Update 2: Grammar Error on Close Helmet vs. Close-Helmet (image and answer)
" Whether or not the word close in 'Close Helmet' (I doubt it) is a surname or contains hidden context be it cultural, colloquial, etc. is up for debate. However, if any context (military context,) it would be the below as we know it according to everyone's favorite online source, Wiki, under the topic line Characteristics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_helmet Quote, "The Close Helmet was developed from the later versions of the sallet and the superficially similar armet in the late 15th century. In contemporary sources it was sometimes also referred to as an 'armet', though modern scholarship draws a clear distinction between the two types.[1] While outwardly very similar to the armet, the Close Helmet had an entirely different method of opening. Like the armet, the Close Helmet followed the contours of the head and neck closely, and narrowed at the throat, therefore it required a mechanical method for opening and closing. While an armet opened laterally using two large hinged cheekpieces, a Close Helmet instead opened vertically via an integral rotating bevor, which was attached to the same pivots as its visor. The moving parts were usually secured when closed by pivot-hooks engaging pierced staples. Alternatively, spring-loaded studs could be employed. The bevor was often held closed by a strap.[2]" End of quote. " " More than not, from the above said by Wiki (and other sources,) we can gather and say whoever came up with the name 'Close Helmet' was influenced by how its mechanics work opposed to other helmets, despite the other helmets having similar characteristics. There is no recorded indication to give the impression the name was inspired by a surname or hidden context. We are not talking about other helmets here. There is only one 'Close Helmet' with the word close in its name. Other helmets that have the capability to open and close too is besides the point for reason being they have their own names without the word close in their names. One-word names are the kind of names that are what they are. Nothing more can be said about them. Two-word names, usually, confer a deeper meaning or say more, and sometimes, when without hyphenation, the meaning is lost or becomes vague. When the words are vague the name becomes vague. " " Only because it's the way it sounds (if you think about.) Again, that is why I suggested --- if 'Close Helmet' is to remain the way it is --- putting a Hyphen between the words Close and Helmet. If you understood the effect hyphens have in English on two or more words to form a compound word, you would get why I suggest the hyphenation. You would also understand that adding the hyphenation then changes the meaning of 'Close Helmet' when turned into 'Close-Helmet.' " " More than not, if anything you've said thus far is true, it is that. However, I still disagree that what I exampled in my sarcasm is not how 'Close Helmet' got its name (not even maybe,) nor does the name derive from a surname or context, except possible military context. When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails. Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) Last edited by HeavyMetalGear#2712 on Sep 8, 2013, 1:10:59 AM
|
|
" since you don't listen to any arguments this topic will be an endless exchange you vs. rest of the world that doesn't lead anywhere, and since I made my point and don't want to just repeat myself I made a joke about your name. deal with it in case you missed my argument: it's a historical name, it doesn't have to make sense to you, it's just a fact. sources provide a nonhyphenated version as a correct one, and sources>you Last edited by Antistes#4850 on Sep 7, 2013, 10:10:06 PM
|
|
|
First, I want to start with this:
" What is so factual about 'Close Helmet' and other names like it? The meaning? What meaning is that? Or is it just because the name 'Close Helmet' exists, therefore, it's fact? Names, be it names for people or objects, cannot exist without essences or objects to accompany them. What is it that exists in a name to call it fact? Man and objects are empty shells without a name, that which gives something more to fill the void with meaning and the idea of existence. Names cannot be proven fact through the absence of Man and objects. Names are only factual as the people and things they're attached to. Telling me, "Because names are known to be true" is not going to be good enough to sway me after I have lined up a legion of explanations on why some (not all) names that are without (but should include hyphenation,) do not make sense. The point is some (not all) names confer a clearer message when hyphenated, and when the message is clear, the name becomes more clear. This does not apply to single-word names such as 'Armet' (another type of helm) or James (given to an individual.) There is nothing more that can be said about single-word names. However, names that contain two or more words usually hold a deeper meaning, and sometimes, if not hyphenated, the meaning is lost. " If I didn't listen to anyone, how do you figure I replied to every one of you? In addition to that, I disproved everyone and was able to uphold my argument(s), even against reputable sources, only in terms of hyphenation use in names under certain circumstances. IF I have disproved nothing at all, then give me better reasons on how I failed to do so other than, "Sources > you." Hit me with a devastating blow, so much, even I will be barely able to debate what you say. Do it. Do it in a way (if possible,) where you actually see where my OP is coming from, then go from there and tell me what you know, not so much what you think. Besides one other person, the only person here that's been able to consider all sides of everyone's story here is me by dissecting everyone's argument, and explaining why they are wrong. I think what you meant to say is I don't agree with any of you. There is a difference between not listening to people, and not agreeing with people. You have to listen to people first in order to decide whether or not to disagree with them. It makes no sense to disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing. Just because sources provide information, does not mean they're always correct. Information changes throughout time. 'Close Helmet' as it is, is only correct in that no one has stepped forward to say, "Wait a minute, something doesn't look right here." It should not have to be said, including but not limited to, anything do with the written word, that if no one says anything, nothing will change. For example, if the people of world let their governments do what they wanted and agreed with everything their leaders do and say, this world would be in worse shape than it already is, and you and me would probably not be here speaking to each other at the moment. If it wasn't for people who stand up for things, anything, we would all be more stupid than the majority of us already are, worse, dead, a world in a grave with no one else to save. The same thing applies to scholars throughout the course of time; if we agreed with everything they told us, language, etc. wouldn't be as advanced it is now. You guys seem like the kind of people who contribute to the notion that saying nothing, doing nothing, challenging nothing, and questioning nothing is a great idea. It is not! This kind of thinking results in bringing us back to our Stone Age days again. Above everything and anything related to text, ask yourself why there are so many versions of the Bible. Do you really think throughout 2,000+ years nothing was removed from the book, or stayed 100% the same as the original content? Absolutely not! It went through drastic changes because scholars challenged its messages, spelling, word use, and grammar. The Bible is not the only book or masterwork that's been changed and challenged throughout time. Look up a list of Old English / archaic words sometime via terms we no longer use anymore, and you will understand what change is really all about when it comes to the written word's evolution of phraseology. When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails. Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) Last edited by HeavyMetalGear#2712 on Sep 8, 2013, 1:02:21 AM
|
|
|
Oh my God, rofl. Now Wikipedia is a good source?
GG was fun i like this game. i mean have you seen how powerful is the barbarian
|
|
" It's obviously not good enough for him to prove the name is correct, though he quotes it. |
|
" Names are based on a common understanding between people that a given name represents a given object. The name does not have to be logical or connected with the meaning. " Perfect example of names existing without the essence - abstract stuff like friendship, love, honour " As I said before, names are a common understanding between people. Things were doing a perfectly good job in existing before we decided to name them, too, so all that you say here is just philosophy. " Names do not have to make sense. What sense does the name horse make? or beach chair ? or pepper? (you previously said that beach chair explains that the chair is used on a beach but it doesn't explain how a chair works, which you want the name close helmet to explain, though names do not have to be definitions) " Again, the name does not have to give any kind of message or meaning, the meaning is based on a common understanding among people " All you do is say "I know better" replying to every argument with the same unjustified claims. " As much as I would like to hit you, the reason Close Helmet is correct is simple. It has been repeated in this topic in many ways, but you fail to understand that you are not right. It's kind of hard to convince a person who thinks that he's smarter than dictionaries themselves " Even if they are multiple sources created by smarter people? Just because you don't like what the sources say doesn't make your claim legitimate. " If you feel like standing up for something I know of a couple of issues much more time-worthy than arguing against a commonly used name for a helmet. Like starving children, wars etc. Language is flexible, but not because a bored guy decided he doesn't like a name of a helmet. It's literature and common use that influence the language. " Well not all scholars make progress. Some of them spend their lives dwelling on a single thing without any results. And of, you shouldn't believe everything scientist say, but language is a bit different, since dictionaries are based on how people write and use words, not one persons view of how they should write them. " You don't know as and you judge us by our refusal to question a name of a helmet. That is pretty much not questionable and of little meaning to the world. You seem like a person who is unable of real action and therefore limits himself to internet forum discussions, feeling all self-righteous cause you challenged the way a word is written.... " The bible? seriously? |
|
" Quote me I said Wikipedia is a good source. You won't be able to do it. In fact, everything I pointed out no one could quote me on has not been quoted. It is only what you want to believe I said, not what I said. Here is what I did say, in case you didn't catch on to the sarcasm: " Must I also say that if I were to add an exclamation mark after the word source, it would then emphasize the sarcasm even more? All I did is since everyone seems to believe what Wiki says, I said to myself, "Alright, if everyone wants to throw Wiki in my face, here it is thrown back in their face if it's such a great source for information." That's all that was about. There comes a point you have to understand other people's game to play their game. If your moves in the game aren't working very well, adapt the other guy's moves and use them against him. Moreover, it is said all online sources can be inaccurate whether it's Wiki or not Wiki. The idea is to weigh out the differences between sources by yourself. You can gain all the information, wisdom, knowledge, and philosophies all you want, but in the end, it comes right back to you on what you ultimately think: is right or wrong, incorrect or correct? That is the basic process of separating what makes more sense vs. what doesn't make as much sense. When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails. Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) Last edited by HeavyMetalGear#2712 on Sep 8, 2013, 11:03:59 AM
|
|
" Quote me I said Wikipedia is a good source. You won't be able to do it. In fact, everything I pointed out no one could quote me on has not been quoted. It is only what you want to believe I said, not what I said. EDIT - See, you speak and make no fucking sense. I start to believe you're really a kid i like this game. i mean have you seen how powerful is the barbarian Last edited by Qarak#2415 on Sep 8, 2013, 11:51:54 AM
|
|
" So what you’re saying is people judge only with their eyes, and any name or thing they see is just what it is and nothing more, right? If that’s the case, I agree, which is why a great many people fall under the average thinking level category. If they didn’t, we would be more advanced than we are already in our understanding and technological advancement. This kind of judgment goes beyond just names. So many people just look at things without insight or looking further into things, anything. " More than not, names are connected with a meaning, even single-word names, and more so for two-word and three-word names. Here is an example on the name Smith alone, and each source says the same thing in that the name Smith derives from the word smitan, meaning to smite or strike: http://genealogy.about.com/od/surname_meaning/p/smith.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_(surname) (everyone’s favorite!) http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Smith This is just one name. This does not include the thousands of other names. Therefore, your idea that names don’t have meaning or don’t need meaning is flawed. Unless a name is complete gibberish (kpqlxmdnkl,) you cannot say names, any name, especially those that are carefully put together, do not derive from something via an idea, inspired by a passage or artistic image, nature, etc. Sometimes people think they’ve made up a new name, only to find that if the name is broken down into segments, a certain order of letters will give it an actual meaning. " First, nothing is perfect. Everything can be argued until one viewpoint conquers another viewpoint. I have seen the words friendship, love and honour used as surnames. These are very poor examples. No word, name or description can exist if Man’s brain to intellectually touch things and reason does not exist. Mumblings of words and their descriptions don’t just come out of nowhere and record on their own. An anti-originality / anti-imagination passage I wrote states: “All things we create or write are not from imagination When our eyes become hands whose sly Hermes fist Steals and twists reality on Nature's lands, when taken, Arms us with thoughts, ambiances, scents and sounds; And you can deny, argue this or seriously get pissed, But these words burnt their image in nation to nation By no man, demon or the foulest beast can be shaken.” from my – Imagination Is Not Imagination Sure, it's a little poetic, but this is not philosophy. This is fact. Materialistic things in our world don’t turn to each other to give each other names, or say, “Hi, how are you doing today!” Or, “O…M…G, I just love those light sources on you! You look so bright and colorful today!” We, the people, are what gives names to things, which usually (not in all cases) have meaning behind them. Names don't name themselves. ======================================== ======================================== Anyway, we are talking about the name ‘Close Helmet’ and other names like it. Names do have a reference point to something. The fact that third-party sources lack information to tell us whether or not close in ‘Close Helmet’ is a surname, the only thing I or anyone else can go on is that as it is, it doesn’t sound right in that it seems to command or suggest distance via nearness. Names are things that are given. By who? Us. They do not give to themselves or lend existence to themselves. An intelligent source of life has to be the thing to do that. " *Laughs heartily* Are you sure about that? There are is recorded documentation of humans living some 100,000+ years ago. If I recall, the oldest genus homo dates back almost 2 million years. All they did was never reason, just do and die. That was it. People back then didn’t exactly know what to exist was, until we became smart enough to coin the term existence, and gave it a description. Without some kind of meaning, including but not limited to, in names, we would still be going off instinct without any inquiry. " My OP is not emphasizing on single-word names. Most (not all) single-word names are what they are. They are not trying to convey something when not linked with something else or another word. Since I have to repeat myself, two-word and three-word+ names, more than not, are names that have a deeper meaning in them as said ‘Close Helmet’ and other names like it. " Re-read everything you just read in case you skipped over everything, only reading what you want to read. Dissect what I’ve said, then quote whole statements (not half statements) I have made and sentences I wrote, then go about what you’re going to say next I haven’t already heard. " That’s because you’re the kind of person, it seems, that judges only with the eyes. Never mind giving anything else thought. The claims I’ve made are only unjust to those whose misunderstanding precedes them. Therefore, I have to indefinitely explain things, repeated or not, to prove my claims. It also needs to be understood I am not putting a gun to anyone’s head to keep debating in this thread if you think I am such a stupid fool. If I am so foolish to you, then I that makes you just as foolish for arguing with who you think is a fool. " You cut yourself way too short. This is proof you cannot even begin to reiterate anything plausible anyone said in this thread regarding the simple reason why ‘Close Helmet’ is correct. This reason for this is because all anyone has said is, “Sources > my OP, therefore, you’re wrong.” Exception to the rule of one other person, instead of comparing what my OP says and third-party sources say side-by-side, everyone just puts their full trust into the source(s) and doesn’t even consider that just maybe there is an error in ‘Close Helmet,’ and other names like it that would make more sense with hyphenation. Keep in mind, again, my OP (this entire thread) is not saying all names should have hyphenation in them to make a compound name. A compound name is made up of two or more words: one word is usually a descriptor or modifier, and the other one is an object. I say usually because that’s how most names of objects (not definite names as in Bob Steel,) are composed, unless it is proven what seems to be a descriptor or modifier is a surname or has some other context linked with it. " It is not about more not liking what the sources say. Please quote me I said I did not like what these third-party sources say. So far, any time I have asked anyone here to quote me on something, they have not been able to do so. What I did say was that these third-party sources could quite possibly be wrong, and that further review should be considered. " You act like you know me so well. How do you know I’ve never been a part of protesting certain things in my country, or that I don’t support hungry children on my license tags? You haven’t walked in my shoes; therefore, don’t judge me unless you know what you’re talking about. I don’t sit here and make up insults about you regarding what you haven’t done or do in your life. Don’t do it to me, or anyone else for that matter. Language is flexible, yes, but it can be criticized too (like anything) else for improvement. Common doesn’t mean all-correct. Just because something is common at one point in time, does not mean years later or in the immediate moment it cannot be revised and changed. " You misunderstood when I said, “The same thing applies to scholars throughout the course of time; if we agreed with everything they told us, language, etc. wouldn't be as advanced it is now.” What I meant was is if people, including but not limited to, fellow scholars, did not question the merit of a single man or group of people until an ultimate viewpoint is met, we would not be where we are today technologically and intellectually. The process of a notion or theory goes like this: one man’s viewpoint is a match that starts the fire, the world is set ablaze, and then is when other people and scholars join in to extinguish the fire by challenging the original idea, theory or invention until a better viewpoint dominates the field. You don't know as and you judge us by our refusal to question a name of a helmet. That is pretty much not questionable and of little meaning to the world. You seem like a person who is unable of real action and therefore limits himself to internet forum discussions, feeling all self-righteous cause you challenged the way a word is written.... No. What I said is I am challenging people’s intelligence refusing to question anything, including this helmet’s name, and including other names like it. Just because I am a critical thinker who does not ‘yes’ to everything or accept ‘yes’ for everything, does not mean I am self-righteous. Critical thinkers are a type of people who often make controversial, thought-provoking statements, and that because average minds cannot easily debunk them, they then call critical thinkers things like self-righteous, pious or absolutely crazy. Just because I say things like, “You cannot disprove what I said.” does not mean I am self-righteous. It is a psychological trick critical thinkers use to get people to think deeper about something, and offer an argument that is credible, convincing, and worthwhile other than, “Sources > you.” " Why do you cut what I mentioned short? You emphasize only on the said Bible. I mentioned The Bible because it is the written word’s most prominent magnum opus of intellectual properly. My statement then transitioned into making the point that The Bible is not the only text that’s been challenged and changed throughout time, much like words we use every day. My ultimate message / argument in this entire thread here is that not one single person (especially critical thinkers) should be restricted from challenging things whether it's a theory, something in literature (in this case, grammar,) or an invention, SO LONG as they can support their statements no matter how controversial or trivial, that until they are proven wrong without any reasonable doubt, their viewpoint will remain the dominating viewpoint until someone else comes forward to offer a better one. When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails. Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) Last edited by HeavyMetalGear#2712 on Sep 8, 2013, 2:43:28 PM
|
|
|
Content Removed by Admin: See Forum Guideline C
When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails. Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) Last edited by Bex_GGG#0000 on Sep 8, 2013, 3:32:30 PM
|
|
