Kyshakk Koan Velzan Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 "Throws the "DOOM" in the endless trashpit in avernum. Looks like its furry bunnies and Chai tea naow. Perhaps Not. Who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Velzan Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Velzan Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Napoleon Was short and Fail. And hes I hope Dead Atm. Do you beleive the Short, Dead And fail? If so. "Smack" if not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Velzan Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 nope. Just 10% of Destroyed. 10% of a population of 1000000 is a lot. so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. +/'\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrulous Glaahk Matanbuchus Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Yeah, compared to the original source material of the Christian values, that's really bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious Artila everyday847 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious Artila everyday847 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Velzan Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Øther Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 There's a city called Buffalo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Could one not suggest that capitalization is itself part of the context of a word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody madrigan Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Buffalo, NY is the second largest city in the state and has 270,000 people in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 I just feel it necessary to say this: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Did you know that fish fish fish fish fish? I noticed that that that that that that preceded was unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Velzan Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 @ Master1: Shouldn't it be "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast VCH Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody waterplant Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 So...Avadon, hey. Sounds pretty awesome don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrulous Glaahk Shaper Tristan Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 I guess this is what we get for a thread about a game still in progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Velzan Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Lol@tristan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious Artila ripfengor Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 You know, the moment he said "DOOM" all I was expecting was.. well.. doom. And look what he hath spawned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasoned Roamer The Ninjas Doom Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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. Or Cantonese transcriptions, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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. Or Cantonese transcriptions, I believe. Click to reveal.. taH pagh taHbe'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.