So, here’s the thing. I have this setting I’ve been working on for years now. And the setting ended up with almost 5000 years of extensive lore, and you need to be familiar with several different philosophies and cultures to understand any of it. I was trying to come up with some names for characters in a story I am writing in said setting. And when I was researching how names and languages change I was struck with a thought. Am I overcomplicating this? Do I really need an explanation why there is a guy named “Al Banian” and why the name is actually a remnant from a completely different reality? I’m getting to the point where the lore is so complex it starts to sound stupid if you don’t know all the details. Case and point, a guy named “Al Banian”.
Another example. There are several creation myths, and three of them are technically correct.
I need some advice. Feel free to ask questions.
Not my point. You almost got me. I almost apologized for not paying attention. But I’m in the right here. The myth was that he played the lute while Rome burned. You brought up the fiddle. That’s where I was confused, why a fiddle? It was a lute. Well, it wasn’t, since it didn’t happen. Okay. I hope that clears things up.
My guy, that is literally what I said. We know he wasn’t playing the fiddle while Rome burned, he wasn’t even in Rome at the time.
Okay, I might’ve worded it weird. But I am hung up on the “fiddle” part, not who was doing what with it. If you just changed the “fiddle” for the “lute”, I would have no notes. Because if we just go changing words around like that, Nero might as well had been playing the electric guitar.
The phrase is* the result of the story being chewed on by writers/literature over the ages. Medieval writers categorized ancient stringed instruments under the Latin word fidicula which would eventually translate into fiddle.
Edit: *
Mistranslations don’t change a lute into a fiddle. These are different instruments. They look different, and they sound different. And they are played COMPLETELY differently. I will NOT back down on this. It was a lute.
Also, medieval writers in what cultures? Because I’m pretty sure the ones from Italy did distinguish between the lute and the fiddle. They might’ve called it the same word in some cases, like you might call a glass a glass or a cup a glass or a mug a glass, and it’s still a technically correct name, they are different. And glass mugs do exist, I have one right now on my desk in front of me.
You can’t be right just because you give the source of where you got your misinformation from. Sorry. I don’t think that’s how it works.
No offense, though. Everyone makes mistakes. As far as I know, I could be making one right now and not even know.
Ok dude, I’ve tried to have this discussion civilly but you very clearly took offense at some point during this exchange.
I will spoonfeed you this piece of information, then I will stop engaging in this ridiculous interaction. Geoffrey Chauncer, author of the Canterbury Tales, mentioned Nero’s callous indifference to Rome burning. Shakespeare wrote of him playing on his lute. The idiom spawned from various other authors referring to stringed instruments and their players as fiddles/fiddlers. You can educate yourself on the usage of the term fidicula and what it translates to/where it leads etymologically, I don’t care to. You should probably look up the idiom as well.
Something tells me Chauncer, Shakespeare, and the idiom itself will outlive you.
Edit: for accuracy.
Edit 2: I’ll take a step further: This article goes into the historical inaccuracies of the phrase and how/why it came to be.
My man, didn’t I literally say “No offense,”? I’m pretty sure I did.
And I’m pretty sure Chauncer and Shakespeare won’t outlive me, since they already died.
But whatever, this is a discussion about a single perceived misuse of a single word. And at this point I’m getting confused. So, do you agree it was a lute or not? This is what the discussion is about (I think). At least that was my intention from the start. Because I distinctly remember this little story about Emperor Nero having a lute in it, not a fiddle. Although there are versions of the story that say it was a cithara. And a cithara isn’t either a lute or a fiddle.
Also. The article you linked kind of makes it sound like it isn’t talking about an instrument at all. Maybe, possibly, Nero fiddled his diddle while Rome burned. There’s still an instrument involved, just not a musical one. Not conventionally anyway.
And no. I’m not reading the whole article. Not because I don’t care enough to do so (although that is true, I don’t), but because I don’t have the attention span to read an article about a misqote of a fake story.
And again, no offense. I mean what I say as literally as I can. I am terrible at speaking to people. And honest. People don’t like that, usually. As a token of friendship, please accept this funny picture of a drink that I have found (I found the picture, not the drink).
I really don’t know how else to diffuse the situation. 🙂
First, no it wouldn’t have been a lute. They weren’t invented until the 13th century, if he was playing an instrument it would have been a lyre or cithara; possibly a pandura. None of this matters, however, because my original sentiment still stands. We know Nero wasn’t fiddling while Rome burned.
Second,
It is the third paragraph.
Pedantry is not a virtue, especially when you’re totally incorrect about what you’re correcting. I would invite you to read more history.
Lutes were invented in the bronze age…
Edit: I’m pretty sure the bronze age was before Nero was born. Although I am not 100% sure. More like 99.9995%?
Edit 2: Actually lyre also sounds right. Now I’m doubting the version I heard. But it was definitely NOT a fiddle that Nero was not playing.