How serious is collaring?

[Etoile]

Dang. Etoile, I think you were just told what's what, and not really all that nicely, either.

*blink*
What did I miss?

 

[RJMasters]

*blink*
What did I miss?

Perhaps I am mistaken but jade might be refering to el capton Chris commanding immediate recovery.

...and that's what, what's what means.

Oh and glad to hear your on the mend.

 

[chris9]

Perhaps I am mistaken but jade might be refering to el capton Chris commanding immediate recovery.

...and that's what, what's what means.

Oh and glad to hear your on the mend.

Oh, thanks for explaining... I didn't get it either.
And since I'm more italophil, maybe we could say 'il capitano'?

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Maybe this has to do with the German language. In German if you talk to someone or to a group directly (as in 'you do/don't whatever') you have to capitalize this 'you'. Many don't do so anymore, especially online, but that's laziness. But picking some out to do this for, and some to not do this IS impolite to those 'left out'.

Now, really twirl their propellers while explaining du and Sie ...

 

[marieR19]

Etoile, hope your foot gets better soon. *hugs*
Although I have already posted about the collar issue, I feel the need to post about the marriage issue also. My gf and I have every intention to get married eventually, most likely in Hawaii. While we both see a collar as a better and more permanent and significant showing of our love and devotion, there are a few reasons to get married. One, of course, is that it is simply something we would want to do; I think everyone, gay or straight, has dreamed of having a wedding of a certain type, a certain way, etc. And of course, most importantly, we want to have a legal say in health matters, as someone else mentioned earlier. I have strongly expressed my wishes to her to not be kept alive artifically, and I plan on making a legal document to that effect, but I do know certain relatives who would probably argue against it.


Heather

 

[Etoile]

And of course, most importantly, we want to have a legal say in health matters, as someone else mentioned earlier. I have strongly expressed my wishes to her to not be kept alive artifically, and I plan on making a legal document to that effect, but I do know certain relatives who would probably argue against it.

A living will/advance medical directive is an excellent idea. Allow me to recommend another document: a last will and testament. I have recently had the importance of this document brought into sharp relief - my biological father died on October 30 without a will, and I am now saddled with the task of administering the estate of someone I never met. (The rest of his family is gone except for a brother.) I talked it over with my wife, and I am planning to write a will soon (she already has one). Wills overrule the state's laws of succession, so if you leave everything to your partner, your family can't try to cut her out. This is advice for handfasted and collared couples too, actually - if you are not legally married, make sure to write each other into your wills.

 

[Jay Davis]

Etoile makes an excellent point here. You could spend 25 years living with and building a life and home with someone without being married, but if they die without a will, their half of your mutual property--including your home--would go to their nearest blood relatives.

If you're living with a life partner that you can't or won't marry (I know straight couples who refuse to get married until their gay friends can do the same--thank God for blue states!), having all your legal paperwork in order is tremendously important. Otherwise, your obnoxious, drug-adled, wastrel nephew could wind up making the decision about when to pull the plug on your respirator while your true love is locked out in the waiting room, trying to figure out where she's going to live after the worthless little snot inherits your house.

Families turn ugly when there's an estate up for grabs. Sad but true.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

i'm sorry, that was the way i was trained to write.

Historical Use Of Capitalization


Many people are introduced to the Lifestyle via electronic media such as chat rooms, message boards, mailing lists, and so on. Because these venues are based on written communication it is common for people who are new to the lifestyle to come across writing customs they are unfamiliar with. These customs may include the use of third-person speech by submissives, capitalizing the pronouns related to Dominants (He, She), and lowercasing a submissive's name.

Newcomers may be told a variety of reasons for this behavior: distinguishing a Dominant from a submissive online, formal displays of humility and respect, emphasis on status, etc. i, like many of these people, took this practice to heart as an outward display of D/s protocols. It was only when i began to encounter some opposition to these practices that I became curious about their origins.

After research, i discovered interesting historical aspects on this subject. i offer my findings here, not as to state "what you should do" but rather as a polite rebuttal to the perception that the use of lowercase names started as part of online roleplay. It is also intended as a rebuttal to those who veil pride behind the claim that forgoing modern capitalization is somehow less educated, and criticize the use of improper English.

The first documented use of capitalization occurred around the 4th century A.D., with Roman slave scribes. Until this time, Rome used several types of monocased handwriting, such as Capitalis Rustica or Uncial. 2 It is theorized that Roman slave scribes began to develop a method of handwriting for less important communications, beginning with messages between themselves. This handwriting may have been the first to employ both upper- and lowercased letters, introducing the concepts of majuscules and minuscules. The slaves would "lowercase" their names and "uppercase" their Masters, as a form of differentiation. 7 This style of differentiation between subjects in handwriting became what is now called Half-Uncial, and was adopted when many of these slave scribes began to write books that gained renown.

Half-Uncial was adopted somewhere around 600 AD, by Latin and Greek philosophers to write their notes. Because many of their predecessors had lowercased their names, these philosophers and theologians continued to do so. Many were unaware that their predecessors had been very educated slaves. 3

With the introduction of the Carolingian script in about 800 A.D., the general public began to incorporate capitals and "smalls" in a single text, usually in informal writings. 4 This use of capitalization resembles the manner in which we use it today, but did not become ubiquitous for many centuries.

It became a hallmark of truly dedicated intellectuals of the 11th and 12th centuries to use lowercase when speaking about one’s self, as with "i" or "me", and to capitalize the names of gods, including the Christian deity ("God" or "Lord"). As an interesting side note, it is the authors of this time period that e. e. cummings (1894-1962) emulated when he lowercased his name. During his education he noticed Latin and Greek manuscript authors never capitalized their names, and he subsequently began to lowercase his as well.

When slavery flourished throughout what is now the Middle East and India, people incorporated a practice of naming their slaves after traits or positive life aspects in hopes to bring these qualities into their households. It became common to have slaves named such things as "wisdom," "dignity," "prosperity," etc. Female slaves, such as odalisques (harem girls), were often given soft names that described attractive things, such as "noor" (light). Some harem women were trained as spies, and named things such as "fahima" (disarming intelligence).10 Because these slaves were named after things, and not in the Muslim biblical naming practice, they were never capitalized.

Biblical literature began to use these conventions as well. While no part of the Syriac version of the Old Testament remains, the Armenian version (translated in 411 A.D. from Syriac to Armenian) shows that many testimonies were written with lowercased i’s and my’s, and employed third person speech to show humility before God. This version of the Christian bible was seemingly the first to begin capitalizing God, Lord, and the associated pronouns. 9

The Armenian version was later translated into a variety of other languages, but many of these revised versions retained the capitalization styles up until the 1700’s, when Christian scholars decided to make the text "easier to read" and moved to a more modern style of formatting. Editing out some capitalization styles, third person speech, abbreviations, and neumes (Byzantine musical notes to aid the reader in chanting scripture) were just some of the changes that were made. 8 Interestingly, the Christian bible still retains the capitalization for pronouns referring to divine beings in modern texts, such as the King James version.

Between the 1600 and 1800’s, there was an evolution of language as America sought to keep existing English traditions, employ new "bolder" styles, and draw from many sources such as Africa, France, the Native American Indians, and many language of the West Indies Islands. Capitalization, punctuation, proper grammar, and other rules of English were used loosely in some places, and stringently in others. 1 It is interesting to note, in European literature in this time, slave names, places, and dialects were written in lowercase to distinguish them from European equivalents. In Oroonoko, or the History of the Royal Slave (1688), the European slave master refers to her in lowercase as a term of debasement, to remind her that she is no longer a princess, but a slave. 6

The English language evolved and changed over time, making shifts from Old English to Middle, to Modern, and finally to present-day English. The dialect we speak (mainly American English in the U.S.) is actually very young, less than 200 years old. What some term proper English is not truly traditional in a historical sense. To deem the use of lower- and uppercase conventions as improper is an argument without historical standing. There are many reasons a person may not agree with using these customs, but a short look into history demonstrates "proper English" is an amalgam of various cultures. A common issue taken with these conventions is doing so is to ruin the language, or pollute it some way. As stated above, there is no real purity of the language, and this should be taken into account when using this argument as a defense.

No matter the origins of a habit and practice, there will always be those who follow it religiously, those who follow it casually, and those who will argue against it. There is no right or wrong way, but there are methods that have proven themselves over time. You must be your own judge on what will work for you. Do be aware that subscribing or not to a certain D/s community "rule" may affect your standing within social circles you may choose to associate with. We, as humans, thrive on creating social constructs to define our ourselves and our behavior.

The practice of distinctive communication conventions in this context is not unpopular in this age, but it should be noted that for the purposes of this argument i would like to express the major reasoning. Firstly, there is a distinct historical precedent. It has been established that these practices have been in use for hundreds of years. Secondly, the use of D/s-style conventions predates the current conventions. Thirdly, the practice itself is functional. For me, personally, i will continue to lowercase my name and capitalize titles and pronouns associated with my Master and other Dominants out of respect and training. These types of reminders and restrictions are helpful to me, helping to create an environment that keeps my submission in the forefront of my thoughts. However, knowing a little history doesn’t hurt either.


by sajah


References

Childs, Matt D. Florida State University.
Diringer, David. (1982) The Book Before Printing: Ancient, Medieval and Oriental. New York: Dover Publications.
Granger, Frank. Periodical: The Printer’s Northwest Trader. Issue: 1998.08. "Twenty-six Wonders". Page: 6
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1967) "Essays in Linguistics Chicago", University of Chicago Press
Kasson, Joy S. "Mind in Matter in History: Viewing The Greek Slave"
Behn, A. (1688) Oroonoko or the History of the Royal Slave
Rick, Tyler and Popp, Martin. Museum of the Alphabet, Waxhaw, North Carolina
Romaine, Susanne (1994) Language and Society. An Introduction to Socilinguistics. New York; Oxford University Press Inc.
Ryrie, C. C. Formatting the Word of God The Charles Caldwell Ryrie Collection
Vadja, Edward, Prof. Western Washington University, Linguistics 201
Yale Journal of Criticism (1998)

 

[BarnabySchmidt]

i'm sorry, that was the way i was trained to write.

By who, your kindergarten teacher!!! HAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, Just had to say it.

But seriously,

Look at it this way. In spanish, Los Chicos can mean "the boys" or "the boys and girls." Masculine, being the Dominant gender (at least with the Spanish language), "absorbs" the feminine. So if you write "We" instead of W/we, look at it like the "We" absorbs the non-dominant part of the phrase, 'I" (that means you!).

Get it?

 

[Etoile]

No matter the origins of a habit and practice, there will always be those who follow it religiously, those who follow it casually, and those who will argue against it. There is no right or wrong way, but there are methods that have proven themselves over time. You must be your own judge on what will work for you. Do be aware that subscribing or not to a certain D/s community "rule" may affect your standing within social circles you may choose to associate with. We, as humans, thrive on creating social constructs to define our ourselves and our behavior.

Ugh. I don't know who sajah is (yes, I realize you didn't write this Rebecca!) but this whole thing sounds like a lot of excuse-making to me. The quoted part above is the only part that sounds accurate to me: "subscribing or not may affect your standing within social circles." Sure enough, around here we are not users of T/that S/style. Some people here do, but they are in the minority.

As I have already explained, I personally take the greatest exception to having T/that S/style applied to myself. I do not appreciate being addressed as part of a group as "Y/you" or "A/all." If other people want to use T/that S/style for themselves and their relationships, that's up to them. But I don't like it applied to me.

I notice that sajah spends all of eir time telling about the historical precedent and how it only supports eir position, even going so far as to say:

It is also intended as a rebuttal to those who veil pride behind the claim that forgoing modern capitalization is somehow less educated, and criticize the use of improper English.

The veiling pride part is bullshit and I don't appreciate it. I think I will have to write a rebuttal to this essay.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Ugh. I don't know who sajah is (yes, I realize you didn't write this Rebecca!) but this whole thing sounds like a lot of excuse-making to me. The quoted part above is the only part that sounds accurate to me: "subscribing or not may affect your standing within social circles." Sure enough, around here we are not users of T/that S/style. Some people here do, but they are in the minority.

As I have already explained, I personally take the greatest exception to having T/that S/style applied to myself. I do not appreciate being addressed as part of a group as "Y/you" or "A/all." If other people want to use T/that S/style for themselves and their relationships, that's up to them. But I don't like it applied to me.

I notice that sajah spends all of eir time telling about the historical precedent and how it only supports eir position, even going so far as to say:

The veiling pride part is bullshit and I don't appreciate it. I think I will have to write a rebuttal to this essay.

I fully appreciate both schools of thought and those inbetween I think the article was interesting and projected another view of Capitalization. I use both. I passed on the essay as way of sharing information to hand. I am of two minds on the topic myself as far as personally using it / reading it poses no real issue to me, feels quite natural mostly. Having said that you may note from my previous posts I am not using it here on the Boards as to me it seems superfluous. I also would be disheartened if someone used Capitalization as a point of dismissing either a valid point made by myself or humor for that matter . For the sake of 'peace' I am now going to find another essay I have stored at my web site BratFrat and post that next. I had intended to originally decided to defer untill later.

 

[luvs2playviolin]

I suppose that would depend on who wears it.

Think of a wedding ring. It can be a life long symbol of commitment, taken very seriously, or......a "I will honor this ring for only as long as it is something that is easy, and convienient for me."

The important thing, in my opinion, is to live up to what your collar was mutually agreed upon. What my collar means to Master and I, may be something totally different than what your collar means to you and your Dominant. Don't worry about what other standards are....it matters what yours means to you and the one that gave it to you. =) Honoring that is the most important thing.

My best to you both.

Kim