Sousou no Frieren

You need to log in to comment.

Vol. 1 Ch. 3 - Blue Moonweed
Avatar
The curse of long life...its crushing
Avatar
Holy fuckballs, I teared the fuck up when he put that wreath on her. This is some Shinkai shit.
Avatar
fucking kino
Avatar
I have a bittersweet feelings for this
Avatar
Save yourself! This comment thread is the reason tldr is invented!
Avatar
@Zephyrus : I already blocked the filth, as I said. And I'd hardly say such janitorial work qualifies as a "fight" of any sort.
Zephyrus
Forum Moderator
Avatar
@Xevinaly
@SotiCoto

Block each other or take it to PM. Chapter threads aren't for playground slapfights.
18 days ago This post by SotiCoto has been marked as moderated.
18 days ago This post by Xevinaly has been marked as moderated.
Avatar
fck me dude. I am not the type of person to get too emotional, but this is really hitting me in my heart.
Avatar
She almost went a little overboard here because she now has a mortal young student by her side, but how wonderful can it be to have all the time to devote yourself singlehandly to one problem, one subject for as long as you need to. Many people don't like the idea of immortality or really long lifespans and I really don't get it.
Avatar
Why does this make me so sad?
Alexa play despacito.
Avatar
@SotiCoto

My response actually amounts to "if you ignore the established rules and standards of English, and substitute your own, then you have no legitimate stance for telling other people they are using English incorrectly. You are being subjective, and thus have conceded any claim to objectively being correct."

Since American English dictionaries say that "herbalist" is pronounced with a silent "h", then an American translating this is following the rules of grammar by writing "an herbalist". Your personal feelings on the matter that it doesn't sit right with you do not mean that they are wrong, or that those who say they are correct are "doubly wrong" for following an established and well respected dictionary over the complaints of one random individual on the internet that also claims even the OED is wrong if it disagrees with his feelings.

So, no, you don't have the ability to convince me that "random internet guy is right and all dictionaries that disagree with him are wrong, so I should check with him on any matter pertaining to English to be correct." You are full of yourself, but I certainly hope your headache/migraine/painful experience goes away soon.
Avatar
@throwaway4ccount : Crude as my arguments are (because I'm really not invested in this), if your response amounts to "you're not rational because you're in the minority", I obviously don't need to try any harder.

The quotation mark thing is just kinda weird. Nested quotation marks are typically the other way around, but if you reach the level of nested quotation marks then something has probably gone wrong anyway.

And ... I'm running out of momentum. The topic has changed so far that it only tangentially relates to the original matter of the non-silent "h" in "herbalist". Obviously trying to convince you of my stance on this would take far more effort than I'm willing (or possibly even able) to put into this, and right now something I couldn't possibly explain is rendering me unable to focus. Maybe I'll come back to this later when I don't have hundreds of images flashing through my thoughts and disrupting what I'm trying to do to an actually painful extent.
Avatar
@SotiCoto I'm not surprised that you would prefer I use a different word, other than "feelings", because you would prefer ones that make your position sound more rational, but the fact is, "feelings" fits best, because it is based on what sounds best to you. It is your instincts that you use for what you think is correct or incorrect, but that means that you are being extremely subjective. The idea that, when multiple dictionaries say you are incorrect, that you come to the conclusion that they must be wrong and you are right, shows that your position lacks rationality.

For the record, I have very similar feelings about some of the things that you do. I get annoyed that "phonetically" isn't spelled "phonetically". (I once had somebody say, "Yes, it is, because 'ph' always sounds like 'f'." I replied, "So shefferds watch their flocks by night?")

The Portuguese-Spanish example is different, though, because if they were writing it, it would be noticeable that they were writing in different languages, whereas everybody not you would clearly say that we were both writing "in English". We had been over that you thought they were different languages, but you had asked: "what 'language dictates'?" and said you had seen nothing to show it was anything other than my "personal feelings". The fact that you used "feelings" when talking about my stance, but dislike the same word when talking about yours is yet another example of your hypocrisy. (It's probably based on the idea that, since I disagree with you, mine must be "feelings" that can be discarded, rather than the "rational thought" you think dictates your every decision.) Since you asked, I answered, then you didn't like the answer that showed that I actually had an external basis for my categorization, unlike you.

I did not find it odd that you were using the double quotation marks, because I didn't know that was a difference between the two. I have seen people use single quotation marks before, but assumed that they were just too lazy to hit the "Shift" key as well. (I would guess that, in many of the cases where I've seen that, I have been correct in my assumption, especially since I've often seen it that way from Americans, but perhaps some of the times they have been doing it according to what they were taught.) I will try to remember that distinction in the future.

I now doubt that is when you decided to ignore them, but probably for as long as you've been aware of them being a "dictionary of American English", since you think that is a false statement, and because you also reject the OED when it disagrees with you. Words that pronounce the "u", like "hour" we keep the "u" in them, just ones that are pronounced as if they don't have the "u" don't need a diphthong, so we simplified it.

But, now you have confirmed for me, that you have set yourself up as the sole judge of "proper English", and as such, I can now echo your words to somebody else to you: "you're doubly wrong" for saying somebody else was wrong, when it was based on your personal whims, not actual rules of English. To think that people should be aware of your whims, and write according to them, when they don't even know you, is a ridiculous level of hubris. Also, to declare objective right and wrong based on your subjective reasoning, is flawed as well. If you are going to take the stance that there is an objective standard, then it has to come from outside of yourself, otherwise there is nothing to say that your "rationale" is better than somebody else's. I'm sure it wasn't how you wanted to spend your time, since you must have realized that your claims had been exposed for subjective nonsense.
Avatar
@throwaway4ccount :
I assumed that, based on your definitive statements about correct/incorrect usage of words, that you were basing it on something beyond yourself and your feelings.

Your inclination to keep using the word "feelings" as opposed to other ostensibly similar but significantly different alternatives, disinclines me to trust in your judgement. Just thought I'd let you know. I have no more regard for any "feelings" I'm subjected to than anyone else's. They're just a distraction and a nuisance.

In any case though, I distrust pretty much anything and everything that doesn't offer a more practical and rational explanation for the subject at hand than I already have. And funnily enough, dictionaries usually tend to be more in the habit of declaring things to be so, rather than justifying them. I tend to prioritise practicality over traditionalism, but either over other concerns. As such they're no more than a second, external data-point to me. And if something I have determined already makes more sense than an alternative they present, I reject their declaration as false.


Another example, more in terms of pronunciation, is the word "forte" in terms of somebody's strength. The proper pronunciation, even 20 years ago, was "fort", like the military structures, but so many people mispronounced it "fort-ay" (due to confusion with the word "forte" meaning to play more strongly on an instrument like the piano), that now the "proper pronunciation" is "fort-ay". Enough people getting it wrong changed it.

I've not encountered that one before. You're the first data-point for it. If my memory holds, it shall be set for possible future reference... though that seems improbable given the somewhat niche subject.

Frankly speaking, I wish there were ways to slow down the change of language due to ignorance, and I do feel that they need to be resisted as long as possible. After all, the purpose of language is communication, and the more people use the same word with two different definitions, the more likely there is to be confusion. But it is a fact that language does change over time.

My position on this topic is only subtly different.
That it is grossly impractical to simply allow language to change uncontrolled, with no more than the conflict between entropy and necessity pushing it in a seemingly random direction at any given time. "Natural" change as such, should be resisted, but improvements to aid in the conveyance of accurate information should also be deliberately made and encouraged where applicable.

I pointed out that Portuguese and Spanish speakers can have a conversation, but that they still don't use the same language, and couldn't switch to using the other language, so your attempt to refute what I said by pointing out other examples of that is flawed.

Your treatment of the distinction between Portuguese and Spanish on one hand, and between English and American on the other hand, is flawed. They are equivalent. Four languages. Two pairs of roughly interconnected languages, but with difference enough to cause confusion and introduce misunderstanding.

They are very clear, though, that American English is definitely English, and not an entirely different language.

I am aware they do. And I disagree. We've already been over this.

I'd be surprised if there were any linguistics experts that would assert it as a different language instead of a dialect.

I've not spoken to enough "linguistics experts" to know what they'd opine on the matter, but I'm aware most people tend to be susceptible to appeals to authority... and are more likely to believe what others told them to be so than to decide for themselves what makes more sense... or would be a more practical consideration.

Which means that there are some parts where it was British English that "changed" (which you associate with error) that American English didn't.

Something of an aside here, but don't you find it odd that I'm also using double quotation marks to quote things? "Like so"...
It is an American standard rather than a British one, but I find using single quotation marks makes for less distinction from apostrophes... and is thus the less practical answer. Practicality is my first concern, and my primary means of determining which is more "correct".

You say it is my word against theirs, but I actually provided reference in the form of a well-regarded dictionary. The fact that you dislike said dictionary doesn't mean it isn't authoritative.

The fact that the dictionary made an absolute absurd and idiotic error means it can't be trusted as a reference for anything.

It is also ironic that at the end you talk about "do[ing] away with silent letters" while also critiquing Americans for some of the changes we've made to the British use of the language, even though one of the most dominant ones is doing away with the silent "u" in words like "Labor" and "Honor" and such

It moves said words further away from phonetic pro..... y'know what. No. I refuse to write "pronunciation" any more. I pronounce words. I don't "pronunce" them. Anyway, as I was saying, it moves words further away from phonetic pronounciation. Ergo it is counterproductive. The American shortening of the words doesn't bother me so much as the wrong letters being removed.


... And now it is 1:19am. This isn't how I want to be spending my time.
Avatar
@SotiCoto:

I might have misjudged you, earlier. I assumed that, based on your definitive statements about correct/incorrect usage of words, that you were basing it on something beyond yourself and your feelings. Now I'm not so sure. I will, however, be referring to the Oxford English Dictionary for at least some of these points, because if there is an authority beyond your own that you would listen to, it would be that. If you think you are the only true arbiter of language, then this discussion will have no more merit, as you will be beyond help until you acknowledge that such a stance is entirely subjective, and thus can't be used for definitive statements of incorrect usage by others.

The purpose of the dictionary is two-fold. The first is to give people the correct definition of the word so that it isn't misused, the second is to track the usage of a word so that if it starts meaning something different, that different meaning is known. The OED website states: "As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from dictionaries of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings." (https://public.oed.com/about/)

This shows that historical meanings and present day meanings are different, but recognizes both as the function of dictionaries. It is very clear that words, spellings, pronunciations, and meanings change over time. For evidence, you can look at old poems that are clearly designed to have rhymes, and see that some of those words don't sound remotely similar today, but they did back then. Etymological searches will easily show the difference in meanings of a word. For one easy example, "Charity" used to mean "Love" (which is why in quotations of the King James, it is often translated as "Charity"), but now we think of "Charity" as gifts given to those less fortunate (with "Pity" being thought of more commonly than "Love").

Another example, more in terms of pronunciation, is the word "forte" in terms of somebody's strength. The proper pronunciation, even 20 years ago, was "fort", like the military structures, but so many people mispronounced it "fort-ay" (due to confusion with the word "forte" meaning to play more strongly on an instrument like the piano), that now the "proper pronunciation" is "fort-ay". Enough people getting it wrong changed it.

Frankly speaking, I wish there were ways to slow down the change of language due to ignorance, and I do feel that they need to be resisted as long as possible. After all, the purpose of language is communication, and the more people use the same word with two different definitions, the more likely there is to be confusion. But it is a fact that language does change over time. Trying to read and understand English writings of the 1500-1600s in their original spelling would be difficult for us.

I pointed out that Portuguese and Spanish speakers can have a conversation, but that they still don't use the same language, and couldn't switch to using the other language, so your attempt to refute what I said by pointing out other examples of that is flawed. I did, clearly, make a typographical error by saying: "perfect understand" and not "perfectly understand", but it isn't the words I'm using, or the words you are using that cause any conflict, but simply whether we agree with the information presented.

As for the "language dictates" I will again refer you to the OED. It says: "When the First Edition of the Dictionary was published, it documented the language of the British Isles in greater detail than the varieties of English which were established or emerging elsewhere. Since that time, a considerable amount of major lexicographical work has been conducted in other areas where English is used, and the current revision is able to benefit from this scholarship. Material from such texts as the Dictionary of American English and the Dictionary of Americanisms, the Dictionary of Canadianisms, the Dictionary of South African English, the Australian National Dictionary, the Dictionary of New Zealand English, and many others, supported by the Dictionary’s own reading programme, has enabled the editors to enhance the coverage of varieties of English worldwide. The English of the British Isles now becomes one (or indeed several) of these varieties, whereas previously standard British English may have been regarded as the dominant form of English." (https://public.oed.com/history/oed-editions/preface-to-the-third-edition/#varieties)

They not only state "American English" like I did, but also state that: "previously standard British English may have been regarded as the dominant form of English". This shows that they do not view it as the "correct usage of English", but merely one of many "correct" ways to use it. They are very clear, though, that American English is definitely English, and not an entirely different language. I'd be surprised if there were any linguistics experts that would assert it as a different language instead of a dialect.

Fun note: wikipedia's article on it states: "Studies on historical usage of English in both the United States and the United Kingdom suggest that spoken American English did not simply deviate away from period British English, but is conservative in some ways, preserving certain features contemporary British English has since lost." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English) Which means that there are some parts where it was British English that "changed" (which you associate with error) that American English didn't.

You say it is my word against theirs, but I actually provided reference in the form of a well-regarded dictionary. The fact that you dislike said dictionary doesn't mean it isn't authoritative. As I've shown, it cataloging "present day meanings" is what the OED says a dictionary is supposed to do. Your stance on the subject is what is wrong. In our discussion, I've been the one using outside references, to try to prove from an objective stance that I have been correct, while you have just been arguing based on your own feelings.

It is ironic that you lament the changes of the usage of words, which are done based on other people's subjectivity, but only based on your subjectivity, rather than anything objective.

It is also ironic that at the end you talk about "do[ing] away with silent letters" while also critiquing Americans for some of the changes we've made to the British use of the language, even though one of the most dominant ones is doing away with the silent "u" in words like "Labor" and "Honor" and such. Frankly, you talking about changes you'd like to make to "fix English" while also complaining that people making changes you don't like are objectively wrong is hypocritical, in and of itself.
Avatar
@throwaway4ccount :
once it gets used that way enough, they need to record the usage of it, for those looking it up because they don't understand.

That completely and utterly defeats the purpose of a dictionary in the first place... which is to record and impart correct usage and meaning in order to counteract misuse and error. Normalising errors means they've fundamentally failed as a dictionary.

As for your argument about American not being English, the fact that the two of us are able to converse with one another and perfect understand each other is evidence that it is still English.

I've overheard a conversation between two people where one was speaking Dutch and the other Afrikaans, yet they're two separate languages. If someone speaks to me in Kernewek or Breton, unlikely as that might be, I'd probably be able to at least understand some of their meaning since I speak Welsh.
AND if we could "perfect understand each other", we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place, would we?

However, based on language dictates (not personal feelings on the matter, especially since you have essentially appealed to the "rules of language") American English is still English, just a dialect of it with its own peculiarities.

What "language dictates" are you speaking of? I've not seen anything that could remotely suggest that this is anything more than just your personal feelings on the matter. Dialects in general are the products of regional accents and trends, and even if consistently maintained, do not reflect upon the standards of the language itself. As I said earlier, if it is English then all American spellings are de-facto wrong, and if they're accepted as right then it isn't English. Do you think dictionaries in Scotland are written with a phonetic Scottish accent? I mean it wouldn't surprise me if someone had tried that, admittedly, but I'd still regard it as a joke not to be taken seriously.

As such, the other person's concession doesn't matter to me or prove you to be correct.

I can't say as I particularly expected to... but then it is their word against yours for me, and I heard theirs first. That is the only reason I brought up that little point rather than focusing entirely on the "either you're wrong or you're not speaking English" angle.
Plus the fact you brought up Merriam Webster worked against you.

Even if you say that it was an accent that led to omitting the "h" in "historic" that also doesn't change the fact that it has, many times for decades, been written as "an historic occasion" or some such variant

Sure. Incorrectly.
The sort of people who can't say "It is his hat" without making it "I's 'is 'at" aren't exactly setting the standard for correct language usage.

With words like "hour" as well, we see that if the consonant is not pronounced, it is supposed to be "an" not "a".

Yes, because the "h" in "hour" actually IS meant to be silent, unlike "historic" and "herbalist"... at least in English.
"Honest" is another one.
And personally speaking, if I had enough say in the matter, I'd do away with silent letters and non-phonetic pronunciation (ugh, that word) entirely. I hate impracticality of this sort, but I'm primarily targeting americanisms because, simply put, it is a far easier task than trying to fix English.
Avatar
@Soticoto Merriam Webster is a dictionary, and as such, they record the current rules of the language. While I agree that it is a tragedy of ignorance that "literally" is used to mean "figuratively" ("I literally died laughing" "Well, you look pretty good for being deceased."), once it gets used that way enough, they need to record the usage of it, for those looking it up because they don't understand. As I said, why languages change is a very different topic. Unfortunately, it often is driven by ignorance.

As for your argument about American not being English, the fact that the two of us are able to converse with one another and perfect understand each other is evidence that it is still English. People speaking Spanish and Portuguese can understand most of what the others say, but not fully, and normally can't speak/write the other language. I wouldn't know how far the other dialects have gone, to know if they aren't the same language anymore or not. However, based on language dictates (not personal feelings on the matter, especially since you have essentially appealed to the "rules of language") American English is still English, just a dialect of it with its own peculiarities. If you claim to speak of objective accuracy or inaccuracy in terms of language, then you have to have something beyond just how you view it to be as the standard.

Even if the other person consented to that, I've not heard people pronounce the "h" in "herbalist" and when I looked it up in an American Dictionary, I found the pronunciation without the "h". As such, the other person's concession doesn't matter to me or prove you to be correct. At most it shows that it is pronounced both ways in America. Even if you say that it was an accent that led to omitting the "h" in "historic" that also doesn't change the fact that it has, many times for decades, been written as "an historic occasion" or some such variant, showing the use of the indefinite article "an" with it. With words like "hour" as well, we see that if the consonant is not pronounced, it is supposed to be "an" not "a".
Avatar
@throwaway4ccount : Merriam Webster sacrificed whatever credibility they might have had when they declared that "literally" also meant the opposite of itself. They're not a reliable dictionary for any purpose now, whether they were before or not.

And American is a few hundred years too far gone to be referred to as a dialect of English. It isn't English. It is just American. I'm honestly surprised Americans themselves haven't tried to make the distinction themselves before now (being bloated on national pride and all that), but I guess in spite of their war of independence they will want to cling to the motherland's teat in some respects.
In any case, the American language isn't a dialect of English any more than Italian is a dialect of Latin... or for that matter English being a dialect of Latin. What they speak in Yorkshire is a dialect of English... but is still just called English. What they speak in Sussex is a dialect of English... but is still just called English. What you're calling "sub-dialects" are just dialects.
If it makes you any better, I don't regard Quebecois as French, nor do I regard Brazilian as Portuguese. They're their own thing now.

But in any case, this was already covered... and the last time the one I was discussing it with actually consented to the notion that even if they pointlessly silence the "h" in "herb", that doesn't extend to "herbalist". Not that it mattered to me overmuch at the time because it should never have been regarded as silent in the first place because it sounds grossly awkward like that.


As for historic... as far as I know people have only ever "silenced" the "h" there because their accent led to omitting the letter all over the place, and they didn't otherwise act as though it were missing.
Read older comments