1100AD <- Savagnin Blanc

Ancient DNA from Roman and medieval grape seeds reveal ancestry of wine making
Monday, June 10, 2019 | University of York
[u]https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/uoy-adf060519.php[/u]

Dr. Nathan Alexander Wales
[u]Nathan Alexander Wales — York Research Database

SAVAGNIN BLANC
Variety number VIVC 17636
[u]SAVAGNIN BLANC

Wow! That is so cool!

Thanks for posting that.

It’s really fascinating. The New York Times has a story today:

Other seeds seemed to be separated from their contemporary relatives by only one reproductive cycle in almost two millenniums. One seed found in a first-century Roman well was closely related enough to have shared a parent with Pinot Noir grapes, for example. Three more seeds in a second-century pit were related in the same way to Syrah grapes.

In addition to quaffing wines very similar to modern-day Pinot and Syrah, the Romans also must have transported varieties they liked over large distances, as historians have long believed. The closest relative to one seed, found near the coast of southern France, is now grown solely in the Alps.

Cool story, but “millenniums”? Oh well, at least it wasn’t “millennium’s.”

Is it ready to drink?

Most journalism style books eschew Latin plurals.

Sounds like a newfangled dumbing-down. At any rate, I don’t think it is a long-established standard at NYT. In fact, here is an article from two days ago that uses millennia.

Well, on this site we use the word “forums” and even the OED is OK with that. But I’d hesitate before using “millenniums”.

Interesting articles though. And not entirely surprising in a way. Remember that the Romans weren’t from Rome or even Italy after the earliest emperors. The father of the Emperor Probus was a poor wine maker in Dalmatia and the emperor grew up in vineyards, so when he had some free time when nobody was attacking, he set the army to planting vines in Pannonia, which is now Austria, Hungary, and Slovenia, and he probably had them plant the grapes he knew. The Celts were known to have had a few good grapes that the Romans looked for and probably planted elsewhere. And then when the Serbs moved around they carried their grapes with them.

It’s like we’ve been on a march to monoculture vineyards centuries before people decided that Pinot Noir was the best grape in the whole world.

Thanks for the links Nathan!

Absolutely dead at retail.

Just amazing.

I imagine it being like Scholium Project wines.

Sure puts the “Roman” in Romanee Conti!

Good catch! But it’s not newfangled or dumbing down. Sam Sifton is being high-falutin’. The Times style book says to use “milleniums.”

The American Heritage Dictionary says either is OK, but lists the “-ums” form first. Millennium is a fully English word now, so there’s no need to use the Latin plural form.

At Starbucks, would you order two cappucini? When you order riesling, do you ask for (say) three Spätlesen?

At Starbucks, would you order two cappucini?

Do that!

Then watch the poor guy or gal behind the counter. They’ll blink once or twice and then ask you for your order again. Fight the good fight! For the honor of the language! [berserker.gif]

Medium is a fully English word now, so there’s no need to use “media”. neener

For the honor of Italian?

A very interesting example.

I think the explanation for that is that “media” is really no longer a plural of “medium”; they’ve acqured separate meanings.

While “medium” in this sense refers to the form of transmission (e.g., TV, newspaper, online), “the media” typically refers to an industry (semantically singular) or to an aggregation of content sources (e.g., Fox News, CNBC, Reuters) that we wouldn’t refer to as a “medium” if singular (i.e., we wouldn’t say, “One news medium, Fox, is reporting that…”).

Plus, “media” is often used as a adjective, where it is naturally singular. By analogy, one wouldn’t say “the wines industry” or “the autos industry.”

Hmmm… my copy of the AH Dictionary (4e; 2009 printing) has the -ia form first (i.e., -ium is the newfangled version at AHD).

Millenniums grates on the ear. Millennia is euphonious.

That must be because you’re a snob. neener

In truth, I also would lean toward “millenia,” but without any good logical reason, and certainly not based on consistency. I think the use of Latin plurals mainly reflects the urge to sound cultured. I think it’s not too different from the urge to use “Baroli.”

As for authority, mine was certainly not newfangled. I was consulting the 1975 College Edition of the American Heritage! Perhaps Latin plurals are coming back into fashion. [wink.gif]

Touché. I would guess that the reason you lean toward millennia is because it sounds right. That is by far the most common plural form, in my experience.