SC - What's a "redaction?"

[Philip & Susan Troy]

cclark at vicon.net wrote:
> 
> An *interpretation*, *reconstruction*, or *adaptation* of a period recipe is
> not a redaction. Unfortunately, some SCA person misused the word that way a
> long time ago, since which time it seems that most other SCA cooks have
> adopted the supposed SCA standard instead of trying to write or speak in
> English. Maybe that's all right if we only communicate with insiders who
> know our language. But if we ever try to communicate with real scholars, we
> might come across as a lot of confused ignoramuses.

I agree with all this, and have said so before. I hate the SCA usage of
"redaction". On the other hand, if we're restricting ourselves to
standard usage only, we can also eliminate "mundane", "period", "on
board", "seneschal", and a plethora of other terms more or less central
to the function of the SCA.

It's unfortunate that there are people in the SCA who can't switch back
and forth between standard English and SCAdian English as the need
arises, because while they may deserve some of the disdain of serious
scholars, many others don't.

As I say, I agree with you, but suspect this will be a lost cause unless
you're prepared for years of annoying effort.

Adamantius, Eastern Division Executive for Artistic Endeavor and
Educational Services
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================