gearing up for our GSF campaign (pics)

[Red Orc]

Steve F, I'll quote what I said about 6 posts ago...

...In a British context, they are Edward I and Edward II of Great Britain and Ireland; Edward I-VI (Longshanks through to Tudor) were only kings of England (see the problem the Scots have with kings called James). Which also ignores the Saxon Edwards eg The Confessor, but that's another whole bunch of messiness....

Anevilgiraffe... you seem to be missing my point entirely. 'Georgian' only means '1714-1830' to the British. Maybe the Canadians or Americans, who were also ruled by the Georges I-IV, probably very few others. As Geudens isn't Britsh, Canadian or American, there's no reason he should be bound by a British historical convention. I think it's perfectly reasonable that he can continue naming periods of SF, following Victoria, with British monarchs, whether the British do it or not. Conversely, I think it's unreasonable to tell him he can't use that word, on the grounds that you don't, because you use it for a different set of Georges.

You may think that 'Georgian SF' should apply to napoleonics with ray guns, but I'd be quite happy to call that 'Napoleonic SF'. Why would you want to change 'Napoleonic' (a term most warhgammers are familiar with), to 'Georgian' (a term most wargamers aren't familiar with)? As I say; it's your convention, there's no reason to insit it should apply to anyone else.

[anevilgiraffe]

As I say; it's your convention, there's no reason to insit it should apply to anyone else.

I'm not, use a Dutch or Belgian term, but if you're going to use Georgian in an English speaking environment use it properly... if I knew a Dutch or Belgian faux paux to illustrate the point, I'd use one...

EDIT: actually I've just remembered one - Holland isn't the Netherlands is it? it's in the Netherlands, but it isn't all of it... I can thank QI for that one, I now know that Holland and the Netherlands aren't the same thing! I shall have to take Stephen Fry's word that it annoys the Dutch if you get it wrong... well the non-Holland Dutch I assume... it's all Eskimo and Innuit again... play with them properly or they will go back in the box...

[Red Orc]

I'm sorry, but the idea that there is a 'proper' way to use language is... untenable. Words mean what we agree they mean. If people want to use the word 'Georgian' to mean 'Kings George V & VI' instead of, or as well as, 'George I-IV', then that's what it means. If people want to use the word 'bad' or 'wicked' to mean exciting, 'cool' to mean interesting, or 'sick' to mean very good, then that's what those words mean.  Language changes, that's why we don't say 'Feadher Ure, the the eort in Hoefnum' any more.

I really don't think anyone gets to decide how anyone else uses language. There are no rules, there only broadly-accepted conventions, and claiming that a certain word only applies to a certain period doesn't cut it, I don't think. I presume you don't claim that Roman Catholics can't call themselves 'Roman' because that word only applies to a certain historical period, namely up to 473AD. Equally, claiming that the period following the Edwardian can't be called the Georgian just isn't sensible.

I'm not saying I think you shouldn't point out that it might be confusing to British people (but, as I say, probably not many other English speakers in the world, most of whom never had an English-speaking Georgian period from 1714-1830). But I really don't think that any speaker of a language gets to do more than that. There are no 'language police' to say what words can and can't mean. This isn't France, after all.

But having said all that... Geudens seems happy with GWSF; I no longer have anyone to defend, so it's just about principle, and that is that I can't accept that one person tells another person that a particular word cannot be used in a particular context. But I'm not going to argue about it any more. We obviously have different views about what is linguistically acceptable.

[anevilgiraffe]

There are no rules, there only broadly-accepted conventions, and claiming that a certain word only applies to a certain period doesn't cut it, I don't think.

however there are definitions... otherwise every post would involve things like armchair wallachian broom stroodle and everyone just has to jolly well abernathy what I vernacular because I'm just freewheeling my cumquat aerosol and no one can tell me banana flake pickle...

so yes, Georgian in relation to an era is defined as the period 1714-1830...

[Red Orc]

Defined by you.

Defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, however, there are 3 entries; the 2nd and 3rd can be both noun and adjective, and relate to the Caucasian country, and the American state, and therefore need not detain us overlong; the 1st however has two main parts:

1 - of or characteristic of the reigns of the British Kings George I-IV (1714-1830) ...
2 - of or characteristic of the reigns of the British Kings George V and VI (1910-1952) ...

So even if one believes philosophically that one cannot ever change a language (which you don't in practice because you don't speak Old English); or only what appears in dictionaries is 'proper' (which I don't, I believe that there are creative and novel ways of using language that have never appeared in a dictionary), then you're still wrong. It's the Oxford. If it's in there, then it must be a recognised term. They spent 80 years putting it together, they don't just make it up.

So; 'Georgian', even to those who want to restrict language to whatever they learned and nothing more, includes 1910-1952 in its meanings. I'm going to bed.

[anevilgiraffe]

1 - of or characteristic of the reigns of the British Kings George I-IV (1714-1830) ...
2 - of or characteristic of the reigns of the British Kings George V and VI (1910-1952) ...

    well, I can honestly say I have never come across that before, it certainly isn't in usage to that effect to my knowledge...

So even if one believes philosophically that one cannot ever change a language (which you don't in practice because you don't speak Old English);

which isn't what I was saying, individuals making their own definitions doesn't make language... however...

If it's in there, then it must be a recognised term. They spent 80 years putting it together, they don't just make it up.

I stand corrected... so this is a moot point

[Red Orc]

I'm glad you've accepted that your facts are wrong, though 'no-one round our way uses it like that' is hardly a good argument.

However, you seem to be using 'moot' in a non-standard way, which is what you complain at Geudens for doing, only without in your case the benefit of an accepted definition to back it up. I would hazard that the point is 'moot' (an academic excercise only) because Geudens has already said that he will call his game 'GWSF' not because you've admitted you're wrong. Care to explain how you're using the term 'moot'?

I think the most important thing here is the principle however; even if your knowledge of how English is used was absolute (which it obviously isn't); and even if your version of English was more 'correct' than other people's (which it isn't, even if you might think it is), I still don't believe that would give you the right to tell other people how they may or may not use a language.

And in case you say I'm trying to dictate to you how to use language, I'm not. I don't care if you restrict your use of 'Georgian' to 1714-1830. I care if you try to restrict other people's use of 'Georgian' - or any other term for that matter.

Would it be gauche of me to ask you to apologise to Geudens? Not just for the error of fact, but over the entire principle of whether you have the right to dictate other people's language use?

[Geudens]

Guys, guys, please...

I'm honoured by the fact that such a discussion results from our little (though it is growing in size...) project, but please, don't let animosity be the result of it.  I'm just as happy with "GWSF" as with "GSF".  The actual name of this "new period" isn't as important to me as the fact that - once background and rules will be ready - the project would be appreciated and picked up by others.

The actual purpose of it all is to create a "plausible"  background (and rules) to enable gamers to field (sometimes slightly modified) armies against each other that would otherwise seem odd bedpartners.  More about that when the background and basic rules will be ready (I'll start a new topic then).  That's why we went for the WWI timeframe: it allows both outdated and future technologies to enter the game (in a SF setting).  The whole idea came to me after reading a book on "La Belle Epoque" (1900-1914ish), when e.g. department stores (nowadays hypermarkets) were created and automobiles started to become available as a mass produced product etc.  In other words: a period (more or less acceptibly) related to both the mid-late 19th C and more modern times.

The principle wasn't invented by us: in many recent SF series the heroes are confronted with both ancient and more advanced civilizations.  As long as the story "feels" right to the spectator, it works and this is what we hope our project will do as well...

Rudi

[anevilgiraffe]

I'm glad you've accepted that your facts are wrong, though 'no-one round our way uses it like that' is hardly a good argument.

did I say round my way? no, even Wikipedia (that great example of people doing and saying as they wish) doesn't include that in the definition... even you looked it up for your argument, otherwise you would have stated that in the first post and not gone on about how someone is free to use a word how they want...

However, you seem to be using 'moot' in a non-standard way, which is what you complain at Geudens for doing, only without in your case the benefit of an accepted definition to back it up. I would hazard that the point is 'moot' (an academic excercise only) because Geudens has already said that he will call his game 'GWSF' not because you've admitted you're wrong. Care to explain how you're using the term 'moot'?

  you're obviously just looking for an argument... however...

"individuals making their own definitions doesn't make language" is a moot point as it turns out...

I think the most important thing here is the principle however; even if your knowledge of how English is used was absolute (which it obviously isn't); and even if your version of English was more 'correct' than other people's (which it isn't, even if you might think it is), I still don't believe that would give you the right to tell other people how they may or may not use a language.

And in case you say I'm trying to dictate to you how to use language, I'm not. I don't care if you restrict your use of 'Georgian' to 1714-1830. I care if you try to restrict other people's use of 'Georgian' - or any other term for that matter.

again not what I was doing and please get down off your offended high horse... I merely pointed out the considered correct usage, as did Steve F...

Would it be gauche of me to ask you to apologise to Geudens? Not just for the error of fact, but over the entire principle of whether you have the right to dictate other people's language use?

and one more time - not what I was doing... it was a matter of terminology...

[Red Orc]

Geudens, I'm sorry if the discussion has gotten a little heated. I'm glad you have found a name you're happy with, it sounds like a great project and I'm looking forward to hearing more about it.

Editted, to avoid further bloodshed.

[Helen]

Hello gentleman,

One of my last acts as moderator is having to ask you to abide by the rules laid down by Alex and Co.

Please read the rules:

http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=16293

Edit: I'd Rudi send me a PM an I'm happy to unlock this subject.

Please remember the rules and your conduct in relation to answering other members comments.

Helen