The Auswine Forum

We used to have a resident pedant or two, but they seem to have given up now, probably due to having nil effect on Ric's spelling and common mis-spellings of wine-related terms.

Not being innocent of crimes in this regard, and with little hope of any lasting impact, I hesitated to point out a couple I've noticed recently, but I will anyway.

Palate - the personal thingy one refers to when tasting wine, the sense of taste (which isn't really in the roof of the mouth as the term may also indicate)
Pallet - the wooden thingy that wine is stacked on for delivery
Palette - the thingy for mixing colours (and other meanings)

Decanter (noun) - the thing(y) you pour wine into
Decant, Decanting, Decanted (verb) - what you do/are doing/did to the wine in getting it into the decanter
Decanter (as a verb), Decantering, Decantered - possibly something you cause a cantering horse to do, but probably not.

That should have about as much effect as pointing out to Craig the futility (other words spring to mind as well) of promoting scoring to two or 3 decimal places or out of 109.

Not impressed Charley Brown! I resemble those remarks of yours.

VARIETY - (noun) general term for grapes with a specific name. Shiraz, riesling, cinsault are all grape varieties.

VARIETAL - (adjective) bastardized abbreviation of the term 'Varietal Wine', often meaning a wine made from a single variety (but not exclusively) and almost always including the grape name as part of the labelling (as distinct from the 'old world' geographical approach); hence 'Wendouree Shiraz', as opposed to 'Jaboulet Hermitage'.

The two should not be confused. Asking 'What's your favourite varietal?' betrays the questioner as a philistine of the highest order. From a purely grammatical sense, it may be no worse a sin than asking 'What's your favourite red?', except that in the latter case the missing noun (wine) is clearly implied, whereas in the former, the question is almost certainly not limited to varietally-labelled wines only (to answer 'Chablis' would be perfectly acceptable, despite it not being a 'varietal wine'.)

In summary, PLEASE don't use adjectives as nouns...

cheers,
Graeme

Red Bigot wrote:That should have about as much effect as pointing out to Craig the futility (other words spring to mind as well) of promoting scoring to two or 3 decimal places or out of 109.

I think Craig's hit on the mother-lode of scoring potential with his system. I'm looking forward to something with such accuracy of increment that it uses scientific notation...
cheers,
Graeme

Einstein, Philistein, ..... they all look the same to me.

TORB wrote:Not impressed Charley Brown! I resemble those remarks of yours.

That's "Charlie".

GraemeG wrote:I think Craig's hit on the mother-lode of scoring potential with his system. I'm looking forward to something with such accuracy of increment that it uses scientific notation...

Given that scientific notation is used to enable the presention of either very large or very small numbers in a simplified format, it generally results in a less accurate indication of the number, unless you quote to a very high number of decimal places, rendering the format a bit pointless.

Bick wrote:

GraemeG wrote:I think Craig's hit on the mother-lode of scoring potential with his system. I'm looking forward to something with such accuracy of increment that it uses scientific notation...

Given that scientific notation is used to enable the presention of either very large or very small numbers in a simplified format, it generally results in a less accurate indication of the number, unless you quote to a very high number of decimal places, rendering the format a bit pointless.

Well, I'm thinking to the future, of course, with the inevitable 'points inflation' that his 109 point scale will suffer once Parker gets hold of it. Who knows how many points we'll need in the future to accurately convey all that is important about a wine? With a million point scale, you could really go to town.
Depending, naturally, on what the US high school system does. That's what we all understand, right? How you were marked at age thirteen on your geography paper is exactly the way you'll best understand the nuances of Chambolle-Musigny, surely?
cheers,
Graeme

GraemeG wrote:With a million point scale, you could really go to town.

Ahh, the million point scale! Great idea! But why stop there - you might, for instance, feel it appropriate to score out of Graham's number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number
Think of the possibilities...

I think Craig's hit on the mother-lode of scoring potential with his system. I'm looking forward to something with such accuracy of increment that it uses scientific notation...

Exactly. The old timer feet and inches, pounds and ounces, 100 pointer sandle and walk sox wearing dinosaurs need to wake up and head for the 21st century.

We all know 109 point systems are way more accurate than 100 point systems. It is scientifically proven, and statistical law.

Bick wrote:

GraemeG wrote:With a million point scale, you could really go to town.

Ahh, the million point scale! Great idea! But why stop there - you might, for instance, feel it appropriate to score out of Graham's number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number
Think of the possibilities...

Dunno about that, but there must be a place for Knuth's "up-arrow" notation, Donald Knuth rocks! His "Art of Computer Programming" (Volumes 1 and 3) were prescribed reading back when I was learning the "Art".

Red Bigot wrote:Dunno about that, but there must be a place for Knuth's "up-arrow" notation, Donald Knuth rocks! His "Art of Computer Programming" (Volumes 1 and 3) were prescribed reading back when I was learning the "Art".

So I'll presume the Microsoft guys only bothered reading Vol 2? - that might explain the quality of work they've inflicted on us all for so many years...
cheers,
Graeme

Red Bigot wrote:Dunno about that, but there must be a place for Knuth's "up-arrow" notation, Donald Knuth rocks!

Indeed. Knuth notation is the only way to express Graham's number

(Is this getting a bit geeky?)

Murray wrote:

TORB wrote:Not impressed Charley Brown! I resemble those remarks of yours.

That's "Charlie".

I told you I resemble those remarks!

Craig(NZ) wrote:Exactly. The old timer feet and inches, pounds and ounces, 100 pointer sandle and walk sox wearing dinosaurs need to wake up and head for the 21st century.

In the spirit of the thread, maybe that should be "sandal"?

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Exactly. The old timer feet and inches, pounds and ounces, 100 pointer sandle and walk sox wearing dinosaurs need to wake up and head for the 21st century.


In the spirit of the thread, maybe that should be "sandal"?

You cheated. You just looked down at your feet to check!! Yes I agree however, and you could argue 'sox' should be 'socks' too??

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Exactly. The old timer feet and inches, pounds and ounces, 100 pointer sandle and walk sox wearing dinosaurs need to wake up and head for the 21st century.


In the spirit of the thread, maybe that should be "sandal"?

You cheated. You just looked down at your feet to check!! Yes I agree however, and you could argue 'sox' should be 'socks' too??

No, my sandals don't have a "sandal" label on them anywhere!

Re "sox" I just thought you were showing a little USA "cultural influence".

and i've got a more generic one:

its - possessive, as in belongs to it
it's - abbreviation of it is

Re "sox" I just thought you were showing a little USA "cultural influence".

Hey we are the anti nuke, anti iraq, anti progress nation. No sucking up to the chimp over here!!! Cultural influence can be dangerous. It may attract terrorists!!!

How do people take it when you talk about thongs???

How about those apostrophes? I just finished reading another thread on this forum, and noted the following:

• "I have done the sum's ..."
• "Waiter's know their product ..."
• "... attract the waiters eye ..."

Is it really so difficult?

- Furuhata

Gregoire wrote:and i've got a more generic one:

its - possessive, as in belongs to it
it's - abbreviation of it is

YES!!!

Craig(NZ) wrote:How do people take it when you talk about thongs???

This isn't the place to talk about womens underwear.

Furuhata wrote:How about those apostrophes? I just finished reading another thread on this forum, and noted the following:

• "I have done the sum's ..."
• "Waiter's know their product ..."
• "... attract the waiters eye ..."

Is it really so difficult?

- Furuhata

NO!!!!

Red Bigot wrote:

Craig(NZ) wrote:How do people take it when you talk about thongs???

This isn't the place to talk about womens underwear.

No he means jandals bro

An Article to clear up any confusion:

"Everyone knows what a Jandal is right? Of course, but that statement is as ludicrous as Y-fronts being an attractive form of mens underwear. In reality, the slip-on shoe made from an upside down Y-shaped piece of rubber affixed into soft elongated oval pads is only called a Jandal in New Zealand.

While they are one of the world’s most popular forms of footwear, they are called many wondrously different names depending on where in the world you are. For example, the most common name for them is Flip Flops, used by the English and the Americans. Other names for these backless sandals are Slippers in Hawaii, beach sandals in Japan, Tsinelas in the Philippines, Schlapfen in Austria, Slops in South Africa and of course Thongs in Australia."
[/quote]

Gregoire wrote:and i've got a more generic one:

its - possessive, as in belongs to it
it's - abbreviation of it is

Nice, Gregoire, that's one I probably would of (sic) got wrong myself - and I'm one of the pedants referred to by Brian

As well as, "would of" instead of, "would've", another misuse of the english language that I've increasingly seen recently is "whose", meant to be an abbreviation of "who is" instead of the correct ,"who's". It seems that punctuation is no longer taught in primary school.

Cheers

daz

Daryl Douglas wrote:

Gregoire wrote:and i've got a more generic one:

its - possessive, as in belongs to it
it's - abbreviation of it is

Nice, Gregoire, that's one I probably would of (sic) got wrong myself - and I'm one of the pedants referred to by Brian

As well as, "would of" instead of, "would've", another misuse of the english language that I've increasingly seen recently is "whose", meant to be an abbreviation of "who is" instead of the correct ,"who's". It seems that punctuation is no longer taught in primary school.

Cheers

daz

On that matter, where did the word 'whom' go these days?

cheers

Carl

griff wrote:

Daryl Douglas wrote:

Gregoire wrote:and i've got a more generic one:

its - possessive, as in belongs to it
it's - abbreviation of it is

Nice, Gregoire, that's one I probably would of (sic) got wrong myself - and I'm one of the pedants referred to by Brian

As well as, "would of" instead of, "would've", another misuse of the english language that I've increasingly seen recently is "whose", meant to be an abbreviation of "who is" instead of the correct ,"who's". It seems that punctuation is no longer taught in primary school.

Cheers

daz

On that matter, where did the word 'whom' go these days?

cheers

Carl

To whom, sir, do you direct that question?

Daryl Douglas wrote:As well as, "would of" instead of, "would've"

Isn't the correct term: "would have"? I believe it is that term that "would've" is attempting to abbreviate.

Stuart

Daryl Douglas wrote:

griff wrote:

Daryl Douglas wrote:

Gregoire wrote:and i've got a more generic one:

its - possessive, as in belongs to it
it's - abbreviation of it is

Nice, Gregoire, that's one I probably would of (sic) got wrong myself - and I'm one of the pedants referred to by Brian

As well as, "would of" instead of, "would've", another misuse of the english language that I've increasingly seen recently is "whose", meant to be an abbreviation of "who is" instead of the correct ,"who's". It seems that punctuation is no longer taught in primary school.

Cheers

daz

On that matter, where did the word 'whom' go these days?

cheers

Carl

To whom, sir, do you direct that question?

Not implying lack of use on your behalf. Just saw 'who' and it reminded me of a concern of mine

cheers

Carl