Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Questions & Answers about Words    Maquette: Why not used in English?
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Maquette: Why not used in English? Login/Join
 
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
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."
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
preliminary model


perhaps the key word here is 'preliminary'? model airplane builders usu. quit with the model.
 
Posts: 334Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
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.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
Who knows? Why, for instance, do we use 'dog' in preference to 'hound'?


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
Arnie, I DO use hound!

Abnormal Asa
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
You may use it in preference to 'dog', but I did say "we". Wink


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 29 | Location: Vanderhoof, B.C.Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
"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.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
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".


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
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?"
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
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.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 29 | Location: Vanderhoof, B.C.Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
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.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
Since we've gone from scale models to mutts, where does cur fit in?
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Questions & Answers about Words    Maquette: Why not used in English?

Copyright © 2002-12