Thanks, carnut.
Gee, I proofread this three times before posting… Languages.
You don’t have to join with the grammar and spelling fascist bloc. If the mistake ain’t funny there’s no reason to point it out.
Heh. You said “ain’t” in your post.
If you happen to be one of those people who think that having a coat of arms is a load of old bollocks, I’m here to tell you that, at least in one instance, that’s quite correct.
The family’s name is derived from the Latin coleus, or testicle, and indeed, the family’s coat of arms was two pairs of white testicles on a red field, above one red pair on a white field [sic]. The progenitor of the family, Gisalberto, was reportedly proud of this coat of arms which he displayed prominently on his properties. Later members of the family modified the testicles on the coat of arms into upside-down hearts.
From another source:
In fact, three human testes are represented on the shield! The motif for this rather ‘embarrassing’ coat of arms is very simple: Bartolomeo Colleoni was suffering from the disease orchitis, and had three testicles; a detail from which was derived his “special” surname.
There’s a book by PJ Donleavy (The Onion Eaters?) that features a protagonist with a similar coat of arms, and for a similar reason. Not a coincidence, I (now) presume.
j
It is an interesting random fact, not trying to criticize, but your other source might be a little off. The coat of arms appears to show three pairs of testicles, six altogether, not three testicles. Also, orchitis might make one testicle look as large as three but doesn’t seem to produce any extras.
Unimportant aside, the first cite oddly describes the coat of arms with the colors reversed, at least as it is pictured there.
Yep. Odd, I thought - hence the insertion of [sic] into the quote.
The second quote is from an Italian source, so maybe it’s a translation issue (hmmm…), I dunno. If you google bartolomeo colleoni coat of arms you’ll find many images. All of them (I checked 'til I got bored) look like three pairs to me.
j
Sorry, didn’t notice that as I kept checking the original to make sure it was incorrect. As for the stories behind such shields, is the existence of the story the fact, or is the factual basis of the story the fact?
Most of us are only that way on occasion. I did find this occasion funny. But only a fellow pedant would. I get the feeling that @Moonrise is a fellow pedant.
But, as I like to speak in the vernacular for the most part AND have been known to make my own errors, I do usually let folks alone on this.
Amen! It’s such a small thing compared to, y’know, the Actual Point that someone’s making.
Which applies to “Ha! Kamala mistakenly used the objective case, therefore I’m ignoring everything else she’s ever said!”, as well as “Ha! Now I can derail this entire thread to argue subjunctive tense!”
.
But welcome, Moonrise! I hope you can be amused (and not annoyed) by people too smart for their own good, and not take ANYthing personally here.
Thanks, digs.
I most certainly am.
Ha! @digs said “subjunctive tense” instead of “subjunctive mood!”
–Commasense, unrepentant pedant.
“How was the mood of the room?”
“Tense.”
Writing this down.
I knew and half remembered this, but was reminded of it today on a trip out to Leith Hill Place in Surrey. Two of England’s more prominent families of their time, the Wedgewoods (as in the incredibly famous pottery designer and manufacturer, Josiah Wedgewood) and the Darwins (as in - uh - Charles) kinda shared a family tree - the intermarriages were so frequent. The headline example is Charles Darwin - grandson of Josiah Wedgewood - who married Emma Wedgewood, his first cousin. But the whole family tree is a hot mess of this sort of thing. It even has its own wikipedia page:
Regarding the prominence of these families, in the family tree displayed at the above link, by my count 37 family members have their own wikipedia page (!). At some point a fella called Arthur Vaughn Williams married in (to Margaret Wedgewood) and they begat a son, Ralph.
Fun aside: on display at Leith Hill Place is a family tree of Josiah Wedgewood, presented as a wheel:
j
This immediately made me look for a connection between Williams and American composer John Williams. Sadly, it doesn’t appear they are related.
Well, now my mood is… subjective.
But seriously, i’m going to look that up and edumacate my own self about moods. I love this place!
As an aside, I didn’t learn tenses and other grammar in English class, but we started French class in 6th grade, and learned Le Sujonctif and La Conditionelle …
(Merci, Madame F., it was all so fascinante)
The Halifax Oyster Festival is Canada’s largest oyster festival.
Their mascots are creepy AF:
https://www.superpunch.net/2022/07/the-disturbing-halifax-oyster-festival.html
French class improved my understanding of English grammar greatly.
And not just because of (in my case) the fearsome Miss Phillip…
In other news, I am distantly related to the Reeves family of art-supplies fame.
Learning foreign languages does that, actually. Being confronted with grammatical structures and metaphors not found in your mother tongue forces you to think about the latter in a new way.
At first, it seems that the foreign language you’re learning is weird. But after a while, it all starts to make sense. Then, you may begin to think that the foreign language is better than your mother tongue. In the end, you realize that both have found valid, fascinating ways to express different aspects of human thought
By the way, time to throw in some reference to the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.