Honorverse Euphemisms

saber964 wrote:I would say that since Mac's job is more than just a cook, that Steward could be construed as a euphemism for Servant, which implies a lower-class person, who may or may not have volunteered for that job.

But every single steward DW has written about is far more than a servant to the high-ranking officer to whom he attends. They are almost like parents. Chris makes sure Gold Peak doesn't eat too much dessert. Joanna protects the secret of Terekhov's nocturnal demons. If you want to disturb Honor's sleep, you're going to have to get past Mac (not to mention at least one of her armsmen) to do it.

The fact that they all seem to have this same protective "parental" impulse suggests that it's institutional. RMN stewards must be trained to do these things, or the job is only awarded to those who already think that way.

The same thing applies in Grayson society with "maids" like Miranda. She was far from "low class", and she didn't seem to be unique in that regard.

TheMonster wrote:

saber964 wrote:I would say that since Mac's job is more than just a cook, that Steward could be construed as a euphemism for Servant, which implies a lower-class person, who may or may not have volunteered for that job.

But every single steward DW has written about is far more than a servant to the high-ranking officer to whom he attends. They are almost like parents. Chris makes sure Gold Peak doesn't eat too much dessert. Joanna protects the secret of Terekhov's nocturnal demons. If you want to disturb Honor's sleep, you're going to have to get past Mac (not to mention at least one of her armsmen) to do it.
...
The same thing applies in Grayson society with "maids" like Miranda. She was far from "low class", and she didn't seem to be unique in that regard.

The traditional army term for these people is "batman"; in civilian life, they're called valets. The closest equivalent we have today is a personal assistant, but with higher status, and yes, in a lot of ways these people are like parents to their charges. Their job is to look after the person that the office inhabits, so that the office in question can focus entirely on their job (ie, it's Mac's job to look after Honor Harrington, so that Admiral Harrington isn't distracted shining her boots when the balloon goes up).

Just want to clear up a quoting malfunction. In the following quoted post, what is attributed to saber964 is something *I* said, that was misquoted in a previous post.

TheMonster wrote:

saber964 wrote:I would say that since Mac's job is more than just a cook, that Steward could be construed as a euphemism for Servant, which implies a lower-class person, who may or may not have volunteered for that job.

But every single steward DW has written about is far more than a servant to the high-ranking officer to whom he attends. They are almost like parents. Chris makes sure Gold Peak doesn't eat too much dessert. Joanna protects the secret of Terekhov's nocturnal demons. If you want to disturb Honor's sleep, you're going to have to get past Mac (not to mention at least one of her armsmen) to do it.

The fact that they all seem to have this same protective "parental" impulse suggests that it's institutional. RMN stewards must be trained to do these things, or the job is only awarded to those who already think that way.

The same thing applies in Grayson society with "maids" like Miranda. She was far from "low class", and she didn't seem to be unique in that regard.

I know that. I never said otherwise. Quoting me out of context makes it seem as if I am calling stewards "servants", which I never did. What I said was that there are people out there who would consider both to mean the same thing, and thus would use the terms interchangeably, or at least consider the word "steward" as a nicer way to say "servant". Therefore, a euphemism, which is what this thread is about.

John Prigent wrote:Actually Samwise Gamgee wasn't Frodo's servant, he was Frodo's gardener and volunteered to go along as a companion just like Pippin.
Cheers
John

I know that too. Wasn't much opportunity for gardening on their little stroll, though, so that point's irrelevant. He may not have been a servant in name, but in some people's eyes, he was nothing but. Of course, those same people missed the nuances that makes Sam much more than just a servant.

Maybe my lack of writing ability is making people misunderstand what I'm saying, or trying to say, at least.

MaxxQ wrote:

John Prigent wrote:Actually Samwise Gamgee wasn't Frodo's servant, he was Frodo's gardener and volunteered to go along as a companion just like Pippin.
Cheers
John

I know that too. Wasn't much opportunity for gardening on their little stroll, though, so that point's irrelevant. He may not have been a servant in name, but in some people's eyes, he was nothing but. Of course, those same people missed the nuances that makes Sam much more than just a servant.

Actually, to be precise, Sam's last job before they left the Shire was indeed to be Frodo's servant. From Fellowship, Chapter 3:
It had been officially announced that Sam was coming to Buckland 'to do for Mr. Frodo and look after his bit of garden';

'Do for' someone, in this context, meaning acting as his valet/servant.

'Your servant? Your servant? Indeed I'm not your servant! I'm a free and independent employee!'

Who recalls that one?

Cheers

John

An interesting observation. The Navy shows on so many occasions what it thinks about euphemisms and politically correctness.

Snotty?
Vacuum suckers?
Maggot?
Pig's ear?

Are these reverse-euphemisms? I dunno.

Tradition more like. The names will be just part of the informal tradition of the RMN. They are called snotties today, so just constant use of the name over the next 1000 years or so woukld fit in with a military force, as it still works well, doesnt need changing, and would be too much trouble to change the mindset of an entire navy over words, so the names just stuck around.

cthia wrote:An interesting observation. The Navy shows on so many occasions what it thinks about euphemisms and politically correctness.

Snotty?
Vacuum suckers?
Maggot?
Pig's ear?

Are these reverse-euphemisms? I dunno.

Kind of like how we still call Marines "Leather Necks" even though they haven't had leather neck pieces on the uniforms since the late 1800s. Admittedly, two hundred years is not the same as two thousand, but I suspect (as Mr. Weber does) that audio and video recording will slow language change.

Spacekiwi wrote:Tradition more like. The names will be just part of the informal tradition of the RMN. They are called snotties today, so just constant use of the name over the next 1000 years or so woukld fit in with a military force, as it still works well, doesnt need changing, and would be too much trouble to change the mindset of an entire navy over words, so the names just stuck around.

cthia wrote:An interesting observation. The Navy shows on so many occasions what it thinks about euphemisms and politically correctness.

Snotty?
Vacuum suckers?
Maggot?
Pig's ear?

Are these reverse-euphemisms? I dunno.

crewdude48 wrote:Kind of like how we still call Marines "Leather Necks" even though they haven't had leather neck pieces on the uniforms since the late 1800s.
<snip>

Didn't know Marines were known as leather necks as well.
I thought it was just a term for football players. There was even a fairly recent movie named leathernecks.

cthia wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:Kind of like how we still call Marines "Leather Necks" even though they haven't had leather neck pieces on the uniforms since the late 1800s.
<snip>

Didn't know Marines were known as leather necks as well.
I thought it was just a term for football players. There was even a fairly recent movie named leathernecks.

There's an older movie (1951) called The Flying Leathernecks, starring John Wayne and Robert Ryan, about WWII USMC aviators.