[ Back to the listing ]
[ Post Reply ]
[ Help ]
[ Search ]
[ List All Forums ]
Posted By: Walt Mathers on: 12/03/2004 11:38:00 EDT|
Subject: RE: Word Games During Re-created Msg Trafficing
This word-usage game is a good subject for discussion and I appreciate you're coming at it from what you've been told by some of the folks outside of our somewhat narrow and thus fixated area of interest.
I was admonished by someone in our narrow community for refering to the Federal signal battle flag as a vanity flag. I was informed that it was an honor flag. So I begain calling it a signal honor's flag. Once I got into copies of the original documents here at the SCA archive I realized that it was actually called a signal battle flag. I couldn't find mention of either of the two previous terms in any of the original docs.
Now, back to the turn-off part. Its interesting to note that the turn'd off group you had mentioned actually included re-enactors. Funny? No. But it did raise concern to me because these folks were not, nor were ever accustomed to the relative stiffness of mid-19th century military form.
We have a two-sided operation at this site. It works well with those who provide the research and those who carry out the practice (hopefully based on that research).
I've always found, at least in the area of dance instruction, that a man who does not lead his patner by the hand out onto the dance floor and then to her seat again after the piece has ended, seldom is seen doing so at the REAL dance either.
I have seen the same effects repeated again, and aagain, on the re-enacting dance floor. Words like guys, wig-wag, team and may others are tossed about with animated innocence. So refering to your lines again....
"I fully agree with reminders of the "proper lines" and language of mid-19thC life. However, I also think it can become an affectation and an encumbrance when we introduce it too freely into our modern discourse--especially with "strangers" and those outside our somewhat narrow fixation. If it "turns them off" we shouldn't be using it."
... how do we gently encourage our re-enacting portion to not use the words if this is suppose to be the sacred ground for nid-nineteenth century military communication 'lingo'?
I know that not all will be helped by our (intended) gentle proding. I met with someone earlier in the year who was giving a lecture on teleraphy. He kept inserting the word CORPS at the end of every mention of United States Millitary Telegraph. Following the talk, I was able to read a work that he had edited and what do you think I found.... Corps Corps Corps attached to every mention of USMTC even!
Both of us know this fellow and I even thingk you have mentioned that Corps should not be part of the group's title. Did this work? No. Will thousands now read his edited work and commence with parrotting what this person chose to write above better wisdom? Yes. We can't do much about folks who fit the later description of Proverbs 12:1 but we can make a difference here. I may be wrong on this issue (Proverbs 12:1 first part), but if we can't say it here where we seem to have the attention of those who seek it, should we separate the two sites? I'm the last person who'd want a flame to flash out over something so trival to most (even re-enactors who aren't into role playing) but I am wondering if it isn't just the old Walt Mathers here-it-is 'deal-with-it" approach to tackling such situations?
An inquiring flag flopper wants to know ;)
Signal Corps Association Re-enactors' Division (SCARD)