Talk:Honi soit qui mal y pense

message: There appears to be a commercial advertisement for a book on the subject at the start of the 'History' subheading.
Peter Fagan (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: Nor is it literally translated as "shame on him who thinks evil 'there'".  The French word y can mean "there", but in this phrase it functions as one of the two partitives (the other being "en").  Partitives take the place of a preposition, in this case a and a pronoun referring to something previously mentioned or understood.  So, why is there a preposition in the phrase, even if it's concealed inside the partitive y?   It's required by the verb penser, in much the same way as "to think" requires the preposition "of" in English.  So:
mal penser a la ceinture = "to think evil of the garter".
mal y penser             = "to think evil of it".
This is absolutely first-semester French.  I don't know why so many books get it wrong.
Pithecanthropus (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's completely wrong. There is no "of it". It's not "mal y penser", it's "mal y pense" meaning "pense au mal" (in modern French). There's no "of it".
It's not first-semester of French, it's ancient French, the grammar is completely different.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:857E:4037:E39:D3F0 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: "First semester French"?? Lol. I have a degree in French history. I don't remember anything like discussions of partitives in ancient French in my first year. Your aggressive stance suggests the flaw in your reasoning: In legal circles it might be called: "Following the letter, and not the spirit, of the law." Regardless of your "literal" interpretation, the phrase has come to take on a significance of its own. The story about King Edward and Joan of Kent shows what this phrase means to people now. It's an idiom, and what it might have meant to someone in England who spoke more or less "proper" French 600 years ago is irrelevant to its current usage. Unless you'd like to get in a time machine, travel back, and slap Edward on the hand for getting it wrong. Grin, 98.210.208.107 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would totally disagree that one can adopt a mistranslation as a proper.  Also, the mistranslation ignores the history and the very reason for the existence of the phrase. Certainly there is no confusion in French speaking world.  "soit qui mal y pense" is perfectly acceptable in modern french.Wiredrabbit (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: I can't discern the relevance of this post to anything Pithecanthropus said; in any case, Pithecanthropus is right. I've removed the "translation". Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  It does not mean "evil to him who thinks evil" 

message: Why why why does this need to merge?  Surely as long as things are referenced it's fine.  This spreading compulsion to merge articles is bothering.  Ultimately it leads to one vast article containing everything!! There should be an over-riding and driving reason for merging not just some subjective (even if it is that of the handful of readers who trouble to comment) taxonomic rational.  Taxonomies are entirely subjective and depend on the notion of scoping being applied to the subject under consideration.  For me it was great to find this article.  It was precisely what I wanted.  If I want to learn more I can click on the link.  Job done. So WHY MERGE?  What's the problem being solved here?  Merging is a solution in search of a problem, a sort of tidy-desk syndrome!  LookingGlass (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why merge? 

message: In contemporary French, yes, Honni is spelled with 2 ns; but the phrase usually retains its Old French spelling, where Honi only has one n.
Paulo Eagleton 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: I think that is article is completely superfluous. There is nothing in here that could not be mentioned in the main Garter article. Im moving for a merge.--Eva bd 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the history of the respective articles five years ago, but the way the two articles stand now is appropriate. One is about a well-known phrase with a long and famous history, the other is about an honor and an organization. I came to to Wiki to read about the phrase, paused to comment in discussion here about what I thought was a misrepresentation, and have no interest in the article about Order of the Garter. The two articles have distinct functions. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary

message: I am puzzled by the following -
"The motto also appears on the entry gates to pop star Michael Jackson's Neverland estate, emblazoned on his personal crest beneath a royal lion and a gemstone-collared unicorn[5]."
How could Jackson have had a crest, if he didn't have a coat of arms to place the crest upon?
And as far as I know Jackson wasn't armigerous, so the paragraph above makes no sense. And even if Jackson had decided to award himself arms, why would the crest be beneath the lion and unicorn? A crest sits on a helmet, or on a torse.
Doktordoris (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having checked it out, there are two armorial achievements used on the gate to the Neverland ranch (see here). The achievement on the gate itself (better detail here) is the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom, I am surprised he wasn't take to task for this as I would be very surprised if he had ever been given permission by Queen Elizabeth II to use these arms. The connection to the motto is the usage of the Garter Belt in these arms. In view of the usage solely in the Royal Arms, the display on the gates of the Neverland Ranch is a non-notable occurence of the use of the motto and I am removing it from the main article. The achivement above the gate is completely separate to the achivement on the gate (better picture here and here). This is formed as a marital marshalling of arms with the husband's arms on the left and the wife's on the right, surmounted with the Crown of St Edward. This is marshalling does not appear to be legitimate. The use of the Crown of St Edward links it to UK heraldic tradition, however its use is reserved for royalty and organisations that have been provided with royal patronage - its (authorised) use is tightly controlled. Moreover, in English heraldic tradition, the use of two shields in a martialling of arms only occurs when the husband and/or wife is a knight or dame of an order that the other is not or is a peer of a different rank to the other. In such cases the insignia of the order of knighthood or peerage rank are shown with the applicable shield. This is the entire purpose of using two shields since, in other circumstances, convention is that the two arms are displayed on the one shield by impalement or, in limited circumstances, on an escutcheon of pretence. The arms shown do not conform to these conventions. Without seeing the detail of the arms, it is not possible to comment on the origin of the arms themselves but I would be surprised if Jackson or Presley were armigerous. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't think Michael Jackson was armigerous

message: You cannot always be literal when translating from one language to another so part of translation is knowing the mind of those who speak the language in question.
So let us start again with Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.
Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.
Synonyms are.
mépriser, répudier, haïr, vomir, détester, vilipender, maudire, abominer, abhorrer, siffler, chérir 
Couvrir de honte.
Honte is a complex emotion as you can see from the synonyms so one has to examine the origins.
From Middle French, from Old French hunte (“dishonour”), of Germanic origin, from Old Low Frankish *hōnitha, *haunitha (“disdain, scorn, ridicule”), from Proto-Germanic *hauniþō (“humiliation”), from Proto-Indo-European *kaw- (“to be evil, make evil”). Cognate with Old High German hōnida (“dishonour”), Middle Dutch hoonde (“dishonour”),
Here the most appropriate word is 'dishonour', which appears three times, into 'dishonourable' and it was the honour of the lady wearing the garter that was being upheld by the King.
So I suggest that my own initial understanding of Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense is the correct one as Mal can mean bad as well as evil, and the use of the word evil is too strong and should be totally discounted.
Hence "Dishonourable are those who think bad of it." The King's action in placing the garter on his own leg thereby saving the lady from the ridicule of the entourage.
Dishonourable is the FORMAL use of Honi in this motto.
In fact the King found the reaction of the people to be DISGUSTING and PATHETIC in that they should snigger at someone else's misfortune like hyenas/dogs.
Clearly Y means 'of it', and, as someone has already mentioned, this is entry level French.
My family was of French/Frankish origin going back to 732AD so it was a natural translation which came easily to me especially knowing the circumstances in which the King performed this action and the mind of the King in performing this action.
See: Lord Lyon 178.116.241.153 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Honi is an adjective, meaning cursed, banned, be the evil on the person.. An adjective, but it's the meaning that must be translated. The translation in the article are not very acurate. I suggested one another that respect more the meaning. Dishounouralbe is not strong enough, it's a real course here. "Honni soit..." is a curse on someone.
I've added in the lead "although the French phrase is not gendered", on which there seems to be consensus. Errantius (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now revised the lead so that this problem does not arise there. Errantius (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct translation and derivation. 

message: In a recent change, an editor noted that 'Honi soit qui mal y pense' was the motto on the school badge of Market Harborough Grammar School. Someone had previously added that this was the motto of The King's School, Grantham. I suggest that both of these school mentions be removed from this article. (The articles on the schools themselves can continue to mention the motto if editors deem it relevant). If we were to carefully list all echoes of this celebrated motto as used by other institutions there would probably be thousands. A reader probably does not come to this article to gain this kind of information. For example, there must be hundreds or thousands of schools named after John F. Kennedy but his article does not provide a list. ('Kennedy school' gets 16.5 million Google hits). EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --99of9 (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest that school mottos not be included here 

message: Can someone translate the second part?
"Tel qui s'en rit aujoud'hui, demain s'enhorera de la porter"
"Something about wearer/ carrier= --109.91.84.185 (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tel = the one, whoever who...
s'en rit = mock it. (s'en rire is mocking something), demain s'enhorera (in modern French: demain, s'enorgueuillera, s'honorera) de la porter.
whoever (the one) who dare to mock it, tomorrow will be honoured to wear it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:857E:4037:E39:D3F0 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Translation 

message: The phrase is found within the lyrics to the song, Hoops from the 1932 Broadway Revue The Band Wagon as performed by Fred and Adele Astaire.  See   http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107859137521/   70.29.71.187 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very small '''other''' use: 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Honi soit qui mal y pense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905220948/http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/5452.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/5452.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140128033549/http://www.abbaziasanpaolo.net/farmacia.php to http://www.abbaziasanpaolo.net/farmacia.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My father served in the Royal Canadian Ordinance Corps during World War II.  I have his hat badge and it has on it the motto "Honi soit qui mal y pense."  I believe that the unit is now part of the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.  I hope this is of some use to you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Frederick C. (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Army 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Honi soit qui mal y pense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328034823/http://www.scissorsforlefty.com/Press/TheTimes-SFL-LPRvw-050107%5B1%5D.jpg to http://www.scissorsforlefty.com/Press/TheTimes-SFL-LPRvw-050107%5B1%5D.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622224928/http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/history/653.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/history/653.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227093459/http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Corps/The-Royal-Australian-Engineers to http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Corps/The-Royal-Australian-Engineers
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227093702/http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Corps/The-Royal-Australian-Army-Ordnance-Corps to http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Corps/The-Royal-Australian-Army-Ordnance-Corps
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219143846/http://www.armyreserve.mil.nz/todays-reserve/units/6-hau/default.htm to http://www.armyreserve.mil.nz/todays-reserve/units/6-hau/default.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A very similar phrase occurs, in English, in a perhaps earlier Middle English poem, Wynnere and Wastoure.  It is cited as an existing English saying (saw):
:And alle was it one sawe, appon Inglisse tonge,
:Hethyng have the hathell that any harme thynkes.
::(hethyng = scorn;  hathell = man)
In the narrator's dream, the words are seen to be sewn into knightly garters ("iche a gartare") of gold. They are "payntted of plunket" (a "light greyish blue"OED).
 Errantius (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier source? 

message: Is this French ("fr") or Anglo-Norman ("xno")? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on a) what you mean by "French" and b) whether you're a lumper or a splitter.  It's really not that much of a difference here.  Other than some archaic terms (Honi vs. Honte) and some possible word order differences, it's passable even for modern French, and in the 1500s Middle French would not have been all that different from the Anglo-Norman variety.  In 1500, asking whether it was Anglo Norman French or Middle (Continental) French would not be much different than asking if it were Scouse, Brummie, or Geordie.  --Jayron32 12:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking in 2020, and what I mean by "French" is indicated by the ISO language code "fr", which I cited, and which is the language meant by the lede's French, although the article is mostly marked up using the "xno" code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, if you think it's wrong, you could just fix it.  You don't need my permission (or anyone else's for that matter).  Wikipedia only gets better when people who care fix things.  It appears you care?  Maybe you should just fix it.  --Jayron32 13:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Once I know what is wrong I will gladly fix it. Hence my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean "French as she is spoken in 2020" then the language in question is not that.  Though the phrase is intelligible to someone who can speak French in 2020, in ways similar to whatever we now call Middle English can be understood, especially in short phrases such as this.  Languages change over time, and labels we give to things are not immutable laws of physics, but depend on who is giving it the label and what for.  Again, if your requirement for calling something French is limited to "The exact language called French today" then it probably isn't that, but also recognizing that the word French (as what is meant by the ISO code "fr"), even today, represents a continuum of dialects, and those dialects may or may not be as different from each other as the language in question is from any of them individually.  The real question is "what serves the reader?"  If it is sufficient to consider the Anglo-Norman language as a subset of "French", then I'm not sure it matters that we get more specific than that.  The point I was initially trying to make is that even linguists don't agree on these definitions, and there may not be clear bright dividing lines between the categories you are asking about.  To say "Is it Anglo-Norman" does not mean it is not also "French" for any particular useful definition of "French".  That's like asking if the variety of French spoken in Nice or Lyon or Paris or Quebec or West Africa is the same or different languages?  It's messy.  --Jayron32 11:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I'll put my question in a different way.  Spelling aside, if somebody says "Hon(n)i soit qui mal y pense", is that correct in Anglo-Norman and correct in Middle French? Errantius (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  French? 

message: There appear to be almost duplicate entries regarding its Other Use. Both the seventh and the twelfth entries refer to the phrase being used in the Apollo Lunar Module computer source code comments. I don't feel qualified to fix this, since they are not exactly the same and they cite different external references. But it looks like it should be done. Earlthenut (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate under "Other Uses" Apollo Lunar Module source code comments