Talk:Mole sauce/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Isn't this spelled Molé? That's how it's pronounced, anyway. Mkweise 21:45 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

No, it has no accent. It's pronounced MOH-leh.- Montréalais

On a side note, if English writers still used the diaeresis, it could be spelled molë and would be easily differentiated from the burrowing animal. Alas, the diaeresis has become archaic in English, and is only used in The New Yorker magazine. :) --AaronW 21:14, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

There is not one "national" dish in Mexico, as mexican cuisine is too varied for a single dish to be considered above all others. Therefore I removed the "national dish" mention. —201.138.59.115

Nonetheless, it is considered as such. Most restaurants in Mexico refer to it thusly in their menus. Tmangray 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypercorrection

Can *molé really be called hypercorrection? True, it doesn't follow Spanish rules, but an accent mark to mark what would otherwise be a silent E in English, regardless of syllabic emphasis, is fairly well established in common use (witness the insistence of many coffeeshops writing *latté), especially in marking archaic pronunciated of -ed, such as wingèd or something. I’m going to remove the assertion it’s hypercorrection. —Wiki Wikardo 01:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "latté" isn't right, either. And what's next, "guacamolé"? Moreover, "molé" would appear to rhyme with "olé," which is a fairly commonly known word among English speakers. But it does NOT rhyme. I think the final sentence is too permissive, but I don't feel strongly enough to edit it. 165.158.254.253 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Mexicophile

Does too rhyme Not really. Think of it this way. MOHle. oLAY. The rhythm and accents are entirely different.

Tomatillo

Aren't tomatillos a major ingredient in mole poblano?

From Nahuatl?

I have serious doubts about the origin of the word "mole" in Nahuatl since that is a language that was spoken in pre-Columbian central Mexico whereas the "mole" sauce seems more likely to have originated in either modern Puebla or, further south, in Oaxaca.

These places are not very far from each other and Nahuatl is still spoken today. Deepstratagem 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I too have serious doubts about the etymology of "mole".

There may be Aztec, Mayan & Nahuatal words like molli, moli etc which mean sauce or conconction but since there is already a Spanish word "moler" meaning to grind, this is the more likely earlier if not earliest derivation.

If you look at the word "pesto" it is the same. A mixture of herbs, seeds, spices etc ground in a pestle and mortar. Going back to ancient Greece and Rome and probably to ancient Egypt and India. Gracoo2

The word origin is attested in the earliest writings from colonial New Spain. Moreover, it's the etymology given by the Spanish Royal Academy, the authority on Spanish word origins. Any resemblence to the Latin-derived words related to milling is coincidental only. The reason mole and so many other words entered from Nahuatl is because it was the Aztecs that the Spanish conquered and studied first. Certainly, Nahuatl words have earlier origins, probably from other languages, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the language from which the words entered Spanish.

Incidentally, another remarkable etymological coincidence is the word for butterfly: in Nahuatl, papaloapatl, in French, papillon. Tmangray 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Mole?

What is the earliest evidence of mole? Does it stem from far before the Spanish arrived in Mexico? That would aid in settling both the dispute on the origin of the word "mole", and also on the plausibility that mole poblano was invented by nuns wishing to impress visiting officials.

On that note: the version of the story that I heard (with no historical proof provided) was that indeed these nuns made mole poblano, but they actually did it not to impress but to scare off a visiting bishop whom they did not like. According to the story they ground together (moler) a strange assortment of items they found around the kitchen, including many varieties of chile, chocolate, peanut, etc., and served this sauce to the bishop. Apparently he liked it, so their plan failed but a new recipe was born. Obviously I have no idea if this is true or not, but it is a fun story. 70.19.236.121 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoja Santa

The page for hoja santa claims that it is an essential ingredient for mole verde, yet it is not listed as one of the ingredients here. Instead it's listed for mole amarillo. Anyone care to clarify to its use? -Krasnoludek (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Popularity of moles outside Mexico

"Despite its popularity within Mexico, mole is relatively unknown outside the country, even in the United States where Mexican food is readily available."

The citation for this is an article from 1995. I don't have a citation handy to demonstrate that mole is relatively known in the United States today, but I think this article's relevance to that question has diminished over the last sixteen years. I will remove this statement unless someone can provide evidence otherwise. --Highnumber (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with the individual wanting to make a change, not the current citation. You will have to find a citation that shows it is no longer "relatively unknown" outside of Mexico. You might try searching Culinary Magazines like Saveur or the New York Times to find sourcing.

Where's the burden of proof in your 1995 article? It reads mostly as editorial commentary and has no solid data to make that claim. --74.100.106.79 (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.saveur.com/solrSearchResults.jsp?q=mole
• http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/travel/escapes/17mole.html

-- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 20:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not changing the statement to indicate that mole is indeed well-known throughout the US particularly, which would of course require a citation, but rather proposing to remove a statement about its current status in the US that cites an article from 1995. Isn't the relevance of the citation important? And doesn't the age of the citation have some bearing on its relevance, especially in light of the statement made based on the citation? --Highnumber (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

no, because the standard is verifiability, not what seems right. You may be quite right and that assertion is out of date, but unless you can find a more recent statement that says something different, you have to leave the verifiable information. I lived in Southern Arizona until 2003, and mole was not well known there, with a very simple chile sauce called mole verde.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Right then. It's a nebulous statement about the contemporary popularity of mole which cites a sixteen year old article but you all seem to determined to have it. I do not wish to rock your boat. --Highnumber (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What a silly assertion by citing a 1995 article. I've eaten Mole Poblano in the continental United States from Portland Oregon and San Jose California to Denver Colorado and Dallas Texas since the 1960s and the ingredients to make Mole Poblano were readily available at Supermarkets in metropolitan areas of those cities. Sorry to burst your bubble. --74.100.106.79 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)