[Artemisia] Smalls and language

[Stephanae Baker]

Mistress Maire,

I'm not certain if your questions were meant to be rhetorical, but I  
will respond with my opinion--for both of the cents it's worth--in  
case they were not.

As to your first question, I say, yes, absolutely use a term that  
that persona would have been more likely to use if you're trying to  
speak "in persona." However, I'll give my opinion on how that point- 
of-view fits with the jargon words you mentioned one by one, because  
I believe the three are very different.

My persona was more likely acquainted with the concept of dragons  
than airplanes or cars. So, when an airplane flies over my head at an  
event, and someone near me clutches her head, attempts to duck, and  
begins to scream about dragons in a terrified way, it amuses me and  
reminds me of where I'm supposed to be. In the end, there are no  
period options; our modern options are to try and ignore it or call  
it something other than an airplane.

On the other hand, it seems to me like the appearance of telephones  
at events is something we should be able to control. My preference in  
this case would be that people who must use their phones at events  
disappear quietly into the privacy of their own pavilions and that  
the rest of us not be required to mention or notice them at all, but  
since everyone does not do that, well, "farspeaker" is silly but can  
still serve to remind you of the game.

Finally, as to smalls, since it does have a period counterpart, I  
think my persona might have used it if she were English. The  
modernization of its grammar and pronunciation bothers me not at all  
since all the English words I use at events have modernized grammar  
and pronunciation, and there's nothing we can do about that short of  
requiring everyone in the Society to learn and use Middle English. I,  
for one, am up for trying, but I think we might lose some membership  
if we do.

As far as the neologisms go, it's my opinion that they developed  
through politics in our Known World. Since my persona is part of our  
Known World, I feel like they are very legitimate words for her to  
use. We do, after all, have our own politics that are not entirely  
period, and we should have them, and I think we absolutely should  
invent words to describe concepts within them. To me, more words  
equals richer and fewer words equals poorer.

As to your second question, I'm not sure what you mean by "accurate."  
All the words you mentioned accurately describe what they're meant to  
describe to listeners who have the same reference. I use words all  
the time, like oh say, recondite, that I'm not certain everyone has a  
reference for, but I like to trust that people who don't know what  
I'm talking about will ask me, and that if they ask me and I explain  
it, then we will afterwards have the same reference. I do not think I  
should erase such words from my vocabulary because not everyone knows  
what they mean.

I do absolutely think that a language is impoverished if one cannot  
express oneself in either a "cutesy" fashion or an "adult" fashion,  
as the mood strikes.

Having said all that, I absolutely respect your desire to move toward  
more "adult" speech, at least in our official stance. Context is  
everything. "Dragon" and even "farspeaker" used lightly to recover  
from having seen modern items are amusing, if cutesy, reminders of  
what we're playing at. But to forbid some poor newbie from saying  
"telephone" and tell him he must instead say "farspeaker" or from  
saying "car" and tell him to say "dragon" is just plain idiotic. But  
hey, even in the SCA, one or two people might be slightly stupid. I  
might be one of them! :)

Belladonna




On Aug 9, 2007, at 8:33 PM, S CLEMENGER wrote:

> Interesting.  You must be hanging out in places I don't, because  
> I've neither seen nor experienced that kind of behavior.  My  
> understanding of the move away from words/jargon such as  
> "farspeaker" and "dragon" and "smalls" and neologisms such as  
> "feastocrat" and "nastyocrat" is that it is, in general, intended  
> to move us (as a group) away from the overly cutesy and/or  
> inaccurate terms to ones more accurate, more "adult," and less  
> jargon-y.  If we're trying to speak "in persona," why *not* use a  
> term that that persona would have been more likely to use? How is  
> it possibly an impoverishment of a language to endeavor to be more  
> accurate when communicating in that language?
> --Maire