Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1354482" data-attributes="member: 177">Hm.&nbsp; You and I don't seem to be reading the same article.I make out his complaint to be that the term &quot;broadsword&quot; has been used by different people to mean different things, and that some uses are technically precise and correct and some are not, and that leads to misapprehension.I mean, think about it for a second - imagine someone sees a reference and physical description of the late 1600 to 1800 cavalry broadsword.&nbsp; Then, the same reader sees a reference to a &quot;broadsword&quot; of the 1400's (or a pseudo-Medieval), without precise descriptions, as you might see in a popular piece of fiction.&nbsp; Reader then thinks the 1800's type sword is around 400 years earlier, and gets an altogether inaccurate image...Odd.&nbsp; When I read his work, he doesn't ignore it.&nbsp; In fact, he seems to have evidence that the term has not been in use for 1000 years.&nbsp; He spends an entire paragraph mentioning how experts of the Medieval period didn't use the term.Do you have evidence that contradicts this?Language is an ever evolving thing, yes.&nbsp; But don't get all huffy when someone with expertise in a particular area tries to make it cleaner and more precise.&nbsp; Without clarification and reinforcement of &quot;proper&quot; language, we'd have terrible difficulty trying to understand each other.Wow, where do you see &quot;beating on&quot;?&nbsp; I see no &quot;beating&quot;.&nbsp; No berating, no belittling, no nothing.&nbsp; He simply states, &quot;In and after the Victorian Era, authors used the word to mean X.&nbsp; When the term is originally used to mean Y.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 1354482, member: 177"] Hm. You and I don't seem to be reading the same article. I make out his complaint to be that the term "broadsword" has been used by different people to mean different things, and that some uses are technically precise and correct and some are not, and that leads to misapprehension. I mean, think about it for a second - imagine someone sees a reference and physical description of the late 1600 to 1800 cavalry broadsword. Then, the same reader sees a reference to a "broadsword" of the 1400's (or a pseudo-Medieval), without precise descriptions, as you might see in a popular piece of fiction. Reader then thinks the 1800's type sword is around 400 years earlier, and gets an altogether inaccurate image... Odd. When I read his work, he doesn't ignore it. In fact, he seems to have evidence that the term has [b]not[/b] been in use for 1000 years. He spends an entire paragraph mentioning how experts of the Medieval period didn't use the term. Do you have [i]evidence[/i] that contradicts this? Language is an ever evolving thing, yes. But don't get all huffy when someone with expertise in a particular area tries to make it cleaner and more precise. Without clarification and reinforcement of "proper" language, we'd have terrible difficulty trying to understand each other. Wow, where do you see "beating on"? I see no "beating". No berating, no belittling, no nothing. He simply states, "In and after the Victorian Era, authors used the word to mean X. When the term is originally used to mean Y." [/QUOTE]

Verification