Whiskey versus Whisky

By Eric Asimov
Whiskey versus WhiskyFrom the New York Times stylebook.

I’m looking out there for the one person who apparently was not offended by the spelling of “whiskey’’ in my column on Speyside single malts. If you are that person, allow me to explain.

Whiskey is a word with an alternative spelling, whisky. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Dictionary.com seems to prefer whiskey. The New York Times stylebook definitively prefers whiskey:

whiskey(s). The general term covers bourbon, rye, Scotch and other liquors distilled from a mash of grain. For consistency, use this spelling even for liquors (typically Scotch) labeled whisky.

But clearly, definitively, and somewhat aggressively, people from Scotland and many fans of Scotch have informed me of their preference for whisky over whiskey, judging by the flood of comments and emails I received yesterday. Here is a brief sample:

Graham Kent of London wrote: “I cannot pass over the unforgivable use by a serious writer on wines and spirits of ‘whiskey’ to refer to Scotch whisky.’’ He goes on to say: “I am afraid I found the constant misspelling of the product made your article quite unreadable. It is exactly the same as if you had called it ‘gin’ all the way through or were to describe Lafite as Burgundy. It is simply a basic error that a reputable writer should not make.’’

Well, allow me to say in my defense, I never claimed to be reputable!

Meanwhile, Margaret Tong wrote: “Last year I sent you an email to inform you that Scotch whisky has no ‘e.’ Irish whiskey has the ‘e.’ Yet, this year you continue your indifference. What a great disappointment that you think so little of the world’s greatest drink, ‘The glorified yellow water!’

“Glorified yellow water?” I’ve never heard that before. Margaret Tong, allow me to introduce you to Frank Zappa.

I shall spare you the other email comments I’ve received, except this one, from a gentleman in Scotland: “Sadly the word ‘whiskey’ conjures up a very different brew here in Scotland. Scotch Whisky it has ever been, and ‘Scotch Whiskey’ an embarrassing solecism unworthy of The New York Times.’’

By solecism, he means, according to my dictionary, a nonstandard usage or grammatical construction and a violation of etiquette.

Let me say that it is not now nor has it ever been (rarely been, at least) my intention to offend. And while I may appear to be enjoying this – well, why not? – I have not meant to behave solecistically.

Look, I could not work at a place like The New York Times if I didn’t love language and take it seriously. I know that the vast majority of Scots and partisans of Scotch prefer the e-less whisky. Knowing how they would react I tried to preempt it in my column with a little disclaimer. Obviously, it was not enough to stem the tide.

I decided to check in with my favorite word authority, Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary, and this is what he said:

“As an aficionado of whisky and whiskey, I do have deep feelings on the usage, which is pretty much that the Times style should be changed. This isn’t a case where a small group of fanatics are insisting on some highly personal interpretation of an issue that is not adhered to by anyone outside their cult. It’s almost universally the case that the word is spelled ‘whisky’ in Scotland and Canada, and ‘whiskey’ elsewhere, and that, as you have seen, people really do care about this as an important distinction. I’d also observe that the O.E.D. points this out in its entry. So I would encourage you to adopt this distinction in the style book. I have no problem with using ‘whiskey’ as a the main generic form, if there’s no indication of location.’’

Thanks, Jesse! I will discuss this usage issue with my editors and the editors whose job it is to make stylistic decisions for The New York Times. Your opinions will be heard.

By the way, if you care about language and enjoy thinking about it you might want to check out “The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage.’’ It’s an amazing work and demonstrates how much conscientious thought goes into making The Times consistent and well written. Not surprisingly, but encouragingly, certain entries in this latest edition of the style book are already out of date.

INSERT DESCRIPTIONINSERT CAPTION

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Benito December 4, 2008 · 3:43 pm

I’ve always followed the rule of thumb that if the English name of the country contains an “e”, then so does the spelling of the beverage and vice versa:

Whiskey:
Ireland
United States of America

Whisky:
Canada
Scotland
Japan

Some Bourbon producers buck the trend, but otherwise it’s always served me well.

Arthur, winesooth.com December 4, 2008 · 4:43 pm

I am with Benito.

Somewhere along the way, I came across information which basically stated that the use of the “e” identifies the product’s country of origin (if not the style and raw products used).

BGM December 4, 2008 · 4:45 pm

I have always considered Scotch Whisky like a proper name. Some spell their name Smith others Smyth. Who are we to tell the Smyth’s that they misspell their name. Even the spell check running on this comments wants me to change Smyth to Smith and Scotch Whisky to Scotch Whiskey. Is there no room for nonconformity?

Ben December 4, 2008 · 5:03 pm

When we talk about the hues of scotches, should we write “colour”? When we talk about French wines, do we have to write “vin”? The stuff we’re talking about is whiskey, which is how we spell it in the United States. I think it’s pretty far-fetched to suppose that “whisky” and “whiskey” are two different words. Is whisky a subclass of whiskey? Can you imagine a person saying, “I usually prefer whisky to other kinds of whiskey”?

Shannon December 4, 2008 · 5:21 pm

I think Graham from London should skip the Whisky and start on some valium immediately…

sabernar December 4, 2008 · 7:40 pm

I have to say, all the comments on the previous entry complaining about the spelling tired me out (and annoyed me). The article in the paper specifically stated that it was an editorial decision even though Mr. Asimov knew that there was a distinct difference in the spellings. After the second comment, did anyone else really need to keep posting the same fact over and over again?

Margaret Tong December 4, 2008 · 11:03 pm

It’s on the bottle – ‘Whisky’

The Macallan – Highland Single Malt Scotch Whisky

It’s on the bottle.

Slainthe bha

Heather December 5, 2008 · 12:51 am

The dropping of the “e” when there was an obvious and clear understanding that the Scottish spell whisky without it just seemed disrespectful…and for such a nice liquid. Its a shame because it really did distract from the otherwise wonderful coverage. Would it have been that much of a big deal?
Heather

Pat B December 5, 2008 · 3:26 am

I wouldn’t worry too much about the mis-spelling of whisky.

Even Diageo (voted Britain’s most admired company) cannot spell – on the Baileys page on their website they cannot spell ‘liqueur’ – so you are in good company.

Margaret Tong December 5, 2008 · 3:53 am

Aye, bit if ye’re fae Scotland, it’s nae whisky nor whiskey,
An at the hin o it a it’ll aye be uisge beatha.

The water of life

Steve, winescorecard.com December 5, 2008 · 7:09 am

I must agree with sabernar – don’t people have better things to do?

Jon December 5, 2008 · 8:50 am

I wish I could find whisky at the prices mentioned in the “Highlands” article, or Tamdhu anywhere. Any NJ store recommendations from by fellow enthusiasts?

Thanks.

Ron December 5, 2008 · 8:55 am

You put a disclaimer right in your article, so I’m not sure why people still insist on getting their pants in a knot. Boredom?

Charles December 5, 2008 · 9:35 am

Regarding the “Lafite as Burgundy” comment from London: it is of course not a Burgundy, but a Bordeaux. But the English do insist on calling it a claret, don’t they? Presumably, this generates similar storms of protest when it appears in print, rather than the “correct” French term.

rickey December 5, 2008 · 9:36 am

Tedious. So very tedious. Is there not a spelling blog somewhere where this can be debated?

Art Rose December 5, 2008 · 11:41 am

Does The NYTIMES Style Manual suggest using the correct spelling or the correct word?

Connor December 5, 2008 · 11:58 am

Thank you Mr. Asimov!

I studied abroad in Ireland while in college and enjoyed drinking WHISKEY with my new Irish friends but Scotch WHISKY when I spent time in Edinburgh. Returning home, I had a tough time explaining the difference to people.

I have passed along your article for this very reason.

Thanks for clarifying!
Connor
//www.thecommonconnoisseur.com

Ed December 5, 2008 · 1:45 pm

I’m with rickey, #15: can’t this be moved to a spelling blog?

But I have a more basic question regarding single malt scotch: what does the “single” refer to?

I had thought it meant the “whisky” was not blended
(as is Johnny Walker, for example, which says on the bottle “blended scotch whisky”). But in Eric’s column in the New York Times I believe he mentioned that the stated age of the single malt – “Balvene 12 years old”, for example – actually defines the youngest of the whiskys which may have been used to make it. So now I’m confused. Can someone enlighten me?

Oliver December 5, 2008 · 2:20 pm

Dear Eric Asimov,

Spelling whisky with an “e” when trying to describe single malt scotch whisky is not only incorrect, it shows an utter lack of understanding of what this spirit is all about.

The NYT style book’s passion for ‘consistency’ comes with at the expense of accuracy.

The irony is that you write about a product that has emerged, and continues to do so, in the last few decades partly because of the individuality of single malts and of consumers’ increased knowledge on the topic (hence the number of e-mails you must be getting).

Just as the directors of the old D.C.L. refused to market single malts seriously on the grounds that they were too individualistic and not consistent enough, the writing style at the NYT seems to assume that their readers are afflicted with an obsession for consistency and/or are unable to accept different spellings for different spirits or spirits from different origins.

It makes one wonder what other serious inaccuracies motivated by local custom (the style book) or whatever other bias, creep up undetected when one reads about topics one knows little about.

The insistence on spelling Scotch whisky with an (e) in the face of information to the contrary is however, rather more sad, since it seems to stem from a sort of provincialism that one might have thought the NYT unworthy of.

Reason December 5, 2008 · 2:24 pm

I commented on the spelling the other day. As i hope you noted, the criticism was not directed at you, i think i said that it was unfortunate that your editors did not understand the difference.

It is a slightly fine point, and it probably only matters if you are a regular enough drinker of the brown stuff to recognize the difference. However if that is the case, it does matter because whiskey is different than whisky. This is not to say that one is better than the other, or that it is incorrect to use a generic “whiskey” when referring to any old tipple, but clearly one has different expectations from a bottle of whiskey than one would have from a bottle of whisky. So for a column about whiskey(the general term), it is only natural to assume (as you did) that people who read it will know the difference and take it less seriously if the distinction is not made.

For example, Jameson or Tullamore Dew are fine products for what they are (say, if your pint of Guniness needs a wingman), but no bartender would ever dream of serving a Tully to someone who ordered a MacAllans (for one thing because he’d be completely ripping the customer off if he charged scotch prices for the irish). This is because they are different products.

I will not go so far as to agree with our friend from the UK’s example, but i will say that it is quite akin to describing California Pinot Noir as Burgundy. They are products distilled from the same ingredients in differnt parts of the world, but one attaches a different set of taste expectations, price points, and cachet to each one.

Michael December 5, 2008 · 3:05 pm

If you’re stating the name of the whiskey, as it appears on the label, then spell it as they maker spells it. But if you’re referring to it as a genre, spell it the way your publication and your countrymen spell it. This is just like color/colour. Ridiculous for people to complain about this.

Arthur, winesooth.com December 5, 2008 · 3:14 pm

I acknowledge that the “whisky”/”whiskey” distinction may seem pedantic, but is there more than regional variation in spelling here?

Could the use of “whisky” vs “whiskey” be analogous to the use of “shiraz” vs. “syrah” as a distinction of terroir ad elevage differences (between California, Australia and France?).

Ron December 5, 2008 · 4:15 pm

To Ed, #18, what’s happening is that Balvenie is producing barrel after barrel of whisky. Then, when it’s time to bottle, they’re taking multiple barrels and blending them together to make a final bottling.

But it’s all whisky from the same single source. If you bought, for instance, Teacher’s, a blended whisky, it would be comprised of whiskies from different distilleries.

Hope this helps.

Oliver December 5, 2008 · 4:19 pm

Indeed there was a time when whisky was spelled with an ‘e’ even in Scotland. Around the time of the ‘What is whisky?’ case. Early 20th century. One could assume reading the article that the editors haven’t realized that we are not in 1908 any longer….
This lack of respect for the naming of products not american is a constant here in the US. Going to so-called specialty store means that some well meaning salesperson will try to describe a double cream soft cheese made in Canada as “Brie.” (For example).
Little do they know that hard working people fight hard for the right to have their cheese called a brie.
But the whole concept of terroir, of aoc is indeed foreign to an exploited, underpaid wholefoods cheese counter person. And that is understandable, if regrettable. But a drinks specialist at the NYT to let his editors write single malt whiskey (sic) ? As Flaubert would have said: “gigantesque.”

Steve December 6, 2008 · 9:53 am

I really don’t care how it’s spelled. I liked the article. I toured Woodford Reserve distillery outside Lexington, KY, this summer, and had a fabulous time. Keep up the good work, Eric. KY bourbon is the way to go.