In English, the word “milk” has been used to refer to “milk-like plant juices” since 1200 CE.[11]
I studied medieval recipes for specials when I was a chef. What a mindfuck to learn you need a grænde quontitye o almunde mylk afore ye smote þy pig.
Yep! It grew popular in medieval Europe periods during lent, but it ended up going far beyond that
But the sheer number of recipes from the Middle Ages that use almond milk, particularly those that combine it with (decidedly un-Lenten) meat, makes it clear that chefs came to regard it as a staple instead of just an alternative ingredient. Almonds turn up everywhere; in the first extant German cookbook, Das Buch von Guter Spise, dating to around 1350, almost a quarter of the recipes call for it.
[…]
Almond milk appeared in more overtly sweet dishes, too. A strawberry pudding could be made by soaking strawberries in wine, then grinding the mixture together with almond milk, sugar, and an assortment of spices, before boiling it all to thicken it.
[…]
Describing the diet of a pair of priests in 15th century Dorset in her book Food in Medieval Times, Professor Melitta Weiss Adamson, of the University of Western Ontario, writes that “almond milk must have played a significant role in their diet judging from the quantities of almonds bought.” She calls the late Medieval world’s appetite for almond milk not just a “love,” but an “addiction.”
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/almond-milk-obsession-origins-middle-ages
Orange juice is now called orange milk because now they’re just milking it. /s
Give me milk of the poppy and let me die!
Nobody ever seemed to consider the implications for Milk of Magnesia
I don’t care what words other than soy they put on my milk. The bean juice goes into my coffee and you cannot stop me!
Soy vanilla latte is a three bean soup
with creamer and sugar
Wait, are you telling me milk thistle doesn’t come from cows?
milk of magnesia.
Next thing I know you’re going to tell me peanut butter comes from peanuts!?
It comes from pee and nuts. Both are stored in the balls.
I want my money back!
Coconut milk
Coconuts have fur and produce milk. Definitely a mammal
Eh… It definitively doesn’t have fur. Are you talking about some interstitial tissue?
Mayor Poopington is likely talking about the fibre around mature coconuts (left).
Also known as coconut coir! Makes a great substrate for starting seeds and growing houseplants!
And for tarantula terrariums!
Some coconuts have fur.
Thats bit of history is super cool, thanks for sharing! I will remember that
There’s so much interesting history with plant-milks! For the west, almond milk has an especially long history. Here’s an article about how there was a whole sensation around it in medieval Europe
Outside the west, soy milk has a very long history too.
A tofu broth (doufujiang) c. 1365 was used during the Mongol Yuan.[1][2] As doujiang, this drink remains a common watery form of soy milk in China, usually prepared from fresh soybeans. The compendium of Materia Medica, which was completed in 1578, also has an evaluation of soymilk. Its use increased during the Qing dynasty, apparently due to the discovery that gently heating doujiang for at least 90 minutes hydrolyzed or helped to break down its undesirable raffinose and stachyose, oligosaccharides, which can cause flatulence and digestive pain among lactose-intolerant adults.[14][15] By the 18th century, it was common enough that street vendors were hawking it;[16] in the 19th, it was also common to take a cup to tofu shops to get hot, fresh doujiang for breakfast. It was already often paired with youtiao, which was dipped into it.[17]
You’re just hopped up on milk of paradise from the poppy for thinking this.
Milk comes from tits, juice comes from nuts.
So do you make a big fuss about coconut milk?
Have you seen coconuts? They’re the tits of the tree.
Just like I like them. Big and hairy
As god intended.
Y’all love an argument from etymology when it’s something you have an ideological interest in. Otherwise, of course, you’re all “it doesn’t matter what it used to mean - language usage changes literally everyday bro so you should use it the way I want you to”.
Is it an argument from etymology to say “this has been called milk for hundreds of years and continues to be called milk so it is reasonable to call it milk”
Ir is it just descriptivism?
see, the problem with this is that no person on earth calls it “oat drink” or whatever. Oat milk is the accepted term. The etymology is only there to highlight how ridiculous the entire thing is.
I make a point to call it “oat juice” specifically because it’s not milk.
It’s okay to be wrong.
Not only that, but even in 1755, plant milks were already in the dictionary
- Emulsion made by contusion of seeds. Pistachoes, so they be good and not musty, joined with almonds in almond milk, or made into a milk of themselves, like unto almond milk, are an excellent nourisher.
I suppose so, if even the dictionary is fine with being wrong. Luckily the UK and Germany have fixed this - here’s hoping for the US next!
Uh the UK supreme court also prohibited Oatly from even using “post-milk generation” as a slogan. It’s 100% dairy industry pressure because they hate competition rather than because they actually care about labeling
I care about labeling though, and I can overall be very happy with the overall effects of the ruling while also disagreeing with the specifics or even the reason the change happened.
It’s more like
- [This case] “etymology shows this usage of the word is acceptable”
- [Typically] “language change shows the usage of that other word is also acceptable”
IMO they’re both poor grounds to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage. But they don’t really contradict each other; in fact they’re both the same fallacy (fallacy of origins aka genetic fallacy).
I believe a better way to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage is to highlight language is a communication system; the point is not to use this or that word, it’s to convey meaning. So if
$vegetablemilk conveys the meaning, it’s fine; if “skibidi” also conveys meaning, it’s also fine.Just my two cents.
when do “we all” love arguments from etymology? can u give an example?
I love when people mark themselves out for blocking.
That works for the plant milk folk here. “Language changes literally everyday bro” arguments fall apart pretty quick:
“Milk changed back to include plants, bro.”
Not according to the UK. Also, thanks for proving my point.
“Language changes unless my favored language authority says it doesn’t.” I honestly do not understand how you could take a perscriptive stance in FAVOR of language changes. It’s pretty much like looking at 1984 and saying “yes, this is the correct way of language evolution.”
That’s exactly what’s wrong with this post - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
Edit in response to your edit: you have no idea what my stance is, because I haven’t stated one other than “y’all are hypocrites”.
Completely aside from the post, as a linguist my stance is always “language always changes, and meaning is determined by usage”, because both of those positions are demonstrably correct.
This post is prescriptive based on etymology. You’re being prescriptive based on regulation. You’re not making a descriptive argument that would be strong in this case(but wrong because casual usage DOES include plant milk so that’s why I don’t think you’re doing it). You’re making a fucking bizzaro world argument.
Make sure to check out my edit in response to your edit.
Uh huh. So your argument is you secretly don’t have one but are pointing in the general direction that maybe there’s an argument somewhere here and it’s right.
