[Sca-cooks] "What Did the Romans Eat?"

[Terry Decker]

The problem I was commenting on isn't about corn being a general term for 
all cereals, but that it appears in a list of specific grains, thus making 
the usage specific rather than general.  Maize is not an ancient Roman crop, 
appearing in Europe after 1492 CE.  Corn can also be used to refer to the 
most common grain of a local, but that requires some specialized knowledge 
and an understanding of a general academic consensus, while the article is 
written for non-academics.

I suspect that "corn" was cribbed from the annual "corn" (usually wheat or 
barley) fleet from Egypt without consideration to the correct usage.  It's a 
mistake that a historian usually wouldn't make, so it makes me wonder how 
well Ricketts did in his history studies at Birmingham.

Bear

-----Original Message----- 

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:56 AM, <JIMCHEVAL at aol.com> wrote:

> Yes, accurate in the main. "Corn" is simply the old English term for grain
> and is found all through nineteenth century texts and translations; it may
> still  have that meaning, though I think the English today are very aware
> of
> its use to  refer to what they call "maize".
>

  I was brought up in Ireland referring to all cereals as corn (as opposed
to the more specific wheat, barley and oats). I think I saw maize for the
first time in the mid to late 90s, and it still doesn't really come to mind
if someone says "corn"; we generally know it as "sweetcorn".

  Le meas,
  Aodh