# Use of the term 'gunwale'



## Brian G Turner (Feb 18, 2015)

I don't know about anyone else, but I always get narked when I see reference to "gunwales" on boards in pre-gunpowder societies in historical fiction and fantasy.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it does have a valid use, in that any major weapon of war could be referred to as a "gunne" or "gun" through a Germanic root:
http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=gun

But surely it can only cause confusion to use the word "gun" in pre-gunpowder societies?

Most of the times it never comes up, but I constantly find writers using the word "gunwale" - the reinforced side of a ship, for supporting a heavy gun, specifically, cannon:
http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=gunwale

The question is, am I being over-sensitive about the issue? Or have I misunderstood it entirely?

Simply that I've picked up yet another fantasy novel that has boats with "gunwales" in the absence of gunpowder!


----------



## Mouse (Feb 18, 2015)

Yes, you're being over-sensitive!

I'd have thought it was something like this.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Feb 18, 2015)

Ha, this reminds me of when I did some research about ship terms. Apparently a 'ceiling' on a boat/ship is actually called a 'deckhead'. But I couldn't use that, as it's too rife with comedic undertones (and I wasn't writing a comedy).

Edited extra bit: to vaguely refer to the actual topic at hand - it might mildly irk me. No more than that.


----------



## The Judge (Feb 18, 2015)

I don't imagine 99 people out of a 100 would realise the "gun" part had anything to do with cannon, so no, I don't think its use would engender confusion since most readers will pass it by in ignorance -- I certainly didn't make the connection until I was checking nautical terms a couple of years ago, whereupon I then spent some time trying to find understandable alternatives.  

It's like anything, once you've noted something wrong, whether an anachronism or errant technology or simply an error of understanding of one's own profession (yeah, right, go and pick your own QC for your trial...) it's like a burr constantly irritating.  For myself, I wouldn't be flinging a book across the floor just for "gunwale" or "gunnel" and I'd probably accept it as a "translation" of whatever the upper strake was called originally in order to avoid the time and explanation perhaps otherwise required.  But a book with too many such errors/failures/examples of laziness would get short shrift.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 18, 2015)

The thing is, when writing fiction set before the widespread use of gunpowder, I would have thought that the "gun" part of the word would be a dead giveaway.

Even worse, authors constantly use the term "gunwale" to refer to the sides on any boat, rather than its specific use as a reinforced section for a cannon!


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 18, 2015)

Mid-15th century puts it squarely in the Medieval Period, so unless a Medieval-style fantasy world is meant to_ strictly_ follow the exact same pattern of development as an earlier century in our world, one without cannon, I don't see a problem.  I see a problem for you, Brian, because your deviation from the Medieval model has created a society without gunpowder.



Brian Turner said:


> Even worse, authors constantly use the term "gunwale" to refer to the sides on any boat, rather than its specific use as a reinforced section for a cannon!



But words change from their original meanings.  Perhaps (I don't know) in common usage the side of the boat (the part raised above the deck) came to be known as the gunwale.


----------



## HareBrain (Feb 18, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> Even worse, authors constantly use the term "gunwale" to refer to the sides on any boat



But that's what it now means, however the word originated.


----------



## Kerrybuchanan (Feb 18, 2015)

I have to confess to having just used the word gunwales in a steam punk short I'm writing. And the term scuppers too. I didn't give either a second thought, having sailed all my adult life and used both terms as a matter of course. Sorry.

Edit: and painter, for the bit of rope you use to tie a boat up....


----------



## Tower75 (Feb 18, 2015)

It's annoying, but alas that's language. It's similar to calling any type of sticky tape Sellotape. Sellotape is a brand, not a general term for sticky tape, but it pretty much is the de facto name for tape.

However, I do agree that anything pre-gunpowder should at least attempt to remove anything gun-related from the references.

I find it more annoying then I should when people "fire" something that isn't a firearm. You do no fire a bow, or crossbow, or slingshot, or anything else that doesn't have gunpowder or gun propellant in its operation. You shoot a bow.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 18, 2015)

The Judge said:


> For myself, I wouldn't be flinging a book across the floor just for "gunwale" or "gunnel" and I'd probably accept it as a "translation" of whatever the upper strake was called originally in order to avoid the time and explanation perhaps otherwise required.


After all, 600 years ago you would barely have understood someone in England.

Writing my SF, almost EVERYTHING is a translation. Any typical English idioms are obviously paraphrases.

For Fantasy, the Characters may not be "really" speaking English either (even if the Main Character is English speaking). Only if you are doing purely historical events with fictionalised dialogue is there a need for more accuracy?


----------



## farntfar (Feb 18, 2015)

If it upsets you to use gunnel, because of its association with guns, I know several dinghy sailors who just call it the rail. (Essentially this is just a diminutive of the same word but at least it has no obvious association to guns.)




Ray McCarthy said:


> For Fantasy, the Characters may not be "really" speaking English either (even if the Main Character is English speaking).



It depends how close you've parked your tardis.


----------



## The Judge (Feb 18, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> The thing is, when writing fiction set before the widespread use of gunpowder, I would have thought that the "gun" part of the word would be a dead giveaway.


Didn't for me, and I'm someone who is interested in etymology.  There are plenty of words which appear to have a connection with another, but in fact have arisen wholly separately, and as far as I knew before checking, the  "gun" part of "gunwale" was one of them.  Of course, I can't think of any examples of the top of my head, so I've just checked out folk etymology in Wikipedia which brings up cockroach which has nothing at all to do with either male birds or freshwater fish, or hangnail, which has no relationship to hanging anything.




Kerrybuchanan said:


> I have to confess to having just used the word gunwales in a steam punk short I'm writing. And the term scuppers too. I didn't give either a second thought, having sailed all my adult life and used both terms as a matter of course. Sorry.
> 
> Edit: and painter, for the bit of rope you use to tie a boat up....


Well, if it's steampunk, I'm pretty sure you've got gunpowder and guns in there somewhere, haven't you?  So I see no problem!  As for the other words, the OED says 





> *scupper (n.)*  "opening in a ship's side at deck level to let the water flow out," early 15c., perhaps from Old French escopir "to spit out," or related to Dutch schop "shovel," or from Middle English scope "scoop").


and 





> *painter (n.2)*  mid-14c., "rope or chain that holds an anchor to a ship's side," from Old French peintor, ultimately from Latin pendere "to weigh".


so both have venerable histories!


----------



## Kerrybuchanan (Feb 18, 2015)

Thank you for your excellent defence, Your Honour. My steampunk has some pretty unlikely stuff in it, including ships that fly, and also become invisible, so I guess a little quibble over the source of some sailing terms might have been overlooked anyway!

Edit, skimming through I also have windlass, capstan, keel, companionway and a host of others, so perhaps it needs editing down in the interests of general readability!


----------



## The Judge (Feb 18, 2015)

I think all of those are fine as they're not especially recondite, though I have to confess I just had to check windlass meant what I thought!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 18, 2015)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Mid-15th century puts it squarely in the Medieval Period, so unless a Medieval-style fantasy world is meant to_ strictly_ follow the exact same pattern of development as an earlier century in our world, one without cannon, I don't see a problem.



That's the problem as I see it - the word used in fantasy fiction that otherwise eschews gunpowder. IMO it's right up there with archers shouting "Fire!".

But I really slap my forehead when I see it in historical fiction, used for boats in ancient Rome and Greece.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 18, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> That's the problem as I see it - the word used in fantasy fiction that otherwise eschews gunpowder. IMO it's right up there with archers shouting "Fire!".
> 
> But I really slap my forehead when I see it in historical fiction, used for boats in ancient Rome and Greece.



Although Byzantine sailors c. 700 AD could justifiably shout "Fire!" (and really mean it) Because they had 'Greek Fire' didn't they?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 18, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> But I really slap my forehead when I see it in historical fiction, used for boats in ancient Rome and Greece.



But do you know what words the Greeks and Romans used in its place?  

As a reader and as a writer I am most picky about older words where there is no true alternative, no modern synonym that comes close enough, or shows anything like the appropriate mindset.  Then, if the older word is not _too _exotic I will use it.  ("Not too exotic" means that I've been encountering a word in fiction for years, and if we avoid those words ourselves, because a few readers may have to use a dictionary -- oh the horror! -- the next generation won't have that advantage.)

I also get very annoyed when a word is used in a way that it would _never_ have occurred to anyone to use it during the period in question (assuming it even existed at that time) because that usage expresses ideas and values that would only have confused people, being so contrary to their entire world view.  That's the kind of thing that causes me to fling a book across the room, because I've found that it's usually just the tip of the iceberg and worse anachronisms are ahead.

And yet, as writers, the vast majority of the time we will be using the word that is more familiar to ourselves and our readers, since we aren't writing our books in Middle English (or whatever language is appropriate to the time and place).  I think what bothers me the most is when it's apparent that the writer isn't even thinking about these things as they write.  We can only put forth our best effort, and try to make the best choices we can (knowing that readers will not always agree with them), but I don't like books where it looks like the author didn't think it worth the effort to try.


----------



## steelyglint (Feb 19, 2015)

Hmm. Reminds me of the annoyance I felt when David Eddings described a character as wearing a 'chemise'. Where did the Alorns and Angaraks hear a French word, then?

But if he'd gone ahead and invented languages for his Alorns and Angaraks and written the Belgariad and the Malloreon using those, none of us would have been able to read the stuff without first learning his languages.

I'm pretty sure the ships in that world have gunwales, too - and their technological level is still at 'swords and sorcery'.

Brian, would it have been better if the author had invented a new name for that part of the ship, having done the research on 'gunwales' and found it to be unusable? That would likely just confuse people, but they had to use some word. And the one in current use that describes that bit of a boat is the one which most people would understand. I suppose allowances have to be made.

.


----------



## farntfar (Feb 19, 2015)

I think this is all a bit overkill.

Let's assume that the author, after weeks of research, found that the old word was crodbag.
I've read books where they do thinks like make a big point of it along the lines of 

"Man the* crodbags*, lads!" cried captain Ukker. They all streamed to the gunwales.
Then throughout the book crodbags appears in bold italics to make the point.

By the way. When did captain become a real rank? (Or  lieutenant (and in China or Reykjavik))
We can get too picky.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 19, 2015)

steelyglint said:


> David Eddings described a character as wearing a 'chemise'


So do I on my Alien world* as it can suggest a particular style of night gown or shirt/Blouse depending on context. It's an established English loan word now from French. Like Café and cul de sac.
So I think it's fine, but I'm biased.
Curiously my beta reader mentioned it two days ago, he knew what it suggested but was unsure how to pronounce it out loud! 

(*Only one person from Earth in first two books, there is a suggestion that somehow she has written a version of it (re-written by someone else later), in the 3rd book, but only a small part is 1st Person POV, but of course she probably interviewed people later.)


----------

