Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 122 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 803 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 309 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 742 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 215 Tech Talk
- 45 Scripts
Comments
Daskalos is a greek word.
Message #17059 Sent By: Oleis Received On: 1/03/2014/17:24
"If it makes you feel better, just checking your artifact list threatens to crash my mudlet."
>.> Seriously though. Daskalos sounds like a name in fantasy context, not a word.
Also, I cannot talk at -all-, on names that are words in other languages.
Last I checked, forums were for discussions.
[spoiler]HERE'S AN IDEA.
To be able to copy entire configs between characters, not just colourconfigs!
Unless that's already a thing and I'm being dense, which could very well be the case. [/spoiler]
"To be awkward or unkempt, to talk or move wrongly is to be a dangerous giant, a destroyer of worlds...any accurately improper move can poke through the thin sleeve of immediate reality." - Erving Goffman
Shrug. My two cents as it were. I'm not saying you have to change it or any such thing, but I am saying I wish it wasn't allowed in general.
Names are less of a big deal in my opinion, as names don't inherently have meaning. People make tree jokes at me IC, and I mostly ignore them. When ask, Arbre is some crap my mother made up because she wanted to be unique in a land of Tecpaztlectlmetals.
I used to carry a french prefix. I don't anymore, for a reason.
I've grown rather fond of my Kalsu dictionary as a means of rummaging up interesting titles and nicknames, just as an added point. I like that I can base whatever I use on an IC language. I don't find the use of other languages particularly disorienting to my sense of immersion, except when I recognize something, though I suppose I agree with the idea that gradually phasing them out would be nice.
I would particularly like a language we already have to get a written version, instead of just hearing so and so speak Rajamalan or Atavian. Words we could use to get on with this whole everyone likes interesting titles thing. I want to be able to call someone a worthless sack of meat in Rajamalan.
And I don't think it'd be viable to have it auto-translate for you, either, alas.
...I still think languages for each would be cool, even if they -would- be a pain in the ass to create/put in. Though for creation we could just let Denaari loose on Aetolian linguistics for a bit.
Edit: Or so Haern told me.
I think the idea that words borrowed from IRL languages is is immersion-breaking is silly. Swords are from the real world. So are pants. Are pants immersion-breaking?
I'm with Zun on that being the only version of spartan that's really acceptible, since in the other instances, sparta/spartan is referencing a realworld place/people, which has always been considered bad and is why we can't have like, Angoran Wool or Cashmere.
-Prescriptivism and Descriptivism-
Descriptivism is an approach that proposes the objective and systematic description of language, in which investigators confine themselves to facts as they can be observed; particularly, the approach favoured by mid–20c US linguists known as descriptivists. Prescriptivism is an approach, especially to grammar, that sets out RULES for what is regarded as correct in language. In debates on language and education, enthusiasts for one side often use the label for the other side dismissively.
---
In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism is the practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low aesthetic value.[1] Sometimes it is informed by linguistic purism.[2] Normative practices may prescribe on such aspects of language use as spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and syntax. Linguistic prescriptivism includes judgments on what usages are socially proper and politically correct. Its aims may be to establish a standard language, to teach what is perceived within a particular society to be correct forms of language, or to advise on effective communication. If usage preferences are conservative, prescription might (appear to) be resistant to language change; if the usage preferences are radical, prescription may produce neologisms.[3]
Prescriptive approaches to language, concerned with how the prescriptivist recommends language should be used, are often contrasted with the alternative approach of descriptive linguistics, which observes and records how language actually is used.[4] The basis of linguistic research is text (corpus) analysis and field studies, both of which are descriptive activities; but description includes each researcher’s observations of his or her own language usage. Despite apparent opposition, prescription and description can inform each other,[3] since comprehensive descriptive accounts must take into account speaker attitudes, while some understanding of how language is actually used is necessary for prescription to be effective.
---
In the study of language, description, or descriptive linguistics, is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is spoken (or how it was spoken in the past) by a group of people in a speech community. All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be.[1] Modern descriptive linguistics is based on a structural approach to language, as exemplified in the work of Leonard Bloomfield and others. Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as a presentation of the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics. Prescription and description are complementary, but have different priorities and sometimes are seen to be in conflict. Descriptivism is the belief that description is more significant or important to teach, study, and practice than prescription.
---
See how this applies to Spartan and the two sides of that debate?
So are you Pro or Des?
Prescriptivism is what Aetolia adheres to in general.
I've got something that will probably drive you up the wall.
---
I know many of you were taught that you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition, but it’s a myth. In fact, I consider it one of the top ten grammar myths because many people believe it’s true, but because nearly all grammarians disagree, at least in some cases (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
Here's an example of a sentence that can end with a preposition: What did you step on? A key point is that the sentence doesn't work if you leave off the preposition. You can't say, “What did you step?” You need to say, “What did you step on?” to make a grammatical sentence.
I can hear some of you gnashing your teeth right now, while you think, “What about saying, 'On what did you step?'” But really, have you ever heard anyone talk that way? I've read long, contorted arguments from noted grammarians about why it's OK to end sentences with prepositions when the preposition isn't extraneous (1), but the driving point still seems to be, “Nobody in their right mind talks this way.” Yes, you could say, “On what did you step?” but not even grammarians think you should. It sounds pedantic.