I have no idea what I’m doing. Catch as catch can. “Saute” seems correct to me, but I was clobbered by someone who insisted I was “just ignorant”. (I won’t argue that.)
I assume purists will insist the accent pretty much always be used for foreign loan words. But... I’m writing in English. It just seems like it should be okay to incorporate “saute”, and the other words, as native English words pretty much as soon as you start using them and people know what you’re talking about. This seems to me less of an offense than, say, willfully “misspelling” tire vs. tyre.
I prefer Strunk’s application of the serial comma for logical reasons, yet this goes against common accepted practice. So I don’t see all such things as black and white. I’m just curious if a case can be made for saute? [And I can stuff this thread up my friend’s rather beautiful upturned snoot!]
Sure, at first glance it’s just “ignorant” (we are so petrified of that), but on the far side is it not better to accept simplicity if still clearly understood?
I guess I will qualify this as an American usage question – specifically about the word saute. (I’d like to thank and excuse all jurors originating from the British Isles and France.)
What does the Chicago Manual of Style say? What do you say?