Being a scale model airplane builder, I've long wondered why so many Romance and Slavic languages use various forms of the Latin word, macula, to describe a reduced-scale rendering of a structure or a machine. While some English Dictionaries have the word, it is only used to describe an artist's sketch or an architectural model, but never a model of a machine. Why not? To me, "maquette" sounds much better than "scale model."

quote:

preliminary model

perhaps the key word here is 'preliminary'? model airplane builders usu. quit with the model.

Many models are built by full-sized builders for use in wind tunnels. The British Saunders-Roe company even built a 1/6 size proof of concept model of its proposed "Princess" flying boat. It was big enough to carry two people aloft! So, maquettes, or las maquetas, or makets, can be other than end result models.

I'm still wondering why we do not use this term or a variation of it in this way in English.

Who knows? Why, for instance, do we use 'dog' in preference to 'hound'?

Arnie, I DO use hound!

Abnormal Asa

You may use it in preference to 'dog', but I did say "we".

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Who knows? Why, for instance, do we use 'dog' in preference to 'hound'?

I would suggest it's because a hound is a kind of dog.
If I hear the word "hound", I'm not likely to think of a shar-pei or a pomeranian, but more of a greyhound or bloodhound.
Although, just to really confuse myself and everyone else, I also wouldn't think of a dachshund, even though its name indicates it is a hound. But that's just me.

"Dog" to paraphrase the Online Etymology Dictionary, forced out O.E. hund by the 16th century. and subsequently was picked up in many continental languages (cf. French dogue, Danish dogge), but the origin remains one of the great mysteries of English etymology.

Although "hound" is still used as a type of dog, particularly for those used in hunting, "dog" is used generically for canines.

You might find that those of the hunting fraternity would disagree. If you were to ask the Master how many dogs there were in the pack, he would probably respond along the lines, "We have no dogs, we have hounds - and there are 32 and a half couple".

Did Shakespeare choose "...dogs of war" rather than "...hounds of war" for a specific reason in Julius Caesar? Did dogs emphasize "havoc," which had a specific meaning at the time, better than "hound?"

By Shakespeare's time 'dog' had pretty well forced out 'hound' apart from in certain specific circumstances, such as animals for hunting, as I mentioned.

I have been mulling over "dogs of war" as opposed to "hounds of war".
When I think of "dogs of war", I see a tumbling mass of animals, bent on attacking an enemy and savaging it.
When I think of "hounds of war", I see more a number of individual animals, racing quickly to bring an enemy to bay, but not attacking.
Strange how a word can make so much difference in my perceptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Vanderhoof Verbivore:

When I think of "dogs of war", I see a tumbling mass of animals, bent on attacking an enemy and savaging it.

This fits with "havoc" here, since it suggested a no holds barred masssecre of anyone and everyone.
Probably akinn to "berserk" in Nordic languages.

Since we've gone from scale models to mutts, where does cur fit in?