Profile for Slarty
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Slarty |
| Member number | 261 |
| Title | Raven v. Writing Desk |
| Postcount | 3560 |
| Homepage | http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/slartyvsdesk/ |
| Registered | Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Terror's Martyr University is Revamped in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, January 28 2006 15:21
Profile
Homepage
Very nice, TM. Thumbs up. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| What will come after Avernum4 for Windows? in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 27 2006 22:20
Profile
Homepage
Yeah, I was hoping you weren't going to say KoL. I like KoL, but find it very annoying that you aren't allowed to proceed at your own pace. I follow the binge/purge model of gaming, I guess. It also gets kind of repetitive at times... LL: What, Geneforge doesn't count as wandering away from typical fantasy? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| What will come after Avernum4 for Windows? in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 27 2006 19:33
Profile
Homepage
Where do you go for comic adventuring, Dikiyoba? I haven't seen much out there, I'm curious if you've found anything especially cool. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Romeo and Juliet. Thoughts? in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 14:32
Profile
Homepage
I'm a big fan of Titus Andronicus. And Hamlet. Apparently, I like the bloody ones... -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 13:04
Profile
Homepage
Mr. Salmon, you speak wisdom. I have one really important question... is "jezus Bok" something in Dutch, or is there now a Christian Vahnatai conspiracy? I knew "Vahnatai Creationism" sounded fishy... :confused: About the words Nephilim and Nepharim... it seems reasonable that words like those could have irregular plurals, since they are important and unique. Personally, I always figured that they were words created by humans, either based on misapprehending something a nephil said, or some kind of mage language name for the kitties. quote:*facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* Thralni, you do realize that the only reason I was arguing with you about this was because you said its genitive was only used for possession? OY. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 09:44
Profile
Homepage
Aaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!!! Thralni, I am not discussing the genitive further unless you do one of two things: 1) Do what Kelandon asked. Find a book about English grammar which is written in Dutch and report the name of the case of the personal pronoun "my". 2) Do what I asked. Give me a citation for a book or a scholarly article stating that in Sumerian the genitive is only used for possession. That way, I can go look it up in the research archives at the university. It doesn't need to be online. (And if the book or article is not in English, that's fine too.) quote:!!!!!! Finite and non-finite are just classifications of different forms of the same verb. This is like talking about "present tense verbs" and "past tense verbs" as two totally different sets of lexical entries, which they are not. They are just different forms of the same verb! The problem is that transitive verbs and intransitive verbs are two different groups of verbs. Regular verbs and irregular verbs are two different groups of verbs. Finite and infinite verbs are two different groups of particular verb forms... but you can't logically separate out types of verbs after you separate out verb forms. Once you separate out groups of verb forms, you are no longer dealing with entire verbs, you are dealing with verb forms! Furthermore... looking at the verb page, it seems that your explanation of what finite and non-finite verbs are is really misleading. A verb form is classified as "finite" or "non-finite" based on the presence of markers specifying person, number, gender, and so on. It does not matter whether the markers are prefixes or suffixes or pronouns! In English, the suffixes are mostly other information. In Nephilian, however, they are always part of the suffixes! Perfect evidence of this confusion is in your table showing how a finite verb is constructed. How can a finite verbal form be an infinitive? That is a contradiction. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 13:40
Profile
Homepage
Sigh. Okay, a few points: 1) Nobody's attacking you. If you don't want any more feedback, then when you post that you have updated the site, I suggest you specify that you don't want feedback. Otherwise, please stop responding to my questions by saying "it's under construction." If it's really *that* unfinished, why are you publicizing it? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer :) 2) Almost any book about ancient near eastern language is written for a specialized audience. General overviews are no exceptions. First-year graduate students in such a field are expected to have (or to very quickly pick up) a WEALTH of knowledge on the subject that 99.99% of the world does not have. It is absurd for you to claim that any material giving technical details about the language is written for a general audience. It's not. (For what it's worth, grad students at uofc aren't even allowed to take Sumerian until they have had a year of Akkadian; the faculty feels the scholarship is significantly more obscure to a newcomer.) 3) I am a little confused about this persistent disagreement over the genitive. I assume your mother knows what she's talking about, but it's strange that my sources disagree. Is it possible that this is some kind of discrepancy between English and Dutch? Alternately, can you point me to a bibliographic reference to a book, article, whatever which states that Sumerian has a genitive which is only used for possession? 4) Source wrote: "including possession, location and composition" You said: "How can it be location? they already have a seperate case for that: the locative! The locative would be made useless if this is true." — ALWAYS, in a language, there is more than one way of expressing the same or similar things. Sometimes, one of these ways is specific to the grammar (like a case). Interrogatives are a really good example: many languages have more than one way of marking an utterance as a question, including those that rely on inserting words, on changing word order, on prosody, and so on. Often, these different ways are mostly interchangeable. Does that render any of them useless? No! Languages are subtle creatures. Semantics interfaces with everything; variations on meaning are infinite. So be careful before you go calling a linguistic structure "useless." 5) Me: "It is probably worth noting that most Indo-European languages are Nom-Acc languages, however, the two terms are NOT the same thing, so talking about the enormous difference between ergative and Indo-European languages is really misleading." Thralni: "I didn't say they are the same thing. What exactly is your point?" — Okay, I will try to be clearer. Quoting from your nouns page: quote:What you go on to contrast here is the difference between an ergative-absolutive language and a nominative-accusative language. However, what you SAY you are contrasting is the difference between an ergative language and "a standard Indo-European language." Basically you say the above phrase in place of saying "a nom-acc language" — very misleading. It's extra misleading because there exist Indo-European languages that are partially ergative. Hindi and Urdu, which are ergative-absolutive in certain situations, are one well-known example. 6) "I thought the chart would be clear enough. What I mean is, is that the irregular verbs, like the transitive and intransitive verbs, form a seperate sub-group in the bipartite-group." — EVERY verb is either transitive, or intransitive. EVERY verb is either regular, or irregular. They are two binary features which are completely unrelated. Your chart clearly suggests that if a verb is irregular, it isn't transitive or intransitive. 7) Now that you have explained the meaning of bipartite/multipartite, the names make more sense. It's still a really weird naming convention, and I am confused as to what the discrepancy between those two types of verbs is supposed to add to the language, anyway. --slartucker -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Website moved to 50megs.com! in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 10:01
Profile
Homepage
Eldibs, erhaps this has been discussed in another thread, but why in the world are you boycotting GameFAQs? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 08:53
Profile
Homepage
Regarding our assertion that the genitive has wider uses, Thralni asked: "Then how come I don't see anything about it in already two or three books?" My guess would be that you are reading highly technical books about languages like Sumerian and Hurrian, which are read by a very tiny pool of highly specialized scholars! They probably assume a broad base of knowledge both about the ancient near east and about general linguistics. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 08:49
Profile
Homepage
"You clearly didn't get it. The verb part is an introduction." — If it's an introduction, then Kel's criticism is even more relevant. The intro is supposed to be clear and easy to understand. If it's confusing, your full text is probably doomed, and you should really fix the introduction before moving on to the more detailed work. "The cases. Sigh. Look, I already wrote that that might change as I first will have to experiment with these grammar parts, and modify the cases when necessary." — Thralni, you ask us for feedback, and then when you get it you deflect it by saying everything is going to change anyway. If you're not ready to get the feedback yet don't ask for it. "There are other languages in which it may be different." — Not really. While there are of course differences in how cases are used, the case names are NOT language-specific and are applied based on which one fits best. "I have been looking in books about Sumerian and Hurrian to see how they do it. In Sumerian it is not done as you say, also in Hurrian it is not as say it is." — NOT TRUE. I don't know about Hurrian, but for Sumerian see for example this partial grammar, which states (my italics): "the genitive case codes any relation between two noun phrases, including possession, location and composition as well as a variety of extended syntactic functions." But I am skeptical, with Kel, that Hurrian scholars would possibly call it the genitive if it is only used for possessive functions! "I don't understand the fact that you don't seem to understand what I mean, although others whome I asked to look and read what I wrote (people who know less about linguistics) seemd to understand it enough to know what I'm talking about." — Well, we are used to precision in describing language. We understand the basic gist of what you are saying as much as anyone else. However, if you want to produce a grammar that people can use to translate into or out of Nephilian, people will need to get more than just the basic gist! They have to understand the details, too. Looking at the anatomy of a cat's mouth sounds like a cool idea. Don't forget, though, that nephils in A1-4 seem to be capable of producing most English words with minimal phonetic alterations, so their mouth probably isn't too different from a human's. Thralni, I think some of the confusion in your writing is not caused by bad understanding of English, but simply by sloppy translating! In your nouns page by the part on [a] and [ina] markers, you say: "Some cases can only be used with animate, some only with animate, and some with both." I think what you meant to say is "Some NOUNS can only be used with animate, some only with INANIMATE, and some with both." This is a small error, but these small errors ruin a grammar! Nouns page comments: It is probably worth noting that most Indo-European languages are Nom-Acc languages, however, the two terms are NOT the same thing, so talking about the enormous difference between ergative and Indo-European languages is really misleading. Verbs: If I understand you right, the difference between "bipartite" and "multipartite" verbs is that multipartites have 4 possible suffixes, whereas bipartites have 3 -- the person and number suffixes are combined into one. Right? In that case why the HECK are they called BIpartite and MULTIpartite? Like Kel said, you need to stop using postposition. A suffix that indicates person, number, tense, or voice is presumably not ever used as its own word in a sentence, so it is not a postposition! Pro-dropped subjects are not postpositions, either! It seems weird to me that you are using pro-drop on the SUBJECT despite making the language ergative-absolutive. I guess that would make the language one that employs partial ergativity. This is one of the few ways in which ergative languages really *are* messier. Also, in the chart, it looks like you are saying irregular verbs are neither transitive nor intransitive. Is that true? Because that makes no sense! "The difference between the normal bipartite-group and irregular verbs, is the way the stem and the ending are formed. The stem changes, and the ending adapts to that, sometimes getting totally different verbs in comparison to the infinitive." — Totally different verbs?!? Do you mean "different-looking endings"? This is *really* unclear. If you don't want to explain it better in the introduction, you are better served by just referring the reader to a later section. That last sentence is spectacularly confusing. "Only the four most necessary tenses exist." — That's a bit of a value judgment. Also, it seems counterintuitive that aspect is only used for the past tense, not for present or future. ...Slartucker, who hopes that his comments are helpful, but fears that they are not -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| What will come after Avernum4 for Windows? in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, January 24 2006 20:02
Profile
Homepage
"I've seen a lot of stinkers, (i.e. The Adventures of Blork) but you also have games like Earthbound which manage to be a bit off beat without making you cringe." Blork, of course, was a strictly amateur one-person effort, whereas EarthBound had a very well-staffed big-name video game studio behind it, plus it was a sequel that took most of its creative ideas from the first game. Jeff has consistently proven himself as a super one-man studio... whatever the failings of the recent games, I think a comedy effort on his part would end up being a real gem. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, January 24 2006 05:46
Profile
Homepage
No harsh back of throat sounds? What, they can't cough up hairballs? :) 'My father told me about Hurrian: "Most students can easily translate a text after about nine weeks of taking courses." We are talking here about the more difficult texts, and not "Aenaes Trojanus est" stuff.' Presumably your father is also talking about graduate students, all of whom (1) are pretty intelligent, and (2) have had previous training in languages. And I am a little skeptical that it is the more difficult texts -- the more difficult texts for any ancient near eastern language are going to involve ambiguities related to lect, these are the sorts of things that professors spend days analyzing and write papers ardently defending one interpretation or the other. Also, *nobody* is going to spend many hours per day for nine weeks learning to translate Nephilian, so I'm not sure how the comparison is useful... Perhaps it would be good to take one step back. I have a question. What do YOU want to get out of the language? If you want other spidwebbers to use or enjoy it, you have to be able to communicate it PRECISELY, as I commented earlier. As you observe, it is harder for you to explain things in English. So, what do you propose to do about that? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, January 23 2006 13:12
Profile
Homepage
"In the middle east they pronounce the H as a G. I have been in Isreal enough times to know that." I don't know what you're talking about here either, as far as Semitic languages go (and I -have- studied them). As for "the middle east" -- you're making a ridiculously broad claim above ("in the middle east" does not equal "in Israel")! Here's the thing -- H and G are really, really, REALLY different sounds. (I assume you are talking about a hard G like in "game" (the stop).) Try making them one after the other and pay attention to what your vocal chords feel like, where you are putting your tongue, put your hand in front of your mouth and see if the air coming out feels different... they have very little in common! "I want your opinion, your advice, whatever. I want to know what you generally think of the language (at least the part that is finished)." I think it's great that you are working on the language, and there are a number of ideas you've had that I think are very fitting and cool (the animate vs. inanimate gendering, for example). However, in general, I think you are reaching WAY TOO FAR. You have given yourself a very ambitious project, and you are reaching for complications that you don't totally understand. How can you expect yourself to come up with a complete pronounciation system when you haven't learned about phonetics? It's silly. And with nouns and verbs, you implement things that you read about in other languages and that seem cool to you, without understanding all of the implications of those things. The result is a pile of cases and grammatical rules that are hard for anyone else to understand, and which are occasionally contradictory. My suggestions would be: 1) KEEP IT SIMPLE. Take small steps. Add 1 or 2 things to the language at a time. You will always be able to add more later. Start with a very basic set of cases, tenses, and so on. In the first version of your grammar, aim to be able to make a simple sentence like "She hit the shaman." You can worry about more complicated stuff later. 2) USE WHAT YOU KNOW. Take ideas from languages you speak, not from Sumerian or Hurrian. 3) NO PRONOUNCIATION. Assume that the language is pronounced 100% phonetically, that is, each letter is always pronounced the same way, and there are no digraphs (like "TH"). This way you can completely ignore phonology (and you have plenty to learn and to do without having to deal with phonemes). You can always do it later if you want. I like a lot of what you've done. I like that you are trying to give the language a Nephilim "feel." You're just walking into a big puddle of chaos, that's all. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Cheeseball :( in Avernum 4 | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Sunday, January 22 2006 18:16
Profile
Homepage
Maybe familiars just went out of style. There used to be lots of lizards with dog tags running around the caves. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Nazghul in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Sunday, January 22 2006 09:47
Profile
Homepage
Wow, I can't believe the dogpile on Nazghul. The graphics aren't my favorite either, but mainly for color reasons -- I don't like having a default of black space in the background, which makes the whole screen look really sparse. I like their abstract simplicity, though. In the world of computer RPGs, Avernum and Geneforge are pretty much the last remaining survivors of a once-proud family of games that grew out of Ultima 3 and 4. Nazghul is part of the same family. It's different, and I wouldn't expect Spidwebbers to embrace it, but geez. Show it a little respect! -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The nephilim language in The Avernum Trilogy | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Sunday, January 22 2006 09:34
Profile
Homepage
Thanks for pointing me to this thread, Kelandon. Replying first to the website thread: No, Thralni, I am not an Assyriologist. :) I spent a year studying the field (mostly Akkadian, and mostly the Old Babylonian lect) at U of Chicago before switching to structural linguistics. (The phonemic attrition caused by weak verbs rivals anything in Greek and was starting to drive me crazy.) (After all that, I am now a social worker.) The example sentences are definitely useful. Examples are *never* a bad thing. Hurrian is not a Semitic language. It is part of the tiny Hurro-Urartian language family. Now this thread: Language family (Semitic, Indo-European, etc.) is NOT the same kind of descriptor as "ergative-absolutive" or "nominative-accusative" -- those describe two basic types of interaction between case system and semantic role assignment. "Isolate" goes in the language family category however, as it describes languages that are not part of a language family. Unlike Kel, I like ergative languages. Actually, I'd love to see a language that distinguished all three roles morphologically (intrans subject, trans subject and trans object) as I appreciate the kind of clarity that forces on you. Too much unneeded clarity for a natural language I suppose, as such systems are extremely rare. However, ergative languages aren't any more "logical" and I don't see any significant difference in how verbs are conjugated. "I only copied that part from a book, written by a gret Sumerologist, so wht exactly is it you want to say?" Sumerian is a really, really, really, really, really, really bad language to use as a model of ANYTHING if you don't know a lot about it. It's an isolate, it's agglutinative, and in general it's just one of the most unusual languages there is. Getting rid of the center alignment made the nouns page much easier to read. Thank you! Some of the sections are clearer now, but I think I would still be really confused if I didn't have a background in linguistics. On the use of the genitive: I can't speak for Sumerian or Hurrian, but the Akkadian (= Assyrian) genitive is definitely used for more than just ownership. In Akkadian the only case options for nouns are nominative, accusitive, and genitive, plus the status constructus form which is used in conjunctive with the genitive. The latter two are used for everything except subjects and objects. So the genitive is quite versatile. Absolutive: check the grammar on your first sentence there. Your second sentence is misleading -- without looking at the example it's impossible to tell you mean "with the appropriate gender ending." Also, you probably mean "These two take the same case," not "these two are the same." They are definitely not the same. In the Ergative section, your use of "often" is confusing. "Often" means "frequently." It sounds like you may want to say "always" or "almost always." If you really mean often, then you are providing really patchy information about one of the most critical elements of sentence construction! Also, the way you say "transitive verb or two-participant verb" makes it sound like they are two different things. The "two-participant verb" part is also misleading, since there are three-participant verbs (and in some languages, even more) and if you do not allow prepositions, it seems to me they are a necessity. I could go on... when you are using a language, it's okay to make mistakes and to be imprecise, because people can usually figure things out from the context of what you say. That's a basic part of how we process language. However, when you are describing a new language, it is VITAL to be extremely PRECISE. I know very well how hard it is to do that in a language that is not native to you. That doesn't make it any less necessary, though. --slartucker -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Website modifications in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, January 21 2006 11:34
Profile
Homepage
"This is an ergative-language. away with all the Latin based langauges! it is time for the ancient Semitic languages to come on the stage!" As pleased as the Assyriologist in me is to hear that, Semitic languages aren't ergative. Indeed, the ancient ones mostly have a simple nominative-accusative-genitive system. See for example wikipedia. As for the explanations: on second glance some of them are actually pretty clear, but there are parts which are just really confusing. For example, from the equitive case: "But, if there is now subject to make the comparison, only the comparison itself, so the nouns become subject to the verb, they still remain absolutive, as there is now separation to make between subject and object. This is the one big thing in Nephil language, which is totally different from other things in their grammar. The equative isn't as much a case as a special verbal form. It's actually the verb that is put in equative and therefore doesn't really belong in this chapter." Special verbal forms are confusing enough without clear explanation. The first sentence I quoted is pretty confusing, and then you end by explaining that the way you explained things isn't even the right way... I suspect it would be less confusing if you were explaining it in Dutch... this is a very ambitious project, requiring precise linguistic definitions, and I think some of your ideas are getting ahead of your words. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Website modifications in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, January 21 2006 08:48
Profile
Homepage
With all due respect, there are VERY FEW Ex- or Av-related web sites that do not look amateurish. As far as the site design goes I don't think Thralni's is horrible, and for a first attempt it's certainly fine. The white and yellow on blue isn't that great, but having white on a darker color is common among Blades sites. Thralni, I have one big suggestion for you: When presenting your user with a number of links to other pages, DO NOT use complete sentences. Just make a bullet point list. Don't center it, and put the link at the BEGINNING of each line - if you really need explanatory test, put it after the link. That way, it is easy for someone to glance at the list and find what they want. As it stands now you have to slog through a lot of unnecessary words, which is annoying. On Nephilian: I'm glad you are pursuing the language! I have a few comments. 1) Pronounciation: Your "FH" doesn't make sense. "TH" is a single sound, not two sounds, so replacing the T with the F as you suggest would essentially lead one to make a normal "F" sound -- but you differentiate those. 2) I like your use of animate/inanimate gender, which seems very appropriate to nephil shamanism. 3) The cases are a little confusing. You explain what they mean, but for some it's unclear how they are used. I guess you are making the language ergative-absolutive? Out of curiosity, what *is* your first language? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Observation of MLK, Jr. in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 20 2006 19:28
Profile
Homepage
*nod* Ditto to what Dikiyoba says. I rarely correct or make fun of the way anyone else uses language. But names are a little different -- unlike confusing use of regular words, you can't rely on context to correct miscommunication. And Ghaundie is a spectacular deviation from Gandhi, really :) -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Observation of MLK, Jr. in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 20 2006 13:32
Profile
Homepage
All I can say is thank goodness for Ghaundie. :o -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Website modifications in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 20 2006 08:27
Profile
Homepage
Heh. :) Now hold on a second. I've actually met Kel, and he's *definitely* a guy. Well, he was one six years ago anyway. Hmm... Of course, that was before he started playing those evil pagan computer games by Jeff Vogel, which probably made him go crazy and start doing the devil's work. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Arrgh! I don't want to pay extra! in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 20 2006 08:21
Profile
Homepage
When BoE first came out, the full version was *not* available online. I'm not sure why -- something related to preventing piracy or other abuse, I'd imagine. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Strategy for battle with Hriknis (sp?) in Avernum 4 | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 20 2006 07:11
Profile
Homepage
Hrickis' lightning will probably make summoning a sub-optimal use of your SP. Acid Spray is by far your most powerful attack spell at that stage, so use it. Haste and the other buffs are no-brainers. Also, it is probably worthwhile to Slow Hrickis as much as possible. Like most of the game's magic-users, he will waste a lot of time hasting himself, and if he doesn't, he'll get few attacks in. What difficulty are you playing at? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Quick Note About Graphics in Avernum 4 | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, January 19 2006 21:23
Profile
Homepage
Those do look really nice. *applause* One question/suggestion: Have you tested to see if they look okay for the palette swapped chitrach variants? (Though I suppose they will look better than the clawbugs no matter what.) -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Online Games in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, January 19 2006 15:17
Profile
Homepage
And a very, very simple language to translate into. So certainly not English. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |