Varietal

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.

Thanks, Gary. That's a very lucid explanation, especially as I am familiar with the rules of German grammar. The crazy thing, then, is the German separable verbs, in which the preposition prefix gets shoved to the end of the clause in the present tense.

Mark Lipton

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

Interesting thread, Bob. Are there other cognates for Syrah other than Shiraz?

Covert

Awfully good question, Covert.

The Syrah route seems to be based on "ser", an old word meaning "long lasting". Seriene, Syrah, sirrah, etc. "Syrah itself is said by OED to be quite modern.

Hermitage might be considered a cognate -- Ermitage, for example.

Scyras, etc. from the presumed Syracuse origin.

Asher has an allusion to the "ser" route which seems to have been well studied in France.

Regards, Bob

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

I guess you can call it survival of the loudest!

Does the word “variety” represent a “single” type of vine or a “family” of vines?

Salute

Does the word “variety” represent a “single” type of vine or a “family” of vines?

Salute

The word "variety" represents a grape (grapevine) that is part of a family that is part of a species.

i.e., Riesling is a grapevine that is a branch, I believe, of the Muscat family that is a member of the Vitis Vinifera species.

"I guess you can call it survival of the loudest!"



But, of course, it doesn't have to be loudest -- "variety" is clearly loudest.

But "survival of the loud and long enough", that's enough for "varietal" apparently.

Mine lacks the ring of yours though.

Regards, Bob

"I guess you can call it survival of the loudest!"



But, of course, it doesn't have to be loudest -- "variety" is clearly loudest.

But "survival of the loud and long enough", that's enough for "varietal" apparently.

Mine lacks the ring of yours though.

Regards, Bob

Bob,

Have you been following the Martin Ray story in Tendrils? I've specifically noticed the use of "varietal" in his correspondences: sometimes incorrectly too...

I did follow it and notice the "varietal" usage, Thomas. I've also following looking into the use of "varietal" on one of the geekiest publications I know, De Long's Wine Grape Varietal Table.

It uses the "Varietal" and the classic Varietal definition -- published in London yet -- but seems to be a little schizo -- there's a little label on the shipping tube using "Variety".

The website usually uses "Varietal" but the Century Club and some of the other text uses "Variety". Confusion galore!

No wonder wine lovers are confused about the impropriety of using the word "varietal". [See link in next post.]

BTW, this chart -- varietal or variety -- is a wonderful resource. Any wine lover who cares about grapes should own a copy. Beautiful, makes a great presentation and a great present.

Regards, Bob

[Robin Garr]

BTW, this chart -- varietal or variety -- is a wonderful resource. Any wine lover who cares about grapes should own a copy. Beautiful, makes a great presentation and a great present.

An old WLP partner. If purchased <b>through this link</b>, we get a little help with the rent, so I'd appreciate it if folks would pass this around widely rather than using your generic link, which won't benefit us.

http://www.delongwine.com/wgvt.php?PARTNER=WLP

Edited to refer to your post, Robin. I planned a review of the Chart with the link through WLP, but I'm glad you caught me up here.

Did you have any input on the varietal/variety business on the website and small label? I know you've had an interest in the Century Club, as a speaker in particular.

"Have you been following the Martin Ray story in Tendrils? I've specifically noticed the use of "varietal" in his correspondences: sometimes incorrectly too..."

I have, Thomas. Fascinating personality -- and his wife was remarkable as well.

The OED correctly points out the American origin of the noun usage of "varietal", Thomas, and they'll be able to push back its currency by at least 20 years based on that correspondence and some of Ray's references.

I've been reading up a bit on the mechanism involved in English in converting adjectives to nouns -- a fairly unusual occurrence. There's a good discussion at Grammatical Conversion in English: Some new trends in lexical evolution by Ana I. Hernández Bartolomé and Gustavo Mendiluce Cabrera Universidad de Valladolid.

Generally, they write:

Conversion is extremely productive to increase the English lexicon because it provides an easy way to create new words from existing ones. Thus, the meaning is perfectly comprehensible and the speaker can rapidly fill a meaningful gap in his language or use fewer words (Aitchison, 1989: 161 ). "Conversion is a totally free process and any lexeme can undergo conversion into any of the open form classes as the need arises" (Bauer, 1983: 226 ). This means that any word form can be shifted to any word class, especially to open classes—nouns, verbs, etc.—and that there are not morphological restrictions. Up to date, there has only been found one restriction: derived nouns rarely undergo conversion (particularly not to verbs) (Bauer, 1983: 226 ). This exception is easily understood: if there already exists one word in the language, the creation of a new term for this same concept will be blocked for the economy of language. For example, the noun 'denial' (7) will never shift into a verb because this word already derives from the verb 'deny' (8 ). In that case, the conversion is blocked because 'to deny' (8 ) and '*to denial' would mean exactly the same. However, there are some special cases in which this process seems to happen without blocking. This can be exemplified in the noun 'sign' (1), converted into the verb 'to sign' (2), changed by derivation (suffixation) into the noun 'signal' (9 ) and converted into a new verb, 'to signal' (10). In this case there is no blocking because these words have slight semantic differences (Bauer, 1983: 226-227).

Our little tempest, an adjective acting as a noun, is relatively rare; here's what they write about the process itself:

4. Partial conversion

Conversion from noun to adjective and adjective to noun is rather a controversial one. It is called 'partial conversion" by Quirk (1997: 1559) and Cannon (1985: 413) and 'syntactic process' by Bauer (1983: 230). This peculiar process occurs when "a word of one class appears in a function which is characteristic of another word class" (Quirk, 1997: 1559). Most of these cases should not be treated as conversion but as nouns functioning as adjectives and vice versa.

4.1 Conversion from noun to adjective

There are some clues, though, to make sure conversion has taken place. In the case of adjectives coming from nouns, the hints are quite easy: they can be considered as cases of conversion only when they can appear in predicative as well as in attributive form. If the denominal adjective can be used attributively, we can affirm conversion has happened. If it can only appear predicatively, it is merely a case of partial conversion. 'Mahogany music box' (62) can be used in an attributive way, "the music box is mahogany". This implies 'mahogany' is a denominal adjective. However, in the predicative phrase 'antiques dealers' (63) we cannot treat 'antiques' as an adjective because the attributive form of this expression is ungrammatical (*dealers are antique). Another way to make sure we are in front of a case of conversion is to change a word for another similar one. For example, in 'Dutch Auction' (64) we are sure the word 'Dutch' is an adjective because it has the specific form of adjective. Therefore, in 'South Jersey Auction' (65) or 'Texas Auction' (66) we can affirm these are cases of denominal adjectives.

4.2 Conversion from adjective to noun

Adjectives can also shift into nouns, though it is not very frequent. It mainly happens in well-established patterns of adjective plus noun phrase. Nominalisation occurs when the noun is elided and the adjective is widely used as a synonym of an existing set pattern. This could be the case of 'a Chinese favorite' (67).

The adjective nature in cases of partial conversion is evident, though. They are nouns from the point of view that they appear in the same syntactic position. Their grammatical nature, though, is a different one. These adjectives can still be changed to the comparative and superlative form (adjective nature). This can be exemplified in 'worst' (68 ) and 'merrier' (69). However, these adjectives cannot behave as nouns: if their number or case is changed, they will produce ungrammatical sentences. This can be seen in the case of 'more' (69) in cases like "*the mores we get". If the '-s' for the plural is added to any of these items, we would get ungrammatical sentences. The case of 'cutie' (70), though, could be argued. It seems to be much used and established within certain groups. This could have converted it into a lexicalised example of adjective to noun.

They said a mouthful with that "controversial".

In any event, my personal position in my own writing:

1. Don't ever use the word "varietal".

As a noun, "variety" can always be substituted.

As an adjective, it's pretentious, and almost always redundant.

2. As a reader, get the sense of the text and move on; don't waste time fussing about it. In Winespeak "varietal" can be a noun or an adjective, but the meaning in either case is always clear and unambiguous.

Regards, Bob

I did follow it and notice the "varietal" usage, Thomas. I've also following looking into the use of "varietal" on one of the geekiest publications I know, De Long's Wine Grape Varietal Table.

It uses the "Varietal" and the classic Varietal definition -- published in London yet -- but seems to be a little schizo -- there's a little label on the shipping tube using "Variety".

The website usually uses "Varietal" but the Century Club and some of the other text uses "Variety". Confusion galore!

No wonder wine lovers are confused about the impropriety of using the word "varietal". [See link in next post.]

BTW, this chart -- varietal or variety -- is a wonderful resource. Any wine lover who cares about grapes should own a copy. Beautiful, makes a great presentation and a great present.

Regards, Bob

I've got the chart, and when I received it I emailed my complaint about their use of the word. The response I got was equivalent to capitulation.

"I've got the chart, and when I received it I emailed my complaint about their use of the word. The response I got was equivalent to capitulation."

Enough capitulation to reprint and replace, Thomas?

[Robin Garr]

Did you have any input on the varietal/variety business on the website and small label? I know you've had an interest in the Century Club, as a speaker in particular.

Bob, Steve and Deborah are good friends, so I mean no offense; and this is not a scholarly analysis, only an intuitive, knee-jerk reaction; but I honestly think that carelessness is the issue here ... and, of course, that it's much more easy to be careless now that the noun use of "varietal" is becoming so commonplace.

Let's back up and review: Among careful wine writers, there is a clear and unremarkable distinction between variety, the noun, and varietal, its adjective use.

Over time in the general population, that distinction has become blurred through wide use. This is why general dictionaries, correctly, reflect the confusion.

But I think most serious wine writers prefer to keep the distinction, not so much because we're prissy conservatives but because, at least in my experience, its misuse <i>in print media</i> tends to signal either carelessness or wine-expert resume inflation. "Oh, let's use 'varietal' because it's an inside word that makes us sound like an expert," failing to understand that they're not using it correctly in the traditional sense.

"I've got the chart, and when I received it I emailed my complaint about their use of the word. The response I got was equivalent to capitulation."

Enough capitulation to reprint and replace, Thomas?

No, no, Bob, I meant capitulation to those who have been using the word incorrectly.

Did you have any input on the varietal/variety business on the website and small label? I know you've had an interest in the Century Club, as a speaker in particular.

Bob, Steve and Deborah are good friends, so I mean no offense; and this is not a scholarly analysis, only an intuitive, knee-jerk reaction; but I honestly think that carelessness is the issue here ... and, of course, that it's much more easy to be careless now that the noun use of "varietal" is becoming so commonplace.

Let's back up and review: Among careful wine writers, there is a clear and unremarkable distinction between variety, the noun, and varietal, its adjective use.

Over time in the general population, that distinction has become blurred through wide use. This is why general dictionaries, correctly, reflect the confusion.

But I think most serious wine writers prefer to keep the distinction, not so much because we're prissy conservatives but because, at least in my experience, its misuse <i>in print media</i> tends to signal either carelessness or wine-expert resume inflation. "Oh, let's use 'varietal' because it's an inside word that makes us sound like an expert," failing to understand that they're not using it correctly in the traditional sense.

Robin,

A writer I know sent me a copy of an essay she wants to sell, for my opinion. The first thing that jumped out at me was her incorrect use of "varietal."

When I pointed it out to her she said that she knows the difference, but the word is so widely used either way that she forgot.

Robin, of course I respect any writer's decisions on how to write -- you and I both use "variety" for the noun, for example. I avoid "varietal" as an adjective for the reasons noted above; I'm not sure what your preference is.

I do know that for a number of years I was confused about the problem with the use of "varietal" (just as others have mentioned in this thread), thinking, correctly it turned out now that I've studied the matter, that Brits didn't use it as a noun while Americans often did.

The noun usage is clearly accepted American Winespeak with a long history; I see that even WLP's Glossary explains the usage -- as it should since it is so common in this country and it would be a mistake not to include this definition: "Varietal -- Technical term meaning "type of wine grape." Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Syrah, Zinfandel, Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc and Riesling are all varietals. In a wine note, "varietal character" means that the wine shows the expected aromas and flavors for the grape from which it is made."

Also on WLP, Anthony Hawkins in the magnificent SUPER GIGANTIC Y2K WINEGRAPE GLOSSARY uses both the adjective and the noun forms of the word.

What troubles me here is the attitude that there is, or should be, some sort of negative reflection -- carelessness, snobbery, pretension, whatever -- on authors who use the word in this generally accepted form as a noun, whether in print medium or otherwise.

In summary, I agree with your advice to writers, but disagree with your advice to readers.

Regards, Bob

OK.

Now I'm confused.

This is the graph from Robin's posted website:


It is entittled "Wine Grape Varietal" Table.

Now, why is it such a big issue if we enophiles refer to a particular grape/wine as a varietal?

Seems to me it's just shorthand for the same thing.



'Splain please...?

OK.

Now I'm confused.

This is the graph from Robin's posted website:


It is entittled "Wine Grape Varietal" Table.

Now, why is it such a big issue if we enophiles refer to a particular grape/wine as a varietal?

Seems to me it's just shorthand for the same thing.



'Splain please...?

Tim,

"Here's the simple answer, Maria:

* "Variety" is a noun. In this sense, it means a category within a species. Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir are varieties within the grape species Vitis vinifera.

* "Varietal" is an adjective. A wine made from Merlot and labeled with the name of the grape is a varietal wine.

Sample sentence using both: "This varietal wine is made from the Merlot variety."

"Varietal" lends itself to misuse, most often by writers who want to seem like greater experts than they are, because it sounds like an insider buzzword."

The chart above is not a list of VARIETAL wines but of grape VARIETIES.

Thomas, I found this exchange on Purple very instructive.

Note how this grammatical point intrudes on an otherwise very interesting discussion, and how Jancis dances around to conclude that although superficially folks are discussing "varieties", in fact they are discussing wines and therefore "varietal" is correct.

Also note that "varietal" is an adjective being used a noun when discussing wines made from a particular grape. This is apparently [?] the grammatical sin that damns "varietal" when using "varietal" to describe a grape.

Finally, note that the original questioner wasn't sure which word he should use, so he used both "variety" and "varietal" in posing his question. And, Jancis answers initially with "variety" but concludes that "varietal" is really correct.

Which varietals are aromatic? publication date: Apr 21, 2006

Paul Tudor, Basket Press Ltd, Auckland:

Are you able to settle something for me please?

Which white varieties would you class as "aromatic" (as opposed to everything else which is presumably "non aromatic"). Alas, the Oxford Companion does not have the answer.

me:

Sounds as though you may be organising a tasting… Off the top of my head I’d nominate the following most obvious candidates:

Riesling
Gewurztraminer
Muscats of all sorts

I’d also describe Sauvignon Blanc as very aromatic but probably not a variety [???] to be lumped in with the others. Is this enough?

Patricia, London:

If Paul is thinking like the ‘illustrious’ Institute [of Masters of Wine? – JR], then I would add Albariño/Alvarinho, Viognier and many of the German crosses (Huxel, Bacchus, Scheurebe, etc) as very aromatic, and Pinot Gris/Grigio, Chenin, Grüner and even Pinot Blanc as ‘semi-aromatic’. It is the likes of Chardonnay and Semillon (and most of Italy's indigenous varieties) that are the most neutral. Not sure if this helps or hinders.

me:

Interesting. I did consider Pinot Gris and then decided it wasn’t aromatic enough in many examples. Any funnily enough I don’t find today’s Albariño that aromatic myself – though when I first came across it I used to describe it as ‘peachy’. I certainly agree that Viognier is very aromatic. Am increasingly impressed by Laurent Miquel’s Viogniers in the Languedoc.

William Roach, Putnam Wine, Saratoga Springs, NY:

‘Which varietal is aromatic?’ is the question. Ought it to be: ‘which variety is aromatic?’ Does it matter?

As always. thank you.

me:

Ah! Well as you know, no-one is more conscious of the proper distinction between ‘variety’ for plant and grape and ‘varietal’ for wine made from a single grape than me. But I consciously decided that what we’re discussing here is wine rather than plants. OK? [OK with me, but a couple of posts earlier HRH used "variety"; ok, everyone slips from time to time, especially on this nice point of grammar. ]


Mark Davidson, International Sommelier Guild, Vancouver:

Thought I might throw Torrontés into the discussion about aromatic varieties. I poured one for a practice blind tasting for my Sommelier students a couple of weeks ago and aside from them all hating me for it, most thought it was some sort of Muscat. Not a bad guess given the possible Muscat connection in the parentage but definitely aromatic.

By the way the wine was the Crios de Susana Balbo 2005 Torrontés. Delicious and not too expensive.

***

While I'm in Jancis' world, here's her most current take on "varietal" from the OCW3:

varietal:

descriptive term for a wine named after the dominant grape variety from which it is made. The word is increasingly misused in place of vine variety. A varietal wine is distinct from a wine named after its own geographical provenance (as the great majority of European wines are), and a generic wine, one named after a supposed style, often haphazardly borrowed from European geography, such as &#8219;Chablis‚ and &#8219;Burgundy‚. Varietal wines are most closely associated with the new world, where they constitute the great majority of wines produced. The concept was nurtured by Maynard amerine at the University of California at davis in the wake of prohibition as a means of encouraging growers to plant worthy vine varieties. It was advocated with particular enthusiasm by Frank schoonmaker in the 1950s and 1960s, and was embraced during the california wine boom of the 1970s to distinguish the more ambitious wines, often made from Cabernet Sauvignon and, increasingly, Chardonnay, from the lack-lustre generics of old. Varietal labelling was also adopted, for a similar purpose, in australia, south africa, new zealand, and elsewhere.

Regards, Bob

[Robin Garr]

The chart above is not a list of VARIETAL wines but of grape VARIETIES.

And just to stir the pot a little more, "Varietal" in "Varietal Table" is an adjective.

The chart above is not a list of VARIETAL wines but of grape VARIETIES.

And just to stir the pot a little more, "Varietal" in "Varietal Table" is an adjective.

Adjective regarding which: wine, grape, table, DeLong???

Seriously, if I were naming the list and I meant for it to be a list of individual grape variety characteristics I'd have opted for: "Wine Grape Varietal Characteristic Table."

If I were listing grape varieties I'd have opted for: "Wine Grape Variety Table."

If I were listing a varietal wine table: "Varietal Wine Table."

Of course, the list is about 9,000 plus grapes short, so the whole discussion is moot because it's missing the word "partial."

This tread has gone in so many directions that me ole head is spinning. Let me get this straight, some of you think that I should call Stags Leap Cabernet Sauvignon a variety wine. Is this correct? If so, I'm going to have my brain drained.

Cheers, Carl