(urth) Tzadkiel's ship

[Mark Millman]

Dear Mr. Wilson:

On Saturday 28 November 2007, you wrote:

> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
>
> > Actually, that wasn't me, but I
> > agree with what was said. "Volant"
> > in heraldry most definitely *does*
> > mean "flying," and is not to be
> > taken figuratively - indeed, none
> > of the descriptive terms in heraldry
> > are to be taken figuratively, as
> > they are intended to instruct an
> > artist exactly how to paint the
> > arms. If the ship were in water, it
> > would be "natant."
>
> If "ship" can come to include "rockets and four
> masters and magical space time machines that
> traffic with other universes" over millenia, why
> must "volant" remain fixed in stone? If you insist
> on strictly historical heraldry, "a ship volant" is
> as meaningless a device as "a serpent rampant";
> you can't draw it because historical ships have
> no wings any more than historical serpents had
> feet.

Not so; a ship volant would show no waterline, while a ship natant would.

Best,

Mark Millman