Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Warbow speed shooting
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote ---(four of the latter had been struck off because they could not fire the required minimum ten aimed arrows per minute.
--- End quote ---
I have not read her work but what a pity, one would have thought that anyone writing on the subject would use the correct terminology. Firearms are fired, arrows are either shot or loosed.
Craig.
bumppo:
The verb she uses to describe the act of drawing, aiming and hitting a target with a bow and arrow is not the salient point of this post, sorry if you took it that way.
Just a what if, suppose you were a french man-at-arms at the battle of Agincourt receiving arrows shot from the english side, would you describe yourself as being under "fire" or being under "loosing?" I guess my point is, today we use a variety of verbs interchangeably to describe the same basic actions.
Again, my main point being the historical record of how fast an archer was supposed to shoot, not grammar.
CraigMBeckett:
bumppo ,
--- Quote ---suppose you were a french man-at-arms at the battle of Agincourt receiving arrows shot from the english side, would you describe yourself as being under "fire" or being under "loosing?"
--- End quote ---
If I were that Frenchman, other than the fact my thoughts would not be in English, I certainly would not use a verb that did not come into use until a far later date when the use of firearms was widespread. As an English speaker I would have thought of myself as being shot at, the same as I would if it were to happen today.
Your point regarding the interchangeability of verbs would be relevant if the verb in question was actually interchangeable with loose and shoot, when used to describe the propulsion of arrows from bows, it is not it never has been it is just bad English. Let me ask you this, would you say you sailed your car or hammered a screw, (unless you are one of those people who actually do use a hammer on screws), knitted a stitch or maybe loosed a gun?
Your point on the required speed of shooting was noted, I was however simply stating that its a pity that someone who has an item published uses such poor English. It is even more of a pity when one considers that the words used were not those of the original report but the author's version of the same.
I am surprised you seem to have taken my comment as an attack on yourself, you are not the author Juliet Barker are you?
Craig.
ChrisD:
Either way, thanks for providing the page from the Barker book. I have the book and remember the quote but could not find it on re looking. What I'm interested in is the source reference because I suspect this particular chestnut as being one of those which has acquired authenticity through endless repetition. Be interested to chase it down.
C
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: CraigMBeckett on October 04, 2010, 04:27:05 am ---bumppo ,
If I were that Frenchman, other than the fact my thoughts would not be in English, I certainly would not use a verb that did not come into use until a far later date when the use of firearms was widespread. As an English speaker I would have thought of myself as being shot at, the same as I would if it were to happen today.
Your point on the required speed of shooting was noted, I was however simply stating that its a pity that someone who has an item published uses such poor English. It is even more of a pity when one considers that the words used were not those of the original report but the author's version of the same.
Craig.
--- End quote ---
Good point Craig ! The only way an arrow could be fired would be if it were shot from a musket, which did sometimes happen, or to stretch the point further, if it were set alight as a fire arrow. I have a further question. How did they measure a minute when clocks did not measure anything beyond the twelve divisions of the hour ?
Erik
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version