1

The meaning for Champagne, which one is better? I found both in different reference books.

A white sparkling wine.

A sparkling white wine.

:-)

Kosmonaut
  • 50,402
Nano HE
  • 677
  • 3
  • 12
  • 19
  • Both are incomplete and must be followed by "...produced in the Champagne region of France". It is not Champagne if it does not come from Champagne. – WS2 Feb 22 '22 at 00:13

2 Answers2

5

In English, as with many (most?) languages, there is a preferred order for adjectives, generally corresponding to various categories. However, the terms "sparkling wine" and "white wine" can be argued to be compound nouns, like "greenhouse" or "blackboard". They are both subcategories of wine. So, a red wine is still a red wine, even if you put food coloring into it and make it look purple, and a sparking wine is still a sparkling wine even if it has been left out and gotten completely flat. It is a whole unit that is inseparable, not an adjective modifying a noun.

This also means that adjective ordering generalizations do not correspond to the internal parts of these compounds. (This is why you have seen both orders used.)

So, if you are talking about white wines that are sparkling, you can call them "sparkling [white wines]". If you are talking about sparkling wines that are white, you can call them "white [sparkling wines]". Grammatically, they are equal in "correctness".

Community
  • 1
Kosmonaut
  • 50,402
  • 1
    Even though they are equally correct from a grammatical point of view, don't you think it is common practice to take the opposition that is considered most important in the field, the one between red wine and white wine, to determine which pair to promote to compound noun status and thus head of the noun phrase? (I apologize for the length of this awkward sentence.) We are talking about "better" (as Nano wrote), not about the only right choice. I expect the Nano to use it as a definition on a website or something. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 04:03
  • 2
    @Cerberus: That really does seem like a question for wine experts, because it is not an English language issue anymore. As far as the English language is concerned, both are possible. We see evidence of that. However, I am more inclined to guess that both orders are possible in the wine-drinking world, actually. – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 04:38
  • 1
    @Kosmonaut: OK, that seems all reasonable. Perhaps the line between the English language and any field of knowledge isn't always clear. It is sometimes difficult to restrict answers to their proper domains, especially when one is tired. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 05:05
  • @Cerberus: I never thought I'd think so much in a single night about the fine-grained distinctions between different types of wine without at least getting a little bit tipsy! – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 05:15
  • @Kosmonaut: It is a sad night indeed! Doesn't english.stackexchange.com have a hidden wine cellar somewhere? By the way, I don't even like champaign much! – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 05:31
  • 3
    More research is needed. – Brian Hooper Jan 04 '11 at 17:52
2

It's a sparkling white wine. A "white wine" is a major classification of wine, and "sparkling" is an extra adjective on top of that.

Robusto
  • 151,571
  • 2
    Isn't sparkling wine also a major classification of wine? In German it even has its own separate word: Sekt (vs. Wein). – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 03:29
  • 1
    @Kosmonaut: I thought about that, and it seemed to me it was less major than white. You could be right, however. – Robusto Jan 04 '11 at 03:31
  • 1
    @Robusto, @Jasper Loy: The best linguistic tests I know to decide if this is treated as a whole unit (grammatically) are (1) being able to say, e.g. "this sparkling wine is totally flat" and (2) not being able to say "I drank an extremely sparkling wine" (it doesn't really mean anything — as far as I know). The third piece of evidence (which was indicated in the question) is seeing both orders in reference books (which would become better evidence if both orders were common in corpora), showing people treat it this way. – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 03:43
  • @Jasper: Everyone knows that the phrase "white wine" is more commonly mentioned than "sparkling wine", especially since sparkling wine is normally not called that, as it is called champagne, cava, prosecco, or Sekt. So it seems best to treat "sparkling white wine" as the fixed combination "white wine" with the preceding adjective "sparkling", not the other way around. I am not saying "white, sparkling wine" is impossible, but it just doesn't follow as logically from common terminology. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 03:52
  • @Cerberus: In English, sparkling wine is called "sparkling wine". Champagne is a type of sparkling wine, but sparkling wine is not a type of champagne. And Champagner and Sekt are two different things in German. – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 04:32
  • @Kosmonaut: Okay, I know that it is a word, but what I was trying to say is that most people, especially those interested in wine, don't use it nearly as much as the country-specific words - or am I mistaken? If I have to choose between two noun phrases to use one as the head, I'll take the one that is used most often. In Dutch, we have a similar issue. I believe that champagne, Sekt, etc. are used to identify sparkling wine according to its origin in many languages, and that the common denominator, illogical though it may be, is not found nearly as often in menus. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 04:52
  • @Kosmonaut: P.S. I got your reference to "sparkling wine gone flat", I know it is a real word. I just don't think it is as common as "white wine". And I am not saying "white sparkling wine" is wrong or absurd. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 04:55
  • @Cerberus: I think those interested in wine (in English) make a particular point not to call something champagne if it is not real champagne. Doing so is actually a sign of wine ignorance. (Also, it doesn't need to be more or equally common as other terms in order to be a legitimate thing, grammatically or otherwise — right?) – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 04:56
  • 1
    @Cerberus: Actually, maybe this is the best evidence? If you are at a dinner party, and you ask for white wine, then if the person hands you a white sparkling wine, you'll be surprised and assume the person made a mistake. – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 05:13
  • @Kosmonaut: Grumbles Fair enough, being common or uncommon is no guarantee. Oh, and I never said "white sparkling wine" wasn't possible or legitimate, just that one choice seemed somewhat more 'logical' than the other, for what it's worth. // I never meant to say that champagne, prosecco, etc. should be used interchangeably: just that those terms together are used mostly instead of "sparkling wine"; am I wrong? I believe the European Commission even has rules about which French villages are allowed to call their wine champagne: selling anything else as champagne is punishable by law. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 05:25
  • @Kosmonaut: Devil, that looks like a good point. Let me think. // It is like ordering a steak and getting steak tartare. "Steak" is the widest classification, which can be specified by naming different kinds of steak. There should be separate names for all the subclasses. But there is no ambiguity if one uses the name of the class for one specific subclass in a practical context, because otherwise the name of the class would be meaningless in a practical context. One subclass is simply considered the default subclass within the class. So the recycling of words brings disorder into the system. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 05:46
  • 1
    @Cerberus: I think this really comes down to the people "in the know" in the particular area of interest. If wine connoisseurs allow "white sparkling wine" and "sparkling white wine", or can't agree on which order, then grammatically and logically both can be justified. If wine connoisseurs have all basically decided that there is a strict hierarchy in the order, then for all practical purposes, that one is more correct. Just like someone who calls everything "champagne" can argue the term is genericized, but are "wrong" in the sense that they will appear ignorant to others. – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 15:04
  • @Kosmonaut: You know, the more I play these terms in my mind, the odder "white sparkling wine" sounds. Nevertheless, I emailed a chef I know (I know, a chef is not a sommelier, but his is a more informed opinion than my own), and he says that "sparkling" is usually a separate category on wine lists in fine restaurants, but also says that he never hears anyone in the business say "white sparkling wine" instead of the other way around. FWIW. – Robusto Jan 04 '11 at 15:12
  • @Kosmonaut: Agreed. But is it ever possible to talk about language without applying knowledge about the real world? Take only the law of non-contradiction. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 15:18
  • @Robusto: Ah! I feel like Joan of Arc now. Wait, wasn't she burnt by the English in the end... never mind. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 04 '11 at 15:20
  • @Cerberus: Well, like I said, if you are trying to apply pure rules of language, then based on how English does things, both are correct. It is only in the search of some justification for one being "more right" that you need to fall back on real-world knowledge. Sure, you could also go the route of using formal logic, but it doesn't apply to what is right or appropriate for most things in language, so it only serves to please philosophers, mathematicians, and the like. – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 15:30
  • @Robusto: The other thing about sparkling wine, which I think I'm not totally wrong about, is that it is usually assumed to be white unless specified otherwise (e.g. rosé). So, probably you would tend to find that level of specification only in things like reference books or recipes that call for it and need to be explicit. My point is that there could be some disagreement because it might not come up a whole lot. – Kosmonaut Jan 04 '11 at 15:36