Argoden said:
MILLANDSON said:
Of course, there's also no "u" in the word armor, and don't even get me started on maneuverability.
It all depends on what English you speak. I'd say "armour" is a bit more correct then "armor" by the simple fact that folks who tend to spell it as such know how to bloody well pronounce herb.
Argoden said:
Of course, there's also no "u" in the word armor, and don't even get me started on maneuverability.
Armor = Americanized form of the english word "armour".
They spoke adn wrote in english in great brittain way before the language was brought to the american continent. So if we are to act like nitpickers here then "armour" would be the most "correct" spelling, by authority of chronological order.
Luckily most people do not get their brains all tangled up due to such differences in spelling, so we need not to worry about which form is the "more correct" one. Here's to variety!
Graver said:
FFG's a US company. They spelled it wrong by the standards of their own home country. Are you really hard up enough to see more people using "your" English that you're welcoming colonial posers now?
Argoden said:
Graver said:
FFG's a US company. They spelled it wrong by the standards of their own home country. Are you really hard up enough to see more people using "your" English that you're welcoming colonial posers now?
Yes, yes I am.
Funny fact. I'm also one of those damned posers.
Funny Fact number 2, wile FFG is indeed an American company, they picked up a British product and, upon picking up said British product, there was much lamenting about it loosing it's "British charm" in the way words are phrased and spelled and lo, for FFG did listen unto the fans and they did keep the British way of spelling and saying tings, for, in the end, as a British born product, it truly needed that extra touch of Britishness.
Now, that sould be enough grammer madness for tis tread. The macine spirits are starting to choak!
Edit: but thank you for thinking it was my language, though! :-D You here that you damned limmies (is that bad to say?)! All your languages are to belong to me! You speak pig-latin now!
Hi everyone,
I enjoy a good grammar debate as much as the next person. However, since the original poster was asking about something different, perhaps we could start another thread on this topic? Thanks!
- Sam
One note before we stop debating the written word.
Varnias Tybalt said:
They spoke adn wrote in english in great brittain way before the language was brought to the american continent. So if we are to act like nitpickers here then "armour" would be the most "correct" spelling, by authority of chronological order.
Actually, American written English came first, chronologically. What I mean is, the idea of a correct way to spell, for one, began in America. Before that, you could spell one word in anyway that sounded like it could be right. If you were to read anything from Renaissance England, you'd see what I mean. The "British" way of spelling came later, after the language had continued to develop for a while. That's one of the reasons for the differences between American and British English. So if we are to act like nitpickers here then "armor" would be the most "correct" spelling, by authority of chronological order.
Speaking of "Britishness", Has anyone encountered Sir David Attenbrough's earlier anthropological work, specifically where he talks about encountering the so called "cargo cults" in the 50's? Basically these were people who were relatively untouched by the (then) modern world on isolated pacific islands. With the coming of ww2, these islands often had strategic importance as way stations for the various American forces who would use them as bases of operations. The cargo would come in by air and by sea, and to a stone age mind and lacking a better explanation, this appeared to be magic! Long after the war, when Attenbrough visited, the locals still kept the airfields clear, even building approximations of communications posts and sporting comical coconuts attached to the ears to look like headphones, all in a vain ritual to encourage the cargo to return. They had even deified actual members of the original garrison! This kind of misunderstanding gave me a kind of idea what kind of rituals the various tech adepts etc. undertake in order to keep the ancient machines working, never knowing the real significance to what they are doing! Mind you, we all know that feeling...
Heber_Helios said:
Actually, American written English came first, chronologically. What I mean is, the idea of a correct way to spell, for one, began in America. Before that, you could spell one word in anyway that sounded like it could be right.
Samuel Johnson's A Complete Dictionary of the English Language 1755.
Noah Webster A Grammatical Institute of the English Language 1783-5. Webster's American dictionary is 1828 [His 1806 one not diverging as far from Johnsons.].
Webster is the one who codified American spellings. Johnson having codified British ones decades before. Webster prefered Latin over French influences for nationalistic reasons whereas Johnson went with what was in use.
Note that Johnson's wasn't the first English Dictionary, that probably being Cawdrey's A Table Alphabeticall of 1604.
The idea of their being a correct way to spell dates back to ancient greece at the latest. [Philtas of Cos compiled his dictionary in the 4 century BC.]
British written English came first. Then American and then both evolved in different directions.
Dahak said:
Actually, American written English came first, chronologically. What I mean is, the idea of a correct way to spell, for one, began in America. Before that, you could spell one word in anyway that sounded like it could be right.
Samuel Johnson's A Complete Dictionary of the English Language 1755.
Noah Webster A Grammatical Institute of the English Language 1783-5. Webster's American dictionary is 1828 [His 1806 one not diverging as far from Johnsons.].
Webster is the one who codified American spellings. Johnson having codified British ones decades before. Webster prefered Latin over French influences for nationalistic reasons whereas Johnson went with what was in use.
Note that Johnson's wasn't the first English Dictionary, that probably being Cawdrey's A Table Alphabeticall of 1604.
The idea of their being a correct way to spell dates back to ancient greece at the latest. [Philtas of Cos compiled his dictionary in the 4 century BC.]
British written English came first. Then American and then both evolved in different directions.
This is pretty much what I would have responded as well. But I actually made an effort to follow what Sam Stewart told us, and not continue the discussion about spelling and grammar.
Bad Birch said:
Speaking of "Britishness", Has anyone encountered Sir David Attenbrough's earlier anthropological work, specifically where he talks about encountering the so called "cargo cults" in the 50's? Basically these were people who were relatively untouched by the (then) modern world on isolated pacific islands. With the coming of ww2, these islands often had strategic importance as way stations for the various American forces who would use them as bases of operations. The cargo would come in by air and by sea, and to a stone age mind and lacking a better explanation, this appeared to be magic! Long after the war, when Attenbrough visited, the locals still kept the airfields clear, even building approximations of communications posts and sporting comical coconuts attached to the ears to look like headphones, all in a vain ritual to encourage the cargo to return. They had even deified actual members of the original garrison! This kind of misunderstanding gave me a kind of idea what kind of rituals the various tech adepts etc. undertake in order to keep the ancient machines working, never knowing the real significance to what they are doing! Mind you, we all know that feeling...
This is actually partially the way that I have been running the Adeptus Mechanicus for years now. Finally, someone else who has looked into it and agrees with me!
It's always been a fairly big believer that the sacried oils are literally just that: oil. You lubricate a machine to keep it working effectively.
Page157 of The Radicals Handbook: Intrusion Spirit: Here is a little support for Machine Spirits actually being more than superstition. This is either a computer virus, or a malicious entity. It clearly states it is a MACHINE SPIRIT which is kept trapped until needed to open a lock or bypass security, when it burns itself out doing so.
I also found the Machine Spirit in Forsaken Bounty to be more like an AI program overseeing the ship than a superstitious creation. In fact, the players have to interact with it to get the Geller(sic) field up.
So what is the definition of a Machine Spirit again?
The point is (as usual?) that the definition is deliberately ambiguous. The term "machine spirit" has several iterations, it all depends on how much knowledge you have of the machine itself. For example, an IG grunt from a feral world is taught to pray to the omnissiah whilst liberally applying sacred oils to his trusty lasgun. To his uneducated mind, the whole process is necessary to keep the thing working. Hell, he might rub 3 in 1 all over it and then rub it on his fatigues-for all he knows, that's the required devotion he needs to show.
On the other hand, an Enginseer looking at this might cock a snook at the hulking simpleton as he covers everyone in oil. He knows that a little goes a long way and all that you need to do is ease the breach mechanism( or something - see? ignorance is catching...). Mind you, he thinks, I best not dawdle, the Machine spirit in engine room 13 needs its' daily appeasement ceremony or it might get cranky again and shut down like last week.
Superstition is rife in this society, it takes different forms but all of it is rooted in ignorance. Ignorance exists on many levels and it is not in the interests of the many authorities (not least the Inquisition) for people to get educated too much.
Does anyone agree with any of this? (The explanation, not the idea of totalinarianism!)
There has not been "a point as usual" so far in the explanations which follows what the source material says. If the source material did not clearly indicate that the Intrusion Spirit was a computer virus of some sort, then perhaps I could go along with the "point as usual."
However, my issue is that, in our world today computing gets smaller and smaller each year, and computer programs get smarter and smarter as well. Therefore, during the Dark Age of Technology, which was many thousands of years into our future, was most technology "smart" with integrated AI programs to imporve performance, maintenance, and so forth? and then, thousands of years after the Dark Age, during 40K, are these same AI so common that they are perceived as spirit like?
I am really so sorry if I am looking into this subject too much; however, each time I have settled on one of the really flimsy explanantions, I get a new DH book that goes right back to my original idea, the one where Machine Spirits are integrated AI programs.
Is there a canon definition?
No, that's as good as you get!
Thanks!
I want to have a ships machine spirit go insane, then turn its crew into servitors, at which point it goes on a killing rampage across the Koronus Expanse, and my players have to defeat it, and loot it. This is why I want to know the machine spirit facts. Now I can move on with my other adventures.
I take the view that machine spirits are non-sentient AI, the strength of its personality depending heavily on both its age and the framework of its associated machinery. Thus ships having personality-esque complications.
Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:
Thanks!
I want to have a ships machine spirit go insane, then turn its crew into servitors, at which point it goes on a killing rampage across the Koronus Expanse, and my players have to defeat it, and loot it. This is why I want to know the machine spirit facts. Now I can move on with my other adventures.
I think this a great seed for an adventure and I might steal it
My party don't have much knowledge of the 40k universe, this would be a great way of introducing them to the ignorance and superstition of their crew! I think it's important to keep the atmosphere in the ship one of tension, as if the whole thing might fall apart at any moment- more millenium falcon with gremlins than starship enterprise with a service.
I suggest you take a look at this thread at the dark reign site
http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3150.0
we were discussing schismaticals, machine spirits gone bad from dark heresy creatures anathema.
sweet! Thanks, Cat
also, not to confuse the matter any further but in vernor vinge's novel deepness in the sky there is nice description of Qeng Ho operating software (machine spirits if you want to call them that) pack-rat mentality that layers level upon level of it till only experienced programmers-at-arms know proper rotes to operate them efficiently.
i think that something similar can apply to machine-spirits and their handlers in 40k universe.
Once again, thanks. This is taking shape...