Redaction (was: SC - Sources and documentation)

[cclark at vicon.net]

> ... The fact that 
>this word is used for a specific meaning makes it valid. Dictionaries do not 
>define the language, the living language does, IMO. ...

This strikes me as being a highly fatalistic view of language. We do not
have to be bound by conventional usage within our in-group any more than we
have to be bound by dictionary definitions. The "living language" does not
define the language, the users thereof do. The language has life and form
only by the consent of its users.

And as users of the English language we can choose to use standard English,
or we can choose to use in-group jargon. If we do the latter, we contribute
to the Balkanization of the English language. English is already a horribly
complicated language, with an extremely large and redundant vocabulary
(including both technical terms and in-group jargon from many specialized
groups and occupations) and a vast number of idioms. And it could always get
worse. It could easily get worse. I for one prefer not to contribute too
much to the further complication of our language. Even if that is a totally
thankless and ultimately futile decision.

We of all people, beset as we are with the many difficulties of translating
from medieval to modern languages, should be able to see that linguistic
change is not an entirely good thing to be embraced without question. Much
knowledge about the past has been distorted or lost due to changing
languages, and can be restored only with difficulty, if at all.

As for alternatives to "redaction," anyone who knows English knows the word
"interpretation." A newcomer to this list can read this word and know
immediately what it means without having to guess by context or look it up,
and without being seriously confused or misled by its other meanings. Its
standard meanings, while not specific to our field, are compatible with what
we do with period recipes. (Assuming that we aren't doing significantly
modified adaptations instead.)

And "interpretation" honestly and accurately describes of the process of
cooking from a period recipe and/or giving instructions for one's resulting
interpretation. "Redaction" doesn't. "Redaction" is a waffle - it seems to
imply that one's interpretation of a recipe is authoritative, yet it is
supposed to be understood to mean that a lot of interpretative work went
into it. Hardly an accurate or well-defined term.

Alex Clark/Henry of Maldon

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

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".

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