Re: Semantic mismappings

Andreas Johansson and John Cowan wrote:

> > Whether you openly renounce allegiance to your lord/lady, or just
> > silently betreys him/her, he/she has every right to have you executed
> > in a maximally painful way, but only in the later case does he/she have
> > any right to look down on you. In the former case you're an _achatear_,
> > with your honour intact, in the later a _goembho_ ['gwemBo], something
> > like "traitor", with your honour lost. Can anyone think of a convenient
> > way of making the distinction achatear~goembho in English?
>
>The technical term for terminating fealty is "defiance": a vassal could
>defy his lord, setting himself up as an independent lord or finding
>another lord to transfer his fealty to.  However, the widened meaning
>of "defy, defiance" would tend to overwhelm any narrow use of them in
>modern English.  The noun "defiant", however, never acquired an extended
>sense and is now archaic; it might be usable for "achatear".
I found the historical discussion interesting in its own right, but I just
realized that these concepts and English vocabulary have some applicability
to a situation (or two) in one of my concultures, a situation(s) that
figures quite prominantly in the story.  It's not the same thing as fealty
in a feudal setting, but it does involve an oath of loyalty and the
breaking of that oath.

John, would you be so kind as to use "defy," "defiance," and "defiant" with
their antiquated meanings in some example sentences for me so that I'm sure
that I know how to use them with the right syntax, etc.?  It would be
extremely helpful.  Thank you.

Isidora