David Ronder Apr 3, 2016:

I would suggest that in most cases the name of a town can serve as a metonym for any important institution it hosts: Versailles, Toledo, The Hague, Oxford, Washington, Canterbury, Nájera.

Robert Carter Apr 3, 2016:

@David I only meant that it avoids any potential dispute. To me it sounded wrong at first too, and other readers might possibly see it as a flaw in the writing, even if it's not the case.

David Ronder Apr 3, 2016:

@Robert if you accept that it is a problem.

Charles Davis Apr 3, 2016:

@Robert Good suggestion.

Robert Carter Apr 3, 2016:

@Charles Rephrasing it to "the court... was established at Nájera" would solve the problem.

Charles Davis Apr 3, 2016:

@ Carol I still feel that it is acceptable to say that Nájera was the court, meaning the seat of the court, and I am still quite sure that a royal court can be a place, but I do admit that you would usually say "the court was at Versailles" rather than "Versailles was the court".

Charles Davis Mar 30, 2016:

@Carol Well, there's no point prolonging the argument. I don't agree with you on this. The word court does mean what you say it means (an institution: a monarch and his/her retinue). But it also has the other meaning I claim it has (the place where this institution was located), and dictionaries and common usage demonstrably support that.

David Ronder Mar 30, 2016:

Carol, I really think you're flogging a dead horse here. Yes the town of Versailles and the court that resided there are not the same thing. But when courtiers spoke of Versailles, they meant the court, just as students mean the university when they say Oxford and Spanish politicians mean the government or Cortes and not the palace when they say Moncloa.

Carol Gullidge Mar 30, 2016:

Versailles was not the court even though that is where the monarch resided, along with his retinue; it was the place/town where the court was moved to, but the place name and the court are separate entities, just as London (or wherever) and the English court were. You don't say London was the court simply because the monarch held court there

bigedsenior Mar 30, 2016:

It was actually the capital of the Kingdom of Najera-Pamplona. http://www.english.hotelduquesdenajera.com/najera.html

Charles Davis Mar 30, 2016:

One of the OED meanings of "court" is:
"The place where a sovereign (or other high dignitary) resides and holds state, attended by his retinue."
Sorry, I can't provide a link for this. It is normal usage, in my opinion, and has been for a very long time. Versailles, from 1682, fits the bill.

Charles Davis Mar 30, 2016:

Oh yes it did During the periods when the court was at Versailles, Versailles was by definition the court, since "court" means (among other things) the royal residence. I don't understand what you mean by "that is a completely separate entity".

No, Versailles didn't become the capital, but that's a separate issue. Actually France has no official capital to this day, though of course everyone recognises that Paris is the de facto capital and it fulfils the customary criteria for being regarded as such. But "capital" and "court" are not synonymous, and "capital" should not be used here.

Carol Gullidge Mar 30, 2016:

Versailles did not become the court. Versailles did not become the court. That is a completely separate entity, which, as you say, encompasses the royal residence and entourage, but mainly where the monarch held court.
Nor - as far as I know, and perhaps more importantly - did Versailles become the French capital when the court was moved there

Charles Davis Mar 30, 2016:

Court Strictly speaking you're right, Carol; the primary meaning of "court" is the sovereign and his/her entourage. But it's perfectly normal in English to use "court" to mean the place where the court is, and specifically where the monarch resides. To avoid this you have to do what Robert has done and call Nájera (in this case) the seat of the court. But it's a bit awkward and there's really no need.

In the case of Louis XIV, there is nothing wrong with saying that Versailles, the place, became the French court.

David Ronder Mar 30, 2016:

Indeed, Toni, a town can be synonymous with the court that resides there.

Toni Castano Mar 30, 2016:

In Spanish it is possible Carol, this is the aspect of the topic that worries me the least. The time dimension is key here. As for your doubts, you can certainly refer to a city as the "corte del reino". Think of Toledo, for instance.
http://dle.rae.es/?id=B21cQlz|B23WkIX
1. f. Población donde habitualmente reside el soberano en las monarquías.

Carol Gullidge Mar 30, 2016:

a court isn't a town nor can a town really be regarded as synonymous with a court.

Just look at good old Louis XIV, who moved his court from Paris to Versailles

Louis XIV - Palace of Versailles
en.chateauversailles.fr/history/court-people/louis-xiv-time/louis-xiv-
Louis XIV chose the sun for his emblem. ... In 1682, he moved with his Court to the Château de Versailles, a palace that was a better symbol of his power and his ...

David Ronder Mar 30, 2016:

I also think there would inevitably have been a 'becoming' and consolidating element, even if it didn't take 200 years.

Toni Castano Mar 30, 2016:

Thank you Charles I appreciate your explanation. I never thought of "become" being used that way. It sounds odd to me, but...

Charles Davis Mar 30, 2016:

@Toni Logically you are right, but as I've said, I think it can be used like this in practice. "For nearly two centuries it became the court" can be an elliptical way of saying that it became the court at the beginning of the period and continued to be the court for that period of time. It doesn't have to mean that the "becoming" lasted two centuries. A purist might say that it's a loose form of expression, but I think it's natural.

Toni Castano Mar 30, 2016:

The use of "become" I am really hesitant about the use of "become" in this context. When I normally see "become", I immediately think of something that "starts to be" and then "ceases to be" shortly after its inception. But perhaps I am wrong.

Toni Castano Mar 30, 2016:

Interesting debate I never said that the source is grammatically wrong. From this point of view it is obviously correct. I just said, and I repeat it again, that the use of "erigirse" to mean a two-certury period of time is wrong, it simply sounds wrong. I concede however that it is not going to be easy to find a "piece of evidence" to prove what I mean. Once again: "Erigirse" conveys the connotation of something happening in a specific point in time (a year, a month, a certain date), but not in a period of time lasting two centuries.

Charles Davis Mar 30, 2016:

On further reflection, I think Robert's suggestion works too, because "for nearly two centuries it became the court" doesn't have to mean that the process of becoming lasted for nearly two centuries (which isn't true). It can be read, and I think it will naturally be read, as meaning that it became the court and remained so for nearly two centuries (which is true).

Charles Davis Mar 30, 2016:

erigirse I tend to agree with Toni; I don't think "se erigió" is correctly used here. I don't think it's actually ungrammatical. Erigirse denotes a change of status. It could take place gradually, over a period of time, and so I think it is just about possible to say "durante dos siglos se erigió en corte", though it does sound odd (to me).

But it was not in fact a gradual process; the location of the court was not in a state of transition during that period. Nájera became the court in 924, when García Sánchez moved the royal residence there from Pamplona, and remained so until the kingdom broke up in the late eleventh century and Alfonso VI of Castile annexed Nájera.

What the writer probably wanted to say is simply that Nájera was the court for that period of time. Bea is right when she says that "se erigió en corte" is a common expression, and I think the writer has used it without really thinking about what s/he is saying. Now, you could say that's not our problem and we should just translate what it says. But I think the ideal solution is to use an expression that fits both the ST and the historical reality, which is why I'm agreeing with David.

Beatriz Ramírez de Haro Mar 30, 2016:

No hay error "Se erigió en corte" es una expresión habitual y perfectamente correcta equivalente a "se convirtió en corte/ se estableció como corte" sin ninguna limitación temporal.
Corresponde a esta segunda acepción del DRAE:
Erigir
2. tr. Dar a alguien o algo un carácter o categoría que antes no tenía. Erigir un territorio EN provincia. U. t. c. prnl. Erigirse EN juez.
http://dle.rae.es/?id=G2IWWcA

Es una formación de voz pasiva refleja, no de reflexiva (es decir, no se erigió a si misma, sino que fue erigida).

David Ronder Mar 30, 2016:

Erigir in its most literal sense means to build or erect, and that always takes time.

David Ronder Mar 30, 2016:

Well the fact is, the source has used it. How to translate? Changing the source is not an option. For me it's clear that 'erigirse' here expresses the idea of establishing or setting up (see Collins), and while such events are usually attached to a single date, they can also take place over a period of time as a historical process.

Toni Castano Mar 30, 2016:

You cannot use "erigirse" in this context... to mean a two-century period of time (unless you want to use it incorrectly). The original is definitely badly drafted. "Erigirse" conveys the connotation of something happening in a specific point in time (a year, a month, a certain date), but not in a period of time lasting two centuries.

David Ronder Mar 30, 2016:

That's certainly a simpler, cleaner way of putting it; but badly drafted or not, it is the source, and I think 'erigir' is used to convey a sense of consolidation over time. There were other, competing venues, and in those days courts could move around depending on circumstances.

Toni Castano Mar 30, 2016:

The source is badly drafted It should read: "Durante dos siglos, Nájera fue la corte del Reino de Pamplona y Nájera". The use of "erigirse" is incongruous here.
http://www.turispain.com/blog/monasterios-riojanos/
A 20 km por la N-120 y al oeste de Santo Domingo encontramos Nájera. Asentada en ambas orillas del río Nájera, fue la capital de los reyes navarros entre los siglos X y XI.