Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-97.81.240.58-20130603234626/@comment-24590102-20140330083303

I agree withKrow Dawnstar. Imposing equity under law (e.g. anyone can acquire and own land) is not subjugation in the primary sense of being "to bring under domination". This sense of the word would not apply to, for example, the Romans cleaning up the brigands, bringing the Greek Tyrants to heel as well as dealing with other assorted criminals. I agree that it does not apply to the Empire whose law treated everyone equally and prohibited slavery.

However, people who think they are superior to those whom they are subjugating will always play the victim and claim that they are the ones being subjugated whenever their superiority fantasy is "rudely" interrupted as a consequence of being prohibited from subjugating others. Thus the systematic abuse of the word by subjugators has led it to take on an ambiguous diction. Thus, in a not quite so primary sense, subjugation also can be "to bring under control" which does apply, very much, to curtailing criminal activities and sending the gendarmarie out to show special consideration for the claims of assorted brigands - especially at the tip of a nice sharp sword.

I think that this is a very good example of how problematic linguistic ambiguity is simply not clarified by context - which is why further clarification is required wherever the strictly primary sense of a word is not in use.