Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Jellybelly

  • Birthday 01/01/1
  1. This is a good thread, I would really like to continue the discussion with RAW. He once again made some interesting claims about historical linguistics, which must be answered (however "irrelevant" they may be). He's fun. It will have to wait for tomorrow, though. Anyway, good thread! I will however note, RAW, that "utilise" is a valid spelling (you may check the OED, if there is need). We are not all Americans.
  2. Certainly, but it is not the language from which English is descended. The direct influence of Latin on English is mainly limited to two waves of loanword-influx. Also, after the Norman conquest there was an influx of French forms, which were of course also affected by Latin. Latin did permeate deeply into English vocabulary (witness for instance the "native" forms of latin "grammar" and "arithmetics", the Old English version of which were "stæfcræft" and "rimcræft" - literally "letter-skill" and "number-skill". Latin did, however, not intrude into the "core" function words of the language, na
  3. We certainly do have simplification over much more than a 3000 year period. The postulated Proto-Germanic is assumed to have been spoken from around 2500 BCE, which should be about 4500 years ago. It is the common ancestor to all today's Germanic languages, many of which are still mutually intelligible. Norwegian and Dutch, for example, is still mutually intelligible to the educated speaker. Certainly the germanic dialects have developed in different directions, but they all came from Proto-Germanic, which in turn came from Proto-Indoeuropean. The history of western languages is one long tale
  4. Latin "gave birth" to languages such as Spanish, Italian, Romanian and French, to give a few examples. It did not give birth to German or English, which are both West Germanic languages. The Germanic languages and Latin were related, though, both being members of the Indo-European family of languages. Modern English is the direct descendant of an Anglian dialect of Old English, a languages in turn descended from the western branch of Proto-Germanic.
  5. Actually, that is not quite true. We have several examples of "language simplification", especially in the Germanic familily of languages, which should be familiar to all here. Without going into too many technicalities, there are many notable counterexamples to your categorical statement. Such simplification is far from a linguistic impossibility. For instance, to the best of my knowledge, all of the Germanic languages have undergone substantial linguistic "simplification" (for lack of a better term) in the course of the millennia they have existed. It is an indisputable fact that important l
  6. I highly recommend that some of you work on your reading comprehension. 1) The "fluff" - incidentally consisting of 25 000 words, not 1000, which would equal about two to four pages - Gentled Ben is referencing is a scene which Sanderson would have written regardless of the split. He has simply relocated the scene within the timeline to give screen time to a character who would otherwise have been left out of the book entirely. Very few of us should take offense at that, as manipulating the timeline is something Jordan did quite frequently. 2) Sanderson has made a conscious choice o
  7. Hell, if they can get the books out quickly, I'd be fine with two volumes. Three, not so much. But spread out over three years? Hell, no! Try again, Tor!
  8. It seems pretty obvious that the One Power is the essence of the Creator, if anything, which balances the True Power, which stems from the Dark One. It makes absolutely no sense for a third power to suddenly crop up. I cannot believe some of the things some people dream up and call a theory. It is good reading posts from you once again, Luckers. Always interesting.
  9. What I cannot understand is the Swedish compulsion to change every title they come into contact with. For some reason they do not think the original titles are good enough, and always change it into "the tale of X". "The Wheel of Time" being changed into "The Tale of the Dragon's Return" is a case in point. They even saw the need to change "The Fellowship of the Ring" into "The Tale of the Fellowship of the Ring". That is just stupid. Some of these Swedish titles make my skin crawl. Apparently, the last part of "Knife of Dreams" is called "The Trap". Yuck. What sort of imbecile makes these dec
  10. I see no real reason to continue this debate at all - the level of ad hominems and ad hoc argumentation from certain people is not at all constructive. We have here a person who sees himself as being absolutely right, who actually proceeds to call those who disagree "weak-minded", "sheepish" and "accepting". I think that says it all. Such people cannot be debated with in a rational manner. This is, of course, a common problem in internet debates, and comes as no surprise. Unless valid points are soon brought up, I would say this thread has played out its role. In closing, one could a
  11. That was a really long post with very little content other than "I am a true fan, and therefore must be appeased". This refusal to deal with reality comes across as little more than a temper tantrum. There has been a lot of confusion with regards to RJ's comments on this being one book. What must be understood is that when he refers to this being the last and final book, it is terms of book structure. I see nothing besides the quips of needing a wheel-barrow to get the book out of the store that indicates him being adamant on this being one volume. Keep in mind that "novel" does not equal
  12. Oh, great then. So long as you say it is true, the rest of us will meekly accept the viewpoint. How rewarding it must be to have a real discussion with you. But then again, maybe not. It is notoriously difficult to argue with someone who says "I am inherently right, therefore you must accept my stance". Feel free to present evidence of why RJ lost control of his world at any time, and no, what you already provided is not good enough.
  13. Egwene is supposed to be beautiful with a fairly ahem "womanly" body. Natalie Portman is a bone skinny, shaved head 12 year old boy looking female...who also can't act. Have you seen her in anything other than Star Wars, kid?
  14. Jesus, man, who is pestering the Rigney family? The original poster never adressed the family. He asked a question on a public forum requesting information, which he got from the most reliable source available. So thank you for the answers, Kathana. I know they reassured me, at least.
  • Create New...