251 réponses à ce sujet

[marbatico]

what tha...

8 pages in one day obut how you say something?!

[Ashaera]

*sigh* To add to this chaos.



I will start by saying that language, no matter how you look at it, will always cause arguments.



I can imagine the arguments if they had altered the word to fit every possible dialect, and before someone says that dialect is irrelevant, "yer talkin' wae ah scot, and yer tellin me that dial-lect huz nae affect oan how things wuhll sound oot." Yes, some of us really do sound like that.



Elps, I agree with your post.



of course the real irony is arguing over a word being pronounced wrongly in English, that is a actually a Hebrew word used to describe a believed creation of a 16th century polish rabbi.



I am no expert of languages, but I do have more than a passing interest in mythology



Obtusifolius (broad-leaf), I love that name.

[Trondesson]

marbatico wrote...

what tha...
8 pages in one day obut how you say something?!

*LOL*
Do you still wonder why mankind is in such a mess?

[marbatico]

no, i fully understand now *LOL*

[Ashaera]

Elps wrote...

Even the Hebrew word changed spelling and pronunciation. Origins of it probably don't matter much nowadays though as the word came into English through the Bible. What English takes over often changes (says me to a Scot, LOL).

To me, the irony is that there are arguments over how fantasy characters in a fantasy world pronounce their language. Until a Ferelden linguistic expert comes along I'll stand by my claim that its neither right nor wrong but just "is".

hehe, too true. Just pointing out how crazy the whole argument is. Just needs someone to say that Shemlin is pronounced wrong now.

[joey_mork84]

Obtusifolius wrote...




your inability to comprehend logic is growing tiresome. I'm sorry if I misread your post, but the gist that I got was that you were bringing up accents, which I had already covered. And you named me by name, which is what gave me the impression your comments were directed at me.

All I'm going to say is I don't have an "inability to comprehend logic", but you obviously do and you really should go back and read my post again if you still think it was an attack on you. I clearly stated it was an example and that it WAS NOT AN ATTACK. But it's ok, we all understand if you don't want to believe there was actually someone here that wasn't attacking you..

Obtusifolius wrote...

And you cannot agree or disagree
with Standard English, it just is.

It is man-made, so yes, we can and will agree or disagree with it as we wish. It's called free will. You may be a tyranical troll, but you don't rule over the entire planet.

Obtusifolius wrote...

And I am not running away, it is just that I am about to go bald with
frustration at trying to reason with you. Even those who disagree with
me would not agree that you are making any sense, or producing valid
counter-arguments. I promise you.

And yes, you should run away, unless you enjoy being bald AND wrong. I have seen no fault with Maviarab's arguments. So you shouldn't make promises you can't keep. Shame on you! *Wags finger in a disiplinary fashion*

Long story short: Get over yourself! Please get off of your high horse, Miss High&Mighty before you fall off *again*. Join the rest of the world and just accept the fact that the entire world doesn't and WILL NEVER conform to your rules of how you believe things should be.

[joey_mork84]

Elps wrote...

Obtusifolius wrote...

Please read the thread, K?
Good day everyone, it's been lovely speaking with some of you 

Please don't jump to conclusions that I hadn't. I've read every last word on this thread and followed it from the beginning, biting my tongue and only now giving in to adding a reply. I feel no need to provide my resume to try to prove to anyone that my opinion is valid, or that I may know more than you about linguistics and, more importantly, the phonological use of words within the English language.

Phonological variation occurs across dialects, countries, regions and even social groups. If there were differences in every pronunciation of "golem" across the game then you would have a valid point. However, DA is consistent in its use. 

Frankly, I find claims that the pronunciation is incorrect just ridiculous. I believe you said that the characters are southern English. Hello? Isn't the game set in Thedas? It is neither correct nor incorrect - it is simply the way the inhabitants of Thedas pronounce their language. 

Claiming to be a student of language then stating that a certain pronunciation is wrong just doesn't ring true. I don't intend this comment as a personal attack and hope you don't read it as such. However, it's a cardinal rule among linguists that any discussion about language is descriptive, not prescriptive, and I've never met a linguist yet who presumes to say that the way a group pronounces words in their language is wrong. 

THANK YOU! lol

[Bibdy]

I didn't read the whole thing, but I think its safe to say the argument is silly.



Visit England sometime. The people who invented the language have 800 different ways of pronouncing the same thing.

[Obtusifolius]

Bibdy wrote...

I didn't read the whole thing, but I think its safe to say the argument is silly.

Visit England sometime. The people who invented the language have 800 different ways of pronouncing the same thing.

I live in England.

OK, here is Mr Gaider's post to me. Koralis, it appears you were right about the pronunciation being deliberate. Here:

It's not accidental. The word "golem" comes from Hebrew mythology, but the golems in DA are not those creatures. Someone can argue it if they wish, but it's like arguing that the medusas in D&D should properly be called "gorgons" because Medusa was simply the name of a specific gorgon. The derivation is unimportant, so long as it's consistent. That's how I see it, anyhow.

As for everyone else, I've had it with explaining my arguments over and over, so I am not going to even read any of the posts between now and the last time I posted.

And Mav, I would not buy a 'pair of shoe's' because that would imply something belonging to the shoes (inappropriate apostrophe use). It would be two. Any more moronic questions?

Also, the fact that I am in the minority now, if I even am in the minority, does not make me wrong. The mistake I made was to believe that the mispronunciation was accidental, I concede now that I was wrong about that. Everything else, I stand wholeheartedly by.

Language is my forte. Is it yours? No, obviously not. So kindly stand down.

[Obtusifolius]

Ashaera wrote...


Obtusifolius (broad-leaf), I love that name.

Thank you very much

I did Latin classification and Identification for about 3 months a few years back. 'Rumex Obtusifolius' is broad-leafed dock, and I just love the word.

[Obtusifolius]

Elps wrote...

Obtusifolius wrote...

Please read the thread, K?
Good day everyone, it's been lovely speaking with some of you 

Please don't jump to conclusions that I hadn't. I've read every last word on this thread and followed it from the beginning, biting my tongue and only now giving in to adding a reply. I feel no need to provide my resume to try to prove to anyone that my opinion is valid, or that I may know more than you about linguistics and, more importantly, the phonological use of words within the English language.

Phonological variation occurs across dialects, countries, regions and even social groups. If there were differences in every pronunciation of "golem" across the game then you would have a valid point. However, DA is consistent in its use. 

My point was that the pronunciation was incorrect in the context of the pronunciation of every other word. I assumed you had not read my other posts because I thought I had covered all your points several times over.

Frankly, I find claims that the pronunciation is incorrect just ridiculous. I believe you said that the characters are southern English. Hello? Isn't the game set in Thedas? It is neither correct nor incorrect - it is simply the way the inhabitants of Thedas pronounce their language. 

Claiming to be a student of language then stating that a certain pronunciation is wrong just doesn't ring true. I don't intend this comment as a personal attack and hope you don't read it as such. However, it's a cardinal rule among linguists that any discussion about language is descriptive, not prescriptive, and I've never met a linguist yet who presumes to say that the way a group pronounces words in their language is wrong. 

I have given my views on language change. However, I was convinced that the pronunciational error was made accidentally. David Gaider, however, has informed me otherwise. I have also said I do not insist that people use the correct pronunciation, I only ask that people recognise that there is a correct pronunciation.

As for the 'they're from Thedas' argument, I have covered that several times also. Thank you for being civil, and I apologise if I snapped earlier.

[joey_mork84]

Nice skipping of posts you know you can't argue with, Obtusitolius. EPIC...

[Obtusifolius]

Maviarab wrote...

Not moronic at all dear...a pair (plural) of shoes (plural again) would actually mean you have bought 4 shoe (in real correct English)....

So you see, your not as clever as you make out are you? Thus, the English language is full of inconsistencies, errors, and is a very flawed language at best. So knowing that, arguing correct pronunciation of something 'English' is rather futile.

And yes, as it happens it is, been studyig it (English) for over 30 years, and with that, I really think this thread should come to a close don't you?

Oh my God. Please stop, you are making yourself look so stupid. You say a pair of shoes means four shoes... why four, if we're using your crap logic? Why not five, why not six?

I think you will struggle to find a single person in this thread who thinks you are talking sense. Go on, try it.

And I am as clever as I think, yes. Perhaps more clever, even. I think you are the one whose sense of superiority is wildly misplaced.

[Obtusifolius]

joey_mork84 wrote...

Nice skipping of posts you know you can't argue with, Obtusitolius. EPIC...

Hm? No I can't argue with them because you and Mav refuse to speak logically like rational human beings. And I have read all the posts after all, and replied to the ones that merited replies (or not, as the case may be).

[joey_mork84]

Actually, Maviarab is right. You can have one shoe, two shoes, or four in the case of a 'pair of shoes'. Same with a 'pair of pants'. Flaws of the English language are so much fun to exploit.. especially now

[joey_mork84]

You can't argue with them because you know you have been proven wrong.. over and over and over. Logic and rational are obviously things you are not familiar with.

EDIT: Fixed simple errors.

Modifié par joey_mork84, 20 mars 2010 - 06:52 .

[Obtusifolius]

joey_mork84 wrote...

Actually, Maviarab is right. You can have one shoe, two shoes, or four in the case of a 'pair of shoes'. Same with a 'pair of pants'. Flaws of the English language are so much fun to exploit.. especially now

Why not five shoes, why not six? Where in the phrase is it implied that 'shoes' means 2 shoes? Jesus H. Christ. And in the case of 'a pair of pants' it is not the same at all. That is an irregularity because a pair of pants equal one garment. What about a pair of apples? How many ****ing apples am I talking about now? Come on, use your brain to think this through, if you would be so kind. What about a pair of limbs? WHERE, I ASK YOU, IS THE IRREGULARITY IN THAT?

And further, these points have no relevance whatsoever, and the very fact that you are agreeing with Mav leads me to suspect that you may be some kind of sock puppet

And would you like to explain to me where exactly I have been proven wrong...? Since I am so stupid, I obviously need a little help. Please, outline the arguments, in easy, bite-sized pieces, so my tiny little brain can handle them one at a time.

Modifié par Obtusifolius, 20 mars 2010 - 06:57 .

[joey_mork84]

Obtusifolius wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

Actually, Maviarab is right. You can have one shoe, two shoes, or four in the case of a 'pair of shoes'. Same with a 'pair of pants'. Flaws of the English language are so much fun to exploit.. especially now

Why not five shoes, why not six? Where in the phrase is it implied that 'shoes' means 2 shoes? Jesus H. Christ.

And further, these points have no relevance whatsoever, and the very fact that you are agreeing with Mav leads me to suspect that you may be some kind of sock puppet

And would you like to explain to me where exactly I have been proven wrong...? Since I am so stupid, I obviously need a little help. Please, outline the arguments, in easy, bite-sized pieces, so my tiny little brain can handle them one at a time.

If you knew how to read, it would help a lot, but since you don't I'm not wasting my time, especially for a troll. And do you seriously believe that a word that is plural doesn't mean having more than one? THAT should show your intelligence.. And sock puppet? Really? You might wanna go back and read it a bit more. We made the same argument individually. Think before you type.

[Bullets McDeath]

This shoes thing is a new retarded low. Having a pair of shoes does not imply four shoes. You wouldn't say I have a "pair of shoe"... due to a complex bit of language known as "pluarl". They teach it around Kindergarden. You may now return to your regularly scheduled nonsense.



::re-flees thread::

[Obtusifolius]

joey_mork84 wrote...

Obtusifolius wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

Actually, Maviarab is right. You can have one shoe, two shoes, or four in the case of a 'pair of shoes'. Same with a 'pair of pants'. Flaws of the English language are so much fun to exploit.. especially now

Why not five shoes, why not six? Where in the phrase is it implied that 'shoes' means 2 shoes? Jesus H. Christ.

And further, these points have no relevance whatsoever, and the very fact that you are agreeing with Mav leads me to suspect that you may be some kind of sock puppet

And would you like to explain to me where exactly I have been proven wrong...? Since I am so stupid, I obviously need a little help. Please, outline the arguments, in easy, bite-sized pieces, so my tiny little brain can handle them one at a time.

If you knew how to read, it would help a lot, but since you don't I'm not wasting my time, especially for a troll. And do you seriously believe that a word that is plural doesn't mean having more than one? THAT should show your intelligence.. And sock puppet? Really? You might wanna go back and read it a bit more. We made the same argument individually. Think before you type.

Yes, the fact that a word is plural means there is more than one. Here you go, nice and easy for you.

Shoe. (noun, singular)
Shoes (noun, plural - modifier 's')
Pair of shoes (noun, plural, modifier 's'; and a further modifier, 'pair', to specify the number)

I am saying to you, how do you know 'shoes' means two, not three, or even four? Why must the word shoes necessarily mean two shoes? That is where you ****ed up royally, my irritating little chum.

Try and use your brain before accusing me of misreading things.

Edit: And the sock puppet comment sprang from my disbelief that two people can truly be this stupid.

Oh, and your definition of a troll seems to be 'someone who disagrees with me and has the cheek to present coherent arguments'. You may want to check it out, even Urban Dictionary probably has a better definition.

Also... you still haven't shown me exactly where I got proved wrong.

Modifié par Obtusifolius, 20 mars 2010 - 07:09 .