Forum:People of the Lake

Forums → Archive index → reference desk archives → People of the Lake

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

I was just watching The Power of Kroll and realised that the "Swampies" refer to themselves as the People of the Lake. I was wondering if we could change the page "Swampy" to "Person of the Lake" or "Lake Person" or something like that. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 06:18, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'll go look into it. Is Swampy just a derogatory term, like Mutt?----Skittles the hog--Talk 21:20, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think so, only the Doctor and Romana call them Swampies as well. But the "Swampies" never say that, they say People of the Lake, so... Bigredrabbit 08:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. The refer to humans as "dryfoots" and that's not their name (obviously). However, you're right that they never call themselves Swampies. They say things like: "You betrayed the People of the Lakes" and "May their torments avert thy wrath from the People of the Lakes". I suppose People of the Lake/s would be sensible, and Swampy does seem like an insult rather than a species name.----Skittles the hog--Talk 20:05, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit, and here's what I've found.

The big thing to remember is that this race isn't actually defined by the lake. They were forcibly evicted to this marshy moon, but they don't come from it. They weren't always a vaguely aquatic species; they've just adapted to the place where they were forced to live. Therefore, "People of the Lake" is a geographic designation, indicating where they live. It's no more a species name than "dryfoot".

Then there's the matter of clarity. We need to be precise about the different names we're considering. It turns out that it's not People of the Lake; it's People of the Lakes, plural. Also, it's Swampie, not Swampy. At least, that's what Uncle Terrence would have us believe. So we have a name of the whole society, which is used by the members of that society — People of the Lakes — and we have a singular of the form which is used by everyone else in the story — Swampie. What we don't have is a singular form used by the people to describe themselves. We don't have a sentence like, "My name is whatever. I am a Person of the Lake." The only singular we have — and remember, we must name our articles in the singular — is Swampie.

Now you might think that's too nitpicky. After all, if the plural of a word is named in a DWU source, we can assume the singular, right? Well, in general, yes. But societal names are weird. Like we've seen with the human word for them, we all assumed Swampy, but it's actually Swampie. In the real world, such geographic names are a minefield. What's an individual from Liverpool called. It could be a lot of things, Liverpoolian, Liverpoolite — but it turns out to be the completely unpredictable, Liverpudlian. And don't even get me started on how in the hell ya get Mancunians in Manchester. Or Los Angelenos. Or how an individual person from Quebec is a Quebecker but the people of Quebec are collectively the Quebecois. Sure, a single member of the People of the Lakes should be a Person of the Lake, but I just don't think we can know that for certain. Maybe an individual is a "Citizen of the Lakes", or a "Child of the Lakes", or a "Warrior of the Lakes". And even if it were "Person of the Lakes", that still wouldn't be a race name.

it's like Connecticut. Most individuals from the state will claim to be a "Nutmegger". For years there was no official demonym for "a person from Connecticut" Only in the late 20th century did the Federal government start using "Connecticuter", but it hardly has a popular presence amongst the population. But neither name is talking about a race. Same thing with the Swampies. It's all geography, not anatomy.

Also, the question that the MOS would have us answer is, "What's the most common name for this species?" And it's by far "Swampie". Just searching the novelisation, it's 74:7 in favor of Swampie. And given that there's no other singular term available, it's clearly the best term we have.

All that said, it is an epithet. No doubt about Swampie being derogatory. At one point, the leader of the refinery accuses someone of being a "Swampie lover", which is too close to real world equivalents to be anything other than intentional. That said, it's unclear that the Swampies are completely innocent on the epithet front. Dryfoot is hurled as an invective, too.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 01:16:45 Sun 12 Jun 2011 

Spelling wise, has anyone checked the subtitles on the DVD or the original script? It's probably best to check all sources instead of rely solely on the novelisation. Tardis1963 05:59, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

I do recall that the Swampy page was formally Swampie but it was changed for reasons unknown to me. I did indeed check the subtitles and, as usual, they're worthless. People of the Lakes is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not, so it isn't going to help. I think we should leave the page (or switch to Swampie) and stick it in the "derogatory names" category along with those lovely Pipe people.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:36, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, in terms of determining spelling, novelisations always outrank subtitles. And the original script, which would outrank the novelisation, has never been officially published. The page has already been retitled Swampie and placed into category:Derogatory names and insults.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:53:07 Sun 12 Jun 2011