Investigations of a Dog

Andrew Hickey linked to a post at the Universe of Discourse about syntax, arguing against a syntactical rule which says that the hypothetical verb “to flimp” can’t exist. Go and read that post for more explanation. While reading it occurred to me that the search for a universal syntax often ignores culturally specific meanings, and that sometimes arguments against it do too. David Dowty suggests the counter-example that “to cuckold” is “to have sexual intercourse with the woman who is married to”. For example, in the sentence “Peter cuckolded John”, John is the direct object. But if you expand it to Dowty’s version (“ Peter had sex with the woman who is married to John”) the woman is now an object (I’m a bit vague on whether she’s direct, or whether “sex” is the direct object and she’s indirect!), and John has been relegated to an adjectival clause which describes the woman. That’s one way of defining cuckold, but it seems to be very specific to modern Western liberal individualism. Having sex (probably consensual) with a woman who happens to have a husband. But things were different in cultures and societies which used the word cuckold more frequently than we do, such as early-modern England. In early-modern gender ideology wives were supposed to be subordinate to husbands. To cuckold a man was to take his property, and undermine his authority and masculinity. To put it another way, it was to injure him by using his wife, just like to stab someone is to injure them by using a sharp object. The indirect object implied by the verb is what is used to carry out the action. In Latin we would use the ablative of means to describe this relationship. A wife is necessary for cuckolding to take place, but she is absent from that sentence. Not even an object. Of course this is horribly misogynistic, but cuckold is a horribly misogynistic word from a horribly misogynistic culture.

This does not prove that “flimp” can’t exist. In fact Dowty’s cuckold example proves that it is syntactically possible. His interpretation is more possible now than it was 400 years ago, but that’s all down to social and cultural changes. It isn’t a syntax issue. Syntax allows many possibilities which aren’t used in practice, perhaps because they’re just not useful enough. But what is useful can be heavily influenced by social, cultural and political context, and therefore can change quite a lot. Taking “cuckold” and “stab” as starting points, I’ve been wondering how many others verbs there are which strongly imply an indirect object, and how this implication might be specific to certain times and places. There are some obvious modern examples where the verb is the same as, or derived from, the noun. You can’t phone someone without using a phone. But I’m pretty sure that cuckold isn’t derived from a word for wife. In order for the concept to make sense there has to be a social and cultural context which at least includes marriage (perhaps a specific form of marriage), and certain norms of sexual behavior. In the context of early modern England patriarchal hierarchy and definitions of masculinity add extra meanings which are not necessarily apparent today. These meanings have very little to do with syntax.

Following on from this, I think “pray” might be another example. An ancient Roman might pray to one of many gods. Catholics only have one god, but they could also pray to saints. But when a protestant prays, there is only one possibility. Feudal homage might be another source of examples. I’m a bit vague on the details, but there were probably circumstances where “I am going to pay homage” could only mean paying it to one specific person. It’s starting to look like power might be very significant here. A person would have to be very important to a lot of people before it was worth combining their name into a verb in the manner of “flimp”. (This is starting to remind me of a post at Babel’s Dawn about how semantics is now looking more important than syntax, but I can’t remember exactly which post it was.)

(Incidentally, I don’t think the wank example given at Universe of Discourse really works because “to wank to” has the preposition “to” tacked onto it, and requires the indirect object to be explicitly included in order to make a complete sentence.)

A while ago I was wondering whether there were any good social networking sites for academics, and whether I really needed one. Now it looks like Zotero is going to fill the gap. Zotero 2.0 is now in beta, and Dan Cohen has given a rundown of the new features. Users will get a personal page on the Zotero site allowing us to network and interact with people with similar research interests, and users will be able to create and join groups to make sharing of bibliographic data easier. This all looks really exciting. I’ll probably try it once I’ve got my Zotero collections and tags in better order.

Chris Onstad is a genius, but this week I think he might have underestimated how rude 17th-century cheap print could be. For example, see Early Modern Whale on 17th century porn, or the effects of coffee (even I was surprised by the mention of dildos there!). At Mercurius Politicus there’s a pamphlet war involving woodcuts of she-devil toilet sex, while Ovid’s Ars Amatoria was one of the things guranteed to irritate a puritan. In Agnes Bowker’s Cat David Cressy dated the first picture of an erect penis in English popular print to 1641. And here are some breasts (illustrating the story of a very promiscuous woman) from LOL Manuscripts. Also in this old post (more popular with Google searchers than anything else I’ve ever written) I looked at how the Old Bailey Proceedings described two bestiality cases in more detail than was strictly necessary. The kind of prudishness parodied in Achewood is more often associated with the Victorians (and that might well be a myth that annoys 19th century specialists), but it could occur in 17th century print too. At LOL Manuscripts there’s a really bizarre example where a pamphlet has an uncensored picture of ass kissing but refuses to spell out the word “arse”!

So yes, people in the 17th century had sex, looked at porn, and used dildos. These are just some of the things that didn’t get mentioned in traditional historiography because they weren’t “proper” history.

Recently I have mostly bought:

1. John Adamson, The Civil Wars (Palgrave Macmillan, May 2008).  
2. Judith M. Bennett, History Matters (University of Pennsylvania Press, September 2007).  
3. Barbara Donagan, War in England 1642-1649 (OUP Oxford, February 2008).  
4. Andrew Hopper, ‘Black Tom’ (Manchester University Press, April 2007).  
5. Patrick Little, Oliver Cromwell (Palgrave Macmillan, November 2008).  
6. Tim Padfield, Copyright for Records Managers and Archivists (Facet Publishing, January 2007).  

I think Donagan’s War in England is probably the most expensive book I’ve ever bought.

SAGE Publications are having another free trial month. Just go to this page and register and you can get free access to SAGE Journals until the end of April.

Also it’s nearly a year since my first article was published in War In History, so I’ll be able to publish a pre-print here soon.

Via Ben Brumfield and Archaetech I’ve heard about the InterFace conference on humanities and technology, which will take place at Southampton University in July. Although it looks a bit more formal than THATCamp, the speed dating and lightning presentations should make it very different from traditional humanities conferences. The deadline for submissions is 1st May. I’ll probably put one in myself if I can come up with a good enough idea.

The March edition of the Military History Carnival is now up at the American Presidents Blog. Also the carnival has a  new submission form, so don’t use the old one.

As I mentioned last week, EThOS is now open to the public. This is the British Library’s new online service for delivering copies of UK PhD theses, replacing the old British Thesis Service which used to supply copies on paper or microfilm. Although the site is officially in beta most features seem to be fully working. Right now there’s only a basic search (you can’t limit your search to specific fields) but it accepts wildcards and should be enough to find what you want if you know what you’re looking for. Searches can be limited to theses which are available for immediate download.

Theses are being digitized on demand. If someone has already requested and received a copy of a thesis then it will be available immediately for anyone else who wants it. There is no charge for downloading a thesis which has already been digitized, but you have to pay the cost of printing and binding if you prefer a hard copy. The publicity last year suggested that the first person to request a thesis would have to pay the costs of digitization, but now it looks like this will rarely happen because many university libraries have agreed to pay for digitization of their own theses as part of their commitment to open access. Once a new thesis has been requested digitization is promised in 10 working days although a notice on the site says there might be delays because of heavy demand. I ordered an undigitized thesis today (D. E. Lewis on the parliamentarian ordnance office - something I would have read during my PhD if I’d known about it), so we’ll see how long it takes.

Searching for “english civil war” limited to theses already available I got a couple of hits (there are lots more for “first world war”) and downloaded David Evans’s thesis on Edward Massey. I found it slightly annoying that I had to go through a checkout process even though the download was free, but it’s still an awful lot more convenient than paying around £50 and waiting several weeks the last time I ordered a thesis. The digital file is a PDF but it comes inside a zip file. That seemed slightly pointless as it didn’t make the download significantly smaller (12MB zipped, 14MB unzipped) and means that you can’t view the thesis straight away in your browser. It might make sense if multiple orders were combined in the same zip file, but even if you have more than one thesis in your basket you still have to download and unzip each one separately.

It looks like most UK universities are participating in the scheme, but significantly Oxford and Cambridge aren’t. Although their theses show up in the search results they can’t be ordered through the site. This might just result in fewer people bothering to read and cite theses from the big two, so it could be their loss as much as anyone else’s.

Overall I’m really impressed with this site. There are some minor things that could be improved, and it crashes occasionally, but it’s obviously going to be a very useful resource. I’m particularly pleased that in most cases users won’t have to pay for theses. I hope this will encourage people to be more adventurous about which theses they consult.

I’m finally back to blogging after a few months off. The risk of RSI is one drawback of relying on computers so much, but I’ve got it under control now. I’m still not going to risk playing computer games or musical intruments for a while though, and definitely no more woodcutting, which is what probably did for me. This post is a quick roundup of some things that happened while I was away.

First of all, the Military History Carnival always needs more hosts. Although it’s not my responsibility any more I’d like to see it continue, so if you can help please contact TJ at tj$linzy$@$gmail$.$com (remove the dollar signs)..

I’ve deactivated my Facebook account as I was finding the whole thing too annoying. I’ve opened an account at LinkedIn but I’m not sure if I’m going to use it. It seems very much aimed at The Businessman In His Suit And Tie. Does anyone use it, and is it any use? I’d like to see a social networking site specifically designed for academics. Maybe with facilities to self-archive our publications.

The Great War Archive (which I posted about here) opened on time in November, and looks really good. They’re also continuing to collect submissions through a Flickr group. Reviews in History have published a review by Esther MacCallum-Stewart and a response by Stuart Lee. This project gives us proof that there are lots of interesting documents in private hands and that at least some people are willing to share them on the web if given the chance. Although 6,500 documents sounds like a lot I suspect it’s a tiny fraction of what’s still out there.

The 1911 census has been released early (but some counties aren’t available yet). Although access is relatively expensive you get very good quality colour photos of the original documents: much better than the 1901 census.

EThOS, the British Library’s new online thesis sevice, is now in public beta. I’ll probably post about it in more detail later in the week, but for now I’ll just say that I’m very impressed.

I am pleased to announce that TJ Linzy of Battlefield Biker is taking over the running of the Military History Carnival until the end of 2009. Please give him all the support you can. Without hosts and submissions there can be no carnival. You can contact him at tj$linzy$@$gmail$.$com (remove the dollar signs). The transfer is still in progress but things should be running soon.