Talk:Petard

Untitled

Quote:

Hamlet's actual meaning is "cause the bomb maker to be blown into the air with his own bomb," metaphorically turning the tables on Claudius, whose messengers are killed instead of Hamlet.

Doesn't that mean roughly the same as a hangman being hung with his own rope?

I have to second this observation, and was equally confused myself. Can anyone clarify what the major difference in usage is here? Mineralogy 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. I really can't see the difference.

With Shakespeare's fondness for double entendre and dirty jokes, and the entymology of the word as given in the article, it suggests to me that Willie might have meant neither rope nor bomb, but something more flat(ulent).--Buckboard 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

you so funny 83.70.41.213 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling: petar

Shakespeare's line was "...his own petar," so spelled.

Animal Trap?

The animal trap definition seems to be taken from here: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_295b.html where Cecil Adams specifically denies it. Does anyone have a primary source for this usage?

Spoiler?

I'm not actually saying to remove it, but I find it more than a little ironic to have a spoiler warning for a pop culture play written 400 years ago. --Kaz 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Now that the British Library has images of the original quartos online, we can read the early texts for ourselves. In the fifth quarto (1637, Garrick), on page 65 we do find "For ’tis the sport, to have the Enginer / Hoist with his owne petar, an’t shall goe hard …". This passage is apparently not yet found in the first quarto (1603, Halliwell–Phillipps).

In any event, the word is famous because of Hamlet, and yet the article has no reference section, nor even a precise citation of Hamlet, Act III, scene 4 (final speech in scene). --KSmrq^T 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Petards in Malta:

The article states that it is highly dangerous. This is not true as altough there is danger in this job when following certain rules accidents rarely happen. Danger is present in every type of fireworks manufacturing aroun the world. Also latley educated people are known to work in petards and fireworks, some of them have studied chemistry at the university. Also fireworks factories are set in rural areas away from buildings. People working in fireworks factories are all licenced to work there, with one of them being licensed as being responsabile for the foctory and all workers. Who works in these firework factories is obliged to leave any food, drink, cigarettes and lighters he brought with him in the 'kitchen' away from work is done. The factories are somtimes opened for exhibition before village fetas, where visitors especially tourists go to see the unexploded shells.

195.158.117.190 21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retard

I removed the "Hoisted by his own retard" section. A claim of "entering pop culture" needs more clear support than a pun made in an article. Pjbflynn 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the section back. While I agree with your claim that the section needs more support, it's worthwhile having there now until contributors can flesh it out more. --71.132.129.100 09:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed. There is no indication that the claim of "entering the language" on a particular date is correct, and since the pun is obvious and not particularly interesting, it surely has been used before. It sheds no light on the word Petard, and is completely irrelevant. The entry as it stands simply says, in essence, "Once there was an article and this phrase was in it." - Corporal Tunnel 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoist

The OED (CD, v3) disagrees with hoist being the past participle of hoise. It has been in use since 1548 (54 years before Hamlet) as "hoi[h]sted". Also, Shakespeare uses the same word as present tense in 1606 in Anthony & Cleopatra ("Let him take thee, And hoist thee vp to the shouting Plebeians"). I'm diking out the sentence describing this as past tense and duplicating it here. If anyone disagrees, they can reinsert it :

The verb "hoist" is an irregular past tense of the verb "hoise", meaning "raise" or "lift". The same form is used in "burn" and "burnt".

86.31.121.186 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that "hoist" in the phrase "hoist by his own petar(d)" does not necessarily mean that one is caught in the ropes to lift a petard beyond a gate or wall and lifted in that literal sense; rather, it would seem more likely that the "hoist" referred to here does indeed mean "raise / lift" as in lifted or thrown by the explosion of a petard detonated too early.

I can't imagine that an engineer being caught in the ropes of a petard that was being hoisted was a common occurrence, whereas a premature explosion due to a short or faulty fuse was probably quite common. I've made the change accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.105.18 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

"Etymology: Middle French, from peter, to break wind". Actually the word "pétard" exists in french (and nowadays means "firecracker") so the word almost certainly comes from the french "pétard", which itself was based on "péter" ("to fart", to be exact, but also slang for "to burst", "break", in today's french). As it is now, the article may lead one to believe "petard" was invented as an english word, ie, by the english, which it wasn't. Onaryc 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Medieval

Really? I don't think so 128.86.168.207 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maltese petards

The neutrality of the section on Maltese petards can be disputed Maltesedog (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While I suspect that that the veracity of the comments may easily be confirmed, I do agree that they are not appropriate to what is, essentially, an etymological note. I will remove them. Malta seems to have a close relationship with gunpowder, was it not also the home of the fougasse (weapon)? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism

What an impressive array of ways to avoid using the word fart! 80.7.16.160 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoist section edit

• Recommended Change This line "but a straight line is rarely the safest route of departure while under fire" either needs a citation or needs removed altogether. I can say this to completely blow that sentence out of the water "the fastest way to get behind cover and out of the line of fire is a straight line". I know this because I have a military background and we were told that running in a "zig-zag" route takes too much time and rarely works. Thoughts? Huey2323 (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, first "because I know and I'm an expert" isn't really the greatest citation; this is the internet. Everyone is an "expert", hadn't you noticed? Also "I have a military background" isn't as impressive sounding as you think; to me it sounds like you're some kid who took some NG training or ROTC courses and thinks they are the next General Patton now. Anyway, the alternative to running straight away isn't necessarily zig-zags; one can also run at a somewhat oblique angle to the enemy. This may present a slightly longer run, depending on the situation, but it also presents a target moving across the enemy's field of view, forcing him (or her) to "lead" you to score a hit, as opposed to a basically stationary target presented by a person running directly away from you. It also should be taken into consideration what sort of weapons we are talking about; faced with automatic weapons or rapid fire rifles, creating lead may have less benefit than just getting to cover ASAFP, and so this may be what they tell modern soldiers....although this of course will vary depending on the circumstances, it's easiest to simply teach them to do one thing whenever shot at. But if you are faced with men firing bows from castle walls, the long flight time of the projectile might indeed make it wise to zig and zag while running, since a archer needs to lead skillfully and by quite a long way to hit a running target; by frequently changing course, it would make it indeed difficult to hit a running man, except by luck and a volley of arrows. The same could be true to a lesser extent of older muzzleloading muskets, or mtchlocks. Very slow lock times, quite slow bullet, and they make a lot of smoke. I think the real problem with zig zagging while running is that for most people it's really hard to change direction a lot while running without having it slow you down; you really have to decelerate a bit to change directions, and you'll likely just twist an ankle or something. I think this is one of those cases that where in theory it's better to zig and zag, while being shot at by men with automatic rifles, just run for cover and get behind it, don't waste time with fancy tricks. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

Pacerier (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC): ❝

Re:

If a petard detonated prematurely, the petardier would be blown upward by the explosion.

More of a word-play than actual science? Or both?

Also see http://english.stackexchange.com/q/125357/8278

❞

Dangerous, but to whom?

The article cites the petard as "a rather primitive and exceedingly dangerous explosive device". It's not at all clear whether this is dangerous to the user or dangerous to the target. Either way, it should be made clear. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems clear enough. A petard is obviously dangerous, by design. However the unreliable and unpredictable burning rate of such early fuses meant that they could easily explode prematurely when being put in place. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)