[Artemisia] Smalls and language

[Stephanae Baker]

Dearest Niccolo,

While I agree with many of your points regarding calling children  
"children," I cannot embrace it as a standardized term to replace all  
others, and one of those "others" is smalls. To me, although the  
article I linked to seems to indicate that smalls is an acceptable  
"period" term, albeit with a modernized noun declension, and although  
linguistics and etymology are among my favorite pastimes, it's not  
about authenticity. I speak modern at events all the time. In fact, I  
can't speak Middle English, let alone period Italian to match my  
persona. And even if I could, no one would understand me.

Because I speak modern, I most often refer to the group of  
individuals in question as "children." Although, if I'm talking about  
those who are eligible to participate in SCA activities for people  
under the age of majority, I usually call them, "youth." Then again,  
sometimes I call them kids, brats, monsters, or rugrats—none of which  
I will attempt to justify as period terms (although I may have to  
compulsively google the etymology of "brat" when I'm finished with  
this note)—but again, I don't have the skill to speak period. I don't  
call them "smalls," but I always enjoy hearing people use words that  
I typically do not use. I have a friend who calls hers "spawn," which  
I also don't use in such a context, but it makes me smile. However, I  
do worry about authenticity in that I probably would not employ many  
of these words were I trying to speak "in persona."

My point is that we speak modern English, and I am for anything that  
enriches our lexicon and against anything that would impoverish it.  
In fact, I have some amount of difficulty understanding the many  
arguments I see in the SCA that indicate we should have only a single  
word for each concept. To bring up the oft-referred-to waster  
conversation, I remember that several people in that conversation  
proposed simply calling the objects "swords." Why not call a sword a  
sword? Well, were we to go that route, we would have merchants at  
events selling sharp objects made of metal called swords; we would  
have grown men and women fighting with tape-wrapped rattan objects  
called swords; and we would have people of all ages sometimes  
fighting with foam and cloth objects called swords. We would  
ultimately end up modifying the noun sword in order to distinguish  
between these many "swords." We'd end up with "heavy fighter swords"  
and "youth swords" at the very least. So why not head that problem  
off, if possible, by keeping more nouns in our lexicon?

Why do we want to eliminate so many words from the English language?  
Is it not bad enough that we've already lost almost all declension,  
conjugation, and the intimate second person singular? Do we not have  
room enough in our Society for both people who use the word  
"children" and people who use the word "smalls?" And, isn't it nice  
to be able to use more than one word for something and possibly still  
remain in persona?

Of course, "common understanding" is not my justification for very  
much of my speech—particularly not my written communications. More  
often, I am motivated by love of language. These are extremely  
different motivators. The first would seem to require standardizing  
on simple vocabulary, while the second requires quite the opposite— 
expanding and embracing our vocabulary. I'd like to close with an  
example of this difference.

I have an object in my house that I most often call a colander. I  
grew up calling it that in my house, where my mother owned a similar  
object. I also sometimes call it a strainer, which was another word I  
commonly heard for it in my childhood, and which makes the object's  
purpose quite clear. When I remember that I really like the sound of  
the word "sieve," I call it that, just to hear the word. Finally, the  
Lady Flora, of whose household I am a member, frequently calls this  
object a noodle-stay water-go, which still makes me giggle after five  
years. Now, were I motivated by "common understanding," I might feel  
compelled to call a household meeting and suggest that we all call a  
strainer a strainer, since that seems like the clearest and simplest  
of the words for this object. But I am motivated by love of language,  
and I love having these multiple words for the same object floating  
about. They tickle me.

Of course, I think you will not be able to accuse me of poor  
spelling, and I sometimes wonder who I might have been in another  
lifetime around the 14th or 15th century to feel this way, but I have  
issues with standardized spelling, too. This is especially true in  
the SCA, since standardized spelling is definitely NOT early period  
and was in its infancy throughout the end of our period. I know that  
Shakespeare spelled his own name in at least two different ways,  
apparently at whim, and yet our College of Heralds rejects names  
based on spelling. I imagine our knowledgeable heralds have good  
justification for this practice, but since I haven't discovered the  
arguments and precedents for it yet, it still makes me wonder.

Respectfully,
Lady Belladonna


On Aug 9, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Bruce Padget wrote:

>
> I intend to use "children" as a term for children, at
> least for the time being, but for another reason --
> _The Courtier_, which I try to use as a guide in
> persona development, urges one to avoid affectation
> and to speak so as to be easily understood.  Of
> course, there are limits to this.  If I avoid all
> affectation, I'm just Bruce in funny clothes, and then
> what's the point?
>
> How many read this article, and simply said to
> yourself, "See, I was right all along!"  A stopped
> clock is right twice a day.  If common understanding
> is the justification, why not use "children," which
> will be more commonly understood?  I couple of the
> folks I know for whom "smalls"=children have said in
> conversation, "F*** authenticity."  (Yes, in those
> words.  Quite a few others have expressed similar
> sentiments, but been a little more gentle about it.)
> If they truly mean that, wouldn't this article require
> them to stop using "smalls" to mean children?
>
> Regards,
> Niccolo
> bapadget at yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>