Saltar para: Posts [1], Pesquisa e Arquivos [2]

Kings of Jerusalem: Cross Potent (5/5)

Published by Carlos da Fonte, em 05.11.12
Kings of Jerusalem

Besides the denomination given for residence itself, parophony uses demonyms or gentilics - naming residents as such - a common way to change the referent into another word, transformable into images. The Kings of Jerusalem lived in their capital and were thus considered Hierosolymitans: it would be reasonable to verify its inclusion in the corresponding coat of arms in the capacity of a referent's metonymy. Remember that we've already exemplified this parophonic behaviour before, the demonyms Aquincenses (lat. Budans), identifying the capital of Hungary, and J'Wincestrin (ano. I Wintonian), in association with the former capital of England.

After these considerations we arrived at the following parophony: Hierosolimitains (fra. Hierosolymitans) ~ Hirauts sols limitants (fra. Heralds sole bounds). Quite an extensive denominant, which generates a consequent long designant, but despite that it was possible to arrive at a feasible discretion index k = 0.41. The combination of words is hardly replicable by any other assumptions and suggests that either the solution is acceptable or no substitute exists considering the same basic premises.

Hirauts (fra. heralds) is rich in meaning, defining a simple polysemy able to produce no less than four different heraldic traces. In representation of the Evangelists it's responsible for the books of John, Luke, Mark and Matthew, therefore defining the number four. From these we derive the rectangular shape, opportunistically understood as squares to fit the cantons of the main cross already in place. Written documents used parchment those days and tincture argent was a proper coloration for the squares admitting the simplest cover possible. Finally, Gospels were often adorned with crosses and the crosslets at the centre of the squares suit perfectly their condition: a simplistic illumination of the sacred writings.

The usual monosemic behaviour reappears for the remaining components of the designant. Sols (fra. sole) denotes quantity and say that no more crosslets are allowed than those belonging to the symbology of the four Gospels. Limitants (fra. bounds) declares that the four books obey the instructions given before by entur (fra. around) and are displayed surrounding the cross, pronounced by “between”, gone for a while in the present semantic level. Probably the other versions of the arms including many crosslets were envisaged at this statement, as they encircle the main charge too. An alternative version sols imitants (fra. sole imitators), a redundancy of imitants × cions, could be used. But then the parophony would lose some strength; the end of the first word merges with the beginning of the second and sounds like [z] instead of being silent.

It could also happen that the books and their crosslets may have taken closer parts in the exequial plot, and carved the stone aside the cross. That interpretation integrates both levels into only one subject, the epitaph, or simply transforms them into a new artefact, perhaps a seal, if we follow the suggestion of Matthew 27: 66 “So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard”.

Following the thread of our plot, it may appear that the importance of the deceased would enforce a link with the heralds. Who were the heralds of Jesus?  Necessarily they represented an echo of his teachings; he wasn't available to be heard anymore. It seems useful to divide the initial contiguities into two distinct paths. Although the Gospel isn't at the very end of the main initial path, this word will help to define everything else. For the sake of space we don't always mention other most discernible transformations. The first and major metonymization goes from herald to message, converging into a different one that departs from Jesus towards His message, because “Evangel” or “Gospel” could be translated as an “announcement of good news”:

herald > messenger > message

Jesus > preacher > Gospel > message


Quantities derive independently from two simple metonymies, acknowledging the agreed variety of four Gospels and using “sole” like a restrainer of additional crosslets:


Gospel > Evangelists > four

sole > four or less


Shape follows from the elementary geometrical properties of the object in consideration:


Gospel > book > rectangular > square


The already existing crosslets will assume the character of illuminated symbolic drawings:


Gospel > preacher > Jesus > cross(lets)


Colour will depend on the material used for the book cover; we could conjecture either a bare or rich binding, although only the first remains:


Gospel > book > parchment > whitish

Gospel > book > ivory > whitish

Gospel > book > silver > silvery


The books were placed overlapping the Greek cross so that a cross potent appears before the eyes of the observer. The reason why the arms authors have chosen this partial obstruction seems clear: an effort to put the Gospels in evidence despite the chromatic camouflage. The final disposition allows the visibility of all four edges of every square. They are white, the colour of the Gospels, over white, mimicking the stone of the Sepulchre, if conjoined at the cantons of a Greek cross those would simply vanish. In spite of such clever arrangement, maybe due to the cultural influence of the Jerusalem cross, it's still difficult for most observers to detect the squares at once.


We may compare the said disposition and the Portuguese lineage of Evangelho (por. Evangel) bearing the following: azure a cross or cantoned by four plates charged with an eagle, an angel, an ox and a lion. It's ignored if they took any inspiration from the heraldic representation of Jerusalem but at least it shows that the idea was perfectly natural, combining the four books of Gospel and the four limbs (and cantons) of a cross.


Helping the application of our parophonies to the final visual effect, we had to alter the initial description of the blazon (a). Emblazonments are intended to ease the reproduction of arms using only text but they didn't always preserve the original ideas. To be fair, a Greek cross should appear instead of a cross potent, but this would complicate matters even further, so we just adapted the end of the phrase and replaced “between” with other adequate words that reflect better correspondence at the semantic genesis of all heraldic traces (b).


(a) Argent a cross potent between four crosslets or.


(b) Argent a cross potent or, conjoined at the cantons with four squares of the first, each charged with a crosslet of the second.


The disposition differs a bit from what was seen in the last semantic level, described as: 1 + 1 & 1 + 1. Now the four squares are conjoined with the cross, meaning that they touch their edges at the cantons. There is no simple available abbreviation so we also devised a codification that would be declared as: 1 | (1) | 1 & 1 | (1) | 1, reading: “one joins oner joins one and one joins oner joins one”.  The bars “|” designate each conjoinment of individual pieces “1” (each square) with a different piece inside a parenthesis “(1)” indicating that this is the same instance of the piece (the main cross) whenever it shows repeatedly for convenience. Although useless in medieval heraldry, we intend the approach to be applied in other visual occurrences that share the same fundamental ideas, already functioning many hundreds of years ago.


Naturally, leather, metal, wood or any suitable materials could bind the book covers but we just considered those justifying a white or silvery colour. The metallic solution seems to us less feasible for it implies a golden cross, which would contradict the results presented in the next semantic level. The set of choices seems large and anyone may be curious on the motivation to avoid contrastingly tinctures and spreading the books atop the cross. Was the camouflage intentional? It's hard to tell.


The arms of the Kings of Cyprus and Jerusalem, at the second part of this study, will be explained within the last six semantic levels. As both representations are just the same it could happen that one version “accommodated” to fit the other and the coloration of the Gospels is precisely one of the few heraldic traces that allow some freedom of choice in these armories. It's obvious, we don't know when the two versions were created and advancing the proposition of a simultaneous birth would seem at least premature. However, in what respects the coat of arms of Jerusalem, the concluding chromatic considerations will be treated in the next article that analyses the possible reasons for the infringement of the “rule of tinctures”.



Kings of Jerusalem - Gospel
Domanial R Kings of Jerusalem
Demonym M Hierosolymitans
Language of Conquest V French
Denominant A Hierosolimitains
Graphemization A H|I|E|R|O|S|O|L|I|M|I|T|A|I|N|S
Phonemization A je | R\ | o | z | o | l | i | m | i | t | Ẽ
Pairing A je | R\ | o | z | o | l | i | m | i | t | Ẽ
A i | R\ | o | s | o | l | i | m | i | t | Ã
Coefficient of transposition A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0
Coefficient of character A 1.0|0.0|0.0|0.5|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.5
Coefficient of position A 1.5|0.0|0.0|1.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.5
Addends A 1.5|0.0|0.0|0.5|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.3
Discretion index A k = 0.41
Phonemization A i | R\ | o | s | o | l | i | m | i | t | Ã
Graphemization A H|I|R|A|U|T|S| |S|O|L|S| |L|I|M|I|T|A|N|T|S
Designant A Hirauts sols limitants
Notoriety E heralds
Converging metonymy S herald > messenger > message
S Jesus > preacher > Gospel > message
Numeral E sole
Geometry E bounds
Simple polysemy S four + squares + argent + crosslets
S hirauts
Compound monosemy S four | (between)
S sols | limitants
Tincture H Argent
Number H a
Figuration H cross
Aspect H potent
Tincture H or
Disposition H 1 | (1) | 1 & 1 | (1) | 1 conjoined
Placement H to define a cross potent at the cantons
Connective H squares + cross with
Number H John, Luke, Mark, Matthew four
Simple metonymy S Gospel > Evangelists > four
Simple metonymy S sole > four or less
Figuration H rectangular squares
Immanence C book
Overlapping C Greek cross
Orientation C immanence of book
Simple metonymy S Gospel > book > rectangular > square
Tincture H whitish of the first
Immanence C parchment
Contrast C or, argent
Simple metonymy S Gospel > book > parchment > white
Number H 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 each
Placement H Gospel charged
Centrality C square diagonals
Connective H squares + crosslets with
Number H 1 a
Simple metonymy S Gospel > preacher > Jesus > cross(let)
Figuration H crosslet
Tincture H of the second

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Published at 11:06

St Edward the Confessor: Tincture Or (4/6)

Published by Carlos da Fonte, em 23.08.12
Edward the Confessor - Attributed Arms

We finally arrived at the point where tinctures are considered. How sure are we that this kind of colourful parophonic supposition is reasonable enough to be accepted? Why tinctures aren't always attributed to a natural property of the entities we see outlined in blazons? Well, unfortunately things are not that simple. Nobody can be sure that such or such representation is canting, for example. Even “obvious” representations as the arms used by the King of León (Argent a lion purpure) have been denied their canting status. Some authors say that this lion may well represent the strength and character of the king, instead of a pun that remembers the name of the kingdom: Llion ~ llion (leo. lion). It's a matter of personal interpretation, which will coincide or not with the primitive intentions.


It is perfectly admissible that colours may be canting, even in a conservative view. They normally arise as plain tinctures like in Rossi ~ Rossi (ita. reds), where the full red of the shield turns this evidence into an unavoidable explanation. The parophonic methodology allows a richer domain of interpretation, even explaining small chromatic details, otherwise disdained. Contrarily, what seems to be a natural and well-behaved blue tincture may hide a surprising unsuspected signification, as the blue field used in the arms of the kings of France. Of course, most of the time figurations show their proper colours in heraldry.


What makes the denial of this kind of phenomenon somewhat unreasonable is that canting arms are perceived as a general and acknowledged manifestation in heraldry. Therefore, if it occurs in other instances, it should occur in this particular case too. The same may be said about parophony, with the difference that here the circumscribed universe is much larger. It may reach every aspect of emblazonment: figurations, separations, attitudes, tinctures, etc.


There is almost nothing left for an arbitrary choice, each heraldic trace seem to be prone to a deliberate parophonic intention or result from an immanence of the other elements already represented. But if you see blue lions, pink eagles or green skies, believe me, there is more than simple aesthetical choice there. Medievals were not fools or naïve, as some may comfortably like to think, perhaps to justify the insanity and senselessness of our own time.


But we must leave our generalizations and recall the cross and birds of St Edward. We noted before that “or” could be an appropriate tincture for our cross. Wood, gold, brass or bronze suited perfectly the artefact and could indeed be the reason behind the colour. Besides, we already proposed that the four fleurs-de-lis at the limbs would be the same present in St Edward's Crown. Couldn't it be assumed that the rest of the material of the cross was gold, a sort of yellow - case closed - or maybe not? Yes and no. We do accept that the cross appearing in the arms of St Edward was made in gold. But we shouldn't refuse other contributions from parophonies encompassing this property of the heraldic cross as long as they don't conflict. That's precisely the case and we'll see it next.


After these considerations on the cross we must now turn our attention to the birds. Martlets were inspired on swallows, a well known gregarious bird, with a small beak and tiny legs, so that we hardly can't see them, both in real life and in the simplified drawings of heraldry. Still, there are no yellow swallows and even birds with this full colour are hard to find in Europe.


The fact that martlets stand for birds in general doesn't help much, they appear in all available tinctures. The attributed arms of Sussex that include six of them - three, two and one - appear in late documents and it's difficult to draw definite conclusion from there. It looks like they were inspired by the attributed arms studied in this post, and we mention the parophony Sussex ~ Suos (lat. his) sex (lat. six), that seems to refer someone in particular. Maybe the author didn't know or ignored the parophony - Seint ~ Cinc - applied to Edward and conveniently admitted six birds in the flock, using Latin as an archaising tool. Agreeing with this inspiration, these arms should be created after the end of the 14th century. The remaining aspects we must leave for further research.


For the general case we could admit that brown swallows were transformed into gold, a pertinent assumption, or that the glow of the cross in gold would tint the martlets. This could also be understood by some to derive from a cruciform nimbus at the circular rim around the coin and the cross, the whole spreading its light to the doves; but there are no colours in coins and Edward wasn't recognized as a saint at this time.


Let us remark one more thing about our parophonic methodology. The vast majority of the referent's metonymies are geographical and we still haven't applied none. Why is that? Probably because the arms were based on a numismatic representation and these would demand a different inspiration. Remember that the three metonymies we've already found were based on anthroponymy - Edouard ~ Et due harde - and status - Seint ~ Cinc along with C(e) roi ~ Crois. This is decidedly puzzling compared to the average, the more so if no additional parophonies existed and any geographical metonymies weren't allowed consequently.


The capital of Edward the Confessor was Winchester and only later with the Norman rule it would move to London. We saw in the arms of Sagremor - Aquincenses ~ Ac quini sentes - that demonyms may play a part in translating the referent into pictures. This is also the case for King Edward, not in the plural form used for the fictive Hungarian knight but as another circumstance of his life: someone that lived in Winchester. Notice that Edward wasn't born there; the parophony is linked to the city as the capital of the Kingdom, not as the King's birthplace.


The parophony is built using J' Wincestrin (ano. I Wintonian) ~ Juints cestrins (ano. together lemon yellow). We weren't able to find this specific Anglo-Norman word Wincestrin, or any other, for the inhabitants of Winchester. It is possible, however, to find Wincestre for the name of the city and then compare it with other known demonyms like Parisin, and infer the necessary conclusions. “Together” refers to anything that can be counted inside the shield, obviously excluding the uncountable field, needed for contrast, moreover.


Also note that Je (ano. I) is transformed into J' when preceding vocalic sounds but even before consonants in the oral practice and that the plural endings in “s” are silent. The pronunciation of the first syllable of Wincestrin could well be [win] instead of [wẼ], according to the local nature of the word. The discretion index would be slightly changed from k = 0.0 to k = 0.30, nothing to be alarmed, but we preferred to accompany the obvious intention to equalize sounds, maybe being a bit too much enthusiastic on the Frenchy aspects of Anglo-Norman.


Both the denominant and the designant see their meaning limited by metonymization. The former as two converging metonymies:


I > the coat of arms > the bearer > Edward

Wintonian > living in Winchester > the king > Edward


The latter as two simple distinct metonymies:


together > everything > figurations > cross and martlets

lemon yellow > yellowish > or


We might have classified the last metonymy as a sublimation, where the golden tone would reflect the most flattering choice among any yellow hues. But note that we already have a chromatic pretext founded on the fleurs-de-lis and further that anything yellowish would inevitably be described as or. Therefore the colour of the cross and birds must be understood not as lemon yellow but as gold, transformed and described by the emblazonment practices. This doesn't happen always, some figurations do need to keep their yellow identity in order to improve consistency. Chromatic metonymizations don't take place then, contrarily to their description in blazoning, a conventional language.


But we also need to justify why the birds are gold in the plot of the arms as a drawing. It seems insufficient to state that their colour derive from the lemon yellow parophony. This coherence keeps the whole together and helps us to assert that it would be quite difficult to emerge from other reason than intention. Cestrin is often linked with the description of precious stones. At that period, all that we could imagine would be some gems set on the cross, but they are not. Additionally, there was to technical capacity to manufacture the cross or the martlets as entirely cut from such stones.


We must look for another explanation. Let's come back to the identification of these five martlets with the sanctity of Edward through their number, Seint ~ Cinc and condition as a flock, Edouard ~ Et due harde. It's legitimate to think that the colour could be associated with this condition. They shouldn't reflect then the glow of the golden cross, as guessed before, but an inner glow of sanctity.


The glow is conventionally represented by a halo around the heads of saints when depicted as human figures. Regarding birds, the dove of the Holy Ghost normally appears as entirely white with a yellow splendour around it which comes from within. We will learn in the fifth semantic level that also the blue tincture is “holy” so there was no semantic advantage to mingle the field with a halo. That would appear an odd technique for the emblazonment of this period anyway. What happened is that the author of the blazon just simplified the glowing halo through the tincture of the martlets changed from inside. In the same manner a star was covered by a cloud and changed from yellow to black in the arms of Sagremor. A realistic technique would paint all the cloud white, but that wouldn't carry the hidden semantic component, ignoring the presence of the star. All we need is a feasible construction, that may “excuse” the determinative aspects of the parophony upwards, unusual as it may be, deriving from chance.


 Edward the Confessor - Flock
Attributed Arms R Edward the Confessor
Demonym M Wintonian
Language of Conquest V Anglo-Norman
Denominant A j' Wincestrin
Converging metonymy S I > the coat of arms > the bearer > Edward
S Wintonian > lives in Winchester > king > Edward
Graphemization A  J'  |    |  W  |  I  |  N  |  C  |  E  |  S  |  T  |  R  |  I  |  N 
Phonemization A Z  |  w  |  Ẽ  |  s  |  E  |  s  |  t |  R\  |  Ẽ
Pairing A Z  |  w  |  Ẽ  |  s  |  E  |  s  |  t |  R\  |  Ẽ
A Z  |  w  |  Ẽ  |  s  |  E  |  s  |  t |  R\  |  Ẽ
Coefficient of transposition A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0
Coefficient of character A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0
Coefficient of position A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0
Addends A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0
Discretion index A k = 0.0
Phonemization A Z | w | Ẽ | s | E | s | t | R\ | Ẽ
Graphemization A J | U | I | N | T | S | | C | E | S | T | R | I | N | S
Designant A juints cestrins
Coloration E lemon yellow
Simple monosemy S or
S lemon yellow
Tincture H Azure
Number H a
Figuration H cross
Aspect H flory
Placement H cantoned with
Number H four
Figuration H martlets
Connective H and
Number H another
Placement H in base
Simple metonymy S together > everything > figurations > cross & martlets
Simple metonymy, Redundancy S lemon yellow > yellowish > or
Tincture H lemon yellow or
Immanence, Redundancy C gold (fleurs-de-lis)
Contrast C azure


(next article in this series is V/VI)

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Published at 16:53

Sagremor: Mullets (1/3)

Published by Carlos da Fonte, em 02.07.12
Sagremor - Attributed Arms

Being the imaginary arms of a character that equally doesn't belong to the domain of tangible persons, historical considerations won't be as important as in real circumstances; this doesn't mean that they should be entirely arbitrary. There are distinct versions describing Sagremor, we will only retain the most consensual, seeming to correspond to the arms seen above, certainly inspired in the legend. Sagremor, known as “the Desirous”[1], “of Hungary” or “of Constantinople” was one of the Knights of the Round Table, son of the king of Hungary and Wallachia, who arrived at the court of King Arthur to join his widowed mother, Indranes, daughter of Adrian, emperor of Constantinople, now married with the king Brangore[2]. This short biography is sufficient to inspire our analysis, especially since the parophonic methodology must, above all, determine quite well the geographical residence at the birth of a blazon. Besides, Sagremor was used by us as a paradigm to establish a comparison boundary, in order to measure the discretion index[3]. So, this study wasn't chosen to make our task easier, a supplementary advantage.


Latin should be the language of choice to activate the process of verbalization ahead of us. We mistrust the aptitude of the author of the arms to understand Hungarian and, again, we may verify how distant he was from the theme of the drawing, possibly living within the Anglo-Norman or French influence. The referent's metonymy in this second semantic level uses the Latin gentilic of those born in the Hungarian capital by the time of King Arthur, Aquincum, at the modern city of Buda, although their continuity may not be verified. Nevertheless, the plot of the Arthurian legends is typically contemporary to their medieval authors. Then Aquincum must refer Buda as a translation into Latin, not the very Aquincum. I believe Aquincenses doesn't describe the Hungarian subjects of that city but, particularly, the familiar roots of Sagremor. It would be viable to use the singular, Aquincensis, to better focus the individuality inspiring us.


The calculation of the discretion index doesn't bring anything new. We won't get into any details this time, the previous analyses will suffice to understand the procedures used. Note that the final value, k = 0,31, is perfectly credible, allowing us to consider the parophonic hypothesis. Once obtained: Aquincenses ~ Ac quini sentes, we may then analyse each component.


The additive conjunction ac (lat. and) is not a mere parophonic trick. As a matter of fact it makes the whole ac quini sentes depend from other semantic levels that may eventually appear. In this respect it is a redundancy for, in reality, heraldic traces rely upon their own sematization. Let us say that we don't know the original sequence by which these traces were formed. It's perfectly possible that, in general, it was an iterative process, gradually adjusting towards a satisfactory solution. The component quini (lat. five each) denotes the number not only as a quantity but also that it refers to more than one figuration. Inherently it suggests that these five sub-elements must be included in an arrangement, interpreted as a star polygon. After the establishment of a numeral and a conjunction we would need more concision at the third component, allowing the determination of something more substantive for the drawing of the blazon. These considerations induced us to prefer sentes (lat. thorns, briars) instead of sentis (lat. feel, understand) or the declined sentus/sentis (lat. thorny) or even replacing the parophonic censes (lat. count, assess).


A simple monosemy emerges in the sematization stage but it's not immediately apparent. Only the metonymy: five thornsfive pointsmullet will build a clear association between the designant and the heraldic trace. The choice of a geometrical or astronomical subject instead of a branch, a pierced mullet or a caltrop, may raise the suspicion of an extreme simplification, often seen in older armorials. Without entirely discarding this influence, we must stress that the third semantic level, to be studied in the next post, demands a sidereal theme.


Despite simplicity we need to acknowledge the effect of all complementary agents, intrinsic to the formation of our heraldic traces. As we may see, the mullets' rays are symmetric and oriented according to a horizontal stability, in the only position available where there is simultaneous “support” of two points. Furthermore, each placement depends fundamentally from the situation of the black mullet. It appears at the centre of the quarter and restricts the position of the second mullet, aligned with the first and at the same distance from the border. The third should rest at the vertical axis, also obeying to the homogeneity of distances. The disposition “two and one” follows the general shape of the shield and, for the very same reason, it's always favoured for the arrangement of three figurations, unnecessary to declare in the emblazonment. Dimensional harmony is kept by the proportionate occupation of the field and an absolute equivalence of all figurations.


This version of the arms of Sagremor strictly follows the rule of the tinctures[4]. This law will help us to understand later why such tinctures were chosen. For now we will only emphasize the connection of the stars' golden metal with a luminous source, a common correlation that appears recurrently in the analyses made in the past. It's also possible that the figurations were taken for planets, given their apparent magnitude and brightness, which tends to be yellowish. An emblazonment describes: “de gueules à 2 planètes d'or, au franc-canton d'argent à une planète de sable[2].


It would be feasible to use other tinctures as argent or azure but the conjunction of all colours needed for the drawing wouldn't advice it. On the other side, the presence of a black star, unexplainable by its luminous immanence, is perfectly coherent if we let you know in advance that it represents an opposition: darkness. This darkening is semantically transitional and for this reason the second level must be represented by all three mullets or. Finally, we refer that from now on we will show some or all the traces of other semantic levels by using a dark khaki colour[5]; it will stress only the elements that belong to each discussion.


[1] Translation of desreezdérangé.


[2] MERLET, Lucien - Coutumes des Chevaliers de la Table Ronde - Mémoires de la Société Archéologique d'Eure-et-Loir - Vol. VI - Chartres - Petrot-Garnier Libraire - 1876.


[3] Based on the suggestion of Michel Pastoureau for the canting arms Sagremor ~ sycomore, at the edge of reasonableness in our view, becoming an adequate boundary for the acceptance or rejection of other parophonies: “Pour doter Sagremor d’armoiries la solution la plus simple aurait été de lui donner une figure parlante, en occurence un sycomore”, see Bibliographic References (PASTOUREAU, 1986, p. 25).


[4] See also another version, almost certainly misrepresented: SCOTT-GILES, Charles W. - Some Arthurian Coats of Arms - Coats of Arms - nº 64-65, 1965/1966 - Baldock: Visited 27th of June 2012, available in: <http://>, 2012.



[5] This colour will hardly appear in any blazon, avoiding ambiguities and providing enough contrast with heraldic tinctures.



Attributed Arms R Sagremor
Demonym M Budans
Imaginary language V Aquincenses (Latin)
Denominant A Aquincenses
Graphemization A  A  |  Q  |  U  |  I  |  N  |  C  |  E  |  N  |  S  |  E  |  S 
Phonemization A a  |  k  |  w  |  i  |  N  |  s  |  e |  N  |  s  |  e  |  s
Pairing A a  |  k  |  w  |  i  |  N  |  _  |  s  |  e |  N  |  s  |  e  |  s
A a  |  k |  w  |  i  |  N  |  e  |  s  |  e  |  N  |  t  |  e  |  s
Coefficient of transposition A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0
Coefficient of character A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1.0|0.0|0.0
Coefficient of position A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1.0|0.0|0.0
Addends A 0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1.0|0.0|0.0
Discretion index A k = 0.31
Phonemization A a | k |  | k | w | i | N | i |  | s | e | N | t | e | s
Graphemization A A | C |  | Q | U | I | N | I |  | S | E | N | T | E | S
Designant A ac | quini | sentes
Qtty + Geometry + Geometry E and five + thorns + each
Redundancy S there are other semantic levels
S and
Simple monosemy S mullets
S five thorns
Tincture H Gules
Number H 3 -1 = 2two
Simple metonymy S 5 thorns > 5 points > mullet
Figuration H 5 points mullets (of five points)
Immanence C star
Symmetry C radial
Orientation C stability
Placement C mullet sable
Tincture H light or
Immanence C star
Contrast C gules
Connective H and
Placement H on
Number H a
Separation H quarter
Tincture H argent
Number H a
Figuration H mullet
Tincture H sable
Number H each, 3(the three mullets)
Disposition H 2 & 1(set two and one)
Filling C shield's area
Symmetry C shield's axis
Centrality C fess point


(next article in this series is II/III)

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Published at 12:24

All rights reserved
© Carlos Carvalho da Fonte 2009-2017




  Pesquisar no Blog

subscrever feeds


Maio 2017