Cellar goodies

[Scott Kraft]

originally posted by Florida Jim:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Philology, as a branch of literary studies, regardless of what the dictionaries may say, referred to those who studied sources, etymologies and linguistic elements of literature. It opposed literary critics, who argued that only either evaluating or analyzing works of literature responded to what its purpose was (philologists thought that that was a subjective procedure and thus would have mostly been monkeyish about what we now think of as literary studies). Journals and departments with the name philology in the title did not refer to the activities of grammarians, etc. With regard to literature, the field is so dead that, except for Claude, no one even knows to what I am referring. Largely, for better or worse--and this I know from my wife, who is an Acquisitions Editor for languages and linguistics--writers of grammar textbooks and dictionaries call themselves linguists and are here found in departments of linguistics.

Does your wife drink?
Best, Jim

I'd be reaching for the xanax and the occasional valium.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Florida Jim:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Philology, as a branch of literary studies, regardless of what the dictionaries may say, referred to those who studied sources, etymologies and linguistic elements of literature. It opposed literary critics, who argued that only either evaluating or analyzing works of literature responded to what its purpose was (philologists thought that that was a subjective procedure and thus would have mostly been monkeyish about what we now think of as literary studies). Journals and departments with the name philology in the title did not refer to the activities of grammarians, etc. With regard to literature, the field is so dead that, except for Claude, no one even knows to what I am referring. Largely, for better or worse--and this I know from my wife, who is an Acquisitions Editor for languages and linguistics--writers of grammar textbooks and dictionaries call themselves linguists and are here found in departments of linguistics.

Does your wife drink?
Best, Jim

Of course. What are you suggesting?

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Rahsaan:Why do France and Italy get regional breakdowns but Germany and Austria get a pass for the entire country?!

Because that's the way the cookie crumbles.

originally posted by Rahsaan:What about Tokaji?

A niche, like Douro and Jerez. If one were to include niches, I'd include all three, and Madeira.

originally posted by Rahsaan:What about Shirazi/Persia?

Who is she? Is she cute?

originally posted by Rahsaan:I don't know how precise one can really be with terms like 'classic'?

Not very. But for the purposes of what I was trying to say, a rough general consensus is enough.

 

[Florida Jim]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

Of course. What are you suggesting?

Not suggesting; more inquiring as to the secret of a happy marriage.
And along those lines, how does she feel about grenache?
Best, Jim

 

[Saina Nieminen]

I hate academics. I always thought philology was only a branch closely tied up with linguistics - kind of a special, focused case, a subordinate term within linguistics. I had no idea it had been used in literary studies as well. At least the way I was taught this millennium, philology is still very much in use. If you wish, do away with the term in literature, but since it is common and understandable jargon in language related studies, I'll continue to use it.

 

[Doug Padgett]

Philology, as a branch of literary studies, regardless of what the dictionaries may say, referred to those who studied sources, etymologies and linguistic elements of literature

.

Philology as an academic department may indeed be a thing of the past, but as a discipline continues on. What you describe is of course what those who do philology do today, though you apparently don't know any who do that. I suppose few people call themselves philologists any more, but it remains an essential aspect of South Asian studies, religious studies, and classical studies for many.

With regard to literature, the field is so dead that, except for Claude, no one even knows to what I am referring.

Really? Come on. See above. (Though after reading Otto's comments again, I see that I missed his comment about grammar and dictionaries; I was responding to his "alive and well.")

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Florida Jim:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

Of course. What are you suggesting?

Not suggesting; more inquiring as to the secret of a happy marriage.
And along those lines, how does she feel about grenache?
Best, Jim

She shares my love of CdP and the south of France (neither of us are big fans of Aussie or CA grenache, with allowances for the falseness of all generalities). Why do you presume our marriage is a happy one? She doesn't share my enthusiasm for "Damages," or "The Count of Monte Cristo" among other things.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
I hate academics. I always thought philology was only a branch closely tied up with linguistics - kind of a special, focused case, a subordinate term within linguistics. I had no idea it had been used in literary studies as well. At least the way I was taught this millennium, philology is still very much in use. If you wish, do away with the term in literature, but since it is common and understandable jargon in language related studies, I'll continue to use it.

I feel your pain, Otto. Before finding WT, I had no idea that aesthetics was an academic discipline. No worries, though: the pain passes, especially with liberal administration of Grenache.

Mark Lipton

 

[Florida Jim]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Why do you presume our marriage is a happy one?

Forgive the adjective.
Best, Jim

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Rahsaan:What about Tokaji?

A niche, like Douro and Jerez. If one were to include niches, I'd include all three, and Madeira..

I don't know that Tokaji, Duoro, Jerez and Madeira are any more niche-y than the Loire, Alsace, and the Northern Rhone. At least historically speaking. Which I presume was the thrust of your 'classic' comment.

Because if you're just focusing on the Northern Rhone as 'classic' because you like the wines and they've become expensive and famous in the past 10/15 years, surely someone else could say the same thing for all sorts of regions.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Florida Jim:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Why do you presume our marriage is a happy one?

Forgive the adjective.
Best, Jim

So you were just inquiring as to the secrets of marriage? Are there such secrets? Don't you just, you know, get a license and become legal, assuming you fit the legal requirements, just or unjust as they may be?

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Rahsaan:What about Tokaji?

A niche, like Douro and Jerez. If one were to include niches, I'd include all three, and Madeira..

I don't know that Tokaji, Duoro, Jerez and Madeira are any more niche-y than the Loire, Alsace, and the Northern Rhone. At least historically speaking. Which I presume was the thrust of your 'classic' comment.

Because if you're just focusing on the Northern Rhone as 'classic' because you like the wines and they've become expensive and famous in the past 10/15 years, surely someone else could say the same thing for all sorts of regions.

There's no doubt in my mind that red and white table wines are the mainstream and everything else, including ros, is a niche, arbitrary as that may seem to appreciators of the latter (like me).

As for Northern Rhone, while I appreciate them, overall, more than Southern Rhone, I'm certainly not calling them classic because "they've become expensive and famous in the past 10/15 years", otherwise California and maybe some Australia would be classic too. I included CdP, but if you wanted to include other southern Rhone appelations, fine, I wouldn't think you're just being argumentative. :)

But I'm glad you didn't see fit to dispute my cookie crumble argument. Devastatingly effective.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by VLM:
Peter Cargasacchi ...
(and he thinks terroir as we see it is vodoo, it's all micro-climate to him).

Can someone who works a vineyard actually think this? Without a definition of "micro-climate" that is so expansive as to take in everything else?

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
As for Northern Rhone, while I appreciate them, overall, more than Southern Rhone, I'm certainly not calling them classic because "they've become expensive and famous in the past 10/15 years", otherwise California and maybe some Australia would be classic too.

But then what is the reason? Aside from a very few top bottlings I don't think the Northern Rhone had anywhere near the fame of places like Jerez. Historically speaking. So then why are they classic?

But I'm glad you didn't see fit to dispute my cookie crumble argument. Devastatingly effective.

One must carefully pick one's battles :)

 

[Lee Short]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Goddamitt, I lost sleep last night ruminating about this thread!

Classic, to me, means Alsace, Loire, and Germany/Austria for whites, Burgundy for both, and Bordeaux, Northern Rhone, CdP, Piedmont, Tuscany and Rioja for reds. One may quibble about this one or that one, but I think that's basically it. I just don't see southern Italian wines as classic, though they have tradition. They and many other places (Jura, Loire reds, the rest of the southern Rhone, etc.) are capable of making sensational wines, wines I love dearly, but they are not what I would call classic, i.e., what your average Joe/Juan/Jos/Josef/Jean recognizes as such.

I vote for "they do not have the right grapes in the right places." Or a more extreme version, such as "no right grapes have been found so far for such places." They can make less balanced wines with longer hang times or more balanced wines with shorter hang times, but they cannot make balanced wines with long hang times.

But this just makes 'classic' all about marketing, and not at all about sugar/alcohol/acid balance, hang times, ripeness, or any other thing having to do with the wine itself.

or: what Thor said.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
But I'm glad you didn't see fit to dispute my cookie crumble argument. Devastatingly effective.

Or the rest of us have decided to ignore you.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
As for Northern Rhone, while I appreciate them, overall, more than Southern Rhone, I'm certainly not calling them classic because "they've become expensive and famous in the past 10/15 years", otherwise California and maybe some Australia would be classic too.

But then what is the reason? Aside from a very few top bottlings I don't think the Northern Rhone had anywhere near the fame of places like Jerez. Historically speaking. So then why are they classic?

I've not followed the bulk of this thread, but your comment sounds wrong, Rahsaan. Hermitage has a long and very celebrated history; Cte-Rtie somewhat less widely known, but still proud. Cornas and St-Joseph have historically been greatly overlooked until very recently.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
But I'm glad you didn't see fit to dispute my cookie crumble argument. Devastatingly effective.

Or the rest of us have decided to ignore you.

You are charming enough when you speak for yourself without presuming to speak for others.

 

[Florida Jim]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
So you were just inquiring as to the secrets of marriage? Are there such secrets? Don't you just, you know, get a license and become legal, assuming you fit the legal requirements, just or unjust as they may be?

Silly me; if they're secrets, they have to be kept secret.
Best, Jim

 

[JasonA]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:
Peter Cargasacchi ...
(and he thinks terroir as we see it is vodoo, it's all micro-climate to him).

Can someone who works a vineyard actually think this? Without a definition of "micro-climate" that is so expansive as to take in everything else?

I have heard Cargasacchi speak of each vine having it's own micro-climate even to the point of specific areas within each vine having micro-climates within micro-climates. To dismiss terroir as voodoo is to dismiss his own work and beliefs as voodoo.