Back in 2008, Eric Asimov of the New York Times wrote an article about Scotch. Now, the NY Times being what it is has a policy about the spelling of certain words. For the purposes of said article, if there is a discrepancy on how a word is spelled based on region, the accepted American spelling is what they will always use. Now, Scotch is always spelled without an “e”, so it would be “Scotch whisky”. American whiskeys are almost universally spelled “whiskey”. The article was about Scotch whisky, but Mr. Asimov, writing for the NY Times and obeying his editor’s mandate, used the American spelling.
Mr. Asimov was, naturally, ripped to shreds.
“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about; he can’t even spell!”
“No credibility if he doesn’t know Scotch isn’t spelled with an ‘e’.”
“This guy sucks. Hang ‘em.”
The Scotch Whisky Association went so far as to threaten litigation. In the end, the NY Times eventually changed their policy on universally using "whiskey" regardless of the spirit's regional origin.
Honestly, is something as innocuous as an “e” really worth getting worked up over?
Apparently, yes.
You would think that this debate would be better left to the linguists. But no, it seems like a whole lot of bloggers and commenters just can’t get enough of calling those of opposite mind “idiots” and such for having the audacity to use their own regional spelling. Why not concentrate instead on the whiskey itself? And if spelling really is an issue, where’s the debate over flavor vs flavour, color vs colour, or aging vs ageing?
So here’s the skinny: American and Irish whiskeys generally include the “e” in the spelling, while Canadians, Scotches, Japanese, Indian, and most of the rest of the world are spelled “whisky”.
For the record, no one resource can say with absolute certainty how the Scots came to generally start spelling their product “whisky” whilst the Irish chose “whiskey”. More than a number of sources seem to think that the Canadians used the Scottish spelling due to the number of Scottish immigrants in Canada, while the Americans had a large number Irish migrating through their borders. This was, naturally, scientifically trounced by Canadian writer Davin de Kergommeaux of Malt Maniacs. He also points out that it was relatively recently that the Scotch Whisky Order of 1990 legalized that region’s use of the word “whisky”, and that according to the US Standards of Identity, the legal spelling in the United States is…..”whisky”.
I don’t feel the need to delve too deeply into the linguistic history of the word because I would personally rather concentrate on the drink itself. At one point in my development I tried to hedge my bets by writing “whisk(e)y”, but have since abandoned that practice, finding it a bit cumbersome and bourgeois. Personally, I don’t take offence either way. And it seems that a number of whiskey-makers don’t, either. Need examples? Well, there’s the now-defunct Glasgow Scotch Whiskey Distillery, George Dickel’s Tennessee Whisky, Maker’s Mark Bourbon whisky, and the pre-1970's Paddy's Old Irish Whisky.
But here’s how I choose to do it: when talking about whiskey in general, I will use the accepted American spelling with the “e”. When discussing whiskeys from specific regions, I will use that particular region’s accepted spelling. For exceptions, I will defer to their preference. Occasionally I will make mistakes; call me out on it if you must, and I will not take offense. For the record, nations like India and Japan have adopted the Scottish spelling principally because their mashbills and distilling techniques are heavily influenced by Scotch. Personally, I just think they'd rather be associated with the austerity of Scotch rather than the rebelliousness of Bourbon and the Irish.
Having said that, I will occasionally take time to correct you should you make that mistake when I’m feeling particularly snarky. Don’t be too insulted, I probably just had a long day.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve a dram of High West Bourye that needs to be evaluated.
Salud.
Mr. Asimov was, naturally, ripped to shreds.
“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about; he can’t even spell!”
“No credibility if he doesn’t know Scotch isn’t spelled with an ‘e’.”
“This guy sucks. Hang ‘em.”
The Scotch Whisky Association went so far as to threaten litigation. In the end, the NY Times eventually changed their policy on universally using "whiskey" regardless of the spirit's regional origin.
Honestly, is something as innocuous as an “e” really worth getting worked up over?
Apparently, yes.
You would think that this debate would be better left to the linguists. But no, it seems like a whole lot of bloggers and commenters just can’t get enough of calling those of opposite mind “idiots” and such for having the audacity to use their own regional spelling. Why not concentrate instead on the whiskey itself? And if spelling really is an issue, where’s the debate over flavor vs flavour, color vs colour, or aging vs ageing?
So here’s the skinny: American and Irish whiskeys generally include the “e” in the spelling, while Canadians, Scotches, Japanese, Indian, and most of the rest of the world are spelled “whisky”.
For the record, no one resource can say with absolute certainty how the Scots came to generally start spelling their product “whisky” whilst the Irish chose “whiskey”. More than a number of sources seem to think that the Canadians used the Scottish spelling due to the number of Scottish immigrants in Canada, while the Americans had a large number Irish migrating through their borders. This was, naturally, scientifically trounced by Canadian writer Davin de Kergommeaux of Malt Maniacs. He also points out that it was relatively recently that the Scotch Whisky Order of 1990 legalized that region’s use of the word “whisky”, and that according to the US Standards of Identity, the legal spelling in the United States is…..”whisky”.
I don’t feel the need to delve too deeply into the linguistic history of the word because I would personally rather concentrate on the drink itself. At one point in my development I tried to hedge my bets by writing “whisk(e)y”, but have since abandoned that practice, finding it a bit cumbersome and bourgeois. Personally, I don’t take offence either way. And it seems that a number of whiskey-makers don’t, either. Need examples? Well, there’s the now-defunct Glasgow Scotch Whiskey Distillery, George Dickel’s Tennessee Whisky, Maker’s Mark Bourbon whisky, and the pre-1970's Paddy's Old Irish Whisky.
But here’s how I choose to do it: when talking about whiskey in general, I will use the accepted American spelling with the “e”. When discussing whiskeys from specific regions, I will use that particular region’s accepted spelling. For exceptions, I will defer to their preference. Occasionally I will make mistakes; call me out on it if you must, and I will not take offense. For the record, nations like India and Japan have adopted the Scottish spelling principally because their mashbills and distilling techniques are heavily influenced by Scotch. Personally, I just think they'd rather be associated with the austerity of Scotch rather than the rebelliousness of Bourbon and the Irish.
Having said that, I will occasionally take time to correct you should you make that mistake when I’m feeling particularly snarky. Don’t be too insulted, I probably just had a long day.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve a dram of High West Bourye that needs to be evaluated.
Salud.
No comments:
Post a Comment