"Quod est in actīs araldis noscet" = something like "what is in actions [araldis] comes to know"...? I can't find any evidence that "araldis" is a Latin word.
But noscet doesn't mean "we are known", it means "he/she/it knows". Of course it's possible that the person who designed this knew as little about Latin as they did about heraldry :)
A coat of arms has two main parts: a shield or escutcheon, and a crest. There are a few other parts, but those are the main ones.
For example, here's my grandfather's arms. The crest is a squirrel holding a lightning bolt. The shield is the blue and red part with two crossed hammers. (There's also mantling, which is the coloured part around the crest which is just there to look pretty, and a motto; a few arms, those of nobles and knights, have supporters, which are lions in the design given above. Ordinarily the crest would appear above the coronet in that design; the coronet is the mark of a nobleman, and the one shown isn't quite the same as a baron's but is closer to that than any other standard design.)
Calling the whole coat of arms a crest is like calling a head a throat.
That is awesome, I love the language of heraldry, especially the names for creatures and colors. It's funny that your grandfather has a squirrel sable, when one of the original colors (vair) was based on squirrel's fur. :)
text in legible font of original phrase vs bad heraldry that the person has no right to claim as his and isn't even for a regular person - coronet = baron or other lord, supporters = knights, lords, towns, organisations, doesn't known motto suggesting the person knows nothing about heraldic achievements much less a personal connection to this one, and refers to a heraldic achievement as "a crest", when in this particular achievement there is no crest.
Don't know. Have thoroughly learned Latin twice, once in high school and once in graduate school, and completely forgotten everything except some English and French etymology with a year or two of the end of classes.
Two things.
One: I have no idea if this makes any more sense grammatically, but given the way things like banners work, this could be meant to be read across, rather than down, making it "Quod est Araldis in actis noscet." I think one could argue for "One comes to know what Harald--" my guess, sorry "--is from his actions." Not really "from," of course; wrong declension, but I can't remember if noscire can be used that way. I frankly don't remember 'noscet' at all, but am tentatively assuming it's a permutation of scio, scire, etc., which I only dimly remember anyhow. I did tell you I wouldn't be much help. I just figured you deserved more responses from people at least trying to address your question. Presumably there will also (hopefully soon) be some people who actually know what they're talking about to
( ... )
I'm not sure why people are using a post about language made in a language-oriented forum to use opprobrious language and voice strong opinions about people they have never met.
Who has voiced strong opinions about anyone? Someone has said this tattoo *would* make a person look a fool, and it's true: having this as a tattoo will make someone look as much of a fool as some ignorant westener who unknowingly gets the kanji for "jockstrap" tattooed on them, and it's just as much cultural appropriation and just as much worthy of anger. But nobody's said anything bad about the OP or their friend, given that neither of them have actually had this tattooed on their bodies.
ARALDIS is not a real Latin world, so it could be many things, based on the ending -is.
The subject of the sentence: Araldis knows what is in (the, one's) actions.
The possessive form of arald (not a real word either, but maybe somebody was trying to Latinize the name Harold badly): He knows what is in Arald's actions.
A plural adjective agreeing with "actis": He knows what is in the araldy actions.
It's pretty much nonsensical any way you put it. Is your friend's family name similar to Arald, Harald, or Harold?
Comments 66
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
2) I hope your friend is actually a baron.
Reply
The image returns on Google for "crest" and "coat of arms" look very similar, though. What's the difference?
Reply
For example, here's my grandfather's arms. The crest is a squirrel holding a lightning bolt. The shield is the blue and red part with two crossed hammers. (There's also mantling, which is the coloured part around the crest which is just there to look pretty, and a motto; a few arms, those of nobles and knights, have supporters, which are lions in the design given above. Ordinarily the crest would appear above the coronet in that design; the coronet is the mark of a nobleman, and the one shown isn't quite the same as a baron's but is closer to that than any other standard design.)
Calling the whole coat of arms a crest is like calling a head a throat.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
vs
bad heraldry that the person has no right to claim as his and isn't even for a regular person - coronet = baron or other lord, supporters = knights, lords, towns, organisations, doesn't known motto suggesting the person knows nothing about heraldic achievements much less a personal connection to this one, and refers to a heraldic achievement as "a crest", when in this particular achievement there is no crest.
Sure, that's precisely the same thing. *pats*
Reply
Two things.
One: I have no idea if this makes any more sense grammatically, but given the way things like banners work, this could be meant to be read across, rather than down, making it "Quod est Araldis in actis noscet." I think one could argue for "One comes to know what Harald--" my guess, sorry "--is from his actions." Not really "from," of course; wrong declension, but I can't remember if noscire can be used that way. I frankly don't remember 'noscet' at all, but am tentatively assuming it's a permutation of scio, scire, etc., which I only dimly remember anyhow. I did tell you I wouldn't be much help. I just figured you deserved more responses from people at least trying to address your question. Presumably there will also (hopefully soon) be some people who actually know what they're talking about to ( ... )
Reply
I'm not sure why people are using a post about language made in a language-oriented forum to use opprobrious language and voice strong opinions about people they have never met.
Who has voiced strong opinions about anyone? Someone has said this tattoo *would* make a person look a fool, and it's true: having this as a tattoo will make someone look as much of a fool as some ignorant westener who unknowingly gets the kanji for "jockstrap" tattooed on them, and it's just as much cultural appropriation and just as much worthy of anger. But nobody's said anything bad about the OP or their friend, given that neither of them have actually had this tattooed on their bodies.
Reply
I would say once we're venturing into Carlin's Seven Words, we've probably wandered into the realm of "strong opinions."
(Which is to say, I agree with callunav on that point. The OP asked what the Latin meant, not for a critique of their friend's aesthetics.)
Reply
Reply
The subject of the sentence: Araldis knows what is in (the, one's) actions.
The possessive form of arald (not a real word either, but maybe somebody was trying to Latinize the name Harold badly): He knows what is in Arald's actions.
A plural adjective agreeing with "actis": He knows what is in the araldy actions.
It's pretty much nonsensical any way you put it. Is your friend's family name similar to Arald, Harald, or Harold?
Reply
Leave a comment