Same universe?

[Dire Hobbit]

I can't wrangle an answer for this from search so...

 

are the planets/worlds of Avernum, Geneforge, Avadon - and I assume our earth for Nethergate? - in the same reality/cosmos?

 

And if so... will we ever see an awesome crossover type thing?

[adc.]

Originally Posted By: Dire Hobbit

And if so... will we ever see an awesome crossover type thing?

Sorry, but no. It will never be, never be made by Jeff. Also, I have the same thinking about it at my other post.

Originally Posted By: Nightwatcher

Genevernum/Averforge is a post and has died down beneath the forums blah blah blah

----------------
-Crossovers would be cool, Nightwatcher

[Cairo Jim]

They all have their own worlds and universe basically. Nethergate is set in ancient Britain, so that's the only real thing in common with anything.

 

Originally Posted By: Dire Hobbit

 

And if so... will we ever see an awesome crossover type thing?

 

No.

[Earth]

in theory they could exist on same universe or galaxy but since universe is very big place and galaxy isn't small either and no spacetravelling or other technology now or ever there won't be crossover except at fan fictions.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Earth Empires

there won't be crossover except at fan fictions.

And in any case, and fanfic involving the word "Nethergate" is probably not something you want to read.

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

and no, klids. nethergate is not like watergate.

I am now going to use 'Nethergate' to refer to any scandal involving 'nethers'.

[Trenton.]

Its called the multi-verse. Why do they need to be in the same universe?

[Alorael at Large]

Because some people want to know if they are. All signs point to no, although the physics and metaphysics are fuzzy enough that nothing really stops them from sharing a universe.

 

—Alorael, who thinks it's pretty clear that Nethergate isn't in the same universe as the Earth these forums are on. The magic is a dead giveaway.

[Jerakeen]

The fairies took the magic through the gate with them, obviously.

[The Ratt]

I'm surprised, you don't think magic exists?

[Trenton.]

Ofcourse magic exists! Have any of you seen harry potter?

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Manufacturing Date

—Alorael, who thinks it's pretty clear that Nethergate isn't in the same universe as the Earth these forums are on. The magic is a dead giveaway.

Magic, or some variation thereof, probably existed in a different fashion, at least mythologically, to ancient cultures such as Romans and Celts. Any variation we see today is just Hollywood-molested. So it's a tad plausible that it could of happened.

[Earth]

Not forgetting Merlin etc.

[adc.]

This is an answer to your question...

Click to reveal..

----------

But I do think magic exists, RPG addictions convinces people that magic actually exists...

----------

-My Insanity says magic exists!!!, Nightwatcher

[Alorael at Large]

While it is conceivable that magic once worked and now does not, it is also conceivable that the universe came into being five minutes ago in a state that implies, and makes us believe, that it has a past going back thousands, or even billions, of years.

 

—Alorael, who therefore concludes solipsism. You don't exist.

[Radix Malorum Est Cupiditas]

Why are you mentally masturbating arguing with figments of your imagination, then?

 

Are you a schizophrenic, maybe?

[BMA]

Originally Posted By: Rehctawthgin's Insanity

Click to reveal..

That explains it.

Calling magic "magic" makes it sound childish. "Black Magic" has an impressive ring to it, and so do phrases like "Power of the Mantra".

[Cairo Jim]

Magic has different meanings and conotations according to culture and what not. Magic, in the modern, western description would just describe an illusionist. Travel around it it could change meanings drastically.

[Aran]

I have this pet theory that the Shapers are actually pre-historic precursors of the Vahnatai, so that Avernum and Geneforge are set in different eras of the same planet.

 

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Quote:

and no, klids. nethergate is not like watergate.

I am now going to use 'Nethergate' to refer to any scandal involving 'nethers'.

 

In ages hence, people will wonder what the Watergate scandal had to do with water.

[Archaeolagent]

The Nine-Headed Cave Cow will digest your hetero-oxy in His and Her four, nine, and/or thirty-six stomachs after the end of time.

[Actaeon]

Originally Posted By: Aʀᴀɴ

In ages hence, people will wonder what the Watergate scandal had to do with water.

That's the problem with making suffixes from compound words; we don't tend to pay attention to the structure of the original. -aholic and -burger are good examples.

What really bothers me, though, is -ception as a way of denoting recursion.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

That's the problem with making suffixes from compound words; we don't tend to pay attention to the structure of the original. -aholic and -burger are good examples.

it's accurate to call it a cheeseburger if the cheese came from a town isn't it

or would that be a burgcheeser

Quote:

What really bothers me, though, is -ception as a way of denoting recursion.

is this seriously a thing now

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Aʀᴀɴ

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Quote:

and no, klids. nethergate is not like watergate.

I am now going to use 'Nethergate' to refer to any scandal involving 'nethers'.

In ages hence, people will wonder what the Watergate scandal had to do with water.

.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Quote:

What really bothers me, though, is -ception as a way of denoting recursion.

is this seriously a thing now

It's a common misconception.

[SamSniped]

I see what you did there...

 

Post #III of the challenge

[Archaeolagent]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

That's the problem with making suffixes from compound words; we don't tend to pay attention to the structure of the original. -aholic and -burger are good examples.

Speaking of not paying any attention to the structure of the original: alcoholic is not a compound word, and neither is hamburger (not even in German). Compound words combine two stems, not just a stem and an affix.

What you are actually complaining about is backformation in affixed words in which the affix becomes part of a new morpheme and loses its autonomy. Let's take "hamburger." It's ambiguous whether or not that "-er" is really a suffix in English, but English did have the phrase "hamburg steak," so that's close enough. "Hamburger" was truncated, first, into being called a "burger." Then people saw ham + burger, either mistook it for a compound or saw that it was like a compound, and created other, actual compound words by analogy: cheeseburger, etc.

[Dintiradan]

I imagine such things cause no lack of headaches to linguists of older languages. You can't separate history and culture from language. I wonder how many words like 'marathon' are out there, words that got their current meaning from some association that we no longer have any record of.

[Actaeon]

Serves me right for ranting on a topic (grammar and word construction) I last learned about in sixth grade. I wish my Anthropology department had included Linguistics.

 

Of course, as Dinti notes, all of this is part of the natural evolution of language. It's just that before people like Shakespeare were in the driver's seat, and now it's the Internet.

[Archaeolagent]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

It's just that before people like Shakespeare were in the driver's seat, and now it's the Internet.

Totally not true. Language has always evolved unconsciously, via the masses.

The process of a neologism being adopted (itself only one part of language evolution) is not really any different if it showed up in a Shakespeare play versus somewhere online: if the utterance is useful enough and conforms to general cultural & linguistic rules, it'll be widely adopted and eventually a seamless part of language; if it doesn't, it won't be.

[Actaeon]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

...and conforms to general cultural & linguistic rules...

This is the only section of your assertion I have trouble with. The coiners majority of terms that enter English do not seem to think out their role within the rest of the language. Most people care about function, not style. When Shakespeare's the one coining terms, you get both. I'm not sure the original sources of today's slang are on the same level.

[Archaeolagent]

You're right that individual speakers may not care about cultural & linguistic rules. However, the language-speaking community as a whole does. (By definition!) I'm not sure why you think that Shakespeare, much less one random person on the internet, is able to single-handedly cause language to change or evolve. A new or modified word, expression, or grammatical structure may originally be introduced by one person, but whether or not it is ultimately integrated into the language is decided collectively by the community, and not just by one person.

 

Also, a few nitpicks:

- Shakespeare may have coined a number of words that have made it into the vernacular, but that hardly means there was no sixteenth-century (or earlier) equivalent to the Internet in terms of novel language use generation. Where is this assertion that Shakespeare had immense power to shape the English language, but masses of people did not, coming from?

- Can you give some examples of how Shakespeare's coinings had "style" but comparable coinings today do not? For equity, let's compare pairs of neologisms that either HAVE been fully integrated into English, or that WERE NOT fully integrated.

[Actaeon]

Most modern neologisms have not become fully integrated (which is to say, used without some awareness of their origin). I certainly didn't mean to assert that Shakespeare was some sort of word-coining demigod. He was a stand in for various playwrights, authors, and other wordsmiths. Prior to the age of mass communication, it would have been harder for a turn of phrase to gain enough steam to enter circulation. New terms appearing in popular works would have had an advantage. Now, all it takes is a meme.

 

To use a metaphor that I am certain will be torn to shreds, the language speaking community, which remains more less the same, has veto power. The legislature, though, changes depending on our social and cultural values.

[Archaeolagent]

That's a very good metaphor for what you're saying. I'm just telling you that it's wrong.

 

Easy access to mass communication doesn't hurt, but I don't think it makes much of a difference: if a new word or phrase is adequately useful, as I said above, it will be picked up by smaller groups of people until eventually it spreads (and at some point ends up on the mass media, too). If it isn't, it won't spread. It's the same thing with words and phrases coined by people with direct access to the megaphone of their day and age. The difference is that mass exposure to the word happens earlier in the process; however, the word still has to be adequately useful for the audience to pick it up.

 

The bottom line is that integration into a language can only truly be accomplished by the whole community of language speakers. It is possible for that integration to begin with a smaller group, or even just a few people. However, at some point the whole community has to pick it up, or it won't seem quite fluent and native even to the few who might use it.

 

So I guess the "veto power" part of the metaphor is OK. But the thing is, pretty much ANY new word or phrase which is used enough times is going to get a chance to be vetoed or accepted -- no matter who it originates from. So the "legislature" changes only in the sense that people are born, and die. The "legislature" and the "veto power" branch, are exactly the same, they are both the total language community.

 

Also:

Quote:

Most modern neologisms have not become fully integrated...

 

Prior to the age of mass communication, it would have been harder for a turn of phrase to gain enough steam to enter circulation. New terms appearing in popular works would have had an advantage. Now, all it takes is a meme.

If the second part of what I quoted is true, then how can the first part of what I quoted be true? Clearly, a meme is NOT enough.

[Actaeon]

We have no way if knowing if a meme is enough, because insufficient time has passed. In fact, my attempts to assess the internet's role in the evolution of language are inherently undermined by the lack of perspective. It simply hasn't been long enough to tell.

 

As to your other points, I submit to your greater knowledge. I still believe that the truth lies somewhere in between, but suspect that I am 5% right while the remaining 95% is with you.

[Archaeolagent]

If you can't come up with any examples of words that originated on the Internet and are now integrated into the vernacular, how the heck can you claim that the Internet is "in the driver's seat" as regards language evolution?

 

(Mind you, I can come with some examples, but only some, and there are plenty of examples from the same time period that do not involve the Internet. People on the Internet are a major force for new words now only to the degree that people on the Internet are a major proportion of the total language community. The fact that the Internet is involved is mostly incidental. (I'll buy that it's a written medium with far greater breadth, far greater quantities of text and far greater mutability than previous written mediums, and maybe that has some impact on the speed of the process, but that's about it.))

[Harehunter]

Slarty, you may remember that I have a keen interest in the evolution of languages. I sorely missed having been part of this discussion. I would concur that the 'usability' of a newly minted word or phrase is a more reliable measure as to whether it flourishes on the linguistic vine, or whether it withers and is pruned off. The internet may facilitate the process, but only in as much as it brings people together from a more diverse and far flung community. But even so, the internet community is still just a small sampling of individuals, and much of the vernacular used here has no application to the world outside the net. The survivability of those words may well be in question.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

But even so, the internet community is still just a small sampling of individuals, and much of the vernacular used here has no application to the world outside the net. The survivability of those words may well be in question.

I'm no master of linguistics in any form, but there's enough people floating around on the internet, that also have a larger network of people outside the internet. if something happens to a small group of people, on say, Facebook, I'd imagine that it could easily spread to larger circles in real life. Sort of like "Pay it Forward".

Just an idea. No more, no less.

[Archaeolagent]

Cairo Jim, thanks -- you put one of the things I've been trying to say much better. Also, according to Wikipedia, nearly 80% of the US is online, 85% of the UK, 80% of Canada, 75% of Australia. And surely some of that other 15-25% has occasion to read about or to discuss the Internet, despite not being on it.

 

Quote:

and much of the vernacular used here has no application to the world outside the net

Universal applicability is not actually a requirement for what we're talking about. Think about it -- bake, cook, and broil have few applications outside the kitchen, but they are clearly regular English words. These days, I'd say the Internet is nearly as widespread a part of our culture as the kitchen is.

[Harehunter]

Again, when I leave things half-said, it draws an interest for someone to complete the thought. That is as it should be. Much of the net vernacular will not survive outside of the net; but much of it will. Much of this new language is applicable only to the network and the infra-structure upon which it is built.

Click to reveal..

Not 'that it is built on'.

"We don't need no steenking parteeciples."

What use does the word 'bandwidth' have outside the net community? Or Gigabytes? On the other hand, this broad-based collaboration here are for, the most part, not talking about technical things, but more about things apart from the net. Both classes of words will have a good chance for survival, but as technology changes, and as world events come and go, so will the usability of the lingo used to define it. The day quickly approaches when Hollerith will mean nothing more than a families name.

 

P.S. Question. How did the concept of data throughput become named 'bandwidth'. Does it draw upon the image of a marching band coming down the street? A wider street would allow the band to march with more files and fewer ranks.

 

BTW. How did the familiar word 'bridge', commonly used to define a viaduct, gain a more specific usage in the world of networks. Would it be that a bridge is needed to go from one LAN-mass to another?

[SamSniped]

It truly is hilariously interesting to watch a topic progress here.

 

Post #X of the challenge

[Archaeolagent]

I see I spoke too soon in the other thread. Harehunter, can you please go back to putting your floods of irrelevant puns into the pun thread, instead of making posts in three different threads with them?

[The Ratt]

I would guess back in the day, the rate at which data could be transferred between computers was dependent on the number of channels between the computers, so a band with more channels would have a larger width, both physically and electronically.

[Student of Trinity]

No; 'bandwidth' is the width of the range ('band') of frequencies that your channel uses to transmit information. If you have a narrow band, what you send is a steady tone with slow variations in amplitude and frequency, like a singer with a slight and variable tremolo. The fact that the variations are slow and gradual is exactly what it means to say that your band is narrow. Since they are slow, you can only transmit information slowly. The steady background tone contains no information because it is always the same.

 

If your band is broad, you can make much more abrupt and rapid variations in your signal, so you convey information much faster. Again, this is not a causal explanation, but just a definition: that's exactly what it means to say that the band is broad — it means that you can make abrupt and rapid variations in your signal.

 

That's how it works for transmitting information by radio or by analog telephone. Digital signal encoding complicates the story somewhat, and I'm not sure exactly how; but it can't make all that much difference. You've still got to send variations in signal, and there will always be some physical limits on how fast you can vary your signal. That's your bandwidth limitation.

[Harehunter]

Actually Slarty,

My question re bandwidth was quite serious. That it sounds like a pun is only coincidental. I find that among software developers there is an innate sense for punning, and the closer they code to the hardware level, the more profuse it becomes.

 

I will accept the reprimand re the participles. I did hope you'd appreciate the intent of the post though. I do try to use good grammatical form here, and I should have left my note at that. The mental clip from Blazing Saddles should not have been added. Perdoname.

 

@SoT, Your definition of what bandwidth means in the realm of communications is right on. My question is about why the word 'bandwidth' was chosen/coined to carry that definition. Current means different things to a civil engineer and an electrical engineer. Does the word apply to one of the problems with building a bridge, or does it apply to the amount of electricity flowing through a circuit. It depends on the perspective of the speaker.

 

The co-opting of words from one definition to carry a different definition happens for a reason. I am guessing that it happens because there is some binding similarity in form or function of these two meanings that, in order to explain the new function, an old word is used to conjure up an image that makes the new definition understandable. I have had to use this technique to explain how computer programs and systems work to people who have no understanding of the vernacular of programming.

 

[Archaeolagent]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Actually Slarty... That it sounds like a pun is only coincidental.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Would it be that a bridge is needed to go from one LAN-mass to another?

Really, that wasn't meant to be a pun?

Harehunter, you desperately need a better filter.

[Actaeon]

In the interest of preserving this community's nitpicking rating, I'd like to point out that "We don't need no stinking badges" dates back to "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", although "Blazing Saddles" is probably it's best known iteration.

[Harehunter]

That is indeed a pun, but it goes back to my question, How do these words get chosen to do double duty? I submit that this is only one example of the propensity of people in my profession to think in ways that propagate profligate puns.

[Actaeon]

Alliteration: an affected act that is analogously annoying to your antecedent antics.

[Harehunter]

Understood.

[Student of Trinity]

I think people have just learned 'bandwidth' as the technical term for communication speed.

 

Anyone with a car knows that it has a thing in it called a 'transmission.' They know it can be automatic or manual. If it's manual, they know that using it involves working the clutch and gearshift. If it's automatic, they know about PRNDL and that the engine sound periodically changes suddenly as you accelerate steadily. Probably only a few drivers understand exactly how the transmission works; I think we'd be surprised how few could state exactly what it is that the transmission transmits. But most people have learned the word itself, and know what it implies for the end-user experience of driving a car. I don't think they've invented any kind of mental images about transmitting. They just picked up the word as a technical term.

[Harehunter]

That explains how a word can come into general acceptance and usage, but before the age of automobile, transmission in this context was unknown. Someone at some time coined the word and applied that definition to it. Why not just call it the gearbox? That word also adequately describes the object.

 

Also, who was it that first had the idea to put the Latin words Trans and Mitto put together to form this word?