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.

Why do you keep going back to the back formation of "lase?" Didn't I already state that perhaps you are correct? Or at very least, that "lase" is a valid back-formation? Have I been disagreeing with you that languages can evolve? Yes, languages can evolve, they can evolve into things like "Laz-gun" instead of "lays-gun" because the vast majority of players say it that way (though I can't back that theory up, but I would say in my experience nine out of ten say "laz-gun").

As for the lore, not since 2nd edition have lasguns been described as lasers, in fact they have been described as being different from lasers since their inception. Note that lack of ever calling lasbolts "rays" or "beams" or the like, mention of recoil, stopping power, being coherent in the sense that it actually has a mass and volume, something lasers have neither of (well, theoretically if you had enough power you could levitate a squirrel, but that would mean blacking out several large cities, and we really don't need squirrels with lasers.... hmmm.... squats....). But that aside....

You want evolution? Well you have already seen it but are resisting it because it isn't following a preconceived notion of what you think it should be evolving into. While others are using rules to support its evolution, ones that are 100% real, factual, and work, while others are making up new rules (back formation of a back formation, didn't notice any on that list of your's, but I didn't read everything on their, enough though to know that if the next word I read was a back formation of a back formation that it would be a rare case [and before you go out and note one near the top, I moved around the list, which, statistically, should make it just as likely for me to have spotted one]) or exaggerating current ones to fit an unpopular version of the word, if not completely ignoring an easier and simpler path, one with fewer steps, assumptions, and opposition.

If lasguns were laserguns, or even laseguns, then they probably should have written them that way. But they didn't, lasgun was written down, spurring an argument that has lasted... oh god, over twenty years I think! Either way, if lasgun was supposed to be laysgun it has evolved into lazgun, and this is one Guard player that will keep it alive that way for as long as they live.

And for me, that is the end of the argument. I am not claiming last words on it, just that unless someone can make an actual argument supported with simpler logic, then I don't see a need for repeat myself. I am not walking away either, I'll keep reading, I have no qualms about the ideas of others, but I think I have supported trolling more often than I logically should have, simply as a way of working off some pent up hostility by taking easy personal victories.

As always, xkcd have an answer for everything!

It would have to be "Las" or "Laz" gun. Simple reason: English linguistic rules state that in order for the "a" to make an "Ay" sound, there would have to be an "e" on the end of the word "Las". No "e" means that it's pronounced "Lahz" or "Lahs". Simple. Kindergarden. Lesson. We all learned that rule at age 5 if you live in an English speaking country.

Plus I'm pretty sure the original DoW has one of the Guard speech options yell "Lasguns (Lahzguns) at the ready!" when you ordered them to attack.

Skinnattittar wrote:Why do you keep going back to the back formation of "lase?" Didn't I already state that perhaps you are correct? Or at very least, that "lase" is a valid back-formation? Have I been disagreeing with you that languages can evolve? Yes, languages can evolve, they can evolve into things like "Laz-gun" instead of "lays-gun" because the vast majority of players say it that way (though I can't back that theory up, but I would say in my experience nine out of ten say "laz-gun").

You were the one making an issue of back formations as somehow less legitimate than other sources of new words. Is borrowing a word from latin or french really more proper than a verb back-formed from a noun?

I don't think it's evolved from a laysgun pronunciation to a lazzgun pronunciation over time. I think it's just been mispronounced from the outset by the majority of gamers because it's a made up word that does not occur in normal conversation. A lot of 40k terms have no clear pronunciation because they're made up words and English isn't a phonetic language. In the case of lasgun, I see it as gamers not making the connection between laser and lasgun and also being unaware that lasgun was borrowed from Frank Herbert's work where it was clearly indicated that the correct pronunciation is lasegun.

As for the lore, not since 2nd edition have lasguns been described as lasers, in fact they have been described as being different from lasers since their inception. Note that lack of ever calling lasbolts "rays" or "beams" or the like, mention of recoil, stopping power, being coherent in the sense that it actually has a mass and volume, something lasers have neither of (well, theoretically if you had enough power you could levitate a squirrel, but that would mean blacking out several large cities, and we really don't need squirrels with lasers.... hmmm.... squats....). But that aside....

The 4th edition IG codex talks about laser technology in the section where it describes the weapons, how simple and reliable it is. Interestingly, the current codex no longer does that. Instead it talks about lasgun technology. So maybe GW has decided to resolve it and make a distinction from the original Herbert and remove references to lasers and make the lazzgun something that has no relation to lasers anymore.

If lasguns were laserguns, or even laseguns, then they probably should have written them that way.

In this case I think precedent (Herbert) and flavor beat out clear pronunciation.

but I think I have supported trolling more often than I logically should have, simply as a way of working off some pent up hostility by taking easy personal victories.

You think I'm trolling?

I always said it "Lazz-gun".

I have friends that say it "Laze-gun". It is all down to preference, since without a pronunciation guide, it is open to interpretation.

There are enough points here worth replying.

Arschbombe wrote:The 4th edition IG codex talks about laser technology in the section where it describes the weapons, how simple and reliable it is. Interestingly, the current codex no longer does that. Instead it talks about lasgun technology. So maybe GW has decided to resolve it and make a distinction from the original Herbert and remove references to lasers and make the lazzgun something that has no relation to lasers anymore.

Well, I'll be dipped, you are correct there. Page 16 of the Codex Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition (of the codex) released during 3rd Edition (plenty months before 4th, designed for a build of 4th that never happened). It does mention laser technology, though, it does not say that about the lasgun, but while discussing the power pack, the "laser power pack" to be precise. Two inferences can be made here, that the lasgun is based on lasers, or that the power pack is based on lasers (yes, you can do that). While I will concede that this defuncts my statement, it is but a small oversight in the bigger picture, as "laser" is not but mentioned in the armory and equipment section of the 2nd edition Codex.

As for Frank Herbert, I have never read any of his novels, though I do know of Dune. Laser technology has been in science fiction before Frank Herbert was even born, however, and have carried many other names.

As for "my way is the only way of word evolution" talk, that speaks for itself in stability. More words have evolved due to either ignorance of proper pronunciation or complete change in how those people pronounced their own words. "English" itself is a bastardization of its original pronunciation. Basically, either it is a conjoinment of a back-formation of a back-formation (which again, I agree can create new words, but doubling it seems silly when simpler, just as or more viable reasons exist), that has not been re-pronounced, or it is something much simpler, a completely new word or modification of an existing acronym. In those cases it would be pronounced "laz-gun."

Skinnattittar wrote:Well, I'll be dipped, you are correct there. Page 16 of the Codex Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition (of the codex) released during 3rd Edition (plenty months before 4th, designed for a build of 4th that never happened). It does mention laser technology, though, it does not say that about the lasgun, but while discussing the power pack, the "laser power pack" to be precise. Two inferences can be made here, that the lasgun is based on lasers, or that the power pack is based on lasers (yes, you can do that). While I will concede that this defuncts my statement, it is but a small oversight in the bigger picture, as "laser" is not but mentioned in the armory and equipment section of the 2nd edition Codex.

It gets better. Take a look at page 61 of the third edition rulebook. It states "By far the most numerous weapons in the Imperial armoury are laser or las weapons." It also tries to answer your earlier physics question of how exactly a laser-based weapon can produce impact force on a target. "The short duration high energy beam produces such a rapid temperature change on the target's surface that it vapourises in a small explosion."

Admittedly this is old fluff and as such it is subject to being superseded by newer revisions and as I pointed out previously the new IG dex no longer makes reference to laser technology.

As for Frank Herbert, I have never read any of his novels, though I do know of Dune. Laser technology has been in science fiction before Frank Herbert was even born, however, and have carried many other names.

True, but specific to one word, lasgun, Herbert was the first and was very clear on its pronunciation.

Arschbombe wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Well, I'll be dipped, you are correct there. Page 16 of the Codex Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition (of the codex) released during 3rd Edition (plenty months before 4th, designed for a build of 4th that never happened). It does mention laser technology, though, it does not say that about the lasgun, but while discussing the power pack, the "laser power pack" to be precise. Two inferences can be made here, that the lasgun is based on lasers, or that the power pack is based on lasers (yes, you can do that). While I will concede that this defuncts my statement, it is but a small oversight in the bigger picture, as "laser" is not but mentioned in the armory and equipment section of the 2nd edition Codex.

It gets better. Take a look at page 61 of the third edition rulebook. It states "By far the most numerous weapons in the Imperial armoury are laser or las weapons." It also tries to answer your earlier physics question of how exactly a laser-based weapon can produce impact force on a target. "The short duration high energy beam produces such a rapid temperature change on the target's surface that it vapourises in a small explosion."

Admittedly this is old fluff and as such it is subject to being superseded by newer revisions and as I pointed out previously the new IG dex no longer makes reference to laser technology.

I think it comes down to one thing:
Do lasguns laz things, or do they laze things?

Definitely and clearly las, not laze. Laze sounds close to "raze", implying that they can actually do damage. Quite the opposite.

las/laz sounds better and less cheesy

Canonness Rory wrote:I think it comes down to one thing:
Do lasguns laz things, or do they laze things?

One thing they don't do is resurrect 2 month old threads...

Aw jeez and he roped me into it as well.

It's L-A-Y-S like the thing on the shoe the LACE...not LAS. And btw. the sound is PHEEEEW not crackcrackcrack....are you high???

This thread is old.
Laz.

ph34r wrote:This thread is old.
Laz.

Lays

LAZ!

To reiterate: laysgun sounds crap. Lazgun does not.

Wow this is probaly the sadiest thread in forum history, but i thinks it is laz-gun, everyone at my LGW says it that ways, and ive never heard different into now.

LAYS THIS THREAD IS BULL !!!

In DOW lasguns make this weird cracking/clicking sound like czzzink!

Laz

Eenbehfarlock

DarkHound wrote:Laz

Eenbehfarlock

I see what you did there.

Clearly it's now a race to see which wording is last in the thread before it gets locked.

Lazzzzzz

temprus wrote:Since the humble Lasgun was originally based on the Dune Lasgun, I would look to that source for how to pronounce it. For Dune, it is pronounced lāz-gŭn. Thanks to the weakening of its power levels, I now pronounce it as flash-līt.

People are having a few problems with this issue.

One, lāz does not rhyme with Jazz (jaz) or Razz (raz), only in the form of Lazz (laz) would it.
Two, lāz would be pronounced lays as in Maze (māz), Raze (rāz), etc. or the chip maker's name.
Three, Lazz-Gun IS more "manly". I prefer lazz over lays myself.
Four, I still say you pronounce it flash-līt though.

It is pronounced

Lays, like the potato chips.

Listen Guys it's LAYS the sound is PHEEEW and im out of this thread G'night!