The "Adjunct" Beer

I have some reasons why people should just use the word "adjunct" correctly and not doing so does do harm.

1) It's confusing to have a word with two very similar meanings in the same field of interest (beer in this case). It forces people to establish a context whenever they use the term, which is annoying and a waste of time. Further many people just aren't going bother establishing their context, so it's confusing.
2) There are many other perfectly acceptable terms for added flavorings to beer that do not create any confusion whatsoever among the most knowledgeable or least knowledgeable of folks.
3) The term "adjunct" in relation to beer is not a familiar term to the general public, so these arguments of fluidity/flexibility of language start falling apart. Only a niche community of beer geeks are familiar with the term and a smaller niche within that community are using it incorrectly, sometimes stubbornly so, and causing problems (see point #1).

And here's my really facetious opinion.... There are beer geeks, who think they are more knowledgeable than they really are. They misuse existing terms probably because they want to use a technical term to sound smart, which ironically has the complete opposite effect on the people who really do know this stuff. So, for your own sake use the words correctly! But, when the misuse is pointed out most people get dig in, get defensive, and then grab at other non-technical rationale like "the flexibility language" because they can't actually argue against the facts. But, that's typical for the internet where everyone is an expert and anyone who disagrees is stupid dummy-head, right?

This misuse of terms is a common problem around here. You could replace "adjunct" with "session beer" in the above and have almost the exact same arguments over that term. (right, @marquis?) It's silly too because there are amazing resources on this site and some very knowledgeable users who are more than willing to spend their time to help educate people on a myriad of beer-related topics, yet so many won't listen and insist on their [wrong] ways. You can lead horse a water, but you can't make it drink.

 

Y'all got it wrong! Adjuncts are delicious flavors like Vanilla and Hazelnut. Don't forget Coconut!

 

I have a good idea......Let's ask @The-Adjunct-Hippie

 

No, those are food!

 

Honestly, most people aren't familiar with the technical terms. They drink beer and try to learn the lingo as they go along. For some reason, saying "adjuncts" for added ingredients sounds right. It's nice to have threads like this to educate peeps!

 

To be clear, I wasn't actually defending the misuse of language, only offering one (semi-obvious) explanation for how the word came to be employed in the way the OP seems to lament. In posting, I was simply responding to that original question, as stated. For most people, even many bonafide beer advocates, “normal language” is what matters. And in normal language the term works just as well both ways, according to its definition. If you’re writing a beer dictionary, or a history of brewing, or operating in some other technical context (including, if you wish, this here thread), then it’s another matter entirely. Best to get it absolutely straight. But even then, I suppose you could argue that flavourings are a kind of adjunct, a subset of them, as understood by one of their historical purposes. (This is not to say it'd be a winning argument, or one I'd make.)

I happen to agree with you. The words we use are important: they’re our primary means of communicating information, after all--and our exclusive means on message boards like this. And to be more educated and precise about something is undeniably better than to be less.

Where we perhaps disagree is on the potential for significant harm, and particularly for those capable of mentally juggling more than one meaning of a word at a time, or to the amount of people for whom making such a distinction truly matters. There are times when I personally feel the need to correct some wrong, and times when I don’t. This is a worthy fight, and I applaud those taking it on, but it’s just not mine. Cheers.

 

All of those are, in fact, adjuncts by the definition of the word itself: "a thing added to something else as a supplementary rather than an essential part."

Are they what brewers would traditionally call adjuncts in the sense of American Adjunct Lager? No, but then again, most brewing terminology and literature is very old and hasn't caught up to current brewing trends.

So I guess what I'm saying is, we refer to things like vanilla/cinnamon/spices/cacao nibs/etc as adjuncts because they ARE adjuncts.

 

Asked and answered.

Now, it's all semantic arguing.

FMI, see:

https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/craft-adjunct.384974/