Varietal

[Jenise]

Max, the problem, for me anyway, is that I heard it used and used it myself the wrong way for so long that the wrong way sounds too comfortable to my ear. Only the discipline of allowing myself one adjectival use of 'varietal' keeps me from sounding like an idiot.

just as the use of "media" as a singular noun is now being accepted by some dictionaries as an alternate usage.

-Paul W.

I had not noticed that, he posts saddened by the news...

Speaking of which, at the old NY Herald Tribune there was an editor who adamantly claimed that the word news is plural. The story goes that one day he stormed into a quiet press room and shouted, "aren't there any news today?"

To which my father-in-law, one of the reporters, shouted back, "not a new."

"Varietal" is the adjective form of "variety". To use dictionary-speak, it means "of or pertaining to a variety"

Good point, though (as implicit later in the posting) "varietal" carries non-dictionary baggage as a specialized term of art.

... Robert Parker makes this error a lot in his reviews. It drives me nuts when I see it. / In all likelihood, though, the malapropism of "varietal" for "variety" will eventually come to be accepted, just as the use of "media" as a singular noun is now being accepted by some dictionaries ...

Another good point, but it hints at a famous misconception. Dictionaries are catalogs of observed practice, not usage guides. Linguistics vs. craft. Professional writers refer to other books for usage information, connotations, etc. (Pointing to dictionaries to vindicate a favorite weirdism is the beloved gambit of the armchair-literate.) "Acceptance" by a dictionary is irrelevant to the writer alert to the connotations, the nuances, that usage choices transmit.

Many dictionaries give only gross usage information, never explaining, for instance, why you don't see, in the Wall Street Journal or other professionally-edited publications, phrases like "the above sentence shows ..." or "wine Web sites which distract us ..."

Another good point, but it hints at a famous misconception. Dictionaries are catalogs of observed practice, not usage guides.

Surely not; there are two kinds of dictionaries, descriptive and prescriptive. Where is the misconception?

there are two kinds of dictionaries, descriptive and prescriptive. Where is the misconception?

In the situations I mentioned: People pointing to inclusion in a dictionary in support of some pet usage or stubborn notion.

I'd bet you I have more dictionaries than most people reading this (just counting the ones on English). None -- even the beloved fullsize AHD with its celebrated celebrity Usage Panel (and its brilliant random word-story articles,* many now removed in the 4th Ed.) gives anything like the usage nuance in, for example, the Fowlers' books, Follett, Partridge, Nurnberg, van Leunen, Borass, Bernstein, or even Strunk and White's thin book that so many people mention but seemingly don't read. The AHD will tell you half its panel voted some usage "acceptable" but won't tell you why. Yet some lexicographers and language scholars deprecate it as "prescriptive."

* Get a fullsize American Heritage Dictionary, third edition (1992), and look up the little background articles at words like aggravate, Comstockery, dinner, Frankenstein, kludge ("not `etymologist-friendly' " -- AHD), and Melba toast.

Max, Thomas, with respect. Using "varietal" as a noun and as an adjective has a long history in this country. The OED describes the history well:

2. Of wine: made predominantly from a single variety of grape; also, of or pertaining to the vine or grape of a particular variety. orig. U.S.
1941 SCHOONMAKER & MARVEL Amer. Wines xi. 260 The expense of..certification could be borne by a small per-gallon tax levied upon varietal wine. Ibid., Until it [sc. identification of the grape varieties grown in America] has been accomplished, a system of honest varietal labeling is virtually unattainable. 1955 J. STORM Invitation to Wines 72 The success of varietal wines in California has influenced some Eastern vintners. 1968 Amer. Speech 1967 XLII. 80 Varietal types of wines. 1973 Bulletin (Sydney) 25 Aug. 7/2 (Advt.), An aromatic wine..with varietal flavour. 1979 A. HAILEY Overload III. v. 214 Among other things, Nim Goldman was a wine buff. He had a keen nose and palate and especially liked varietal wines from the Napa Valley. 1981 Times 2 Mar. 12/6 Limousin oak casks..contributed another complex dimension to its distinct varietal personality.

B. as n. A wine made from a single variety of grape. orig. U.S.
1955 J. STORM Invitation to Wines 72 The wines labeled according to the name of the chief informing grape are called varietals. 1977 H. FAST Immigrants IV. 254 There is no need for you to try to produce a varietal, which simply means a wine produced out of a single variety of grape. 1977 Times 15 Nov. (Italian Wine Suppl.) p. iii/3 Lambrusco, the famous wine of Modena..is a varietal, the Lambrusco being the grape from which it is vinified. 1979 Tucson (Arizona) Citizen 28 Apr. (Weekender Mag.) 7/2 A 1977 Emerald Riesling..displayed a high acidity that may be typical of the varietal.

Hence va{sm}rietally adv., in respect of varietal qualities; as a distinct variety.
1873 DAWSON Earth & Man xii. 290 Not only did man exist at this time, but man not even varietally distinct from modern European races. 1879 Encycl. Brit. IX. 386/2 Foraminifera..which can be identified{em}not only generically and specifically, but even varietally. 1942 M. F. MABON ABC of America's Wines ii. 13 The majority of varietally named wines happen to be blends.

The result is that every time I see the word "varietal" I wonder if it's being used correctly and if the author knows what's "proper" or not. That's distracting.

It very easy to avoid using either word -- I've found that different nouns and different adjectives are almost always clearer and create a more active "voice. Thus, it's easier for me as the writer, and less distracting for readers who read wine literature.

No reason to give folks one extra reason for avoiding my stuff.

Regards, Bob

Max, Thomas, with respect. Using "varietal" as a noun and as an adjective has a long history in this country. The OED describes the history well ...

Again the dictionaries!

Compare Jancis Robinson's (shorter) article, cited above, which lays out the story, from a wine-expert's (not a lexicographer's) perspective, and counsels simple use.

And how many general reasons consult Robinson, Max? I remember reading Gerald Asher and the Fireside long before I got interested in wine. I'm sure I would have looked at one of those dictionaries you mention, or perhaps an encyclopedia, to learn the meaning and usage of an unfamiliar word.

The value of the OED is that it shows how people actually use words.

These debates are great fun -- have you ever joined in one of the erudite and heated discussions on the NYTimes crossword site? Robin alludes to one of the human issues here -- "ncorrect" usage is sometimes taken as a reflection on the writer's character. That show clearly in some of the debates over words on the Times site.

And how many general reasons consult Robinson, Max? I remember reading Gerald Asher and the Fireside long before I got interested in wine. I'm sure I would have looked at one of those dictionaries you mention, or perhaps an encyclopedia, to learn the meaning and usage of an unfamiliar word.

The value of the OED is that it shows how people actually use words.

These debates are great fun -- have you ever joined in one of the erudite and heated discussions on the NYTimes crossword site? Robin alludes to one of the human issues here -- "ncorrect" usage is sometimes taken as a reflection on the writer's character. That show clearly in some of the debates over words on the Times site.

I suppose writers--good ones, anyway--are the defenders of the language in which they write. They should always strive to get it right and at the least they should try not to make it up as they go along or, even worse, they should avoid following the unwashed crowd.

As for dictionaries, I am almost daily disappointed by them; they often make me feel out of touch...

Split infinitive? That battle's pretty much lost, isn't it?

The proscription against the split infinitive was misguided from the start, since it arose from a desire to mimic Latin, where a split infinitive is impossible. Likewise, one must question why the rule arose to avoid prepositions at the end of clauses, a rule which Mr. Churchill "could not up with which put." In my own little corner, the long-standing rule to avoid the passive voice in scientific writing, which contributes to much of the stultifyingly dull writing that passes for technical prose, arose out of a desire to mimic the German tradition of using the passive voice. As Conan Doyle noted, only a German can be so inconsiderate to his verb.

Mark Lipton

In all likelihood, though, the malapropism of "varietal" for "variety" will eventually come to be accepted, just as the use of "media" as a singular noun is now being accepted by some dictionaries as an alternate usage.

Hey, don't forget "criteria" and "data!!"

And bacteria. However, it has been argued that forcing speakers of the English language to adhere to the rules for Latin plurals is a relic of a bygone era when at least a passing knowledge of Latin grammar was expected of every scholar. In these benighted days, it leads to such nonsense as "virii" being used by pseudo-intellectuals.

Correct. We, as a group, can choose any standard we wish, be it Jancis Robinson, Smokie Robinson, Andrea Immer Robinson, or Jackie Robinson.

Hey, doesn't Anne Bancroft get a say, too?

Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson,
Mark Lipton

Hi Maria,

I don’t care about varietals, because I don’t drink them; but I enjoy kibitzing with you and just noticed that you hail from Morristown! Don’t know why I didn’t notice before.

I am there a lot visiting one of my biggest clients. Have you dined at Tim Schafer’s? A colleague and I took our client there recently, thinking it would offer hearty food for the strapping guy; but learned he is basically a vegetarian. The restaurant serves a bunch of interesting meats, such as venison, bison, ostrich, rattle snake and such – they need to get in Alligator. We sat in the little front alcove overlooking the sidewalk on the right side looking in, which is a very cozy spot.

I’m sure you frequent Gary’s Wine and Spirits in Madison. Since Tim S. is a BYO joint, I took advantage of the opportunity to buy and bring in some lovely aged Bordeaux at a fraction of what it would have cost in a restaurant.

If you had a vegetarian client, where in Morristown would you take him? I have another visit planned. Thanks!

Covert

The value of the OED is that it shows how people actually use words.

Which is of course very useful in such a discussion. Thanks for taking the time to include it.

Personally I have no complaint with 'varietal' as a shortened form of 'varietal wine,' just with its use instead of 'variety.' And to be fair, that is doubtless how this got started.

Max and Thomas, I wonder what you make popularity of a particular word.

At the moment, there are 1,040,000 Google hits for "varietals" AND wine, almost certainly all uses of "varietals" as a noun and not an adjective. This seems to be quite a useful word for folks who write about wine, as it has apparently been for over 50 years.

Take a look at one of the first hits for "varietal" AND "wine":

http://www.winecountrygetaways.com/varietals.html

Their definition: "The term wine varietal refers to the grape from which the wine is made." Clearly a noun.

Could the author of this site simply do a global search and change of "Varietal" to "Variety".

Frankly, reading the text so revised makes perfect sense in almost every case. But for some reason, the author preferred to use "Varietal". I wonder why.

Looking through the Google hits for "varietal", I'm impressed by the high quality of many of the writers who use the noun form of the word. Similarly in my wine diary, where there were 136 hits, all from quoted sources, about half nouns, half adjectives. Some pretty savvy folks used the noun form.

Regards, Bob

Max and Thomas ... [many of them] of "varietals" as a noun and not an adjective.

Uh, yes, Bob -- that's not my argument you're answering, I don't know whose it is. My position is like Oliver's, and Jancis Robinson's: the problem is to confuse varietal (as in varietal labeling, or we stock several varietals -- less formal but unambiguous) with variety: "The bottom land is planted with three different varietals." Which is not so much absolutely "wrong" as revealing (of wine literacy) -- hence a non-issue for casual talk, but revealing from an expert.

(Thanks Mark for summarizing the split-infinitive story. That people still call that a rule or a battle lost illustrates my comment that not enough folks read Strunk and White on it, which would only take a few minutes.)

The proscription against the split infinitive was misguided from the start, since it arose from a desire to mimic Latin, where a split infinitive is impossible. Mark Lipton

One of my favorite bits of Fowler's Modern English Usage (the original, not the bowdlerised later edition):

'The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; & (5) those who know and distinguish.'

I hope I am the latter, but I'm not at all sure.

Likewise, one must question why the rule arose to avoid prepositions at the end of clauses, a rule which Mr. Churchill "could not up with which put."

That particular rule harks back to English's Old Saxon origins where, as in modern German today, it is really ugly sounding and distorts the meaning of the sentence when you put the preposition introducing a relative clause or a question anywhere but in front of the relative pronoun or interrogative. But since we've pretty much stopped declining nouns and relative pronouns with the exception of an occasional "whom" and the still required "whose," it seems less critical to keep them together. But otherwise it's a pretty common requirement in Indo-European languages, regardless of whether they are on the centum or satem side of the line.

Similarly, in other Germanic languages you really can't leave out that relative pronoun like you can in English, e.g. The boy (whom) I saw.

The proscription against the split infinitive was misguided from the start, since it arose from a desire to mimic Latin, where a split infinitive is impossible. Mark Lipton

One of my favorite bits of Fowler's Modern English Usage (the original, not the bowdlerised later edition):

'The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; & (5) those who know and distinguish.'

I hope I am the latter, but I'm not at all sure.

"To boldly go where no man has gone before," just would not sound right if that "boldly" were anywhere else in the sentence.

"To boldly go where no man has gone before," just would not sound right if that "boldly" were anywhere else in the sentence.

Reminds me of Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide:
"In those days men were real men, women were real women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before - and thus was the Empire forged."

Jeez, I bemoaned all the time I spent reading re varietal/variety, and now I've just wasted ANOTHER 10 minutes.

Gary,

It's the 'do not know, but care very much,' that is dear to me. I know lots of people like that.

Gary,
It's the 'do not know, but care very much,' that is dear to me. I know lots of people like that.

To be sure, that sounds a lot like me and my relation to wine!

Some amusing usage statistics courtesy Google:

Tonight there were 1,920,000 hits for Varietal and Wine, and 1,040,000 for Varietals and Wine. 54% of the hits -- uses -- were for the noun.

Of the remaining 46%, it appears that the noun and the adjective are running neck and neck. So, at a rough guess, 75% of the time the writer uses "Varietal" as a noun, and 25% of the time as an adjective.

Two common adjective uses:

"varietal wines" -- 124,000 uses
"varietal character" -- 88,500 uses

Two common noun uses:

"wine grape varietals" -- 116,00 uses

[Google asks helpfully: 'Did you mean: "grape varieties"." Google didn't get wind of this fascinating thread, but relied on numbers -- 809,000 hits for "grape varieties". Its algorithm considers "varieties" and "varietals" as similar in the wine world.]

"varietal table" == 38,600 uses

The great majority of these hits are for the wonderful "Wine Grape Varietal Table" which displays varietals.

In any event, it looks like the noun "varietal" is well established in the online wine world.

Varietal as a noun seems to have invaded other plant, food and drink categories as well:

Coffee -- 200,000 hits
Tea -- 132,000 hits
Apples -- 156,000 hits
Cider -- 38,400 hits
Beans -- 113,000 hits

Roses -- 230,000 hits
Nuts -- 78,400 hits
Corn -- 52,400 hits
Grass -- 49,000 hits
Olives -- 116,000 hits

Honey -- 104,000 hits
Fruit -- 476,000 hits
Chocolate -- 199,000 hits
Salmon -- 113,000 hits
Tobacco -- 70,600 hits.

etc., etc.

The nouns have it, but for those who are irritated by this usage, Google invariably asks "Did you mean: varieties and _____"

Regards, Bob

Not to interject politics or even religion, but I guess this discussion of the language proves to some degree that there is merit in the concept that what's accepted by the masses or by repetition is considered the rule, and what others don't know is to "our" advantage to exploit.

Thomas, did you notice this note in the Science section of the Times today? Explains in quite sensible terms the reasons for why some words rarely change and others change much quicker:

Languages evolve just as species do, and just as with organisms, the rate of evolution is hardly uniform. Some words evolve rapidly, with a result that there are many different word forms, what linguists call cognates, for meanings across languages. “Bird,” for example, takes many disparate forms across other Indo-European languages: oiseau in French, vogel in German and so on.

But other words, like the word for the number after one, have hardly evolved at all: two, deux (French) and dos (Spanish) are very similar, derived from the same ancestral sound.

“If you study evolution, you immediately ask why is that the case?” said Mark Pagel, a professor at the University of Reading in England. Now he and colleagues Quentin D. Atkinson and Andrew Meade have come up with a mechanism to answer that question. Put simply, the more a word is used, the less it evolves.

In their research, described in Nature, they first looked at 200 word meanings across 87 Indo-European languages and determined how many cognates each had. That enabled them to develop estimates of how rapidly the words were evolving, Dr. Pagel said.

Then they analyzed spoken- and written-word databases in four of those languages: English, Spanish, Russian and Greek. The English database, for example, has 100 million words of spoken English. They looked to see how frequently the words from the first part of their research were used.

“What we found, to our great delight, is that at least for those four very disparate languages, correlation between the frequencies is very high,” Dr. Pagel said. Words that were frequently used had few cognates across the Indo-European family, while words that were used rarely had many.

As to how frequency of word use would affect evolution, Dr. Pagel said a possibility is that if errors are made in speaking common words, they may tend to be corrected, precisely because they are so common and so important for communication.

Rarely used words may not necessarily be corrected, however, because they are infrequently heard. “That allows you to develop a stronger linkage to the mutant form, and you are likely to express it again,” he said.

And as with living things, Dr. Pagel added, that kind of variation “is the raw stuff that evolution acts on.”


I was thinking about this note this afternoon -- it explains in practical terms the extraordinary variety of the the name for Syrah over the years -- not many people cared about it. And, I suppose in this discussion, the noun form of "varietal" is getting lots of reinforcement in the wine world. Not as much as "variety", but still enough to matter.

Regards, Bob