Martin Golding wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:48:24 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>>And, to add a further hairsplitting distinction, sake is technically a
>>beer, not a wine. A very flat beer, but a beer nonetheless.
>
> True, or, not. Words don't work that way, except when they do.

Couldna said it better myself. And I have an English degree. From an
actual university.

> The word "beer" has fairly specific connotations, and it's always been
> used (in English, I have no opinion about other languages) to refer to
> a malted beverage. Sake is not malted (that the once distilled beer from
> which Scotch is distilled is referred to as "low wines" contributes
> nothing _useful_ to the discussion);

And the first-run distillate is called "high wine" (just wrote an
article about distillation for an encyclopedia).

> there are records of the use of
> saliva-borne amylase to make sake, these days it's all two-step
> fermentation aided by an enzyme producing fungus

Aspergillus niger, among others.

> (the fungus makes an
> enzyme that breaks down the undigestible starches into yummy sugars,
> the yeasts mug them for the sugars (anthropomorphically speaking)).

And, interestingly, one of the enzymes the Japanese use to begin the
sake-making process is used in Beano. Which is neither a beer nor a
wine and is designed to minimize one of the secondary effects of beer
consumption. And Brussels sprouts. Not to mention all their kindred
brassicas.

> Beer is a low strength carbonated beverage fermented from malted grain.
> If beer means 'fermented from (malted) GRAIN', sake might be beer. If
> beer means 'fermented from MALTED grain', it certainly isn't. That a
> strong fermented still beverage made in the same manner as beer is
> referred to as "barley wine" implies that carbonation and or strength
> are, or at the time that usage became popular were, dispositive.

One of the traditional distinctions is the source material. If fruit,
it's wine. If grain, beer. Not very subtle, to be sure.

> In several scientific fields, there are "splitters" (people who slice
> groups ever smaller, based on ever more esoteric criteria) and lumpers
> (people who try to maximise the population under any term). I'm a splitter;
> I'd argue that sake is a different thing, and that only rarely would a
> native speaker of English see, taste, or observe the construction of,
> sake, and call it beer.

See, this is the dark side of orthography. The side that says popular
opinion should be considered in creating definitions. Where would all
those effete, armgarter/eyeshade types who sit in dark garrets writing
dictionaries be if we let the hoi polloi have a role in the subject.
It would be the ruin of us all, like having to consume great
quantities of corn syrup solids or reality TV.

Ok, for the sake of harmony, I'll support your notion of splitting.
Henceforward, sake will be a separate category (if that's what you
think is best, apparently being a scientist and all).

> Because, if sake is beer, Miller is, arguably, sake, "brewed with the
> best Louisiana rice!", and that would be a bad thing.

Um, I don't think they use rice, but I could be wrong. Although
there's certainly nothing wrong with Louisiana.

'Nother glass...?

Pastorio