[Sca-cooks] Redaction? (was: Looking for a period cheese filled pasta/lassagna dish served cold (long))

[Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius]

Also sprach Alex Clark:
>At 05:35 AM 9/16/2003 -0700, Helewyse de Birkestad wrote:
>>. . .  So it may be that the dish in question
>>was just a sweet redaction of a savory dish, served
>>cold instead of hot.
>
>That's what I'm talking about. This sentence could be translated 
>into English by replacing "redaction" with either "adaptation" or 
>"interpretation". Either way it would then convey the 
>apparently-intended meaning. Untranslated, it is not only incorrect 
>but ridiculous. The only reason why many of us don't mind is because 
>we've become so desensitized to our bizarre in-group usage that it 
>feels normal to us. Otherwise we might notice that our "redaction" 
>is yet another piece of trash cluttering up an overly complicated 
>and messy language.
>
>One could say that this is a trivial issue. Well, so are all the 
>other in-group buzzwords that make the English language less useful 
>and less accessible. But when you add them together, and then 
>consider that English must be the most common second language in the 
>world, it amounts to a very serious problem. This problem can only 
>be alleviated by individual people taking more responsibility for 
>the clarity of the language as they use it. Why can't we do that?

Since we've had this discussion before, I might as well toss my two 
cents in again. I don't like it either. To me, its usage is 
pretentious and unnecessary, especially when there are other words 
whose accepted definitions in English are much closer to what we mean 
when SCAdians use that word than that word itself. It's just 
somebody's (actually, I know whose) silly idea of exclusivist jargon.

But I also think that effecting change by example is the way to go.

Adamantius