Post History
Here is a semantic midpoint example recorded around 1435, from Prose Brut: Whan it shal lyke hym to desire of þe Kyng eny oþer landes or lordships...yfte as by escheet, forfait, rebellion, or su...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Jirka Hanika
·
2021-05-18T16:44:05Z (almost 3 years ago)
- Here is a semantic midpoint example [recorded](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED16926) around 1435, from [Prose Brut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brut_Chronicle):
- > Whan it shal lyke hym to desire of þe Kyng eny oþer landes or lordships...yfte as by escheet, forfait, rebellion, or suche oþer title, þat þei shal so acquyte hem unto þe parformyng of his desire þat his lordship shal be plesed.
- In my highly unreliable translation:
- > When [John of Lancaster] asks the King for any other lands or lordships [returning] to the King through escheat, forfeiture, rebellion, or [through any] other title, [Lords of Council(?)] will pay off [an implied former written King's prior promise to John] so as to fullfil [John's next] wish to his satisfaction.
- (The [entire passage](https://books.google.cz/books?id=v_w9AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA246&lpg=RA1-PA246&dq=%22escheet,+forfait,+rebellion%22&source=bl&ots=ubRK07StR-&sig=ACfU3U36zz38KOP0O9ScDINEaCT2ofsKgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDqsq2ztPwAhWaHM0KHdpWCTUQ6AEwAHoECAYQAw#v=onepage&q=%22escheet%2C%20forfait%2C%20rebellion%22&f=false) reads to me as a fancy way of a committee saying "No, perhaps later" to a very specific and difficult to refuse request made by the young king's regent.)
I'm pointing out the reference to "such other title". Readers are assumed to know that events like escheat (e.g., lack of heirs upon death), forfeiture, or rebellion are legal grounds for transferring "lands or lordships" (nobility titles) from a vassal to their overlord. Such an event then becomes the legal title for the overlord's direct disposal of the land or of the nobility title.- This particular occurrence still uses "forfait" in reference to the misdeed (parallel to "escheat" and "rebellion"). But it is already understood that the misdeed automatically causes a loss. Transfer of a fief, loss of life...
- The eventual semantic shift could be classified as an effect for cause metonymy.
- The nascent meaning is perhaps a "penal loss" more than simply any punishment, considering the 15th century idiom "pein and forfet" (pain and forfeiture) which could perhaps be rendered as "suffered punishment and exacted penalty" in modern English.
- Here is a semantic midpoint example [recorded](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED16926) around 1435, from [Prose Brut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brut_Chronicle):
- > Whan it shal lyke hym to desire of þe Kyng eny oþer landes or lordships...yfte as by escheet, forfait, rebellion, or suche oþer title, þat þei shal so acquyte hem unto þe parformyng of his desire þat his lordship shal be plesed.
- In my highly unreliable translation:
- > When [John of Lancaster] asks the King for any other lands or lordships [returning] to the King through escheat, forfeiture, rebellion, or [through any] other title, [Lords of Council(?)] will pay off [an implied former written King's prior promise to John] so as to fullfil [John's next] wish to his satisfaction.
- (The [entire passage](https://books.google.cz/books?id=v_w9AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA246&lpg=RA1-PA246&dq=%22escheet,+forfait,+rebellion%22&source=bl&ots=ubRK07StR-&sig=ACfU3U36zz38KOP0O9ScDINEaCT2ofsKgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDqsq2ztPwAhWaHM0KHdpWCTUQ6AEwAHoECAYQAw#v=onepage&q=%22escheet%2C%20forfait%2C%20rebellion%22&f=false) reads to me as a fancy way of a committee saying "No, perhaps later" to a very specific and difficult to refuse request made by the young king's regent.)
- I'm pointing out the reference to "such other title". Readers are assumed to know that events like escheat (e.g., lack of heirs upon death), forfeiture, or rebellion are legal grounds for transferring "lands or lordships" (nobility titles) from a vassal to their overlord/king. Such an event then becomes the legal title for the kings's direct disposal of the land or of the nobility title.
- This particular occurrence still uses "forfait" in reference to the misdeed (parallel to "escheat" and "rebellion"). But it is already understood that the misdeed automatically causes a loss. Transfer of a fief, loss of life...
- The eventual semantic shift could be classified as an effect for cause metonymy.
- The nascent meaning is perhaps a "penal loss" more than simply any punishment, considering the 15th century idiom "pein and forfet" (pain and forfeiture) which could perhaps be rendered as "suffered punishment and exacted penalty" in modern English.
#2: Post edited
by
Jirka Hanika
·
2021-05-18T16:39:31Z (almost 3 years ago)
- Here is a semantic midpoint example [recorded](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED16926) around 1435, from [Prose Brut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brut_Chronicle):
> Whan it shal lyke hym to desire of þe Kyng eny oþer landes or lordships..as by escheet, forfait, rebellion, or suche oþer title, þat þei shal so acquyte hem..þat his lordship shal be plesed.- I'm pointing out the reference to "such other title". Readers are assumed to know that events like escheat (e.g., lack of heirs upon death), forfeiture, or rebellion are legal grounds for transferring "lands or lordships" (nobility titles) from a vassal to their overlord. Such an event then becomes the legal title for the overlord's direct disposal of the land or of the nobility title.
- This particular occurrence still uses "forfait" in reference to the misdeed (parallel to "escheat" and "rebellion"). But it is already understood that the misdeed automatically causes a loss. Transfer of a fief, loss of life...
- The eventual semantic shift could be classified as an effect for cause metonymy.
- The nascent meaning is perhaps a "penal loss" more than simply any punishment, considering the 15th century idiom "pein and forfet" (pain and forfeiture) which could perhaps be rendered as "suffered punishment and exacted penalty" in modern English.
- Here is a semantic midpoint example [recorded](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED16926) around 1435, from [Prose Brut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brut_Chronicle):
- > Whan it shal lyke hym to desire of þe Kyng eny oþer landes or lordships...yfte as by escheet, forfait, rebellion, or suche oþer title, þat þei shal so acquyte hem unto þe parformyng of his desire þat his lordship shal be plesed.
- In my highly unreliable translation:
- > When [John of Lancaster] asks the King for any other lands or lordships [returning] to the King through escheat, forfeiture, rebellion, or [through any] other title, [Lords of Council(?)] will pay off [an implied former written King's prior promise to John] so as to fullfil [John's next] wish to his satisfaction.
- (The [entire passage](https://books.google.cz/books?id=v_w9AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA246&lpg=RA1-PA246&dq=%22escheet,+forfait,+rebellion%22&source=bl&ots=ubRK07StR-&sig=ACfU3U36zz38KOP0O9ScDINEaCT2ofsKgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDqsq2ztPwAhWaHM0KHdpWCTUQ6AEwAHoECAYQAw#v=onepage&q=%22escheet%2C%20forfait%2C%20rebellion%22&f=false) reads to me as a fancy way of a committee saying "No, perhaps later" to a very specific and difficult to refuse request made by the young king's regent.)
- I'm pointing out the reference to "such other title". Readers are assumed to know that events like escheat (e.g., lack of heirs upon death), forfeiture, or rebellion are legal grounds for transferring "lands or lordships" (nobility titles) from a vassal to their overlord. Such an event then becomes the legal title for the overlord's direct disposal of the land or of the nobility title.
- This particular occurrence still uses "forfait" in reference to the misdeed (parallel to "escheat" and "rebellion"). But it is already understood that the misdeed automatically causes a loss. Transfer of a fief, loss of life...
- The eventual semantic shift could be classified as an effect for cause metonymy.
- The nascent meaning is perhaps a "penal loss" more than simply any punishment, considering the 15th century idiom "pein and forfet" (pain and forfeiture) which could perhaps be rendered as "suffered punishment and exacted penalty" in modern English.
#1: Initial revision
by
Jirka Hanika
·
2021-05-18T15:54:42Z (almost 3 years ago)
Here is a semantic midpoint example [recorded](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED16926) around 1435, from [Prose Brut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brut_Chronicle): > Whan it shal lyke hym to desire of þe Kyng eny oþer landes or lordships..as by escheet, forfait, rebellion, or suche oþer title, þat þei shal so acquyte hem..þat his lordship shal be plesed. I'm pointing out the reference to "such other title". Readers are assumed to know that events like escheat (e.g., lack of heirs upon death), forfeiture, or rebellion are legal grounds for transferring "lands or lordships" (nobility titles) from a vassal to their overlord. Such an event then becomes the legal title for the overlord's direct disposal of the land or of the nobility title. This particular occurrence still uses "forfait" in reference to the misdeed (parallel to "escheat" and "rebellion"). But it is already understood that the misdeed automatically causes a loss. Transfer of a fief, loss of life... The eventual semantic shift could be classified as an effect for cause metonymy. The nascent meaning is perhaps a "penal loss" more than simply any punishment, considering the 15th century idiom "pein and forfet" (pain and forfeiture) which could perhaps be rendered as "suffered punishment and exacted penalty" in modern English.