Ok, but in the context, wasn't it a prophecy? AFAIK part of the deal with prophecies is that the exact wording matters, and you really have to watch out for loopholes.
implying that Sauron actually considered that his opponents might be female
In most magic systems, spells with more limited scope (e.g. just male humans) have a stronger effect when they do apply (or are just cheaper), for the sake of balance - but it's also just basic logic IMO. Sauron was never omnipotent.
No I didn't. You assumed that his intent was to defend from "all humans". I argued that his intent might very well have been to defend from "all male humans" because it might have been an acceptable tradeoff.
I finally got around to playing Alan Wake, and the whole plot is based on linguistic ambiguity and plot holes. So maybe Sauron operates on Dark Presence logic.
It's actually very classic - Tolkien, as someone who was deeply read in Germanic mythology, understood that "words have power" is an ancient trope there.
To ancient peoples, where the world was poorly understood and things happened for seemingly no reason, words do have power.
The "Only" in the latter example lends exclusivity to the context, and the only word that can be ascribed an exclusion is the word "guys" by interpreting it in a gendered context.
That is the perfect amount of ambiguity that makes linguistics unclear and invalidates my example. Luckily, human language has a mechanisms for solving this: a clarifying question; Could you please clarify what you mean by "guys" in this context?
27 Comments
Khanzarate@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 178d
It's OK guys, CGI legolas from the LOTR digital remaster special edition runs in on clouds to killsteal her and pippin.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 178d
Ok, but in the context, wasn't it a prophecy? AFAIK part of the deal with prophecies is that the exact wording matters, and you really have to watch out for loopholes.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 178d
Part of characteristics of magic is the weird and convoluted arbitrariness.
Redacted@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 178d
Playing by intent vs RAW. I much prefer intent
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 178d
But RAW is funny
Redacted@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 178d
RAW is the domain of rules lawyers, who i dont respect in principle.
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 178d
Okay fair. I forget most people have probably had worse experiences with that
Gathorall@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 178d
Especially when someone pulls off some bullshit like conditional immortality.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 1 pts · 178d
implying that Sauron actually considered that his opponents might be female
In most magic systems, spells with more limited scope (e.g. just male humans) have a stronger effect when they do apply (or are just cheaper), for the sake of balance - but it's also just basic logic IMO. Sauron was never omnipotent.
Redacted@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 178d
I think you replied to the wrong person
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 1 pts · 177d
No I didn't. You assumed that his intent was to defend from "all humans". I argued that his intent might very well have been to defend from "all male humans" because it might have been an acceptable tradeoff.
bisby@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 178d
He also never says "kill"
In the book he says "hinder" and was one of my favorite lines of the book. Movie was very upsetting for me.
ptz@dubvee.org · 9 pts · 178d
I finally got around to playing Alan Wake, and the whole plot is based on linguistic ambiguity and plot holes. So maybe Sauron operates on Dark Presence logic.
PugJesus@piefed.social · 18 pts · 178d
It's actually very classic - Tolkien, as someone who was deeply read in Germanic mythology, understood that "words have power" is an ancient trope there.
To ancient peoples, where the world was poorly understood and things happened for seemingly no reason, words do have power.
faythofdragons@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 178d
Mika@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 178d
I think it's not just an ancient thing. The ruler needs to be able to speak like a ruler.
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 178d
No man of woman’s birth shall harm Macbeth
Lycist@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 178d
I popped into a voice chat for a game once, and said to the 15 people in the channel "Hey guys".
Some lady immediately screamed at me "THERE ARE GIRLS THAT PLAY VIDEO GAMES TOO"....
Like... ok? "Guys" has been recognized as a gender neutral term since the 80's lady....
merc@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 178d
Guys is one of those weird words that's gender neutral in some cases, and definitely male only in other cases.
"Fuck those guys" -- gender neutral, "those guys" might include women.
"I only fuck guys" -- I'm gay, I don't fuck women.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 178d
The "Only" in the latter example lends exclusivity to the context, and the only word that can be ascribed an exclusion is the word "guys" by interpreting it in a gendered context.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 178d
How many guys have you fucked?
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 178d
That is the perfect amount of ambiguity that makes linguistics unclear and invalidates my example. Luckily, human language has a mechanisms for solving this: a clarifying question; Could you please clarify what you mean by "guys" in this context?
BillyClark@piefed.social · 6 pts · 178d
Tolkien was a philologist, so
Avicenna@programming.dev · 3 pts · 178d
she totally charlie kirked him
squeeblade77@fandom.ink · 3 pts · 178d
@PugJesus Be more precise with your wording while talking with the autistic folk
PugJesus@piefed.social · 3 pts · 178d
Witch-King got killed by the tism, truly a powerful condition
jlow@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 178d
You mean take advantage of sexism so ingrained into society that it's baked into the language?