Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 2nd August 2018, 12:16 AM

I agree with you David, that it is nearly always a very good idea to try to fix the precise meaning of any word before relying on that word to carry a message that is intended to be clearly understood. In fact, it has been my long-standing habit to check any word that I do not use in daily colloquial communication. Additionally, it pleases me greatly that you accessed an Oxford source.

However, the dictionary meaning of any word is only the beginning of an understanding.

For instance, we all know and use without hesitation the word "occupy". It is a word that was avoided in the 17th & 18th centuries, because in Shakespeare's time it could get you time in the stocks if you were heard using it in public, as it had some particularly vulgar connotations --- well, connotations deemed to be vulgar at that time, perhaps not quite so vulgar now.

The way in which words are used changes constantly, just as society itself changes constantly. The only time a language does not change is when it is dead, as is the case with Latin, which in a sense can be a useful quality in a language, as it certainly prevents misunderstanding, possibly one of the reasons why a medical practitioner in past times would use Latin to convey instructions for treatment.

So, the message is clear:- language that is unchanging is dead, and language being an indicator of health for a society, any society that fails to change can also be considered dead, and dead things simply disappear and sink into oblivion.

Another quality of language is that meanings can and do change, dependent upon context.

Although we can produce a dictionary definition of a word, indeed, in the case of "ethnography" we can produce a very large number of dictionary definitions, all of which are similar, but all of which could be debated upon the variations in their similarity. Thus, for an understanding of current usage of a word, we need to go a little beyond the limitations of a two line dictionary entry. Because of the changing nature of language, lexicographers are in a sense, historians:- they record the meaning of words in the past, not necessarily in the present. The dictionary is the place that we start when investigating correct and current understanding of a word, but it is not the place where we finish, in fact, in real life the true meaning of a two letter word could well find itself argued in front of the highest court in the land.

I would like to make this post as short as I reasonably can, so rather than write a multi-page presentation on the way in which the word "ethnography" can be understood, I will provide this link:-

http://www.americanethnography.com/ethnography.php

In David's dictionary definition of "ethnography" we can see that this word is defined as a "scientific description". I most humbly suggest that if we were to use this definition as the basis for a decision upon whether or not a particular subject presented for discussion in the Ethnographic Arms & Armour Forum was acceptable or not, we would very probably need to disallow the vast bulk of all threads and posts to every sub-forum.

Since this has not happened, and since it is clear that the dictionary meaning is known and understood, then it is very obvious that the strict dictionary meaning of "ethnology" is not at all relevant to the matters that have been, and that continue to be, discussed in this Forum.

Rather, what does seem to be relevant to an understanding of the word "ethnographic" is the way in which various academics who practice and teach ethnography understand the word. Those who care to investigate university course descriptions, and text books that deal with the subject will find that my comment in Post #23 is very close to a generalised understanding of the concept of "ethnographic", across the academic world.

In short, the ethnographic approach to understanding humanity, its cultures and societies is a hands-on method that amongst other things permits the examination of inter-societal exchange enabling a better focussed understanding of a society, its culture, and the people within it.

The work of Thomas Hauschild as presented in this thread exemplifies this academic context, and as such should be considered as a serious contribution to an understanding of cross-cultural exchange.

What we can see in Thomas' work is ethnographic examination in action.

Earlier in this post I commented on the way in which societies and languages that do not change eventually die. I feel it is reasonable to think of this Forum as a sort of sub-culture within a segment of society. Kronckew has suggested that perhaps the time is ripe for some changes to take place in the sub-culture that we inhabit. I do tend to agree with him. I am certain that the last thing that any of us wish to see is the death and disappearance of this Forum.

A review of Forum activity during past times, in comparison with Forum activity at present should convince anybody that we do need an increase in interest.

2nd August 2018, 12:16 AM	#29
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,703	I agree with you David, that it is nearly always a very good idea to try to fix the precise meaning of any word before relying on that word to carry a message that is intended to be clearly understood. In fact, it has been my long-standing habit to check any word that I do not use in daily colloquial communication. Additionally, it pleases me greatly that you accessed an Oxford source. However, the dictionary meaning of any word is only the beginning of an understanding. For instance, we all know and use without hesitation the word "occupy". It is a word that was avoided in the 17th & 18th centuries, because in Shakespeare's time it could get you time in the stocks if you were heard using it in public, as it had some particularly vulgar connotations --- well, connotations deemed to be vulgar at that time, perhaps not quite so vulgar now. The way in which words are used changes constantly, just as society itself changes constantly. The only time a language does not change is when it is dead, as is the case with Latin, which in a sense can be a useful quality in a language, as it certainly prevents misunderstanding, possibly one of the reasons why a medical practitioner in past times would use Latin to convey instructions for treatment. So, the message is clear:- language that is unchanging is dead, and language being an indicator of health for a society, any society that fails to change can also be considered dead, and dead things simply disappear and sink into oblivion. Another quality of language is that meanings can and do change, dependent upon context. Although we can produce a dictionary definition of a word, indeed, in the case of "ethnography" we can produce a very large number of dictionary definitions, all of which are similar, but all of which could be debated upon the variations in their similarity. Thus, for an understanding of current usage of a word, we need to go a little beyond the limitations of a two line dictionary entry. Because of the changing nature of language, lexicographers are in a sense, historians:- they record the meaning of words in the past, not necessarily in the present. The dictionary is the place that we start when investigating correct and current understanding of a word, but it is not the place where we finish, in fact, in real life the true meaning of a two letter word could well find itself argued in front of the highest court in the land. I would like to make this post as short as I reasonably can, so rather than write a multi-page presentation on the way in which the word "ethnography" can be understood, I will provide this link:- http://www.americanethnography.com/ethnography.php In David's dictionary definition of "ethnography" we can see that this word is defined as a "scientific description". I most humbly suggest that if we were to use this definition as the basis for a decision upon whether or not a particular subject presented for discussion in the Ethnographic Arms & Armour Forum was acceptable or not, we would very probably need to disallow the vast bulk of all threads and posts to every sub-forum. Since this has not happened, and since it is clear that the dictionary meaning is known and understood, then it is very obvious that the strict dictionary meaning of "ethnology" is not at all relevant to the matters that have been, and that continue to be, discussed in this Forum. Rather, what does seem to be relevant to an understanding of the word "ethnographic" is the way in which various academics who practice and teach ethnography understand the word. Those who care to investigate university course descriptions, and text books that deal with the subject will find that my comment in Post #23 is very close to a generalised understanding of the concept of "ethnographic", across the academic world. In short, the ethnographic approach to understanding humanity, its cultures and societies is a hands-on method that amongst other things permits the examination of inter-societal exchange enabling a better focussed understanding of a society, its culture, and the people within it. The work of Thomas Hauschild as presented in this thread exemplifies this academic context, and as such should be considered as a serious contribution to an understanding of cross-cultural exchange. What we can see in Thomas' work is ethnographic examination in action. Earlier in this post I commented on the way in which societies and languages that do not change eventually die. I feel it is reasonable to think of this Forum as a sort of sub-culture within a segment of society. Kronckew has suggested that perhaps the time is ripe for some changes to take place in the sub-culture that we inhabit. I do tend to agree with him. I am certain that the last thing that any of us wish to see is the death and disappearance of this Forum. A review of Forum activity during past times, in comparison with Forum activity at present should convince anybody that we do need an increase in interest.