Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Thanks for the upper-class English lesson, Delph. If I see this stuff in my Honors English 2 class, I'll be sure to inform you
Seriously, the plosive/neutral naming convention sounds very interesting and variable as opposed to just searching up names off the internet.
QUOTE (Delphi @ Jun 23 2010, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Plus, who can argue with metal guitarists who play like they were sired on Mount Olympus? I mean, really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KKFoEI0kss - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZ2dJbHQFA - Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAo8BBrU9Ps - Part 3 The Odyssey, metal-style.
I find the problem with stuff like nickelback compared with metal is more to do with musical complexity than lyrics. Nickelback will bore me on top of its general depressing nature. Even metal which may have "dark" lyrics and sound, still has musical complexity and I can listen to it more than once without getting bored.
On a side note, I tend not to listen to lyrics. Its not voluntary, I just don't pay attention. Could explain why I'm not a fan of most rap or most of the current top-40.
This post has been edited by LNSU : 23 June 2010 - 11:53 AM
QUOTE (Templar98921 @ Jun 23 2010, 07:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The most uplifting song in the world isn't metal, though.
That naming guide is really useful, as I've been falling into the nounverber trap a little too often recently. Also, you think about this a lot. ._. You doing linguistics?
I've never once taken a linguistics course. I derive a lot of my knowledge from a brief smattering of the history of languages; the long transition from Latin to English and all the little changes that happened along the way. My knowledge is in no way comprehensive, but the things you pick up along the way help you tenfold in understanding.
Eventually, you find yourself almost annoyingly cutting up complex words and finding their origins. For instance, the English-language word "nomenclature", which basically means "name", comes from the Latin roots "nomen" and "clatura", which mean "name" and "calling/summoning", respectively. "Clatura" comes from a deeper root "calare", which directly means "to call".
The majority of English words have surface-level Latin origins, some of which are easily deciphered. Heck, in that sentence alone, we have "majority" which comes from the Latin "magnus", meaning "great", as well as "origin", which comes from the Latin "origo"/"oriri", meaning "to rise". Eventually you just spot these as they appear...
...and it will drive you nuts.
Heh, English is driving me insane already. I know a sentence is wrong when I find it doesn't make any sense if you say it aloud--now I know specifically what should be wrong. Or should know--I'm forcing myself to eject what I don't need to know for now and learn it all again when school comes back around. sigh
QUOTE (king_of_manticores @ Jun 23 2010, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
One of the best things I ever learned was sentence diagramming. You can seriously use the tactic to purposely choose a writing level, whether you're penning a grade 2 children's book, or a university paper. Learning how the actual syntax beneath the English language works is mind-blowing and absolutely enlightening.
There's a guy on YouTube who shows the basics of it. I'd highly recommend sitting down and giving it a shot some time. I also have pages upon pages of notes from my university English class if you ever want them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeHhFuxw_5w
Actually, as an English teacher, I hate sentence diagramming with a passion. The problem is that it teaches grammar prescriptively and it does not allow for how a word functions in a sentence as opposed to what kind of word it generally is. I'm actually in the process of publishing a book that takes an entirely new and rather radical approach to grammar education, using a descriptive approach built for native speakers.
The whole, "I know a sentence is wrong if it sounds wrong," is good if you're dealing with sentences that are in your native dialect, but it's not a good method if you're dealing with American Standard English as a whole. Take the phrase, "Let's do lunch." Makes perfect sense, right? You know that I am asking you to a meeting over a meal? Yet, according to all prescriptive grammar rules, this is terrible, since lunch is not a task that can be performed. This is why we need to start taking a descriptive approach to grammar and lexography. Lexography has always been descriptive, and as such the Oxford English Dictionary adds dozens of words each year. Yet grammar, which really has also always been descriptive, has been taught prescriptively for a long time.
Now, sentence diagramming could be taught in a way that teaches function of words over prescriptive lists of words and what they are, but it still can't effectively teach the relationship between words in the sentence. This is especially important because of how much context plays a role in languages that are as blended as English is.
Choosing a writing level is more about register than about sentence structure. Register of language is the word choice, grammatical decisions, and tone that are applied in different situations. For example, most people would use significantly different language with the high school principal in his office than with their friend while smoking cigarettes back behind the tool shop. There would probably be a notable difference in word choice, as well as formality of tone.
I would agree wholeheartedly that learning phonetics and etymology are absolutely wonderful and essential for excellent writing. I make a concerted effort to make students study the composition of words, breaking them down and figuring their meaning. Our language is so incredibly diverse, latin is only a part of it. Most of our prefixes and suffixes are Latin or Anglicized Latin or Greek, but there is a great deal of French in our vocabulary as well as Germanic origins. In great irony, some of the earliest words of English are some of our most taboo. I have a feeling I would be censored here to state them explicitly, but they're made of mostly four letters. Take a guess.
Linguistics in general is quite a fascinating study, truth be told. Delphi, I wonder, would you sympathize with Tolkien's statement that the invention of the languages of Middle Earth came first, and that the stories grew out of the linguistics?
I would absolutely agree with you. Language seems to be just a facet attached to humanity and the definition thereof, but has such deeper underpinnings in psyche than most ever realize. In the same way that math is a language, imagine a number system without the concept of zero. Now perhaps imagine a culture that never defines the number four. Such a culture would likely never entertain the idea of a four-sided building, simply because the definition for what that is does not exist in their language. The most complex version of this, of course, has different cultures from different languages experiencing favoritism for specifics within their spoken word. In this, I mean that a language using primarily what they define as "feminine" terms will likely gravitate toward a more elegant style of both speaking and the entire culture that arises from such. Conversely, a society based upon harsh, guttural language is more likely to pursue brash industrialism, and possibly even conquest. It simply makes sense; if you spend all day using hard language, you will develop a hard edge to your personality. These traits are carried across the entire civilization, and so they create a reality based around their spoken description of the world.
For easier comparison, it's easy enough to contrast a constant curser against a well-spoken man. Through his speech and consequent mannerisms, the curser is more likely to fall in among like individuals, forming a micro-society in which "offensive" language is not necessarily defined and even less-so enforced with punishment. The dignified man will similarly join together with other people speaking the same way, and soon an obvious division occurs between the two original men. Such is the way that nations begin: cultures polarize and separate, eventually becoming territorial in the efforts of preserving their accepted way of speech and behavior.
On a different note, I do understand your position on prescriptive grammar, but at the same time I think it should be noted that phrases such as "let's do lunch" are idiomatic to begin with, using substitution and derivation to deliver their meaning and side-stepping traditional grammar structure. To take the origin of the phrase, probably just "let us have lunch", you'll find the prescriptive grammar functioning just fine. Another way of looking at it is to attach idiomatic meaning to the word "lunch", implying that it is an action that can be participated in, the same way you would say "let's go run". It could also be an example of a clause simply contracted into the phrase itself, the original being something like "let's do this ", where 'this' is a stand-in for the action of partaking in a luncheon.
Of course, I'll still take your word over mine any day. I would never argue with a professional in the matter, when I am far from such a degree of learnedness. Suffice it to say, though, the English language is characteristically broken as the result of idiom and exception over rule.
After all, it's common knowledge that you can spell fish as "ghoti".
Oh, quite right. The fact that English is and has always been quite idiomatic is precisely why grammar should be descriptive and not prescriptive. There are some underlying rules about word usage, but these are always about word function and not word form. You're entirely correct as to why "let's do lunch," works perfectly in conversation. It is fully a derivation where lunch functions as the direct object, despite the fact that do is a verb that cannot take a direct object according to traditional English grammar. But, due to the idiomatic nature of English, both American Standard and all subdialects, or other forms of English, the idiom has become a part of the language in common register and thus, grammatically fine in that it does not impede communication.
"Jabberwocky," by Lewis Carroll, is a great exemplification of how function of word and context clues offers us a great understanding of entirely made-up nonsense words simply due to their placements. I wouldn't say that the language is broken by the idiomatic tendency, but rather simply evolved by it as it always has. Some changes stick, and some do not. No more clearly illustrated is this than in word meaning and popularity. Several words invented by Shakespeare are still in use today, as are their common meanings, while others that were quite popular and well understood are completely foreign to the modern tongue.
Even text messaging is rapidly changing the language significantly. How do I truthfully tell a kid that lol is grammatically incorrect when they use it in language constantly? Only by appropriate register. It is appropriate for text conversation shorthand, but not in a formal paper.
This post has been edited by krugeruwsp : 27 June 2010 - 10:00 AM
@krugeruwsp When I am composing essays, I tend to give my best attempts on grammar and spelling. Out of English papers, because grammatical and spelling correctness gets monotonous after a while, I will use chatroom terms and bad grammar to relieve my boredom. I will say "lol" or "FTW", use smiley faces, etc.
That's strange, manticore. I didn't realize this forum was an English paper.
king_of_manicores is doing what we all do instictively as native speakers of a language: adapting his register to the accepted general language of the setting. Around here, we tend to frown upon bad spelling or poor grammar, and people make that known when someone violates that unwritten rule. We are not so formal, however, as to never end a sentence with a preposition or to frown upon a person who begins a sentence with a coordinating conjunction.
I hate to change the subject, but that's not all I'm changing at the moment.
I didn't quite like having a massive über ship as my përs ship. So, Delphi, if it's alright with you, I'd like to switch to this smaller destroyer class vessel. It's 200 meters wide and roughly 140 meters long.
Wyvern Sketchup File
That's not a problem, DarthKev. I've always liked slightly smaller personalized vessels myself, anyway. Impressive though they may be, giant cannon-laden behemoths just don't maneuver very well (most of the time, the Raven excluded), and should usually be considered specialty ships at best, not designed for general everyday use. In Delphi, of course, the bigger vessels you fly will be adaptable to whatever you need them to do, but even still they won't be winning any races. Then again, when you can shoot every competitor out of the sky in a hellfire of hot, painful death, why bother racing?
Either way though, I'd be happy to take that design and make it into something for the game, if you're fine with general modification. Right now it just looks a little bit distorted because of the model stretching, but I can work with it nonetheless.
Would you like it in Enclave, NDC, or custom fleet colors?
The Enclave use white/silver ships, while the NDC use the usual slightly-cobalt gunmetal grey paint. I can even give it a custom job if you want. Materials-based editing has its benefits when it comes to color-changing.
Also, I thought of a neat idea the other day in Bryce that may make ship decals easier than the method I was using before (2D image models aligned to the hull). Because Bryce works on boolean rendering principles, that means you can tell the engine to intersect two models, causing one to erase the other and yet deposit its surface material in the area you erased. If I create some extra model pieces in SketchUp that match the shape of areas of the hull I want to cut out (lights, windows, weapon ports, etc.), I should be able to import both separate models into Bryce, texturing one with the surface detail and the other with the base texture. If I make the detail object invisible for rendering purposes, but also tell it to transfer material where it touches the base model, it should basically paint its surface texture into that location, making it appear on the regular model.
In practice, it means I could paint a massive Enclave emblem on the side of a vessel by giving the ship the regular white metal texture, and intersecting the giant emblem as an embossed 3D model into the place I want it to appear. Click the checkbox that tells it to transfer boolean material, and then make the model transparent, and all that should be left is the emblem on the side of the ship. In theory, at least. I will have to experiment. I've got a lot of ships still waiting for texturing exactly because of this and a few other techniques I have yet to test. I don't want to have to go back and redo every ship every time I make a new one just because I come up with some new trick. I'll be handling most of the texturing in one fell swoop.
I think I'd like Enclave colors (mostly silver) with deep sapphire blue stripes on the wings, so kinda custom. Also, you should know that big hole in the front (between the 'pincers' and under the cockpit pieces) is supposed to be an internal flight deck. Though it's now a destroyer, the Wyvern is still designed to carry a few fighters and landing craft. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit.
I actually considered lengthening it or narrowing it for a while, but decided against it as I thought it would look too much like a fighter or mothership.
Boolean Modelling is the best thing ever. No exceptions.
How often do you make a new component? And did you make most of components in one go or spread it out and make new ones when you needed them?
EDIT: What should/could I contribute to get a përs as well? Or even just show you a design or two that I made as far as enclave ships?
This post has been edited by Sp3cies : 03 July 2010 - 04:34 PM
QUOTE (Sp3cies @ Jul 3 2010, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Getting a përs is easy. Just give me a workable ship that I can put you in. Albeit, make sure there's some effort put into it. Though I'll make it anyway, I'd at least like to see an example of real creativity. Don't just make a Borg cube.
Also, to answer your first question: most of the components actually resulted from careful salvaging of previous rejected models. I would create something that started off good and then ended up as a disaster because of different creativity between different days, but there'll usually be a piece or two that I can rip out and use as a chunk of a ship somewhere else. Since a couple months ago, I've created almost no new pieces, save for a few modified ones just to trim edges and improve how certain elements fit with others.
Even the very unique-looking Enclave ships are built out of the same parts list as the NDC cruisers. It's just about getting creative and not being afraid to hide model parts inside each other. Sometimes, I'll copy and paste one of those elaborate ribcage/spinal pieces just to bury it 95% in the model and then remove the hidden details later; only a small portion of the piece actually factors into the final look. It's like a cross between building a junkyard car and making a LEGO set. Imagine if you could purchase all the pieces for a car and then some, and just start hacking and slashing until you get the desired effect. You bring an entire door home and then rip it apart just to take the servo from the automatic window, which you use somewhere entirely unorthodox on the final product. It's just trial, error, and experimentation.
This post has been edited by Delphi : 03 July 2010 - 08:19 PM
Speaking of shipbuilding, I've got a new one basically finished, and a sister vessel in the works (similar hull, different superstructure). The Kevilan (KEH-vil-in) Class Destroyer is a semi-specialized anti-cruiser vehicle. It has only a modest weapon array, but participates comfortably in combat thanks to an overpowered refractor shield which lends it protection from all but the deadliest nuclear artillery strikes. The ship is extremely robust and simple in form and function, keeping production costs low, but this has had the unexpected effect of making it easy to duplicate from stolen plans and parts. As a result, the Kevilan is the choice light combat vessel of both the Enclave Colonies and the treacherous Pariah Combine. Several voidspace groups favor the ship for its easily-gutted design, letting them fill the hull with smuggled goods and more powerful armaments. Because of its dangerously advanced design and uncontrolled distribution, the Kevilan has a certain degree of notoriety.
In short, the Kevilan is basically the AK-47 of the Delphi universe. It's cheap, it's dangerous, and all the wrong people have it.
There'll be a couple different flavors for the Kevilan in the game, according to the different modifications each government has made to it. The NDC is the only organization that doesn't use this ship, opting for their own unique flavor of firepower. You'll still be able to purchase it, of course. You'll just have to fly to a system that sells it, most of which aren't too far from NDC space.
I'd also like to thank DarthKev, whose recent ship has prompted me to create a couple of flying-wing craft.
It's busy in here today.
QUOTE (Delphi @ Jul 3 2010, 06:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Don't just make a Borg cube.
Unless you put in the greebles yourself rather than texture it.
QUOTE (Delphi @ Jul 3 2010, 07:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<detailed explanation of Kevilan Class Destroyer>
Nice one! Very stylish! Was the 'arrowhead' design intentional or did it just sort of happen? There's nothing wrong with it, it's just the first thing I think of when I see it.
QUOTE
Glad to be of help. If you need any other ideas, don't hesitate to ask!
This post has been edited by DarthKev : 03 July 2010 - 09:53 PM