Language desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 21[edit]

Rouxs and jus[edit]

Suppose someone wanted to write a book all about making gravy-like concoctions, and to make it seem up-market and catchy he proposed to call it [what sounds like] "rooz and jooz". But he struck trouble: he could spell the first word Rouxs, but the second word "Jus" already ends with a silent s, and to make it plural for English readers he'd have to make it "Juss". But that fails for obvious reasons.

What solutions present themselves for making a plural out of the word "jus" that sounds like "jooz" (or Jews, for that matter)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Become a TV food presenter, and ignore all rules? HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, the plurals of roux and jus have the same spellings and pronunciations as the singulars. --Lambiam 10:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also the case in French, whence these words have been borrowed into English. But don't despair: "Roux and jus" is obviously plural; singular would be "A roux and a jus". — Kpalion^(talk) 10:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the obviousness of "roux and jus" being plural. Without any context, it could be referring to these items in general. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Both can indeed be used as mass nouns: "how much roux is necessary",^[1] "moisten them with a little jus and broth".^[2] --Lambiam 19:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First you must decide what your important point is, is it the pronunciation or the meaning or both? If it's the pronunciation, then why not simply "rews and jews"? If it's the meaning, then why not simply "roux and jus"? If both pronunciation and meaning are important, then why not simply - "rews and jews" - while showing a picture of roux and jus? If you want to avoid pictures, then why don't you ask the more general question, e.g. about the best way to spell the meaning of "dogs and cats" being pronounced "bacon and cheese", without adding pictures (of dogs and cats)? HOTmag (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The important point is that it must sound like "rews and jews". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the word "jews" would be best avoided in context. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the OP wanted to hint that the Jewish people were potable like juice (This is actually what my boyfriend always says about me even though I'm not Jewish). HOTmag (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the obscure NES video game Takeshi's Challenge, there's a throwaway joke where horumon is replaced with morumon. Somone suggested translating it as "orange jews", which I guess could be kinda funny. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Les Roux and Jus". Nardog (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, folks. If I adopt the French conventions and use the same words for plural as singular, "Roux and Jus" doesn't satisfy my criterion that it must sound like "rooz and jooz". But in order to ensure that unambiguous pronunciation, I would be forced to adopt an unorthodox spelling and abandon one of the most cherished tenets of my life: that plurals never, ever, ever take an apostrophe. But there it is: a classic no-win. I think my internal Marketing Department would win out over my internal Grammarian, and come up with: Rouxs and Jus's. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or even kowtow to modern "spelling" habits with: Roux's and Jus's. Ugh. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we're making it up as we go along, Rouxes and Juses could get rid of your abomination. Bazza (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to say the J word as "jewzes". And the R word as "rookses". Thanks, but nah. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw the spelling Juses I'd wonder if it was pronounced, like Jews-Es (Jews-us), or like juices, or like Jews-is (I'd rule out Juice-Es).

As for Jus's, actually this option had come to my mind before I first responded, but I'd ruled it out because of the rule you mentioned later about the apostrophe. HOTmag (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I once read a poem by Jonathan Swift where he spelled "ragoûts" as "ragoos". In the same vein, you could probably write "roos and joos". The pronunciation would [be] less problematic and the meaning could be possibly guessed from context. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another way would be more French: "les roux et les jus". Unlike English French still distinguishes between singular and plural definite articles. --2A04:4A43:909F:FE88:BDD5:37D:1D88:5C50 (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably forgot it had to be pronounced "rews and jews". HOTmag (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rouxz and Jouxz? Note that the word rouxs is not valid in any word game.^[3] --Lambiam 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rouxz and Jouxz (Rooks and Jooks) sounds like two extraterrestrials in an old children's comic book... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, a cook who knows a thing or two about these things, but knows next to nothing about French, could be forgiven for saying "I've got to make <roos> for three different events". If that were transcribed in the "correct" way, it would be "... make roux ...", and anyone reading it would miss the nuance and misinterpret what the speaker actually said. I think at some point we have to say "Stop!" to our self-imposed slavery to the norms and rules of other languages, and speak and write as only we anglophiles can, in ways that make complete, unambiguous sense to us. A tall order, I admit. (First order of business is to ban the word "jus", which has become an uber-pretentious alternative to good old "gravy". But not till my original question has a satisfactory solution.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did strike me that you could keep the title but change the subject. Roos and Jews: A history of Jewish settlement in Australia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the z offends you, what do you think of Rouxs and Jouxs? If readers will understand the first term is a plural pronounced /ɹuːz/, they will get that the last term is also a plural, pronounced /ʒuːz/, the plural of singular /ʒuː/. --Lambiam 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That pleases me. It has balance, simplicity, humour. The best idea so far. The best ideas are always obvious in retrospect. Thanks, Lambiam. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved