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.

This is a very unique thread.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is a very unique thread.

The uniquest

Lord Zarkov wrote:


Indeed. I’m from the UK and I’ve always used indices, vortices, appendices, matrices, etc and never the other version. Though they generally only come up in a scientific or mathematical context.

Which is the point. According to the Oxford dictionary of modern english language, you would use the british/english pluralisation of nouns ending on -x (e.g. box, boxes) even for those words in everyday / colloquial use, but be more likely to use the latin plural in a scientific context/publication (which GW tabletop stuff is not).


- The line just avoides the apexes of the hills, but the shells have their apices eroded.

- Six patients had their appendixes removed, & I hate books with appendixes, but the evidence is digested in five appendices.

- A dial like a clock face with two indexes, but Integral, fractional, & negative indices.

- A heap of old stereotype matrixes, but some of the species of whinstone are common matrices of agate & chalcedony.

- Arrange the trestles with their vertexes alternatively high & low, but In the vertices of curves where they cut the abscissa at right angles.

- Whirlpools or vortexes or eddies, but the vortices of modern atomists.

Slipspace wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

I understand what you're saying. If you're aiming for a certain "level" of exaggeration and you went over the level of exaggeration that you intended, you "overshot the mark", ergo you "over-exaggerated". So I understand your logic but still disagree.

2. Technically it still makes no sense. "Over" is not the same as "big". "Over" implies that you've gone beyond some limit and it's become something else. There's no "limit" to an exaggeration. A "gross exaggeration" makes perfect sense. As does a "small exaggeration". An "over exaggeration" or "under exaggeration" doesn't make sense. An exaggeration is an exaggeration, period. If you get shot in the face by a bazooka at point blank range it might be an "extreme" way to kill someone. But they didn't "over-die". that makes no sense because "to die" is a binary state, just like "to exaggerate". Neither death nor exaggeration are things that you can "go beyond". You're dead or you're not. You exaggerate or you don't. A whopping huge exaggeration is just that. It's not over exaggerating. And it's not something you can fall-short-of (under) either.

(P.S. yes, I know this is needlessly technically picky and it doesn't really matter - but that's the theme of the thread, so suck it up lads).

I can't follow your logic for the bolded section above. If you're fine with a small exaggeration or a gross exaggeration it follows that an over exaggeration should also be fine, since you're already admitting "exaggeration" is not an absolute and can therefore be qualified. "Over" in this sense just means extreme, which is synonymous with big in context. It's certainly possible to under exaggerate too. If you don't exaggerate enough, you can leave people in doubt as to whether you even intended to exaggerate.

Also the term "overkill" is a thing, so I don't think your bazooka example holds either.

I think I explained it so I'm not sure how to clarify.

There is no "limit" on what defines an "exaggeration" that you can go "over". If you describe an ant as "the size of a million suns", that's a huge exaggeration. But it's still just an exaggeration. It hasn't gone "over" being an exaggeration and spilled into being something else.

"Over exaggerate" is like saying "over dead". You're dead or your not. You exaggerate or you don't. Which is unrelated to overkill. Overkill is a different word and can be used for anything ... like adding too much sugar to coffee ... and doesn't necessarily apply to actually killing. And even if it did, there maybe a limit to how many you want to kill just like there's a limit on how much sugar you wanted in your coffee.

Of course, you could make the argument that "over exaggerate" makes sense if there's a limit on how much you intended to exaggerate. You intended a small exaggeration, but made a big exaggeration, so you "over exaggerated". Okay, fine. But it's kind of a disingenuous argument. In all my life I've never once heard anyone use it in that context. I've only ever heard it used as a one-for-one replacement for "exaggerate", just with a nonsense superfluous word attached to the front of it. So pretending it was meant to mean the other thing is kind of moot.

It's worth pointing out that I concede that I am "technically" wrong here, because "over-exaggeration" has been now added to most dictionairies. So it is a "legitimate" word. My argument is just that it's a stupid one.

What is die/dice in other languages? Is it just English that's broken?


So technically it's 1 die 2 dice, but the reality is that virtually everyone refers to 1 die as a dice, so I don't see the problem here as it makes more sense to the new player and the veteran can still understand what it means.

It's worth pointing out that I concede that I am "technically" wrong here, because "over-exaggeration" has been now added to most dictionairies. So it is a "legitimate" word. My argument is just that it's a stupid one.

It isn't. Its a useful comparative term.

Take medicine, which will 'cure what ails ya'
(Exaggeration - it won't, but will actually help with symptoms)

Or snake-oil stuff, which is a complete over-exaggeration.


There is a difference between posturing with certain amount of truth and just empty boasting. That's why the term exists (and also isn't just a recent thing)

Herzlos wrote:
What is die/dice in other languages? Is it just English that's broken?


So technically it's 1 die 2 dice, but the reality is that virtually everyone refers to 1 die as a dice, so I don't see the problem here as it makes more sense to the new player and the veteran can still understand what it means.

In spanish it'd be singular "dado" and plural "dados". So, easy

English is basically a Voltron of other languages that fits together slightly differently depending on where you live. As an American, I tend to prefer “evolved” English that doesn’t pretend to be Latin. However, I also appreciate the game’s roots. So I tend to use “die” and “dice” interchangeably, just like “codexes” and “codices”.

Herzlos wrote:
What is die/dice in other languages? Is it just English that's broken?

It actually comes from French, where the plural word is "des" (singular: dé). Over time becoming "dice" in English.

I think I'm going to start using '1 dice, 2 dicopi'...

One (biggus) dicus, two dici seems fine.

DIE!


No, I want you to hand me a single die please.