About the Elvish & Dwarvish units.

miyo · Post by **miyo** » November 7th, 2004, 5:56 pm

http://irclog.wesnoth.org/wesnoth/wesno ... 0031219.gz

[22:48] <Sirp> on this topic, should it be 'Elvish Fighter' or 'Elven Fighter'??
...
[22:51] <miyo> Sirp: As you see... we can stick with what we have.
[22:51] <Sirp> miyo: okay :)

-- Miyo

autolycus · Post by **autolycus** » November 7th, 2004, 5:57 pm

Well, I think that the point must be: what are the most obvious adjectival forms for elf, dwarf and human?

We could always go for the plain but obvious 'elf archer' 'dwarf fighter' 'human scout' sort of nomenclature. This type is very easy to use - orc crossbowman, undead warrior.

It is quite clear that even various authoritative or 'authoritative' sources differ for one simple reason: English is a pastiche of a language, with rules taken from several different precursors. That's why we get foxes, but oxen; the plural of sow is swine, that for cow is kine, but most others just add 's'.

So why not just identify the unit by race/faction as outlined above? I realise many of us have some sort of emotional or stylistic or aesthetic reason for preferring 'elven archer' or 'elvish marshal', but 'elf archer' and 'elf marshal' would do just as well.

miyo · Post by **miyo** » November 7th, 2004, 6:12 pm

autolycus wrote:So why not just identify the unit by race/faction as outlined above?

If it is not broken or wrong (if that matters) then why change it at all? We have already one way to do it, which seems to be more or less "correct" so we can stick with it. Very easy, no extra work required.

- Miyo

Post by **turin** » November 7th, 2004, 6:14 pm

miyo wrote: We have already one way to do it, which seems to be more or less "correct"- Miyo

and most seem not to like it, including several developers.

there is no "correct" way to do it, since english is a messed up language, but most people seem to like elven, so why don't we use it?

MadMax · Post by **MadMax** » November 7th, 2004, 6:19 pm

turin wrote:so why don't we use it?

It's too big of a change this late in the development of the game.

miyo · Post by **miyo** » November 7th, 2004, 6:21 pm

turin wrote:there is no "correct" way to do it, since english is a messed up language, but most people seem to like elven, so why don't we use it?

miyo wrote:http://irclog.wesnoth.org/wesnoth/wesno ... 0031219.gz

[22:48] <Sirp> on this topic, should it be 'Elvish Fighter' or 'Elven Fighter'??
...
[22:51] <miyo> Sirp: As you see... we can stick with what we have.
[22:51] <Sirp> miyo: okay :)

It has been once decided we will continue using 'elvish' how many times we need to iterate this? Until your point of view wins?

- Miyo

autolycus · Post by **autolycus** » November 7th, 2004, 6:23 pm

*mildly* as long as each set of units uses the same adjectival form, I'm happy; to me, it's not a matter so much of linguistics, but of aesthetics. And if the aesthetics are tolerable to a majority - whether much loved or just merely tolerated - I am not going to fuss overmuch.

Post by **turin** » November 7th, 2004, 7:18 pm

that looks to me like *you* decided and sirp agreed because he doesn't really care.

all i'm saying is very few people seem to think it should remain how it is, and the devs seem just as divided as the others. you are the only dev i've seen who is against a change. that doesn't seem "decided" to me...

joshbosh321 · Post by **joshbosh321** » November 7th, 2004, 9:03 pm

I'm with Autoclys on this. Will you stop using the rebel or knalgan factions because you can't bear to see them called "elvish" or "dwarvish"? I see no reason to use up time and energy making these changes, especially as they don't affect gameplay.

Post by **ott** » November 7th, 2004, 9:03 pm

Just to stir the pot some more, I hate the Cavalryman and Crossbowman names, but couldn't care less about the use of Elf/Elvish/Elven or Dwarf/Dwarvish/Dwarven.

What was wrong with Cavalry and Crossbow, anyway? I hardly see an Orc as being in any way a man, whether male or female. And Cavalry is a perfectly acceptable singular form of the generic plural.

I'd much rather see 1.0 than this kind of fiddling with names.

Gafgarion · Post by **Gafgarion** » November 7th, 2004, 9:14 pm

joshbosh321 wrote:I'm with Autoclys on this. Will you stop using the rebel or knalgan factions because you can't bear to see them called "elvish" or "dwarvish"? I see no reason to use up time and energy making these changes, especially as they don't affect gameplay.

Indeed, this is a 4-page waste of time. Our resources are limited, so let's use them for something that matters like balancing or artwork or campaigns (just to mention a few).
The distinction between Elven and Elvish does not warrent a 4-page discussion, it's such a tiny aesthetic thing.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » November 7th, 2004, 9:21 pm

Not related to the current thread of the thread, you may think changing unit names is difficult, but I can't change my forum name at all.

Post by **Jetrel** » November 7th, 2004, 9:50 pm

miyo wrote:* English troops
* Finnish Bowman
* Swedish Spearman

Americish troops

hehehe

Despite the high level of work required for such a change, I support it. It could be done rather easily by a copy of BBEdit, - someone could do it in an hour.

That, and a big announcement regarding the change.

There's one reason I would like to see the change done - I envision us, someday not too terribly far off, having High Elves in the game, and thus being forced to rename our current elves to wood elves.

And when that happens, we have to use Elven, because Wood Elvish and High Elvish sound really stupid, but High Elven and Wood Elven sound fine.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » November 7th, 2004, 9:58 pm

Jetryl wrote:There's one reason I would like to see the change done - I envision us, someday not too terribly far off, having High Elves in the game, and thus being forced to rename our current elves to wood elves.

And when that happens, we have to use Elven, because Wood Elvish and High Elvish sound really stupid, but High Elven and Wood Elven sound fine.

Wood Elven Sharpshooter is too long of a name. Elvish Sharpshooter is already pushing it. There are real reasons not to go sticking extra adjectives on things. (Of course, 'wood' isn't even an adjective...)

Post by **turin** » November 7th, 2004, 10:12 pm

just because something doesn't affect gameplay doesn't mean its not worth doing. it adds a lot to the polish and overall quality of a game*.

and there happen to be some of us who wouldn't mind using up the little time it would take to make this change actually doing it, if we could just get clearance to do it.

*: in the opinions of those who think it makes sense in the first place.

basically, if you don't think it makes sense, say why, don't say why we shouldn't do it because "it takes up time". it is only taking up time because you want to argue. stop filibustering!