Why call him Louis when the other sons don't have latinized - frankified names? Before Louis shows up, and when he shows up, and after he shows up, one sees Lothars in the tree, but no Ludovics or Ludowigs etc. These are germanic forms of Louis, They Say.
But I had learned that Louis is derived from Clovis -- and as we know, of course, it is a Clovis who was the first Merovingian king, and there were many other Clovii in Merovingian history. But no, no, no! exclaimed another friend. From the dox we know that Ludwig and variations are the names from which Louis derives, she informs. That was puzzling enough to make me doubtful. If Louis comes from Ludwig, why did so many other scholars and historians state so confidently that Louis, pronounced 'lwi', derives from Clovis?
No wonder it's so difficult for English speakers to get a handle on early French history -- especially if like me, they don't know latin, German and French! I haven't had time yet to begin my short stack of Charlemagne books, beyond finishing Towns and Trade in the Age of Charlemagne (1994) by Richard Hodges. These books might have given me the clues to follow, but, as said, I haven't had the time to immerse yet -- though, yah, without a clue I did foolishly devote hours digging in the web. But I couldn't find anything until a friend gave me a couple of links.
These links didn't provide any linguistic information of the sort I was looking for -- but from them I did learn something fundamental -- so fundamental that it is duh -- but only if I'd read these Charlemagne books which I haven't yet read would it be duh --
i) WIDEGO (-[after 22 Jun 823]). "Widegowi filii Warini comitis..." witnessed the charter dated 6 Jun 799 under which “Bernherus” donated property "in pago Rinensi in Locheim" to Lorsch. "Witegowo" donated property "in pago Wormat. In Albecher marca" to Lorsch by charter dated 784. "Widegowo et soror mea Reginburc" donated property "in pago Gardachgowe in villa Francunbach" to Lorsch by charter dated 806. Emperor Louis I confirmed the donation of "ecclesia...in pago...Lobotengowe in villa...Siggenheim", previously acquired by "Warinus quondam comes ad partem fisci nostri" and granted to “Widegowo comes per beneficium largitioinis nostræ”, to Lorsch by charter dated 22 Jun 823 .
This is in the 9th century, so it is Emperor Louis the Pius, Charlemagne's son (r. 1814 - 1840). Louis the Pious (b. 778 – 20 June 840), also called the Fair, and the Debonaire, was the King of Aquitaine from 781. He was also King of the Franks and co-Emperor (as Louis I) with his father, Charlemagne, from 813.
|Fibula of the Carolingian period: copper, gold, and turquoise found at Chalandry in the musée de Laon|
The second link my amiga provided mentions "Louis" only twice, once in the description of his mother's family and antecedents via the biography of Louis I written by a churchman named Thegan of Trier (or Degan of Treves), and once in the footnote citation. Thegan was a Frankish Roman Catholic prelate, author of Gesta Hludowici imperatoris, a principal source for the life of the Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Pious, the son and successor of Charlemagne. Louis I's mother was thoroughly German as was all her family -- but, this was what mattered in my quest for lwi/Louis --I learned that this son of Charlemagne was born, not in the germanic regions of his empire, but on soil that would be France.
|Louis the Pious|
So, finally, I search Louis I. At this link, the following was at the top for Louis I:
Alternative Titles: Louis le Débonnaire, Louis le Pieux, Louis the Debonair, Louis the Pious (and in Germany) Ludwig der Fromme
The takeaway for me, in terms of Louis I being not only lwi, but the first lwi, besides actually being born in what we now call France, is this:
" . . . (born April 16, 778, Chasseneuil, near Poitiers, Aquitaine [now in France]—died June 20, 840, Petersau, an island in the Rhine River near Ingelheim [now in Germany]), Carolingian ruler of the Franks who succeeded his father, Charlemagne, as emperor in 814 and whose 26-year reign (the longest of any medieval emperor until Henry IV [1056–1106]) was a central and controversial stage in the Carolingian experiment to fashion a new European society. Commonly called Louis the Pious, he was known to his contemporaries by the Latin names Hludovicus or Chlodovicus, which echo the Latin name of Clovis (c. 466–511), the illustrious founder of the Merovingian dynasty. Louis was appointed king of Aquitaine in 781 and was already a seasoned 35-year-old politician and military commander when he became coemperor with Charlemagne in 813. He was the fourth monarch of the Carolingian dynasty, preceded by his father; his uncle, Carloman; and his grandfather, Pippin III, the Short."
Damn! I DID NOT KNOW that Clovis, Hludovicus or Chlodovicus were latinized versions of germanic names! I assumed they were germanic names. How stupid is THAT? Answer: Very Stupid.
So Louis is king of Aquitaine, the least gothicized of western France. Where then, presumably, they spoke some sort of "french" that would make a lwi / Louis out of Clovis. In the end they didn't speak the same form of French as the rest of France, but the language King Richard I learned as a child, and so did his mother, Queen Eleanor. Even now, in this region:
Many residents also have some knowledge of Basque, of a variety of Occitan (Gascon, Limousin, or Languedocien), or of the Poitevin-Saintongeais dialect of French.
Louis I lived in Aquitaine from age 3. His nurse was, it appears, to have been from a regionally indigenous family -- at least indigenous since the days of the Roman conquest -- though that region was also the least latinized in the days of Roman Empire, if I recall correctly. He was thoroughly Aquitaine-ized not only in his name, persumably.
So, oddly, perhaps, did this liw-ization of Clovis started in a language that didn't become the mainstream form of French? He did bring his Aquitanians with him to Paris after Charlemagne's death, and as they were his cohort from childhood, presumably into the German regions of the empire. Presumably I will learn more when I get my Charlemagne, Capetians and middle ages stack read.
I have to find a good history of the Viking incursions into France. By the time the William invades England these Norsemen are already speaking the French of Paris -- they arrived first in the reign of Louis I's son, Charles II (the Bald -- Charlemagne is the first Charles). (The siege of Paris was 845.)
Something else I have grasped this last week btw, which previously I did not know, for reasons I do not know, except, most likely, I wasn't paying attention: the first two European actions that later got called the Crusades, and the history of what was Outremere, were very much French affairs. That the French were the dominant European power in what they came to call Outremere must have had so much to do with the shaping of not only the literature and language of the courtly romance -- but also that of their fairy tales. This is one of the reasons the consciously composed French fairy tale is so different from those that the Grimm Brothers printed.
Yet it still took me until this week to overtly understand that the English had nothing to do with early formation of Crusade politics, manners and literature. (The Spanish didn't contribute either, as they were thoroughly occupied with the Reconquista. That, at least, I always understood.)
Not until relatively recently -- o say the last couple of decades, did I overtly recognize that England didn't go on the First and Second Crusades. The civil war between Maud and Stephen prevented English participation in the First Crusade. Then Henry II needed to put together and hold together his own empire, so though he contributed funds to the Second Crusade, he and his men stayed in Europe.
But we've so identified King Richard the Lion Heart with the third Crusade, that we / me English speakers have the unexamined presumption that the English were present in the earlier actions. It may also be partly due to Henry II's marriage to Eleanor -- who did go on the Second Crusade with her husband King Louis VII -- and that she was Richard I's mother, who did go as far as Sicily with his wife, Berengaria of Navarre, during the Third Crusade. It's in this era of Eleanor's daughter by Louis VII, Marie of France, the Countess of Champagne, and Richard, Duke in Aquitaine, we see the outpouring of courtly romances* (in the Holy Roman Empire too, because of Conrad and Tancred who were Crusade monarchs too). These are some of the roads to the romances' treatment of the Matter of Grail -- and how it enters into England, where it gets married to Arthur and The Matter of Britain. This, even though Richard spent barely any time there, and Henry didn't either. But Henry did have a continental empire, and the movement of churchmen and his administrators between the continent and England was constant.
Some nights ago all this came to mind while I watched the French live action La belle et la bête / Beauty and the Beast (2014 France, 2017 US). Live action, produced in France, it is so different from the Disney versions. It was adult in attitude, and even more so, it contained in decor and manner a through line that I swear goes back at least to the Crusading era.
So that's my next French quest. When did that transition happen, from Frankish to French? It wasn't in the Carolingian era, which is its own distinct period from the Merovingian or the Capetian.
* Several of the most well-known French courtly love romances include events that were inspired by events in Queen Eleanor's and Henry's lives, such as The Knight of the Cart, in which Queen Guenivere is abducted, and rescued by Lancelot. After Eleanor's grant of divorce, as she traveled back to Poitiers, two lords – Theobald V, Count of Blois, and Geoffrey, Count of Nantes (brother of Henry II, Duke of Normandy) – tried to kidnap and marry her to claim her lands.
What I read
Finished Rebel: very very good and longing for the next one (Chekhov's [spoiler]!0,
Following seeing somebody on my reading list commenting about it, took a punt on L Rowyn, A Rational Arrangement (2015), which is a poly romance in a fantasy (though possibly implied sf) setting of vaguely Regency mores, but on a world where there are other societies with ways of doing things. And as I recall, the person who was reading it had some niggles, and indeed I had some, though possibly different niggles - I have surely previously mentioned my dislike of those narratives in which Our Heroine is the only square peg of her sex, and all the others seem to fit neatly into round holes (I lately did not proceed with a fantasy highly recommended by someone whose judgement I respect because it had the Her Sister Is Shallow and Bitchy trope). However, this did manage to engage me even with that niggle (just as Emma Newman's Split Worlds series gets something of a pass on the Shallow Bitchy Sister).
Anyhow, I enjoyed it well enough to finish it, to read the 3 novellas set in the same world with the same characters, Further Arrangements (2016).
Travel reading has been soothing comfort rereads.
On the go
That book for review, which I've actually brought with me on my travels in the hopes that I might get it read and be in a position to write the review before the deadline.
Scott McCracken, Pulp: Reading Popular Fiction (1998) - picked up in a charity shop as the title was vaguely familiar. Am feeling that it would be a different book if written 10 or so years later with the rise of online book discussions; also, invokes terribly terribly OK bloke authorities, and I'm a bit hmmm at his choices of specific authors and books discussed.
No idea, supposing I have much time for reading.
Much has been written about the design of the Daleks and its contribution to their success. It's difficult not to be impressed. Even today most Doctor Who monsters definitely adhere to the "man in a suit" model, so seeing something from so early in the show that really doesn't look remotely like a man in a suit. The fact that the fundamental design of the Daleks has altered so little since then is probably a testament to its longevity. Even the sink plunger which ought to tip them over into the ridiculous seems to work, and to continue to work. While the design of the Daleks has been much praised, the design of their City is also pretty impressive, both in terms of the exterior shots of the whole city and the internal corridors. There isn't anything in this story that looks risible and a great deal of it looks very good indeed.
Some of the dialogue is also surprisingly nuanced for Doctor Who and a reminder that, at this point in time, its writers viewed it as an ensemble show. I'm particularly thinking of the discussion in the forest over the morality of pressurising the Thals to help them, though I'm not quite sure (even in 1963) why the dynamic of this is the Doctor and Barbara attempting to persuade Ian to persuade the Thals, as if the Doctor and Barbara can't have a go at a bit of persuading themselves. In fact, I'm not at all sure what this story's attitude is to the concept of Ian as the leader. It seems to be implicit in quite a lot that happens, but then the script also undermines him - particularly in the sequence when it becomes clear that only Susan can venture back to the Tardis to fetch the anti-radiation drugs where Ian is basically a bit of a tit about the whole situation.
On the down side, the Thals are rather bland, more so than I remembered from the novelisation - though they do avoid the 1970s mistake of looking like a bunch of actors who have never done a day's physical labour in their lives. They are almost uniformly kind, thoughtful and a little bewildered looking - the only excepion really being Antodus who's cowardly and bewildered looking. My memory from the novelisation is that they were better differentiated than this, but the novelisation is a slightly different beast. I was aware that there was supposed to be a potential romance between Ganatus and Barbara and so spotted the various hints of this, but Tame Layman was a bit taken aback at the end when it was made more explicit in their farewell. Susan is also fairly ill-served by the story although I'm beginning to feel that Susan is often ill-served. While the Randomiser re-watches have improved my opinion of many of the 60s era "screamer" companions, I think my opinion of Susan has dropped. Sadly, the most interesting thing about her is her background. Otherwise, an awful lot of the time, her role in any story just to scream hysterically and panic. Here she is given a moment to shine, when she fetches the anti-radiation drugs, but the script undermines her even then by focusing mostly on her fear and not on her bravery.
I don't know why I formed such a low opinion of this story the first time I came across it. It is mostly intelligently written, well-designed and pretty pacey to watch. As the story that first introduced the Daleks its significance in the history of Doctor Who is clear and it is a story which I think a moderately tolerant modern viewer could easily enjoy.
Benchpress: 1x5 at 60kg, 5x5 at 65kg.
Prone leg lifts: 5x10
Lat raise: 3x10 at 8kg/arm
Bicep curl 3x10 at 7kg/arm
Military press: 3x10 at 4kg/arm
Cardio: cycling 5.3km in 15:00.
After two weeks tapping around and climbing a bit instead of gym sessions, and following a late night with a morning blood draw, I don't think that's too bad. (I skipped my squats in case I had dizziness: dizziness with 100kg more on your shoulders is not good.)
I linked to this particular XKCD strip when it came out, but it came right back to mind when I saw this paper, on a new kind of intramolecular interaction in proteins (and other systems). Protein folding, macromolecular folding in general, is indeed a famously horrendous problem to attack from first principles. There’s been progress on semi-empirical approaches based on the protein structures that we already know, but there’s still a lot to understand.
It all comes down to the many sorts of interactions (some attracting, some repelling) that the protein can make with itself, compared to what can be had with the solvent. Enthalpic and entropic terms are dueling it out in each case for the final free energy figure, and things like the disposition of single water molecules can make a big difference – and a difference that might totally flip from negative to positive in a different example. To counterbalance those big influences, there are a large number of very small ones, each of which adds little to the binding picture on its own, but which as a collection can send things over into particular paths.
That’s what this latest paper is talking about. Apparently, calculations have suggested that C-H bonds can have a weak interaction with the pi bonds in carbonyls. That’s definitely not one of the the bonding modes that anyone would think of first, but the paper demonstrates actual detection of (very, very small) coupling constants in 2D NMR (HMQC) spectra that are due to through-space interactions of (say) the methyl groups in a valine with the carbonyl of an appropriately situated backbone CO group. There doesn’t seem to be much correlation with the type of CO, what amino acid it’s part of , or whether it’s involved in a hydrogen bond with some other group, etc. This experiment needed some specific isotopic labeling to get the signal/noise up to where the couplings could be detected, and the authors believe that many others will be found in other labeling experiments. They suggest that it’s not going to be just methyl groups, but OH groups and others that will prove to participate another order of weak hydrogen-bond-like interactions.
So this could be a new way to interrogate protein structures in solution, and it seems to represent a new consideration to add into protein folding calculations. There will doubtless be some systems where these interactions are buried down in the noise compared to the other factors, and others where they really do add up to something, but we don’t know much about this yet. It’s worth thinking, though, that this is a phenomenon that until now we haven’t even known about. Every time something like this is discovered, I ask myself what else we don’t know. (Hint: there’s a lot). It’s great. All that stuff is waiting out there for us.
When we see individuals holding cardboard signs and asking for spare change wearing camouflage, homelessness among veterans can seem like an epidemic. Recently, however, government efforts to reduce veteran homelessness have had great success. In response to a federal strategy known as Opening Doors, since 2010 veteran homelessness has declined by almost 50%. And in that time period some cities, such as New Orleans, have reported veteran homelessness at functional zero.
You would never know it from social media. As the world has grappled with the Syrian civil war, political memes have emerged in the U.S. that make the case that we should prioritize homeless veterans over Syrian refugees. These memes foreground a competition between homeless veterans and Syrian refugees in order to make a misleading, emotionally-appealing argument against the resettlement of Syrian refugees.
Deliberately or not, the online images are similar to propaganda. Actors create emotionally-charged illustrations with biased and one-sided evidence to encourage a political point. The memes push a narrative of homeless veterans as overlooked by the government, while this goes against the facts. They also suggest a fallacious argument that the Department of Veterans Affairs will lose funds because of the refugee resettlement program. This is not the case.
At the same time the memes appeal to our sentiments. Features writer for Mashable, Rebecca Ruiz, contends that memes like these pose the emotional question, “If people in the U.S. are suffering, why are we helping refugees?” What if veterans are those slighted? This is a powerful idea because Americans revere veterans.
In Coming Home: Attitudes toward U.S. Veterans Returning from Iraq, sociologists Alair MacLean and Meredith Kleykamp argue that male veterans involved in recent military-related combat are still supported by the general public, even in light of the idea that those exposed to combat have mental health issues and substance abuse problems. They add that veterans are privileged by symbolic capital, or prestige related to their service. A meme that presents veterans as treated unfairly is likely to produce an emotional reaction, something that is known to simplify our thinking and decision-making.
While the digital messages premised on helping veterans are compelling, they are false and a strategic exploitation of our feelings, one with xenophobic, white nationalist, and anti-immigrant goals. They urge us to advocate against Syrian resettlement to solve an unrelated problem that is already diminishing.
Ian Nahan has a Bachelor’s of Arts degree in both sociology and social work. He plans on working with veterans once he obtains a master’s degree in social work at the University of Pennsylvania.
ETA: My 2004 Hat Full of Sky review touches on what I'm currently seeking in a story. There has to be a better ending than "We thought we were going to die, but we didn't, and now we don't know what to do with ourselves" than Frodo leaving the Grey Havens with the elves. Or rather, there has to be a way to begin again as a survivor even if what you survived is your own heroic triumph. What I want is stories about people finding that new beginning and having a purpose that's more ambiguous, and paradoxically more ambitious, than "saving the world." How do you live in a "saved" world, especially if saved still equals broken? How do you do the Rogue One thing if you don't die at the end? The single hero/savior is a great dramatic myth, but there's a toxicity to it as well.
The superhero answer is that the world simply doesn't stay saved so you have to do it all again tomorrow. Which is true, constant vigiliance and all that, but what if you are not in fact a superhero or even a regular old hero? (Oh, dear, I'm headed into the world of Literary Fiction, aren't I?)
Currently reading: Ninefox Gambit by Yoon Ha Lee. Partly because it's Hugo nominated, and partly because jack was excited to talk about it so I've borrowed his copy. I'm halfway through and enjoying it a lot; it's a bit like a somewhat grimmer version of Leckie's Ancillary books. It has too much gory detail of war and torture for my preferences but it's also a really engaging story.
Up next: Quite possibly Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer, since I'd like to read at least the Hugo novels in time for Worldcon.
Hoping this makes someone else's day as much as it made mine.
(entire album here: https://loscarniceros.bandcamp.com/
If you need your day made in Québécois French instead, here's a different brainy punk/psychobilly band (The Brains, appropriately enough, and they can make your day in English and North American Spanish too): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
NB do not try to make your day with French-French punk, it works very poorly.
It looks like, "synecdoche" means using a part to represent the whole, eg. "how many heads" in a herd of cattle, or "how many bums" in a theatre, or "nice wheels" referring to a whole car. But is also used for the reverse, using a whole to represent a part, eg. "what does Brussels think" referring to the European parliament.
I couldn't tell why the second meaning was included, but secondarily, if the first meaning came first, and then people started using it both ways round, or something else. Nor if only the first meaning is "correct" and the second is a mistake, or if both are equally accepted.
Apparently "metonymy" means "using a closely related concept to represent a thing". Eg. using "suits" for "lawyers" or "businesspeople", or "the pen is mightier than the sword" to mean "the written word is mightier than force of arms".
So the real difference between "synecdoche" and "metonymy" is different history and connotations, which I don't really understand. But in terms of literal meaning, the only difference is "using a part to represent the whole" vs "using one concept to represent another".
But, obviously, human pattern matching means if you mostly use synecdoche in the "part for a whole" sense, then the most common use of metonymy is "whole for a part", even if it could be used for other things.
Can anyone fill in the gaps here?