Page 42 of 48
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:37 pm
by Giovanni Schwartz
Morse code would translate them word for word. As would binary. ;D
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:38 pm
by Nanti-SARRMM
Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Morse code would translate them word for word. As would binary. ;D
But other more ambiguous languages would not, thus the confusion that she mentioned.
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:57 pm
by Giovanni Schwartz
I am going insane.
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:09 pm
by Fredjikrang
Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Morse code would translate them word for word. As would binary. ;D
Isn't that because they are technically still english, but in a different form. For instance, I have a Deseret Alphabet Book of Mormon, and whenever someone asks me what language it is, I tell them "English," because it is. It is just conveying that language in a different way than the two most typical manners.
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:24 pm
by Giovanni Schwartz
Exactly... I think. I'm going insane though. I will blog about my insanity if you are interested.
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:35 pm
by Nanti-SARRMM
Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Exactly... I think. I'm going insane though. I will blog about my insanity if you are interested.
Sure, go for it.
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:10 pm
by Giovanni Schwartz
Done.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:21 am
by bobtheenchantedone
http://xkcd.com/483/
I'm looking at you, Paopao! And that mess you call "Inheritance"!
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:32 am
by 361
bobtheenchantedone wrote:http://xkcd.com/483/
I'm looking at you, Paopao! And that mess you call "Inheritance"!
You mean Christopher Paolini?
I like the Inheritance series!
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:43 pm
by bobtheenchantedone
361 wrote:bobtheenchantedone wrote:http://xkcd.com/483/
I'm looking at you, Paopao! And that mess you call "Inheritance"!
You mean Christopher Paolini?
I like the Inheritance series!
Yep.
You're allowed to like them if you'd like. I will not hold that against you.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:20 pm
by Unit of Energy
I enjoy the Inheritance series, but will willing admit that they aren't the best written or most original novels.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:40 pm
by 361
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:00 pm
by Giovanni Schwartz
Really, 361? I don't believe it! Also, I agree with you bob. Don't get me wrong: I still enjoy them, but he makes up too many words. He makes too many cliches,
Spoiler wrote:Come on! A flaming sword?
, and the story line isn't that creative. And he likes to use bigger words than he needs to, which bugs me.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:10 pm
by bobtheenchantedone
Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Really, 361? I don't believe it! Also, I agree with you bob. Don't get me wrong: I still enjoy them, but he makes up too many words. He makes too many cliches,
Spoiler wrote:Come on! A flaming sword?
, and the story line isn't that creative. And he likes to use bigger words than he needs to, which bugs me.
Then you might enjoy the
Anti-Shur'tugal site. I know I do.
And on the subject of not-well-written stuff that has gained great popularity, a
parody of Twilight.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:40 pm
by yellow m&m
I used to like those books. But I got tired of waiting for the last one (it's been at least two years). So, I might read them again if I feel like it.
I also really hated the way they did the movie.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:41 pm
by Giovanni Schwartz
I never saw the movie, and I'm very proud of that fact.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:39 pm
by yellow m&m
Giovanni Schwartz wrote:I never saw the movie, and I'm very proud of that fact.
I saw it for a class. And I havn't seen it since.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:54 pm
by 361
bobtheenchantedone wrote:Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Really, 361? I don't believe it! Also, I agree with you bob. Don't get me wrong: I still enjoy them, but he makes up too many words. He makes too many cliches,
Spoiler wrote:Come on! A flaming sword?
, and the story line isn't that creative. And he likes to use bigger words than he needs to, which bugs me.
Then you might enjoy the
Anti-Shur'tugal site. I know I do.
And on the subject of not-well-written stuff that has gained great popularity, a
parody of Twilight.
I would beg to differ...
There is a difference between reading material quality and reading material complexity.
I happen to think that The Cat In The Hat is a very well written book... So is Eragon... So is Catch-22... So is the Book of Mormon...
They all happen to differ on reading skill required. And sometimes I'm in the mood for high level material that requires interpretation, complex grammar, and archaic vocabulary... and sometimes I just want an easy constant stream of plot... An sometimes I just want to look at the pretty pictures...
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:44 pm
by bobtheenchantedone
I believe that Paolini has it in him to be a good, even great, writer, but I certainly don't think Eragon is it. His story is much to derivative, his prose is amateur (I can say that because he does many things that I do - only thing is I realize that isn't the right way to do it and try to do better), and his vocabulary is all mismatched and often rather incorrect.
It does well as a children's book. Talk to a writer, especially one around his age, and things start to heat up.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:56 pm
by Giovanni Schwartz
4 different people are trying to get help with physics homework online over the phone. It is due in exactly 3 minutes.
