Emerging styles?

That is an incorrect statement there. Adjuncts are not just "malt adjuncts", for example sugars are also adjuncts.

In my opinion it is best to use words accurately. You have already demonstrated poor use of the term "adjunct" in the above statement. Further misuse of the word "adjunct" is inadvisable. Just refer to ingredients like green tea, coconut,... as flavorings. This word accurately describes their use in brewing and there really is no need to corrupt an existing term that has a differing meaning as regards brewing.

Cheers!

 

You're not really talking about using the term "adjunct" "accurately." Rather, you're telling people who are using the word accurately as they and the vast majority of their fellow English speakers always have known it instead to adopt industry jargon, in which a general term has evolved to a specific meaning. Again, it can be helpful to point out the industry's odd usage of the term to people from outside the industry who have a perfectly legitimate and more standard understanding of the word. I contend it would be even more helpful and less confusing both outside of and within the industry if the industry adopted more precise terminology.

You just as easily could say, "You're right to call flavorings adjuncts. FYI, the industry tends to use its own esoteric and confusedly specific definition of 'adjunct' that excludes flavorings."

 

We haven't already had this debate, but I'll reiterate two points I've made before when discussing this with others.

1) The ordinary langauge usage of the common man does not take precedence over technical language usage when dealing with a specialized domain that has an existing common technical language.
2) Large numbers of dictionary definitions are actually imprecise historical records of ordinary langauge usage that are continuously being updated because "the language, she is a-changin."

https://splinternews.com/who-decides-which-words-go-in-the-dictionary-1793851969

In other words, you have it backwards. There is no reason users of a technical language should kowtow to imprecise, ill-formed and incomplete usage recorded by one or more people who make up the dictionary entries based on what they see and hear.

 

The technical language from the specialized domain flowed from the ordinary knowledge of the common man in this case, and the distortion of the terminology occurred on the technical side. That distortion continues to cause confusion even among those who attempt to adopt the technical usage, as seen in JackHorzempa's odd comment that "sugars are also adjuncts" (Where to begin in response to that statement?). Those who call flavorings "adjuncts" are using the term reasonably and properly, and they may well already be aware of and have rejected your objections.

 

Almost all technical language has at least some of its origins in ordinary langage usage but I think the Biologists, Chemists and Physicists would be surprised to learn that they had "distorted" certain aspects of their terminology. Furthermore, once the technical language is established there can and should be flow back the other way. What is problemmatic is when ordinary language speakers pick up a term being used as a technical term and think that it means what the dictonary says and that the dictonary is more authoritative when actually it is not. So distortions are not restricted to only one side of the flow of meaning/usage.

But none of that changes the fact that technical language typically has a very carefully articulated meaning whereas ordinary language usage, as described in the dictionary is, as I said or implied above, an imprecise, fuzzy, and fabricated or made up usage based on incomplete knowledge.

Yes, those who call flavoring agents "adjuncts" are, in their own minds, using the terms in a reasonable way but that does not make it either useful or appropriate in communicating with those who are familar with and accustomed to using the technical term, especially when those ordinary speakers are attempting to communicate with knowledgeable others in a context where the technical usage is appropriate for communication, e.g., this site and a discussion of beer styles and/or brewing ingredients.

For a term to be a useful and meaningful communication tool the speaker should recognze that they are communicating with an audience that includes "speakers of the technical jargon" and respect that fact. What they do when the audience consists only of ordinary language speakers they can use/misuse terms any way they want.

 

The industry could benefit from increasing its precision. Are all non-barley grains "adjuncts?" Only if they're not malted? Does style or tradition matter, such that, say, rye is not an adjunct in a roggenbier but it is in most other beers? Is rye not a source of specific, identifiable flavors? Is candi sugar an adjunct? What about unfermentable sugar like lactose? What about the particular fermentable sugar, fructose? Is the fructose an "adjunct" whereas all the other parts of the fruit that contains it are, collectively, a "flavoring?" What about fermentable sugars like sucrose and glucose in chocolate? Is fruit or chocolate or any other sugar source an adjunct when it's added prior to fermentation and a flavoring when it's added after fermentation? If so, what if there's a secondary fermentation? These are not settled issues even within the industry jargon.

I'll also note that the term "adjunct" receives a lot more attention here at BA than elsewhere because BeerAdvocate has chose to refer to classic, American-style pale lagers that utilize malt adjuncts as "American Adjunct Lagers." Many other style classifications don't employ that term. BA's nomenclature has given "adjuncts" a stigma among BA users that they simply don't have among people who don't refer to these beers as AALs. I'll speculate that much of the resistance to the common English usage of the term "adjunct" comes from people who want to retain and isolate that stigma.

"Adjunct Stout" is becoming a common way to refer to pastry stouts and other flavored stouts, even within the industry and even as the tut-tutters try to resist. So the jargon finally is falling prey to the proper common usage of "adjunct," and people around here will need to find a new way to stigmatize beers that utilize non-malt sugar sources or to remove the stigma of "adjunct" from the beers that employ flavoring adjuncts.

 

Milkshake IPAs are still going strong, and Brut IPAs and Rosé beers seem to be the current rising trends.

 

Stigma? Beers have been using adjuncts for many many centuries. And words have industry specific meanings that help to communicate things. Insisting that use of words in a manner inconsistent with accepted industry meanings is somehow beneficial is the same as saying that making it more difficult to communicate is beneficial. I disagree that making it harder to communicate is a beneficial thing.

 

Some reflections by others more wise than I on the argument that common usage is the correct path to be followed.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).” ― Mark Twain

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” ― Leo Tolstoy

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” ― Bertrand Russell

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

Flavoring? Adjuncts? As long as the finished product is beer, I don't really care.

 

The continuous bastardization of traditional European styles by increasing alcohol content and adding/dry hopping with boutique American hops.

 

In classic brewing terminology, sugars are malt substitutes, not adjuncts.

 

Ron, Dr. Charlie Bamforth states otherwise:

“Liquid adjuncts (sugars/syrups) are usually added in the wort boiling stage.”

https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/446dbAKnTv/adjuncts/

Cheers!

 

Certainly not enough to hijack an unrelated thread with literally thousand-word essays of back-and-forth semantics.

Getting back to styles, had my first Brut IPAs this weekend, and I'm seriously hoping they're the new new and will have tons of new offerings soon.

 

Brut IPA is going to be the big focus for a lot of breweries because IPA over everything else is still how a majority of craft works, and tends to focus on.
I suspect they will also be a territory where Kveik related strains are going to really take off.

 

I get your point, and I agree with some of it, but you're making a case for people to use a word differently from industry jargon as it relates to beer ingredients on a website where the context is strictly about jargon and beer ingredients. Let's not lose sight of that. It's not like people are genuinely using this word in any other context.

 

Exactly - no one says that "Diet Coke new sodas use fruit adjuncts..." or "Aunt Lucy's apple pie recipe uses raisins as an adjunct" - the misuse of "adjunct" (sadly by both drinkers and many brewers) is people trying to sound knowledgeable by using industry jargon, otherwise they'd likely just say "ingredients".

Yeah, certainly in the US, the brewing industry has long defined "adjunct" to include sugar and syrups.

--- THE AMERICAN BREWER (magazine) vol. 68, no. 10 (1935)

---THE PRACTICAL BREWER - MBAA

.

 

Well I'm glad we got all that business with adjuncts cleared up. Let's never talk about it again.

 

I wish we could.

Unfortunately you can 'bet a dollar to a donut' this stuff will happen again.

Michael (@TongoRad) prophetically called it with his reply to me in post #77 of:

"I guess it's your turn to beat your head against that wall now."

In all fairness Tom (@drtth) did the majority of the 'head banging' in this thread.

Would you be willing to be a 'head banger' in the next thread?

Cheers!