Why are sabres not curved?
John E Mason
upward like real military sabres. Of course, I know the reason why
military sabres are curved...so the blade doesn't get caught in your
victim's body, thereby losing your sabre or throwing you off your horse,
but it would be interesting to see fencers with curve sabres. It would
certainly add something to the game.
I remember hearing, one time, that it wasn't too long ago when
fencing sabres were curved and heavy (roughly two pounds). Why did this
change? It would certainly keep fencers from taking inane chances when it
might cost a hard hit with a heavy weapon. Plus, it would be an added
distinctive factor from the epee and foil. God forbid, it might actually
make sabre more realistic and , if your not into reality, interesting :)
Any thoughts?
John E. Mason II,
email <mas...@duc.auburn.edu>
www: http://www.auburn.edu/~masonje
Address: 101 Ann St. B-44 Auburn, AL 36830
Phone: (334) 887-7512
###################################################
# -ON PHILOSOPHY- #
# "Philosophy is not a theory but an activity..." #
# Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922) #
# Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus #
# #
# -ON LIFE- #
# "The wise want to love; and those who love want #
# wisdom..." Percy B. Shelley (1819) #
# Prometheus Unbound #
# #
# -ON FENCING- #
# "Dodge, parry, spin, thrust!" #
# Daffy Duck (year unknown) #
###################################################
Chris Holzman
: Why are fencing sabres as straight as epees and foils, and not curved
: military sabres are curved...so the blade doesn't get caught in your
: victim's body, thereby losing your sabre or throwing you off your horse,
: but it would be interesting to see fencers with curve sabres. It would
: certainly add something to the game.
(blah blah blah)
:
: Any thoughts?
:
: John E. Mason II,
(blah blah blah .sig file)
: # #
: # -ON FENCING- #
: # "Dodge, parry, spin, thrust!" #
: # Daffy Duck (year unknown) #
: ###################################################
:
Cavalry (mounted, as in sitting on horse(furry animal that makes a
noise like neigh) ) sabres are curved, infantry, and in many cases,
officers sabres were not curved (note, there are exceptions to that, but
few) infantry or mounted infantry (ride to the scene of battle, get off
and fight) used nearly straight blades. as for the blade getting stuck,
thats not entirely true, as a blood canal will eliminate most of that
problem. commonly, cavalry blades were of a Y section and infantry blades
were of an I section. they didnt need to be curved because of the blood
channel. the sabre we use, the sporting, or italian sabre (also
hungarian) sabre, is a light, fast unmounted dueling weapon. you might
try to find a large, oversized book called 'cut and thrust weapons
through the ages' for a better explaination. as for fencing blades
being curved, they can be curved perpendicular to the cutting plane up to
(i think) 2 centimeters over the entire length of the blade. something
like that anyway. it cannot be curved with the cutting plane. i just
recently broke a blade my coach gave me, a hostin plus sabre blade that
was over 20 years old. it was not curved upward, it was stiffer and also
lighter than many of the blades ive been able to find today, and despite
many sandings, it retained its pretty gold color, unlike the new ones, or
the tca super blue blades. the sabre as we know it came into being in
italy and hungary around the same time, in the ?middle 1600's?
chris
--
Elysian Fields Internet | TELNET : castle.elysian.net
Wichita, Kansas USA | BBS : (316) 267-5125
Office : (316) 267-2636 | INQUIRIES: sysa...@elysian.net
Roger Books
> Cavalry (mounted, as in sitting on horse(furry animal that makes a
> noise like neigh) ) sabres are curved, infantry, and in many cases,
> officers sabres were not curved (note, there are exceptions to that, but
> few) infantry or mounted infantry (ride to the scene of battle, get off
> and fight) used nearly straight blades. as for the blade getting stuck,
> thats not entirely true, as a blood canal will eliminate most of that
> problem.
I can't argue with most of this, but as for the so called "blood canal",
I would check other sources. The "blood groove" had only one real purpose,
it lightened the blade without weakening it. It didn't let any real amount
of extra blood out and it certainly didn't stop the blade from getting
stuck. The only real method of stopping a blade from getting stuck was
proper execution. (IE Don't slash the base of the blade into the body for
slashing weapons, turn the blade so it slides between the ribs for a
thrusting weapon.)
> commonly, cavalry blades were of a Y section and infantry blades
> were of an I section. they didnt need to be curved because of the blood
> channel.
The curve moves the "percussion point" further out to the end of the
blade for more power without twisting. It is actually the same
principal that is used in a khukri(sp?) knife. Footsoldiers were
expected to thrust rather than slash so they go straight blades. Cavalry
were expected to slash while riding by (difficult to thrust at speed) so
they got sabers.
<stuff snipped as I can't argue correctness>
Roger
Juliusz A. Dabrowski
>John E Mason (mas...@mail.auburn.edu) wrote:
>: Why are fencing sabres as straight as epees and foils, and not curved
>: upward like real military sabres. Of course, I know the reason why
>: military sabres are curved...so the blade doesn't get caught in your
>: victim's body, thereby losing your sabre or throwing you off your horse,
>: but it would be interesting to see fencers with curve sabres. It would
>: certainly add something to the game.
>:
>: Any thoughts?
>:
>: John E. Mason II,
> Cavalry (mounted, as in sitting on horse(furry animal that makes a
>noise like neigh) ) sabres are curved, infantry, and in many cases,
>officers sabres were not curved (note, there are exceptions to that, but
>few) infantry or mounted infantry (ride to the scene of battle, get off
>and fight) used nearly straight blades.
Yes but if you look at the target area used in modern sabre fencing it is the
same as that of a mounted warrior since parts not covered by the modern target
area were not vital enough to put a fencer out of the battle if he was riding
a horse.
>as for the blade getting stuck,
>thats not entirely true, as a blood canal will eliminate most of that
>problem. commonly, cavalry blades were of a Y section and infantry blades
>were of an I section. they didnt need to be curved because of the blood
>channel. the sabre we use, the sporting, or italian sabre (also
>hungarian) sabre, is a light, fast unmounted dueling weapon.
That's just it, a duelling weapon, nobody fought duels on horseback (except
for jousting where they used those lances and not sabres). Besides, western
European nations (except maybe the French) seemed to have a great
tendency towards non lethal forms of duelling like first-blood or pistols
later on when it was impossible to consistently hit anything at ranges greater
than ten feet. But a cavalry man's life depended on being fast and deadly,
causing him to prefer weapons that caused the most damage in the shortest
amount of time.
>you might
>try to find a large, oversized book called 'cut and thrust weapons
>through the ages' for a better explaination. as for fencing blades
>being curved, they can be curved perpendicular to the cutting plane up to
>(i think) 2 centimeters over the entire length of the blade. something
>like that anyway. it cannot be curved with the cutting plane. i just
>recently broke a blade my coach gave me, a hostin plus sabre blade that
>was over 20 years old. it was not curved upward, it was stiffer and also
>lighter than many of the blades ive been able to find today, and despite
>many sandings, it retained its pretty gold color, unlike the new ones, or
>the tca super blue blades. the sabre as we know it came into being in
>italy and hungary around the same time, in the ?middle 1600's?
The sabre's origins are better traced to the Mongol and later Tatar hordes
that started raiding Europe around the eleventh century. Therefore causing the
Hungarians and Poles primarily to have contact with them. Poland especially
held them back for 6 or 7 centuries. One can recall the saving of Vienna in
1683 from a united Muslim invasion. The defense of Vienna was led by the
Polish king Jan III Sobieski, his best and most effective weapon was the
Husaria (Very big men on even bigger horses using very very big sabres). The
Husaria's sabres were closer to an upwardly curved broadsword than anything
you'd see today. These troops were so successful that Cromwell copied
them when he created his ironsides. It would be hard for me to imagine
someone using one these large sabres in accordance with today's technique
which is essentially sticking someone with your thumb by the intermediary of a
blade.
You might think that for these reasons I might be turned off from modern
fencing. On the contrary I think I can appreciate modern fencing for what it
is, a test of one's skill coordination and quick thinking. So let us continue
to enjoy modern fencing but without forgetting its five thousand year
tradition and breeding. But I agree with Mr. Mason's proposal to spice sabre
up a bit, perhaps back to its more flamboyant days before risking it becoming
just glorified thumb wrestling.
Juliusz D.
Chris Holzman
: area were not vital enough to put a fencer out of the battle if he was riding
: a horse.
yes, that is true, ive got to agree that it probably wouldnt be that
serious, unless of course you hit the horse in the neck area (probably
losing your own head also) but thats really not honorable.
:
: That's just it, a duelling weapon, nobody fought duels on horseback (except
: for jousting where they used those lances and not sabres). Besides, western
: European nations (except maybe the French) seemed to have a great
: tendency towards non lethal forms of duelling like first-blood or pistols
: later on when it was impossible to consistently hit anything at ranges greater
: than ten feet. But a cavalry man's life depended on being fast and deadly,
: causing him to prefer weapons that caused the most damage in the shortest
: amount of time.
yep, i agree, although i do have an interesting collection of
pictures somewhere from a sabre duel that took place in 1900, unmounted
with cavalry weapons, and resulted in a decapitation. very sickeningly
powerful pictures. the other exception was perhaps the rapier duel in
southern italy (napoli, etc) during the 1700's.
:
:
: that started raiding Europe around the eleventh century. Therefore causing the
: Hungarians and Poles primarily to have contact with them. Poland especially
: held them back for 6 or 7 centuries. One can recall the saving of Vienna in
: 1683 from a united Muslim invasion. The defense of Vienna was led by the
stuff deleted for space.
: someone using one these large sabres in accordance with today's technique
: which is essentially sticking someone with your thumb by the intermediary of a
: blade.
:
i sometimes do forget to mention the mongols and the cossacks.. im not
sure why, as i rather like the cossack culture, but thats a differnt
story entirely.
: You might think that for these reasons I might be turned off from modern
: fencing. On the contrary I think I can appreciate modern fencing for what it
: is, a test of one's skill coordination and quick thinking. So let us continue
: to enjoy modern fencing but without forgetting its five thousand year
: tradition and breeding. But I agree with Mr. Mason's proposal to spice sabre
: up a bit, perhaps back to its more flamboyant days before risking it becoming
: just glorified thumb wrestling.
:
something does need to be done with sabre, its not at all good to
watch. i really feel that if the rules could be enforced as they were
when my coach was fencing (ancient times i think) and eliminate carrying
the blade, reinstitute the 45 degree minimum cutting angle.. go back to
the point and a half for a stop-cut, parry, reposte, there might be some
hope as a spectator thing. as it is, you get two people charging like
rams.. definatly not the spirit of dismounted sabre.
my 0.02c worth. chris.
Roger Books
> something does need to be done with sabre, its not at all good to
> watch. i really feel that if the rules could be enforced as they were
> when my coach was fencing (ancient times i think) and eliminate carrying
> the blade, reinstitute the 45 degree minimum cutting angle.. go back to
> the point and a half for a stop-cut, parry, reposte, there might be some
> hope as a spectator thing. as it is, you get two people charging like
> rams.. definatly not the spirit of dismounted sabre.
It is in the spirit of mounted sabre though. Should we start using horses?
"Charge!!!!"
Roger
Chris Holzman
:
: I can't argue with most of this, but as for the so called "blood canal",
: I would check other sources. The "blood groove" had only one real purpose,
: it lightened the blade without weakening it. It didn't let any real amount
: of extra blood out and it certainly didn't stop the blade from getting
: stuck. The only real method of stopping a blade from getting stuck was
: proper execution. (IE Don't slash the base of the blade into the body for
: slashing weapons, turn the blade so it slides between the ribs for a
: thrusting weapon.)
hmm, youve got something there.. point conceded.
:
: The curve moves the "percussion point" further out to the end of the
: blade for more power without twisting. It is actually the same
: principal that is used in a khukri(sp?) knife. Footsoldiers were
: expected to thrust rather than slash so they go straight blades. Cavalry
: were expected to slash while riding by (difficult to thrust at speed) so
: they got sabers.
:
true, though mounted infantry did have straight blades, and had most
of the cavalry training. (yes, i *am* obsessed with mounted infantry) :>
regards
chris
:
: Roger
Jester
>
> >as for the blade getting stuck,
> >thats not entirely true, as a blood canal will eliminate most of that
> >problem. commonly, cavalry blades were of a Y section and infantry blades
> >were of an I section. they didnt need to be curved because of the blood
> >channel. the sabre we use, the sporting, or italian sabre (also
> >hungarian) sabre, is a light, fast unmounted dueling weapon.
Just a "nit-picky" thing I learned about from a historian...the "blood
canal" was not used to prevent the sword from getting stuck or anything
like that. It was, simply, to make the weapon lighter without lossing any
significant blade strength. A few ounces of steel can make a real
difference in weapons speed (note the V-shape of modern sabres...also a
lightening effect since no blood (ideally) drawn in todays' matches.
Also, the curve was to help prevent dismounting the rider. Compare the
impact potential of a straight blade with a curved one at higher speeds.
The straight blade will hit and transfer the impact back to the riders
arm, while a curved blade will transfer the enegry of impact out along the
radi of the arc of the blade (wish I could use pencil and paper
here...diagrams are wonderful things)
My two bits...Jester (clau...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu not gebekp)
--
Jester--Quit whinning and pick up your sword
}8-)=-
Ed Mou
: change? It would certainly keep fencers from taking inane chances when it
: might cost a hard hit with a heavy weapon. Plus, it would be an added
: distinctive factor from the epee and foil. God forbid, it might actually
: make sabre more realistic and , if your not into reality, interesting :)
Not all sabres were curved. George Patton who was a sword master,
advocated the straight saber, believing it in all respects superior to
the curved variety. A few years back there were a number of articles in
American Fencing devoted to Patton and his saber. They make for some
interesting reading.
(American Fencing being the USFA's publication)
CJarred
Books) writes:
> Cavalry
>were expected to slash while riding by (difficult to thrust at speed) so
>they got sabers.
Actually cavalry sabres were mostly only used as "slashing" weapons
against a mounted enemy. From atop a charging horse against a foot solder
it is usually more effective to use the sabre in a lance-like fashion
(that is why you see pictures of cavalry charging with sabres held
straight forward). The mounted soldier would aim for the nearest enemy
foot soldier's head with the curve of the downward (that is the convex
portion on top), that way after the skewering removing the sabre from the
victim was simply a matter of continuing the charge right past the victim.
The sabre would "rock" right out as the horse passed and the sabre arm
followed a circular path, one released it was a simple matter to more or
less continue the circular motion to bring the sabre forward again ready
for the next foot soldier. I was not previously aware of the sabre curve
having anything to do with "slashing" battle tactics. In mountee to
mountee combat, I'm sure that a straight sabre would have been as
effective as a curved one. Foot soldiers, on the other hand, never had
the forward momemtum where this lance-like use of the sabre would have
been effective - therefore, no curve.
Chip Jarred
cja...@aol.com
CJarred
Books) writes:
>It is in the spirit of mounted sabre though. Should we start using
horses?
nah - this is 1995. Sabre should be fenced on rollerblades! :-)
Chip Jarred
cja...@aol.com
Fry Sis
>Chip Jarred
>cja...@aol.com
Oh brilliant, all this time I've spent on footwork drills is for
naught??!! <grin>
Roger Books
> true, though mounted infantry did have straight blades, and had most
> of the cavalry training. (yes, i *am* obsessed with mounted infantry) :>
> regards
> chris
Yes, they had most of the cavalry and had straight blades, however, they
were called mounted infantry for a reason. They were expected to get off
the horses before a battle and work as a tight group. (I prefer pikes
myself :)
Roger
Philip Fenn
: John E Mason (mas...@mail.auburn.edu) wrote:
: : Why are fencing sabres as straight as epees and foils, and not curved
: : military sabres are curved...so the blade doesn't get caught in your
: : victim's body, thereby losing your sabre or throwing you off your horse,
: : but it would be interesting to see fencers with curve sabres. It would
: : certainly add something to the game.
: (blah blah blah)
: :
: : Any thoughts?
: :
: : John E. Mason II,
:
: (blah blah blah .sig file)
: : # #
: : # -ON FENCING- #
: : # "Dodge, parry, spin, thrust!" #
: : # Daffy Duck (year unknown) #
: : ###################################################
: :
: Cavalry (mounted, as in sitting on horse(furry animal that makes a
: noise like neigh) ) sabres are curved, infantry, and in many cases,
: officers sabres were not curved (note, there are exceptions to that, but
: few) infantry or mounted infantry (ride to the scene of battle, get off
: and fight) used nearly straight blades. as for the blade getting stuck,
: thats not entirely true, as a blood canal will eliminate most of that
: problem. commonly, cavalry blades were of a Y section and infantry blades
: were of an I section. they didnt need to be curved because of the blood
: channel. the sabre we use, the sporting, or italian sabre (also
: hungarian) sabre, is a light, fast unmounted dueling weapon. you might
: try to find a large, oversized book called 'cut and thrust weapons
: through the ages' for a better explaination. as for fencing blades
: being curved, they can be curved perpendicular to the cutting plane up to
: (i think) 2 centimeters over the entire length of the blade. something
: like that anyway. it cannot be curved with the cutting plane. i just
: recently broke a blade my coach gave me, a hostin plus sabre blade that
: was over 20 years old. it was not curved upward, it was stiffer and also
: lighter than many of the blades ive been able to find today, and despite
: many sandings, it retained its pretty gold color, unlike the new ones, or
: the tca super blue blades. the sabre as we know it came into being in
: italy and hungary around the same time, in the ?middle 1600's?
: chris
: --
: Elysian Fields Internet | TELNET : castle.elysian.net
: Wichita, Kansas USA | BBS : (316) 267-5125
: Office : (316) 267-2636 | INQUIRIES: sysa...@elysian.net
Just to add to this point - The opening sentence of Chris' response should
read LIGHT cavalry sabres are curved. Most heavy cavalry regiments used
straight sabres (developed from the earlier cavalry backsword). Also, as
Chris says, most officers sabres were straight, and it is the officers who
usually involve themselves in the noble(?) art of duelling
GrammarMan
curved is that a curved blade is a more effective cutting weapon than a
straight blade. This was known in medieval Europe (even if the physics
behind it wasn't understood), but for symbolic reasons, Christian knights
preferred the cruciform broadsword to the crescent-shaped Near Eastern
scimitar. To get the cutting advantage of a curved blade, knights of old
used the falchion, which had a point-heavy blade with a curved cutting
edge but a straight back, making it a sort of chopper.
Check out Sir Richard Burton's unfinished masterpiece, "The Book of the
Sword" (there is a nice, inexpensive Dover edition), for a discussion of
the mechanics of blade shape. Curved is better for cutting, straight is
better for thrusting.
Fencing with curved sabers? I can't imagine what it would add to the
game, and I suspect it would make parries more difficult to execute.
BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
--Steve
Dennis Grant
(GrammarMan) wrote:
> As I understand it, one of the reasons real sabers (and scimitars) are
> curved is that a curved blade is a more effective cutting weapon than a
> straight blade.
Yes. I have an 1899 Canadian cavalry sabre, and it has a definate curve to it.
> Fencing with curved sabers? I can't imagine what it would add to the
> game, and I suspect it would make parries more difficult to execute.
I can't see why it would. The amount of curve we are talking about is not
a whole lot, relative to the length of the blade.
Perhaps the real question is: Why are fencing sabres straight?
> BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
> S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
> and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
>
Trog
(Whose centre is a nice rosy red colour)
dgr...@cycor.ca
http://www.cycor.ca/TCave/
Mark C. Orton
: BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
: S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
: and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
Very well. I shall be sure in future always to speak of pastel coloured
uniforms and placing the fencers on guard in the centre of the piste.
--
Mark "always happy to oblige" Orton
employed by (but not speaking for)
Pulse Communications, Inc.
obr...@sklib.usask.ca
>GrammarMan (gramm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
>: S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
>: and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
>
>Very well. I shall be sure in future always to speak of pastel coloured
>uniforms and placing the fencers on guard in the centre of the piste.
>
>--
So nice to see our American cousins taking the proper spelling
of the Queen's english seriously for once.....:)
Jeff "Yes, Alex, but I'd rather be inane than
incontinent" O'Brien
JCA
caught in enemy flesh...
Why no curved sports sabres? Because a cavalry sabre and
a sports sabre have as much in common as a six-shooter and a
slingshot. The sports sabre is derived from the straight-bladed
Italian duelling sabre, which in turn is a relative of the
straightbladed cut-and-thrust swords and cutting rapiers used by
19th century infantry officers. It has no relation at all to
weapons in the line of the 1796 Light Cavalry sabre.
For reference: Check the mag of the English Amateur Fencing
Assoc, The Sword, January 1995, "Below the Belt -- A Short
History of Sabre Taboos."
Conrad Claus
> As I understand it, one of the reasons real sabers (and scimitars) are
> curved is that a curved blade is a more effective cutting weapon than a
> straight blade. This was known in medieval Europe (even if the physics
> behind it wasn't understood), but for symbolic reasons, Christian knights
> preferred the cruciform broadsword to the crescent-shaped Near Eastern
> scimitar.
> To get the cutting advantage of a curved blade, knights of old
> used the falchion, which had a point-heavy blade with a curved cutting
> edge but a straight back, making it a sort of chopper.
> Check out Sir Richard Burton's unfinished masterpiece, "The Book of the
> Sword" (there is a nice, inexpensive Dover edition), for a discussion of
> the mechanics of blade shape. Curved is better for cutting, straight is
> better for thrusting.
> Fencing with curved sabers? I can't imagine what it would add to the
> game, and I suspect it would make parries more difficult to execute.
> BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
> S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
> and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
>
> --Steve
>
>
>
Actually, the saber style turkic blades became popular because they are
wonderful for drawcutting - an especially important factor when on
horseback fighting *lightly* armored folks.
Sabers, in the islamic middle east, replaced shorter Arabic style blades
which appear to have been modeled off the gladius and other infantry
swords about the time when the turks began to show up in force.
The saber style blades were very popular until the time of the first crusade.
Heavy linked mail armor was hard to cut through and required a broader
angle of incidence on the edge of the blade and a chisel style "chop"
rather than a "slice." The Crusaders wore heavy linked mail (erroneously
called "chainmail") to a *much* higher extent than the middle
easterners. Thus, in the approximately two and a quarter centuries of
combat between Moslem and Chistian forces before the final fall of the
Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem we see a much higher incidence of blades
with little or no curve. In fact, we also see a fairly high use of
captured European blades.
Some things to keep in mind:
1 - Medieval Western Europeans were not idiots. It is a product of
extremely ignorant modernism to assume that the ablity to think or to
design sucessful weapon systems and fighting styles is the product of the
modern world.
2 - The "Cruciform" hilt system you say was used for purely religeous
reasons was actually superior in protection to the hilt system used in the
majority of middle eastern blades. Accident?
3 - The Frankish chivalric sword was usually balanced closer to the hilt
than the typical turkic style middle eastern blade. Generally speaking
this makes sense as fighting in heavy linked armor, as the Europeans did,
often required *many* blows be thrown before a cumulative effect downed
an opponent; whereas fighters in the middle east could depend more upon
the incapacitating effect of a single good blow against a typically
lightly armored opponent. Coincidence?
4 - The falcoin generally curves *forward* with only the very end of the
blade curving in a "saber" fashion. It was a weapon designed to chisel
though armor as well.
5 - The scimitar was developed fairly late (in terms of medieval weapons)
and is contemporaneous with European weapon systems other than the
"cruciform" hilted chivalric sword.
6 - Effectiveness in cutting is related to the job you intend for the
blade to do, there is no such thing as the perfect blade design for all
tasks.
7 - Burton's book is wonderful, but his discussion of blade design
doesn't take several factors into account, including the tendancy of the
curved blade to expend it's energy sliding over armor rather than "biting."
Conrad Claus
"And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accur's they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
Chris Holzman
: GrammarMan (gramm...@aol.com) wrote:
: : BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
: : S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
: : and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
: Very well. I shall be sure in future always to speak of pastel coloured
: uniforms and placing the fencers on guard in the centre of the piste.
:
: --
: employed by (but not speaking for)
: Pulse Communications, Inc.
these would in fact be sabre fencers you are placing on guard in the
centre of the piste who are, also, in fact, wearing pastel coloured
uniforms correct?
S.D. Barnes
: GrammarMan (gramm...@aol.com) wrote:
: : BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
: : S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
: : and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
: Very well. I shall be sure in future always to speak of pastel coloured
: uniforms and placing the fencers on guard in the centre of the piste.
Ah, but Mark, don't the most civilised fencers come en guard in sixte?
Sept
Jessie Micales
>S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
>and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
>--Steve
>
Seems like a pretty insignificant matter to wage a crusade against. The
dictionary lists both spellings as acceptable, and I personally think
that "sabre" looks more cool (and makes it easier to remember how to spell
sabreur).
Jessie
Julian Dermoudy
> GrammarMan (gramm...@aol.com) wrote:
> : BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
> : S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
> : and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
>
> Very well. I shall be sure in future always to speak of pastel coloured
> uniforms and placing the fencers on guard in the centre of the piste.
>
I can't resist biting on this one; I love a pedantic debate.
Contrary to semi-popular belief, the US of A is not the centre of the universe.
Many of us spell words in the traditional way without needing to resort to
phonetics in order to get the masses to spell correctly!! ;-) [Flame me, I'm
just asking for it :-) ] Four score and seven years ago, our fore-fathers
changed the dictionary...
We used to feel comfortable with Presidents of bouts although the term Referee
is fine with me. I do, however, have a dislike for Director -- but I won't try
and change the world.
By the way "GrammarMan" should I have written "the US of A is" or "the US of A
are"? One is plural, one is singular. Think about that one for a while...
P.S. Joke: Q: how do you tell if someone is a pedant
A: call them a pedanticist, and when they correct you...
Try it, it works. And pedants that see it coming still can't stop themselves.
I love it!
> --
> Mark "always happy to oblige" Orton
> employed by (but not speaking for)
> Pulse Communications, Inc.
-Julian.
--
Julian Dermoudy E-mail:J.R.De...@cs.utas.edu.au
Department of Computer Science, 'Phone: +61 02 202933
University of Tasmania, Fax : +61 02 202913
GPO Box 252C Hobart, Tasmania, AUSTRALIA, 7001.
Alexandre Se哉igny
> BTW, I am waging a crusade to spell the name of my favorite weapon
>S-A-B-E-R. Please join me--unless you also use the spellings C-O-L-O-U-R
>and C-E-N-T-R-E. ;^{)
>
Steve,
Why would you base a crusade on obviously erroneous information?
Why not just learn to improve your knowledge of the sport and the weapon instead of trying to alter the form of its signifier? :> (I=
say this lightheartedly... sort of)
Alexandre Sevigny
U of T F.C.
>
obr...@sklib.usask.ca
>
>Ah, but Mark, don't the most civilised fencers come en guard in sixte?
>
>Sept
I believe that they come en garde in sixte.
Jeff
John Simutis
: I can't resist biting on this one; I love a pedantic debate.
[snip]
: Contrary to semi-popular belief, the US of A is not the centre of the universe.
[snip]
: By the way "GrammarMan" should I have written "the US of A is" or "the US of A
: are"? One is plural, one is singular. Think about that one for a while...
You have it correct - singular. The US of A is one country. Canadian
sports announcers drive me up the wall - 'the team _are_ playing
[well|poorly]' - no, drattit, the _players_ _are_, the _team_ _is_. The
usage I decry seems widespread among the Commonwealth countries; I've
heard it from bits of British and Australian sportscasts, also. (Although
it's trickier when, as is often the case, the team name is a plural: 'The
Sharks are playing well' might easily mean 'the team is playing well,
despite no individual player having a good game'.)
: P.S. Joke: Q: how do you tell if someone is a pedant
: A: call them a pedanticist, and when they correct you...
: Try it, it works. And pedants that see it coming still can't stop themselves.
: I love it!
What? What do you mean here? That's not funny! :-)
Pedantically yours,
John
Jessie Micales
>: By the way "GrammarMan" should I have written "the US of A is" or "the US
of>A
>: are"? One is plural, one is singular. Think about that one for a while...
>You have it correct - singular. The US of A is one country.
>John
On a historic note, with nothing to do about fencing......
Before the Civil War, Americans referred to their country in the
plural. (The United States are....). After the Civil War and the
emergence of a strong central government, Americans started to say "the
United States is," thus representing a change in how we saw ourselves. I
learned this from Bud Robertson, the civil war historian at Virgina Tech who
is frequently on "Civil War Journal."
Now, back to fencing please!
Jessie
Jeremy B. Williams
|> Julian Dermoudy (J.R.De...@cs.utas.edu.au) wrote:
|>
|> : I can't resist biting on this one; I love a pedantic debate.
|> [snip]
|> : Contrary to semi-popular belief, the US of A is not the centre of the universe.
|> [snip]
|> : are"? One is plural, one is singular. Think about that one for a while...
|>
|> You have it correct - singular. The US of A is one country.
Right and wrong. The grammatic rule is ambiguous, and is applied differently
in the US and the Commonwealth.
The rule is that collective nouns take a singular verb when acting as a unit,
and a plural verb when the subunits are acting.
Thus:
Europeans think the United States are insignificant (places).
or,
Europeans think the United States is (an) insignifcant (place).
The two sentences have slightly different meanings, but colloquially, an
American would use the first for either meaning, while a subject of the
Crown would usually use the second for either -- both wrong, of course. . .
--J
"And rain will make the flowers. . ."
Roger Books
> Contrary to semi-popular belief, the US of A is not the centre of
> the universe.
This is blatantly false. The US of A is (correct tense here) the center
(or centre for those so inclined) of the universe. Ask any
astronomer/physicist.
Roger (And if you don't get my point nobody has ever given you the
astrophysics ballon lecture.)
Jeremy B. Williams
|> Julian Dermoudy (J.R.De...@cs.utas.edu.au) wrote:
|>
|> > Contrary to semi-popular belief, the US of A is not the centre of
|> > the universe.
|>
|> This is blatantly false. The US of A is (correct tense here) the center
|> (or centre for those so inclined) of the universe. Ask any
|> astronomer/physicist.
|>
As a physicist-in-training, I don't feel qualified to comment. But, as a
former resident of South Jersey, I know the approximate location of the
center of the universe. There is some debate about whether said center is
located in DC or NYC, but I am a moderate on the issue; I think it's
probably in Princeton.
S.D. Barnes
: As a physicist-in-training, I don't feel qualified to comment. But, as a
: former resident of South Jersey, I know the approximate location of the
: center of the universe. There is some debate about whether said center is
: located in DC or NYC, but I am a moderate on the issue; I think it's
: probably in Princeton.
Well, I'm not sure where the centre of the universe is, but I'm pretty
sure that the left armpit is located in Dothan, Alabama....;)
Sept