chili or chile

[Tom Berger]

I work at a travel magazine, and in a recent article on New Mexico we used the spelling "chili," as in "red chili sauce." A reader has written in to point out that New Mexicans spell it "chile." I've been checking in New Mexican newspapers online, and it seems like both spellings are used.

So, two questions: In a New Mexican contest, is it best to use the spelling "chile"? And does anyone know if that spelling extends beyond New Mexico?

Incidentally, we went with "chili" because it is preferred in Merriam Webster's Collegiate. I checked Garner, and he writes that chili "is preferably so spelled," but he says nothing about regional variations.

[Matthew Crowley]

Hi:

The AP Stylebook says "chili" (or "chilies" for plurals) is the spelling for the peppers.

m.c.

[Tom Berger]

We have a little more leeway than newspapers do, and can use a variation if there is good reason for it. Our style is to follow the dictionary, which specifies "chili," but if everyone in New Mexico uses "chile," we would consider using that spelling in stories about New Mexico.

[Gerri Berendzen]

Given the cultural influences in New Mexico, I can see why the reader suggested "chile." (Some will say that "chili" is just the Americanized version of the Spanish term "chile.")
If you look at well-known cooking sites online, say like Food Network or Bonappetit.com, you'll see the "chile" spelling when talking about the pod (say seranno or ancho or poblano) and "chili" when talking about the powder, or a sauce or rub made with the powder.
But that spelling extends beyond New Mexico. (For instance, it's spelled that way in a Bobby Flay cookbook I have.)
So it seems to me that as long as you are consistent in the use, there's a good reason to use "chile."

[Dan Puckett]

FWIW, here's our stylebook entry on the subject:

chile, chili -- The word that ends with an e is used for a pepper. The word that ends with an i is used for the meat dish that may or may not contain beans. The plural forms are chiles and chilis.

The idea with chili powder, at least down here, is that it doesn't just consist of powdered chiles; it also contains other ingredients, such as onion powder and garlic powder. It uses the -i spelling because it's intended for use in making chili, the dish.

The same idea holds when we refer to San Antonio's "chili queens" of yesteryear. They sold the dish downtown back in the old days.

As for the etymology, it seems to be the other way around; the Nahuatl source word for the hot peppers ends in -i. If you hear Spanish speakers talk about the peppers and the dish, the pronunciation is audibly different (close to CHEE-lay, CHEE-lee).

Also, with tamales, we use the Mexican singular, tamal: one tamal, two tamales. The Tex-Mex singular is tamale, but tamal is considered "proper Spanish" around here.

[Peter Fisk]

In Colorado the pepper is spelled chile. Last I knew, the Denver Post's house stylebook mandated that as the standard spelling.

[Powderhorn]

In New Mexico, using "chili" to mean the fruit that forms the basis of many local dishes will brand you an outsider. A somewhat-true running joke is that if a restaurant offers red or green "chili" on its menu, the correct course of action is to find another restaurant.

That said, some quality chile products are branded as "chili" to be user-friendly to a wider (non-New Mexican) audience. Further, "chile" can be too vague in and of itself. Beyond "red or green" lie other questions, such as growing region, particular species (in preparation for next year's garden, I have NuMex [cq] Big Jim [utterly mild, but great for rellenos], NuMex Sandia A [smaller but nice and spicy], NuMex Española Improved [medium to hot; created for the shorter growing seasons of Northern New Mexico], NuMex Chimayó [similar], NuMex Barker [quite hot] and NuMex 6-4 [rather a baseline standard] seeds), harvest year and more. If you're not burrowing down into much detail, it might be easiest to explain on first reference that it's a regional spelling and then use it to mollify the locals.

I wince at "chili" being used for anything other than that concoction Texans came up with that I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. That said, is New Mexico your target audience, or is this more along the lines of certain people calling in to debate the meaning of "hopefully"?

Bottom line for me is: Doing a story about New Mexican food (Did you get the requisite bit in about how we're a part of the United States?) for a general audience is a great way to find yourself in a no-win situation.

(I just took a trip out of state and was sans chile yesterday for the first day since moving here in September. The green chile cheeseburger I had at McDonalds on the drive home saved me from withdrawal symptoms.)

[Tom Berger]

Thanks for all the advice, everyone.

Powderhorn: The article was for a general audience, but we could have used "chile" since that is what visitors to the state will see, and since "chili" marked us as outsiders to New Mexicans. We use "whisky" in stories in about Scotland and "whiskey" elsewhere (although that's just theoretical, because we've only used the word in two Scotland articles, AFAIK).

The distinction between "chile" and "chili" seems useful, and I think we will opt for that in the future.

[Dan Puckett]

I wince at "chili" being used for anything other than that concoction Texans came up with that I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.

I think touching it with a pole would kind of defeat its purpose: Closer contact is necessary for it to work its magic. Besides, without chili, how would you make Frito pie? Or chili fries? Or chiliburgers? :D

[Powderhorn]

I wince at "chili" being used for anything other than that concoction Texans came up with that I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.

I think touching it with a pole would kind of defeat its purpose: Closer contact is necessary for it to work its magic. Besides, without chili, how would you make Frito pie? Or chili fries? Or chiliburgers? :D

Funny you should use Frito pie as an example -- for one of the first local meals my wife had after moving down here, she ordered exactly that. So as to be cautious, she asked the waitress what all was in the Frito pie, and received a laundry list that had everything she wanted and lacked the one thing she abhorred. The dish arrived and contained said key ingredient: beans. Chile has no beans, whereas chili does -- and beans make both of us violently ill.

Besides, a green chile cheeseburger is one of life's little delights, as are hot dogs with chile. It's the crucial added ingredient that makes for the "i" of dread.

[Dan Puckett]

Chile has no beans, whereas chili does -- and beans make both of us violently ill.

I'm sorry that beans make you ill, and I can understand why you'd avoid dishes containing them, but as the San Antonio Express-News stylebook says:

chile, chili -- The word that ends with an e is used for a pepper. The word that ends with an i is used for the meat dish that may or may not contain beans. The plural forms are chiles and chilis.

(Emphasis added.)

I've certainly eaten plenty of chili sin frijoles. Cooking chili separately from the beans is the custom here; you mix the chili with the beans just before serving.

Maybe New Mexicans think the beans are mandatory. They certainly aren't here.

[Powderhorn]

From chasingchiles.blogspot.com:

In 1983, New Mexican Senator Pete Domenici made note in the United States Congressional Record that “…’chili' is that inedible mixture of watery tomato soup, dried gristle, half-cooked kidney beans, and a myriad of silly ingredients that is passed off as food in Texas and Oklahoma.”

Not the most authoritative source, but if it's in the Congressional Record, it seems to hold some water.

[Dan Puckett]

Gosh, I think if I'd ever eaten the dish described by the retiring senior senator from New Mexico, I'd hate it too, but I'm having trouble imagining its being prepared that way anywhere this side of the River Styx.

Maybe in his retirement, Pete Domenici can visit Texas and taste the dish we actually serve. For one thing, if it contains beans, the beans are pinto beans, which are not at all the same as kidney beans.

People really ought to stop inserting silly statements into the Congressional Record. But if they did, it wouldn't be the bloated compendium of misconceptions, moronicisms and madnesses that we all love.