Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

Warbow speed shooting

<< < (6/12) > >>

bumppo:

--- Quote from: CraigMBeckett on October 05, 2010, 09:56:51 am ---Hi Erik,


--- Quote ---How did they measure a minute when clocks did not measure anything beyond the twelve divisions of the hour ?
--- End quote ---

A very good question! I have just done a quick search on the word minute, it seems that its first known use in English (middle English actually) was in 14th Century, (or so states merriam-webster in their online dictionary), so it cannot have been used in "the 1415 exchequers 2nd quarter financial records regarding the Duke of York's men after the siege of Harfleur" as stated.

I have heard/read of this claim concerning 10 shots a minute, usually quoted in the same terms as used by Bumppo probably from the same source but have not seen the actual text that it is based on. It would be interesting to read what was actually written.

Craig

--- End quote ---

Craig,

I'm confused, did you mean 15th century... "it seems that its first known use in English (middle English actually) was in 14th Century"? The 14th century are the years between 1301 and 1400. The 15th century are the years from 1401 to 1500. If it was in english use in the 14th century, the word "minute" would have been known in 1415. But just exactly what length of time it refers to is the question.

Walt

CraigMBeckett:

--- Quote ---I'm confused, did you mean 15th century... "it seems that its first known use in English (middle English actually) was in 14th Century"?
--- End quote ---

I don't seem to be able to find the reference I used, I'm sure I meant to write 15th Century not 14th, tried the free online dictionary I quoted but only got the definition not its first use, the only first use of minute I found in the 14th C was of the the word meaning a small part not 1/60 of an hour. However I stand ready to be corrected.

Found this on the Online Etymology Dictionary:


--- Quote ---late 14c., "sixtieth part of an hour," from O.Fr. minut, from M.L. minuta "minute, short note," from L. minuta, fem. of minutus "small, minute" (see minute (adj.)). In M.L., pars minuta prima "first small part" was used by mathematician Ptolemy for one-sixtieth of a circle, later of an hour (next in order was secunda minuta, which became second (n.)).
--- End quote ---

So if this is correct I was not. still looking.


--- Quote ---Just trying to point out that she's a 21st century writer using modern english, not latin or french, thought we would all be smart enough to realize that. Today the verb "fire" describes a process wherein some sort of energy is used to start or direct another action, usually in a direction implied to be forward. Whether you fire an imagination, fire off an email, or fire an employee. Are these things literally propelled forward through a combustive process, of course they aren't, but I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that they are all "fired".
--- End quote ---

Sorry I disagree in modern English fire is not applicable to the loosing of a bowstring, in the discharging of a weapon it purely applies to item to which fire is applied, its use for archery, slings, catapults etc is lazy English. The language has words that specifically apply the use of words that do not is shear laziness and shows a paucity of language, the same paucity that caused a countryman of yours to invent the word burglarize when he actually meant burgle, a burglar burgles he does not burglarize, burgle is the root not burglar. As I said before you do not say you sailed or flew a car, you say you drove it, nor do you say you loosed a gun but you may say you shot it.

Craig

jimmy:
hey Craig, who cares? i got on this post because i thought it was an interesting topic, not to read post after post of you going off on a tangent about a word. stick to the subject man. in fact go make some bows and arrows or go hunting. better yet, go do your own field test on "firing" a war bow in rapid succession. there, i said it. in fact, i too have wasted too much time with this nonsense. watch out for the grammar police.

CraigMBeckett:
jimmy,

One would suggest that you must have done to read them and responded.

By the way using "fire" for the act of shooting a bow is not a grammatical error, I would explain but clearly you don't know or care.

Craig.

mullet:
 ::) ::) ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page