragraphs in #34 sum it up well.



Do you accept "beef noodles"?




JulianStuart said:


> Perhaps your balance of "descriptive versus prescriptive" favours the latter more.



There is nothing prescriptivist if the generalization aims to describe certain dialects or idiolects.
Studying the issue can help a person determine what's possible in a speech variety without using a form indiscriminately.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> How about "kapanja"? That sounds delicious! I'll have two! By the way, what is that dish? Oh, it's minced pork in a spicy sauce, served over white rice.
> 
> I like sushi, and sashimi, and sukiyaki, and strudel, and spotted dick, and bratwurst, and rottini alfredo, and tarte tatin, and paella (I love paella!), and countless other food dishes whose names are not English descriptive phrases. Many (most?) food dish names are not English descriptive phrases.
> 
> So (in my opinion) you are talking about 2 different things if you talk about "a dish's name" and "an English description of the dish". If you equate those two things, you are making a flawed assumption. Logic based on flawed assumptions gives flawed conclusions.



Some dish names are translations; others are transliterations. I'm concerned with the former. No one is equating the two sorts of things.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Ponyprof said:


> I agree.
> 
> The only difference between the dishes you are mentioning is whether they are historically familiar in English speaking countries.
> . . .
> So there is nothing at all going on with grammar that makes egg fried rice "correct" English and "minced pork rice" somehow "Chinglish." There just isn't.



Perhaps there isn't anything going on in your speech variety. But that's not the case for other idiolects or dialects.
< ---- 'Blind link' removed. Cagey, moderator ---- >



Ponyprof said:


> I don't see the point in going down a rabbit hole of grammar analysis on this. If you want to make your menu really clear, you can distinguish between "minced pork on rice" and "minced pork fried rice." Or minced pork noodles.



You accept "minced pork noodles"? No wonder you see nothing wrong with "minced pork rice." Analyzing the grammar of the latter enables us to predict what type of expression is possible in some people's speech variety and what is not. That's the point of the exercise.


----------



## Ponyprof

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Perhaps there isn't anything going on in your speech variety. But that's not the case for other idiolects or dialects.
> See the remarks by Jerry Friedman, Peter Moylan, and Ken Blake here.
> 
> 
> 
> You accept "minced pork noodles"? No wonder you see nothing wrong with "minced pork rice." Analyzing the grammar of the latter enables us to predict what type of expression is possible in some people's speech variety and what is not. That's the point of the exercise.



Your link just goes to another chat group where folks mull over the question and don't reach a conclusion.

If you have a deep grammar question that you want to isolate, maybe pick another content topic other than Chinese menu items.

Chinese menu items constitute a category where the slightly nonEnglish grammar structure of *all* the items serves as part of the information conveyed. If the dish ends with the words "rice" or "noodles," or contains the words "fried rice," "fried noodles," or "stir fry," we know it is "not English/ some variety of Chinese/Korean/Japanese." The slightly nonEnglish grammar communicates this.

No one on this forum is likely to tell you that Beef Noodles is somehow something you can't say in English *because it is something you can say in English.*

And yes, it is perfectly possible that over the next 100 years, inflections from Chinese languages will come to shape syntax in grammar in English speaking countries, especially on the Pacific Rim. And I cannot stress enough that this is *totally all right* and *completely natural.*

There is no bastion of pure English immune from evolution. People in my home town already sound very different than adults did when I was a child 50 years ago. English is always in process. It can accomodate a phrase like beef tripe noodles without anyone even noticing.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Ponyprof said:


> Your link just goes to another chat group where folks mull over the question and don't reach a conclusion.



The absence of a conclusion is exactly what dialectal/idiolectal variation on this issue would lead us to expect.




Ponyprof said:


> If you have a deep grammar question that you want to isolate, maybe pick another content topic other than Chinese menu items.
> 
> Chinese menu items constitute a category where the slightly nonEnglish grammar structure of *all* the items serves as part of the information conveyed. If the dish ends with the words "rice" or "noodles," or contains the words "fried rice," "fried noodles," or "stir fry," we know it is "not English/ some variety of Chinese/Korean/Japanese." The slightly nonEnglish grammar communicates this.



If you agree that the structure of the expression is "slightly non-English," then my purpose has been served.



Ponyprof said:


> No one on this forum is likely to tell you that Beef Noodles is somehow something you can't say in English *because it is something you can say in English.*




*Glenfarclas *said three years ago that "It certainly sounds like Chinglish to me. It may be well-established Chinglish within the context of talking about this dish, but Chinglish nonetheless."

beef noodles or the noodles with beef




Ponyprof said:


> There is no bastion of pure English immune from evolution. People in my home town already sound very different than adults did when I was a child 50 years ago. English is always in process. It can accomodate a phrase like beef tripe noodles without anyone even noticing.



For students, it's better to be conservative when it comes to learning a foreign language.  They don't want to lose points over that on an exam.


----------



## Ponyprof

My point was an English speaker doesn't really hear a difference between egg fried rice and minced pork rice. They both sound like Chinese dishes. We don't register egg fried rice as "correct" English and minced pork rice or beef noodles or indeed beef noodle as "incorrect" English because of the order of nouns.

That's what they are called *in English.* That's what English speaking people call them. There is no other way of naming these foods in English. It's not like English speaking people run around calling beef noodles "noodles with beef" when they talk about Chinese food. There's no "correct" or "conservative" version for the cautious English learner to stick to.


----------



## dojibear

Ponyprof said:


> an English speaker doesn't really hear a difference between egg fried rice and minced pork rice.


To an American the phrase "egg fried rice" is a Chinese dish, not an AE descriptive phrase. We don't say that in AE. I have no idea what the word "egg" means when describing "fried rice". Is raw egg stirred into the rice? Is the egg cooked and chopped up and then added? Is something else done? Is it a whole egg, or some egg yolk, or some egg white? I don't know. It is just a dish name, like "minced pork rice" or "moo goo gai pan".

It is not like "fried rice" or "shredded lettuce" or "barbecued beef". Those are descriptive phrases.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Ponyprof said:


> My point was an English speaker doesn't really hear a difference between egg fried rice and minced pork rice. They both sound like Chinese dishes. We don't register egg fried rice as "correct" English and minced pork rice or beef noodles or indeed beef noodle as "incorrect" English because of the order of nouns.



Some English speakers do perceive a difference between minced pork rice and chicken fried rice for structural reasons:
Here, I asked Ken Blake, who finds "minced pork rice" odd:

> Do you find "chicken fried rice" odd too, as far as your third reason is concerned?

He replied:

No, "chicken" modifies "fried rice." "Chicken fried rice" is a kind of fried rice.


----------



## heypresto

If 'minced pork rice' is the English name for a Chinese dish, then what is there to discuss? 

We don't think about, or get confused about, the derivation or structure of the name, or the finer points of grammar or linguistics when we see it on a menu, or order it. We just order it and eat it, and hopefully enjoy it.


----------



## bennymix

dojibear said:


> Maybe I was too restrictive. Many food dish names are noun phrases in English (apple pie, fried rice). But others are not. For example these are all common dishes in the US:
> - chicken kiev
> - chicken parmigian
> - eggplant parmigian
> - spaghetti carbonara
> - pasta alfredo
> - beef wellington
> - apple pie a la mode
> - ice cream cone
> - oysters Rockefeller
> - beef tartar
> 
> 
> No, definitely not. This phrase does not fit the noun phrase model. A more natural American name would be "minced pork on rice". or "minced pork over rice". We often say "on rice" or "over rice" to describe a dish. We also use "and" in some dish names: pork and beans, spaghetti and meatballs, chicken and rice.
> 
> 
> So "minced pork rice" sounds foreign. But it fits a well-known pattern for (foreign) food dish names. It is easily understood as meaning "minced pork on rice". It sounds foreign, but Americans are familiar with foreign food names.



I agree.   Nat's picture in #11, is minced pork, braised, *on rice*.    'Minced pork rice'   sound rather disgusting.   Egg- or shrimp- fried are common and nice;  they're cooked/fried somewhat together, after the rice is cooked.   "Minced pork" sounds very fatty.    Shredded pork might work in English for the mixed dish.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

'Minced pork rice' makes no sense to me either, but 'pork fried rice' would. I would expect the meaty content to be little bits of pork whether 'minced' or shredded already cooked pork.
The meats sold as mince in my supermarket are beef, lamb and turkey. To get minced pork you would have to order it from an independent butcher. It is used  for stuffing, terrines, sausages and of course pork pies, but most people would buy these ready made. One reason for not providing minced pork is that many people don't eat it for religious reasons. They would not buy other meats minced if they knew the mincer was used for pork too.
I agree with benny that 'minced pork rice' sounds unappetising, perhaps just because it is puzzling and 'alien'. I've never seen it on a menu and we often ate Chinese when we lived in NYC. Also the idea of minced pork is offputting. I am very suspicious of any sort of minced meat in fact.
We don't talk about 'scrambled/beaten egg/omelette/ fried rice'.


----------



## JulianStuart

Chacun à son goût, as they say.  _Food preferences_ would not seem to me to be effective in discussions about language and grammar formats  I often have a dish made with minced (ground in AE) pork (it is not particularly fatty) cooked with tofu in a spicy sauce over rice, and I (used to) find shrimp disgusting.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do you accept "beef noodles"?


It should be obvious to all that they're not "noodles made out of beef" so it _must_ be a dish comprising noodles and beef.  Reminds me of the famous (non-Chinese) chicken noodle soup, soup with chicken _and_ noodles. I would expect "beef noodles" perhaps as a title for a subsection in a menu, given the variety of noodle types and the different ways of cooking beef.  Entries in that section would be more specific, so my issue with "beef noodles" would be its vagueness, not its "grammar".  For example Mongolian Beef Noodle Bowls - Iowa Girl Eats from an Iowa (non-Chinese) girl. Even that doesn't specify the type of noodle!  I have no problem labeling this type of "hybrid nomenclature" Chinglish, as it mixes Chinese culinary concepts with English descriptors.  We accept Chinese (and other language) names without translation (such as chow mein, chow fun, ramen, pad thai), but for the less well-known dishes we use combinations of English words. If the format resembles headlines, in which non-essential words (in this case things like "with" and "over") are omitted, so be it. I'm leaving this rabbit-hole and returning to the surface...


----------



## Ponyprof

bennymix said:


> I agree.   Nat's picture in #11, is minced pork, braised, *on rice*.    'Minced pork rice'   sound rather disgusting.   Egg- or shrimp- fried are common and nice;  they're cooked/fried somewhat together, after the rice is cooked.   "Minced pork" sounds very fatty.    Shredded pork might work in English for the mixed dish.



However, this word change doesn't solve the original problem raised by this poster, which is that somehow "egg fried rice" is "correct English" and "minced pork rice" is not. "Shredded pork rice" is the same construction. So is "Braised shredded pork rice."

The poster here feels that egg fried rice is correct because (if I understand correctly) the egg is mixed into the rice and therefore modifies the rice. But the minced or shredded pork sits on top of the rice and therefore does not modify the rice.

My response is that whether or not the protein is mixed into the rice or sits on top of the rice, the choice of protein is the distinguishing feature of the dish and *does* modify the rice logically and grammatically.

Whether the choice of words communicated the correct idea to a person who has never had the dish is another matter, one of vocabulary choice. If you could find a person who had never set foot in a Chinese Canadian diner, I doubt that they could accurately imagine "chicken fried rice." Certainly every time I encounter a new unfamiliar food, Chinese or anything else, it's an adventure to know what I'm actually going to get. That's not about grammar. It's just that the names of dishes don't fully communicate the whole recipe.

As far as grammar, we certainly say "avacado toast" for mashed avocado on toast (a newer menu item in coffee shops), but we say "poached egg on toast" or "toast and jam." It's just convention. We never say jam on toast, or poached egg toast, or avacado on toast. 

English is flexible.


----------



## Ponyprof

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> It seems that you haven't heard of formal linguistics or generative grammar. Being mathematical isn't equal to old-style prescriptive grammar.



I've heard of them. I've done undergrad linguistics. My PhD is not in linguistics, true. I do know enough about linguistics to know that it is descriptive and interested in how language is used. Linguistics would be interested in explaining *why* "chicken fried steak" looks OK to native speakers without a hyphen. Linguistics today is not that interested in policing standard usage and dismissing clear standard usage in multiple media sources as "illiterate" or "lower class."


----------



## Cagey

This thread has been trimmed to remove topic drift.

The topic has been covered so the thread has been closed.

Thank you to everyone who made an effort to be helpful. 

Cagey,
moderator


----------

