Remove ads

Let's Play Every Final Fantasy Game In Order Of Release [Now Finished: Final Fantasy Tactics]

Reader mode
Omicron said:
Meanwhile Squall is genuinely an unpleasant person, but in a way where it's clearly set-up for character development, and him being kind of a shithead actually distracts from the fact that he is also a badass in the strict "ability to murder people and monsters" sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've grown to appreciate this more over time, in retrospect, in that Squall is very 17 Years Old. Going through a lot of Teenage Boy Stuff where his only rolemodel is apparently, like, Seifer.


o11c said:
But the noun is only allowed for a limited psychological sense these days,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is a category error buddy, we're talking about a English word derived from Latin that was added to "psychology" through like Spinoza and used in a different way meanwhile by Shakespeare. Nobody doing any "allowing" here, we could send an email to people who run the Dictionary about the Correct Meaning and they'd sigh and point out Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive.

And even if we are going to quibble under your definition I still think it's correct? In that these characters are not pretending to act a certain way as a front, these are their real personalities. Squall is genuinely a little shit, and Cloud really believed he was a too-cool-for-school Operator (he was wrong because of Magic Amnesia, not because he was misrepresenting himself).
 
o11c said:
You mean "affectation". No, you're not the only one to make that mistake; it's fairly common when people find out "affect" can be a noun. But the noun is only allowed for a limited psychological sense these days, and the obscure historic senses don't mean this either.

At the point they are closest, the difference is that the noun "affect" has to mean a real feeling, whereas "affectation" is fake (adopted, assumed).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If English wants its words to have an inherent meaning that can be correct or incorrect outside of how people use it in common parlance, then it better start building itself an Académie Anglaise.

Until then, it will eat the just deserts of descriptivism, as it deserves.
 
o11c said:
You mean "affectation". No, you're not the only one to make that mistake; it's fairly common when people find out "affect" can be a noun. But the noun is only allowed for a limited psychological sense these days, and the obscure historic senses don't mean this either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You will forgive me for being That Gal, but if your desire is to be pedantic, then please consider that there exists an entire (and thriving) discipline of affect theory which, contrary to what you seem to be implying is not about the limited psychological sense of this particular term.
 
SerGregness said:
Okay, but are we talking like Mojave, or Sahara?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm about to blow your mind.

Article:
What to Know
Despite its pronunciation, just deserts, with one s, is the proper spelling for the phrase meaning "the punishment that one deserves." The phrase is even older than dessert, using an older noun version of desert meaning "deserved reward or punishment," which is spelled like the arid land, but pronounced like the sweet treat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Based on the way the second word in just deserts ("the punishment that one deserves") is pronounced one would be forgiven for imagining that it came about in reference to some form of discipline involving custards, cookies, or petits fours. It might even make one wonder why there are not other meal-based forms of chastisement in our language; why no deserved breakfasts, no requisite lunches, no warranted teas? Because it's not that kind of dessert.

The English language is fond of occasionally embracing its whimsical and illogical side, in order to keep things interesting for the people who attempt to use it. For instance, the most common noun form of desert ("arid land with usually sparse vegetation") is pronounced the same way as the adjectival form of this word ("desolate and sparsely occupied or unoccupied") play, but not the same way as the verb ("to withdraw from or leave usually without intent to return"), even though all three words come from the same source (the Latin deserere, "to desert"). The verb desert is pronounced the same way as the dessert you eat after dinner play(which comes from the Latin servir, "to serve"). And, to make things even more interesting (by which we mean confusing), there is another noun form of desert, spelled the same as the "arid land" word, but pronounced like the thing one eats after dinner, and with a meaning that is similar to neither.
Just deserts uses this, relatively uncommon, noun form of desert, which may mean "deserved reward or punishment" (usually used in plural), "the quality or fact of meriting reward or punishment," or "excellence, worth." This desert and dessert are etymologically related, although the former is quite a bit older; the punishment sense had already been in use for several hundred years by the time we got around to adopting the after-dinner word dessert around 1600. In fact, the use of just deserts predates that of dessert, as it came into use in the middle of the 16th century.
 
o11c said:
Except, that does seem to be about the psychological sense? Even if it spread to adjacent fields it's still the same origin.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My good friend, affect theory was developed in part to avoid the tendency towards individualism in psychological consideration of emotions. Yes, it has its roots in (fringe) psychological writings of Silvan Tomkins - but also in Raymond Williams' literary criticism and his notion of the "structures of feeling". Contemporary affect theory, especially in its queer strand, as inaugurated by writers such as Sara Ahmed (in Cultural Politics of Emotions), Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (in Touching Feeling) and Lauren Berlant (in The Female Complaint and Cruel Optimism) is primarily a critical theory/literary criticism-focused field which positions itself in opposition to psychology as a discipline. And I would know that because instead of working with Wikipedia articles, I am actually working in an adjacent field and have to operate within the affect theory's framework as a matter of course.
 
Terrabrand said:
Humans only dwell in africa, after all even if they spread it's still the same origin. :thonk:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
More like "humans are still human, even if they don't dwell in Africa". Likewise, psychology is still psychology even if you argue with other psychologists (in fact, I would argue that that's required if you're not Freud).

Nobody has actually linked me a sense of "affect" that's valid as a (quasi-)synonym for "affectation", though I have been quite exhaustively reminded that forums are horrible :/.
 
o11c said:
More like "humans are still human, even if they don't dwell in Africa". Likewise, psychology is still psychology even if you argue with other psychologists (in fact, I would argue that that's required if you're not Freud).

Nobody has actually linked me a sense of "affect" that's valid as a (quasi-)synonym for "affectation", though I have been quite exhaustively reminded that forums are horrible :/.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The serious answer is that Merriam-Webster lists one of affect's meaning as "a set of observable manifestations of an experienced emotion : the facial expressions, gestures, postures, vocal intonations, etc., that typically accompany an emotion," with one of the quotations provided being "Other victims of schizophrenia sometimes lapse into flat affect, a zombielike state of apparent apathy." A flat affect, a cold affect. Observable manifestations of an experienced emotion does not necessarily mean that these emotions are being experienced, but rather that they are the manifestations we associate with that emotion. Hence, if I'm trying to project the impression that I'm happy while inside I'm miserable, one may say that I am displaying a cheerful affect.

The real answer is that I don't really know what you expected from drive-by pedantry except, well, this.
 
o11c said:
More like "humans are still human, even if they don't dwell in Africa". Likewise, psychology is still psychology even if you argue with other psychologists (in fact, I would argue that that's required if you're not Freud).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Your argument was, as far as I could tell, that we could ignore the usage in other fields and just bow to the definition you say it originates in, because apparently usage doesn't matter only origin.

English, being a language without a central body defining what Real Words are, is the actual opposite of that, a language where only usage matters and correcting people on their 'mistakes' in english is only useful if you believe they are actually trying to write to some high technical standard and not a literal 'yo dawg I'm playing a game and conveying my experiences about it'. This isn't even a your/you're or they're/their/there kinda pedantry- you understand what Omicron intended, apparently, and in fact seemed to believe it was impossible to be confused by it, this isn't correcting typos because it might hurt the comprehensibility of the writing.

This is 'I'm going to be (incorrectly) pedantic about how this word choice is Wrong, by technical standards that do not logically apply to what is in fact not a technical discussion let alone specifically in the fields of psychology', which is basically never going to go anywhere but people being annoyed.
 
Omicron said:
The serious answer is that Merriam-Webster
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A funny answer is that I actually do have a English dictionary that has some legal weight to it, the ASD-STE100, a controlled language standard for Simplified Technical English originally designed for maintenance manuals for aircraft. Many manufacturers are contractually required to produce documentation that complies with the STE so that technicians and users anywhere in the world, many of which speak English as a second language with bad proficiency, can read and understand the manual.

Under the STE100, Issue 8 (the one I have, I think it's the most recent), Page 2-1-A9 defines "Affect" as the verb-form of the noun "Effect" and further recommends that it is preferable to re-write the sentence to use "effect" instead.

Notably "emotion" is not included in the restricted vocabulary, so I'm afraid your "Let's Play: all the Final Fantasy Games" is not compliant with the best & required practices for international equipment technical documentation.
 
The side topic of weapon upgrades is making me question myself about why we ended up in the hell mine when I was a teen.
Because with that in mind I have this strange feeling that we might have been hunting the rare robot enemies for drops or something like that.

Not that I can remember clearly enough now, that was over... that might have been over two decades ago now.
 
E.I.G. said:
I have this strange feeling that we might have been hunting the rare robot enemies for drops or something like that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Elastoid is one of the few monsters that drop Steel Pipes, yes, which is used in several different weapon upgrades, and unlike the others, it drops them at all different levels (monster drops change with levels for many monsters), it drops more, and it is more likely to drop them to begin with. Alternatively, you might have been after Blue Magic drops; both Elastoid and Gesper have those.
 
Today in amazing discoveries I make about the French translation that make me wish I could catch a glimpse of what was going through the translators' minds: You know that weird crawly dude with a tail and two pincers named Geezard in English and whose Japanese name is a portmanteau translating to "Crawlizard"?

Well, his French name is Bogomile.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top