Language

Naughty Nuns and Provocative Priests Crime and punishment revisited

Language

Research: mediaeval only. The things I have to read ...

Ach, it's a tough one, but I got three comments about anachronisms in my language this week, so got to make a comment, I guess.

This is a hard one to comment on, because no matter what I say, I will be wrong in the eyes of some.

Some years ago, I was contacted by a delightful Canadian lady, who wrote to tell me that the language used on a specific page really upset her. In fact it threw her, and she could not read any further.

The word? "Posse". She felt it was far too twentieth century for a book set in the thirteen hundreds.

Posse in these terms comes from "posse comitatus", which meant all those men of a certain age who could be called upon by a sheriff. Usually it meant a force of men to maintain the law – usually to suppress riots or disorders. Sometimes they were the force used to help the King lay siege to recalcitrant cities, such as Bristol after their tallage riots in 1316. The term was defined from the Statues of Winchester, 1285. Modern language, it isn't.

But this opens up language to a hideous degree. What sort of language should an author use? After all, should I worry about the precise language to the extent of only using words that were in common usage at the time? If so, my vocabulary will be restricted. A lot of words have been invented since 1327.

Further, should I only ever use words with their correct, contemporary meanings? If so, words like "nice" will be used rather more sparingly, because in medieval times, "nice" meant "accurate, precise". Not quite the same as now.

Should I be cautious about seemingly erroneous words. The fact that trebuchets and mangonels were referred to as "artillery" may seem peculiar, as does the fact that a sling fired a "bullet" might appear entirely anachronistic, but they're still valid. And when I write about "trash" and "garbage", many English readers think me American. But these words are correct. Trash meant anything cut or lopped off something else in order to make something: so cuttings to make a fence; garbage was the offal from a carcass that was edible. See? Easy. Thank God for an Oxford English Dictionary.

But then there are the Americanisms that really rankle. Words such as "gotten". Yup, that is medieval English, too. No, the trouble is, English as we speak it in the UK has changed much more than English as spoken in America. Because of the Empire, we have absorbed many more words from around the word (especially India, naturally), while for some reason American English has remained rather insular. Odd, but what the heck.

The worst problem I tend to have is the editor (no longer mine) who got confused with my spelling of 'til, instead of "until". Well, it's the same as my spelling of cooperate as "coöperate", or my spelling of so many older words which I have read in medieval form, renaissance form, nineteenth century and more recently twentieth century. There ain't no right spelling. The spellings change all the time (mind you, at least in Britain we still maintain the rigorous use of the "u" in "colour") and I cannot keep up. There was a night not so long ago when I had a panic attack over "the". Looked at from whichever angle I tried, it looked wrong.

In any case, for those who want to correct my spellings or use of terminology, there is only one answer. I consider my job to be that of writing fiction for the masses. To do that, I cannot write in the vernacular of the time. Readers wouldn't be able to read it, any more than I could write it. The language in the early thirteen hundreds was a horrible mix of Latin, Middle English, Celtic, Saxon, Norman French, and even a fair sprinkling of Arabic. To write accurately would be . . . problematic.

And if I was to be accurate in the matter of language, why stop there? Surely I ought to write the language in the contemporary manner, with a reed or quill, and ink. And not on decent paper, but cheap paper as used then, or maybe expensive parchment? And of course each book would be available in one copy only.

No, I don't think so either. So, if you're worried about my language, either assume that yes, I have thought about it and chosen the words I think that work the best, or, failing that, just remember that my job is to translate for your delectation the words as used in 1327, and have put them into modern English. Just as a translator helps your understanding of Dostoievsky.

Or, again, remind yourself I'm a fiction writer!