In English, to cook is to prepare food, especially by applying heat, but there’s no assumption of a particular means of applying heat. Boiling and roasting are both varieties of cooking (in both senses). So are zapping in a microwave, searing on a griddle-pan, grilling under an electric overhead grill, etc.
I think you could say the following: “When you make meringues, they don’t really cook in the oven, it’s more that they slowly dry out”. So maybe “cook” means not merely “to prepare food by applying heat” but something more like “to prepare food by applying sufficient heat to denature proteins”, the underlying idea presumably being something like “to heat food up enough to make it safe to eat”.
Of course I’m using “‘cook’ means not merely X but Y” as shorthand for something like “a lot of skilled native English speakers, when they use or hear the word “cook”, are thinking about Y as well as X”. So what I really mean is that when I use or hear the word “cook” the following ideas are all somewhat active in my brain:
preparing food
heating things up
making food safe by killing bacteria and parasites
performing a skilled activity
making something particularly tasty
but for me there’s no very strong activation of, e.g.,
boiling as opposed to other modes of heating
stirring as opposed to other skilled cooking-related activities
I dare say that if I attempted to draw a stereotypical instance of “cooking” it would be quite likely to involve stirring a pot or pan, but it would be quite likely to involve someone wearing a chef’s hat and apron too and those obviously aren’t part of the meaning of “cooking”.
I looked a bit into the etymology. It is not helpful. Cook as a noun or to cook means the same thing all the way down to Latin coquus and to PIE *pekʷ-, with only the later having one more meaning: to ripen. Heat application is there all the way, but not really specifying how. I would suggest that probably people boiled or simmered more than they roasted in historical times, because, well, convection, that makes even hardest meat sooner or later soft without burning it, and does not waste nutrients into the grease falling into the fire. For example, if you have an old rooster, a soup or a stew is really the only option.
However, roasting seems to be a higher-prestige way—medieval nobility is commonly depicted feasting on whole roasted animals, not sure how accurate that is. Perhaps the prestige comes from the difficulty. Roasting a whole ox, which was a way inviting a whole town to party, is very, very difficult.
Back to practice: I recommend telling people “learn to prepare a few easy meals” this sounds less scary than “learn to cook”.
If cooking means heating food up until it is safe to eat, I couldn’t cook carrots or apples.
I would suggest that a word can mean different things in different contexts, and especially, a more general meaning and a more specific meaning. Saying that meringues aren’t cooking is a use of the more specific meaning.
In English, to cook is to prepare food, especially by applying heat, but there’s no assumption of a particular means of applying heat. Boiling and roasting are both varieties of cooking (in both senses). So are zapping in a microwave, searing on a griddle-pan, grilling under an electric overhead grill, etc.
I think you could say the following: “When you make meringues, they don’t really cook in the oven, it’s more that they slowly dry out”. So maybe “cook” means not merely “to prepare food by applying heat” but something more like “to prepare food by applying sufficient heat to denature proteins”, the underlying idea presumably being something like “to heat food up enough to make it safe to eat”.
Of course I’m using “‘cook’ means not merely X but Y” as shorthand for something like “a lot of skilled native English speakers, when they use or hear the word “cook”, are thinking about Y as well as X”. So what I really mean is that when I use or hear the word “cook” the following ideas are all somewhat active in my brain:
preparing food
heating things up
making food safe by killing bacteria and parasites
performing a skilled activity
making something particularly tasty
but for me there’s no very strong activation of, e.g.,
boiling as opposed to other modes of heating
stirring as opposed to other skilled cooking-related activities
I dare say that if I attempted to draw a stereotypical instance of “cooking” it would be quite likely to involve stirring a pot or pan, but it would be quite likely to involve someone wearing a chef’s hat and apron too and those obviously aren’t part of the meaning of “cooking”.
I looked a bit into the etymology. It is not helpful. Cook as a noun or to cook means the same thing all the way down to Latin coquus and to PIE *pekʷ-, with only the later having one more meaning: to ripen. Heat application is there all the way, but not really specifying how. I would suggest that probably people boiled or simmered more than they roasted in historical times, because, well, convection, that makes even hardest meat sooner or later soft without burning it, and does not waste nutrients into the grease falling into the fire. For example, if you have an old rooster, a soup or a stew is really the only option.
However, roasting seems to be a higher-prestige way—medieval nobility is commonly depicted feasting on whole roasted animals, not sure how accurate that is. Perhaps the prestige comes from the difficulty. Roasting a whole ox, which was a way inviting a whole town to party, is very, very difficult.
Back to practice: I recommend telling people “learn to prepare a few easy meals” this sounds less scary than “learn to cook”.
More likely from the fact that you roast meat and poultry which are expensive foods compared to grains and vegetables.
If cooking means heating food up until it is safe to eat, I couldn’t cook carrots or apples.
I would suggest that a word can mean different things in different contexts, and especially, a more general meaning and a more specific meaning. Saying that meringues aren’t cooking is a use of the more specific meaning.