Heh heh heh...

Is that before Dras goes out for a walk or after?

2 hours ago, Alpha Xg1 said:

Heh heh heh...

Is that before Dras goes out for a walk or after?

That's WHERE he takes his walks too, you can't keep that stuff around your family, they'll think you're crazy.

The subject matter of the English language is about as interesting as watching paint dry.

On a wall...

In somebody else's house.

3 hours ago, Alpha Xg1 said:

Ehh...what happened to this thread?

FFG? Please give us an Armada article all ready!

Our bretheren and sisterens are flaming the embers of what might well become a Galactic Civil War!

And one that an Admiral mightn't be able to stop but a certain Grand Admiral COULD!

We believe in you FFG! Thanks!

Given the paucity of information available about the MC75 in the wave 7 announcement, I'll be amazed if the first article isn't about Raddus and the MC75.

3 hours ago, dominosfleet said:

seriously though, these forums have gone completely off the rail. IMO the lack of Armada articles has the same impact on us as what happens to people when they drink salt water. I'm reasonably sure that Dra has a volley ball somewhere up in canada that he's drawn a face on and talks to daily about armada

This was amazing!

10 hours ago, svelok said:

At the current stage, I'll just leave this here for now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#criticisms

That doesn't quite apply. There is a difference between language changing and incorporating a mistake into the language when it started as a mistake of this nature. You wouldn't say that using the word 'like' is correct when people write things like 'I mean, like, whatever.' right?

In this particular case, the first person who used 'literally' to mean 'figuratively' made a mistake. But people either ignored it or didn't pick up on it, and it became common. But that doesn't make it correct, because it still can be shown to be a mistake*. The definition was there when the first person made the mistake, and it still is there now. It's not like the creation of a new word, or the slow change of a definition over time when few knew the actual meaning, or the change of spelling that came with the refining of the language. The literal opposite of literally exists as a word. Thus, using literally to mean figuratively is a mistake, and redundant. The fact that I can say that sentence shows it to be so, for it tells you that the word people mean already exists, and thus they ought to use that one, rather than redefine literally to mean both itself and its opposite. Defining literally to mean figuratively when the latter is already defined isn't progress or linguistic change for the better, is an attempt to excuse ignorance by making it official.

*Sure, most changes start out this way. But if I said I want to pilot my car onto the alley, you would say that sentence is mistaken in many ways - you do not pilot cars, you go into alleys, etc. If I said I wanted to drink my steak, you would say 'you mean eat, right' - same thing here.

So, in light of what is actually happening in my life, I am going to be quiet a bunch more.

it was unintentional and joking, I know... but things get to me all the same.

14 hours ago, Tirion said:

Don't get me wrong I hate EA. That being said this is actually the opposite of pay to win and there is an important piece of info missing from this discussion.

Let's start with what pay to win actually is;

Pay to win is putting an item that is required to win or to reasonably win behind a pay wall. This game is not doing that. They are in fact making the best items (and from my understanding all weapons) unbuyable with real money. This is nothing more than a paid shortcut. This information was mostly available before the beta but no one with a platform actually did their research.

I also want to point out that EA has not said they were "changing" anything, as has been widely reported. They specifically said they wanted to "clarify" how the final build would work.

Also the piece of info that is conveniently left it from this discussion by those with a platform is the free dlc. Now I'm not going to discuss whether a game requires extra money past the initial cost to fund extra content. I have no idea and frankly it doesn't matter as these companies are going to charge for it one way or another. But if people that are going to take advantage of the paid shortcut system want to subsidize my free dlc I have zero issue with that.

Essentially ME3's multiplayer system. The aforementioned "card packs" containing random drops of characters, weapons, upgrades and miscellaneous equipment could be earned by playing or purchased for real money. The only reason you'd spend real money is if you wanted to unlock them faster . All the DLC packs (containing new characters, weapons, maps and even a new enemy race to fight against) were free, and didn't split the player base.

I'm all for this system; I have no doubt that many players spent a fair amount of real money purchasing upgrade packs, in 300+ hours of gameplay I didn't buy a single one. I unlocked everything I needed by actually playing the game, and still enjoy the occassional jump into multiplayer to this day (nothing is quite as satisfying a a Krogan melee spree).

5 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

You wouldn't say that using the word 'like' is correct when people write things like 'I mean, like, whatever.' right?

Sure. If people do it, then it becomes correct.

5 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

In this particular case, the first person who used 'literally' to mean 'figuratively' made a mistake. But people either ignored it or didn't pick up on it, and it became common. But that doesn't make it correct, because it still can be shown to be a mistake*.

Only if there is such a thing as a right answer. But there isn't. Language isn't math. 2+2 can equal 5 or even 11.

5 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

The fact that I can say that sentence shows it to be so, for it tells you that the word people mean already exists, and thus they ought to use that one, rather than redefine literally to mean both itself and its opposite.

It sounds almost like you're advocating the elimination of redundancy from language.

5 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Defining literally to mean figuratively when the latter is already defined isn't progress or linguistic change for the better, is an attempt to excuse ignorance by making it official.

How do you measure "change for the better" in terms of language, and who is in charge of such measurements and rulings?

2 minutes ago, svelok said:

Sure. If people do it, then it becomes correct. This I reject. Linguistic rules are there because there is a correct way to do it. Otherwise, what is the point of teaching language at all?

Only if there is such a thing as a right answer. But there isn't. Language isn't math. 2+2 can equal 5 or even 11. In this case there is. You cannot make a word mean something completely different on a whim. The person here used an already defined word to mean another already defined word. In this case, we should rather redirect him to the word he meant, rather than accommodate him by changing the word he used to mean the word he meant.

It sounds almost like you're advocating the elimination of redundancy from language. Sort of. Not things like 'gay' 'happy' 'joyful' 'exuberant' etc having similar meanings, but of the sort here, e.g. 'Bad means not good. Good can also mean not good' this makes no sense, first off, but also means that two words have exactly the same definition. 'bad' 'terrible' 'awful' 'horrendous' like the first words above, all have slightly different meanings. But if they all had letter-for-letter the same meanings, or if you defined 'terrible' as 'another word for bad' I would say that the two are redundant, as they mean exactly the same thing.

How do you measure "change for the better" in terms of language, and who is in charge of such measurements and rulings? It is a personal opinion. Much like I would argue what is better for society or what defines civilization. But nothing shall convince me that making a word mean both itself and its opposite because nobody has bothered to correct those who didn't know the word they meant is progress. Language would soon devolve into nonsense where if enough people decided to misuse a word, it could suddenly gain that definition, and you would end up with dozens of definitions being applied to words that mean entirely different things. If I started calling hot water cold and cold water hot, or snow ice and ice liquid, you would think me mad. A similar thing is happening here, and purely because of the amount of people who make the mistake you accept it? It is not as if they consciously decided to redefine the word, they just don't know what it means, and because they speak too often solely with others who likewise don't know what the word means, they persist in their error.

Bold for my responses.

1 minute ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

This I reject. Linguistic rules are there because there is a correct way to do it. Otherwise, what is the point of teaching language at all?

You teach language to people who don't know it yet. Unless all the other fluent English speakers have been attended regular classes that I wasn't privvy to!

2 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

In this case there is. You cannot make a word mean something completely different on a whim.

Why not, if the message was still understood? Usage started out sarcastic with accompanying tone and contextual clues; nobody ever misinterpreted the message.

4 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Sort of. Not things like 'gay' 'happy' 'joyful' 'exuberant' etc having similar meanings, but of the sort here, e.g. 'Bad means not good. Good can also mean not good' this makes no sense, first off, but also means that two words have exactly the same definition. 'bad' 'terrible' 'awful' 'horrendous' like the first words above, all have slightly different meanings. But if they all had letter-for-letter the same meanings, or if you defined 'terrible' as 'another word for bad' I would say that the two are redundant, as they mean exactly the same thing.

You didn't come out and explicitly state it, but do you really think removing all redundant words would be a positive change? If nothing else, think of the poets and the songwriters!

4 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

It is a personal opinion. Much like I would argue what is better for society or what defines civilization

Those are things that can be measured and explained. If I say society would be better with fewer axe killers, I can count the number of axe killers per year to see our progress. I can explain why a society without axe killers is better than one with, and although it might bring up a lot of philosophy if our underlying worldviews are sufficiently different, I can provide an internally consistent reasoning. When I say "hey you, don't axe-murder", I can show you the violent homicide rate that I'm trying to reduce.

7 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

But nothing shall convince me that making a word mean both itself and its opposite because nobody has bothered to correct those who didn't know the word they meant is progress. Language would soon devolve into nonsense where if enough people decided to misuse a word, it could suddenly gain that definition, and you would end up with dozens of definitions being applied to words that mean entirely different things.

And yet language has been around a hundred thousand years or so, and most of it not only before the invention of writing but occurring in highly isolated and infrequently communicating social groups; and the cavemen, the Mongols, the Maya, and the French all made do nonetheless.

1 minute ago, svelok said:

You teach language to people who don't know it yet. Unless all the other fluent English speakers have been attended regular classes that I wasn't privvy to!
But the point is you teach them. So that when the lessons are done, they might stick with the linguistic rules that they are taught. Saying you no longer are taking lessons means you need not follow the rules taught in said lessons doesn't make sense. What was the point of the lesson then?

Why not, if the message was still understood? Usage started out sarcastic with accompanying tone and contextual clues; nobody ever misinterpreted the message. That assumes the message is understood. Which, given the fact that it is misusing words, is not a guarantee. If somebody said 'I would literally give my right hand for that', and somebody was not of the western culture that was accustomed to the misuse of the word, would he not be correct in taking the person at face value?

You didn't come out and explicitly state it, but do you really think removing all redundant words would be a positive change? If nothing else, think of the poets and the songwriters! I am not for the removal of all redundant words. Indeed, I can think of very few off hand.

Those are things that can be measured and explained. If I say society would be better with fewer axe killers, I can count the number of axe killers per year to see our progress. I can explain why a society without axe killers is better than one with, and although it might bring up a lot of philosophy if our underlying worldviews are sufficiently different, I can provide an internally consistent reasoning. When I say "hey you, don't axe-murder", I can show you the violent homicide rate that I'm trying to reduce. But that is not all there is too it. If I said what we currently call western civilization isn't, and that Ghandi was correct in his response of 'I think it would be a good idea' when asked what he thought of Western Civilization (it was Ghandi, right?), I am sure you would disagree. Thus, as we cannot even come to one definition of what civilization is, how can we quantify it and measure it? Reducing the number of axemen is very specific, and it assumes we have already agreed on what society is and should be.

And yet language has been around a hundred thousand years or so, and most of it not only before the invention of writing but occurring in highly isolated and infrequently communicating social groups; and the cavemen, the Mongols, the Maya, and the French all made do nonetheless. We don't really know how they got on before writing, because they could leave nothing behind to tell us. Either way, even before writing they still had linguistic rules. Orally transferred, perhaps, but still existing.

1 hour ago, svelok said:

Sure. If people do it, then it becomes correct.

That's a logic fail right there. If I decide to start misusing the word stop and start treating it as go it doesn't make me correct, it makes me responsible for the accident I cause when I plow into someone at an intersection.

Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.

Or I mean we can always adopt the sensible viewpoint of "too much language control creates stagnancy and rigidity but too little creates anarchy and communication difficulties, so howsabout we accept a more moderate outlook where it's still okay to hate people who use the word "literally" figuratively?"

Can I say just one thing, as a Luddite and a man with no sense for the nuances of the written word.

Is not English a living language?

To elaborate:

Meaning it's still spoken and written today, with the meaning of words, and new words being added.

I post the following if the speaking populace decides to up and change the meaning of a word should not the rules be reflected on that point. Because we already have a similar problem with spelling words are spelled completely different than they sound (the supposed advantage of a phonetic alphabet) would it not be better to adapt and adjust than just continue on?

The whole spelling thing I've been told is due to the first dictionary being written before so mething called the great vowl shift hence why knife and sure aren't spelled the way their generally spoken.

P.s.

I hate that people do use literally instead of figuratively. I'm just doing this to see what people think of our native toung. RAI or RAW?

Alright, thought the linguistic thing was done, but I guess not...

Literally doesn't mean both Literally and Figuratively. The word doesn't have opposite definitions.

Literally means in a literal sense or meaning. You take the garbage to the curb, when you walk back inside your significant other tells you to take the garbage out and you say "I literally just did that." This is correct.

The other meaning is not figuratively, but: Used for EMPHASIS or to express STRONG FEELING while not being literally true. There is no other word for that, hence the development of this use of the word. If we had some other word for it, we'd use it, but we don't.

Figuratively means the opposite of literally, or metaphorically. It has nothing to do with emphasis, strong emotions, or the over exaggeration that is tied to the contested use of literally. It is a descriptive word that talks about how we communicate, but it's not a word we use often to actually communicate. How often do you use the word figurative in figurative statements? Almost never. I doubt I ever have. But I know the definition. If someone made a figurative statement and someone asked what that person meant, I could explain to them that is was a figurative statement and everyone would understand.

I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. We understand that this is not a literal statement. It's figurative. We don't say 'I'm so hungry I could figuratively eat a horse.' The use of figurative is assumed.

I'm so hungry I could LITERALLY eat a horse. We understand that this is not a literal statement (still figurative), but the emphasis added by use of the term literally means that we also understand that this person is hungrier than the other person. Using figuratively in this sentence wouldn't work. It wouldn't sound right or convey the correct information to the receiver.

When he said that, I could have punched him in the face. This is a statement of a figurative desire to cause harm to the other person. Say it out loud in a dismissive tone and you can see how it conveys disgust, but not deep anger.

When he said that, I could have LITERALLY punched him in the face. Say this out loud in the same tone, but emphasize the term literally and you see it begins to convey more than simple disgust.

So the literally doesn't mean figuratively, but a very strongly emphasized figurative statement. It's a subtle but important and distinct difference.

I think the difference between literal and figurative is such that in no case would somebody speaking seriously while using literally be confused for using the sarcastic other meaning by a native English speaker. It is a cultural understanding of those words and how they are used today.

One would either have to be obtuse or a new English speaker to think that people using literally while exaggerating are being.. literal. This reminds me of the futility of French nations trying to legislate the survival of their language in a very specific form. I wonder how many words we use today are words whose original meanings have either been lost or become irrelevant.

The only thing that I have been able to think about through this whole thoroughly derailed thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

On 10/20/2017 at 2:56 PM, Irishmadcat said:

Sadly the druids I engaged to read the entrails of a goat to predict this just refunded me on paypal. "Somethings men are not meant" to know was the comment on the refund.

Waves hand "There are not the druids you're looking for"

My issue with that is that I do not think it excuses it. The use of literally to add figurative emphasis isn't justifiable by saying it happens. The problem is that it happens at all.

If people wish to use a word to add extra emphasis to a sentence they have already commandeered 'seriously', 'really' and 'totally'. There is no need to ruin 'literally ' as well.

1 hour ago, Noosh said:

Can I say just one thing, as a Luddite and a man with no sense for the nuances of the written word.

Is not English a living language?

To elaborate:

Meaning it's still spoken and written today, with the meaning of words, and new words being added.

I post the following if the speaking populace decides to up and change the meaning of a word should not the rules be reflected on that point. Because we already have a similar problem with spelling words are spelled completely different than they sound (the supposed advantage of a phonetic alphabet) would it not be better to adapt and adjust than just continue on?

The whole spelling thing I've been told is due to the first dictionary being written before so mething called the great vowl shift hence why knife and sure aren't spelled the way their generally spoken.

P.s.

I hate that people do use literally instead of figuratively. I'm just doing this to see what people think of our native toung. RAI or RAW?

It's both. It's RAW until someone starts playing with house rules. Once the house rule becomes so popular that judges and marshals allow it in official tournaments it becomes RAI. Once FFG puts out a FAQ that accepts the house rule, it becomes RAW. That's not how rules in games work, but is an ok analogy for how language evolves.

And language needs to evolve. Once a language stops evolving, it's a sign that it's a dead language.

As a pragmatic matter, people aren't going to do what you say, so I find investing heavily in grumbling about that as a point of principle is almost always the wrong position.

Edit to add: I literally mean opposing this trend is futile.

1 minute ago, kmanweiss said:

And language needs to evolve. Once a language stops evolving, it's a sign that it's a dead language.

But a language can also devolve, which is what happened with Greek and which I feel is happening with English. Not all change is good or necessary.

So, how's that Civilisation: A New Dawn article going for people?

2 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

It's both. It's RAW until someone starts playing with house rules. Once the house rule becomes so popular that judges and marshals allow it in official tournaments it becomes RAI. Once FFG puts out a FAQ that accepts the house rule, it becomes RAW. That's not how rules in games work, but is an ok analogy for how language evolves.

And language needs to evolve. Once a language stops evolving, it's a sign that it's a dead language.

I like this, it's a good way of expressing it.

Now that we have all enjoyed our argument over the finer points of English........

WHERE IS OUR ARTICLE!?!?!?