3/4 scant cup (?)

< Previous | Next >

sekaijuuni

Senior Member
United States, English
I'm translating some food packaging and instructions. The original text uses a word that I know means 'scant cup' (as in the opposite of 'heaping cup'), but I'm unsure about the English phrasing.

・1 bag mix (180g)
・1 medium egg (50g)
・170cc milk (or water)
(3/4 scant cup)

"One scant cup" sounds fine to me, but when it's a fraction of a cup, it just doesn't feel right. Is this correct English? Is there a better way to phrase it? Thanks in advance.
 
  • Barque

    Banned
    Tamil
    I know means 'scant cup' (as in the opposite of 'heaping cup'),
    I have never heard the term "scant cup". By "heaping cup" you probably mean "a heaped cup". I hadn't heard of "heaping cup" either but just found a few references on Google. It seems to be used as a synonym for "heaped".

    Perhaps you're referring to a "level cup" when you say "scant cup"?

    but when it's a fraction of a cup,
    If it's a fraction, you just need to mention the fraction. Half a cup of flour, a quarter of a cup of sugar.

    Edit: It seems the term "scant cup" exists too, but I don't think it's very common.
    A scant cup is meant to signify just a little bit less than a standard cup measurement of something.
    What is a scant cup measurement?
     

    sekaijuuni

    Senior Member
    United States, English
    I have never heard the term "scant cup". By "heaping cup" you probably mean "a heaped cup". I hadn't heard of "heaping cup" either but just found it seems to be used as a synonym for "heaped".

    'Heaping cup' is commonly used in my part of the US, and appears to be synonymous with 'heaped cup,' which I had never heard before. Learned something new today!

    Perhaps you're referring to a "level cup" when you say "scant cup"

    A level cup is filled and then leveled off to be even, while this recipe wants it to be on the low side. 170cc = 0.71 cups, so a level 3/4 cup would be too much.

    If it were powdered ingredients, I might translate it as "3/4 cup (lightly packed)," but that doesn't work for liquid ingredients.

    If it's a fraction, you just need to mention the fraction. Half a cup of flour, a quarter of a cup of sugar.

    Not always so, especially in baking. With this translation client, I don't have the freedom to omit information at will, and unfortunately the fraction is not exact...
     

    Barque

    Banned
    Tamil
    while this recipe wants it to be on the low side. 170cc = 0.71 cups, so a level 3/4 cup would be too much.
    Well, 0.71 cup is as close to three-fourths of a cup as to make no difference but if you'd rather not say "three-fourths of a cup", then: between half and three-fourths of a cup
    or
    a little less than three-fourths of a cup.
     

    london calling

    Senior Member
    UK English
    I would have understand '3/4 scant cup' to mean 'three quarters scant of a cup'.:eek: It obviously doesn't mean that. What it does appear to mean is a scant cup which is slightly less then 3/4 full.

    If I were translating this I'd leave it out because a) in any case it tells you how much milk you need and b) a UK audience wouldn't understand what was meant in any case as we don't use 'cups' for measuring. As a matter of fact I've had to buy some US measuring cups, which I only use for US recipes, of course.:)
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    "Well, 0.71 cup is as close to three-fourths of a cup as to make no difference"

    In general cooking, no, but bakers are very particular about their measurements so I think you have to include that information. I think this is the best option:

    a bit less than three-fourths of a cup

    Or explain the meaning of scant.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Well, 0.71 cup is as close to three-fourths of a cup as to make no difference but if you'd rather not say "three-fourths of a cup", then: between half and three-fourths of a cup
    or
    a little less than three-fourths of a cup.
    0.71 cup could be described as a "scant 3/4 cup" if we stretch scant to mean "almost"

    1. barely amounting to as much as indicated:[before a noun]Measure a scant cupful of flour into the bowl.
     

    london calling

    Senior Member
    UK English
    I'm beginning to wonder if it actually means a scant three quarters of a cupful, as Kentix says. It would make more sense.

    As I said, leave it out: it specifies '170cc' in the recipe anyway.;)
     

    Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    "scant 3/4 cup" if we stretch scant to mean "almost"
    Yes, "a scant 3/4 (of a) cup makes some sense to me. "3/4 scant cup" sounds odd.
    Compare to: almost 3/4 of a cup :thumbsup: vs 3/4 of an almost cup :thumbsdown:

    If it needs to be that accurate, 3/4 cup less 1.5 tsp would be amazingly close.
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    It is accurate, though: the recipe states it means 170cc of milk and then for some reason finds it necessary to give a 'cup' measurement which only confuses matters as it is somewhat unclear in meaning.
    It looks like the recipe is being translated for both measuring systems. I am assuming Japanese into English. In an American kitchen there might or might not be a way to measure 170 cc with the commonly available kitchen instruments, and more importantly, no expectation of having to do so.
     
    Last edited:

    london calling

    Senior Member
    UK English
    It looks like the recipe is being translated for both measuring systems. I am assuming Japanese into English. In the American system, there is no way to measure 170 cc with the commonly available kitchen instrumentes, and more importantly, no expectation of having to do so.
    So why only 'translate' the quantity of milk into cups and not the other ingredients as well?

    And more importantly when are you lot going to start using the metric system?:D
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    A medium egg is a medium egg no matter where you go and a bag is a bag (of supplied mix) no matter where you go.
     

    london calling

    Senior Member
    UK English
    A medium egg is a medium egg no matter where you go and a bag is a bag (of supplied mix) no matter where you go.
    We talk of medium eggs, I'll give you that, but a bag of mix is not the same wherever you go outside the USA. It could be of any weight. I buy a bread mix (for example) which weighs 1 kilo here in Italy (and it's the same in the UK because it's from the same supermarket chain).
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    These threads often inform members of the way solids in US recipes are listed (by volume) and the UK and Europe (and probably others) recipes are listed in grams/kg. See, for example, the discussion here a cup of sugar
    Most liquid measuring devices in the US these days have scales for cups/oz and litres/mL so the liquids are easy to figure out.
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    ...I'll give you that, but a bag of mix is not the same wherever you go outside the USA. It could be of any weight.
    But if the recipe is on the packaging, which I took the OP to mean, then I'm pretty certain the bag referred to is the bag in your hand, not another bag. ;)
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Note that liquid measurements are in ml (milli-liters), not cc (cubic centimeters), though the numbers are the same.

    You can say "170 ml (just under 3/4 cup)". Clear measuring cups I buy today have cups on one side (1/2, 2/3, 3/4) and ml on the other.

    I do not think "scant" works here. I do not think US readers will understand what you mean. But you can say "a little less than 3/4 cup".
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    There is no effective difference betwee mL (or ml) and cc except perhaps for usage. They are both neasures of volume and they represent the same volume.
    All the online converters support this and the following is from wiki


    A cubic centimetre (or cubic centimeter in US English) (SI unit symbol: cm3; non-SI abbreviations: cc and ccm) is a commonly used unit of volume that extends the derived SI-unit cubic metre, and corresponds to the volume of a cube that measures 1 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm. One cubic centimetre corresponds to a volume of 1/1,000,000 of a cubic metre, or 1/1,000 of a litre, or one millilitre; thus, 1 cm3≡ 1 ml.
     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    I'm translating some food packaging and instructions. The original text uses a word that I know means 'scant cup' (as in the opposite of 'heaping cup'), but I'm unsure about the English phrasing.

    ・1 bag mix (180g)
    ・1 medium egg (50g)
    ・170cc milk (or water)
    (3/4 scant cup)

    "One scant cup" sounds fine to me, but when it's a fraction of a cup, it just doesn't feel right. Is this correct English? Is there a better way to phrase it? Thanks in advance.
    I have heard "a scant 3/4 cup" but not "3/4 scant cup".

    This "translation" works for U. S. A. standards, but not for British standards. I won't hazard a guess about Canadian, Australian, etc., measurements.

    To my knowledge, Brits have left cups behind in favo(u)r of millilitres, but a British 10-ounce cup was never the same as a U. S. A. 8-ounce cup (with different-sized ounces by the way).

    And a 50g egg (shell on) is close to the U. S. A. standard "medium" (21 ounces avoirdupois per dozen, average) but would be "small" (53g or under) or "size 5" (50g-55g) in Britain.
     

    london calling

    Senior Member
    UK English
    This "translation" works for U. S. A. standards, but not for British standards. I won't hazard a guess about Canadian, Australian, etc., measurements.

    To my knowledge, Brits have left cups behind in favo(u)r of millilitres, but a British 10-ounce cup was never the same as a U. S. A. 8-ounce cup (with different-sized ounces by the way).
    Which is what I meant in my posts above.:) Mind you, it will still work for us if the metric measurements are not 'removed' from the recipe.:)

    'Cups' have never been a measure for us in modern times though, not really. We used scales mostly even when we still used Imperial weights (my mother still has some wonderful scales from the 30s, a real museum piece) which, incidentally, are still to be found in some recipes, as an equivalent to the metric weight.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top