Wine Impressions 4-8-19

I would like to apologize to all and sundry for defending what I subjectively consider to be correct usage of a language that is not even mine against any who violate my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage and uncover obscure and ancient precedents to justify their violation of my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage.
 
Both spit as a variety of past tense and gift as a verb have both long been around. Gift as a verb is perhaps becoming archaic, which may be why more people object to it.

The OED means to document the history of the language. It is rarely suited to adjudicate over usage disputes. And this is a grammar dispute, which it will not solve. As to varietal as a noun for a variety of grape, the OED does not list it yet. There are still changes that have not occurred beyond small, insignificant local populations. One should continue to fight against them as bad changes while one still can.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Gift as a verb is perhaps becoming archaic, which may be why more people object to it.
Click to expand...
I'm not the only one. For me, at least, it is like nails on a chalkboard.
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Gift as a verb is perhaps becoming archaic, which may be why more people object to it.
Click to expand...
I'm not the only one. For me, at least, it is like nails on a chalkboard.
Click to expand...

You and Dr. Johnson both. But if he couldn't stop it, I think your best hope is the passage of time and not an awakening of the masses.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I would like to apologize to all and sundry for defending what I subjectively consider to be correct usage of a language that is not even mine against any who violate my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage and uncover obscure and ancient precedents to justify their violation of my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage.
Click to expand...

Wine Disorder: come for the umbrage, stay for the umbrage.
 
originally posted by Zachary Ross:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I would like to apologize to all and sundry for defending what I subjectively consider to be correct usage of a language that is not even mine against any who violate my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage and uncover obscure and ancient precedents to justify their violation of my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage.
Click to expand...

Wine Disorder: come for the umbrage, stay for the umbrage.
Click to expand...

And the denominal verbs!
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Gift as a verb is perhaps becoming archaic, which may be why more people object to it.
Click to expand...
I'm not the only one. For me, at least, it is like nails on a chalkboard.
Click to expand...

For me likewise, but I am a notorious linguistic curmudgeon. I still insist that impact is a noun and, only rarely, a transitive verb with only literal meaning and that the past tense of plead is pled.

Mark Lipton
 
Apology not necessary...actually never needed here, by me at least.

For the record, the definition cited came from Collins Dictionary.

. . . . Pete
 
I was recently told that the correct spelling for the region or AVA is Stags Leap, not Stag's Leap or Stags' Leap. Apparently they want to make sure that all are aware of this mode of travel among male deer.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Both spit as a variety of past tense and gift as a verb have both long been around. Gift as a verb is perhaps becoming archaic, which may be why more people object to it.

The OED means to document the history of the language. It is rarely suited to adjudicate over usage disputes. And this is a grammar dispute, which it will not solve. As to varietal as a noun for a variety of grape, the OED does not list it yet. There are still changes that have not occurred beyond small, insignificant local populations. One should continue to fight against them as bad changes while one still can.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how the historical development of spit’s past tense is irrelevant to this discussion. I am curious. I use spat, but it doesn’t make spit wrong unless by historical linguistic development it has become wrong or disfavored by grammaticians(?) over time, and and not just by Oswaldo and Mark. I don’t see this one as a pure grammar dispute.
 
originally posted by Zachary Ross:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I would like to apologize to all and sundry for defending what I subjectively consider to be correct usage of a language that is not even mine against any who violate my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage and uncover obscure and ancient precedents to justify their violation of my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage.
Click to expand...

Wine Disorder: come for the umbrage, stay for the umbrage.
Click to expand...

Don’t you mean, “come to be spit upon, stay to be spit upon”?
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Zachary Ross:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I would like to apologize to all and sundry for defending what I subjectively consider to be correct usage of a language that is not even mine against any who violate my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage and uncover obscure and ancient precedents to justify their violation of my and many others’ subjective tenets of elegantly correct usage.
Click to expand...

Wine Disorder: come for the umbrage, stay for the umbrage.
Click to expand...

Don’t you mean, “come to be spit upon, stay to be spit upon”?
Click to expand...

No - “come to be spit upon, stay to be spat upon”
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Both spit as a variety of past tense and gift as a verb have both long been around. Gift as a verb is perhaps becoming archaic, which may be why more people object to it.

The OED means to document the history of the language. It is rarely suited to adjudicate over usage disputes. And this is a grammar dispute, which it will not solve. As to varietal as a noun for a variety of grape, the OED does not list it yet. There are still changes that have not occurred beyond small, insignificant local populations. One should continue to fight against them as bad changes while one still can.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how the historical development of spit’s past tense is irrelevant to this discussion. I am curious. I use spat, but it doesn’t make spit wrong unless by historical linguistic development it has become wrong or disfavored by grammaticians(?) over time, and and not just by Oswaldo and Mark. I don’t see this one as a pure grammar dispute.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it's irrelevant to the discussion. I said it's the kind of argument the OED won't solve. If you look up "spat" as a verb, it will refer you to "spit" where you will get the present tense definition and then examples using past and present tense, interchangeably. It does show "spit" as a past tense going back to Caxton, but that doesn't disprove that grammatical normalization might have made it ungrammatical in more recent times. The OED traces the history of words and their meanings, not the history of grammar.

Both you and Mark are right about impact as a verb and the ensuing atrocity, impactful. This is another example of businessese, which also uses wordsmith in the place of write and various other absurdities and atrocities. Like varietal, it s a version of an ingroup attempt to have a specialized language (since affect or influence is too normal) gone terribly bad.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Tristan Welles:


I must be in the small percentage, but increasingly I'd prefer to enjoy the meal with one bottle, à pointe.
Click to expand...

Not at all - my preference, too.
But one makes do.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

My apologies, I too easily forced the elision. Your subject was tasting wine in general and I jumped to the tasting of young wine. I should also admit to the hypocrisy of always reading tasting notes from you and VLM. "oh good, VLM says the 99s 1iers are finally open". etc

On that note: the '08 1ere tries seem to be ready. We sampled one at the domaine and my first impression was: 'ooh, honey AND white flowers'. The host said that only recently had that secondary characteristic appeared.

I didn't like the '16 pettillant much. But that could be a result of my inexperience with young Huet sparkling wine.
 
originally posted by Tristan Welles:

On that note: the '08 1ere tries seem to be ready. We sampled one at the domaine and my first impression was: 'ooh, honey AND white flowers'. The host said that only recently had that secondary characteristic appeared.
Click to expand...

Which one? (I’ve been waiting patiently but figured these would be good old age wines.)

I didn't like the '16 pettillant much. But that could be a result of my inexperience with young Huet sparkling wine.
Click to expand...

Although I don’t have any specific knowledge that the basic grape growing and selection process and winemaking have changed since Pinguet’s retirement, I haven’t cared for any young Petillant since. It could be a vintage thing - we are taking 2011-13. In a word they were ornery. I don’t think 2016 is in the US but would be curious to hear from anyone who has tried 2014-15. I had been planning to track them down, but it slipped my mind. Thanks for the poke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top