[Ansteorra] Royal Hunter

[Dave Wise]

Thanks Robin, 
I'm glad to see that others are also interested in the correct usage of terminology.  Relating back to the original post, I am curious as to why some folks were taking such offense at the word "man".  Last time I checked, the first and foremost use is a reference to mankind.  At least that's what Merriam Webster has to say on the matter (granted they only go back to 1828, I don't have a current Oxford English dictionary handy):

man noun
\ ˈman
, in compounds ˌman or mən \
plural men\ ˈmen
, in compounds  ˌmen or  mən \
Definition of man

 (Entry 1 of 4)
1a(1) : an individual human

So, regardless of whatever category folks want to put themselves in, I'm guessing that they still consider themselves an individual human...

Alexis

(who tries to continue to teach, whether it is armouring in the shop to those who show up, or as a guest lecturer at the Houston Museum of Natural Science when they had their armour exhibit)


Alexis, I have some good news for you.  Ansteorra will not use the more modern word for this title, nor will it sacrifice historical accuracy.

The word “hunter” has been used in English since 1250, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.  Chaucer and many other medieval authors used the word "hunter".


By contrast, “huntsman” is just barely in the SCA's period.  The first recorded use of it was in 1567.


“Hunter” is *less* modern, *more* historically accurate, *more* authentic.


Since you have expressed a strong interest in using more accurate language, I'm sure that this will please you.

[And as long as the SCA has people like me who will look up the history and teach it to those who don't know it yet, we can continue to represent ourselves as an educational corporation.]

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin