[MR] Were "Smalls" Children or "unmentionables"?

[jbrmm266 at aol.com]

 BITD, when I was a newbie (aye, there WAS such a time!), there was a great deal of importance placed on what we called "speaking forsoothly."
 
Much of it consisted of using archaic expressions or made-up names for common items that did not sound "period."  One of the few that made any sense at all was the "farspeaker," a literal rendition of "telephone."
 
While I applaud the spirit of avoiding blatant modernisms, I cringe at some of the terms we used back then.
 
I really believe that if we simply avoid modern slang, use each others' persona names, and speak in a dignified way, we will capture the spirit of our time much more than we would by trying to "sound Mediaeval." Having studied Chaucer myself, I have some idea just how foreign that would sound to most of us!
 
Your servant aye
Donal
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jendobyns at verizon.net
To: jbrmm266 at aol.com
Sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MR] Were "Smalls" Children or "unmentionables"?


Personally, I don't understand why people see the need for using more obscure terms as a substitute for clearer period appropriate ones. Unless you're having a conversation where all the terms are equally period, what's the point? And making up terms for modern items when a period substitute will do also bugs me. Anyway, I'm with you on this *g* 
 
Genevieve D'Aubigne 
who actually studied Old English, back when rocks were soft 
 
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.