Varietal

"We lose words when those words are mis-used; in effect the word varietal is no longer alive, because even the thoughtful reader would have to look twice at it. And this is generally the case, misuse leads to loss. I like having all my words, and all my wines."

There's not much to fear, Oliver; "misuse" tends to show that a word is alive and kicking and picking up new meanings. It's very instructive to read the history of "variety" in the OED; there are over 20 distinct meanings over the past five centuries, some quite technical, others quite general and non- specific, and some now "obs."

The Internet makes it easy and fun to see how folks are using "varietal" as a noun, not only the accepted use as a noun for single variety wines, but some of the other uses, as well.

Never fear, "Fighting Varietals" will keep "varietals" alive and well.

"I told them: Don't approach this as a right-or-wrong game. Learn about the tricky words. Learn what passive voice does, its strengths and weaknesses. Learn the subtle messages your word choices send to readers. It's like learning a tool [or an ingredient in cooking!] Then you are in control. You decide how you want to use the words, because you know the choices. You can "break the rules," but it should be conscious."

Great approach, Max. One additional suggestion: if you are using a tricky word like "varietal", you can add a qualifier that indicates to the reader you know it is tricky, for example, "the so-called varietals of Napa Valley: Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, etc."

That's a real courtesy to the reader who doesn't have to interpret the word "varietal" and allows the reader to focus on the intended meaning.

Regards, Bob

"But if you really think about it in reality there is no such thing as a “single” Cabernet Sauvignon vine."

Great point Victor; Pinot Noir and other grapes are even more diverse.

But if you really think about it in reality there is no such thing as a “single” Cabernet Sauvignon vine. One reference book lists 19 different clones of Cabernet Sauvignon (and surely with the passing of time there will be more) with characteristic differences. Differences between clones are only slight but some can be fairly significant and important. (Varieties are the result of sexual reproduction between two different varieties of the same species; clones are the result of asexual reproduction or vegetative propagation of a single vine). To distinguish between the many different clones nurserymen/women assign them numbers. If the difference however is very significant or important instead of just a number a “name” may be issued. So IMHO the term Cabernet Sauvignon doesn’t represent a “single vine” but a “family of vines”.

Salute

Victor,
I agree with your point, which is true of all organisms. For instance, there is more genetic variation between a Great Dane and a Pomeranian than there is between a human being and a chimpanzee, so why are dogs a single species when we and chimps are distinct species?

Returning to the linguistic sphere, though, your use of the term clone in this context reminds me of a question. Why is clone used in this context to refer to what I consider cultivars when, in all other contexts I'm familiar with, cloning refers to the production of genetically identical offspring and clones are genetically identical copies of a parent? And, since cloning seems to be a bugbear to the religious right, I would also add that cloning has been practiced in plant breeding since time immemorial, but I'm preaching to the choir there.

Mark Lipton

"We lose words when those words are mis-used; in effect the word varietal is no longer alive, because even the thoughtful reader would have to look twice at it. And this is generally the case, misuse leads to loss. I like having all my words, and all my wines."

There's not much to fear, Oliver; "misuse" tends to show that a word is alive and kicking and picking up new meanings. It's very instructive to read the history of "variety" in the OED; there are over 20 distinct meanings over the past five centuries, some quite technical, others quite general and non- specific, and some now "obs."

The Internet makes it easy and fun to see how folks are using "varietal" as a noun, not only the accepted use as a noun for single variety wines, but some of the other uses , as well.

Never fear, "Fighting Varietals" will keep "varietals" alive and well.

Thank you for your voluminous research on this, Bob, but I am afraid it's the 'picking up new meanings' that I'm referring to. If a word picks up new meanings, no-one is sure what it means any more, and it becomes less useful. To me, anyway.

For example, the word 'home' used to have a clear, complex and very useful meaning. Then someone (realtors?) started using 'home' instead of 'house', for example 'they are building fifty new homes over in Sunol,' and the word 'home' becomes much less evocative.

I totally agree that for a period of time a word that gains a new meaning also lose a bit of crispness. I've followed your website for some time, and you are very aware of the issue here, and careful to help the reader understand what meaning of an ambiguous word you have in mind. [Citations on request.]

I agree that the fact that "home" equals "house" weakens the word "home" in many cases. I noticed the usage for the first time about 30 years ago when Janet and I moved from the City to the burbs -- 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."

[Growing up on a farm, there was always a very clear distinction in my mind between "home" and "house", "barn", "land", etc., and living in the City, "home" and "apartment" were never ambiguous.]

Unfortunately for that rather romantic notion, the OED indicated then [and now] that for over a thousand years English has used "home" to mean "house" -- "the stately homes of England" from the 1800s, King Lear's use of "home" for "house" in Shakespeare, etc. etc.

I regret the lost romance, though, and in my writing am always careful to use "house" for a building and "home" for the place where my heart resides.

Regards, Bob

Unfortunately for that rather romantic notion, the OED indicated then [and now] that for over a thousand years English has used "home" to mean "house" -- "the stately homes of England" from the 1800s, King Lear's use of "home" for "house" in Shakespeare, etc. etc.

Yes to the trees, no to the forest. Quoth Barbara Tuchman (in The Zimmerman Telegram):

“This was logical but as not infrequent with logic, wrong.”

It's what I said about nuance. Thousand years or not, just within living memory US salespeople started using "home" as a commercial euphemism. It thus joined a legacy of forced euphemisms that numb the ear with repetition, without losing their obnoxiousness. "Pre-owned" for a used car (can you really imagine saying that with a straight face?) It isn't limited to commercial salespeople: crippling injuries I heard of as a child became "handicaps" when I was an adolescent and "challenges" today. This is not so far from Orwell's "War is peace" and "Freedom is slavery" -- which echo real historical euphemisms. (E.g. the 1938 "We live more joyfully" propaganda campaign under Stalin, when the "we" had recently shrunk by some 10% through executions and a similar fraction consigned to the state administration for labor camps, in Russian Glavnoye Upravleniye LAGerey.)

Bob,

'Stately Home' may come from the same base commercial motive: from Wiki:

'"Stately homes" is a real estate dealers' phrase, used by outsiders such as Robin Leach in Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and parodists such as Dame Edna Everage.'

For me it isn't about romance, it's about making myself understood. 'Home' was a very useful word, and it pisses me off that it has been diminished by cheeseballs selling tract houses.

Or insurance companies selling Homeowners Insurance!

i notice that the site is enhanced with moby threads. maybe this topic has become a mobius thread.

Hoke,

Your post is a triumph, telling us all how to behave while deploring the tendency for people to tell other people how to behave.

There is a parallel to this discussion about language in the world of wine: what is wrong with people making cheesy, frooty wines in, say, Cote-Rotie? If that's what people want to drink then everyone should do what they want. That's the way things are going, who are we to judge, et cetera.

The problem is that if we continue in this direction there will be nothing but frooty wines, and we will be reduced to a fifty-word vocabulary*. I know the world is headed in that direction; as should be obvious to you we all know that, but I don't like it and I won't contribute to it.

*We lose words when those words are mis-used; in effect the word varietal is no longer alive, because even the thoughtful reader would have to look twice at it. And this is generally the case, misuse leads to loss. I like having all my words, and all my wines.

Oliver, either I have to start using a much broader sarcastic brush or you have to stop rising to very obvious bait. ...Or at least I thought it was obvious.

And as for "The problem is that if we continue in this direction..." Do you mean ***gasp*** it will be the end of the world as we know it????

Hey, I'm all for standardized usage, Oliver. If for no other reason than it increases or enhances understanding in communication. On the other hand, sanctifying certain usages long past their expiration date simply beause it's what you're used to....that I don't agree with. Change happens; usually whether we want it to or not.

I have enough confidence in both wine and language that I feel they will survive us, both the traditionalists and the innovators.

Unfortunately for that rather romantic notion, the OED indicated then [and now] that for over a thousand years English has used "home" to mean "house" -- "the stately homes of England" from the 1800s, King Lear's use of "home" for "house" in Shakespeare, etc. etc.

Yes to the trees, no to the forest. Quoth Barbara Tuchman (in The Zimmerman Telegram):

“This was logical but as not infrequent with logic, wrong.”

It's what I said about nuance. Thousand years or not, just within living memory US salespeople started using "home" as a commercial euphemism. It thus joined a legacy of forced euphemisms that numb the ear with repetition, without losing their obnoxiousness. "Pre-owned" for a used car (can you really imagine saying that with a straight face?) It isn't limited to commercial salespeople: crippling injuries I heard of as a child became "handicaps" when I was an adolescent and "challenges" today. This is not so far from Orwell's "War is peace" and "Freedom is slavery" -- which echo real historical euphemisms. (E.g. the 1938 "We live more joyfully" propaganda campaign under Stalin, when the "we" had recently shrunk by some 10% through executions and a similar fraction consigned to the state administration for labor camps, in Russian Glavnoye Upravleniye LAGerey.)

Max illustrates the point that language is communication. What value is the communication when the words used to communicate don't or do, but don't communicate their original meaning?

Isn't it true that in past times scientific writings were done in Latin precisely because it was already dead--it was no longer evolving and so the scientific community knew that what they read in one corner of the world they could read and understand in another corner of the world without confused interpretations.

Not that language should never evolve, but the evolution is best when it springs from knowledge rather than ignorance of the language.

Unfortunately for that rather romantic notion, the OED indicated then [and now] that for over a thousand years English has used "home" to mean "house" -- "the stately homes of England" from the 1800s,

A stately home is occupied -- its the occupiers and their position in society that make it 'stately'. When empty it is just a house.

I have enough confidence in both wine and language that I feel they will survive us, both the traditionalists and the innovators.

Hoke,

Have you spoken to any Latin-speaking Romans lately...it's been known to happen

Peter, the OED suggests the word now has both meanings (citing a couple of UK examples, including one from the 1800s):

"[Home] In N. America and Australasia (and increasingly elsewhere), freq. used to designate a private house or residence merely as a building."

The building usage is certainly very prevalent in this country.

[James Roscoe]

I have enough confidence in both wine and language that I feel they will survive us, both the traditionalists and the innovators.

Hoke,

Have you spoken to any Latin-speaking Romans lately...it's been known to happen

The great think about Hoke is that he KNEW Julius Caesar!

“This was logical but as not infrequent with logic, wrong.”

Thanks, Max, it's an honor to have a Tuchman quote brought into a discussion against my position.

It gave me a chance to refresh my memory of her discussion of Zimmerman admitting authorship of the telegram, and I found to my delight that Amazon has that part of the book in full text.

It gave me a chance to share Lansing's astonishment at Zimmerman's admission for a second time.

Thanks, Bob

“This was logical but as not infrequent with logic, wrong.”

Thanks, Max, it's an honor to have a Tuchman quote brought into a discussion against my position.

It gave me a chance to refresh my memory of her discussion of Zimmerman admitting authorship of the telegram, and I found to my delight that Amazon has that part of the book in full text.

It gave me a chance to share Lansing's astonishment at Zimmerman's admission for a second time.

Thanks, Bob

Funny you should mention it, I re-read Zimmerman two weeks ago on the plane back from the forest (or the trees) of Piemonte.

Love Tuchman's stuff.

I have enough confidence in both wine and language that I feel they will survive us, both the traditionalists and the innovators.

Hoke,

Have you spoken to any Latin-speaking Romans lately...it's been known to happen

Tsk Tsk Tsk. Thomas...I expect better red herrings from you.

I said language, not a specific language. Latin was dominant because it originated from a dominant society of the time. After the lingua franca (you should pardon the expression when referring to Latin), for quite a long time the lingua franca was...well, actually, Lingua Franca, or French.

Latin is/was a wonderful language...heck, they all are, and it served nicely through the Middle Ages (along with Greek, mind you) as a base communication language. As you said, what would science be without it. Heck, what would the taxonomy table be without it.

But I've also loved Eire/Erse/Gaelic and the Celtic languages too---and outside of places like the Gaeltacht in Ireland and a couple of societies, that language is deader than Latin.

So it goes.


You should read "The Empire of the Word", a marvellous book about languages and how the spread (and don't spread) through different societies, and why some languages become dominant for long periods of time while others die out. Fascinating book by a master linguist.

I'll repeat: any society/language needs fairly stable standards for ease of communication, but when anyone becomes so ardently fixated on freezing the language to what they are comfortable with (I would say canalized into) that they adamantly resist any and all changes (What I learned as a child is THE RIGHT WAY and everyone else is WRONG.) that simply points out another kind of willful ignorance and limitation of mind. Or maybe just getting old and fuddy duddy?

I have enough confidence in both wine and language that I feel they will survive us, both the traditionalists and the innovators.

Hoke,

Have you spoken to any Latin-speaking Romans lately...it's been known to happen

The great think about Hoke is that he KNEW Julius Caesar!

Yep, we used to hang out with Bigus Dickus in the Forum.

(Thanks, James. I know I can always depend on you. )

Piling on Hoke -- "The Empire of the Word" is a wonderful way to lose oneself in words and in history, history of words and history of the people who use the words.

Ostler differentiates between languages that grew organically (like Chinese) and languages that grow by "merger and acquisition". Mandarin Chinese is spoken by more than a billion people; English with around 500 million, is in second place. Others: Hindi about 490 million, followed by Spanish 418 million speakers.

Great maps and charts.

Highly recommended here as well.

"It's what I said about nuance. Thousand years or not, just within living memory US salespeople started using "home" as a commercial euphemism. It thus joined a legacy of forced euphemisms that numb the ear with repetition, without losing their obnoxiousness. "

I'm not sure where we are disagreeing, Max. Real estate people flog the word "home" because they find it effective in selling houses. But, you will find if you read many listings that they also flog the word "house". The reason is that the two words appeal to two very different customer hot buttons: "home" to the warm and fuzzy, "house" to the practical.

And I've tried to make the point that careful writers and careful readers try to present or tease out meaning, rather than rejecting the author's meaning because of a personal preference and distaste for a word.

Compare the following list of words and phrases:

homemaker
house keeper

home builder
house builder

Superficially they look very similar, but really very different meanings.

The insurance business changed the title from fire insurance to homeowners insurance in part to get folks to focus on the warm and fuzzy feelings. [Homeowners could theoretically mean insurance in case of divorce, I suppose.]

Same for life insurance -- which is really death insurance.

One purpose of language is to persuade, and people's choices of words helps us understand their motivations.

Regards, Bob

The insurance business changed the title from fire insurance to homeowners insurance in part to get folks to focus on the warm and fuzzy feelings. [Homeowners could theoretically mean insurance in case of divorce, I suppose.]

Same for life insurance -- which is really death insurance.

One purpose of language is to persuade, and people's choices of words helps us understand their motivations.

Regards, Bob

The lovely--and scary--thing about any particular language use is that it can be unclear yet still become common usage.

Re, fire/home insurance: maybe the change was because the insurance was expanded from simple fire to things like personal liability connected to your property, natural disasters, and even to personal goods stolen from a hotel while on vacation (all covered under my home insurance, alongside fire).

As for life and death insurance, that is based on one's perspective: you buy the insurance betting that you will die; they sell the insurance betting that you will live. Neither is wrong; it's all in the timing but from the seller's perspective, it appears like life insurance.

Have I stretched to confusion yet? Maybe that is my point.

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")