From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 17 11:23:07 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA19810 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:23:07 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA24801 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:22:07 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:22:07 -0600 Message-Id: <199903171722.LAA24801@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1161 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, March 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1161 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: Janus Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Liber Servitorum (More Funky Mushrooms) Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Stuff Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Editors, submissions and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraph and Truth Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Stuff Re: IN> Celestial disguise Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Seraph and Truth IN> Locations book... [none] Re: IN> Lilith a Human? Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:08:21 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Janus Neel Krishnaswami wrote on 17 March 1999 >>Therefore when one uses sarcasm to for instance say "not that servitors of >>the Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness", what >>the speaker believes they are saying is "and it is well known that >>servitors of the Wind steal and break the Law" which matches their belief >>of the nature of reality. > >But -- angels of Wind *don't* steal; they deprive others of property, Right, now does anyone see my point about many people speaking different languages, because "steal" (IMO) means "deprive others of property" and obviously Neel doesn't. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:00:55 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Anders Gabrielsson wrote on 17 March 1999 >On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >[IMO very accurate description of language snipped] Thank you. >I also think this is the main problem, and I have said so in the past, >though perhaps not quite as clearly. Language doesn't exist oustide of >people the way gravity or matter does (in the commonly accepted >world-view). It's completely -internal- - each and every one of us has >his/her own language inside his/her head. There is no "English" outside >our respective heads that you can compare your language with to see if >it's correct or not. There are grammar books, but they reflect one >person's internal grammar, not some mythical "absolute grammar". Yes! Exactly! But in IN I think the heavenly tongue *might* follow exact rules and possibly be programmed into the mind of all angels (and possibly other creatures) >Well, unless you accept Plato's idea of the World of Ideas, of course, a >notion that I find patently silly. :) <<<<>>> /Irony/The very idea of a Word of *True* Forms is incedible/Irony/ (note that was stated manner which is not untrue!) Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:18:04 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) - -----Original Message----- From: EDG To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 17 March 1999 08:10 Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth (Fluffy) >Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >> Okay possibly sometimes but often rhetorical question are statements: "Is >> the Pope Catholic?" > >Nope. _Is_ the Pope Catholic? The general answer would be yes. >Catholicism is generally true of popes. Then again, I knew an Elizabeth >Pope in grade school. She was Jewish. EDG, do you work for Nitpicking? (not a rhetorical question) Maybe In your language the phrase "Is the Pope Catholic?" is not equivalent to the word "yes" but I in mine, and I'm possibly overstepping myself here, *many* other speakers of the English language it does. >> Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind >> "No, Really! Would I lie to you?" :-) > >-EDG > This is why I'm a Mercurian. Absolute Truth is so silly. Not if one has a suitable language. Maths now that's where to look for absolute Truth. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:37:21 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >I also think this is the main problem, and I have said so in the past, > >though perhaps not quite as clearly. Language doesn't exist oustide of > >people the way gravity or matter does (in the commonly accepted > >world-view). It's completely -internal- - each and every one of us has > >his/her own language inside his/her head. There is no "English" outside > >our respective heads that you can compare your language with to see if > >it's correct or not. There are grammar books, but they reflect one > >person's internal grammar, not some mythical "absolute grammar". > > > >Well, unless you accept Plato's idea of the World of Ideas, of course, a > >notion that I find patently silly. :) > > > > Actually, quite untrue. Linguistic drift does occur, with time and the > continual violation of a given rule of grammar. It is a process that > either takes a large amount of time, as a given idiomatic way of saying > something becomes so commonplace that the rules have to reflect the change, > or it is a rapid process as the rules of grammar get bent slightly trying > to express a concept that is entirely new and cannot be said easily under > the old rules. None of which contradicts what I said above. We learn and constantly modify our internal language through observation of and interaction with other language users, which leads to similarities. But the language itself has no existance outside us. > There aren't many cases of the second process given above. English is > actually very conducive to expressing new concepts, in a way many languages > aren't. You can create any word you like and throw it into a simple > sentence and it will come out a simple sentence. (This flexibility of > terminology can lead to some very unfortunate ad campaigns I used to work > for Kinko's. I cringed when they made their catchphrase "the new way to > office." Office is a perfectly good noun that has no place as a verb. > However, *grammatically* there is nothing wrong with making office a verb. > Which doesn't change the fact that "the new way to office" is a sentence > fragment, but I digress.) > > Anyone who thinks that "there's no such thing as grammar" has never learned > the joys of being rejected for publication. There *are* very specific > rules which must be followed for correct sentence construction. These rules are examples of -a- grammar (or rather, different grammars, since they are not the same from one publisher to another, which strengthens my point, I think). These rules don't have an independent existence as "the one true way of speaking/writing English/Swedish/whatever", but are demands put upon formal style. That's not the same thing. > Yes, language is an artificial creation. That depends on what language you're talking about. If you mean "English" (or Swedish, or Spanish, Hebrew etc) "the way people speak it", then no, it isn't. If you mean "English as described in this or that grammar", then yes, it is. However, it is a creation where > the appropriate rules are agreed upon. (And you and I didn't get to vote > on them, unfortunately.) This is just plain wrong. Grammatical rules vary widely between different dialects of what's traditionally seen as the same language. For example, in large parts of northern Sweden it's quite appropriate to use a definite article for proper names ("n'Johan" or "a'Beda", for example) in a way that's completely horrible by "normal" Swedish grammar rules. The grammar books you mention are *not* one > person's internal grammar, but attempts at codifying the correct grammar in > use by society. Attempts by one or more persons, yes. There are two ways to do this (if you want to be extreme). The armchair linguist thinks about his own sense of the language - "Is this appropriate? Can this word be used in this context? Does it fit this or that paradigm?" - while the empirical linguist collects material that describes how people actually use language and try to formulate rules from that. These two methods usually give very different results. The armchair linguist usually arrives at a more proscribing description - "You can do this but not that, and certainly not the other!" - while the empirical linguist usually has a more tolerant view of what's allowed and not - "Some people say this, some say that, and there are even some that say the other." Which one of these you find valid depends on your choice of ideology and theory, but neither one is more "right" than the other, because they do different things. The reason that the MLA has such a high membership is fine > points of grammar (or more usually style) are debated *viciously* among > scholars, all in an effort to get every last rule correct. I don't know what the MLA is, but I would like to point out that in my experience very few -linguists- debate this kind of thing. In precise > speech and all rhetoric, those rules are the channel markers that make it > possible for opinion and fact to be rendered in a way anyone in the > audience can understand. Without those rules, it would quickly become very > hard to understand what anyone else was saying. People who have no rhetorical training what so ever speak to and understand each other every day, without any formal agreement on rules at all, and have done so for thousands of years. > Some people care very much about grammar, and cringe when the argument > above is laid out. However, it seems to me that *Seraphim* will care to a > degree unheard of outside of certain Nuns teaching in Lower Middle Class > neighborhoods. There is a Way To Speak. They speak it. It is a true > thing. This, once again, Just Ain't So. There are as many ways to speak as there are people in the world. Most of them have a very substantial overlap with other ways to speak, but there are not two people in the world who speak exactly the same language. IMO a Seraph would have to learn the conventions of speaking used in his area of operations or constantly tag on "I think", "In my opionion" or similar phrases to each and every statement he makes, and probably some questions too. Indeed, if there's one area where I'll bet the Seraphim point to > humanity and say "see -- they can't even take care of *themselves,*" it > would be when they're talking to someone who can't even be bothered to > speak grammatically. This is the Choir closest to the Divine. Language is > the foundation of their entire universe. They aspire to be bound to Words. > They use that language correctly and expect the same from you. I think Seraphim have problems exactly because Angelic is True and Fixed, while human languages are fluid and constantly changing. They keep looking for the True way to speak English (or Swedish, or...) which just doesn't exist. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:42:32 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > But in IN I think the heavenly tongue *might* follow exact rules and > possibly be programmed into the mind of all angels (and possibly other > creatures) That's certainly how I would have it, if I could have my way. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:50:03 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) At 5:11 +0000 3/17/99, Jo Hart wrote: >>It started from a hint in the main book that Jean is somehow soft on >Lilith, > >References? p. 150, end of the next to last paragraph above the Dissonance heading. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:56:49 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? "Jo Hart" wrote: >Walter Milliken wrote: >> I can't talk >>too much about it, since it also involves some plot elements from the next >>Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. > >Ugh. Don't do it, man. I am with Jo on this one. A cycle to add a third side is just cheesy. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:52:22 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Mason Kramer wrote: > >I don't think you can intermngle bible/IN quite this easily though. In IN, > >there were plenty of humans around before the Fall. So you could say 'Ah, > >but Lilith was different even to those!' in which case she is still not > >human in any way that we would really understand. > > > > There were apparently other people around in the Bible, too. Otherwise, who > the heck did Cain marry? His sister. According to a number of extra-Biblical sources, Cain and Abel married their sisters. According to more extra-Biblical sources, Cain and Abel weren't even the first-born of Adam and Eve. They were just the first important ones in the history. (Check _The Lost Books of Eden_ and _The Bible As It Was_ for details, since I don't own copies.) Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:40:50 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Liber Servitorum (More Funky Mushrooms) At 10:06 PM -0600 3/16/99, Shadowstar wrote: >*drool* > > http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/servitorum/img/cover_lg.jpg > > I like. . . *evil grin* Oh, that's good. I was concerned that it was a little . . . pink. Of course, I couldn't get over that funny flaming note on the Liber Canticorum, but it looked nice on the real book, so hopefully I'll decide the pink is okay when I get the real thing. O:> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:48:15 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! At 9:54 PM -0500 3/16/99, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >I also say since Free Lilim can bargain with Princes for Rites, they should be >able to buy them at character generation, perhaps for 3 points a pop. What >say? If the GM allows it, that's the price that mummies pay for Rites, and therefore the price that seems logical for anyone to pay. Of course, the GM has to decide whether some Prince is going to let a Lilim get away with an indefinite (minor) drain on his personal power, for a finite period of service... At 10:37 PM -0600 3/16/99, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >I would also say that Lilith would refuse to give out Rites (especially >her two standard Rites) to anyone unwilling to take her Dissonance. That's in her expanded writeup, explicitly. It's both or neither, and don't go changing your mind like a lightbulb about it, because she won't be amused if you refuse and then come begging back for them later. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:51:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> FLUFF (Re: Lilith a Human?) At 5:11 AM +0000 3/17/99, Jo Hart wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Walter Milliken > >>It started from a hint in the main book that Jean is somehow soft on >>Lilith, > >References? Lilith's writeup in the main book, the quote that ends -- "Jean in particular." After trying to parse it, I basically figured this means that, in his objectivity, he doesn't have this immediate urge to flash-fry her. This was expanded on in the expanded Lilith writeup, where he grumps that he doesn't have time to psychoanalyze her (and therefore manipulate her, the devious little space alien). Of course, this could all be a mix-up on someone's part between Jean and Marc, but hey, this way had some logic to it, no? O:> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:58:04 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 8:31 -0500 3/17/99, Emily Dresner wrote: >I don't want to see personal homegrown games woven into professionally >printed books for mass consumption. I really don't want to see your game >in canon. Ah, no, you misunderstood -- the "future story arc" stuff isn't our game mixing into canon; it's stuff from a future canon story arc mixed into our game. Entirely different thing. I totally agree -- there's no way peoples' own games should go near canon. It's very rare that an existing game can be published in any useful way (though I admit I've written up plot seeds and once a whole adventure loosely based on improv games I've done at cons). It can sometimes work to use an existing campaign's *background*, and maybe even a few characters as distant NPCs, but it's very difficult to make that work right. So the rant is completely unnecessary. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:59:29 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Stuff On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Hydrax 59 wrote: > Okay, I've been offline for a while (using a friends computer now) so I > have no idea what's going on, but I have a number of ponderings for you. > 1. Isn't in interesting that the aztec deities were cast out of "the > higher heavens" for tasting the fruit of life? "Ahem. That is pure propaganda. They are Ethereal spirits, nothing more." Of course, it *could* explain how Uriel took them out before AD 745... (Actually, I've never heard that at all. Sources?) > 2. doesn't the existence of Yves point towards a plan on the part of the > divine? IMC, yes. Of course (IMC) he's just a conventional angel, not God's Destiny incarnate in the lower Heavens. > 3. What if lucifer is working for the divine? Again, IMC, he is. Involuntarily. God is omniscient, omnicognizant, omnipotent, and so on. He didn't create Lucifer to Fall, but He took advantage of it once Lucifer did. > 4. isn't it interesting how many comic books are depicting lucifer as a > nice guy? Huh? The only two I can think of recently are Crimson and Lucifer: The Morningstar Option. In Crimson, he shows up to mess with Michael's plans to execute a vampire. In The Morningstar Option, he's a retired evil bastard being used by Heaven because he's a deniable resource. In which comics is ( are? Sounds bad either way.) he nice? Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:46:32 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa At 11:52 PM -0300 3/16/99, Daniel Kerr wrote: >>They're also good tracking tools, and don't need to be invoked. >>Celestial Song of Affinity is wonderful. "Okay, I hooked him when >>I was in service to Lust. Now we can track him." > >How a gea is used to track someone? Geas (your "s" key appears to be flakey...). You use the Celestial Song of Affinity, which gives a Corporeal Song of Attraction effect if you have some artifact *or* a Geas or Geas-hook that is connected to the person you're tracking. (The person has to be the owner of the artifact -- have paid points for it, effectively. The hookee doesn't get to use the hook in him, or Geas on him, to track the Lilim who holds it, though.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:57:52 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 8:31 AM -0500 3/17/99, Emily Dresner wrote: >> In a very non-canon future (non-canon even for our own campaign, though it >> may happen...), this happens, but it's not something she actually wanted. >> Instead, it's an outcome of the "Third Avatar" plot I mentioned before, >> with some careful manipulation by Jean behind the scenes. I can't talk >> too much about it, since it also involves some plot elements from the next >> Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. > > >Don't take this the wrong way, but here's a slight comment on >professionality: > >I don't want to see personal homegrown games woven into professionally >printed books for mass consumption. I really don't want to see your game >in canon. Em, you're getting it backwards. He said that he'd woven some plot elements from the next Cycle's *POSSIBLE* story arc into *HIS* non- future canon. This isn't going to happen in canon. It's taking *POSSIBLE* future canon and putting it into something non-canon. It is ****************NOT***************** taking the events in the non-canon gaming and inserting them into canon. (Among other reasons, SJ said, "That third avatar thing is a cool idea; we're not going to do it, of course." when we mentioned it to him at Xmas.) The reason he can't talk about it would be akin to if there was a potential future canon bit where Litheroy Falls and takes over Lucifer's position (or seems to) and our material incorporated this as a trigger for some of our plots. We couldn't talk about some of what we were doing in our campaign if this were the case because it would be, "Well, she decides to leave when Lucifer vanishes in a puff of smoke -- oh, right, we weren't supposed to give that away . . ." Now can *everyone* please not jump to conclusions because of other problems? It is *REALLY* getting to me. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:06:22 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 10:56 -0500 3/17/99, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >"Jo Hart" wrote: >>Walter Milliken wrote: >>> I can't talk >>>too much about it, since it also involves some plot elements from the next >>>Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. >> >>Ugh. Don't do it, man. > >I am with Jo on this one. A cycle to add a third side is just cheesy. It isn't about that -- I just stole some bits from it to add to our third side thing. (There are some things that fit nicely into the third side, but they don't demand it.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:17:39 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Editors, submissions and the Nature of Languages At 9:32 AM -0500 3/17/99, Whistling in the Dark wrote: >And yes, if you submit something to our >gracious Line Editor and you don't follow the In Nomine style sheet, she'll >be annoyed at the very least and far less likely to publish you. But if >you don't follow the rules of grammar laid out in _The Elements of Style,_ >she's not likely to *finish* your work, since you're clearly incapable of >professional work. > >(I could be wrong. (You're not. My most honest reaction, upon reading something that doesn't have reasonable grammar and punctuation, is "In the nicest possible way, it's sweet that you're trying to write something for me, but please get someone who knows English to work with you before you send it to me." There is at least one person who quite persistantly sent several things to Scott, which he passed by me, and even the best of them needed certain canon and grammar/punctuation changes. Unfortunately, I don't think he ever sent back any of his works with the required changes, which basically nixed his chances right there.) >Some editors enjoy reading grammatically incorrect >proposals. I had a friend who edited Science Fiction magazines that used >to send back proposals covered in red ink and graded, often with the >comment 'this is why you had to go to that brick building for all of those >years' at the end.) (*chuckle* I'll also grade things, if I have time, *AND* if the person asked ahead of time if I'd go over it. IOW, I'll act as that friend who knows English, and you'll get back a lot of little clipped fragments where I've added [corrections] and suggestion. Then you make the corrections and send it back to me with my LE hat on, or on to Scott and I can know that it'll be fine with canon and basic language because I *read* it already.) (Another Editor-hint: if the editor sends you back a lot of corrections, make them so that you will have a cleaner manuscript to look at, and the practice of making such corrections. Most editors will also say, "Send it back when it's fixed" if they want to see it again. [I may forget, but it's very easy to drop me email to ask.]) >(I am very tired this morning, and therefore I expect I've comma-spliced >and torn apart half those selfsame rules. The djinn princess of nitpicking >will have a field day with this post.) (It looked fairly clean to me, overall... But then, I'm not reading it for potential publication, either. O;>) - --Beth, Archangel of Archives http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Angels/Arcangel.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:17:41 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth At 4:12 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> As soon as he realizes that he said a not-truth, he'll go neurotic. >> If he realizes that he was misunderstood, he'll go frantic trying to >> correct the misunderstanding. He's a creature of *TRUTH*, not >> semantics. > >And if someone -fakes- misunderstanding? Will he take dissonance, or just >become a nervous wreck? He's a Seraph -- if his resonance for Truth can't tell that someone's faking something . . . >> In text? Bingo! (Or some other construction: "Thus, I write with >> sarcasm: Servitors of the Wind are always lawful and sedate. Ha, ha.") >> And even then, it crawls at the brain... > >I was talking more generally - irony and sarcasm was quite common in >writing before the advent of HTML. Yes -- and look at how many people thought _A Modest Proposal_ was meant *SERIOUSLY*. Or the radio broadcast of _War of the Worlds_. >> But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to >> Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing >> small babies?" > >I think judging things this way is putting too much weight on the syntax >and not enough on pragmatics. Questions can be used as statements, just as >statements can be used as questions. Not in any English class that *I've* been in, frankly. You can use a question to be retorical -- that "Is the Pope Catholic?" example -- but it's still a question. It's just a question where you strongly expect the answer to be "Yes." But if you put that question-mark on it, the sentence becomes truth- neutral, because you're not saying that "The Pope *IS* Catholic." There is, after all, the chance that you have just slipped into an alternate dimension, and the person you asked that will look at you and say, "The Pope worships Zeus, of course." >Context, expectations and the >conventions of language use play a much bigger part than the presence or >absence of a question mark, I think. Not in written work. In written work, the punctuation *is* the context, the expectations, and the conventions of the language. And then there are commas -- from someone's .sig (and the thing that got the SJ Games styleguide changed!) was "I'd like to thank my parents, L. Ron Hubbard and Jesus Christ." (The official SJ Games style is now to put a comma before the "and" in such lists.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:19:16 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? At 10:56 AM -0500 3/17/99, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >"Jo Hart" wrote: >>Walter Milliken wrote: >>> I can't talk >>>too much about it, since it also involves some plot elements from the next >>>Cycle's possible story arc, woven into it. >> >>Ugh. Don't do it, man. > >I am with Jo on this one. A cycle to add a third side is just cheesy. Did I mention that the Third Side was non-canon, and that the context was *ELEMENTS* from a potential 2nd Cycle? The Third Side is not canon, and *will not be* canon. And if there were any *plans* to make it canon, you would *NOT* be hearing them on this list, because they'd be top secret, like the plot elements he's *NOT* talking about. Yeesh. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:20:53 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Stuff gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > In which comics is ( are? Sounds bad either way.) he nice? The three I can think of are the two you just mentioned plus (somewhat) Sandman. There, Lucifer is, in fact, pretty evil... but he's also just not that bad a guy. - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:23:35 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Celestial disguise At 2:47 PM +0000 3/17/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Maybe if you *were* an "Archangel" . . . Janus, anybody? (He possibly does >have the song, and if he is Valefor he certainly does). But of course the >very idea of thinking an AA could possibly be a demon is heretical, and if >Janus who you heard it from . . . well I wouldn't want to encourage you to >*lie* but just don't be too specific. Janus doesn't use this Song to impersonate a demon. [Note the complete lack of statment whether he impersonates a demon or doesn't. Just that he doesn't use that Song.] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:26:52 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa In a message dated 3/16/99 8:07:53 PM, shadowstar@centuryinter.net writes: >Oh yeah, > > And the -correct- plural form of Geas is Geases. Geasa is used as a >slang term by characters if I'm -not- mistaken. It's all part of your >friendly neighborhood IN NOMINE styleguide. > > (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/stylesheet.html) > You are mistaken. (Sorry 'bout that.) Geasa is the plural used in Shadowrun for the singular Geas based on Welsh/southern Celtic grammar, if I recall correctly - It also would work in Cornish. Based on English grammar, the singular is Geas, the plural is Geases. After thrashing about for a while, I believe that the Gaelic/northern Celtic grammar result we came up with was Geasanna for the plural of Geas, thanks, again if I recall correctly, to Kevin Walsh. So Geasa is not 'slang,' it's just the form those of us who started out in Shadowrun are used to. (And its *Foci* not focuses, for those who know what I'm talking about...) > > Good luck collecting. Last I heard, Beth was looking for skulls to chew (while in DP mode). >Be seeing you, > >- Tafka J. >= shadowstar@centuryinter.net ># Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Granduer (Shouldn't that be "Delusions of Grandeur"?) >* http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine > Mark (Cherub of Destiny, looking for David so he can pull the lightsabre trick...) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:57:40 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraph and Truth On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 4:12 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > >> As soon as he realizes that he said a not-truth, he'll go neurotic. > >> If he realizes that he was misunderstood, he'll go frantic trying to > >> correct the misunderstanding. He's a creature of *TRUTH*, not > >> semantics. > > > >And if someone -fakes- misunderstanding? Will he take dissonance, or just > >become a nervous wreck? > > He's a Seraph -- if his resonance for Truth can't tell that someone's > faking something . . . Including a completely blank look? Or actions rather than speech? > >> In text? Bingo! (Or some other construction: "Thus, I write with > >> sarcasm: Servitors of the Wind are always lawful and sedate. Ha, ha.") > >> And even then, it crawls at the brain... > > > >I was talking more generally - irony and sarcasm was quite common in > >writing before the advent of HTML. > > Yes -- and look at how many people thought _A Modest Proposal_ was > meant *SERIOUSLY*. Or the radio broadcast of _War of the Worlds_. So we use the lowest common denominator to see if a Seraph takes dissonance or not? > >> But they get to ask questions sarcastically. "Oh, so you *want* to > >> Fall and become an icky nasty Shedite who takes delight in torturing > >> small babies?" > > > >I think judging things this way is putting too much weight on the syntax > >and not enough on pragmatics. Questions can be used as statements, just as > >statements can be used as questions. > > Not in any English class that *I've* been in, frankly. You can use a > question to be retorical -- that "Is the Pope Catholic?" example -- > but it's still a question. It's just a question where you strongly > expect the answer to be "Yes." > > But if you put that question-mark on it, the sentence becomes truth- > neutral, because you're not saying that "The Pope *IS* Catholic." There > is, after all, the chance that you have just slipped into an alternate > dimension, and the person you asked that will look at you and say, "The > Pope worships Zeus, of course." But what you want with what you say isn't to ask the question about the Pope, it's to imply that the answer to the previous question is obvious. Answering "yes" as if that is what you're supposed to say shows that you have misunderstood what the one who "asked" the question meant. > >Context, expectations and the > >conventions of language use play a much bigger part than the presence or > >absence of a question mark, I think. > > Not in written work. In written work, the punctuation *is* the > context, the expectations, and the conventions of the language. It's much stronger in written language, absolutely, and in "proper" or formal written language it's pretty much as you say. But in poetry, or even more free versions of prose that's not entirely true, IMO. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:59:20 -0600 From: Seth Buntain Subject: IN> Locations book... Is this the proper forum for comments or discussion about the Book of Locations? If not, where would be the proper forum? :) Thanks. - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:09:04 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: [none] When I said 'don't do it' I meant... a) Don't use superiors as personal PCs in canon scenarios b) Don't let overspill from personal campaigns bleed into canon (unless the personal campaign is stunningly good and would be amazingly well received by players who aren't _your_ players) c) Don't let the thrill of story-writing overshadow the basic objective of any scenario/ gamebook which is to be FUN for other GMs/players and also PLAYABLE d) Err.. don't do another cycle :) Seriously, a set of linked scenarios in one book is fine. 5 separate books is almost certainly not. No offence intended. I was tired last night. jo (And if you are surprised and upset that I might have assumed any of the above, they are assumptions formed after having read some of the current material. ) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:14:20 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Lilith a Human? > Did I mention that the Third Side was non-canon, and that the context > was *ELEMENTS* from a potential 2nd Cycle? The Third Side is not > canon, and *will not be* canon. And if there were any *plans* to > make it canon, you would *NOT* be hearing them on this list, because > they'd be top secret, like the plot elements he's *NOT* talking > about. Yeesh. The solution, of course, to this sort of reaction from people (and huzzah, more than myself, so I'm not insane) very is simple: If you're in the business of writing the books and advertising as such, it is in your best interest not to mention "my game" and "canon" in the same sentence. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:11:45 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages At 4:37 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >> Anyone who thinks that "there's no such thing as grammar" has never learned >> the joys of being rejected for publication. There *are* very specific >> rules which must be followed for correct sentence construction. > >These rules are examples of -a- grammar (or rather, different grammars, >since they are not the same from one publisher to another, which >strengthens my point, I think). Oo! Oo oo oo! Not true. The rules of *grammar* are a constant. The rules of *style* vary. But vary very little -- a house style sheet is far more likely going to be "we follow the Chicago Style Guide, plus..." with the plus being things like what house terms are capitalized and so forth. Style is not usage. Usage does not change. The possessive of a noun that is itself singular is always apostrophe s, even if the last letter of a word is itself s. (Therefore, if you make reference to my post answering yours, you would say "Burns's post," not "Burns' post" or "Burnses' post.") These Are Not House Rules. And it is not the interaction between you and I that sets them. It is the interaction of the entire American English speaking population. Which is why the Canadian English speaking population has a different set, and so does the British English speaking population, but the California population and the Maine population follows the same rules. I do not get to declare that the possessive of my last name can be marked as a single apostrophe. > These rules don't have an independent >existence as "the one true way of speaking/writing >English/Swedish/whatever", but are demands put upon formal style. That's >not the same thing. > There is a correct and an incorrect way to speak and write English by the rules of grammar. That is a given. Language itself must evolve in order to change them, and that process takes a *long* time. Style is another issue. >> Yes, language is an artificial creation. > >That depends on what language you're talking about. If you mean "English" >(or Swedish, or Spanish, Hebrew etc) "the way people speak it", then no, >it isn't. If you mean "English as described in this or that grammar", then >yes, it is. > Yes, it is. Language evolves naturally, but is itself artificial. A child is not born with the O.E.D. in his head. And that creation has rules. >However, it is a creation where >> the appropriate rules are agreed upon. (And you and I didn't get to vote >> on them, unfortunately.) > >This is just plain wrong. Grammatical rules vary widely between different >dialects of what's traditionally seen as the same language. For example, >in large parts of northern Sweden it's quite appropriate to use a definite >article for proper names ("n'Johan" or "a'Beda", for example) in a way >that's completely horrible by "normal" Swedish grammar rules. > Different dialects have different rules, yes. But you and I don't choose them. They evolve, and what is appropriate in those dialects and those rules remains a function of the population. (And there is a world of difference between an unofficial use dialect and appropriate usage. My home town speaks "Valley French," a bastardized tongue that bears little resemblance to English or French. But when writing formally, the people of my town write either American English or Canadian French. They do *not* try to pass Valley French off as legitimate usage or grammar for either tongue.) >The grammar books you mention are *not* one >> person's internal grammar, but attempts at codifying the correct grammar in >> use by society. > >Attempts by one or more persons, yes. There are two ways to do this (if >you want to be extreme). The armchair linguist thinks about his own sense >of the language - "Is this appropriate? Can this word be used in this >context? Does it fit this or that paradigm?" - while the empirical >linguist collects material that describes how people actually use language >and try to formulate rules from that. These two methods usually give very >different results. The armchair linguist usually arrives at a more >proscribing description - "You can do this but not that, and certainly not >the other!" - while the empirical linguist usually has a more tolerant >view of what's allowed and not - "Some people say this, some say that, and >there are even some that say the other." But not a one of them, in American English, would allow the spelling of the singular possessive as anything but apostrophe s. The rules of grammar are the playing field they're on. The rules of style are where the war is fought. > Which one of these you find valid >depends on your choice of ideology and theory, but neither one is more >"right" than the other, because they do different things. > Ah, but they break down from specific rules. It also depends upon the Linguistics field you're working in. Sign/Significator/Signified is an entirely different field from evolution of language/langue, which is itself not the same thing at all as style codification, which is itself distinct from grammar, which is distinct from semantics. > The reason that the MLA has such a high membership is fine >> points of grammar (or more usually style) are debated *viciously* among >> scholars, all in an effort to get every last rule correct. > >I don't know what the MLA is, but I would like to point out that in my >experience very few -linguists- debate this kind of thing. > Linguistics -- the science of language -- is a different field entirely from grammar. Linguists are not codifiers of style, in general -- any more than astrophysicists write astronomy books. They're different fields. >In precise >> speech and all rhetoric, those rules are the channel markers that make it >> possible for opinion and fact to be rendered in a way anyone in the >> audience can understand. Without those rules, it would quickly become very >> hard to understand what anyone else was saying. > >People who have no rhetorical training what so ever speak to and >understand each other every day, without any formal agreement on rules at >all, and have done so for thousands of years. > No human being on Earth who uses language has "no rhetorical training." They may not take a class in Rhetoric, but rhetoric is soaked up during the formation of language skills. This is why we can speak and write to one another. None of which changes the fact that correct grammar is correct grammar, and incorrect grammar isn't correct grammar. A person who consistantly writes in sentence fragments may have brilliant ideas but comes across as an utter fool because he can't effectively communicate. This is why most 'native' populations feel 'foreigners' are somehow lower in intelligence. It's not because they are -- but because with a different set of grammatical tools soaked up into one's brain, it's difficult to speak in a foreign language and come across as intelligent. (Not impossible by any stretch -- plenty of folks do and none of it truly reflects on the speaker's intelligence. However, when someone in my hometown, speaking Valley, says "I told him me to take the truck out him," which happens often, they don't sound as convincing to a non-Valley listener as someone who speaks grammatically. >> Some people care very much about grammar, and cringe when the argument >> above is laid out. However, it seems to me that *Seraphim* will care to a >> degree unheard of outside of certain Nuns teaching in Lower Middle Class >> neighborhoods. There is a Way To Speak. They speak it. It is a true >> thing. > >This, once again, Just Ain't So. There are as many ways to speak as there >are people in the world. If that were true, then no one outside of a hundred mile radius of his birthplace could possibly communicate. There are *not* two hundred and ninty different ways to grammatically work in American English. There is one. There are a few hundred dialects of spoken English, most of which only vary in a few stylistic ways. A Seraphim, wanting to be certain his points would be accurate, would learn to speak the language *precisely* and *accurately.* > Most of them have a very substantial overlap with >other ways to speak, but there are not two people in the world who speak >exactly the same language. IMO a Seraph would have to learn the >conventions of speaking used in his area of operations or constantly tag >on "I think", "In my opionion" or similar phrases to each and every >statement he makes, and probably some questions too. > I say again, style is not grammar, and even style follows very specific rules. Grammar does not vary. >I think Seraphim have problems exactly because Angelic is True and Fixed, >while human languages are fluid and constantly changing. They keep looking >for the True way to speak English (or Swedish, or...) which just doesn't >exist. > Sure it does. If a Seraph shows up in 99% of America and speaks American English (the dialect commonly referred to professionally as "Newsreader") he will be understood so long as he does not use vocabulary his audience doesn't understand. That 1% where he couldn't would either exclusively speak another language or be so ill-educated that they would be functionally illiterate anywhere but in their own town. (May I mention that I *love* this list -- I haven't skipped lunch to argue style/grammar/linguistics/rhetoric in a *long* time). - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1161 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.