Timeline for What's the origin of "[X number of] souls onboard"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2011 at 20:06 | comment | added | Flambino | Interesting. The question remains, however, if the laskars would also be excluded from the soul count, or if they'd specifically be included there? Both options would make sense, but I have feeling the latter might be optimistic; if other documents didn't keep count of the laskars anyway, how could they be included? If that's the case, the phrase may not have been coined specifically to exclude certain people, since that would happen by itself, so to speak. Curiouser and curiouser | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 19:43 | comment | added | mgb | @Flambino - I'm guessing that since it came from an earlier naval usage 'person' might be more ambiguous. Able seamen, newly press-ganged, 'wives', laskars, slaves, servants might not necessarily be counted as 'persons' in all societies or languages. I have seen ships documents that listed "X passengers and crew - not counting laskars" (ie Indian crew) | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 17:58 | comment | added | Flambino | I do understand the reasons why the term is still used (indeed I put the very same explanation (that "souls" includes everybody onboard) in my question. But I'm wondering how it came about originally (i.e. in sailing). If, as David Schwartz mentions, "persons" is also valid, unambiguous term, why hasn't that always been the term? | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 17:08 | history | answered | mgb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |