Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[jean]

I deleted the post you replied to because I was going to rewrite it completely, and I didn't want the original version to get replied to before I'd rewritten it. I failed.

I'm quite happy with 'seeing that'. I meant 'given that' was better than 'seeing as' which I'm still not clear how to categorise as a linguistic usage. Why would I want to?

So that you know why you don't like it?

I'm still working on it, so you don't have to.

[french frank]

No, indeed - but then as there's already a male team called the "Lions" they'd have otherwise had to find a different name altogether to "Lionesses", surely?

The male team is called The Three Lions (Lions for short) because the England badge has three lions on it. The women have the same badge because they also represent England. At least Lionesses bears some relation to the badge. The name has a 'logic' to it which Mr Tipps could not see.

[french frank]

So that you know why you don't like it?

My original post asked 'What do people make of it?' rather than 'I can't stand …'. But I suppose I was trying to understand the grammar behind 'seeing as', when 'as' would generally do (as would 'seeing that'). Was it a mix-up like 'the be-end of all' or 'talking thirteen to the dozen'?

[vinteuil]

The male team is called The Three Lions (Lions for short) because the England badge has three lions on it. The women have the same badge because they also represent England. At least Lionesses bears some relation to the badge.

... of course some heralds wd argue that the three lions passant guardant on the English coat of arms are really three léopards ...


.

[jean]

...I suppose I was trying to understand the grammar behind 'seeing as', when 'as' would generally do (as would 'seeing that'). Was it a mix-up like 'the be-end of all' or 'talking thirteen to the dozen'?

Still working on it.

I note that people also use being as which sounds even worse than seeing as, and probably derives from it.

[french frank]

... of course some heralds wd argue that the three lions passant guardant on the English coat of arms are really three léopards ...

lion léopardé aka lion passant guardant

1614 J. Selden Titles of Honor In royal blazonry leopards and lions were synonymous terms, and used indifferently.

[Lat-Literal]

I thought it was a reference to Lat's comment about there being no single rooms - which I also didn't understand

Maybe I should have said L to R rather than W to E.

I have nothing at all against anoraks but "given that" has that connotation to me. One of my friends was a trainspotter type with a slightly military way in the Englishman abroad sense. Much more Foggy than Compo. Overly formal manner with an extraordinarily low yet somehow still squeaky voice. And I could imagine the sort of statement when, say, on the tourist trail because I heard this sort of thing from him - "given that the data shows they have 132 rooms, they should have single rooms and I would be surprised if they didn't do breakfast".

An unholy alliance - he was UKIP before UKIP even existed - but within reason I tend to like "characters".

The nearest parallel I can think of though far more extreme was our late neighbour, Herbert Smith, who my father still describes as "the first man I ever met who admired Hitler".

Performers who appear on stage at theatres are now routinely referred to as 'actors' in the press and broadcasting media, irrespective of gender.

However, the female members of an international football team are regularly described as 'Lionesses' by the same press and broadcasting media. whilst their male counterparts continue to be called 'Lions'.

Why is this, I wonder? It seems most illogical to me.

You mentioned in a previous post something about two individuals in the field of sport speaking about their same gender spouses as "my husband" and "my wife". While reasonable people would admit to that having required some very temporary adjustment in terms of comprehension following legislative changes, such things are pretty self-explanatory in the contexts where they are provided. However, in the lead up to the women's football match between England and the Netherlands I did find the persistent references to the England players also being Chelsea and Arsenal players a bit bewildering. One could say that it is obvious that what is being referred to are the women's teams at those places but I reckon it needs a further leap in the thinking process than in the case of marriage. I don't necessarily expect them to say "Chelsea Ladies" and "Arsenal Ladies" as the "ladies" word can seem a bit quaint in some sporting contexts but something needs to be done to distinguish them from the men's teams as it sounds confusing and it could imply those are of mixed gender. Oddly as I am against branding it is branding that might help here. If the women's league were sponsored by, say, Nissan, they could say Nissan Chelsea etc and we'd be crystal clear.

[vinteuil]

lion léopardé aka lion passant guardant

1614 J. Selden Titles of Honor In royal blazonry leopards and lions were synonymous terms, and used indifferently.

... it is, of course, a bit more complicated than that.

Lions vs. leopards

Both lions and leopards may have been among the earliest beasts to appear in heraldry. The Oxford Guide to Heraldry notes that the earliest English treatise on heraldry, a late-13th or early-14th century Anglo-Norman manuscript titled De Heraudrie, mentions the crow, eagle, griffin, heron, leopard, lion, martlet, popinjay, and swan. Citing Bado Aureo, the Oxford Guide further suggests that the leopard, said to be "borne of an adulterous union between a lioness and a pard," and like a mule incapable of reproducing, may be an appropriate charge for a person born of adultery or barred from reproducing (such as an abbot).

As a general rule, English heralds tend to identify lions as rampant (upright, in profile facing dexter), and leopards as passant guardant (walking, head turned to full face), but the heraldic distinction between lions and leopards is often ambiguous and in some cases may be controversial (as in the case of the royal arms of England). Part of the confusion arises from international differences in translation or in the defining characteristics of each, particularly in charges that show some characteristics of each.

English herald Arthur Charles Fox-Davies asserted in 1909 that the leopard, denoting a lion passant guardant, was a term of French origin that had "long since become obsolete in English armory. In French blazon, however, the old distinction is still observed." Fox-Davies continued, "[French heralds] term our lion passant a léopard-lionné and our lion rampant guardant is their lion-léopardé." Dutch heraldist Johannes Rietstap, however, defined a Léopard lionné as a lion rampant guardant (i.e., upright like a lion with its head turned to full face like a leopard) and a Lion léopardé as a lion passant (i.e., walking like a leopard with its head facing dexter like a lion). German-American heraldist Carl-Alexander von Volborth agrees with Rietstap's translations, in contrast to those of Fox-Davies as stated above.

As if to clarify the situation, English heraldist Hugh Clark wrote in his Introduction to Heraldry (1829):

The true heraldic lion, according to French authors, is always to be represented in profile, or, as the ancient heralds say, showing but one eye and one ear. His attitude, also, should always be rampant or ravaging. When passant and full-faced, they blazoned him a leopard, vide Lion Leopardé: in England, however, the lions in the royal and other achievements have always been blazoned as lions, however depicted since the time of Henry III, in whose reign they were called "Leopards".

Lion Leopardé ... is a French term for what the English call a Lion passant gardant. The word leopard is always made use of by the French heralds to express in their language, a lion full-faced, or gardant. Thus, when a lion is placed on an escutcheon in that attitude which we call rampant gardant, the French blazon it a Lion Leopardé. When he is passant only, they call him leopard lioné.

English heraldist Charles Boutell wrote in 1890 that the lions of England were generally termed leopards until the end of the 14th century, including in the roll of arms of Henry III of England, and in a statute of Edward I of England, dating to 1300, which made reference to "signée de une teste de leopart—marked with the King's lion." In English Heraldry (1867), Boutell explained:

Only when he was in this rampant attitude did the early Heralds consider any Lion to be a Lion, and blazon him by his true name. A lion walking and looking about him, the early Heralds held to be acting the part of a leopard: consequently, when he was in any such attitude, they blazoned him as "a leopard". The animal bearing that name bore it simply as an heraldic title, which distinguished a Lion in a particular attitude. These heraldic "leopards" were drawn in every respect as other heraldic "lions", without spots or any leopardish distinction whatever. This explains the usage, retained until late in the 14th century, which assigned to the Lions of the Royal Shield of England the name of "leopards". They were so called, not by the enemies of England for derision and insult, as some persons, in their ignorance of early Heraldry, have been pleased both to imagine and to assert; but the English Kings and Princes, who well knew their "Lions" to be Lions, in blazon styled them "leopards", because they also knew that Lions in the attitude of their "Lions" were heraldic "leopards".

In Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning (1976), German heraldist Ottfried Neubecker explained:

When the blazon does not specifically mention a position, the lion may be assumed to be rampant. If he is in a different position, other terminology must be used, referring to the position of his head and limbs. An early heraldic convention found in medieval blazons uses the distinction between a lion and a leopard previously employed by the ancient Greeks. In antiquity, the lion, having a heavy mane, was generally shown in profile, while the leopard, having less hair, was shown looking towards the observer. A lion looking towards the observer therefore came to be given the name of the animal usually shown in that pose.

According to Neubecker, what in Old French is termed a léopard is always guardant (head turned toward the observer), thus the modern English heraldic terms "lion passant guardant", "lion passant", and "lion rampant guardant" correlate to the Old French terms léopard, lion léopardé, and léopard lionné, respectively.

[french frank]

Nevertheless, the 'Three Lions' of the England footbal teams have the shaggy head (crown and chin) of a lion, rather than the close-shaven head of a leopard, to my eye.

[Lat-Literal]

... it is, of course, a bit more complicated than that.

Lions vs. leopards

Both lions and leopards may have been among the earliest beasts to appear in heraldry. The Oxford Guide to Heraldry notes that the earliest English treatise on heraldry, a late-13th or early-14th century Anglo-Norman manuscript titled De Heraudrie, mentions the crow, eagle, griffin, heron, leopard, lion, martlet, popinjay, and swan. Citing Bado Aureo, the Oxford Guide further suggests that the leopard, said to be "borne of an adulterous union between a lioness and a pard," and like a mule incapable of reproducing, may be an appropriate charge for a person born of adultery or barred from reproducing (such as an abbot).

As a general rule, English heralds tend to identify lions as rampant (upright, in profile facing dexter), and leopards as passant guardant (walking, head turned to full face), but the heraldic distinction between lions and leopards is often ambiguous and in some cases may be controversial (as in the case of the royal arms of England). Part of the confusion arises from international differences in translation or in the defining characteristics of each, particularly in charges that show some characteristics of each.

English herald Arthur Charles Fox-Davies asserted in 1909 that the leopard, denoting a lion passant guardant, was a term of French origin that had "long since become obsolete in English armory. In French blazon, however, the old distinction is still observed." Fox-Davies continued, "[French heralds] term our lion passant a léopard-lionné and our lion rampant guardant is their lion-léopardé." Dutch heraldist Johannes Rietstap, however, defined a Léopard lionné as a lion rampant guardant (i.e., upright like a lion with its head turned to full face like a leopard) and a Lion léopardé as a lion passant (i.e., walking like a leopard with its head facing dexter like a lion). German-American heraldist Carl-Alexander von Volborth agrees with Rietstap's translations, in contrast to those of Fox-Davies as stated above.

As if to clarify the situation, English heraldist Hugh Clark wrote in his Introduction to Heraldry (1829):

The true heraldic lion, according to French authors, is always to be represented in profile, or, as the ancient heralds say, showing but one eye and one ear. His attitude, also, should always be rampant or ravaging. When passant and full-faced, they blazoned him a leopard, vide Lion Leopardé: in England, however, the lions in the royal and other achievements have always been blazoned as lions, however depicted since the time of Henry III, in whose reign they were called "Leopards".

Lion Leopardé ... is a French term for what the English call a Lion passant gardant. The word leopard is always made use of by the French heralds to express in their language, a lion full-faced, or gardant. Thus, when a lion is placed on an escutcheon in that attitude which we call rampant gardant, the French blazon it a Lion Leopardé. When he is passant only, they call him leopard lioné.

English heraldist Charles Boutell wrote in 1890 that the lions of England were generally termed leopards until the end of the 14th century, including in the roll of arms of Henry III of England, and in a statute of Edward I of England, dating to 1300, which made reference to "signée de une teste de leopart—marked with the King's lion." In English Heraldry (1867), Boutell explained:

Only when he was in this rampant attitude did the early Heralds consider any Lion to be a Lion, and blazon him by his true name. A lion walking and looking about him, the early Heralds held to be acting the part of a leopard: consequently, when he was in any such attitude, they blazoned him as "a leopard". The animal bearing that name bore it simply as an heraldic title, which distinguished a Lion in a particular attitude. These heraldic "leopards" were drawn in every respect as other heraldic "lions", without spots or any leopardish distinction whatever. This explains the usage, retained until late in the 14th century, which assigned to the Lions of the Royal Shield of England the name of "leopards". They were so called, not by the enemies of England for derision and insult, as some persons, in their ignorance of early Heraldry, have been pleased both to imagine and to assert; but the English Kings and Princes, who well knew their "Lions" to be Lions, in blazon styled them "leopards", because they also knew that Lions in the attitude of their "Lions" were heraldic "leopards".

In Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning (1976), German heraldist Ottfried Neubecker explained:

When the blazon does not specifically mention a position, the lion may be assumed to be rampant. If he is in a different position, other terminology must be used, referring to the position of his head and limbs. An early heraldic convention found in medieval blazons uses the distinction between a lion and a leopard previously employed by the ancient Greeks. In antiquity, the lion, having a heavy mane, was generally shown in profile, while the leopard, having less hair, was shown looking towards the observer. A lion looking towards the observer therefore came to be given the name of the animal usually shown in that pose.

According to Neubecker, what in Old French is termed a léopard is always guardant (head turned toward the observer), thus the modern English heraldic terms "lion passant guardant", "lion passant", and "lion rampant guardant" correlate to the Old French terms léopard, lion léopardé, and léopard lionné, respectively.

Slightly surprised that there are so many nuances given that both lions and leopards sleep for 15-20 hours a day.

[gurnemanz]

A footnote on "pard": In Dutch "paard" means "horse" (related to the German "Pferd"). If translated literally into English "luipaard" ("leopard") comes out accidentally as "lazy horse".

[Padraig]

Slightly surprised that there are so many nuances given that both lions and leopards sleep for 15-20 hours a day.

Interesting, Lat.
I put forward a suggestion, above, that 'given that' and 'seeing as' are not quite interchangeable in practice. 'Given that' is much more exacting than 'seeing as', so that the former needs to quantify the number of hours more precisely than the latter, in your example.
It's an Irish (language) thing, don't you know!

[jean]

I put forward a suggestion, above, that 'given that' and 'seeing as' are not quite interchangeable in practice.

But why not rather compare 'given that' with 'seeing that'? (I'm even more convinced now that seeing that, in spite of beng extensively used by Shakespeare and the KJV, has become tainted by association with (dialectal) seeing as, seeing as how.)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'more exacting'.

The grammatical difference is that 'given' is a past partciple, implying perhaps that what's 'given' has already been estabished beyond doubt, whereas 'seeing' is a present partciple, which might imply that I'm telling you something I've only just thought of.

Perhaps.

Italian has visto che and dato che, both past participles.

None of which helps with the grammar of as in seeing as, being as.

[vinteuil]

Italian has visto che and dato che, both past participles.

None of which helps with the grammar of as in seeing as, being as.

... and of course in French - "étant donné que" and "vu que"

.

[P. G. Tipps]

No, indeed - but then as there's already a male team called the "Lions" they'd have otherwise had to find a different name altogether to "Lionesses", surely?

Absolutely spot-on ahinton!

The only logical answer to fit in with modern social mores is to refer to both as Lions or, if one wishes to reveal team-gender for the benefit of fans, as Male Lions or Female Lions.

Modern society mustn't (or surely shouldn't) discriminate between those who perform on stage and those who do so on a football field?

My own opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant. My argument, I confidently contend, is simply based on sound logic and the stated goal of equal treatment for all.