Varietal

I couldn't understand how a Realtor could sell me a "home" -- I thought we needed a "house" and it was up to Janet and me to create the "home." / Unfortunately for that rather romantic notion, the OED indicated that for over a thousand years English has used "home" to mean "house"...

Peter, the OED suggests the word now has both meanings ... "[Home] In N. America and Australasia (and increasingly elsewhere), freq. used to designate a private house or residence merely as a building."

As a fan of word trivia (anyone for Trivial Pursuits? For money, of course. ) I enjoy those dictionary excursions for their cultural value. The only issue I see with them here is their relevance to what they answered in the thread: "home" as commercial euphemism. Why, by whom, with what connotations. As Oliver and I raised. OED (like most dictionaries) says what the words denote, not what they connote. So why mention it, unless to make conversation?

Much as speculations on potato-cooking prehistory (salt-potatoes thread in kitchen forum) engage in their own right, but cloud the subject of a suggestive, fairly recent food-culture connection with unique circumstantial evidence. Why not try to see* what connection may exist there, rather than try not to?

Cheers -- Max
*(Both senses of "see")

Don't really disagree, Max, with the curious exception of your phrase "OED (like most dictionaries) says what the words denote, not what they connote."

I have wiled away many an hour in my collegiate youth lolling on the carpeted aisles of the university library randomly working my way through the OED. And it most definitely does include connotations within its pages. It is as much a history tract as anything; it merely uses words as its tracking points. Many's the word I've tracked through the ages and the changes, with OED describing in great detail the connotative meanings of the word through those ages. All words are freighted, loaded with meaning; and hearkening back to your excellent earlier post, it's that sedimentary stratification of meanings that accrete through the changes that make language so fascinating.

You are, as I, old enough to perhaps recall a superb column by the poet and translator John Ciardi in the Saturday Review wherein he convinced (quite convincingly) an aspiring poet not to give up his day job. And he did so by explaining that a poet, first, should be in love with words, and revel in their multiple meanings, and understand that in using a given word he was exploring multifaceted worlds and ideas all at the same time. And that, to me, is what the OED does so well.

Those of you who confuse language with one or another forms of 'correct usage' are sounding strident and ridiculous.

"Proper, traditional English usage" and "wine industry ghetto-speak malapropism" and other such phrases get to the heart of the matter here (Hi, Paul; and thanks for making this easier for me ).

Those of you who want only to perpetuate the accepted "correct" form of usage you learned in grade school, wanting to fix that eternally as the RIGHT way, the ONLY way, are alike that sad king commanding the waves: language is a living thing, a reflection of society and life, and it will and does change.

I never said it didn't change. As you say, language is in a constant state of flux.

But the purpose of language is communication. And until the process of flux is far enough along, the new use of the word is MISuse, and it can and does result in miscommunication. Consider the American inner city use of the word "bad" to mean "good". Nowadays it's in common enough use that it's unlikely to be misinterpreted, but that wasn't true 20 years ago. This is especially important in written communication, where there are fewer contextual clues as to the writer's intent than is the case with spoken language.

And, just as society has formal and informal settings for such things as attire, it also has formal and informal settings for language. Just as you'd look ignorant and shabby if you showed up in jeans and T-shirt at a black-tie affair, you look ignorant and shabby if you say "varietal" when you meant "variety" in a formally published wine journal. Maybe that won't be the case in a few more years, but IMO it's still true now.

-Paul W.

Don't really disagree, Max, with the curious exception of your phrase "OED (like most dictionaries) says what the words denote, not what they connote.".

Comment was in context of (and precisely fit) Bob Ross's examples, Hoke, but in my haste maybe I used the wrong word . Those examples said nothing about the word's baggage -- the sole reason the word surfaced here. Sorry if I did OED injustice in trying to bring this out and thanks for your eloquent follow-up. Poetry is surely the form most concerned with word nuance.

I too have spent time with dictionaries but if anyone's seen a lot of them and also other books about words, you may also see my larger point. Dictionaries aren't fundamentally about current word baggage. The better ones describe shades of meaning. But as they get into the aspects I raised (why, by whom, with what connotations) -- realtors' use of "home" -- they become less like dictionaries, more like books on usage or writing. To the annoyance of the linguistic-minded pure-lexicography crowd that wants dictionaries to catalog observed usage without advising, or revealing words' social implications even if it's why they're used.

You are, as I, old enough to perhaps recall a superb column by the poet and translator John Ciardi in the Saturday Review wherein he convinced (quite convincingly) an aspiring poet not to give up his day job. And he did so by explaining that a poet, first, should be in love with words, and revel in their multiple meanings, and understand that in using a given word he was exploring multifaceted worlds and ideas all at the same time.

Triggered an association, very food related! The Hesses' Taste of America, one of the most important critiques of US food culture if not always the kindest, described an inquiry from someone newly appointed dining critic for his local paper, who knew little about food and appealed to the Hesses to brief him on some basics -- "Rack of lamb, and all that." They replied earnestly suggesting he consider other employment. Today, of course, he'd have happily used Google.

And, just as society has formal and informal settings for such things as attire, it also has formal and informal settings for language. Just as you'd look ignorant and shabby if you showed up in jeans and T-shirt at a black-tie affair, you look ignorant and shabby if you say "varietal" when you meant "variety" in a formally published wine journal. Maybe that won't be the case in a few more years, but IMO it's still true now.

-Paul W.

Yes.

Paul, I think we agree, with the primary difference being that I don't approach this as something to condemn and villify and condescend, but something to simply understand.

I'm fairly confident about my command of language, so when I see mis-use according to accepted form (which always means the past, not the present or changing situation) I don't get angry about it. I recognize, I register, I attempt to decipher the communication, possibly learn new developing usage, then I move on. I don't (necessarily) condemn the speaker as ignorant, or un-educated, or slovenly...though the often are, yes---and I certainly don't consider them lesser for it in any case.

For instance, I don't think foreign language speakers are unintelligent when they assay English imperfectly. Perhaps you could call them ignorant (although you should be careful of the denotation and connotation of that particular word), but it's certainly understandable, and beinf imperfect doesn't demean them in any way.

Anyone involved with communication in a professional sense has an obligation to understand the different common accepted usages...as well as the different dialects in play....as well as the contemporary changes that are just beginning to register at sufficient volume.

But what I don't do is equate intelligence and perception and ability with being able to learn rigid forms and defy change, and condemn other people for not operating that way.

On the other hand, it's well known I have extremely lax moral standards, so take that into account.

"wile"

What a modern dog you are, Hoke!

That "wile" for "while" is the acid test for modernity in my heavily structured world.

Regards, Bob

For instance, I don't think foreign language speakers are unintelligent when they assay English imperfectly. Perhaps you could call them ignorant (although you should be careful of the denotation and connotation of that particular word), but it's certainly understandable, and beinf imperfect doesn't demean them in any way.

I don't think anyone's unintelligent because of their use or misuse of language. Ignorance and lack of intelligence are two very different things.

Foreign speakers of English get nothing but admiration from me. I wish that I were halfway fluent in another tongue. That's a completely different situation from those who can't or don't bother to learn or practice proper use of their mother tongue.

-Paul W.

For instance, I don't think foreign language speakers are unintelligent when they assay English imperfectly. Perhaps you could call them ignorant (although you should be careful of the denotation and connotation of that particular word), but it's certainly understandable, and beinf imperfect doesn't demean them in any way.

I don't think anyone's unintelligent because of their use or misuse of language. Ignorance and lack of intelligence are two very different things.

Foreign speakers of English get nothing but admiration from me. I wish that I were halfway fluent in another tongue. That's a completely different situation from those who can't or don't bother to learn or practice proper use of their mother tongue.

-Paul W.

Ignorance simply means not knowing something. It has no other connotation in my mind, but that didn't stop my neighbor from throwing a hammer at me when I called him ignorant about a farming matter.

I guess I'll go "wile" away the hours in my kitchen now...

Paul, I think we agree, with the primary difference being that I don't approach this as something to condemn and villify and condescend, but something to simply understand.

I'm fairly confident about my command of language, so when I see mis-use according to accepted form (which always means the past, not the present or changing situation) I don't get angry about it. I recognize, I register, I attempt to decipher the communication, possibly learn new developing usage, then I move on. I don't (necessarily) condemn the speaker as ignorant, or un-educated, or slovenly...though the often are, yes---and I certainly don't consider them lesser for it in any case.

For instance, I don't think foreign language speakers are unintelligent when they assay English imperfectly. Perhaps you could call them ignorant (although you should be careful of the denotation and connotation of that particular word), but it's certainly understandable, and beinf imperfect doesn't demean them in any way.

Anyone involved with communication in a professional sense has an obligation to understand the different common accepted usages...as well as the different dialects in play....as well as the contemporary changes that are just beginning to register at sufficient volume.

But what I don't do is equate intelligence and perception and ability with being able to learn rigid forms and defy change, and condemn other people for not operating that way.

On the other hand, it's well known I have extremely lax moral standards, so take that into account.

Hoke, you've blown this "outta" proportion!

The original answer to Maria's question did not include condemnation, merely explanation of the proper uses of the two words in question--well, maybe a hint of condemnation, but you know Robin

That started the game of telephone we have going.

Well, Thomas, if it's blown out of proportion, I'm not the only one who has been puffing into the balloon. From my point of view I was merely reacting to some of the statements made by others---who I thought were blowing things out of proportion. See, it's all in the perspective.

I think you guys have blown this out of proportion. Understand, perceive, move on; no need to get all bent out of shape about something you can't control in others. Especially when it comes to language.

My company just informed me I am getting new software for Spell Checking/Grammar Checking. They tell me I can select any of the 'Standard English Variants', US, Canada, or UK. Could someone please tell me which of those would make me appear most ignorant or unintelligent? (I greatly fear it might be the US version.)

Bob: As to "while/wile", I have always greatly preferred the usage of "wile" as it has much more connotation---to me---on many more levels, than "while". Think about it. There's something deliciously wasteful and mischievous at the same time in the use of 'wile', which combines echoes of both 'while' (verb) and 'wily' (descriptor/modifier)

My company just informed me I am getting new software for Spell Checking/Grammar Checking. They tell me I can select any of the 'Standard English Variants', US, Canada, or UK. Could someone please tell me which of those would make me appear most ignorant or unintelligent? (I greatly fear it might be the US version.)

Pick Canada. It comes with extra ehs, but it also is much more polite than mere English.

"As to "while/wile", I have always greatly preferred the usage of "wile" as it has much more connotation---to me---on many more levels, than "while". Think about it. There's something deliciously wasteful and mischievous at the same time in the use of 'wile', which combines echoes of both 'while' (verb) and 'wily' (descriptor/modifier)"

Oh, I agree completely, Hoke. I just enjoyed pulling your chain a little, and especially in citing the OED to do so, recognizing the high opinion we both have for the work.

I also like the sense that while I'm wiling away time, my brain has tricked me into doing something enjoyable, rather than what I'm supposed to be doing.

My company just informed me I am getting new software for Spell Checking/Grammar Checking. They tell me I can select any of the 'Standard English Variants', US, Canada, or UK. Could someone please tell me which of those would make me appear most ignorant or unintelligent? (I greatly fear it might be the US version.)

Pick Canada. It comes with extra ehs, but it also is much more polite than mere English.

I've always thought it interesting that New Yorkese and Canadian dialects are so similar, Thomas: they both make significant use of "ehs", dont they?

As in

Canadian: "Excuse me. You're on my car there, eh?"

New Yorkese: "EH! Yer on my car, m____f_____.!!!)

I've always thought it interesting that New Yorkese and Canadian dialects are so similar, Thomas: they both make significant use of "ehs", dont they?

As in

Canadian: "Excuse me. You're on my car there, eh?"

New Yorkese: "EH! Yer on my car, m____f_____.!!!)

You have my dialect down pat.

"Much as speculations on potato-cooking prehistory (salt-potatoes thread in kitchen forum) engage in their own right, but cloud the subject of a suggestive, fairly recent food-culture connection with unique circumstantial evidence. Why not try to see* what connection may exist there, rather than try not to?"

I'm totally lost, Max. I thought my thought journey did just that. After a bit of speculation, I have been checking some of my assumptions: did potatoes start out in Peru, how about Chile, any truth to the theory that the Spaniards brought the potato to Europe, were potatoes an important crop in the Syracuse NY area, what were the demographics of immigration to the Syracuse area, why are the so-called "Syracuse Salt Potatoes" so local ...

I am just catching up on this forum. I apologize if I mis-read any of your postings on "salt potatoes," Bob -- I've just responded in the Kitchen forum. But even apart from their genesis, a piece of context is glaringly missing from the quoted Syracuse writings. It's that deficit that I'm trying to illuminate and address. Ancient potato history speaks to different topics.

Max, I had deleted that post, thinking it too defensive and really off the point. It appears the dish could have come into the Syracuse area with the wave of German immigrants during the 1840s.

On the other hand, Irish immigrants came in the 1820s and dominated the salt industry until the salt pans were retired in the 1860s.

I've been able to dig up some other leads; it's always fun to trace how much of our American culture comes from elsewhere. One speculation I've found: Native Americans made salt from the springs, and were farmers -- one fellow suggests that they came up with the dish.

Proving that seems unlikely at this remove, but it's more likely that the dish was brought to the area by the Irish, German or Dutch immigrants.

More anon. Regards, Bob

OK...just to throw more fuel on the fire...

I was watching "In Wine Country" again, and they used the word "Varietals" again...the quote "we harvested the last of the Italian varietals". The shocking part...they weren't talking about wine or even grapes...they were talking about OLIVES .

OK...just to throw more fuel on the fire...

I was watching "In Wine Country" again, and they used the word "Varietals" again...the quote "we harvested the last of the Italian varietals". The shocking part...they weren't talking about wine or even grapes...they were talking about OLIVES .

Yes, and they were changing the language as you watched...

Maria,
Just think of variety as a subdivision of a species; and a varietal as something pertaining to the nature or characteristic of a variety. (It doesn’t matter what type or kind of living thing it is).

Salute

When I was a younger man, I remember variety stores, not varietal stores.

And I also recall variety shows. As a matter of fact, there was a variety of variety shows on the air back then. Variety shows were, like, a variety all to themselves. And if you made it big in showbiz, you could then get featured in Variety.

But then, I dimly recall being assured that variety was spice (at least where life was concerned, with "life" actually meaning sexual congress with women). My wife later assured me it was not so, however, so at least I'm straightened out on that one. One could still assume that the operating principle of variety shows was that variety was spice, though. Maybe that's what Emeril means when he goes around saying "Bam!"; maybe he's just trying to add spice. Or variety.

While I'm meandering, did anyone previously mention the occasion of the "unspoken or implied subject"? As in, where one might say "varietal" when the unspoken subject would be "varietal (wine)"?

Maria,
Just think of variety as a subdivision of a species; and a varietal as something pertaining to the nature or characteristic of a variety. (It doesn’t matter what type or kind of living thing it is).

Salute

Yeah, Victor, sure thing. That's what I'll do every time I think of variety and varietal from now on. Subdivision of a species---got it. Pertaining to the nature or characteristic of a variety----right! It seems so....I dunno...natural and comfortable to think of it that way.

Maybe that's what Emeril means when he goes around saying "Bam!"; maybe he's just trying to add spice.

Speaking as someone who also cooks, though nowhere near as well or as publicly as Mr. Lagasse, I always have found that going to the spice rack and adding measured quantities was the best way to add spice to cooking. That probably just shows my unsuitability as a Celibate Chef candidate. As to his use of "Bam!," I've just assumed that he was a borderline Tourette's victim and I find it unseemly to make fun of the afflicted.

Mark Lipton

Maybe that's what Emeril means when he goes around saying "Bam!"; maybe he's just trying to add spice.

Speaking as someone who also cooks, though nowhere near as well or as publicly as Mr. Lagasse, I always have found that going to the spice rack and adding measured quantities was the best way to add spice to cooking. That probably just shows my unsuitability as a Celibate Chef candidate. As to his use of "Bam!," I've just assumed that he was a borderline Tourette's victim and I find it unseemly to make fun of the afflicted.

Mark Lipton

Is there something in your cooking philosophy that requires you to avoid your wife, Mark? Are you, like, on a vision quest or doing a Sun dance (as opposed to doing a Sundance) or something?

You Midwesterners are so quaint.

I don’t know Hoke if you’re dealing with a living thing it seems to me to be a reasonable way at looking at it.

Salute