WOTD: ULAM (noun) – viand - Page 2

Yes, 'viand' is almost never heard here in the States. My best guess for 'ulam' would be the protein source (meat dish) that accompany the staple ingredients. If dinner consisted of rice, broiled fish and mixed vegetables then I would think the broiled fish would be the ulam.

I think it doesnt really have an equivalent. Dish or entree is sometimes used, but the whole concept of a plate of rice combined with a smaller amount of something else as a whole meal, is already foreign to most Americans.I think viand might have been adopted by pinoys as a translation but not sure if Americans introduced it. It has origins in french and latin, maybe the Spanish? In either case, it's okay between filipinos if they already know the word, but I would assume most foreigners wouldn't, so it would just lead to more questions or a google search of viand haha.

Maybe Americans don't use the word anymore now, but taking into account our history, who do you think taught us to use that word? I've been hearing it here since I was a kid. 😁Do you think "dish" would be a good substitute or it's really just one of those words that can't be translated accurately with a single word?

Ah yeah, I see it now. It was early morning haha. I've been learning grammar just from listening, so it isn't my strongest point. If an American asks what ulam means and someone says "viand", the next question would certainly be "what's viand?" :-) :-)

I also have not encountered the word "viand" outside of our culture, maybe because, in the US for example, rice is not commonly eaten. I don't know what other rice-eating Asian cultures use as their English term for it. Most Filipinos would say "viand" if you'd ask them what "ulam" is in English.Your second and third sentences are correct. Maybe if I used "actor-focused" instead of "subject-focused" you might have gotten the first sentence correct too. It should be:"Sila ay mag-uulam ng adobo sa kanin"If you'll notice, only the "ay" is added in the subject-predicate form of the sentences. All the other words remained exactly the same. What changed was the subject of each sentence. In the first one, since it is subject/actor-focused, the "doer" (sila) is the subject. For the two other sentences that used the object-focused verbs, the "iulam" sentence had "adobo" for its subject while the "ulaman" sentence had "kanin" as its subject. "Adobo" and "kanin" are the two intrinsically related objects of the verb. That's the reason why I even enclosed in parentheses the "kanin/tinapay" phrases because even without them, the meanings of the sentences would still be understood. The other examples may be restated in the same way.