SC - Removes and Feastocrat

[david friedman]

At 5:59 AM -0400 9/28/00, Catherine Deville wrote:

I had written:

>  > The SCA doesn't claim to be about recreating the history of the SCA
>>  but about recreating the history of the middle ages and the
>>  renaissance. So the fact that a historical error has been made in the
>>  past doesn't provide a "historical" argument for continuing to make
>>  it.
>
>I'm not making an argument for it's continued use.  I'm explaining why I'm
>referring to the past position with the term used for it in the past.

Then I misunderstood your point. My apologies.

>
>Gosh!  are ya'll *all* lawyers?  I haven't had people misunderstand my
>intent this much since college (forensic debate). <BEG>

I'm not a lawyer. I teach lawyers.

>  > Perhaps you could expand on the etymological argument. Are you using
>>  "feastocrat" to mean someone who believes that the feast ought to
>>  rule, in parallel with a "democrat"--someone who believes that the
>>  people ("Demos") ought to rule? Or are you using it to mean a feast
>>  that does rule in a political system ruled by feasts, in parallel
>>  with an "aristocrat"--one of the rulers in a system where the best
>>  ("Aristos") rule (at least, that's the theory).
>
>no (and are you being intentionally obfuscatious to pick on me, or are you
>honestly looking for clarification ;-)

I was making an argument to show that it is not etymologically 
correct, and putting the argument in the form of a question for 
rhetorical and humorous effect.

>  ... I apologize, but I *don't* know
>you well enough mi'Lord to know for sure.) ... I meant it in the original
>Greek sense of one who wields power ("kratos")... not in the modern sense
>of one who supports a form of government, but rather as the person who
>rules that government (or area.)  In the same sense that autocrat is "a
>ruler with absolute authority:  a ruler who holds unlimited power and is
>answerable to no other person" (and also as an autocrat is "a bossy person:
>somebody who dominates other people.", the feastcrat was the person with
>final ("absolute") authority over the feast... (and some of them were
>*very* "bossy" people who "dominat(ed) other people" in the kitchen.)

But that doesn't work. An autocrat is not somebody who rules 
autos--not even in the original sense, which would be someone who 
rules himself. The original etymology was not "X-crat" = "one who 
rules X." It was either "an X who rules" (an autocrat is a self who 
rules) or "one who believes that X's should rule." Hence my point 
about what the etymological argument would imply about the meaning of 
"feastocrat."

And, of course, the "o" is also an etymological mistake, since the 
"o" in "democrat/autocrat/aristocrat" is part of the first word, not 
a connector. Making "feastocrat" erroneously macaronic, which brings 
us back to the subject of food.
- -- 
David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/