Talk:Hors d'oeuvre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opening comments

A list of popular Hors d'oeuvres can de-stubbify this stub. --Menchi 11:26, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh god no - not a list. Please not another stubby list. --Mothperson 00:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The redirects should lead to the spelling "Hors d'œuvre", as it's the correct one. If I get no objections, I'll change them that way next time. --80.139.60.178 02:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

there's a problem, œ can't be used in a page's title. Gentgeen 07:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently "œ" can be used after all. The page was moved from Hors d'oeuvre to Hors d'œuvre by User:The Anome on June 28, 2005, thus eliminating the need for the {{wrongtitle}} tag.

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) June 29, 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Sadly, it will have to be moved back, as the ligature use is nowadays unusual. Sorry, ligature-happy prescriptionists, common usage wins in the end. -Silence 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Or it won't. I don't really care. -Silence 08:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the ligature is unusual in (a) French, (b) British or (c) American? But what I really wanted to comment was ...

In British and American English, since this is the English Wikipedia, not the French Wikipédia. (see Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Encarta, Cambridge, etc.) But I changed my mind, I don't really care anymore. Ligatures aren't a big deal. And at least this one has an etymological basis, like Annuit Cœptis; there are much worse offenders out there, like Pericope Adulteræ. -Silence 07:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My point, about which I was really being too subtle, for which I apologize, was that UK usage really does differ from US on ligatures. All ligatures, across the board. You only cited one UK source so I'll see your Cambridge with the Oxford English Dictionary, which is subscription-only online but I assure you it has the ligature. Anyway, what I'm really curious about now is: what is the difference between Annuit Cœptis and Pericope Adulteræ? They're both Latin diphthongs, no? —Blotwell 02:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I did not pick and choose between dictionaries based on region. I simply searched for all the most immediately accessible, widely-used ones and gave their results. Finding only one dictionary out of 5 (including two UK ones) that's able to support using the ligature isn't very convincing, and Wikipedia is not a slave of the OED. Wikipedians in general tend to overuse ligatures greatly. For some unfathomable reason, some editors clearly derive a deep pleasure from interjecting as many random æs and œs into articles as they possibly can, even where it's clearly unnecessary or even incorrect, causing inconveniences to the typical reader, who will search for articles and items using "ae" and "oe" and so on; he won't go to the trouble of figuring out the alt code for those letters or searching for some to copy-paste just to read an article about appetizers or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Just look at how many people on Wikipedia use "Wikipædia" and how few use "Wikipaedia" and you can see how ridiculous the ligature overuse is. Where ligatures are without a doubt appropriate is where they're directly quoted from a source that uses the ligature: as can be seen on the Annuit Cœptis page, the Great Seal of the United States, where the phrase is chiefly from, uses the œ ligature. This does not in any way apply, however, to Pericope Adulteræ; this Latin phrase is a traditional medieval description of a Biblical quotation, and the "ae" is and long has been used more often than the "æ"—the only real reason æ was used was to increase writing speed and conserve space. Yet now it's somehow become some sort of bizarre status symbol, a way to look clever and be more "correct" (while ironically being less correct) by using archaic and obsolescent lettering quirks. Very strange stuff. But, as I said, I don't care much about the "Hors d'œuvre"; like almost all ligatures in common words and phrases, it'll be changed eventually, whether tomorrow or five years from now, so it doesn't make much of a difference. -Silence 03:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I just got a boner reading that comment. Preach it, brother. Njerseyguy 21:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Concur. Btw, I added a bullet to the comment above mine to assist with formatting. I hope no one has a hissy fit. Astarf 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree this should be a merger - an amuse bouche is totally different to an Hors d'oeuvre which is similar to a canape. An amuse bouche is a mini starter that is designed to complement the style of the meal - it is effectively a chef's special in miniture that everyone can enjoy. Please don't merge it with Hors d'oeuvre - it would be a crime against language to try and generalise when it comes to food! thanks.Alliekeith 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• yeah . . . but to misspell 'miniature' is not a 'crime against language' - i guess . . . . - b betswiki (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Starter

... is starter really a synonym? It seems to me that a starter is more an entrée (Commonwealth sense) than an hors d'œuvre. Or is this another example of me being prescriptivist based on French usage? —Blotwell 06:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

from what i know/observe is that this word is not used at all in the UK and they use starters instead. - GeckoKid

I have consulted someone who majored in Catering in a UK university, and I have been assured that both words are used, though are not nessescarily the same thing. -Tombrend

As a Brit, I would agree with Blotwell - we use both terms, and starters are entrées, hors d'œuvres are not (see below under Merger heading). In a really formal setting, you would probably hand round the hors d'œuvres with drinks before you sat down for your starter. Tobelia 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Languages and Cultures

I changed the "Antipasto" heading to this because it is much more conducive to future additions of hors d'œuvre equivalents around the world. -User:Bantosh 17:07, 7 June 2006

Don't you think that antipasto deserves a page of its own? Cazort 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Regional Usage

Can someone write something about regional usage? I am fairly certain that appetizer is more commonly used in America. --69.86.97.183 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And now we get to the nub of the problem

Quite which of amuse-bouche, hors-d'oeuvre and other assorted "pre first course" delights depend greatly on where, both in the macro and micro sense. A small, focused establishment is likely to provide a single item (with matched drink) gratis - an Amuse bouche, where as a larger establishment is more likely to provide a range of items (a Hors d’œuvre) as part of a semi-fixed menu - more common in banquets or weddings.

Presuming, of course, that this is the done thing. In my current place and time, short order cooking is more the vogue and the meal is usually compressed into one or perhaps two a la carte courses. Although the shared starter plate containing a selection of pre-prepared and cooked items is both common and popular. But it is definitely not gratis.

And then there is tapas, which are, from a cook's perspective, just another form of the same thing - polemically, glorified cocktail nibbles.

Trying to merge these items requires a careful discussion of the cultural implications of the terms - and as such they are better treated as culturally seperate objects.

As usual, the region west and north of the Atlantic use the same terms completely differently to the rest of the world, just to compicate matters. Which suggests that a series of categories might be useful to link these items.

Thoglette 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

where i live, in California, at a place with Michelin stars i might get an 'amuse-bouche' . . . but it's not an appetizer - it is usually a 'little surprise' between courses, a little favor from the chef . . . yes, a specialty, usually, and a tiny one . . . 'starters' usually include, on a printed menu, the soups and the appetizers, maybe the salads, the soups, and the appetizers . . . 'tapas' are 'small plates' and are usually at restaurants that serve a variety of these to replace an entree . . . one can kinda snack one's way through a meal (drinks usually being important in such places, and perhaps the tapas are a kind of side attraction, in fact) . . . as one can with tapas in Spain, i found . . . where that cold potato thing with cold congealed egg serves as a sort of substitute for the central part of a meal - it didn't do a lot for me . . . but to each his (or her) own - separate items . . . yes, i think so - i do not equate tapas and appetizers and amuses-bouche - b betswiki (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger With Entrée

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion was oppose--- Jeremy (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• oppossed - I also agree there should not be a merger. In Australia, for example, hors d'oeuvres refers mostly to little snacks served before sitting. Entree is then the course before main course, perhaps after soup.

oppossed - I strongly recommend that the article for entrée not be merged into this article, as the significant usage difference in American English (yes, I'm aware this is originally a French word) warrants a separate article. --Astarf 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

oppossed - I strongly agree. And apart from Astarf's point, I would classify hors d'oeuvres as a different thing from entrées anyway, even in the sense we use it in the UK and elsewhere. As this article makes sufficiently clear, hors d'oeuvres are appetisers which are often pre-meal finger food, whereas an entrée (in the non-US sense) is more of a sit-down starter course. Tobelia 17:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

oppossed - Agreed. Entrees (in the "first course" sense) are not at all the same thing as hors d'oeuvres. --Macrakis 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

oppossed - Entree has a different connotation in America as well as other countries. Although it may have at one point addressed a certain appetizer course, it no longer does. Even at that, it is a separate course, not an hors d'oeuvre.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As this merger proposal has been up since May and there are five oppositions and no supports, I am going to remove the merge proposal for Entree.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopening of discussion

I have reintroduced merge template. Just take a look at the both article: right now they both describe the same thing, so there's no reason to keep both. "Smaller course that precedes the main course" and "Food served before the main courses" is the same thing. The difference between US and UK English can be described without having two separate articles. And BTW having two separate articles makes adding interwiki quite uneasy. Netrat_msk (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They are based upon the French Seven course meal, each is separate. This discussion was closed as such and does not need to be reintroduced. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But right now they describe the same thing! If you believe articles should not be merged, would you please re-write any or both of them to make the difference between concepts obvious?

And what about the fact that even French Wikipedia does not have an article for Entrée, but only for Hors-d'œuvre?

There's another problem with interwiki. For example, both Entrée and Hors-d'œuvre link to Russian Zakuski. Zakuski in Russian Wikipedia links to Entrée (why not to Hors-d'œuvre?). You seem to be pretty familiar with cuisine history, so could you please explain what would be proper translations? Netrat_msk (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Entrée has several different meanings depending on which version of English you are speaking. In America and Canada it is the primary course, in England and Australia it means something before the main meal but after the hors d'oeuvre etc. Hors D'oeuvre very specific in almost all dialects.

As stated in the entrée article that the entrée is served after hors d'oeuvre, the French term for appetizers. They are not the same thing, there is clearly an error on the translation in the inter-wikis. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A little more to help clarify the situation.

A typical semi-casual meal in a US restaurant (think TGIFridays) is four courses:

1. Cocktails and hors d'oeuvre (in this case martinis or beer and an appetizer)
2. Salad and/or Soup (in non-US dialects, this could be considered the entrée)
3. Entrée (in non-US dialects, this would be called the main course)
4. Dessert

A more formal US five course meal is usually set up like this:

1. Cocktails and hors d'oeuvre
2. Salad
3. Soup (in non-US dialects, this could be considered the entrée)
4. Entrée (in non-US dialects, this would be called the main course)
5. Dessert & apperatif

A six course meal would look like this (pretty much all English dialects):

1. Cocktails and hors d'oeuvre
2. Salad
3. Soup
4. Entrée (in this case, a light course that leads into the main course)
5. The main course
6. Dessert & apperatif

A seven course meal would add a palate cleanser, usually a citrus sorbét.

While this information isn't text book for the term and doesn't fully reflect the variations used in English dialects, this is an fairly good example of how we use the term. Does this help you understand what the difference in the two terms are? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanations, but this is still not 100% clear. So:

1. Why there's no article for Entrée in French Wikipedia if Entrée concept is borrowed to English from French?
2. How would you translate Entrée to other languages, particularly to Russian (interwiki issue)? Zakuski seems mean Hors d'oeuvre.
3. Would you be so kind to describe the difference in corresponding articles? Netrat_msk (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that hors d'oeuvre is almost always cold, while entrée is always almost hot? Netrat_msk (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The person to ask on these issues would be Chris, he is much better versed in this subject than I. As for the hot/cold issue, no that is absolutely false. Popular hors d'oeuvre such as satay or bruchetta can be served hot or cold depending on the recipe, while an entrée (the main course in this example, I am American and use the US definition) could be something as simple as a sandwich, which again could be hot or cold. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Language translations are tricky. As most of us probably don't work on the French Wikipedia we can not answer for them not having an article on entree. However, most of what is on the French Wikipedia has come from the English Wikipedia from translation, so if we haven't written about it much of it, from my experience, it doesn't show up there. Additionally, as I do not speak Russian and have not researched the cuisine extensively (another future project) I couldn't answer what the appropriate term is either. What I do know is that in French, what we consider to be an appetizer is referred to as the entree. How we in the USA ended up calling our main course an entree, I have not come across yet in my research. Finally, as for temperatures, hors d'oeuvre can be either hot or cold. I hope that helped a bit.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hors D'oeuvre are the nibbles you get beforehand, cheese sticks, olives, cheese cubes and the like. Entrée is what Anglophones would refer to as the starter, usually followed by the Plat Principal, or main course. Hors d'oeuvre can be hot or cold, and can consist of hot foods such as canapés and the like. Entrées can be cold, and consist of plates such as a mixed seafood platter. There is no real rule on temperature. However, hors d'oeuvre can usually be consumed with fingers, while the entrée is traditionally a sit down affair. Or at least thats how we do it in Belgium. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Amuse Bouche

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion was oppose. --- Jeremy (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposed to this merger, two completely different concepts. The amuse bouche is a course in a meal.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to this merger. Amuse is a completely different animal than hors d'oeuvre. Depending on the chef, it can be served after hors d'oeuvre (and before the soup/entree), or it can be served before the hors d'oeuvre. In any event, culinarily speaking, an amuse is 1-2 bites, limited to one per person, served with an accompanying wine, and in the case of a meal which is being paid for, an amuse is complimentary. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle may not be a square. Hors d'oeuvre foods MAY end up following these rules (1-2 bites per item, served before the main course, even sometimes served with appropriate wine), but hors d'oeuvre dishes are in no way limited to those rules as amuses are--and notably, rarely are limited to one "serving"/bite per person, also usually paid for. An hors d'oeuvre may fall into the category of amuse according to adherance of these rules, but an amuse is never, ever, an hors d'oeuvre.207.74.178.168 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Brigitte

Oppose. As per above. Obviously it is something different. Bertilvidet 12:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposed This is the worst merger suggestion that I've ever read on here. The concept is different than hors 'd oeuvre, although they are often confused. Merging them would just propagate ignorance on this topic.

Both Mergers

A Suggestion: create an article Meal Courses. Have it broken down into each serving with various differences between localized variations under the heading. Just a weird suggestion. Jerem43 05:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, especially as appetizers should be represented and is currently redirected to this article (Hors d’œuvre). I am truly against these mergers as they are represented here in this current fasion.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise count me as Opposed to the merger: while they are related, each item is independent of the other like siblings.

Jerem43 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meze?

Isn't Meze more like the english interpretation of Tapas than Hors d'œuvre? To this extent I'd say the article needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Meze is related, but not really "the equivalent of" Hors d'œuvre. 82.32.73.92 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"American English normally IPA: /ɔrˈdɝv/"

You know, only like nine people in the world understand this IPA BS, especially ones like this. Anyone care to put a pronunciation the layman can understand? whore-derves? oar-derves? Thanks. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

i think it's 'horse doofers' . . . at least that's my preferred spelling . . . i know, i know . . . . now i'll be drummed outta the corps . . . i'm born and bred American, going back more generations than i can figure out, so i know i don't deserve any regard anyway - b betswiki (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for the move --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Hors d'œuvre → Hors d'oeuvre — Get rid of the œthel. While Hors d'œuvre is the correct spelling in French, this is the English wiki. Any reliable dictionary The vast majority of reliable dictionaries give the primary (or only) spelling as Hors d'oeuvre —The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Weak oppose The OED is a reliable dictionary, and they list only the ligature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  I love the OED, but it's a bit stodgy and in the minority here. Most other dictionaries I consulted--including the compact Oxford English Dictionary[1]--do not include the œthel spelling at all.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  I believe that Charlotte Webb has a good point. Printers do avoid œ for purely typographical reasons; any dictionary which misspells the French is not a good guide to English on this issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  I understand your position, but this would mean that virtually every other dictionary is not a good guide to English.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the œthel is still a valid character in the English language. The spelling is perfectly valid. Based upon Chris' research, I'll go with Support. --- Jeremy (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose; see discussion - especially now the argument above states that dictionaries using œ are unreliable or "stodgy", which is entirely groundless. Knepflerle (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable? I only suggested that the OED's traditional spelling of the word placed it in the minority among dictionaries. Of course, my personal opinion that the OED (esp. previous editions) tended toward rather stiff formalities has no bearing here. What is relevant is that most dictionaries do not spell the word with the œ character.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable? Your words - "Any reliable dictionary gives the primary (or only) spelling as Hors d'oeuvre". Therefore, a dictionary which does not give that spelling must be...? Either you think the OED is unreliable, or that statement is incorrect and reliable dictionaries contain the œ as the primary/only spelling. Which is it to be? Knepflerle (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean. I'll strike my wording.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - hors d'œuvre is the common name. Just because a spelling is 'stodgy' doesn't mean that it is the least common spelling. This name change would be for change's sake. EJF (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

???? How did you come to the determination that hors d'œuvre is the most common spelling? Every indication is otherwise.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Any use of "oe" instead of "œ" (which is itself a distinct letter) is an artifact of technical limitations, notational convenience, or ignorance, which are hopefully three excuses not applicable to Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the reliability of the ŒD (sorry) or any other dictionary. — CharlotteWebb 14:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - see my research below.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. More common name. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support How am I supposed to type the present name into the search bar? That letter is not on an American keyboard. If it was a redirect, which it is the opposite way now, people would be confused because that combination is not an English letter. It would be the same if i randomly made a page with the title in greek letters. It wouldn't be right. Grk1011 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to be a British vs American thing, as in Britain that is a valid and quite often used spelling. Back when this article was started though, ligatures couldn't be used so, we need to work out how to apply the American English vs English standards in this case. Narson (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide valid citations of this if you could. Also, while it may be accepted in British English (please use that term when discussing the primary language of the UK), is it common in Canadian, Australian and New Zealand English dialects? Remember that British English is only a small group of speakers compared to other dialects (American English has over 280 million speakers vs 30 million British).--- Jeremy (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence has already been given on the page citing the OED. Please seethis bit of the MoS for guidelines on how to deal with such problems. Narson (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The characterisation above is incorrect. Hors d'œuvre is the correct French spelling, but it is also a perfectly acceptable English language spelling with established and widespread use. The treatment of words containing œ varies significantly over different varieties of English (apnœa/apnoea/apnea; cœliac/./.) Knepflerle (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course many words will have several acceptable variant spellings; let's stick to discussing which spelling is the most commonly listed in dictionaries and other reliable sources.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would normally stick purely to arguments of prevalence, but the implication from "While Hors d'œuvre is the correct spelling in French, this is the English wiki" strongly implies that the œ spelling is an artefact or hypercorrection from the French alien to English, which is false. It is fair that it is pointed out to be incorrect, if it is not to be removed. Knepflerle (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My research on both the œthel and the s

I went and looked at all the books I use in my library for the common thread, these books are a mix of professional culinary texts along with a number of other books I use on a regular basis in the professional kitchen or at home. These are all respected texts, I am not looking to those books in the bargain bin at Borders Books or Barnes and Nobles as they are of little importance in the culinary realm as a whole, hence their location in the bargain bin. I almost never trust common dictionary as I know a number of people who work on them and they do not have "specialty" knowledge on all subjects and sometimes don't even know what the common usage of the word is, they often make mistakes and will admit to it especially in the realm of food and drink and this is why Websters came up with their own culinary dictionary and found industry experts to work on the book. Here are my results:

• The Oxford Companion to Food spells the term hors d'œuvres with the s but with the œthel
• The Webster's New World Dictionary of Culinary Arts spells it hors d'oeuvre without the s and without the œthel
• The Food Lover's Companion spells it hors d'oeuvre without the s and without the œthel
• The Professional Chef by The Culinary Institute of America spells it hors-d'oeuvre without the s and without the œthel and with the dash
• Modern Garde Manger by Robert Garlough spells the term hors d'oeuvres with the s and without the œthel
• The Art of Garde Mager by Fritz Sonnenschmidt spells the term hors d'oeuvre without the s and without the œthel
• Hors d'Oeuvre at Home with The Culinary Institute of America spells the term without the s and without the œthel
• Hors D'Oeuvre and Canapes by James Beard does not use the s and does not use the œthel
• Martha Stewart's Hors d'Oeuvres Handbook uses the s but and does not use the œthel
• The Hors D'Oeuvre Bible by David Paul Larousse does not use the s and does not use the œthel
• Williams-Sonoma Mastering: Hors d'oeuvres by Jan Weimer uses the s and does not use the œthel
• Professional Cooking by Wayne Gisslen spells the term hors d'oeuvre without the s and without the œthel.

Results:
With the œthel - 1
Without the œthel - 11
With the s - 4
Without the s - 8
With a dash - 1

My conclusion, the term is used more often without the s and without the œthel.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, could you please double-check your sources? No one should be spelling the word "œurves" or "oeurves", and if they are, it's a good reason to ignore them! Also, your count is incorrect: as you correctly report, Davidson uses the ligature form (at least in the first edition, which is what I have on my shelf), but you report 0 "With the œthel"--Macrakis (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a typo on my part, excuse the error. I have the second edition of Davidson's book which has the œthel and I apologize for egregious error, either way, the conclusion is still the same.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked up a few dictionaries thru OneLook:

• hors d'œuvre links only to Wiktionary and WP.

• hors d'oeuvre gives me numerous dict hits.

None of the following dictionaries feature the ligature, but all of them allow the use of hors d'oeuvres as a plural (if they mention plurals at all), without any usage comment:

• Encarta: plural either oeuvre or oeuvres
• Compact Oxford: plural either oeuvre or oeuvres
• Merriam-Webster: plural either oeuvres or oeuvre
• WordSmyth: plural either oeuvres or oeuvre
• American Heritage: plural either oeuvres or oeuvre
• Dictionary.com/Random House: plural either oeuvre or oeuvres
• Hutchison's Dict of Difficult Words: plural either oeuvres or oeuvre
• Chambers: plural hor ~ or ~ d'oeuvres
• Ultralingua: no comment on plurals
• Rhymezone: no comment on plurals
• Look WAY Up: no info on plurals
• WordNet: false hit

Since the culinary texts differ both on the use of the ligature and the -s plural, but the general dictionaries are more-or-less unanimous on omitting the ligature and allowing the -s, I would have to say that within common English usage hors d'oeuvre/hors d'oeuvres is correct, and that hors d'œuvre is at best what Fowler would have called a technical term. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, my Concise Oxford (11th) hardback omits the ligature and allos the -s plural. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You basically reiterated my point from above using many of the same sources. While the dictionaries say either form is allowable, my basic point is that since most publications, including general publications and cooking-specific publications for the education, business and consumer fields, use the hors d'oeuvre form as plural that that is the more common usage of the term. --- Jeremy (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jeremy, as the dictionary seem to allow for either and the professional texts and other culinary texts do not use the s, this would lean toward not using the s. Additionally as so many culinary students use Wikipedia for research and we teach them the term without the s, this would be confusing to them to see the article with the s unless it has some sort of explanation in the article which seems excessive. As for the ligature, as both the dictionaries and the culinary texts seem to have dropped the usage, it seems Wikipedia should adopt the same spelling.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we move the article to the non-ligatured form, mention in passing that the -s plural is Standard English but that the non-s plural is preferred by most professional sources, and then use the non-s ending throughout the article. Have I interpreted what you are proposing correctly? SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 12:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that is not what you are proposing, at least as far as the -s goes. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 12:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you were right in what I was stating.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It was Fat man who made the pluralization changes. I also agree with the move (It will have to be a cut and paste change as the Hors d'oeuvre page is a redirect to this one.) I disagreed with that based upon my searches on the pluralization. I originally opposed the move as my seven years in French class and the fact that in British English the oethel is still used and is acceptable. --- Jeremy (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pluralization

• Note that the last post in this discussion is on the requested move above.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not fully, it does have a partial relation to the move discussion which is still open at this time. --- Jeremy (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This discussion was about the English common usage of the term hors d'oeuvre, primarily its spelling and pluralization. Upon study and citations of notable sources, the following conclusions have been made:

• Based upon the citations provided, the common plural usage is hors d'oeuvre.
• Based upon the citations provided, the common spelling does not use the ligature/œthel (hors d'oeuvre not hors d'œuvre).
• Based upon the citations provided, the common spelling does not hyphenate the term

--- Jeremy (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an editorial dispute about the pluralization of the term Hors D'oeuvre: is Hors D'oeuvre or Hors D'oeuvres the correct plural form? Until February 8 2008 the former was in use in this article. On that date The Fat Man Who Never Came Back changed the article claiming that the latter was the only acceptable version and that dictionaries backed him up on this.

Well, I checked that out and found multiple dictionaries list either form as acceptable: I looked at the online editions of the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Online Etymology Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Princeton University WordNet and the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. Firefox's spell checker also disliked the latter spelling while I typed this. Answers.com also is neutral on the subject saying both are acceptable. So claiming that major dictionaries state the latter as being correct is invalid.

On the other hand Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking which is considered the definitive English reference guide for the general public for French cooking uses the former, as do almost all major cooking reference guides such as Epicurious.com, magazines such as Gourmet and other major cookbooks. Barron's and the Oxford University Press also use the former. Based upon these cited sources I believe that the former should be the accepted plural, contrary to Fatman's opinion which is un-cited.

I would like any other opinions before I revert his edits. --- Jeremy (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break; when did I say that the plural s was "the only acceptable version?" No one will dispute that "Hors d'oeuvre" was once considered proper, especially among snobbish circles. My concern is common usage. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms states that hors d'oeuvres is more common; this usage is not a recent development--the book was published in the 1980s and is available on Google books. Here's the reference[2]. It says: ::"Its more common plural form, hors d'oeuvres, generally suggests..." YYou'll also note that this book--as well Merriam-Webster's online dictionary--does not spell the word with an œthel. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if every major cooking reference that I can find as well as major publications refer to the plural as Hors D'oeuvre as plural, isn't that common usage? --- Jeremy (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Culinary literature in English has long been predisposed to using French terms, but which form is more common in everyday speech and writing? I'll try to find more sources.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New picture

I had not thought of this until I was asked to take a look at the above discussion, but I have a high quality picture of what would be passed hors d'oeuvre that I prepared for an American Culinary Federation competition last summer. As I have not been working on this article, I thought I would leave it up to someone else if they wanted to add the picture.

A variety of hors d'oeuvre

--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Those look tasty! Do you have a higher resolution photo? That way we could zoom in more on the appetizers, so it's less about the table and more about the food.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have individual pictures of each one, I will upload them all and put them on a test page of mine, Ill put the link here tomorrow when I get a moment. I don't have anything of higher res. I am actually busy preparing for another competition of the same sort at the moment.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Typical French?

I'm not sure about other people who have either been to France or studied French cuisine, but in my experience the picture of the salad is not a very good example of a French version of an hors d'oeuvre.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Care for an Hors d'œuvre?

Relevant discussion at the Reference Desk

This discussion may be of interest. I also note the while the title of the article remains with the “Hors d'œuvre” spelling, the lead para begins with “Hors d'oeuvre”, and describes “hors d'œuvre” as an alternative spelling. If we want to seem credible, shouldn’t it be the other way around? The article otherwise uses "hors d'oeuvre" throughout, despite the title being "Hors d'œuvre". Surely the above discussions weren't just about the title of the article, but about the spelling of the term wherever it might appear in the article. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm with you, Jack . . . and i'm a copyeditor - i just attributed that problem, though, to the fact that here various people may jump in with new contributions, right in the middle of someone else's work . . . so consitency is not exactly to be expected - b betswiki (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Antipasto

There are several differences between antipasto and hors d'oeuvres, and as such I'd like to ask if it's possible for someone to remove the redirect. I'd do it myself but some people get awfully sensitive about these things. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article makes me hungry. 07:33, 14 October 2008 220.227.165.210 (Talk)

Thats flattering - for the article.

Warrington (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree that no matter what you think about ligatures (most typesetters or typewriters or whatever aren't equipped, where i live, with what it would take to start putting that on menus . . . ) and so forth and so on (antipasto, where i live, usually has a certain look, as a dish, and it is usually on dish, with a varieties of munchies . . . and it ain't like appetizers, which have a certain other look . . . usually served on plates with no variety . . . lots of little items, all of which are more or less the same . . . not always . . . certainly not the Italian type tho), that it is lotsa fun to read about this topic . . . and now i have to go eat something! - b betswiki (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Horse devours

Can anyone find a reliable source for calling these appetizers "horse devours"? Kind of an eggcorn... --Una Smith (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Final /r/

What's the source of having the final /r/ at the end of the pronunciation? I've heard ore-derve and ore-dove, but not ore-dover, and I cannot find a source that allows for ore-dover. Heck, the French is more like ore-dove-ruh (based on the IPA). (And isn't hors doeuvres usually pronounced ore-derves (or ore-dervez)? — trlkly 00:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this part: " (pronounced /ɔrˈdɜrv/; French: [ɔʁˈdœvʁ]". Perhaps some illiterate people pronounce it "derve" but that is not correct. The correct pronunciation is as shown for the French, with no "r" before "v". It is "doev", not "derve". Mispronouncing it doesn't make it right. Wiktionary agrees with me: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hors_d%27oeuvre. Would someone who knows how to do this, please change it so that it is consistent with Wiktionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.142.42 (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Plural pronunciation

Where in America is the plural pronounced the same as the singular? Because it sure isn't where I live. 173.161.21.137 (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename: Hors d'œuvre > Appetizer

This is the English language wikipedia and as such an English word such take precedence over a French one. Many people wouldn't even know what 'Hors d'œuvre' means, whereas appetizer is univerally understood. Hors d'œuvre is uncommon in comparison to appetizer - most restuarants do not have the French phrase on the menu, only French and pseudo-upmarket restaurants do. The phrase 'Hors d'œuvre' cannot be broken down meaningfully in English, whereas appetizer automatically makes the association with the word appetite to the English speaker. BodvarBjarki (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hors d'œuvre → Hors d'oeuvre – As documented in the previous move request, only a tiny minority of sources use the ligature as their preferred spelling. The fact that one of those sources is the OED is the only strong argument in favor of using the ligature, but I don't think it's strong enough. Remember, we operate on the principle of least surprise, and speaking just for myself, I have never seen this phrase spelled with a ligature before today. (Admittedly, that's anecdotal, but I think the evidence presented in the previous discussion is clear.) Powers ^T 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support ligatures are obsolete/exotic in most dialects of English outside of British English, and even there, ligatures are rare. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Eighteen dictionaries say "hors d'oeuvre". Britannica says "hors d'oeuvre". So does Oxford. Kauffner (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Does "œ" for "oe" really rise to the level of surprise? —  AjaxSmack  22:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know. It's extremely rare in American English. Powers ^T 03:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure but "œ" just looks like an "o" and an "e" really close together. Hardly a big surprise. A little like in Encyclopædia Britannica, an American publication. —  AjaxSmack  03:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
      • A remnant of their British origin, inconsistently applied even as early as the 1910s. Powers ^T 13:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appetizer

"Appetizer" re-directs here, but the word does not appear anywhere in the article. The page should probably mention that "appetizer" is a common synonym for hors d'oeuvre, although they can sometimes mean different things. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Australian slang?

I live in Australia but I've never in all my life heard of "horse divers", "horse doovers" or anything remotely similar. All mention of the Australian slang should be removed from this article because it's extremely dubious and trivial and its only sources are Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary; neither of which are trustworthy. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

Terminology and Cultures

I think this a case where the subject's name "Hors d'0euvre" has not achieved universal currency. I have not yet checked for sources but my guess is that it is limited to French and a certain international English language spheres. Meze, Zakushki, Appetizers and the range of Asian near equivalents are not synonyms for Hors d'0euvre. So the question is, what is the best way to develop the page? Thoughts please.SovalValtos (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• In my (self-researched) observations, Hors d'Oeuvre are different from appetizers (or, perhaps more accurately, they are a subset of appetizers). Like appetizers, they are served before the main course of a meal, but appetizers are typically served as a course on the same table. An hors d'oeuvre is often served before people even sit down at the dinner table. I'd also consider hors d'oeuvre as a more formal concept, at least in the US. You don't typically have hors d'oeuvres at a more informal setting like a family restaurant or a chain, but they are often served at formal receptions and dinner parties, often in a parlor room or a gathering area outside of the dining room. After you sit down at dinner, you can often order an appetizer, either in addition to, or in place of, the salad course (although even then they typically use a different word, especially if it's french or italian cuisine such as aperitif or antipasto). The term is definitely used in these formal contexts in the Northeast US, anyways. But, I'd need some citations, since as of now this is the result of my self-research, and based solely on my observations. Randhuck (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Useful observations User:Randhuck. There seem to be several different meanings that are understood in different cultures. What is being described by Randhuck as being eaten at formal receptions would in other cultures be described as Canapes. I am leaning towards a strict French definition, and have found a good one in Larousse Gastronomique ISBN 0 600 60688 0 (2001 English Edition). It is quite long and I am not sure how much is allowed to be quoted. Could someone who knows better what is allowed upload it? SovalValtos (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I think we're discussing semantics rather than the concepts at hand. Indeed I think there should be separate articles for a more informal appetizer or "first course" and a more formal "food before dinner with cocktails." We already have an article for Canape, which is even identified as a type of hors d'oeuvre. Judging by the "Other Languages and Cultures" section of the article, I don't think there really *is* a universal, international term for what's being described. Even the term "starting course" or "first course" isn't correct for multi-course meals that don't have hors d'oeuvres as a first course, even that is an incorrect term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randhuck (talk • contribs) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Image

An image of cooked shrimp is captioned "Poke is a raw fish salad served as an appetizer in the cuisine of Hawaii." Obviously there is a mis-match going on here. Cooked shrimp w/ cocktail sauce can obviously be an hors d'oeuvres, but it is in no way Poke. If this image really is meant to be about Poke, well there's a link right there in the caption, and Poke has a perfectly good image of itself on its own page. 119.237.100.25 (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Zakuski

Who decided that zakuski should be translated as hors d'oeuvres? They are decidedly not, by definition. Hors d'oeuvres presuppose the existence of the main meal, of which they are outside. Zakuski are used to chase vodka, and make up the entirety of the meal. All the food served as part of a meal that also includes vodka is considered zakuski. The most correct translation is "chasers", with the clarification that beverages used as chasers in other cultures do not qualify. EAE (Holla!) 21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That might have been a confusion of Russian zokuska.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a source that contradicts the above old claim Eaefremov. The book: "Revisiting the Shadows: Memoirs from War-torn Poland to the Statue of Liberty" by Irene Shapiro, on page 276, the author describes Zakuski as a sour salty hors d'oeuvre. An hors d'oeuvre does not have a true prerequisite and can be defined in many ways. It seems that by definition zakuski is an hors d'oeuvre depending on is use.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

References

History section needed

The reason why I looked up this article was I wanted to read up on the history of appetizers. Basically every wiki article has a history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.110.199 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

inconsistency with Bruschetta

On the main page of Hors d'oeuvre the image of Bruschetta says origin France, if you go to Bruschetta itself it says it's Italy. I'm not so sure about the origin. Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Italicized

Should the word hors d'oeuvre be italicized per the MOS?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Per the MOS: "...for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English".. I believe it is safe to say this word is common in non specialized English.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeonchae

No references found for: Korean jeonchae. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"outside the work" explained with the progression of this custom

I think I have the full, historic explanation of the term but please feel free to read through it. It basically has to do with the style of the way a dinner was served all at once with everything laid out on different plates in a very particular and symmetric manner, placing specific, secondary dishes between the main course plates within the main "work" of the dinner service for each guest. The Hors d'oeuvre was introduced during this period on small dishes that were set outside that rigged placement of plated foods or "Outside the work". It took me some time to find the right sources that explained everything and jived with each other but I believe the explanation of etremets evolving into the British "savoury" that took the place of the hors d'oeuvre that was popular before the meal in Europe and was served at the end of the meal and just before the heavier drinking. This fell out of favor when drinks before dinner became popular and cocktail parties began to become popular and fashionable. Americans were late to the party because of prohibition but took the traditions in the current direction we see today with platters of canapés on trays that are sometimes passed around the room. It was a lot of fun to research. I've been wanting to look into this history for a while and was very surprised at the state of the article when TAFI found it. Good catch! Very topical for the season.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Māori section incorrect.

In New Zealand, Entrée means appetizer. Te Reo Māori translation for appetizer is "kumamatanga". Interestingly, the reference given is technically still correct. "Snacks" is also ambiguous. This is my first post on wikipedia. Trickmott (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Etymology" section should be titled "History"

A section titled "Etymology" should be about the meaning of the individual words in the term. What is the meaning of the words "hors" and "d'oeuvre" in this context? How did they come to be applied to this particular food item? The "etynology" section of this article covers none of that. It merely gives the history of hors d'oeuvres. Therefore it seems to me that it should be re-titled "History".Beetfarm Louie (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Mishmash article

While it may have occasionally been steered into an article on French customs in particular, the need for a general "appetizer" article has endured for as long as this one has existed. The link "appetizer", used on many articles within its own category, currently redirects to this article. Okay, why this one? I don't often see "hors d'oeuvre" anywhere but according to this article it means "small one- or two-bite items that are served before a dinner", with a distinction between it and appetizers being that appetizers are part of the meal. Bizarrely, the infobox categorizes it under "appetizer" while also using that as an alternate name. It also claims an origin in France, while the "Origin" section of the article itself makes zero mention of this and theorizes on origins in either Russia or China. Whatever happens to this one, a general appetizer article is needed. Restaurants in virtually every country in the world have a form of appetizer. Naturally these all use a local name and feature different dishes, but they're still the exact same thing. Variations can easily be listed within their own national subsections under "By country". Articles like Antipasto and Entrée (made obsolete by the fact that "appetizer" redirects here) all deal with the exact same thing as well, but "Entrée" is clearly less popular than "Appetizer" and "Antipasto" is associated with Italian cuisine. A catch-all title would be "First course", which is currently links nowhere. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the history for the redirect of appetizer. Redirects may be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
• If there is some opinion that differs greatly from the article and is quoted and attributed to an expert in the field and sourced properly, additions are welcome.
• Creation of an article for Appetizer is not impeded by this articles well sourced content and was created by a number of different editors.
• Antipasto and Entrée are not made "obsolete by the fact that "appetizer" redirects here". I seriously don't even understand the statement.
• The very reason that this French word is used for something people use all over the world is precisely because it was the first name given to a food eaten, in addition to the main dishes, by the French. The English did not use the term "appetizer". Their dinner's had a savory course. Appetizer as a term came about only around the 1920 in American cocktail culture.
• ""Entrée" is clearly less popular than "Appetizer" and "Antipasto" is associated with Italian cuisine. A catch-all title would be "First course", which is currently links nowhere"". Again, this article is not a wall stopping the creation of any article. The above post was about one opinion referenced to one source but is in no way evidence of any issue this article has to justify a template.
• "It also claims an origin in France, while the "Origin" section of the article itself makes zero mention of this and theorizes on origins in either Russia or China."". Your not understanding how an etymology works as an origin to a name and how that differs from the theorized beginnings of the traditions, might be the issue here and not the writing or research. I'm also hearing (which you of course didn't actually write but...); "Why bother mentioning all these foreign things and places and just call it..." (obviously paraphrasing). That's a perfectly reasonable reaction from someone who has read the article but doesn't seem to know the general subject. It has a long history and it is a broad subject. Be bold and create First course. Please remember to cite your sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)