Chthonic.
It looks like it comes from Lovecraft!
Ironically, Cthulhu is not Chthonic. :P
Being a big fan of Lovecraft and a big fan of the English language, I can assure you that the use of the word in our products has been used correctly. Often SUPER-correclty, since we sometimes use it to describe buildings in Ghol-Gan, for example... which are enormous ruins actually built by cyclopes.
That's great. I like to see some thought is put into these things. :D
|
Also: the meaning of words can and does change with time and usage.Like decimate.
Good example. And while there are still people who get pissy at (or just want to show off their superior knowledge in regards to) the ‘incorrect’ usage of decimate, it’s actually been used in its current generally accepted (and dictionary validated) usage for probably well over one hundred years. Those 19th century kids and their new-fangled words!
Let's not start with the anti-intellectualism, okay?
Let's not start with the anti-intellectualism, okay?
I wouldn't think it "anti-intellectualism" as "anti-faux-intellectualism*-that-thinks-it's-intellectual", i.e. "hey, I'm smarter than you are, look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!".
I'm guilty of the latter myself on occasion, as I've seen things that I disapprove of from an "intellectual" standpoint, but eventually have had my way of thinking turned around (in other words: I was wrong, and only realize it later). It's kind of human nature. I also disapprove of my own previous disapproval and of the disapproval I see in others based off of presumed intellectualism, but actually ignorance (although I attempt to keep my disapproval without rancor - ignorance can be a difficult thing... as I know, because I've had it, and often still do).
I hope this does not make my a hypocrite (I certainly don't blame most who shift their views), but rather someone who's open-minded enough to realize I can make mistakes.
Now, if it's just "hey, that's not correct, look here so you can learn this nifty thing (because I like making everyone around me better and improving myself)" that's not "faux-intellectualism" (as I'm calling it - I don't know if that's a real term or not), even if it's wrong, it's simply innocent ignorance, and, quite frankly, I can't fault a person who does so, even if misinformation is spread as a result (even if I don't like the misinformation being spread), simply because they don't know any better. From my experience, that genuine charity and humility is kind of rare in people, however, and it's usually more of the "look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" variety, especially on the internet.
THAT said... making fun of people/being rude is generally not a good thing, regardless. And yeah, it's probably a good idea not to give intellectualism in general a worse name on the internet.
* ... yeah, I have no idea if faux-intellectualism is even a real term. I'm literally making that up right now for this post. I'm so smart, look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ... wait...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not start with the anti-intellectualism, okay?
I suppose that was aimed at me. I’m hardly aiming to be anti-intellectual. I firmly believe in education and in the importance of critical, perceptive and above all intelligent thinking. I am also quite a stickler for using words correctly (to the best of my knowledge and ability – and to be willing to expand on that knowledge and ability when I realise it’s lacking), and have been known to have a quiet groan when I see or hear words used incorrectly. Additionally I believe that it is both useful and interesting to understand the etymology of words (sorry, that’s probably tautological).
Some comments in this thread just happen to have hovered near two of my pet peeves, one being people who don’t understand (or don’t care for the fact) that language (particularly the English language) is a constantly evolving thing, that the meanings of words can and do change, and that words can have multiple valid meanings; and the second being people who choose to belittle others for their lack of knowledge without knowing all the facts themselves.
So to use my earlier example of ‘decimate’, if someone used the word in its currently generally accepted (and dictionary accurate) meaning of ‘to destroy a large proportion of’ or something to that effect, I would find no fault in someone commenting “did you know that the word originally meant ...” or even “I always chuckle when I hear someone using that word in that context, given its original meaning”. But to say “you’re using that word incorrectly, it means ‘to destroy ten percent of’”, as I have heard someone say, is not only condescending, but is also incorrect (doubly so, given that the meaning as used is correct in context and that the ‘intellectual’ doing the correcting in this particular case didn’t even get the original meaning correct – if you’re going to correct someone, make sure you’re right!)
In conclusion, a clear reading of my comment will reveal that anti-intellectualism was neither the intent nor the final product. The meaning of words can change, an intellectual will understand and embrace this fact, rather than incorrectly berate people based on antique and overly narrow definitions.
Language evolves to accomodate new concepts all the time. It also evolves because people are lazy or uneducated. Would decimate have changed its meaning if people knew what it meant?
I am not saying not to embrace the change in language, but be careful not to embrace the poorer reasons for that change.
We don't want txt-speak to be a valid format to write high school essays in, do we? Oh wait... D:
Would decimate have changed its meaning if people knew what it meant?
Probably. Happens all the time, "dude" (or "dudette", depending... I'm not one to judge, ()man). :)
We don't want txt-speak to be a valid format to write high school essays in, do we? Oh wait... D:
Guh, tell me about it. It's... distressing when I find not one, but three of my college text books use the "word" (and I use the term loosely) "thru" within them - two of which use it as part of their name. I suppose times they are a'changin', and I, as an old fogy need to get with the program. Welp. *pulls up belt to chest and prepares to shake fist at kids that get on his lawn*
Edit: to add a ")" where it was needed.
Edit 2:
Or what Tacticslion said far more humorously than I.
I blame it entirely on a lack of sleep. I assure you, I'm not normally this funny. Well, I am, but fortunately for me, looks aren't everything. *rimshot!* ... I'll go away quietly now...
Yeah, even the language we use now is a far cry from a century ago in both words and common syntax. The use of contractions all but disappeared for a period and then returned.
Language changes for many reasons. As said, embrace worthy change. Don't embrace all change. Some of it isn't a good thing.
|
|
Language evolves to accomodate new concepts all the time. It also evolves because people are lazy or uneducated. Would decimate have changed its meaning if people knew what it meant?
I am not saying not to embrace the change in language, but be careful not to embrace the poorer reasons for that change.
We don't want txt-speak to be a valid format to write high school essays in, do we? Oh wait... D:
If I were around in the 19th century or whenever it was when people first started using the word decimate incorrectly (as it certainly was at the time), I think I’d be right there with you telling people to stop showing their ignorance and consult a dictionary. I don’t always embrace change, and I don’t think all change should be embraced, particularly where it is born of ignorance; neither do I think it’s worth anyone’s time in beating a 100 year old (plus) dead horse.
If I see or hear someone using a word incorrectly, I’m happy to correct them until they can point to their meaning in a dictionary, but I’m not going to berate someone for using a word ‘incorrectly’ when they are using a meaning that has in fact been correct since before they (and I) were born.
You raise an interesting point in regards to text speak in high school essays (and it’s not just limited to that unfortunately – we have actually had job applications and CVs written in part in text speak). No, I don’t think it’s appropriate in these sort of contexts – I think it’s quite abhorrent, I’m appalled that we might have a generation of people who won’t know how to properly spell or correctly use grammar. I’ll expound against it, I’ll teach my kids to write properly and I’ll hope for a societal and educational shift to get people writing properly again ... but if I’m in my 150s (surely we’re going to start living that long soon, right?) and my great grand kid’s generation are writing exclusively in whatever text speak evolves into, whatever the commonly accepted form of the English language is at that point ... well I hope that I’ll not be a hypocrite, and accept that this is just another evolution of our language.
I apologise if my post above came across as offensive (or overly pompous for that matter), but I was actually quite offended by the implication that I was an anti-intellectual and probably got a bit carried away. You know, someone was wrong on the internet and all that ...
As said, embrace worthy change. Don't embrace all change. Some of it isn't a good thing.
This is good and worthy advice no matter the conversation or topic!
|
Squamous means scaly like fish or reptiles. Unfortunately, I've seen it used to mean cancerous or shapeless due to its frequent appearance in works alongside such things as shoggoths.Now I want to see a story about a kingdom of cyclopes defeated by a mysterious force of regimented beings called the Ashlar.
And when I think squamous, I also think glabrous.
Also, Chimichthonga.
That's a side effect of squamous cell carcinoma, a cancer of the squamous cell layer of the epithelium. A squamous layer has broad, flat cells (as opposed to a cuboidal or columnar layer), much like a patch of scales.
Glabrous skin, on the other hand, is hairless, among other things. Medically, it is used to describe the skin of hand palms and foot soles.
I always think of the two together because they are used in conjunction with skin.
|
If it's any consolation, any attempt at text-speak in English lessons in the UK will be heavily criticised. None of the exam boards would recognise it as acceptable English for assessment.
I do discuss and teach about the use of non-standard English by advertisers and the media so that my students can understand and use those techniques but it is within the paradigm of 'non-standard'.
Blackberry handsets and touch-screens predominate at the schools I have taught in and they allow for full words and punctuation in a way that old mobile handsets never did.
My biggest bugbear at the moment is probably the use of 'of' in place of 'have', which is a product of my students' accents when speaking informally. Spoken language development has a much deeper impact.
Can anyone translate: "Man, that's bare long!"
Squamous means scaly like fish or reptiles. Unfortunately, I've seen it used to mean cancerous or shapeless due to its frequent appearance in works alongside such things as shoggoths.
The real problem is that it totally doesn't sound like "scaly". It definitely sounds: "OH MY GOD WHAT IS THAT THING MY BRAIN IS MELTIIIIIIING"
Wither that, or "I'm hunting wabbits. Squamous wabbits. Hunting them is a saquament."
Also: the meaning of words can and does change with time and usage.It's hard to draw the line between linguistic evolution and ignorant misuse.
And using words "ironically"
Ironic is being misused more horribly than almost every other word.
"Nonplussed" is another word that many people get wrong.
My biggest bugbear at the moment is probably the use of 'of' in place of 'have', which is a product of my students' accents when speaking informally.
That's a bad one. Native speakers shouldn't write more like a foreigner than the foreigners (i.e. me).
While we're on the topic of people misusing words. Someone was having a little tirade the other day in BF3 (I don't think he used stuff like "fag" or "b00n", so he was a saint in comparison to the average player), which was basically "Common stop that."
I was tempted to ask him if it's alright to rare stop doing it instead. And how to tell apart the common stop and the less common ones.
One of my favorite words is 'Sanguine'
"Sanguine, hopeful, plus point of interest, it also means bloody..."
"Well, that pretty much covers all options doesn't it."
A word I encountered recently that gave me pause is 'maladroit' which is apparently a synonym of clumsy. More specifically, doing something in an inept manner.
If it's any consolation, any attempt at text-speak in English lessons in the UK will be heavily criticised. None of the exam boards would recognise it as acceptable English for assessment.
I do discuss and teach about the use of non-standard English by advertisers and the media so that my students can understand and use those techniques but it is within the paradigm of 'non-standard'.
Blackberry handsets and touch-screens predominate at the schools I have taught in and they allow for full words and punctuation in a way that old mobile handsets never did.
My biggest bugbear at the moment is probably the use of 'of' in place of 'have', which is a product of my students' accents when speaking informally. Spoken language development has a much deeper impact.
Can anyone translate: "Man, that's bare long!"
"Man, that's very long."
Bare = very, a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the word "fecund". It was the first word (of many) in my AD&D books that I had to look up the meaning of.
I believe it was in the half-orc entry in the PHB "Orcs are fecund".
Yeah Gygax did more for my vocabulary than 17+ English teachers ( one a parent). I actually find it amusing that I think I can figure out a writer of a particular bit in one of Paizo's collaborative offerings based on the pet words and phrases.
Keep up the good work Paizo, some kid is going to owe you a beer for his SAT verbal score in a couple of years.
|
|
If it's any consolation, any attempt at text-speak in English lessons in the UK will be heavily criticised. None of the exam boards would recognise it as acceptable English for assessment.
I do discuss and teach about the use of non-standard English by advertisers and the media so that my students can understand and use those techniques but it is within the paradigm of 'non-standard'.
Blackberry handsets and touch-screens predominate at the schools I have taught in and they allow for full words and punctuation in a way that old mobile handsets never did.
My biggest bugbear at the moment is probably the use of 'of' in place of 'have', which is a product of my students' accents when speaking informally. Spoken language development has a much deeper impact.
Can anyone translate: "Man, that's bare long!"
"Man, that's very long."
Bare = very, a lot.
Half-way there.
Now, what does long mean?
Another: "It's the worse."
No, it isn't. It's the worst. Worse is comparative. It can only be the worse if you have just described exactly two things and make a comparison between the two now.
apparently, one cannot be 'taken afront.'
One can take affront though.