Da Beef wrote:Sorry about that. Heres the link for a damn good food site on Chicago (no need to worry LTH its a different setup than the wonderful site you got going here)
http://www.bigsweettooth.com
the difference between us, is i was trying to keep it to myself.
germuska wrote:Da Beef wrote:Sorry about that. Heres the link for a damn good food site on Chicago (no need to worry LTH its a different setup than the wonderful site you got going here)
http://www.bigsweettooth.com
Of course no worries. Misty posts here as MST.
JeffB wrote:Excellent. The archived ephemera calls Moon's a BBQ. I point this out because a similar ancient Italian-Americanish West Side sandwich shop, Boston's, always called itself a "BBQ." ReneG, history buffs and beef stand old-timers, did BBQ mean something specific back then that has nothing to do with smoke or even oven-baked ribs? Is BBQ referring to live charcoal for dogs, Polish, Italian, and even beef, which possibly was seared before braising? Rank speculation, I know.
JeffB wrote:Is BBQ referring to live charcoal for dogs, Polish, Italian. . .
Mike G wrote:When I first came up here I was given "Al's Bar-B-Q" and "Mario's Italian Ice" as two places to seek out by my boss who had worked in Chicago for a few years in the 70s. (I actually ran across the note on his stationery a while back-- the ur-document of my Chicago food obsession.) Even as late as my 1983 Chicago Magazine Guide to Chicago, it's still called Al's Bar-B-Q; I suspect the name change came with the opening of additional restaurants, whenever that happened.
G Wiv wrote:Caution! Sweeping Generalizations
LTH,
After only two visits to Moon Sandwich Shop I'm prepared to say:*
1) The grits are in the top couple in Chicago.
2) The corned beef is the best, other than a few Jewish delis, in the Greater Chicago area.**
The memory of perfect grits, over easy eggs and a stack of steaming, flavorful corned beef, surprisingly perfect dunked unadorned into liquid gold egg yoke, lingers.
Enjoy,
Gary
* With the usual boilerplate qualification, reservation, loopholes and room for backpedaling
** I'm not all that familiar with the various Irish style corned beef and cabbage offerings
kuhdo wrote:Doesn't anybody like meatloaf? Moons makes a great one. This is not an easy thing to do (witness all the places that can't) and is an achievement not to be ignored.
JimInLoganSquare wrote:* Although it ends in an "S," the word "grits" is a singular word -- like "oatmeal." Thus, I write not that "grits were good," but "grits was good." Like "oatmeal was good." Or at least that's the way I was taught it by my dad, who ate a lot of grits growing up there in Kentucky 80 years ago.
Antonius wrote:JimInLoganSquare wrote:* Although it ends in an "S," the word "grits" is a singular word -- like "oatmeal." Thus, I write not that "grits were good," but "grits was good." Like "oatmeal was good." Or at least that's the way I was taught it by my dad, who ate a lot of grits growing up there in Kentucky 80 years ago.
Jim,
I readily accept your grammatical judgement on the singular nature of grits as being correct, especially since you have direct ties to a primary grits-consuming speech community. That said, I would, however, also suggest that treatment of the form grits as a plural is and has been widespread in the broader English-speaking world and can also be regarded as correct. Indeed, from an historical standpoint, this form is, in fact, a plural; the original inherited Germanic form, with cognates attested (and in several cases still current) in all the major West Germanic dialects was used as a collective (OE «grytt») and as a plural (OE «grytta», in lOE and ME reformed with more productive plural markers, especially ultimately the most productive one, the -s form, thus ME «gritts, grits», etc.).
Usage with collectives and plurals in such cases often tends to inspire reanalysis in one way or another and to give rise to variation dialectally and over time (cf. pea/pease and the related and more directly parallel groat/groats). In any event, I think both «the grits are» and the «the grits is» can both be considered correct, though the latter seems to me to be a geographically more restricted usage, which maintains its legitimacy by being used in areas where the substance in question is habitually consumed. To most English ears, however, the form sounds like a plural and is thus treated; we Yankees, Tommies, and other folks who do not habitually consume hominy grits must console ourselves with the knowledge that from an historical linguistic standpoint, we are correct too.
![]()
I hope to post soon on a dish with an etymologically connected name that I recently enjoyed in Germany.
![]()
Salut,
A
JimInLoganSquare wrote:Going forward, I will restrict all my comments to portion sizes.![]()
![]()
Antonius wrote:* Of course, one must also take into account here the general agreement patterns of the dialercts in question. In parts of the south of the United States, as in parts of England and Scotland, plural nouns as subjects are generally accompanied by the third singular of the verb. The history of this usage has been treated in a series of conference papers (forthcoming) by this writer and also in a joint paper by this writer and Amata. Of course, in such dialects, one can still test whether a noun such as grits is a plural or singular collective by the choice of pronouns; that is, is it:
the grits is good, yes, it sure is good, this grits is damned good...
or is it:
the grits is good, yes, they sure are good, those grits is damned good
Considered from this perspective, I suspect the noun is felt to be a plural even by most speakers of southern American English (dialects). How would you and your father treat it in the above sentence?
Antonius wrote:* Of course, one must also take into account here the general agreement patterns of the dialercts in question. In parts of the south of the United States, as in parts of England and Scotland, plural nouns as subjects are generally accompanied by the third singular of the verb. The history of this usage has been treated in a series of conference papers (forthcoming) by this writer and also in a joint paper by this writer and Amata. Of course, in such dialects, one can still test whether a noun such as grits is a plural or singular collective by the choice of pronouns; that is, is it:
the grits is good, yes, it sure is good, this grits is damned good...
or is it:
the grits is good, yes, they sure are good, those grits is damned good
Considered from this perspective, I suspect the noun is felt to be a plural even by most speakers of southern American English (dialects). How would you and your father treat it in the above sentence?
[/size]
JimInLoganSquare wrote:Although, yes, using the word "grits" as a singular rather than a plural is not a consistent part of my speech, and it doesn't feel natural to use it as a singular. I have to "correct" myself all the time, such that I probably should stop bothering!
Or "it..."Antonius wrote:... I've been a big fan of grits since I first had them ...
JimInLoganSquare wrote:Or "it..."Antonius wrote:... I've been a big fan of grits since I first had them ...