Domaine Anita Beaujolais

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
They haven't insisted on culture being part of terroir. It's just the meaning of the word and the concept. Americans have imported the word because of it's je ne sais quoi and then have insisted that it only means the part of the quoi that they savent. My next hobby horse should be to demand that anyone who says terroir and means dirt should say dirt.

It's not the meaning of the word and the concept, just your meaning. The internet sources that I researched and listed here when we last argued about this were split roughly 50/50 in both the US and France.

Obviously, we will never agree about this, but you could at least try not to pretend that your opinion is fact. On my end, my next hobby horse would be to demand that anyone who says terroir and means the whole shebang should say the whole shebang.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Dirt v. The Whole Shebang

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
They haven't insisted on culture being part of terroir. It's just the meaning of the word and the concept. Americans have imported the word because of it's je ne sais quoi and then have insisted that it only means the part of the quoi that they savent. My next hobby horse should be to demand that anyone who says terroir and means dirt should say dirt.

It's not the meaning of the word and the concept, just your meaning. The internet sources that I researched and listed here when we last argued about this were split roughly 50/50 in both the US and France.

Obviously, we will never agree about this, but you could at least try not to pretend that your opinion is fact. On my end, my next hobby horse would be to demand that anyone who says terroir and means the whole shebang should say the whole shebang.

You are right that I overstate my case. It would be false to say that the word terroir never means only soil and not soil plus culture and human practices. It would be equally wrong to say that is just my meaning and has no support from French dictionaries. I assume you didn't mean to imply that, though you clearly do with that sentence.

But my real complaint is that, without that meaning, the word becomes indistinguishable from terrain or soil (in Robert and, as I remember, Larousse, which both offer both meanings, the words sol and terrain are offered as synonyms for the meaning that lacks the element of culture. If the word as you means it, has, as synonyms, soil or terrain (well, terrain, I admit has other problems because of various uses of the term in military and other concepts, which you might not want to include)then why do you not want to use those terms for synonyms, or at least soil. That is why I say that that your use of the word amounts either to just saying soi, which you explicitly deny, to saying soil plus je ne sais quoi so that you don't have to specify what the quoi is. So, I'll say soil plus culture if you'll say soil plus quoi, or oomph or just, terroir!. I think I will have gotten the better of the deal, but that may be only just me.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Dirt v. The Whole Shebang

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
They haven't insisted on culture being part of terroir. It's just the meaning of the word and the concept. Americans have imported the word because of it's je ne sais quoi and then have insisted that it only means the part of the quoi that they savent. My next hobby horse should be to demand that anyone who says terroir and means dirt should say dirt.

It's not the meaning of the word and the concept, just your meaning. The internet sources that I researched and listed here when we last argued about this were split roughly 50/50 in both the US and France.

Obviously, we will never agree about this, but you could at least try not to pretend that your opinion is fact. On my end, my next hobby horse would be to demand that anyone who says terroir and means the whole shebang should say the whole shebang.

You are right that I overstate my case. It would be false to say that the word terroir never means only soil and not soil plus culture and human practices. It would be equally wrong to say that is just my meaning and has no support from French dictionaries. I assume you didn't mean to imply that, though you clearly do with that sentence.

But my real complaint is that, without that meaning, the word becomes indistinguishable from terrain or soil (in Robert and, as I remember, Larousse, which both offer both meanings, the words sol and terrain are offered as synonyms for the meaning that lacks the element of culture. If the word as you means it, has, as synonyms, soil or terrain (well, terrain, I admit has other problems because of various uses of the term in military and other concepts, which you might not want to include)then why do you not want to use those terms for synonyms, or at least soil. That is why I say that that your use of the word amounts either to just saying soi, which you explicitly deny, to saying soil plus je ne sais quoi so that you don't have to specify what the quoi is. So, I'll say soil plus culture if you'll say soil plus quoi, or oomph or just, terroir!. I think I will have gotten the better of the deal, but that may be only just me.

Yes, by "just your meaning" I didn't mean to confine the meaning to you. After all, roughly half the sources agree with your definition.

I do understand your point that terroir used to signify terrain/soil & climate would be reductive to the point of making the word unnecessary; otoh, my point is that the inclusion of vines and grapes and human beings makes the term so all-encompassing that it loses any capillarity or usefulness. Also, "my" terroir is more than just soil & climate. Soil encompasses not only composition, but also thickness of layers, drainage, etc. Climate encompasses altitude, inclination, light exposure, heat exposure, wind (and probably more). Terroir is useful as an umbrella term for all of these.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Doesn't soil, in the context of growing things, just include the things that you say are in addition? And equally, doesn't micro-climate also include the elements you list? Now, it may be true that grape growing for wine may be the only form of agricultural production that actually seeks out places that stress the vines. Maybe apricot growers also seek stony ground for their orchards, but that's not my impression. In any case, you still get all the meaning you need with the words soil and [micro]climate. My complaint is that the supposedly restricted use of the term is really used for unspecified oomph and not for relevant distinctions that the term doesn't carry. It's a version of the old George Bush gasper that the problem with the French is that they don't t have a word for entrepreneur, although the howler is something of the reverse: we took the word from the French because we needed a word we didn't have for a concept that the French did already have a word for.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Oh, look, the boys are awake again.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

It would boil down to oomph if one were to deliberately include all the ingredients in the word soil, but then the solution is tautological.

I don't think soil, as used by the majority, captures the complexity involved.

And I could argue that the word "production" would serve better than the alternative definition of terroir, i.e., for the sum of terroir, vines, and humans.

Btw, great Bush story, hadn't heard it.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

It might be correct to say that soil, for most people, does not extend to all those concepts. I would guess that for growers it does. I don't see that either conclusion makes the other tautological since it explicitly does not include the other, but that's neither here or there. If the word "production" really does include traditions, long standing human practices and the co-evolution of wine and cooking in wine producing regions, then I would be fine with that. If, on the other had, terroir refers only to the qualities of particular vineyards, however they are delimited, then I'm fine with your useage, stipulating that no one means by soil or microclimate the extended definition you intend.

For what it's worth, in my--very limited--experience French wine geeks mean by terroir something like what you mean, but lots of French winemakers intend a meaning closer to mine.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Fine.

Btw, I didn't mean that either conclusion makes the other tautological. I meant that it is tautological to say that the definition of dirt includes all the myriad concepts inherent in the word terroir and then declare that the concept of dirt is already sufficiently inclusive. Would be the same for production, of course.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Fine.

Btw, I didn't mean that either conclusion makes the other tautological. I meant that it is tautological to say that the definition of dirt includes all the myriad concepts inherent in the word terroir and then declare that the concept of dirt is already sufficiently inclusive. Would be the same for production, of course.

By all the gods in all their heavens,
I think you mean it begs the question!

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Fine.

Btw, I didn't mean that either conclusion makes the other tautological. I meant that it is tautological to say that the definition of dirt includes all the myriad concepts inherent in the word terroir and then declare that the concept of dirt is already sufficiently inclusive. Would be the same for production, of course.

By all the gods in all their heavens,
I think you mean it begs the question!

Indeed!