Update 2: Grammar Error on Close Helmet vs. Close-Helmet (image and answer)

"

Nightmare90 wrote:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

[...]

Just because the person who originally named this helm is dead does not mean correction cannot be made. There are lots of words in the dictionary, etc. that have been changed or thought over to make more sense.

I agree if the word would be used commonly in the present.
However the word is as historical as the concerning item himself.

Changing it around does not suffice any needs present in the audience of GGG, I believe.

I agree. While it may not serve a significant purpose for GGG's team and PoE players, it does serve a great purpose for literature and those who major in the written word.

I am one of those who majors in the written word and will go to great lengths to challenge and correct already-existing words, including other unrelated things our minds touch.

Again, the age of certain words, or the fact certain words are widely accepted for what they are among general people, should not discourage anyone from questioning their merit or correctness.

Discouraging people from questioning and reasoning things is the death of creative thinking and art of any kind. Therefore, I will not be discouraged by those who say something is 100% right when it could quite possibly be wrong, worse, 100% wrong unless proven otherwise.

Sometimes it takes many years for (crazy?) people like me to come around to finally step forward with a viewpoint that can very well dominate a widely accepted viewpoint someone made long ago be it about a theory, a rule, a word, or a phrase. It is happening and has already happened.

P.S. Whether anyone agrees with my OP or not, as an avid writer and literary critic, this thread has been great practice for my constructive criticism skills. It is my job and what I enjoy doing.

"

The_Langolier wrote:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

It boils down to people not wanting to admit they are wrong or a source is wrong, despite the irrefutable yet so often ignored devastating evidence.

Kinda of ironic.

Just want to say that this is easily one of the most entertaining threads currently. Certainly more so than the tonnes of "Razor Footprints ERMAHGERD!@%" threads in General.

Being ironic is someone who deliberately states the opposite of the truth (commonly leads to contradiction) with the intent to be humorous or witty for the sake of being humorous or witty.

Therefore, what you quoted from me is not irony.

After giving in-depth reason why, if you look deeper in my statement, it ever so vaguely implies these third-party sources I deem incorrect have only shown the people in this thread the mere use of 'Close Helmet' (without the Hyphen) yet do not say why it is without the Hyphen opposed to 'Close-Helmet.'

There is no irony here; there is only missing information from these third-party sources without argument against 'Close-Helmet' (with a Hyphen) being wrong.

dude, are you serious? you won't believe the dictionaries, seriously, make a time machine and ask the inventor of the name why he dared to oppose your logic

"

Sea_of_Vomit wrote:

The autism if off the fucking charts.

Interesting. Your insult (when placed on the scale of understanding) weighs nothing. Those who judge others with blind insults are foolish assumptionists at best, and often contribute to the cause of physical and verbal war.

For future reference, understand Autism and other medical conditions before using them as weapons in times you cannot think better things to say.

For example, if I were to insult you and almost everyone else in this thread, I could easily support my claim in saying the dyslexia is off the charts.

Let's take a look:

"

Sea_of_Vomit wrote:

The autism if off the fucking charts.

Is that what you meant to say? (pun intended)

Anyway, Autism is a psychiatric disorder characterized by lack of response to people, actions and a limited ability to communicate. People with Autism also often have distorted perceptions and interpretations of things that are not fully established.

If you haven't noticed, I communicate and respond very well.

Now, before you poke fun and point out the underlined area for me, my argument is very established, in fact, so much no one thus far has been able to disprove it.

"

Antistes wrote:

dude, are you serious? you won't believe the dictionaries, seriously, make a time machine and ask the inventor of the name why he dared to oppose your logic

When people shove third-party sources in my face with missing information on why the hyphenated version of 'Close-Helmet' is wrong vs. 'Close Helmet,' yes, I am going to go against what these third-party sources show (not explain,) including the dictionary.

"

dlrr wrote:

Spoiler

my goodness. i can't believe this thread is still alive. i'm very impressed!

a few things HMG, and i promise i won't touch this post ever again and i won't try to convince you of something you clearly believe strongly in

1. i never meant to troll. i said i didn't think i was trolling because there was an earlier post stating that you were being trolled. while you did not state a specific name. i just wanted to make it clear i was not trolling in case you had any doubt.

2. you are talking about the name of an item (or as Rhys points out, a technical term). not a grammatical construct, but the name of an item. yes, it seems like it should be grammatical given the choice of words, but names just don't adhere to the same rules that language applies to.

3. everyone in this thread has supported their rationale with third party evidence. Ngrams, dictionary, wiki, etc. In the face of overwhelming external evidence pointing to non-hyphenated usage being fine, it is difficult for me to accept that non-hyphenated use is less right.

4. one of your posts seem to state imply we need to show that non-hyphenated use is more right than hyphenated use. that is false. we only need to show that non-hyphenated use is NOT less right since your argument is that GGG should add the hyphens. We only need to argue that they do not need to do so.

anyway, good luck with pushing for the additional hyphen. I don't think the current wording is any less right than the hyphenated version, but it's not a big issue. cheers!

It has come to a point where I've grown tired of repeating and indefinitely explaining all the whys of things to those whose inability to understand precedes them.

"

dlrr wrote:

4. one of your posts seem to state imply we need to show that non-hyphenated use is more right than hyphenated use. that is false. we only need to show that non-hyphenated use is NOT less right since your argument is that GGG should add the hyphens. We only need to argue that they do not need to do so.

Where in any of my posts do you see this inconsistency? What page is it on in this thread? I am not seeing it. Your intent behind what you point out seems to try and confuse rather than prove one of my posts contradicts itself.

Of course what you erroneously point out is false because this is not what any of my posts imply:

"

dlrr wrote:

One of your posts seem to state imply we need to show that non-hyphenated use is more right than hyphenated use. that is false.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

The_Langolier wrote:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

It boils down to people not wanting to admit they are wrong or a source is wrong, despite the irrefutable yet so often ignored devastating evidence.

Kinda of ironic.

Just want to say that this is easily one of the most entertaining threads currently. Certainly more so than the tonnes of "Razor Footprints ERMAHGERD!@%" threads in General.

Being ironic is someone who deliberately states the opposite of the truth (commonly leads to contradiction) with the intent to be humorous or witty for the sake of being humorous or witty.

Yea my bad, I stand corrected. You do seem incapable of humor or wittiness :p

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

Antistes wrote:

dude, are you serious? you won't believe the dictionaries, seriously, make a time machine and ask the inventor of the name why he dared to oppose your logic

When people shove third-party sources in my face with missing information on why the hyphenated version of 'Close-Helmet' is wrong vs. 'Close Helmet,' yes, I am going to go against what these third-party sources show (not explain,) including the dictionary.

They don't offer explanation because names don't need explanation. They are just a fact.

oh,and btw, people who write dictionaries have more language experience than this:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

I am a transpiring published writer and literary critic. I am also a literary Admin on deviantArt.com., home to both novice and professional artists of today's time.

way more.

"

Antistes wrote:

dude, are you serious? you won't believe the dictionaries, seriously, make a time machine and ask the inventor of the name why he dared to oppose your logic

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

When people shove third-party sources in my face with missing information on why the hyphenated version of 'Close-Helmet' is wrong vs. 'Close Helmet,' yes, I am going to go against what these third-party sources show (not explain,) including the dictionary.

"

Antistes wrote:

They don't offer explanation because names don't need explanation. They are just a fact.

Your logic is the opposite of this: look through the pinhole in the paper, not at the pinhole. Achieve that and you will understand things on a greater level and see, what many call, the bigger picture on the other side.

You are correct, only in that it's the helmet's name, a name that incorrectly explains the mechanics of the helmet's capability to open and close because it lacks the Hyphen.

These third-party sources do not offer explanation for reason being those who put these sources together weren't bright enough to talk about the use of the Hyphen in 'Close-Helmet' vs. 'Close Helmet' (and other words) without the Hyphen. Or, it could be they never gave it any thought on why hyphens should be considered for certain words forming the names for things, including the Close Helmet (as it is.)

If you look back at my updated OP in the spoiler, it says, "Compound words are hard to explain. They almost work like the ellipsis does (...) in that the reader has to fill in the blank(s). The message is not necessarily told to you, but if you give it some thought you will see the message more clearly."

It is certain you do not comprehend these literary devices. Why argue with blind reason?

Contemplatively, you can choose to be a follower or a leader in life. You are a follower in that you seem to put your full trust into could-be-wrong people and sources, then, without hesitation, claim you know so much without backing up what you think you know by doing your own research, better, thinking for yourself. Then again, if you're going to broadcast what you think for yourself like I do, prepare for explanation if you think you know better than your compatriots, sources, etc.

There are times where sources can be wrong, much like I am proving, but the difference with you and me is I uphold my claims whereas you do not. All you do is opinionate and offer no credible, convincing explanation on why you're right and I am wrong.

Furthermore, if you want to continue debating in this thread, use your own backbone, not the backbone of other people and sources. I want to hear your story, not the story of third-party sources I put to shame long ago.

Link me a reliable online source explaining why the hyphenation is incorrect in 'Close-Helmet' vs. 'Close Helmet,' then you can use it against my claims.

"

Antistes wrote:

oh,and btw, people who write dictionaries have more language experience than this:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

I am a transpiring published writer and literary critic. I am also a literary Admin on deviantArt.com., home to both novice and professional artists of today's time.

way more.

Says you whose remarks are still moot.

If I were to boast furthermore on what other things and professions I had to master and accomplish first to become a published writer and prominent art and literary critic throughout one of the world's largest sites for art and writing, no one would believe me.

That is fine.

Fortunate for me, I do not want followers. If anyone comes along, leave me if ever I am in your impression of wrong. Too many seek the world’s belief in their claims; I seek the world’s hate and scrutiny to study mine until proven otherwise with devastating evidence.

You are right! What you see in my quoted statement is child's play. It is equivalent to what certain wealthy people or government agents do by dressing themselves in the rags of poverty to deceive the public eye. I prefer people to see me like that, but you're so gullible to believe and foolish to wager I am here to impress you and everyone else here. I am not.

In case you haven't noticed, you lost the bet.

Instead, I am here to discuss an error (controversial it may be,) and since this thread continues to prolong, it has been great intellectual sparring practice for me.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Instead, I am here to discuss an error (controversial it may be,) and since this thread continues to prolong, it has been great intellectual sparring practice for me.

more like a waste of time, honestly.