If you’ve ever been corrected for saying ‘Shrimp Scampi’ or ‘Chai Tea,’ you’ve likely been told that using these redundant food names is as bad as saying ‘ATM machine.’ It’s a favorite argument for food purists and internet personalities alike. It’s an interesting question! Is Chai Tea repetitive? Well, as someone who has spent years studying linguistics and ancient history, I can tell you that the ‘it means tea-tea’ argument actually misses the point of how language works. In reality, these supposedly repetitive terms are not only technically correct in English, but they also reveal a fascinating pattern of how we borrow words from other cultures.
A Discussion of Redundant Food Names: The Repetitive Nature of Chai Tea and Naan Bread
A YouTube posting by the host of InternetShaquille got me thinking about these fascinating food-linguistics questions. Namely, the question of redundant food names. It’s true, certain food terms seem quite repetitive at first glance.
Shaquille mentioned the frequently referenced Shrimp Scampi and Chai Tea. He also discussed Naan bread and Paella pan. Why are these food terms repetitive or redundant? And even more, does it matter? In this article, I will explain why these terms are not repetitive in English, why we use them, and why these types of arguments present a central misunderstanding of the way food words are borrowed into English.
Redundant Food Names At a Glance
| Term | Literal Translation | Linguistic Reality |
| Chai Tea | “Tea Tea” | Refers to a specific spiced preparation. |
| Naan Bread | “Bread Bread” | Refers to a specific leavened flatbread. |
| Shrimp Scampi | “Shrimp Langoustine” | Refers to a garlic-butter sauce style. |
| Paella Pan | “Pan Pan” | Clarifies the vessel vs. the rice dish. |
| Term | Literal Translation | Linguistic Reality |
| Chai Tea | “Tea Tea” | Refers to a specific spiced preparation. |
| Naan Bread | “Bread Bread” | Refers to a specific leavened flatbread. |
| Shrimp Scampi | “Shrimp Langoustine” | Refers to a garlic-butter sauce style. |
| Paella Pan | “Pan Pan” | Clarifies the vessel vs. the rice dish. |
The video I discussed argues that these culinary terms are even more redundant than saying ATM machine or PIN number. While that’s a helpful starting point for the conversation, it actually highlights the central misunderstanding at play: there is a fundamental difference between repeating a word within a technical acronym and the way language naturally evolves when borrowing food words from other cultures. I like to think of it as the difference between a technical mistake and a cultural adaptation
Linguist’s Note: What is RAS Syndrome?
Coined in 2001, RAS Syndrome (Repetitive Acronym Syndrome syndrome) describes the common habit of repeating a word that is already part of an acronym, like “PDF format” or “LCD display”. While common in technology, applying this same logic to food terms—as I’ll explain—is actually a technical misunderstanding of how language evolves.
Tautology or Neoplasm: Repetition With Acronyms
In case it’s not clear, the acronym ATM means “automatic teller machine,” and the acronym PIN means “personal identification number.” Therfore, saying ATM machine or “automatic teller machine machine” is repetitive. Saying PIN number or “personal identification number number” is also repetitive. Technically, ATM is not an acronym, but an initialism, but let’s not be pedantic! If I wanted to go that route, I could have brought up the word “repetitive” itself.
There are many other examples of repetition with acronyms, such as PDF format, LCD display, UPC code, etc. This type of repetition, where we repeat a term that is already part of an acronym, is so common that a fellow named Stanley Newman coined a humorous name for it in a 2001 article in New Scientist. He called it RAS syndrome, where RAS stands for “Repetitive Acronym Syndrome syndrome.”
👨⚖️ Use Correct Latin! The Plural of Asparagus is “Asparagi!” Think again, scholar. The plural of asparagus is another interesting food language story.
Read the Full Story of the Plural of Asparagus
Why We Create Repetition with Acronyms
Why do we do this? Well, many times it’s because we never learned what these acronyms or initialisms stood for. When they entered the common language, people knew what the labels referred to, but not what they stood for. I could argue that this is as much a fault of the originators of the technology being eager to coin short and easy-to-use acronyms. I’m old enough to remember when ATMs were introduced, and the initialism was heavily used by the banks adopting the devices.
At other times, we use this repetition to be clear. Simply using the word PIN, at least early in the history of the term, could have caused confusion with other common words like pen. Once this type of repetition became common, it was not likely to go away.
But these food terms brought up in the video as being repetitive are not redundant for the same reasons that repetition happens in acronyms or initialisms. Let’s go over the words mentioned in the video and decide whether we are using them incorrectly.
🥫Sunday Gravy instead of Sauce? Nothing wrong linguistically with calling your big Sunday tomato sauce “gravy.” Historically, though? Is gravy an Italian word?
Read the Full Story of Italian American Gravy
Why We Say “Shrimp Scampi” (And Why It’s Not “Shrimp Shrimp”)
A surprising twist: Despite what you may have read, shrimp scampi is not a redundant food name. In Italian, “scampi” is the plural form of scampo. Scampo refers to a shellfish that is similar to a small lobster or large shrimp, also called langoustine, Norway lobster, Dublin Bay prawn, and other names.
As the term entered English, it could sometimes refer to langoustine, but the term scampi also entered the language as a way to refer to the typical Italian preparations made with langoustine. Since langoustine wasn’t widely available in the U.S., shrimp was substituted, leading to dishes made in this manner using shrimp to be called “Shrimp Scampi.”
Why Shrimp Scampi is Not a Redundant Food Name
Shrimp scampi is often called a redundant food name based on a technical misunderstanding. The typical argument is that, since in Italian, scampi refers to a crustacean very similar to shrimp, the name basically means “Shrimp Shrimp.”
This argument is curious since it seeks to correct English speakers by citing incorrect facts. Langoustine are not shrimp, therefore shrimp scampi does not mean “shrimp shrimp.” Instead, by this logic, it means “Shrimp Langoustine.”
While a term can and does enter English in different ways independently, in the case of the dish we call scampi, it entered the language as a way of referring to a preparation primarily instead of a type of shellfish. This borrowed term, then, scampi, refers to a dish in English. Therefore, shrimp scampi is not repetitive, especially since the word scampo never referred to a shrimp but a completely different shellfish species. Although they are quite similar from a culinary standpoint, langoustines are part of the Lobster family and are not related to shrimp.
🍎 Apple of My Eye! Who or what is it? Your son or daughter? Your precious cat? You brand new smartphone? Are apples that precious? Why not “diamond of my eye?” It all comes down to ancient notions about human anatomy, particularly the anatomy of the eye. Read the story of Apple of My Eye.
Langoustine vs. Prawns
While they are also called Dublin Bay Prawns, langoustine or scampi are also not prawns, which are part of the shrimp family. For most of us, the names shrimp and prawn are interchangeable, although many use the word prawn to refer to larger shrimp.
While it would be incorrect to use the word scampi as the full name of a dish in Italian, it is not incorrect to use the English word scampi in the way it has long been used. In Italy, dishes made with scampi have such names as Risotto di Scampi (Rissoto with Scampi), Scampi in Umudi (stewed scampi), Scampi alla Busara (scampi with tomato, garlic, white wine), etc.
🧺The Evil Picnic? No other food language story is as wrought as the story people tell about the word picnic. Learn how this innocent pastime became a hot-button topic.
The “Tea-Tea” Myth: Why English Speakers Say “Chai Tea”
While purists love to point out that ‘Chai’ literally translates to ‘Tea’ in many languages, this ‘tea-tea’ redundancy isn’t just a failure of translation. It’s a classic example of how borrowed terms often take on a more specific meaning in a new language. In English, ‘Chai’ isn’t just tea—it refers to a specific, spiced Indian preparation that ‘Tea’ alone doesn’t adequately describe.
Today in America, the term chai is used almost exclusively to refer to Indian spiced tea. While the Hindi word for tea is indeed chai, in India, tea is enjoyed sweet, milky, and heavily spiced, i.e. “Masala chai.”
Why Redundant Food Names Persist in the Tea Industry
So, yes, the term “chai tea” is entirely repetitive, but we developed this habit when Chai tea mixes entered the American market and used the term Chai Tea on the package labels. Otherwise, the word “chai” was never widely used to mean tea. Although the word “cha” had earlier entered the language from Chinese, it is not clear that the term “chai” was ever known as anything else but a word for spiced tea.
Either way, I could argue that the result is “spiced spiced tea” since black tea is served spiced by default in India. So, while many people are learning otherwise, most of us acquired the term as it was introduced. Chai tea became the default way to refer to Indian spiced tea because we simply didn’t know any better.
Do Indian People Find it Annoying When We Say Chai Tea?
Frankly, I don’t think many Indian folks would be upset if you used the term Chai tea. They would probably be amused, instead. The word chai used alone is now becoming more common and has begun to replace Chai tea on labels. However, this is again the case of a term entering English in a specific way, this time as introduced by the tea market in America. Marketers were attempting to educate us that the word chai meant tea. Instead, they created a repetitive term.
In this case, I agree with the video that Chai is a technically repetitive term but I do not agree that it matters. If the term had not been replaced so soon (this is relatively soon, historically speaking), then the term “chai tea” would have eventually cemented itself as a standard borrowed English term.
However, to argue that the term is repetitive and therefore incorrect begs the question. Could you order “tea tea” from a restaurant and make sense? In other words, language conventions depend on being understood. Chai tea, though redundant, is understood. Therefore, it does not truly mean “tea tea.” It means spiced tea. What a term translates to and what it means are not always the same.
If it sounds like I’m saying, “So what if it’s repetitive,” I am. Either way, chai tea or chai, it’s still tasty. Today, you will likely be understood no matter which term you use.
Is “Naan Bread” Repetitive?
I highly suspect that Naan bread is the most often questioned redundant food name. While it’s true that naan translates to ‘bread’ in Hindi and Persian, calling the term ‘naan bread’ a mistake overlooks how we categorize food in English. In its home culture, naan is a specific category of leavened flatbread—not just a generic word for any loaf. By adding ‘bread’ to the name, English speakers aren’t just repeating themselves; they are correctly identifying the food’s broader category while preserving its unique identity as a specific Indian specialty.
The most common word for bread in Hindi is actually roti. There are several others. On Indian restaurant menus, you’ll find breads like naan, roti, paratha, puri, kulcha, bhakri, and more. These all refer to different types of bread. Hindi speakers will think of them as different types or categories of bread.
The most basic unleavened flatbread is roti. It is what is typically served as an accompaniment to mop up sauces. Naan is a leavened flatbread and, ironically, while it seems synonymous with Indian food in America, it is not an everyday bread but something you’d most often find in restaurants or made for special occasions.
Why Naan Bread is a Necessary Redundant Food Name: Naan ≠ Bread
So, to pretend that naan simply means ‘bread’ is incorrect. It is a very special kind of bread. If you were in India and asked for bread (yes, they use the word bread), you would probably not get naan!
And where did we get the repetitive-seeming term “naan bread?” From Indian restaurant menus! Again, the restaurants were differentiating this type of “bread” from other breads on the menu and attempting to educate us. This kind of confusion happens when other languages have many words for foods that we try to translate literally. Naan does not truly translate to “bread.” It refers to a specific bread. So, to borrow the term for a specific bread into English and call it Naan bread makes perfect sense.
I doubt Indian people would be upset by the term ‘naan bread.’ When I asked a longtime Indian friend about it, he said that it was “cute and funny,” exactly what I expected he would say.
As we learn more about these Indian food terms, we may all begin to imagine a certain bread when we say “naan” and have no need to use the word bread. But when Indian restaurants started appearing in America, they had to inform us that these different types of bread were bread.
If someone were to translate “whole wheat bread” from English to another language and render it simply “bread,” this translation would not be correct, even though it is indeed bread. This argument can be “summed up” by asking, “Is naan bread?”
- If “naan = bread” then “bread = naan.”
- Bread ≠ naan
- Therefore, naan ≠ bread
Same verdict: It’s an interesting discussion, but it is not incorrect. Naan bread is a type of Indian flatbread that is leavened and eaten on special occasions. Naan is not a generic word for bread. Our use of the term “naan bread” makes perfect sense. If we stop using it and start to say naan, that will only be when this also makes perfect sense.
Is Pealla Pan Repetitive?
Paella is one of the best-known Spanish dishes in America. It is a dish of rice, chicken, seafood, saffron, and vegetables. You may have eaten Paella or even made it for yourself. But do you own a paella pan? If you wanted to make paella, would you purchase a paella pan? I’m going to assume that, for most of you, the answer is no.
According to the video from InternetShaquille, paella means a pan used for cooking paella and the word for the dish itself. While the word is used differently by Valencian speakers, let’s talk about how it’s used in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries, since we are concerned with the Spanish paella rice dish. The term paella is used for both the pan used to make it and for the dish itself in some parts of Spain. In other parts, the term paellera is used for the pan and paella only for the dish.
In English, while we can certainly purchase pans called Paella pans, the word Paella used alone is reserved only for the dish. Again, this word was borrowed into English to refer to this specific dish. When we use it in English, we are generally not referring to a pan. This reference would be so uncommon that we would probably use the term “paella pan” just as most marketers of such pans do.
The Needless Difficulty of Calling Pealla Pan a Redundant Food Name
Pretend you are searching for a Paella pan to buy, but just Google “paella. “You’ll quickly see my point. Why argue about a term being repetitive when it introduces needless difficulties? If you Google Paella, you’ll get Paella recipes. If you want a pan, you have to Google “paella pan.”
Redundant Food Names And “Ought to Be” Arguments
I’ll never understand why people get upset over the way terms are used versus how they think they “ought to be” used. In all these cases, arguments can be made as to why we use these terms and why they are not entirely redundant from an English standpoint. Other food terms are argued to be repetitive, where the same arguments can be applied.
For example: Rice Pilaf. Pilaf means “balls of rice” so rice pilaf means “rice balls of rice.” In English, rice pilaf does not refer to a ball of rice, it refers to a cooked rice mixture not served as a ball. Pilaf is another example of a borrowed word that does not mean the same in English as its literal translation. Therefore, it is another example of an English word that is mistakenly called a redundant food name based on a misunderstanding of how language evolves and how words are borrowed into the language.
Another example is “Ahi Tuna.” Since “ahi” means Tuna in Hawaii, “ahi tuna” means “tuna tuna.” Ahi tuna does not refer to all tuna in English. It refers to one specific type of tuna. Not repetitive. Or rather, not repetitious. There I go getting pedantic.
The Verdict: Why Being Understood Trumps Being Literal
Ultimately, the debate over ‘Chai Tea’ or ‘Naan Bread’ is just one chapter in a much larger story of how language and culture intersect. We often think of language as a rigid set of rules, but in reality, it is a living, breathing tool for communication that prioritizes being understood above all else.
When we borrow words from other cultures, we aren’t just translating; we are adapting. We see this in everything from the way we categorize Shepherd’s Pie and Cottage Pie to the surprising, earthy roots of the word Pumpernickel. Whether it’s the shift from stewardess to flight attendant or the mystery of why some call sauce ‘Gravy,’ these terms serve as signposts for our cultural history.
So, the next time someone points out a ‘redundancy’ in your dinner order, you can tell them it isn’t a mistake; it’s a fascinating example of how we bridge the gap between two worlds, one delicious word at a time.