Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
For example, there's doggy bags and catty behavior and foxy ladies, but everything else is canine and feline and vulpine. Everyting about the sea is marine, everything about the birth is natal, everything about the king is regal or royal, everything about a son is filial, everything about a god is divine.
It feels like another of these upper-class word games, like the collective nouns for animals. "Hawhaw, hearty illness, you say! No, only a meal can be hearty, real hearts are cardiac!"
Correct on the class games. What you're looking at is the remnant of linguistic layers in England: a Celtic native population conquered by Anglo Saxon Germanics who mostly achieved linguistic unity before being bulldozed by a French speaking upper class (whose descendants still disproportionately horde wealth and power today), with a parasite population of Latin speakers with significant influence.
The medieval church neither spoke Latin(Latin was a liturgical/scholastic language and not spoken) nor was more parasitic than the nobles were.
There is a separate trend of church-educated but themselves secular writers adopting Latinate spellings which made no sense- that’s where the b in debt and the p in receipt came from- but most Latin influence was either loan words from the Anglo-Saxon era(eg wine) or a loan word with a perfectly reasonable explanation for why it came from Latin. The bulk of English’s romance vocabulary is French in origin, not Latin.
Maybe the church wasn't more parasitic than the nobles. That wasn't the claim.
The church was definitely parasitic. By the time of Henry VIII, the church owned an estimated 1/4rd to 1/3rd of the arable land in England.
Prebuttal: The instant temptation will be to reply that much of Britain's land today is owned by a few groups. Let's consider the differences. First, we're talking about arable land not just uninhabited Scottish scrubland or whatever. Secondly, this was a time when most real wealth was tied up in arable land. Agriculture represented more than half the economy as opposed to a tiny percentage today. Religious groups were hoarding a large amount of the country's wealth. Imagine if 1/3rd of the stock market, and 1/3rd of the real estate in every city center, etc.. was owned by the church. That's what it was like.
No.
Wealth inequality is high, but it's not that high. There is no entity which controls anywhere near 1/3rd of the stock market.
I'm trying to think what the largest entity is. Perhaps the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund? At $1.5 trillion, it controls maybe a couple tenths of a percentage of the world's wealth.
Blackrock and Vanguard (mentioned above) don't own much. They manage money. If I put $1 million in Vanguard they take maybe $500/year in fees. That $1 million is my money, not Vanguard's.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link