wrote in message

A chowda is, by definition, a hearty, chunky concoction. Replacing the
clams with some other ingredient would still leave you with a chowda.
:-)

Could be, John.

I've always related "chowdah" with clam or any of many seafood or fish
based soups.

So I was thinking of a substitute for the clams/fish to make something
more for my palate.....

So without the seafood[s] would it still be "chowdah?"

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said you weren't much
for chowder, and wanted to replace the clams, and I said well, without the
clams it could still be a chowder.

Of course you can replace the clams with lobster, other fish pieces, or
non-seafood if that is your preference. Chowder is a style of soup if you
will, regardless of the main ingredient, comprising a soup like liquid and
hearty chunks of vegetables and main ingredient, usually seafood of some
sort.

Of particular import to New Englanders is the fact that the nature and
character of New England Fish Chowder have been enshrined in law. Reference
is made to Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room, a 1964 decision of the Mass SJC.

http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts/webster.shtml

The decision, written by a Justice Reardon, is considered a classic piece of
prose, wherein he delves into the history and nature of what constitutes a
true "chowder". The following article is interesting:

http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/...greatness.html

It quotes parts of Judge Reardon's decision, which reads, in part:
"No chef is forced to reduce pieces of fish in chowder to miniscule size in
an effort to ascertain if they contain any pieces of bone, and a fish bone
lurking in fish chowder, about the ingredients of which there is no other
complaint, does not constitute a breach of implied warranty under the
Uniform Commercial Code."

[I can still remember my Dad talking about this case in 1964. Reardon's
turn of phrase was marvelous throughout his decision - "...a fish bone
lurking in fish chowder, about the ingredients of which there is no other
complaint..." - and even as I type this, I can still hear my father saying
it!]

After noting the defendant's exhortation that "this court knows well that we
are not talking of some insipid broth as is customarily served to
convalescents" and quoting Daniel Webster's recipe for fish chowder in a
footnote, the Court observed:

"It is not too much to say that a person sitting down in New England to
consume a good New England fish chowder embarks upon a gustatory adventure
which may entail the removal of some fish bones from his bowl as he
proceeds."