Shipper adjectives

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:46 Tue 03 Feb 2015

In LGTrotter's tasting note of a good Dow '77, the adjective 'Dovian' was proposed, and liked.
What other such adjectives could we agree? Some are simple: Taylorian, Warrian, Smith Woodhousian (though Marxist Leninists might prefer Smithian Woodhousian). But what about Fonseca? Should that be Fonsecian? Or is there a better suggestion? Are there any Latinists who can suggest some rules?

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 00:58 Tue 03 Feb 2015

djewesbury wrote:Smith Woodhousian

Smithsonian?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 09:21 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Very nice. While sleeping I pondered Grahamian (the h is aspirated, and this rhymes with Bahamian). Is this ugly?
Double-barrelled shippers would require hyphenation as the two names are becoming one adjective: Quarles-Harrisian, Gould-Campbellian etc.
Or, following Owen's lead, Quarlesian (does this rhyme with Milesian?), Gouldian, etc.
Martinesian?

Post by **jdaw1** » 10:53 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Is there a reason that none are ‘…esque’?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 10:56 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Please, if you wish to use other suffixes, supply a clear rule. To me, "-esque" implies "-ish": recalling or invoking the Thing, either parodically or otherwise, but not intrinsically of it.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 11:25 Tue 03 Feb 2015

I don't think there needs to be hard and fast rules, just words that work. For instance I can't make Graham or Fonseca sound right with this suffix, so I think we need at least one more.

djewesbury wrote:Martinesian?

Or Martesian, to rhyme with Cartesian?

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:30 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Gra’amsian, pronounced as if speaking to the Queen.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 11:42 Tue 03 Feb 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Gra’amsian, pronounced as if speaking to the Queen.

Careful; could be confused with Gramscian, especially after a few glasses of Gra'ams.

Post by **PhilW** » 14:31 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Oh, my word; it's the American Jewesbury for the second time in a week!

Dear Sir, it is my belief that, contrary to popular opinion (notably it seems the American press in particular), not every word in the English language whether noun or verb has to be capable of being declined in all possible manners for use as noun, verb or adjective.

If a wine has been made to take more like the Graham's style than previously, it does NOT have to have been Grahamised/Grahamized, nor now be seen as Gra'amsian/Grah'msian! Stop making up words and Jewesburising the language with your Jewesburisms!

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 14:34 Tue 03 Feb 2015

PhilW wrote:Oh, my word; it's the American Jewesbury for the second time in a week!

Dear Sir, it is my belief that, contrary to popular opinion (notably it seems the American press in particular), not every word in the English language whether noun or verb has to be capable of being declined in all possible manners for use as noun, verb or adjective.

If a wine has been made to take more like the Graham's style than previously, it does NOT have to have been Grahamised/Grahamized, nor now be seen as Gra'amsian/Grah'msian! Stop Jewesburising the language!

Well this is a very Philish attitude if I may say so. If he'd had his way we'd all be speaking Chaucerian now.

:ENORMOUS WINK:

Post by **PhilW** » 14:39 Tue 03 Feb 2015

djewesbury wrote:Well this is a very Philish attitude if I may say so. If he'd had his way we'd all be speaking Chaucerian now.

My mate Troilus says that should be "Phillish", to ensure correct pronunciation as fill-ish rather than file-ish.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 14:47 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Well, you see? You're joining in now.

Post by **flash_uk** » 15:20 Tue 03 Feb 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Is there a reason that none are ‘…esque’?

Kopke-esque

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 15:26 Tue 03 Feb 2015

flash_uk wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Is there a reason that none are ‘…esque’?
Kopke-esque

Totally Kopke-esque!

Post by **PhilW** » 15:30 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Burmesque would work quite nicely for Burmester-like, though I probably wouldn't pick it if I was in charge of marketing

PopulusTremula · Post by **PopulusTremula** » 15:34 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Croftian or Croftesque both work fairly well.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:04 Tue 03 Feb 2015

PopulusTremula wrote:Croftian or Croftesque both work fairly well.

Or Crofty.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:05 Tue 03 Feb 2015

PhilW wrote:Burmesque would work quite nicely for Burmester-like, though I probably wouldn't pick it if I was in charge of marketing

I'd like a ticket to the annual São João Burmesque! I bet Axel can get us in!

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 17:41 Tue 03 Feb 2015

PhilW wrote:If a wine has been made to take more like the Graham's style than previously, it does NOT have to have been Grahamised/Grahamized, nor now be seen as Gra'amsian/Grah'msian!

It's been Grahamified! Or you could say that it tastes sort of Grahamy. Which, of course, makes it a Grahamophone. Tastes like a Graham, smells like a Graham, but is actually something else entirely.

One that tastes like a particularly good vintage of Taylor Fladgate is Tayloriffic.

I prefer Dowsian to Dovian. One who seeks out such Port would then be refered to as a Dowser.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 19:36 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Glenn E. wrote:
PhilW wrote:If a wine has been made to take more like the Graham's style than previously, it does NOT have to have been Grahamised/Grahamized, nor now be seen as Gra'amsian/Grah'msian!
It's been Grahamified! Or you could say that it tastes sort of Grahamy. Which, of course, makes it a Grahamophone. Tastes like a Graham, smells like a Graham, but is actually something else entirely.

One that tastes like a particularly good vintage of Taylor Fladgate is Tayloriffic.

I prefer Dowsian to Dovian. One who seeks out such Port would then be refered to as a Dowser.

I like Gahamophone, which could be shortened to Grammy. Dowser too has potential.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 23:24 Tue 03 Feb 2015

LGTrotter wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:
PhilW wrote:If a wine has been made to take more like the Graham's style than previously, it does NOT have to have been Grahamised/Grahamized, nor now be seen as Gra'amsian/Grah'msian!
It's been Grahamified! Or you could say that it tastes sort of Grahamy. Which, of course, makes it a Grahamophone. Tastes like a Graham, smells like a Graham, but is actually something else entirely.

One that tastes like a particularly good vintage of Taylor Fladgate is Tayloriffic.

I prefer Dowsian to Dovian. One who seeks out such Port would then be refered to as a Dowser.
I like Gahamophone, which could be shortened to Grammy. Dowser too has potential.

If a Dowser is one who seeks out Dow Port to drink, then that makes me a Grahamer.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:37 Tue 03 Feb 2015

Glenn E. wrote:If a Dowser is one who seeks out Dow Port to drink, then that makes me a Grahamer.

I consider myself a Grahamer too, but recently I think I may be becoming a Fonseeker.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:54 Wed 04 Feb 2015

This thread is becoming ridiculous.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 01:16 Wed 04 Feb 2015

djewesbury wrote:This thread is becoming ridiculous.

You thought 'Fonseeker' was tacky didn't you?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 01:21 Wed 04 Feb 2015

LGTrotter wrote:
djewesbury wrote:This thread is becoming ridiculous.
You thought 'Fonseeker' was tacky didn't you?

And I thought you knew me.

ThePortForum.com