@Cerberus That's easy, or rather plotwise you just have to make sure that nobody realizes that you're time travellers. BUt all the events will happen as they've always have.
@Cerberus No, the time travellers would have always been there as part of the original time line.
@Cerberus Thank you. That's what has always annoyed me about time-traveling sci-fi flicks. It's like the moment before the travel you didn't exist in the past, but the moment after it you did exist in the past. Isn't that obviously impossible? And then you alter something in the past which annihilates the 'previously' existing future into non-existence ...
But then someone will come back at you with the idea of parallel universes and that you can travel to the past in another universe very much like this one, which doesn't help the least bit to resolve the paradox, and which also arouses the question of identity and how you can remain yourself while traveling between universes... and a whole lot of other potentially interesting ideas that are altogether unattended to in these dumb stories.
Fairies are listed in the same section of your inventory as food and other things you can cook with.
I've received a pink-shaped elixir in a bottle shaped like a fairy, and its recipe says it was made with just one fairy.
Can you use fairies in any other cooking recipe?
I don't think that was it. I think those people were fed up with the usual line and the usual political lineup, and wanted change—in this case, any change. And never underestimate people's propensity for indulging in magical thinking.
Also, Hillary ran a terrible campaigni. The Dems screwed themselves. They shoulda got behind Bernie. /nod
Every time I see the word emoji on this website, I want to groan. Oxford's esquivalience on the matter is just too much for me to bear. For at least ten years the anime community has been using that word to describe a very particular sort of japanese emoticon, and then all of the sudden Apple's marketeers come along and their nonce use is inducted into the dictionary, making the whole thing go wild.
The worst thing is, the only question where I could explain this is closed as research required and I don't know what to do about that.
I should've just answered when I had the chance, but without printed references I was a little reluctant...
@terdon Yes, yes. I wanted to explain that emoji usually described the type of Japanese emoticon that are oriented upright. ^_^ as opposed to :-) is an example example. The matter is just as bothersome to me as the initialism/acronym distinction is to some people.
I mean, the vast majority of English speakers understand emoji in the meaning you object to. It seems very reasonable that the mainstream usage be what makes its way into dictionaries instead of the jargon of a small group. Even if older.
In any case, I would understand emoji to mean either of those.
@terdon Yes and no. When a word is created to make a distinction, and the general public ignore the distinction, it might be noted as a usage problem because it interferes with clarity of communication. That's why I compared it to the acronym/initialism problem. None of the commonly available dictionaries accept the two as being the same, despite the general public's usage.
Maybe that's just a hypocritical bias on the part of the lexicographers though...
And yes, The Free Dictionary represents a general trend, because they source their definitions from Random House, Collins, and the A.H.D.
Moreover, let's suppose that I were to take the descriptivist side of the argument. I think our usage is at least significant enough that the lexicographers should acknowledge our usage as a subsense but no, they rushed this one out of the gate.
@Tonepoet But what about the etymology for emoji that explains it's a Japanese word meaning "picture word" and that it originated with Japanese mobile phones that send those characters?
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 The etymology of emoticon is similar in that regard, particularly the icon part. Nobody objects to the notion that an emoticon can be fully textual in nature.
If the English-speaking anime community uses the word "emoji" to mean Japanese-style emoticons, while the Japanese use the word "emoji" to mean, well, emoji, why isn't the anime-community usage considered erroneous, and interfering with clarity of communication?
@Tonepoet Here, I'm using the word "emoticon" to mean things like :) rather than emoji as recognized by, eg, Unicode.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 You're making an etymological argument though. Besides, the anime community use derives from Japanese use anyway, particularly on 2ch.
@Tonepoet My point is that the things that we now broadly call emoji have always been called emoji ever since they were invented.
So I'm not sure why anyone should pay special attention to a sub-group that insists that the word means something different than what it meant when it was originated and has meant all along.
It's not so much about the etymology anyway, but rather, the actual usage.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 It might also be worth note that when we're discussing Japanese and English, we are ultimately discussing two different languages. English words don't mean the same things as their etymons in greek, saxon or latin.
So the priority should probably be assigned to early usages in English.
So, because one group of people used a Japanese word in English to refer to a Japanese thing, when a different Japanese thing with the same Japanese name came to English via Unicode we should have given it a different English name?
But why is priority relevant? I guess that's what I don't get. If a small group has been using it to mean A but then the word, for whatever reason, enters the general vocabulary and means B, it seems reasonable that the small group will be ignored.
Chances are the lexicographers aren't even aware of the practices of this group.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Unicode only started using the word Emoji after the fact for one thing. The definition of emoji Oxford espouses was already sufficiently covered by Emoticon during the same time period. I'm also not so sure that Oxford...
@Tonepoet but before or after 😊-style emoji were released on phones in Japan and the word "emoji" was used to describe them?
@terdon to me, smiley = emoticon, and emoji is a graphic.
@Tonepoet So in 2002, was it wrong for English-speaking people to refer to 😊 as emoji? Or was that just a scenario that never arose, because no form of messaging used in English supported it?
Yeah. I don't claim to be "right" ( I think it's too soon to call, anyway) but I'd call any icon built by combining ASCII characters on a single line a smiley and would consider emoji and emoticon to be synonyms.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 This is starting to get tricky because use of the word emoji dates back to the 1990s according to the wikipedia article. I don't think I can trace the usage back that far.
@Tonepoet right, but it traces it back to 1990 in Japan
Anyway my point is that I don't think you can claim that either usage is wrong based on the Japanese usage it came from, and the current usage is probably older AND logically has a better use-case (basically nobody uses Japanese-style smileys in English).
I can also point to emoji dick as a particularly early example of emoji, in the sense you are describing, as being English, however I would like to point out that at that time the book was being funded that they were still expressly japanese.
I caught a tremendous fish and held him beside the boat half out of water, with my hook fast in a corner of his mouth. He didn’t fight. He hadn’t fought at all. He hung a grunting weight, battered and venerable and homely. Here and there his brown skin hung in strips like ancient wallpaper, and its pattern of darker brown was like wallpaper: shapes like full-blown roses stained and lost through age. He was speckled with barnacles, fine rosettes of lime, and infested
Sometimes you don't triumph over what you conquer, but what you let go.
A great poem. How famous is it? Does everyone know it?
And I can't parse this part:
> and victory filled up the little rented boat, from the pool of bilge
> ... to the bailer rusted orange
I guess the bailer is rusted and orange, but, er, why are the adjectives put after the noun? Shouldn't there be a comma?
@terdon It's not quite that simple. Those two words are often used interchangably. A.H.D. 5 gives textual examples of emoticons. and it's worth note that the pictures are supposed to be representations of the text people type. Software performed automatic conversion from text to image in software like Invision Powerboard and MSN messenger.
Random House also dates the word emoticon back to the 1980s, which was assuredly long before the pictorial representations, but I'm not sure if I could trust their definition since it includes IMHO.
@tchrist Unless we're talking about the Holy Grail, which may as well just magically grow jewels, I don't think I follow that rationale. How'd it get jewels if nothing put them there?
Sometimes it's as if you assume that there's a verb counterpart for the noun, but there actually isn't, and you're only allowed to use the participial form of the verb.
Like ragged in a ragged cloth. Nobody rags a cloth.
I think you are right that this word was meant to draw attention to itself. It amuses. The entire article is quite tongue-in-cheek — or even sword-in-cheek. Or perhaps even something-else-in-cheek, given how it starts and ends:
Sex and sword swallowing beg some pretty obvious comparisons ...
A mustached face never had someone mustache it. It doesn't work that way.
> If you have aspirations for a promotion or even a nice raise you'll need to set yourself apart, and that comes from doing more than the hate minimum.
@ThatBrazilianGuy I cannot understand that. The nearest things I can think of (which would make sense only with the aid of appropriate context) are the hated minimum or the stated minimum. (as in the hated/stated minimum of working hours). Could be an auto-incorrect thing.
Hate as a modifying noun has a special meaning, which can't apply here, I think:
@MetaEd Maybe parts of it on television, but I don't think I've sat down and watched any of the whole movies.
@tchrist Some actions are passive. A child never has somebody grow them into an adult but they still grew and then they become grown. =P Well, unless you count their pregnant mother, but her involvement stops after nine or so months, which is well before they're grown. >_>
Finally, I too am disappointed in the definition of befrogged. Given how many people are cursed to be frogs in fairy tales, it seems like something that would be good to have a single word to describe:
Fairies are listed in the same section of your inventory as food and other things you can cook with.
I've received a pink-shaped elixir in a bottle shaped like a fairy, and its recipe says it was made with just one fairy.
Can you use fairies in any other cooking recipe?
I think you are right that this word was meant to draw attention to itself. It amuses. The entire article is quite tongue-in-cheek — or even sword-in-cheek. Or perhaps even something-else-in-cheek, given how it starts and ends:
Sex and sword swallowing beg some pretty obvious comparisons ...
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…