[Artemisia] Smalls vs. ???

[Bruce Padget]

--- Madonna Belladonna wrote:

> Also, you might find this article on the topic
> interesting:
> http://slumberland.org/sca/articles/smalls.html

A wonderful little article, thank you!

It raises a few fun points.  I should begin by
confessing that I was one of those who used to repeat,
without looking into it, that "smalls" meant
underwear.  It appears I was wrong, and any I have
offended by correcting them in that way are invited to
seek redress as they wish.  While it is no substitute
for proper apology, I hereby apologize categorically
to all I have thus offended.

The author of the article leaves out one possible
source for the "smalls"=underwear mistake, perhaps out
of kindness.  One all-too-common mistake in the SCA is
to think that anything old is period.  For example,
much of the etiquette taught in the SCA is Victorian. 
To one careless about history, 1769 is as good as
1600.

Strictly speaking, "smale" or "smalle" is not the same
as "smalls," but I've never met anyone in the SCA who
was a stickler for using period plural forms.  So I
can no longer see any ground for objecting to "smalls"
as a term for children.

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