Enfeoffment

[Dr. Goodword]

• enfeoffment •

Pronunciation: en-fef-mênt • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Noun

Meaning: 1. Giving someone or possession of inheritable lands (a fief, feoff, or feud) on condition of homage and service in battle as a knight. 2. The deed or other legal document recording such an arrangement. 3. The lands included in such an arrangement.

Notes: This word is used only in historical writings about feudal times, but it may be useful in our historical explorations. It is the action noun for the verb enfeoff, based on feoff, a variant of fief. Anyone receiving such possession of an estate was known as an enfeofee. Lords offering such estates were known as feoffers.

In Play: Occasionally, we bump into this word today: "When Notley Abbey was dissolved, it was given as an enfeoffment to John London." This enfeoffment probably entailed a condition of maintenance and upkeep. Even more possibilities are available to teenagers: "Mow the lawn, clean the garage, take out the trash: it sounds more like enfeoffment to me!"

Word History: Today's Good Word comes from the verb enfeoff, made up of en "in" + feof, a variant of fief, from Old English feoh "money, cattle". Fief today in Modern English is fee. Feoh descended through Old Germanic languages from PIE pek-/pok- "cattle", with [p] normally becoming [f] and [k] becoming [h]. We see pek-/pok- behind Sanskrit pasvah "cattle", Greek pekos and pokos "fleece, wool", Latin pecus "cattle", Dutch vee "cattle", Icelandic fé "sheep", English fief and fee, and German Vieh "cattle". The connection between "cattle" and "money" goes back millennia to PIE times when wealth was measured in how many cattle you possess. (Now for a note of thanks to Jackson Hill, world-famous composer and Bucknell professor of music emeritus, for sharing today's intriguing Good Word with us.)

[George Kovac]

CORRECTED TEXT:

Most folks probably have no idea what “enfeoffment” means or how it is pronounced. The verb “enfeoff” is used occasionally today in legal contexts to refer to the transfer of ownership of land—but it has lost the historic feudal requirement of vassalage service to the prior owner. So, among real estate lawyers today, the word “enfeoffment” is still used to mesne something.

(Note: I did not realize that auto-correct had imposed its humorless regime on my last sentence, thoroughly ruining the whole point of my original post by substituting its word for mine in the penultimate position. Sorry about that. The corrected text is posted above. I wonder if the auto-correct autocrats know that “buttinsky” is also a real word. Cheers, gentle readers!)

[George Kovac]

SEE CORRECTED TEXT, ABOVE.

[bnjtokyo]

Mr Kovacs, I'm sorry, but your "Corrected text" is as clear as mud. Would you please define or explain "mesne"? I looked it up using the dictionary link on the top page of this site and did not find the Collins definition below helpful.
1. intermediate or intervening: used esp of any assignment of property before the last

[George Kovac]

My post was not to be taken seriously. It was too much of an insider's joke, an obscure pun that few who have not endured Real Property I and II in law school are likely to get. "Mesne" (rhymes with "main") is one of those archaic words best forgotten, but which is part of the lore of the academic study of law--like a secret vocabulary to identify members of a secret club. "Mesne," as you note, relates to intervening transfers, especially of real estate. For example, say Jane Roe is the present owner of real estate known as Blackacre, and Blackacre in the distant past was owned by John Wayne (the "Duke"). But the Duke did not transfer Blackacre to Ms Roe; he transferred the land to someone who transferred to someone else who transferred to Ms Roe. The details of those intervening transfers and the identities of the parties to those transfers may not be relevant to the current issue involving Ms Roe and her problems with Blackacre. (Maybe she believes the Duke is responsible for having polluted Blackacre.) To describe the factual background for Ms Roe's complaint, a lawyer might say "Ms Roe acquired Blackacre as a result of mesne conveyances from the Duke."

My lame pun was rendered unintelligible by auto-correct, and I apologize both for the editorial error and the pun. Nevertheless I will continue to post with impunity.

Puns can be bewildering if you don't expect them or recognize the context. (My context was obscure useless legal jargon, like enfeoffment and mesne.) I fell victim to this trap myself recently while watching a British crime series on TV in which the protagonist throws in several puns--groaners, actually--in each episode. Scene: a couple have just concluded a fabulous first date and are awkwardly thinking about what comes next. Finally the man says "So... your place or mine?" The characters laugh hysterically, and so does my wife. I said to my wife "What's so funny? I don't get it." My wife explained: the couple's date had been to see a special event at the municipal aquarium. The word the man said was "plaice," not "place."

[Slava]

I took the pun as being simply that mesne sounds like 'mean'.

I have to add, though it's probably stretching it a bit, but: en-Fifi?

[Debbymoge]

Hi, George et al.
I'm hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I saw "mesne" as in domesne and while that did not get me the full legalese, I did pretty much get the meaning, no?
However, mesne was the word in place when I first saw the posting (time difference perhaps?) so I could only guess that the autocorrect had "corrected" to main, perhaps?
That led to another thought thread.
The other day, writing myself a reminder, I typed in thurs and it "corrected" to mismanagement.
So often the corrections bear no resemblance to the word needed-- in length, meaning, letters used, or even language.
I do wish I could consistently remember to proof before hitting send.

[David Myer]

What fun.

I have sympathy for you Debby. Auto-correct can be a bane/pain. And the intellectual rigour required to proof everything including simple short messages is greater than I can bring. Interesting (to me anyway) is that when posting here, I almost always read what I have written in this white box and then click the Submit button. I then re-read it on the site proper and invariably find something that needs changing - a small mistake or minor improvement to the writing. So I have to click the little edit pencil and tidy it up. But for some reason, it is so much easier to proof in its final presentation than in the original drafting process. Am I alone in this?

I have sympathy too for you, George. Puns I don't mind, but obscure puns (that is any pun I don't understand) are bewildering, yes, but more than that, they can never be funny. A pun that has to be explained, well, the moment has passed. All credit to your wife for appreciating the plaice joke. But not funny as far as I am concerned; I needed the explanation.

Thanks also for the very clear explanation of the meaning of mesne (mesning of mean?) And your comments on secret vocabularies certainly resonate with me. I have observed that aspiring academics will develop a new theory within their field and in order to give it veracity and gravitas, will create a whole new specialist (and esoteric) vocabulary. A pox on jargon, I say.

[Slava]

For posting, don't ignore the Preview button. Pressing it shows you what the post will look like on the site. It also parses any links or special characters you may have put in, so you can tell if they've done what you expected of them.

One benefit is that it looks different from what is in the white composing box, so it's a bit of a change that helps in reviewing. Looking at exactly what you have just written, you are likely to see what you want to see, not necessarily what's actually there.

[Debbymoge]

I have one other small trick. I work with a few people out here at the edge of the earth who are involved in politics.
I have them write what they want to say, then wait at least 1/2 an hour and read it again before sending it to me.
Before releasing it to the public or reading it aloud, I suggest leaving it a couple of hours, or even better, over night.
What we have written is easy to skim through with a mental (oh yes, that's right) instead of a careful scan of the words and punctuation. Reading it aloud can also sometimes help, especially if it is to be delivered that way, but seems to be easier to skip through than when read carefully.
Any theories on why that might be?

Debby M

[David Myer]

Before releasing it to the public or reading it aloud, I suggest leaving it a couple of hours, or even better, over night.

Good comment, Debby. It's a bit like making bread isn't it. One proves overnight, the other improves overnight.

[Slava]

One proves overnight, the other improves overnight.

Now, here's a question: I would say 'proofs' overnight, for dough, that is. I'd also used 'proofed' for the past tense. Is this one of those multifarious British/American differences?

[David Myer]

Good question. I suspect the distinction is not location-specific. I suspect that either is acceptable anywhere. But that's just a guess.

My oven, which is English in theory but actually I think made in Germany (brand Neff), has a 'Dough Proving' function - which doesn't prove anything.

Roof is interesting too. My house is rooved with tiles. The builder roofed my house with tiles. That's how I would use it. But that can't be a parallel because there is no question of prooving the bread with a double o.

Isn't the past tense (in the passive voice anyway) proven? The hypothesis was proven. But active voice is still with a v: I proved the hypothesis. The noun is still always Proof. What proof do you have?

I think I give up! But maybe proof and all its derivatives would make an interesting word for the Good Dr. Is the proven dough the same word as the proven hypothesis - or merely spelt the same way? And is improve related?

[bbeeton]

There are also proof coins, specially minted with a high polish, valued by collectors. I have no idea what, if any, particular verb form(s) may apply.

Time for a diagnosis by the Good Doctor,

[bnjtokyo]

What is this talk of "proving"bread? Is this the step in making yeast bread when the bread is allowed to RISE until double in bulk? I have consulted "Joy of Cooking," facsimile of the first edition, and in the discussion of bread and bread making there, the words "proof" or "prove" do not appear. Nor is there any mention of "proof" in the "New York Times Cookbook" (Craig Clairborne, 1961). "On Food and Cooking, the Science and Lore of the Kitchen" (Harold McGee, 1984) has extensive commentary on the development and chemistry of baking and bread making and the behavior of yeast, but no mention I could find of a "proof" step. There were over 20 pages, and I will admit I didn't re-read every word. Nonetheless, I remain convinced I have never seen the word "proof" used in connection with bread and bread making.

And in "Tobacco is Like Love," Tobias Hume, 1605, sets out to prove tobacco is like love. His argument states love has this effect, so does tobacco. Love has that effect, so does tobacco. And so on for six couplets. The last verse goes like this
Tobaccoe, Tobaccoe
Sing sweetly for Tobaccoe,
Tobaccoe is like Love,
Oh love it,
For you see I have provde it
(As quoted in the "An Elizabethan Song Book")