?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
06 October 2006 @ 10:44 pm
Latin  

So, a question for all you Latin scholars out there. What would be good Latin for the famous phrase: "Garbage in, garbage out"? Is it satisfactorily obfuscatory and formal, or is it just too obvious? (I'm thinking of designing a coat-of-arms for the company I work for, and that would be a good motto for the scroll underneath. I imagine at least one of the devices [is that what they're called?] would be a flying pig…)

Tags: , ,
 
 
Current Mood: curiouscurious
 
 
 
Peter Hentgesjbru on October 7th, 2006 10:14 am (UTC)
Oh dear. Same old, same old then, eh? Glad they are at least keeping you gainfully employed.
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter eyes onlyfredcritter on October 9th, 2006 09:30 am (UTC)

Yup. As you used to say, rigorous testing and licensing should be required before a person is allowed to use Microsoft Word.

It would also help a bit if we could get folks out of the habit of pasting Excel tables into Word documents as pictures and then sizing them to 37%. However, I've given up all hope that more than a few people will ever be able to correctly and consistently structure the heading levels in a document which exceeds two pages in length.

On the other hand, fixing such things tends to take quite a bit of time, thus keeping me more gainfully employed than I might otherwise be. So it's not all bad. Just … irritating at times &hellip

Both, And...polyfrog on October 7th, 2006 12:34 pm (UTC)
Devices
A formal coat of arms consists of several elements. Together they make up the device.

The central element is the shield-looking thing. That is the escutcheon. The escutcheon has several elements...it's very complex and you're probably not interested, but the point in this case is that if there is a picture of a flying pig on the shield, that would be a "charge." If a flying pig were one of the creatures to either side holding up the shield, then it would be a supporter. The scroll underneath is called the motto and the whatzit (often a crown) on top of the shield is the crest, and now I've described all the main parts of a full heraldic coat of arms (although not the whole complex escutcheon itself, which even the basics would be a very long post).
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter eyes onlyfredcritter on October 9th, 2006 09:44 am (UTC)
Re: Devices

Okay. I think I got a piece of that. The "device" is therefore another name for the whole formal coat of arms. Right? And a flying pig on a shield is a "charge," which is not to be confused with a dead pig on a platter—that would be an "entree."

I've heard the term "rampant" used in the context of heraldry. Does it mean "above"? 'Cause the phrase "rampant flying pigs" just went tripping through my mind and gave me the giggles. Although it occurs to me that in our case it would probably be more appropriate to have flying pigs supporting the shield, which would itself contain something emblematic of formal documents one is legally required to file on a periodic basis.

I assume that if the whatzit on top is a crown it indicates some past or current connection with royalty? What are a couple of other things we might find on top? Why?

Thanks, by the way. Most interesting.

Alice, Sweet Alice: Madman Blackaddersweetalice on October 9th, 2006 10:51 am (UTC)
Re: Devices
Ah yes! Rampant flying pigs are even grander than the typical variety!
Both, And...polyfrog on October 10th, 2006 12:58 am (UTC)
Re: Devices
"The 'device' is therefore another name for the whole formal coat of arms. Right?"

Yes. But there are plenty of heraldically valid devices that are just the escutcheon, with no supporters, motto, crest, garter, etc. Those things are significant if they are present, but are not required.

"I assume that if the whatzit on top is a crown it indicates some past or current connection with royalty? What are a couple of other things we might find on top? Why?" Generally, it's a hat of some kind. A crown or coronet indicating royalty (and degree of royalty) or other inherited title, or a helmet of office (a knight of a certain order might be entitled to add a certain sort of helmet to his device, for instance). For instance the arms of the House Of Windsor are used by the Queen. The same arms are used by the Queen's government, minus the crest; they are acting on her authority, but they are not her.

Rampant refers to the bodily position of the creature. Here we run into a problem of semantics. What do you mean by "a flying pig?" If you mean "A pig which is capable of flight," (more properly a winged pig) then yes, you could have a rampant flying pig. It would be standing on its hind legs, facing to the left of the page (the dexter side of the shield(since the shield is presumed to be carried, the dexter (right) side of the shield is on the left of the observer)) with both front hooves raised, one above the other, it's head aligned with the body (that is, not facing out towards you (Which would be "rampant guardant"), and not looking over its shoulder (which would be "rampant regardant") (can pigs look over their shoulders?)).
If you mean "A pig currently flying," then no, it can't be rampant and in flight, because "in flight" and "rampant" both describe the disposition of the body of the creature.

I am pleased and appalled that all of this heraldic knowledge I learned 20 years ago or more is coming so easily to mind.
(Anonymous) on May 17th, 2007 06:28 pm (UTC)
Re: Devices
If I may correct you, sir, together the heraldic elements make up the "achievement" or achievement of arms, which consists of several devices--escutcheon, supporters, motto, crest (the whatzit on top), and so on. The coat of arms is, correctly, an actual coat in the background colors of the shield, upon which the charges are sewn, embroidered or painted.

submitted by David, Baron Phoenix, KS, KRG, KCG, I/K.
David W. Schrothdavidschroth on October 7th, 2006 07:09 pm (UTC)
What would be good Latin for the famous phrase: "Garbage in, garbage out"?

This sounds like a job for Dr. Perry!!!

I'd suggest an offering of pie...
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter eyes onlyfredcritter on October 9th, 2006 09:49 am (UTC)
Gosh, you're right! What sort of pie do you think would work best? Bakers' Square French Silk comes immediately to my mind, but I don't know The Good Doctor's pie preferences…
Skylarker: Reflectiveskylarker on October 8th, 2006 12:35 am (UTC)
in scrutum, e scrutum
Skylarker: Reflectiveskylarker on October 8th, 2006 12:36 am (UTC)
(My best guess; the grammar may need adjustment)
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter eyes onlyfredcritter on October 9th, 2006 09:50 am (UTC)
Thanks!
Alice, Sweet Alice: Madman Blackaddersweetalice on October 8th, 2006 05:03 am (UTC)
Hooray for flying pigs! ;)
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter eyes onlyfredcritter on October 9th, 2006 09:52 am (UTC)

Yup. They're just the thing! It'll be a bittersweet tapestry of life itself.

Strawberry Snatchcake: stinky!rampion on October 8th, 2006 05:32 pm (UTC)
Oh, that is nice!

Back in my department, we used to have a Magic 8-Ball that we labeled the that-company-we-work-for-Style Manual.
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter eyes onlyfredcritter on October 9th, 2006 09:15 am (UTC)
Heh! Love it! Most appropriate.
(Anonymous) on October 10th, 2006 04:55 pm (UTC)
I think the previous poster needs a verb. If "scrutum" is the accusative, he's got "into garbage" but "e/ex" takes the ablative so that would have to be "scruto" for "out of garbage".

I'm rather fond of "quisquilia" for garbage. (Though "scrutum" is good in its sence of "nonesense",). It literally means floor sweepings. So for active garbage:

Cum quisquiliae intrat, exet/exiet.

When garbage goes in, it comes out/will come out.

quisquilia is normally used in the plural for "garbage" but it can take the singular verb (I'm pretty sure...)


cheers,

-bill colsher