Me too. Although at the moment it seems to be fashionable for restaurants to call it 'pudding' on the menu, whereas five years ago they would have written 'dessert'.In my case, we would have said "pudding" at home and "dessert" in a restaurant (or other formal situation).
You will also find that course called "sweets"In my case, we would have said "pudding" at home and "dessert" in a restaurant (or other formal situation).
Yes, now that you mention it, I recall "Sweet" being another name for the dessert course, but I always heard it pronounced in the singular. Also, my vague recollection is that "Sweet" was used by the school dinner-ladies, and I don't think I ever heard the expression outside school. It was a long time ago though!You will also find that course called "sweets"
Starters, Main Course, Sweets is a very common trio on UK menus.
Note: Entrée in AE = Main Course in BE
Arrius has hit the nail on the head! It's all about U and non-U!It's also a class thing. Descending through the various social classes from the top, the same course made be called 1. pudding (the U-word), 2. dessert, 3. sweet, 4. afters, 5, a'ers, the idioglossic boundaries being ill-defined.
I don't really follow this order. I would say "dessert" is more upper-class than "pudding" but you seem to have put "pudding" at the top of the social scale.It's also a class thing. Descending through the various social classes from the top, the same course made be called 1. pudding (the U-word), 2. dessert, 3. sweet, 4. afters, 5, a'ers, the idioglossic boundaries being ill-defined.
I think Arrius' order is the classical one, liliput. Wiki suggests thatI don't really follow this order
I have no way of checking whether this is true...According to Debrett's, pudding is the proper term, dessert is only to be used if the course consists of fruit, and sweet is colloquial.
You guys make CLASS distinctions by your terminology for "dessert"... that really is stuck up.Arrius has hit the nail on the head! It's all about U and non-U!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English
(which probably leaves our friends from across the pond somewhat flummoxed!)
You may also find pudding referred to as "the sweet course", where sweet is quite definitely an adjective. Hence, I suspect, the use of sweet to mean pudding - which for some reason seems to have fallen out of favour in the middle of the social spectrum.Everything from lemon water ice to jam roly-poly pudding, Caroline would call ‘pudding’. She would never say ‘sweet’ or ‘dessert’.
I seem to recall that 'pudding', as well as being at the top (what the Queen would say), re-enters the social order somewhere between 3 & 4.It's also a class thing. Descending through the various social classes from the top, the same course may be called 1. pudding (the U-word), 2. dessert, 3. sweet, 4. afters, 5, a'ers, the idioglossic boundaries being ill-defined.
I had almost forgotten the use of 'sweet' in this connection and to be honest I can't remember where it was used. At home the last course was always known as 'pudding'. 'Afters' crept in and out of my vocabulary at some point. I have only ever seen 'entrée' in what I would refer to as 'pretentious' menus, 'Main Course' being my preferred nomenclature.As others have, I grew up with "What's for pudding?" and dessert was the restaurant description. I had always presumed that the word "sweet" was an import from French "suite" which followed the main course. This thread has shown me how all these terms are inhomogeneous at best, and all over the place, at worst. (Like the confusion over entree, which sometimes mean the "entry" to the repast, and sometimes means the 'middle" of the repast. Reminds me of the variation in desserts different folks call crumble, cobbler and crisp!
Just to confuse matters even more - my grandmother (who was from Yorkshire) used to serve us Yorkshire Puddings with Jam as a dessert/sweet/pudding/afters at the end of the meal! I would always use the term "pudding" but in no way am I posh - maybe it's the accent but it doesn't sound upper class rolling off my Midland's tongue!in the elaborate scheme of Victorian meals a "pudding" was cooked (which is why Yorkshire Pudding is served with the "roast" course), while "dessert" was typically fruit served at the end of the meal.
I realize many opinions have been canvassed above (9 years back!), but do BE speakers now agree that it's an upper-class custom to speak of 'pudding' as in my example sentences?As US person living in Britain my children are always asking why terms differ and this was one that came up the other day. After a bit of research I think that while both terms are in use in the UK local area determines "proper" usage. Puddings seems to be more widespread in less metropolitan areas probably due to less influence from other sources. In general it seems to be a British "lack of enthusiasm" towards using any French terms as well. Starter instead of appetizer, main instead of entree and pudding instead of dessert. All three appear to be of French origin.
Why would we?Reminds me of Monty Python's depiction of the French as effete, dandified, snobs. Americans object to ostentatious French such as
"The pie has that je ne sais quois" but not to "Would you like dessert?"
I wonder if you folks avoid saying that you're making entries in your journal or diary, but rather say 'I put stuff in the day book'?![]()
"Main course" is reasonably common in AE and CanE.You will also find that course called "sweets"
Starters, Main Course, Sweets is a very common trio on UK menus.
Other places will offer Entrée, Main Course, Dessert.
The same courses in US would be Appetizer, Entrée, Dessert.
Note: Entrée in AE = Main Course in BE
Hmmm(You are aware, I take it, that "stuff" came into English via French?)
I've never heard entree used in a home situation. Only in restaurants. At home you would call it a main course, main dish, or most likely, nothing at all."Main course" is reasonably common in AE and CanE.
Isn't It often the case that upper-class and working class usage is similar, with the aspirational middle-class being the odd one out?But you might have expected royalty to know better than to use the term to refer to creme-brulee or panacotta.
Not this friend. The concept of U and non-U has been around since the 1950s, and we have some U/non-U linguistic differences on this side of the pond too.Arrius has hit the nail on the head! It's all about U and non-U!
U and non-U English - Wikipedia
(which probably leaves our friends from across the pond somewhat flummoxed!)
Isn't It often the case that upper-class and working class usage is similar, with the aspirational middle-class being the odd one out?
That pronunciation goes with the stone, not the baked item above (close to a biscuit in AE).I could swear that when I heard Scots saying it, it rhymed with soon....
But they weren't talking about the stone....That pronunciation goes with the stone, not the baked item above (close to a biscuit in AE).
That would be a first for me to hear scoon (although some are rather monolithicBut they weren't talking about the stone....
SourceThose who rhyme it with gone predominate in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. Those who rhyme with cone dominate in southern Ireland and the Midlands. The rest of the country is a mixture of the two pronunciations. And, just to complicate the matter, there is a third pronunciation available for the word – in the form of the village of Scone in Scotland, which is pronounced “skoon”