Is there a more or less standard Esperanto word for "brownie"? Specifically, the (usually) chocolate dessert item? I was baking some yesterday and suddenly realized I had no idea how to say what I was doing in Esperanto.

Checking Lernu's vortaro, I see ĉokoladkuketo and bruna bakaĵo...but this is the only place I've found anything at all. Are these the generally accepted/understood terms? Are there generally accepted/understood terms? When I was trying to puzzle this out before it occurred to me to check Lernu, I tried combining kuko and kekso (based on Wikipedia's description of a brownie having a texture between that of cake and a soft cookie), but kukkekso (or maybe kukokekso) looks and sounds a little weird to me.

Those are the translations in Wells, and may be as good as you'll get. Culinary terms are notoriously difficult to put into Esperanto because they are typically peculiar to a national culture. It may be very difficult to avoid inventing new words under such circumstances.

Breto:Is there a more or less standard Esperanto word for "brownie"? Specifically, the (usually) chocolate dessert item? I was baking some yesterday and suddenly realized I had no idea how to say what I was doing in Esperanto.

Checking Lernu's vortaro, I see ĉokoladkuketo and bruna bakaĵo...but this is the only place I've found anything at all. Are these the generally accepted/understood terms? Are there generally accepted/understood terms? When I was trying to puzzle this out before it occurred to me to check Lernu, I tried combining kuko and kekso (based on Wikipedia's description of a brownie having a texture between that of cake and a soft cookie), but kukkekso (or maybe kukokekso) looks and sounds a little weird to me.

Yes, this is about the only time I see an actual *need* for neologisms (as opposed to creating words from Esperanto's roots and affixes). How about brauxnio?

From the looks of it, braŭnio might be the best option. I usually try to avoid neologisms, too. They may not be kontraŭfundamentaj, per se...but it still always feels like it defeats the purpose of Esperanto a bit to me. I prefer words like ostaro to words like skeleto...but that may just mean I'm weird nowadays.

orthohawk:Yes, this is about the only time I see an actual *need* for neologisms (as opposed to creating words from Esperanto's roots and affixes). How about brauxnio?

I agree with using neologisms, where we're talking about a concept foreign and not connected to other existing word roots; often a pretty good indicator of this lack of connection is the original (English, in this case) word itself. And since “brownie” is morphologically in the same word family as “brown”, therefore I don't like braŭnio.

Breto:Checking Lernu's vortaro, I see ĉokoladkuketo and bruna bakaĵo...but this is the only place I've found anything at all. Are these the generally accepted/understood terms?

Ĉokoladkuketo isn't really working with me, because “brownie” is a very specific chocolate dessert and not just any ĉokolada kuketo. I'm for using brunkuko, brunkuketo or something similar (whether it's a kuko or kuketo depends really on the size of your specific item, because “brownie” can be both a whole baking tray of cake or a little cupcake-sized dessert). It'd be sufficiently understandable for anyone familiar with a concept of Usonian “brownie”, and for anyone not familiar — well then any word you use you'll have to explain.

Breto:I prefer words like ostaro to words like skeleto...but that may just mean I'm weird nowadays.

Se skeleto estas ostaro, do ĉu osto estas skeletono?

Translating region-specific food items is a constant problem shared by all languages. You basically have two choices: provide an approximate literal description (preferably one that is short enough to resemble a name), or provide an approximate pronunciation (one that can be readily spoken with the receiving language's phonemic system). Often, the best solution is to use a little of both (calling the item "candy", "pastry", "casserole", "sauce", or "dessert", and then giving an approximate pronunciation).

When Pearl S. Buck wrote The Good Earth, apparently "tofu" was not yet a widely known English word, so she rendered it "bean curd" (doesn't that sound appetizing?). On the other hand, look at how "taco","enchilada", "bratwurst", or "quiche" were rendered in English. Obviously, those expressions were imported.

An approximate literal description that is short enough to be practical is often the best option when a general idea is sufficient. This can often be done by referring to the region (i.e., rendering "bar-be-que'd beef" as Teksasa spica ŝirita bovaĵo). On the other hand, if I wanted to talk about "fudge", I don't want to take a paragraph to describe it in detail. Since fudge is a type of candy, I'd call it "la dolĉaĵo 'fudĝo'" (and I'd include the letter "d" to so it would more closely resemble the English word I was translating, and so people wouldn't think I meant "flight candy" ).

For me, the deciding factor is usually a judgment call based on two factors: 1) how common or ordinary is the food item under question, and 2) how cumbersome would an approximate description be? In the case of "brownie", I'd feel pretty good about "braunio", but I'd probably put "ĉokoladkuketo" in parenthesis after the expression the first time I used it.

Polaris:Translating region-specific food items is a constant problem shared by all languages. You basically have two choices: provide an approximate literal description (preferably one that is short enough to resemble a name), or provide an approximate pronunciation (one that can be readily spoken with the receiving language's phonemic system). Often, the best solution is to use a little of both (calling the item "candy", "pastry", "casserole", "sauce", or "dessert", and then giving an approximate pronunciation).

When Pearl S. Buck wrote The Good Earth, apparently "tofu" was not yet a widely known English word, so she rendered it "bean curd" (doesn't that sound appetizing?). On the other hand, look at how "taco","enchilada", "bratwurst", or "quiche" were rendered in English. Obviously, those expressions were imported.

An approximate literal description that is short enough to be practical is often the best option when a general idea is sufficient. This can often be done by referring to the region (i.e., rendering "bar-be-que'd beef" as Teksasa spica ŝirita bovaĵo). On the other hand, if I wanted to talk about "fudge", I don't want to take a paragraph to describe it in detail. Since fudge is a type of candy, I'd call it "la dolĉaĵo 'fudĝo'" (and I'd include the letter "d" to so it would more closely resemble the English word I was translating, and so people wouldn't think I meant "flight candy" ).

For me, the deciding factor is usually a judgment call based on two factors: 1) how common or ordinary is the food item under question, and 2) how cumbersome would an approximate description be? In the case of "brownie", I'd feel pretty good about "braunio", but I'd probably put "ĉokoladkuketo" in parenthesis after the expression the first time I used it.

All good points...which makes it a little sad that my first thought after reading them was "So that's what tofu is...." Of the imported food names you listed, it's worth noting that English is apparently not the only one to borrow quiche, if Vikipedio is to be believed. Kiŝo is one of the many roughly cake-like items I ran across while searching for a pre-existing translation for brownie.

mbalicki:Se skeleto estas ostaro, do ĉu osto estas skeletono?

Mi ne scias. Mia matematika lerto ne sufiĉas por dividi ion per skeleto.

mbalicki:And since “brownie” is morphologically in the same word family as “brown”, therefore I don't like braŭnio.

What about "brunjo"? That uses the Esperanto word for brown with the feminine familiarizing suffix -njo somewhat akin to the English -ie/-y.

Though I admit like the sound of "braŭnio" better. Probably just because it sounds more familiar to my English-speaking ears, haha.

Same problem in speaking to my French friends. They don't have brownies. We don't have croque-monsieurs. How would they translate that for us? Ham and cheese sandwich? Not quite.
Language is the art of approximation, so even if you say a "safe" word like kuko, what a kuko is to an American will be different even to a Brit, not to mention to a Chinese person where cake isn't a cultural phenomenon

I'd say something with cxokolado since it's a key ingredient. I don't like brauxnio or a neologism since it's not transparent. At least cxokolada kuko gives a rough idea.

DuckFiasco:Same problem in speaking to my French friends. They don't have brownies. We don't have croque-monsieurs. How would they translate that for us? Ham and cheese sandwich? Not quite.
Language is the art of approximation, so even if you say a "safe" word like kuko, what a kuko is to an American will be different even to a Brit, not to mention to a Chinese person where cake isn't a cultural phenomenon

I'd say something with cxokolado since it's a key ingredient. I don't like brauxnio or a neologism since it's not transparent. At least cxokolada kuko gives a rough idea.

We have the same situation with Spanish. Since many of my friends speak Spanish, the decision to describe or to Anglicize comes up all the time--and not just with food items, either. One remarkable, unique feature of English is its incredibly rich vocabulary. Sometimes the English word is a rifle shot at precisely the desired meaning, whereas other languages often take a shotgun blast approach, using a generalized word and letting context or description fill in the details. Esperanto shares this problem with English--often English will use a stream-lined, specific, direct expression that is handled in other languages with a generalized expression or that has to be explained in a more drawn out way. Many times, just using the Anglicism for some specific item (such as food) is quicker and easier than trying to ferret out an approximate circumlocution.