While there is a huge mass of new and unique dialogues in Viking Conquest, some patterns and basic remarks remain in Vanilla wording. And in both cases there is always this 'ser' thing which seems utterly out of place.
Some obvious sources:
'Sir derives from the Middle French honorific title sire (messire gave rise to mylord), from the Old French sieur (itself a contraction of Seigneur meaning 'lord'), from the Latin adjective senior (elder), which yielded titles of respect in many European languages. The form sir is first documented in English in 1297, as title of honor of a knight or baronet, being a variant of sire, which was already used in English since at least c.1205 as a title placed before a name and denoting knighthood, and to address the (male) Sovereign since c.1225, with additional general senses of "father, male parent" is from c.1250 and "important elderly man" from 1362'.
Is this a historical research defect? What do the competent ones think? What titles were authentic and proper during the period?
Some obvious sources:
'Sir derives from the Middle French honorific title sire (messire gave rise to mylord), from the Old French sieur (itself a contraction of Seigneur meaning 'lord'), from the Latin adjective senior (elder), which yielded titles of respect in many European languages. The form sir is first documented in English in 1297, as title of honor of a knight or baronet, being a variant of sire, which was already used in English since at least c.1205 as a title placed before a name and denoting knighthood, and to address the (male) Sovereign since c.1225, with additional general senses of "father, male parent" is from c.1250 and "important elderly man" from 1362'.
Is this a historical research defect? What do the competent ones think? What titles were authentic and proper during the period?
