Talk:Roman cuisine

Don't move

Please, do not move this page to another one with a name like cuisine of rome. I'm planning to do an article on drink in rome. When this link goes blue, then the page will have been created.--Theologiae (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been reading my mind :) I shall refrain from following by systematizing instincts, but I hope you don't mind that I've included your article in Category:Cuisine by city. Favonian (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Amatriciana vs Matriciana

@Alessandro57: the Matriciana isn't a Roman variation of Amatriciana dish. It is only a dialect (and not generally accepted even in Rome) degradation of the name of Amatrice area, where the tradition set the origin of this pasta dressing. I'd rather use the more widely used name of Amatriciana when referring to this dish, in accordance with the existing reference. Also "Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e l’Innovazione dell’Agricoltura del Lazio", the Authority that protects the names of regional food of Lazio (Rome included) refers to "Salsa all'amatriciana" and not to "Salsa alla matriciana" [1].

On the other hand, "rigatoni alla pajata" is a native recipe of Roman cuisine and that's why "pagliata" would be an unnecessary Italianism. Moreover, searching with Google, "pajata" will find 101.000 results, "pagliata" only 14.700--Nubifer (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Nubifer, my remark about Pajata (by the way, "rigatoni con la Pajata" or - still better - "Pajata con i rigatoni", not "Rigatoni alla Pajata" ) was only a boutade. :-) If you want to be etymologically correct, you are right and the name is "amatriciana" (from Amatrice) but in Rome we (Romans) say Matriciana (which is not a degradation, but theroman word for this term) not Amatriciana. Please see Ada Boni, pg. 44. When in 1870 the Italians conquered Rome they italianised many roman words, and Matriciana was one of them. For exampled in Ponte, near Via dei Coronari, there is "Vicolo dei Matriciani", which was renamed "Vicolo degli Amatriciani". Anyway, since this article is about food in Rome, I would like to keep the roman terms (as for pajata or, for example, "Carciofi alla giudia", and not "alla giudea") instead of the italianised ones. A last remark: if you want to write a good article in Wikipedia, please don't use Web sites as references, except if absolutely necessary, but use instead paper sources (also named books :-)): in this case, Boni, Carnacina, Iannattoni are the most reliable. The "Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e l’Innovazione dell’Agricoltura del Lazio" is not the Accademia della Crusca :-) , but just one of the many bureaucratic "carrozzoni" (another roman term :-)) existing in Rome. Ave atque vale, Alex2006 (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thank for your clarification about Pajata and Matriciana. I'm Roman too and, from my experience, I've rarely seen "matriciana" instead "amatriciana" written on menu of restaurants in Rome. In the same way, since in Rome we say "prociutto" or "parmiggiano", should we write these words in the wrong way? I believe that if you create a (new) recipe, you have the right to name it. So, Pajata (that can be used also a stand alone term), is perfect in Italian too. The same for "Carciofi alla giudìa", that will sound odd in the Italian version. But if you take a recipe or other well known ingredients and change their names using the Romanesco because you are writing an article related to Roman cuisine, your are doing a questionable thing. That's the reason why, using your example, "Vicolo dei Matriciani" was amended, not to Italianize a Roman word, but to restore it to the original meaning (inhabitans of Amatrice village).

Regarding the reference, unfortunately, that carrozzone is the only one deputed to "rule" the names of Typical Products in Lazio, and, since it is the easiest way to provide you (at no cost) the source I'm referring to, I've linked the website page instead of the printed page of a "Gazzetta Ufficiale". Sorry if this offended your book culture. But I have another question for you. "Matriciana" is with or without onions? I'm asking because the amatriciana recipe found on the Comune di Amatrice website(!) states that no onion is required. If Matriciana is the Amatriciana plus onions, I concur with you that, being a different recipe, it can be named in a different way. Se beccamo! :-) Nubifer (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ave Nubifer (che palle co 'st'Ingrese :-)) may I kindly ask you two simple questions? a) how old are you? b) What did you study / are you studying? The reason behind this questions is that from your answer I see that we are moving on two quite different levels. So, before I spend some more time answering, I would like to "inquadrarti" (how do you say that in English?).

(A)Matriciana with onion? This is a good question. In the holy books (Boni (1930) and Carnacina (1975), which - nota bene - all write "Matriciana") it is used, my mother & grandmother used it, but my best friend (and great cook) who lives ai Coronari does not use it. I would say that the original roman recipe uses onion, but that there are different school of thoughts, or "variazioni sul tema", as in each recipe. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahò, e che te posso fà se stamo sur sito Inglisc? :-) In order to satisfy your request to frame myself in some way, I can say that I studied Engineer at La Sapienza (the building next to S. Pietro in Vincoli) and I'm 38 (does it help?). To came back OT, I have no problem to deal with matriciana if it is clear that is a result of a mispelled word. This is not trivial, since some people may think that matriciana is a name that (magically) appeared in Rome to name a new recipe. But if nowadays is clear that the matriciana is the wrong name, I would report on an encyclopedia the canonical version (with reference to the mispelled one for completeness sake).

(A)The question on the onion is a bait :-)) There are people in Rome who enjoy eating and even more cooking that would kill you in order to prevail on which is the true version. Let's let them fight ;-) From my POV, if the amatriciana is a variant of gricia, only diced tomato fillets should be added (pure and simple), but I'm not so integralist and I'd enjoy both version :-P BTW, what about adding Gricia to the list?Nubifer (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ingegneria??? La Sapienza??? Brother! :-) Me too! I am just a little bit older (53, ma ben portati :-)) And now, back to work! Matriciana is not a misspelling, but the roman word for this sauce. This nice phenomenon in linguistics is called apheresis. Since here we (are trying to) write a voice about roman cooking, I would like to use here the roman spelling, of course if supported by our sources (Boni, Carnacina). About the onion, I agree, this is like cream in carbonara. About Gricia, agree. Anyway, as soon as the winter will join us again, I would like to expand the voice, which now is miserable...But what can you expect from people which lives 10.000 Km from Roma Urbs? :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bella Fratè! Apheresis is something that I face every day, since I'm now living in Ariminum (Rimini for our Italian friends). In this case, several centuries of mispelling (I beg your pardon, apheresis :-) seems a very good support to the new name of the city. But unfortunately for the Roman people, the "A" in Amatrice's town still stands to remind us what is right and what is wrong :-P

Cream in the Carbonara is a War Crime! Please, don't! Ciao, Nubifer (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ariminum...Beato te! I live a couple hundred Kilometers norther :-( I would like that you understand my point. It is not a misspelling: it is roman...you can find it in each Roman dictionary. Got the point? About cream in Carbonara, I totally agree, but unfortunately there are also such variations, especially north of Rubicone. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. I agree (in accordance with Chiappini's "Vocabolario Romanesco" ed. 1967, pag. 164) that "maccaroni a la matriciana" is what Italians call "maccheroni conditi all'uso degli Amatriciani". My first consideration is that we are writing on en.Wikipedia about food in (modern) Rome. The Romanesco (different from Romanaccio), is spoken by a little minority of Roman inhabitans and, in 2010, the use of some terms is changed. Who will use nowaday "maccaroni" instead "spaghetti" or "bucatini"? Today Rome is about 2.7 million people and Italian is (indeed) the main language spoken. That's why (my POV) we should stay with "amatriciana" as main name, with a reference to "matriciana" as secondary name. BTW, I'm not saying that we should translate everything in Italian. As previously argumented, pajata and giudìa should be left as is (named by recipe creators). See you :-)Nubifer (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fact is that Wikipedia works (or should work) only with sources, not personal research or POV. That's why yesterday evening I devoted 10 minutes of my time consulting all my books about either Roman Cuisine or Italian Cuisine (Rome/Lazio section), searching for this recipe. Authors consulted: Ada Boni, Carnacina & Buonassisi, Gosetti della Salda, Oberosler, Fabrizi, Bertarelli (TCI). Result: Matriciana - Amatriciana 6 - 0 . And with this 'cappotto' we can finish (at least I hope :-) ) the match. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to say that yesterday I read also something about the town where the sauce is born, and look what I found? The ancient name of the town of Amatrice was Matrice...this means that possibly the roman name for the sauce comes from the old name of the town, and not from the mytical apheresis. Alex2006 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, add to your sources another "carrozzone" "Ricettario nazionale delle cucine regionali italiane" that lists "Bucatini All'Amatriciana" as well as "Rigatoni Con La Pajata" and "Carciofi Alla Giudia" (surprise! this two in plain Romanesco way!). And please, which edition of Oberosler are you citing? The "Il tesoretto della cucina italiana", Giuseppe Oberosler, 6th edition 1989, Hoepli, Cap V page 125, clearly reports "spaghetti alla amatriciana" (using also onions, butter, lard and pepper). You can easily spot it on Google Books. So no cappotto ;-). However, I suppose that you have the earlier editions of the books you cited, around 1950-1970. For sure, during 50s and 60s, the Romanesco was more spoken (and written) then today (remember Alberto Sordi fighting the provoking Maccarone). Fact is that (today) not all restaurants in Rome have the "matriciana" instead "amatriciana" written on menus. This is a natural evolution of the language spoken in Rome that is (slowly) coming back to the "A" version of matriciana.

Regarding Matrice; that was (around year 1000 AD) the name one of the localities that merged into the Amatrice comune under Charles I of Naples. Considering that tomatoes were introduced in Europe about five hundreds years later the Amatrice's comune establishing, this argumentation sounds a little bit weak to me. Ciao!Nubifer (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Oberosler, you are right, my book was edited for sure before 1980. All the rest (also my hint about Matrice) is personal research, so it is not valid. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Nubifer, I just saw that in the article you changed (this time correctly :-)) the name of the pajata. Do you know that you can rename the article? I say that, since I saw that you are new here... :-). Ciao, Alex2006 (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pajata moved. Alex2006 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex, thank you for fixing it. As you already noticed I'm new here and I prefere not to mess too much other pages (e.g. orphaning links or other weird things). My best regards! :-) Nubifer (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Nubifer, you are welcome! I go home. Guess what there is today for dinner? :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been proposed by Alessandro57 that the article drink in Rome be merged into this article. Please discuss the proposal below. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, the the main reason to merge the article about Drink in Rome with that about the roman cuisine is that roman beverages hardly distinguish themselves from those used in other part of Italy, so actually do not deserve an independent article. The wines in the roman area (which does NOT belong to the territory of the Comune of Rome) could be described in a paragraph in the article about the roman Cuisine. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WT

What text is copied from WT? Can't find it. I remove this message. Is there is text from WT it should be deleted, because it should be attributed. And it's not possible to do that in these wikis. -- DerFussi (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-English words

Moved from User talk:Bazza 7 § Italian cuisine and Roman cuisine

Hi, while we're at it, would you help me (actually, you did it all), kindly, to remove the italics from common foods also within the Italian cuisine page. JackkBrown (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Bazza (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: nobody comes to this page, the last discussion is 10 years old. JackkBrown (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: We are here now. Feel free to list any words here which you are uncertain have been adopted into English. Remember WP:NODEADLINE, and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.

• maccherone - English word is macaroni
• tiramisù - English word is tiramisu
• caffè or espresso - English equivalent is espresso
• zeppole - no English equivalent, use {{lang|it|zeppole}} for zeppole

Bazza (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: if you have the time and inclination, you could do the same thing you did on the "List of Italian dishes" page, removing the italics from Italian foods (and drinks) common within the English language, obviously not on the basis of your preferences but on the basis of objectivity (for example, a person who doesn't know spaghetti could put this word in italics (it's an example), but it is objective that the word "spaghetti" should not be put in italics); now that I think about it, it makes little sense for me to come and lecture you (I wrote it down just in case), you are a very technical user and you know these things yourself. I am proposing this to you because I, being a different person from you and not as good at it, could put foods and drinks in italics that you on the "List of Italian dishes" page did not put in italics, creating an incoherence, to the point that readers would no longer know which foods should be put in italics and which should not. JackkBrown (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Problem

On this page it's important to decide which foods and drinks should be written in italics and which shouldn't. JackkBrown (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

JUST DO IT. Follow MOS:ITALICS as best as you can. If anyone disagrees they will come along behind you and fix it. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)