Master branch New Wii AX HLE?

[AnyOldName3]

(04-01-2013, 05:31 AM)Shonumi Wrote:

(04-01-2013, 05:11 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: Sorry, I forgot American and English are different languages.

Correct, we no longer need the Queen's English, given that we have no queen.

Technically, the queens english refers to received pronunciation (also known as 'talking posh' or what american media seems to think is normal). The correct term is simply 'English'

Quote:

(04-01-2013, 05:11 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: If you imply something, then it's your fault and not the readers' fault that the implied meaning is taken as the meaning.

The only way any text can imply anything is if the reader already carries certain assumptions. Take this statement for example: "I like Nintendo games." Depending on what your assumptions are as a reader, you can either take it to mean you like all Nintendo games ever made, or perhaps a limited selection. Whatever that statement implies is totally reliant on what the reader assumes to be true.

Most people would take this to mean that the person likes all or very nearly all of the games nintendo has created. The rest don't speak english. The only other implication which could be asserted is that the person doesn't like nintendo games, and was actually being sarcastic.

Quote:

(04-01-2013, 05:11 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: Either way, "i.e." is supposed to add clarification, not override the definition of the clause which preceded it. It does not mean "in this case, specifically" or any other similar phrase. It can be used to add a definition of a term, and it can be used to add examples, but it cannot be used to restrict the definition of the preceding clause without the addition of a word which restricts things, such as 'specifically', 'just' or 'certain'.

I wasn't overriding the definition at all, it was adding clarification. The initial definition was "GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD". While more specific than saying "games made by Nintendo EAD" (which spans a number of consoles) it does not limit which games. "GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD" covers Zelda ucode and non-Zelda ucode games. Id est, clarifies that point by telling you which subset specifically. That isn't redefining things. By nature, clarifying something refines its meaning by narrowing and restricting the definition, especially if that definition was broad, general, or not specific (in this case, I didn't feel it was specific enough, hence why I put "id est" in the first place).

And depending on the context, "id est" can be used to refer to specific cases alone, thus it can be used to restrict definitions:
http://www.thetipsbank.com/latin.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28I%29#id_est

I think you misunderstand which part of the sentence I'm correcting you on.

What you wrote:

"Rather than "Mario and Zelda" games, it's more accurate to say GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD, i.e. games that use the Zelda ucode."

What would have been a better choice of words:

"Rather than "Mario and Zelda" games, it's more accurate to say certain GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD, i.e. games that use the Zelda ucode."

"Rather than "Mario and Zelda" games, it's more accurate to say GC and Wii games that use the Zelda ucode, i.e. certain games made by Nintendo EAD."

[Shonumi]

@jimbo1qaz - Unless you have an outstanding issue, it's not really a big deal that the thread was derailed like this. If you still have unanswered questions then it would be a problem and a discussion better suited to Delfino Plaza.

@AON3 - About the Queens English, several sources contradict you on the point of it being an accent, which is what Received Pronunciation is. The Queen's English is considered a standard language concerning grammar, vocabulary, and more. See Wikipedia:

Quote:It is important not to confuse the notion of Received Pronunciation, as a standard accent, with the standard variety of the English language used in England that is given names such as "Standard English", "the Queen's English", "Oxford English" or "BBC English". The study of RP is concerned exclusively with pronunciation, while study of the standard language is also concerned with matters such as grammar, vocabulary and style.

Furthermore, see Urban Dictionary (fwiw):

Quote:The Queen's English refers to grammatically correct and coherent written expression in the English language. It does not refer to a specific accent, intonation or regional variation of the spoken language.

AnyOldName3 Wrote:Most people would take this to mean that the person likes all or very nearly all of the games nintendo has created.

That is how you imagine a lot of people would interpret it. When I read that, my immediate assumption is that such a person likes a lot of Nintendo games, but I can't reasonably see them liking every single one or even close to that amount.

Lastly, regardless of what ends up being a better choice of words, my sentence still stands as correct. The list was narrowed down to Zelda ucode games by way of "i.e." Sure the sentence could have done with even more clarity, but on the level that it's already on, it's accurate.

[AnyOldName3]

Quote:Received Pronunciation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation#p-search]

"BBC English" redirects here

BBC English is definitely the same as received punctuation, and Wikipedia agrees with me about that.

As for using the urban dictionary for a definition, that's a mistake. No word (that me and a bunch of friends could think of), no matter how innocent, doesn't have some kind of sexual meaning. Its purpose it to find out what exactly your friend meant when he said he'd do [thing] with [person], or to entertain/disgust oneself.

And I still think you're wrong about what your sentence meant versus what it was intended to mean (you won't be able to convince me otherwise without finding an example which has passed by my don't-look-like-an-idiot-in-front-of-the-guy-with-some-qualification-in-english research).

[Shonumi]

(04-03-2013, 08:07 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: BBC English is definitely the same as received punctuation, and Wikipedia agrees with me about that.

Typo? I think you meant pronunciation. If that is the case, please reread the part I quoted from Wikipedia; the website pointedly disagrees with you:

Quote:It is important not to confuse the notion of Received Pronunciation, as a standard accent, with the standard variety of the English language used in England that is given names such as "Standard English", "the Queen's English", "Oxford English" or "BBC English". The study of RP is concerned exclusively with pronunciation, while study of the standard language is also concerned with matters such as grammar, vocabulary and style.

Received Pronunciation is an accent (which is further demonstrated by the articles near complete dedication about phonology). The article considers Standard English, the Queen's English, Oxford English, and BBC English as standard languages, not accents. Accents deal exclusively with how one forms the sounds of a language. The language itself entails dealing with grammar (how sentences and ideas are structured), vocabulary and style, though it remains concerned with phonology. According to Wikipedia though, there's still a distinction between Received Pronunciation and BBC English et al.

(04-03-2013, 08:07 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: As for using the urban dictionary for a definition, that's a mistake. No word (that me and a bunch of friends could think of), no matter how innocent, doesn't have some kind of sexual meaning. Its purpose it to find out what exactly your friend meant when he said he'd do [thing] with [person], or to entertain/disgust oneself.

Sexual innuendos aside, that doesn't mean it isn't a valuable tool for describing, in vernacular terms, what we say amongst each other on a daily basis. And a dictionary can't be wrong about a word by mere reputation; the definition in question itself has to be wrong, that's the logical approach. In this case, it pretty much lines up with Wikipedia says.

(04-03-2013, 08:07 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: And I still think you're wrong about what your sentence meant versus what it was intended to mean (you won't be able to convince me otherwise without finding an example which has passed by my don't-look-like-an-idiot-in-front-of-the-guy-with-some-qualification-in-english research).

I don't know how else to describe it to you. "GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD" is not so specific as to include all of their games made for those systems. It's only really specific enough to exclude every game GC and Wii game not made by Nintendo EAD. "GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD" could cover all of the games, some of the games such as just LoZ:WW, SMS, LoZ-SS, and NSMB, or it could be a specific subset (games only released after 2004, or in this case games that use the Zelda ucode). You cannot correctly conclude this, however, without further clarification within the sentence, even though your average reader has the tendency to make such assumptions.

This is where "id est" comes to narrow down a broad selection of games (both Zelda ucode and non-Zelda ucode) to just one category (Zelda ucode). You can use "id est" to make something that is general more specific, either as interpreting it as "that is to say" (in which something is rephrased to be more specific) or interpreting it as "in this case" (which points to something specific among several options). Most people are only familiar with using "id est" strictly for giving examples, but it's a bit more flexible than that.

[jimbo1qaz]

So, it got merged into master, which means it should be stable enough for normal use. So my original question is completely answered now.
How about let's just end this discussion about how lame British English is?

[AnyOldName3]

Quote: how lame British English is?

It's obviously better. We've had more practice speaking English, and have therefore refined it more thoroughly.

Non-british english i.e. american english (this is correct usage and different to your orginal use as american english is usually the only dialect which insists on distinguishing itself from british english) was 'designed' to be easier to learn if you knew another european language, and has still got little bits of non-english that have stuck. This, however, leads to irregularities and mess.

[jimbo1qaz]

Don't get me started on the French retardationne stuck in British English. Proper English also has them, but Island English has more of that rubbish. Go cheque the dictionary if you're not convinsed yet.

[Shonumi]

(04-04-2013, 08:26 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: Non-british english i.e. american english (this is correct usage and different to your orginal use as american english is usually the only dialect which insists on distinguishing itself from british english)

Except for a couple of major ones like Australian English, Singapore Colloquial English, also known as Singlish (which is different enough from American and British English to be have once been a concern for the government), and the lesser numbers of English dialects recognized by linguists (which they feel deserve distinction from American and British English).

And you've yet to prove how my use of "id est" was incorrect other than saying "it's wrong." :|

[NaturalViolence]

It's nice to see someone else start one of these for a change. This thread has become very entertaining.

[LordVador]

(04-04-2013, 11:12 AM)jimbo1qaz Wrote: Don't get me started on the French retardationne stuck in British English. Proper English also has them, but Island English has more of that rubbish. Go cheque the dictionary if you're not convinsed yet.

I failed to understand what you were talking about here. Could you explain?