Jump to content
Spidweb

Welcome to the Avadon Forum!

Recommended Posts

"Throws the "DOOM" in the endless trashpit in avernum.

 

Looks like its furry bunnies and Chai tea naow.

 

Perhaps Not.

 

Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOOM is an acceptable spelling of the seminal first-person shooter. It's also a widely recognized way of spelling out what would, in person, be a resonant pronouncement with wild eyes and flailing arms.

 

—Alorael, who finds "destruction" to be a more apt simplification of the name. Much like Avernum is derived from Avernus, Avadon is likely derived from Abaddon. Perhaps the updated remake will be Apollyon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOOM the game is not what i was Referring to.

 

Annihilation is to Mostly Destroy

 

Decimation is to Destroy 10% of .

 

And Obliteration is to Utterly,Completely,Totally,Absoloutely destroy.

 

Destruction = Destroy + tion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Velzan
Decimation is to Destroy 10% of


I was under the impression that decimate meant destroy all but 10% of, as in: "Napoleon's Russian campaign decimated his army, with less that 10,000 of his original 650,000 troops remaining".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Napoleon Was short and Fail.

 

And hes I hope Dead Atm.

 

Do you beleive the Short, Dead And fail?

 

If so.

 

"Smack"

 

if not.

 

tongue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courtesy of dictionary.com:

 

dec·i·mate

[des-uh-meyt]

–verb (used with object), -mat·ed, -mat·ing.

1.to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.

2.to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.

3.Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from.

 

So it could really be used either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Velzan, please don't take this the wrong way, but you don't have to respond to every other post in a thread. The forums aren't like chat rooms and posting a lot in a short space of time means that other members don't get the chance to contribute to discussions before they've moved on.

 

Also, a lot of your posts are formatted so that they're spaced out over several lines, most often unnecessarily. This isn't a big thing, but paragraphs make your posts easier to read and look less spammy as an additional bonus.

 

Whilst we all have our own gimmicks and failings (I am terrible at placing commas where they ought not be, for example), you have to remember that a lot of people read the forums, and it's only courteous to give them time to respond to a thread, and that when you do reply (because I'm not saying you shouldn't!) you should try to format your text into something more easily read, and more aesthetically/grammatically-pleasing - capital letters do not belong at the start of every word for instance.

 

And feel free to ignore this - I am not a moderator, just trying to offer some constructive criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless it's good advice.

 

This is also not really the place to correct people's English. There are posters here for whom English is a second or third language, and though in some cases one would never even guess it, they are all doing much better than most of us would in their native languages.

 

And some of us are too educated by half, and would be happy to argue all day about grammar, and damned be he that first cries, Lol, wut? But others have absorbed all the education we intend to handle, and have decided that enough is enough and we will go to our graves with whatever imperfections remain. Let our brains molder in peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Interactions with real objects
Avadon is likely derived from Abaddon.

Ah, you see, the funny thing is that in hebrew (or at the very least modern hebrew) the pronunciation of the word is exactly that, avadon. Just like in the hebrew god's name which when spelled in english is started with a J but when spelled in hebrew it starts with a Y, the V sound got switched with a B sound; so by trying not to write what christians believe to be a demon's name in english he actually nailed it in hebrew. gringrin +/'\ wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think Jeff already said that he DIDN'T know Avadon resembled a Hebrew word when he picked it as a name...so he wasn't trying to name it after or avoid naming it after any such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Triumph
Actually I think Jeff already said that he DIDN'T know Avadon resembled a Hebrew word when he picked it as a name...so he wasn't trying to name it after or avoid naming it after any such thing.


It still wouldn't be considered a valid excuse by those trying to demonize his work as harmful to Christian values. After all the original source material is from an opera about a man who killed his wives. smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Randomizer

demonize his work as harmful to Christian values


WoW, a bit of an overkill here, don't you think?
I myself am agnostic and couldn't care less to either direction without any extra solid proof.

So in order to not be perceived as a troll I will not comment further on this subject unless directly addressed.
(should have known something like this would have happened, it is a forum community after all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the B/V substitution isn't quite the same as J/Y. The J phoneme doesn't exist in Hebrew, but by way of a few other languages there was a shift in both spelling (naturally, over a few alphabets) and pronunciation. B and J are distinct sounds but spelled with the same letter(ish).

 

—Alorael, who isn't quite sure where he was going with all this, except that clearly both B and V are harmful to Christian walues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Matanbuchus
Yeah, compared to the original source material of the Christian values, that's really bad.


Well, I still have yet to see the World Net Daily headline screaming about how Avernum makes our kids satanic atheists and Geneforge makes them amoral evolutionists (wait, they push that line already...) and Nethergate makes them murderous pagans, so I highly doubt that Avadon will suddenly be the victim or righteous fury all of a sudden.

It could, of course, still happen. Seeing as how fundamentalists can be famous for making moral panics out of roleplaying games(like D&D), I suppose that all that's stopping a moral panic about how Geneforge is reinforcing godless evolutionism in our kids is recognition.

I wonder if "create a moral panic" would be an acceptable marketing strategy to push up Jeff's sales. With a little fury, the game would gain a lot of mainstream recognition. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened, either, and it surely wouldn't be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Velzan
DOOM has no meaning.

However Doom does.

Your grammar is Terrible.
Capitalization has no effect on meaning (except in Klingon), and the meaning of a word has nothing to do with grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make, but the linguist in me feels compelled to point out that both of those statements are patently false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
Capitalization has no effect on meaning (except in Klingon), and the meaning of a word has nothing to do with grammar.


Polish and polish
Mars and mars

What a difference in meaning a capital letter makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Randomizer
Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
Capitalization has no effect on meaning (except in Klingon), and the meaning of a word has nothing to do with grammar.


Polish and polish
Mars and mars

What a difference in meaning a capital letter makes.



Randomizer FTW!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from a linguistic standpoint Celtic Minstrel is right on the second point: the lexicographic representation of a language doesn't have anything to do with its grammar.

 

But that's the sort of boring point you can only make if you're okay with people who interject "2+2=4? who says I'm not working mod 3? pfaugh!" when you're clearly just adding numbers together not being strangled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
and the meaning of a word has nothing to do with grammar.
Originally Posted By: everyday847
Well, from a linguistic standpoint Celtic Minstrel is right on the second point: the lexicographic representation of a language doesn't have anything to do with its grammar.

1) "The meaning of a word" and "the lexicographic representation of a language" (AKA, the lexicon) are not the same thing.
2) Even if you divorce "meaning" from all utterance-specific context and instead say "the imaginary, perfect dictionary definition of a word has nothing to do with grammar" you are still incorrect. We can perhaps pretend in our heads that we are thinking of the essential concept behind a given word, but the reality is that, when a concept is given representation in a word, that word has phonological, morphological, and of course, syntactic features that depend on the grammar and which, in addition to influencing the lexical form of the word, impact its meaning.

To illustrate this point, show me how the intransitive lexical entry for "kill" can have the same meaning in a nominative-accusative and an ergative-absolutive language. It can't, even though the concept of killing is the same in both cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
and the meaning of a word has nothing to do with grammar.
Originally Posted By: everyday847
Well, from a linguistic standpoint Celtic Minstrel is right on the second point: the lexicographic representation of a language doesn't have anything to do with its grammar.

1) "The meaning of a word" and "the lexicographic representation of a language" (AKA, the lexicon) are not the same thing.
2) Even if you divorce "meaning" from all utterance-specific context and instead say "the imaginary, perfect dictionary definition of a word has nothing to do with grammar" you are still incorrect. We can perhaps pretend in our heads that we are thinking of the essential concept behind a given word, but the reality is that, when a concept is given representation in a word, that word has phonological, morphological, and of course, syntactic features that depend on the grammar and which, in addition to influencing the lexical form of the word, impact its meaning.

To illustrate this point, show me how the intransitive lexical entry for "kill" can have the same meaning in a nominative-accusative and an ergative-absolutive language. It can't, even though the concept of killing is the same in both cases.

Yeah, you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Randomizer
Polish and polish
Mars and mars

What a difference in meaning a capital letter makes.
Nope. It's not the capital letter that makes the difference in meaning; it's the context.

Example:
"Polish those floors right away!"
"I'll get her to polish the floors tomorrow."
"Oh, she's Polish."

The "Polish" in the first sentence means the same as the "polish" in the second sentence, not the same as the "Polish" in the third sentence.

As for Mars and mars... well, most of the time both of those just refer to the planet (or the god).

As for the second point, I was a bit vague; what I was really trying to get across is that using the wrong word is not a grammar error as long as the wrong word and the correct word both have the same grammatical function. So, if the sentence is "We're doomed!" it's not a grammar error to replace "doomed" with "dimmed", even though that changes the meaning and is probably not what you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah I Turned a Welcome Thread into a Grammar Thread.

 

Perhaps i should have went with Terrible spelling as DOOMED was spelled with all caps.

 

Either way it doesn't matter now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
Nope. It's not the capital letter that makes the difference in meaning; it's the context.

Except that a capital letter CAN provide meaning that context alone omits. It is certainly true that capital letters OFTEN do nothing more than reflect capitalization conventions; in those cases, the amount of meaning they provide is so slim it may as well be nothing (their use or non-use there only indicates whether or not somebody is flouting said conventions). But it doesn't take any technical analysis to find situations where capitals impart meaning.

For example: "I like Buffalo" and "I like buffalo". One describes my appreciation for a city, another my appreciation for an animal. The meaning is different even though the context is identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
For example: "I like Buffalo" and "I like buffalo". One describes my appreciation for a city, another my appreciation for an animal. The meaning is different even though the context is identical.


But the context is not identical. You just gave us a snippet of a conversation or an exchange. Had you given us the entire exchange, we would have been easily able to identify which type of Buffalo/buffalo you mean sans capital. What if instead of saying "I like B/buffalo", you had said "Buffalo is great!". Were we sitting in a restaurant arguing over what steak to order, we would know that you meant the animal (btw, buffalo is delicious, you just need to marinade it forever). If, however, you were discussing what tourist sites to visit in New York, we would know you mean Buffalo, NY. Without additional context, capitalization becomes meaningless -so you need to give us more context than a single sentence with a capital letter to distinguish what you meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Øther
There's a city called Buffalo?


It is the capital of New York, isn't it? Either that or Albany. America has a continued (and ridiculous) tradition of giving state capitaldom to podunk towns in the middle of the state instead of large metropolis in said state (ex. Chicago/Springfield, Sacremento/LA, New York/Albany/Buffalo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albany is the capital city of New York. Geography FTW. Oh, and I would guess that in many cases, one city became a state capital well before some other city became a super-mega-colossal metropolis, so it's not like people always deliberately planned to put the state capitals in other unimportant cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State capitals are chosen usually for location or political concerns. Springfield, Illinois was centrally located even though Chicago was already larger and a transportation hub.

 

Arizona had Prescott as it's territorial capitol, but for statehood had to chose between Phoenix, Tucson and Yuma. Tucson failed to become the capitol and lost out on it's second choice to get the state insane asylum. They still hate the fact that they wound up getting the state university as a consolation prize. smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
For example: "I like Buffalo" and "I like buffalo". One describes my appreciation for a city, another my appreciation for an animal. The meaning is different even though the context is identical.


But the context is not identical. You just gave us a snippet of a conversation or an exchange. Had you given us the entire exchange, we would have been easily able to identify which type of Buffalo/buffalo you mean sans capital.
Yes, IF more context had been provided, it would have been easy to distinguish between "buffalo" and "Buffalo" without looking at the capitalization.

My point was that WITHOUT the additional context, there is still a difference in meaning. If we don't have that context AND we don't have capitalization, the phrase is ambiguous and we can't understand which meaning is intended. If we have context we CAN understand it; therefore, context impacts the meaning of the word. However, if there is no context but it is written down and so we have capitalization, we can also understand it then; therefore, capitalization impacts the meaning of the word.

According to Celtic Minstrel's statement capitalization cannot have any effect on the meaning, therefore we would not be able to disambiguate the phrase by seeing its capitalization. However, as shown above, that is not the case; capitalization IS linked to meaning.

Alternately, I suppose CM might have been trying to say that capitalization only reflects meaning, it doesn't dictate it. This, however, is a pretty empty assertion because I could say the same thing about words: "words don't dictate meaning, they only reflect the meaning of what the person is trying to say." It seemed though that his assertion was trying to contrast capitalization with words, so I assume this is not where he was going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Master1
I just feel it necessary to say this:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


Are you trying to start a stampede? That could be dangerous. They might all run off a cliff or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I believe that this Thread has gone SOOOOOO Off topic that its become nearly redundant.

 

Wewt.

 

Well either way, We now all know how intense grammar/spelling Threads get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: The Ratt
@ Master1: Shouldn't it be "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"


No, the original way was correct. Your change means there's no way to make the last three words make sense.

Buffalo buffalo (that) Buffalo buffalo buffalo (that is, that are buffaloed by Buffalo buffalo) (themselves) buffalo (other) Buffalo buffalo.

The way to sanity-check it is to replace the two meanings of "buffalo" with synonyms.

Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully bully Buffalo bison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: The Ratt
@ Master1: Shouldn't it be "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"


No, the original way was correct. Your change means there's no way to make the last three words make sense.

Buffalo buffalo (that) Buffalo buffalo buffalo (that is, that are buffaloed by Buffalo buffalo) (themselves) buffalo (other) Buffalo buffalo.

The way to sanity-check it is to replace the two meanings of "buffalo" with synonyms.

Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully bully Buffalo bison.



k ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: The Ratt
"Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"


No, the original way was correct. Your change means there's no way to make the last three words make sense.

Buffalo buffalo (that) Buffalo buffalo buffalo (that is, that are buffaloed by Buffalo buffalo) (themselves) buffalo (other) Buffalo buffalo.

The way to sanity-check it is to replace the two meanings of "buffalo" with synonyms.

Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully bully Buffalo bison.


Yeah,

Buffalo bison bully Buffalo bison, confuse/bully Buffalo bison.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: ripfengor
You know, the moment he said "DOOM" all I was expecting was.. well.. doom. And look what he hath spawned.

actualy, i didnt post at all here before you said somthing so now dooms here (not my first post at the forums, but in this one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
Nope. It's not the capital letter that makes the difference in meaning; it's the context.

Except that a capital letter CAN provide meaning that context alone omits.
No. For that to be true we would need to pronounce capital letters differently from lowercase letters.

Though I guess you have a point that capitalization can sometimes disambiguate in the lack of context.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
But it doesn't take any technical analysis to find situations where capitals impart meaning.
Klingon. tongue Or Cantonese transcriptions, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
But it doesn't take any technical analysis to find situations where capitals impart meaning.
Klingon. tongue Or Cantonese transcriptions, I believe.


Click to reveal..
Klingon_Hamletb.jpg

taH pagh taHbe'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: The Ratt

Yeah,

Buffalo bison bully Buffalo bison, confuse/bully Buffalo bison.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"


You get that your version doesn't mean anything now, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...