Re: Semantic mismappings

Andreas Johansson scripsit:

> So the present situation is that by
> its own, _moear_ typically means "weapon", but in derived forms typically
> still "sword", eg _moearbho_ "swordsman, fencer".
This is not strange.  I forget the details, but Sino-Japanese has a
morpheme that means "soup" by itself and "hot water" (the Chinese meaning)
in compounds.  And in English, "with" as an independent morpheme is now
firmly instrumental and comitative, but in old compounds ("withstand",
"withdraw", etc.) still has its older meaning of opposition.

> _Catearan_ is a bit troublesome too - I above translated it as
> "sworn ones", since the root is the verb cat- "to swear (someone)
> allegiance". _-ear_ is a more or less agental ending, and _-an_ the pl,
> so more literally something like "swearers of allegiance", but with
> the lexicalized implication that they are in the position of having
> sworn someone allegiance, not that they currently are so swearing.
I think "homagers" is what you want, those who have done homage and
sworn fealty to a lord.  One could swear fealty without doing homage,
specifically in the case where one held lands of two lords, in which case
one could be homager of only one lord, and swore fealty to the second lord
"saving the rights of" the first.  To do homage, as the word implies,
is to "become [someone's] man of life and limb and earthly worship",
where "worship" here has its older sense of "worth+ship", now preserved
only in the line from the traditional marriage service: "with my body I
thee worship".  "Fealty", though, is just French for "fidelity."

> 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".

As for "goembho", there is no doubt that "traitor" originally referred
specifically to those who betrayed their lords.  This was the worst of
crimes in mediaeval society, and Dante reserves the very bottom of Hell,
just above Satan himself, for such sinners.  "Treason" and "traitor"
later were narrowed to those who betrayed "their sovereign Lord the King"
(later extended to other kinds of sovereigns; the U.S. Constitution
takes the trouble to define treason, because it was so specifically a
crime against the King's *person* that a new definition was needed for
a newly kingless society).  "Betray" OTOH was widened to refer to anyone.

Until the 19th century, killing one's husband, bishop (of a clergyman),
owner, or employer was still called "petit treason", and punished more
harshly than plain murder.

--
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!
America! America!  God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
        -- one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools

Replies