Toscead betweox fadungum "Mōtung:Geanedu Ricu American"
Content deleted Content added
lyNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Líne 3:
: Ah, I see. I used that name because I'd been forming adjectives based on rules from later in OE's development, when ''-e'' was used to terminate all adjectives applies to plural nouns in the nominative case. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 17:17, 15 ÆGé 2005 (UTC)
==Geánlǽht Rícu American==
Neat idea, these pages! ▼
I finally made it down to the library to see what B&T says about ríce in print, as opposed to the brief versions online. It has all sorts of examples from actual Old English texts.
First, one should note that ríce is also an adjective, and none of its meanings as an adjective mean "king."
Further, as a substantive, "kingdom" is only a derivative meaning.
Ríce meant "state" with all its sundry connotations. A kingdom is just one of many examples of a state; it is a state with a king.
The primary meaning of ríce is "power, authority, dominion, rule, empire, reign." Thus, if sovereignty is ''popular'', a republic or a democracy would be a ríce. The examples listed all have the connotation of "administration," "regime," "government," or ''state.''
The secondary meaning is "the district in which power is exercised," including an ecclesiastical diocese or a nation, ie, ''state.''
These definitions are online, but the copies I made from the print edition are clear that ríce at heart means "jurisdiction" or ''state.''
In fact, there are settings where ríce replaces the "dom" in "kingdom" -- not "king." For example: ''cyninga ríce''.
Also, "dóm" can be suffixed to ríce to give a more abstract alternate.
In short, it seems all agree that "underríce" is inappropriate. I think to keep with the meaning intended by the American Founding Fathers, and to use the simplest Old English word for "state," we should simply write: ''ríce.''<br>--[[User:Walda|Walda]] 7 Mǽdmónaþ 2005 03:11 (UTC)
----
▲Neat idea, these pages!
"State" does not mean province or sub-state. Each of the United States were called "states" because they were viewed as states, not as provinces, or sub-states. The Founding Fathers were quite explicit about what the word meant at the time when they coined "United States." Their greatest fear was that one day a grand central government seated in Washington could form a single "consolidated" state, which would be worse for the people's freedoms then then was the central colonial government. Thomas Jefferson in the famous Kentucky Resolutions (#8) writes against this consolidation occurring: "[We] view this as seizing the rights of the States and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as [to] cases made federal (''casus foederis''), but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent... This would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen and live under one deriving its powers from its own will and not from our authority." In his letter of 1882 to William Barry: "The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." I quote these to show, that the Fathers considered each state ''sovereign'', that is a full state, not a province or imaginary "sub-state." Indeed, Jefferson opens resolution #1 with the statement: "Resolved, That several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style of a Constitution for the United States... a government for special purposes -- ... reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of their right to ''their own self-government''..."
| |||