153 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Bobad wrote...

Swashbuckler?, I thought as a pirate her class would be Timber Shiverer?

Thats a specialization

[pizoxuat]

Aermas wrote...

pizoxuat wrote...

Have you seen her boots? The woman does not lack buckles. Considering number of them, she is probably pretty expert at buckling and unbuckling. One might call her a buckler. Who swashes.

This is close to reducing me to tears

Slams face in to keyboard bv gftrbgb hbgvhtyf

Awww... if it makes you feel better, I agree with you that the noble buckler gets short shrift these days.  I've just learned to let my inner accuracy nerd relax.

[Maria Caliban]

I like how the very first reply is the writer answering the question, but no one's acknowledged it.

Sheryl Chee wrote...

That's because swashbucklers swash at bucklers worn by other people.

In case anyone is wondering, Ms. Chee is not joking. To swash is to hit. Swash bucklers hit bucklers, usually their opponent's.

Did many of them also have bucklers? Yes, because they were fighting other swordsmen.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 novembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[yo broooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

if you want to be historically accurate some of the first bucklers were used by English longbowmen. They used bucklers because they were able to deflect incoming blows with it, without having to drop their bows to draw their swords. So swashbuckler can exist, and plus it's fantasy. Seems like the DAO universe is about to enter a 15th century equilvelant Europe with gunpowder being discovered and Kirkwall seems to be industrial in some places.

[Aermas]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I like how the very first reply is the writer answering the question, but no one's acknowledged it.

Sheryl Chee wrote...

That's because swashbucklers swash at bucklers worn by other people.

In case anyone is wondering, Ms. Chee is not joking. To swash is to hit. Swash bucklers hit bucklers, usually their opponent's.

Did many of them also have bucklers? Yes, because they were fighting other swordsmen.

You're joking right? Not only are you cherry-picking your definitions but they was you put forth your idea A swash buckler would be buckling swash not swashing bucklers

Sheyl Chee choose to be glib & unhelpful

Modifié par Aermas, 06 novembre 2010 - 05:37 .

[TheMufflon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

To swash is to hit.

No, it is not. Swash, in the sense of a swashbuckler, means to swagger.

[Aermas]

This is a really important question for me & I haven't got any reasonable explanation & would like a Dev to comment on this issue please

[Ziggeh]

You don't need a dev, it's common sense. Yes, she is a swashbuckler, no, the definition you'e decided upon isn't appropriate.

[upsettingshorts]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

You don't need a dev, it's common sense. Yes, she is a swashbuckler, no, the definition you'e decided upon isn't appropriate.

Aermas doesn't strike me as the type to back down on his opinion when it comes to semantics.

[Mary Kirby]

Aermas wrote...

This is a really important question for me & I haven't got any reasonable explanation & would like a Dev to comment on this issue please

http://dictionary.re...er]Swashbuckler[/url]: a swaggering swordsman, soldier, or adventurer; daredevil.

The term does not, and never did, have anything to do with wearing a buckler.

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

You don't need a dev, it's common sense. Yes, she is a swashbuckler, no, the definition you'e decided upon isn't appropriate.

Aermas doesn't strike me as the type to back down on his opinion when it comes to semantics.

I prefer logical arguments & rational reasoning

[tmp7704]

Mary Kirby wrote...

http://dictionary.re...se/swashbuckler]Swashbuckler[/url]: a swaggering swordsman, soldier, or adventurer; daredevil.

The term does not, and never did, have anything to do with wearing a buckler.

Now that's just plain mean baiting.

[Aermas]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Aermas wrote...

This is a really important question for me & I haven't got any reasonable explanation & would like a Dev to comment on this issue please

http://dictionary.re...er]Swashbuckler[/url]: a swaggering swordsman, soldier, or adventurer; daredevil.

The term does not, and never did, have anything to do with wearing a buckler.

I got a 404 page.

[tmp7704]

Just copy&paste the url manually. http://dictionary.re...se/swashbuckler

[upsettingshorts]

Aermas wrote...

I prefer logical arguments & rational reasoning

Nope, this is purely sematics.  You want the definition to conform to your expectations of how language works.  That does not make it so.

[Maria Caliban]

TheMufflon wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

To swash is to hit.

No, it is not. Swash, in the sense of a swashbuckler, means to swagger.

Not according to Colliens English Dictionary:

swashbuckler
n
a swaggering or flamboyant adventurer
[from swash (in the archaic sense: to make the noise of a sword striking a shield) + buckler]

Or Online Etymology Dictionary:

swashbuckler
1550s, "blustering, swaggering fighting man" (earlier simply swash, 1540s), from swash "fall of a blow" (see swash) + buckler "shield." The original sense seems to have been "one who makes menacing noises by striking his or an opponent's shield."

Aermas wrote...

You're joking right? Not only are you cherry-picking your definitions but they was you put forth your idea A swash buckler would be buckling swash not swashing bucklers

Sheyl Chee choose to be glib & unhelpful

No, Sheryl Chee gave you the right origin of the word.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 novembre 2010 - 07:48 .

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Aermas doesn't strike me as the type to back down on his opinion when it comes to semantics.

Hah, I know, I just have this masochistic urge to see even the smallest crack of light in any fog of logical fallacy.

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Or Online Etymology Dictionary:

swashbuckler
1550s,
"blustering, swaggering fighting man" (earlier simply swash, 1540s),
from swash "fall of a blow" (see swash) + buckler "shield." The original sense seems to have been "one who makes menacing noises by striking his or an opponent's shield."

Good thing this isn't the 16th century or Mary Kirby would have egg all over her face with that one, then. Meanings change all the time. This thread could hardly be more pointless.

(Yes, I know etymology means something different than definition.  I don't think Aernas does.)

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 07:48 .

[Mary Kirby]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Good thing this isn't the 16th century or Mary Kirby would have egg all over her face with that one, then. Meanings change all the time. This thread could hardly be more pointless.

You don't have to wear a buckler to strike someone else's buckler with your sword.

[tmp7704]

Mary Kirby wrote...

You don't have to wear a buckler to strike someone else's buckler with your sword.

But then what if the opponent doesn't have shield either, does Isabela's specialization turn off?

[upsettingshorts]

I was being deliberately obtuse. Trying to fit in with the tone of the thread.

[Helena Tylena]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Good thing this isn't the 16th century or Mary Kirby would have egg all over her face with that one, then. Meanings change all the time. This thread could hardly be more pointless.

You don't have to wear a buckler to strike someone else's buckler with your sword.

If I may be so evil, you do need a sword, though, to strike someone else's buckler with your sword.
(yes, I prefer swords over daggers and yes, I'm willing to drop the subject here and now)

[Mary Kirby]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

You don't have to wear a buckler to strike someone else's buckler with your sword.

But then what if the opponent doesn't have shield either, does Isabela's specialization turn off?

She ceases to exist in a puff of logic.

[tmp7704]

Potential companion death, confirmed

[Aermas]

Did anyone look at the very bottom of the dictionary page?

Edit: Nevermind Maria brought it up

Modifié par Aermas, 06 novembre 2010 - 07:54 .