Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

LordofHats wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think anyone is claiming that a scythe has never been used to take a life, just that it is not a practical weapon.

Just because something isn't practical doesn't mean it hasn't been used as a weapon in a military manner. 'Practical' is a rather messy word in a military sense. Lots of impractical things become weapons, wicker, a random stick, the Panzer I

Again, you are refuting something that isn't being argued i.e. that you can use a scythe to kill someone. Practical actually doesn't have to be that messy. You can kill someone with a rock, but an Assault Rifle would be a better choice between the two, which is why most units are assigned AR's and not big rocks. The question isn't whether it can kill, but would it be worth the time and trouble to mass produce them and spend time training people to wield them effectively in combat, and the answer for scythes is no, not even a little.

LordofHats wrote:Sickles are also a farming implement and were developed into weapons on several occasions (Egyptian Khopesh was based off a sickle).

It was already pointed out on the first page that sickles and scythes aren't the same, and that sickles have much greater use as a weapon.

LordofHats wrote:Not that I'm saying the scythe is a great weapon but it could have military application.

You could find military application for almost anything if you try hard enough, doesn't make it a good idea, even by your own admission:

LordofHats wrote:Its problem is probably that any use I could think of for it is probably already taken by other more ideal weapons.

The closest is the War Scythe, but as was shown, it is actually a spear variant, not a Scythe. Does it look cool in some contexts? Sure. Still, if you were stuck in a fight or combat zone and offered any weapon to take in which you would your life would depend, it is a very bad choice. If you don't have another option it is better than nothing, but not even close to being a mediocre option.

Ahtman wrote:In D&D a Scythe is 2d4 +2 Proficiency, which is just terrible.

I know little of D&D but if they did that as a joke it's hilarious

To give a comparison, a Great Axe is a d12 that gets extra dice on a crit hit.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.

No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.

No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.

Yes. An adjective qualifies something it does not disqualify it. Almost, for example, is not an adjective.

Ugly beauty is still beauty.

Rapid slow is still slow.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion. It isn't impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. It may be impossible to do it at a good degree of practicality but the statement "practically impossible" alone does not imply those conditions.

I'm curious as to how many more times you two can quote each other before Dakka folds in on itself.

infinite_array wrote:I'm curious as to how many more times you two can quote each other before Dakka folds in on itself.

heh it's like looking into a pair of mirrors facing each other.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.

No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.

Yes. An adjective qualifies something it does not disqualify it. Almost, for example, is not an adjective.

Ugly beauty is still beauty.

Rapid slow is still slow.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion. It isn't impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. It may be impossible to do it at a good degree of practicality but the statement "practically impossible" alone does not imply those conditions.

prac·ti·cal   [prak-ti-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to practice or action: practical mathematics.
2.
consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule.
3.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs.
4.
adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions.
5.
engaged or experienced in actual practice or work: a practical politician.

Given the usage scenario definitions three and four are paramount. It is impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. Hell, if you really want to be diehard about this you can't wield a scythe like a quarterstaff at all since it isn't one and we didn't establish classifications for either object.

Either way this argument is ridiculous.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.

No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.

Yes. An adjective qualifies something it does not disqualify it. Almost, for example, is not an adjective.

Ugly beauty is still beauty.

Rapid slow is still slow.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion. It isn't impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. It may be impossible to do it at a good degree of practicality but the statement "practically impossible" alone does not imply those conditions.

prac·ti·cal   [prak-ti-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to practice or action: practical mathematics.
2.
consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule.
3.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs.
4.
adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions.
5.
engaged or experienced in actual practice or work: a practical politician.

Given the usage scenario definitions three and four are paramount. It is impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. Hell, if you really want to be diehard about this you can't wield a scythe like a quarterstaff at all since it isn't one and we didn't establish classifications for either object.

Either way this argument is ridiculous.

Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.

And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.

In a lot of stories, people are "scythed down" so that tells me a scythe can be used as a weapon. Why, look at the movie "Jack the Giant Killer" as evidence. He killed a giant with a scythe.

If someone came looking for you in the barn, you could hide in the haymow and drop a scythe on their head and kill them.

What more is needed?

ShumaGorath wrote:

AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.

When?

Ancient Egypt
1525 Peasant's Revolt
1655-1660 The Deluge
1685 Monmouth Revolt

Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.

And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.

You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.

Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".

So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.

There's plenty more as the scythe is a pretty common tool easily adapted for war.

The question though Ahtman is the scythe a "plausible" weapon, which it is. Kama's are basically miniature scythes (of course their size makes them much more practical). And they have been used in the past, mostly by angry mobs. Its just not really advisable. I actually think a rock would be much more useful in an "oh snap he's coming at me" situation

ShumaGorath wrote:

Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.

And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.

You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.

Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".

So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.

Practically is not an adverb. There is no definition for practically "as an adverb"

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.

When?

Ancient Egypt
1525 Peasant's Revolt
1655-1660 The Deluge
1685 Monmouth Revolt

I don't see anything about scythes in the histories of those, but presumably peasant wielded them as weapons. When did the Egyptian military class use scythes? They used a lot of sickle like weapons, but I haven't seen any use of scythes in actual warfare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.

And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.

You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.

Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".

So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.

Practically is not an adverb. There is no definition for practically "as an adverb"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

LordofHats wrote:The question though Ahtman is the scythe a "plausible" weapon, which it is. Kama's are basically miniature scythes (of course their size makes them much more practical). And they have been used in the past, mostly by angry mobs. Its just not really advisable. I actually think a rock would be much more useful in an "oh snap he's coming at me" situation

Wear a dark cloak, and then it truely does become a "Oh snap, he's coming for me!" type of deal.


I bet if I could find one and find someone to use it on, I could totally use a Scyth as a weapon.

ShumaGorath wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

So should you....

Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”

If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.

When?

Ancient Egypt
1525 Peasant's Revolt
1655-1660 The Deluge
1685 Monmouth Revolt

Still looking for verification on Ancient Egypt*, but the others are still using a scythe as an improvised weapon, not as a weapon of choice. I also imagine that there were mixed farm implements involved and that pitchforks were far more deadly as far as combat went. It goes back to being a peasant weapon, and not the best peasant weapon at that. A pitchfork, sickle, or even a machete would be more useful.


*I wouldn't call this a scythe, for example.



Egyptians seemed to use sickles more than scythes. There seems to be a lot of conflation of sickles and scythes going on here.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

So should you....

Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”

If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.

Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.

"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "

So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.

It's worth noting that Typhus's Manreaper is a terrible example, as it isn't really a scythe, it's at best a large sickle.

Ahtman wrote:*I wouldn't call this a scythe, for example.

Spoiler:

Egyptians seemed to use sickles more than scythes. There seems to be a lot of conflation of sickles and scythes going on here.

I believe, and don't quote me on this, that that is called a Shotel.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

So should you....

Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”

If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.

Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.

"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "

So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.

The phrase 'wassup mofos' is also established. it doesn't make it into the OED however. There is englsh and there is correct english.

marv335 wrote:It's worth noting that Typhus's Manreaper is a terrible example, as it isn't really a scythe, it's at best a large sickle.

It's a stick with a knife coming out of the end. It's doesn't have any inherent logic to it's design. How the hell does he use it? Does he just hit people at point blank? Does he let go of the handle? Why is there a hand guard if he has to do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

So should you....

Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”

If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.

Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.

"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "

So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.

The phrase 'wassup mofos' is also established. it doesn't make it into the OED however. There is englsh and there is correct english.

Are you one of those guys that gets mad every time websters adds a word to the dictionary or appends a meaning? If so I'm gonna cut off this conversation right now.

Slarg232 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:*I wouldn't call this a scythe, for example.

Spoiler:

Egyptians seemed to use sickles more than scythes. There seems to be a lot of conflation of sickles and scythes going on here.

I believe, and don't quote me on this, that that is called a Shotel.

Dark Souls has educated you.

It is indeed, it was mostly used with a sharp outer edge rather than the sharp inner edge a sickle has.

ShumaGorath wrote:Are you one of those guys that gets mad every time websters adds a word to the dictionary or appends a meaning? If so I'm gonna cut off this conversation right now.

If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have explained to me that you meant it in the adverbial sense the moment I first refuted it. Instead you've researched it as you went along. Like I said, if you search for the answer you want on the internet you will find it.

Slarg232 wrote:I believe, and don't quote me on this, that that is called a Shotel.

Exactly. Even in Ancient Egypt they used scythes the same way we do now, as an improvised weapon when you don't have access to something better.