Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Click here for the latest news
Post Reply
User avatar
thirtythr33
Editorial Inquisition
Posts: 1236
Joined: 12 Aug 2015, 03:23

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by thirtythr33 » 09 Jul 2017, 09:30

OOoooo website updates.
"O happy dagger!
This is thy sheath; there rust, and let me die."

- Juliet Capulet
User avatar
Korbel
Standard Bearer
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Apr 2015, 12:09
Location: Poland

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by Korbel » 09 Jul 2017, 10:04

thirtythr33 wrote:OOoooo website updates.
Not funny. At first I was like: "oooh man I'm seeing stars I'm gonna pass out gooddbye world!". Few seconds later I'm still online with the world, so I've started blaming the displaying device. Thank you for that, Grand Heresy. Not funny.
User avatar
Agamemnon
Grand Master
Posts: 1032
Joined: 05 Jan 2013, 13:59
Contact:

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by Agamemnon » 09 Jul 2017, 11:39

Korbel wrote:
thirtythr33 wrote:OOoooo website updates.
Not funny. At first I was like: "oooh man I'm seeing stars I'm gonna pass out gooddbye world!". Few seconds later I'm still online with the world, so I've started blaming the displaying device. Thank you for that, Grand Heresy. Not funny.
You'll forgive us later, when you see the character creation material. :D
Sword and Scoundrel: On Role-Playing and Fantasy Obscura

Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife — chopping off what’s incomplete and saying: "Now it’s complete because it’s ended here."
Collected Sayings of Muad’Dib, the Princess Irulan
User avatar
nemedeus
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: 20 Jan 2016, 12:53

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by nemedeus » 09 Jul 2017, 16:16

Agamemnon wrote: You'll forgive us later, when you see the character creation material. :D
My mouth is watering already
"First Rule of War Club: Don't fight in the War Room" - Clint Eastwood, 1920
User avatar
thirtythr33
Editorial Inquisition
Posts: 1236
Joined: 12 Aug 2015, 03:23

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by thirtythr33 » 10 Jul 2017, 21:00

More sweet website updates!

Typo: On the home page under CINEMATIC, LETHAL COMBAT is missing "of" before HEMA.
"O happy dagger!
This is thy sheath; there rust, and let me die."

- Juliet Capulet
User avatar
Agamemnon
Grand Master
Posts: 1032
Joined: 05 Jan 2013, 13:59
Contact:

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by Agamemnon » 10 Jul 2017, 22:11

thirtythr33 wrote:More sweet website updates!

Typo: On the home page under CINEMATIC, LETHAL COMBAT is missing "of" before HEMA.
Sharp-eyed as ever.

The landing page has been updated, the Company About page has been updated. Next I need to do the full-length Sword & Scoundrel page.
Sword and Scoundrel: On Role-Playing and Fantasy Obscura

Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife — chopping off what’s incomplete and saying: "Now it’s complete because it’s ended here."
Collected Sayings of Muad’Dib, the Princess Irulan
User avatar
nemedeus
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: 20 Jan 2016, 12:53

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by nemedeus » 11 Jul 2017, 11:28

All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the character is as much as what they are.
i honestly feel the italics here make no sense. how about this instead:
All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the character is as much as what they are.
"First Rule of War Club: Don't fight in the War Room" - Clint Eastwood, 1920
User avatar
Agamemnon
Grand Master
Posts: 1032
Joined: 05 Jan 2013, 13:59
Contact:

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by Agamemnon » 11 Jul 2017, 12:30

nemedeus wrote:
All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the character is as much as what they are.
i honestly feel the italics here make no sense. how about this instead:
All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the character is as much as what they are.
We've gone back and forth on this issue, amusingly enough. Who/What seems more apparent, but I keep being told is/are is more grammatically correct for what we're doing. I've officially given up on the topic, however, and just de-italicized either until we can find an English teacher or someone to approach.
Sword and Scoundrel: On Role-Playing and Fantasy Obscura

Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife — chopping off what’s incomplete and saying: "Now it’s complete because it’s ended here."
Collected Sayings of Muad’Dib, the Princess Irulan
User avatar
nemedeus
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: 20 Jan 2016, 12:53

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by nemedeus » 11 Jul 2017, 13:57

Agamemnon wrote: We've gone back and forth on this issue, amusingly enough. Who/What seems more apparent, but I keep being told is/are is more grammatically correct for what we're doing. I've officially given up on the topic, however, and just de-italicized either until we can find an English teacher or someone to approach.
gonna lean out of the window a bit and say anyone who says that the "is/are" would be grammatically more correct (whatever that is supposed to mean) don't quite know what they're talking about.
italics are for emphasis. i can emphasise any word in a sentence, the is no grammar to this. and think about what you're emphasising: who/what delivers the point of the sentence. is/are = literally the same word.
if someone would, in direct speech, emphasise the is/are, I do believe i would look at them incredulously and think they're trying to make fun of me :/
"First Rule of War Club: Don't fight in the War Room" - Clint Eastwood, 1920
User avatar
Benedict
Standard Bearer
Posts: 1027
Joined: 23 May 2016, 09:52

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by Benedict » 11 Jul 2017, 16:54

Agamemnon wrote:Who/What seems more apparent, but I keep being told is/are is more grammatically correct for what we're doing.
nemedeus wrote:who/what delivers the point of the sentence. is/are = literally the same word.
Agamemnon is correct. The obvious thing would be to say that who/what is the subject, is/are is the verb, hence the action. You want emphasis on the action, not the subject. By emphasizing the action, you emphasize the subject as well. While the reverse (emphasize the subject to emphasize its action) is not true. Subtle difference, but its there. :)

Also there is deepest issue grammatically speaking. Let's see the phrase.

"All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the character is as much as what they are. "

Who is the subject? Grand Heresy (implied)
What is the action? Keeping an emphasis on.
What are the objects of this action? who the character is as much as what they are. Two objects: who they are and what they are. Both defined by their respective actions. That's why grammatically the correct thing is to emphasize the action of each respective object.

Basically its the difference between Language Rank 3 and Language Rank 4 according to 'Bastards. ;)
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
― Touchstone
User avatar
nemedeus
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: 20 Jan 2016, 12:53

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by nemedeus » 11 Jul 2017, 17:49

Benedict wrote: Basically its the difference between Language Rank 3 and Language Rank 4 according to 'Bastards. ;)
but... come on dude. the way it was before both LOOKS and SOUNDS* just... just silly, really.

* as in, the way it sounds in my head when i read it


And also:
The obvious thing would be to say that who/what is the subject, is/are is the verb, hence the action. You want emphasis on the action, not the subject. By emphasizing the action, you emphasize the subject as well.
[citation needed]
"First Rule of War Club: Don't fight in the War Room" - Clint Eastwood, 1920
User avatar
Agamemnon
Grand Master
Posts: 1032
Joined: 05 Jan 2013, 13:59
Contact:

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by Agamemnon » 11 Jul 2017, 18:50

nemedeus wrote:
Benedict wrote: Basically its the difference between Language Rank 3 and Language Rank 4 according to 'Bastards. ;)
but... come on dude. the way it was before both LOOKS and SOUNDS* just... just silly, really.

* as in, the way it sounds in my head when i read it


And also:
The obvious thing would be to say that who/what is the subject, is/are is the verb, hence the action. You want emphasis on the action, not the subject. By emphasizing the action, you emphasize the subject as well.
[citation needed]
His explanation is close to verbatim what I was told by someone else. So either Benedict is a sock-puppet for a cutie redhead girl, or they are working from the same playbook. Regardless, I've now rearranged that portion in such a fashion that it's moot.
Sword and Scoundrel: On Role-Playing and Fantasy Obscura

Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife — chopping off what’s incomplete and saying: "Now it’s complete because it’s ended here."
Collected Sayings of Muad’Dib, the Princess Irulan
User avatar
nemedeus
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: 20 Jan 2016, 12:53

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by nemedeus » 11 Jul 2017, 23:13

Agamemnon wrote: His explanation is close to verbatim what I was told by someone else. So either Benedict is a sock-puppet for a cutie redhead girl, or they are working from the same playbook.
Linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. In that sense, the way i use language, that playbook is bloody useless. I stand by my point that the emphasis as it was before was absurd.
Regardless, I've now rearranged that portion in such a fashion that it's moot.
makes me very happy, the updated wording is much more elegant.

Sorry for nagging so much, hehe...
"First Rule of War Club: Don't fight in the War Room" - Clint Eastwood, 1920
User avatar
Benedict
Standard Bearer
Posts: 1027
Joined: 23 May 2016, 09:52

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by Benedict » 12 Jul 2017, 04:56

Agamemnon wrote:His explanation is close to verbatim what I was told by someone else. So either Benedict is a sock-puppet for a cutie redhead girl, or they are working from the same playbook. Regardless, I've now rearranged that portion in such a fashion that it's moot.
Given that I am happily married for 15 years and that there's probably an ocean between me and that cutie redhead, I'd say chances are slim for the first argument. If that particular playbook is Shakespeare, then I'd say yes, probably we cite from the same source.

The funny thing with language is that it matters what you say as much as how you say it. Yup, that edit is good and to the point.
Nemedeus wrote:but... come on dude. the way it was before both LOOKS and SOUNDS* just... just silly, really.
I'll give you one point, because the previous phrasing was anachronistic, so yes, you'd rarely encounter it. Making it seem silly for modern readers.
Nemedeus wrote:
The obvious thing would be to say that who/what is the subject, is/are is the verb, hence the action. You want emphasis on the action, not the subject. By emphasizing the action, you emphasize the subject as well.
[citation needed]
A formal citation is hard, as I lack any substantial grammar manuals. I've already stated numerous times that I'm not a native English speaker. I simply passed CPE (Cambridge Proficiency Exam; that's CEFR C2 Level) back in '92 with a grade of A. As for my study books they've been donated ages ago. I use English daily for literature and my job (manuals, etc). Sadly I rarely speak English here, as there's no need to. I'd say that my ability is far from perfect, even if my friends (one of them an English teacher in an elementary school) consider me a freak for still reading Shakespeare, Poe, Yeats, and Joyce (to name a few) in original text English - not modern translations - just for kicks. :lol:

The previous passage:

"All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the character is as much as what they are. "

Who (subject): We; implied. Who is we? Grand Heresy.
Action (verb): keep emphasis on.
On What (object): Character (s).
What are the defining features of Object? Two defining features: What he is; Who he is.
Those features are defined by the Object's action: Namely who he IS , and what he IS. Because who and what by themselves mean nothing. They need an associated action to be defined.

That's why you need to italicize the respective verbs (IS/ARE) in this context to emphasize the distinction between the two states: what he is/who he is. :geek:

If I find some time I'll try online for a definite grammar citation from a respectable and recognized source. Still I don't promise anything. :P
Nemedeus wrote:Linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. In that sense, the way i use language, that playbook is bloody useless. I stand by my point that the emphasis as it was before was absurd.
As for linguistics being a descriptive science, I beg to differ. It (linguistics) has way too many rules to be dismissed as only descriptive. At least my experience from studying ancient Greek for 3 years during high school left me that impression. Still this is a debate that falls into the field of philosophy of science, and academics themselves don't agree on that matter even to this day. I guess it's a matter of perspective, more than anything else. :)


But enough is enough with the off-topic and grammar Nazi tactics I say! :lol:
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
― Touchstone
User avatar
thirtythr33
Editorial Inquisition
Posts: 1236
Joined: 12 Aug 2015, 03:23

Re: Sword & Scoundrel - Early Thursday Teaser Edition

Post by thirtythr33 » 12 Jul 2017, 05:55

I don't know much about formal grammar, but as a native English speaker the problem seems to me that the sentence uses a strange combination of plural and singular objects and there are different verbs that have to be used to refer to the same thing differently because of that. Consider:

"All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the characters are as much as what the characters are."
"All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the character is as much as what the character is. "
In either of these sentences it would be extremely strange to put the emphasis to the same word twice. To me it's obvious that the purpose of the sentence is to draw attention to the distinction between who and what, not the distinction between is and are. In this context, there really is no distinction between is and are except whether or not is acceptable to be used on a plural or singular object.

When you try to substitute they for a repetition of the object, you run into trouble because "they are" is acceptable and "they is" is not, because they (almost always) refers to a plural. The singular ways to say it would be "he or she is" or "it is" but they are also both clumsy for other reasons. This all stems from the fact English doesn't have a word for referring to a singular person of unknown gender ("it" is considered demeaning to a human and "he or she" is clumsy) and "they" often has to substitute to try to repair an otherwise broken sentence.

So I would write the sentence as:
"All of this while keeping an emphasis on who the characters are as much as what they are."

Or if you wanted to remove the repeated reference to the same object, you can rearrange to:
"All of this while keeping the emphasis on who as much as what the characters are."
Or
"All of this while keeping an emphasis on who as much as what the character is."

Or throw out the sentence and start over as Agamemnon did. :roll:
"O happy dagger!
This is thy sheath; there rust, and let me die."

- Juliet Capulet
Post Reply