Language desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 8

Theoretical vassalage?

Moved from Humanities

Can anyone provide something that examines the phrase "theoretical vassal" without simply saying, such was a theoretical vassal of other? It probably just means, vassalage theoretically. And it only gets 100+ google hits, but a chunky amount of those are in contemporary historical publications and academic history accounts. ~ R.T.G 23:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this book help? Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It only gives one hit for the phrase, again verifying it authoritatively as a phrase, but I assume it lacks definition. We can say for sure who has been, and even may have been, a theoretical vassal, but we cannot say why that is. I know it's dumb or something but I just saw it somewhere and looked for a definite tense and got a veritable stream of academic reference but no dictionaries, no conversations even just for a personal comforts. ~ R.T.G 01:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it appears often in historical examinations, but I see no reason to consider it a phrase with special meaning. I looked up examples in writings about feudal England, Spain, Iraq, and Ethiopia. Each time, it was used to mean that a vassal was technically a vassal in a legal sense, but did not act as such. In theory, it was a vassal. In reality, it wasn't. You could replace theoretical with technical or legal. I don't feel any synonyms have exactly the same meaning. 71.12.10.227 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:71.12.10.227, this is a good explanation. However it lacks authority as it is just between us. It is definitively a phrase though. And especially as it is particular yet ambiguous (could just mean here-be-monsters/unknowns), or it could mean some heretofore unexplained twist on vassalage. Consequently it holds requirement of definition. It might not appear useful as it would be worth nothing more than a line or two in a Wikipedia article on vassalage, but as a research tool, with a list of historical reference, it cries out for a side article, which would merely clutter an article on usual vassalages. ty o/ ~ R.T.G 11:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are overthinking this. User:71.12.10.227 is right, this is not something that needs a definition of its own, the meaning of the phrase is simply the meaning of the two words combined. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor point, but a point none the less. It's better to define it than to throw it to the wolves, ~ R.T.G 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, from highly reliable sources: Theoretical, definition 1, via Merriam-Webster "existing only in theory : HYPOTHETICAL". Vassalage, definition 2, via Merriam-Webster "the state of being a vassal". Vassal, definition 1, via Merriam-Webster "a person under the protection of a feudal lord to whom he has vowed homage and fealty : a feudal tenant" So, a theoretical vassalage is, according to the most reliable sources we have, roughly "a state of being a feudal tenant which is only hypothetical". --Jayron 32 19:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct example for the purpose of definition. If you live your whole life alone up the mountains, what can be said about your relationship to a specific other, such as a king or his lords, or anyone at all? Either the phrase can be defined in relation to its usage or it is erroneous. In either case it's a valid question. You can't have a theory without a theory, for instance. Thanks, ~ R.T.G 19:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put down the pipe/needle/glass/pill bottle/blotter/other method of introducing intoxicating materials into the body. You are making no sense. The usage of the phrase "theoretical vassal" is perfectly clear. Your argument is the same as saying "well, this text refers to a 'red car', but I can't find a definition for 'red car' so it makes no sense to me". --Khajidha (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a question. Answer it or don't. ~ R.T.G 21:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it in this apparent reproduction of a map of Scotland, so I searched it up. I went several search pages in. It seems to get mentioned in modern academic books often, but without describing exactly what they mean about it. Nothing, zip, de nada. I could make my own theory up. I'm asking if anyone knows a publication or something authoritative. I want to check it. No big deal. ~ R.T.G 21:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the other odd word, "bishopric", the first hit you get is its definition, "a district under a bishop's control; a diocese.". It makes sense to ask. Anyone has a problem with stupid questions definitely shouldn't be answering them? ~ R.T.G 21:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feudal system in the medieval Highlands is explained at length in The Loyal Clans (from p. 13) by Audrey Cunningham. It says that the feudal system was imposed by the Scottish crown who granted land in the Highlands to members of the Scottish nobility, but the occupants of the land owed their allegiance only to their ancestral clan chiefs and the nobles were unable to exercise their authority over them. In other words, although in theory they were vassals of the nobles, in practice, they were not. I hope this helps. Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Alan thanks. ~ R.T.G 22:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]