From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Period terminology
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:34:42 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Rialto

Greetings, all, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn.  In response to my distinguishing 
two reasons for trying to keep things "periodoid", Arval said,

>I would like to discuss the distinction between these two cases: There is a
>major difference.  "Feastcrat" and the other "-crat" words are purely
>inventions of the 20th century; "car" is a medieval term which has modern
>associations.  By refraining from using "-crat" words, we avoid a modern
>artifact, which I think is a definite improvement.  By refraining from
>using "car", we give up part of medieval culture to avoid modern
>associations; it is not so clear when this is a good thing.  

No, we give up one item of medieval _vocabulary_, which is, I think, quite
a different thing.  I give up _far_ more by not being familiar with medieval
Welsh -- the whole language.  Consider that the item we give up is not even
appropriate to most personae.  And we're not giving up a _thing_: we are 
making a word choice decision.  Every time we prefer one word, we disprefer
many others -- as did our medieval forebears.

For instance: I started the "-crat" case not with "feastcrat" but with
"autocrat".  "Feastcrat" is modern -- but "autocrat" is not, and neither
are generative suffixes.  Do you have the same objection to "autocrat"?
If so, how do you justify it?

I agree that giving up all terms with modern association is probably bad,
and that in the case of those that were the preferred means of saying
something in early modern English, it is better to establish their
early modern meanings.  But for me, destroying my own _sense_ of the medieval 
for the sole purpose of insisting to everyone that something _is_ medieval 
(which, in this case, I already know, and so would most people around me 
who cared) is equally bad.

>Let me construct a hypothetical example, harkening back to an old Rialto
>discussion.  Suppose I were able to document that in the 14th century, some
>people wore blue fustian trousers with brass rivets, etc., exactly like
>modern blue jeans.  Should I wear them to SCA events?  If I do, then most
>people will see a modern artifact at the event and those who care about the
>medieval atmosphere may be bothered by what they perceive as a 20th century
>intrusion.  If I decide not to wear my medieval trousers in order to avoid
>giving this impression, then I am letting other peoples' ignorance limit my
>research and re-creation.  In effect, I am assisting other people to remain
>ignorant by playing to their mis-conceptions of medieval culture.  

There are many ways to correct ignorance other than going to events and
saying "Hey, look, this is medieval."  Indeed, wearing your jeans to an
event is probably one of the _least_ effective ways to cure the ignorance.
Try publishing an article in _TI_, with references and arguments.  Believe
me, if you could prove this one, word _would_ get out -- and inside a year,
we'd be seeing nothing _but_ jeans at events, never mind how rare they were
in the 14th C.

>                                                                   Anghard
>looked at this question from a slightly different point-of-view: She would
>choose not to wear the trousers because they feel modern to her, the same
>way that "car" sounds modern.  (Forgive me if I am taking your position to
>an illogical extreme; I hope you'll allow me the rhetorical device.)  Is
>this not the same sort of pandering to ignorance, except that in this case
>you are playing to your _own_ mis-conceptions?

First, I have no misconceptions about the medieval use of the word "car".
I am well aware of it: but it coexists in the same brain that deals with
my Toyota every day.  Human cognition and memory makes its living, to an
astonishingly large degree, through associations.  You can't simply turn
off a modern association that strong -- or anyhow, I can't.

Second, I would certainly choose not to wear the jeans until at least some
of the people around had independent evidence for them, since repeating
"Yes, they are period, you can find the documentation in X" about nine
thousand times is not my idea of a fun day.

Third, it is not as if there are so few period clothing styles or words
that refraining from using one will leave me naked or speechless.  There 
are many I refrain from because I think they are ugly or (to most of my
hearers) meaningless.  There are many period recipes I don't cook, not
because I think they aren't authentic, and not even because I think 
they're disgusting, but just because I've tried them and I don't like them 
-- just as there are many modern things I don't cook (or wear) for exactly 
the same reason.  Selection is as much a medieval as a modern phenomenon.
I think there are sometimes good reasons from our recreations to make a
kind of selection that we normally don't hear as often discussed.

Cheers,

-- Angharad/Terry
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca