ThePopMachine

@CobyCode: I was thinking literal fur. It was sort of a joke evoking the ludricrous(?) idea of eating hair/fur/nails

@ChrisH: Wait, you just made some distinction between wool and fur...... wha?

@ChrisH: You just made me wonder whether consuming things made by animals but not bits of animals include eating animal fur and horns or not?

LaForge is a fourth or fifth in command of a 1000-person vessel. O'Brien is enlisted. I don't think this requires much explanation.

@NJohnny: it changes nothing. Someone in the production staff decided that it would be called Ten Forward. How official that name is in-universe doesn't change the question.

@NKCampbell: I appreciate the input, but that's quite a different question. And I don't understand why we would draw attention to a particular season.

@Spencer: Um... Some are. But "what is the inspiration for" is not the same as "was this the first".

...moreover, I never even wrote "why is it called Ten Forward". I wrote "Is there any precedent". Even something with an obvious answer doesn't deny an interesting provenance.

I am very confounded by the downvotes based on a clear misunderstanding of the question. "It's called Ten Forward because it's the forward section of deck 10." is not an answer to this question, and I agree that if it were, then this deserved to be downvoted to oblivion. But it's not. The fact that people are upvoting @DavidW's comment disturbs me. Someone named this and the question is about why. Alternatively, the question is not "why is it called Ten Forward and not Twenty Port", it's why is it called "Ten Forward and not Guinan's Party Lounge".

@NKCampbell: I am not sure how to make this more clear, although I am open to suggestions. There's no question about the fact that it's called Ten Forward because it's the forward section of deck 10. The question is how it was decided that the lounge on the Enterprise-D should be named this.

@DavidW: It is called Ten Forward because it is the forward part of deck 10, but it is also a specific name, not just a generic description of the location. The question is about whether there are other specific places on ships or the like named like this which inspired the name in TNG.

@Valorum, I suggest you read about Grice's Maxim's and related. If I ask "how many police cars are blown up" the answer isn't "all of them because the world was destroyed".

After some consideration, I've undone your rollback. It is clear that you entered a snarky answer which wasn't in the obvious spirit of what I asked. I editted the question originally to clarify that intent (which was already obviously, although you deny it), not to specifically invalidate your answer.

No, Valorum, don't try to pretend you're in the right here. I'm not trying to invalidate your answer, I'm trying to get the answer to the question as intended.

@Valorum: Films and bonus points for the TV series.

@MichaelEdenfield: I think it's pretty clear from the original question what my intent was and why this answer is correct. A question about a term used commonly in SF where the answer might be "actually, this term predated SF" is totally in bounds. Just like the answer to some Star Trek questions is "the has it roots in naval tradition for hundreds of years". All that having been said, if someone wanted to synthesize the other answers into this one, it would make a more complete answer.

@Praxis: The random occurrence of the two words in sequence in your first two items is not particularly useful. But the 1916 one is absolutely unequivocal. You have the phrase used almost as a standalone, with the right meaning, clearly being used for more than the sum of its constituent words. Nice.

@Jenayah: Well, I just don't think this is something we should do at all. I think we should take it to meta, but I don't want you to think it's an attack. I just think it's weird to be inconsistent so we should establish the convention. We edit names of movies/TV series to italics, but we don't use italics for ships.

@Jenayah: I want to be clear, I won't lose sleep over it either, but I do think this is likely to be something that the community does not consider a good reason to edit thousands of questions and answers over.

@Jenayah: The reason it matters is because bringing all of scifi.SE into line with this convention would be literally hundreds of thousands of edits. For due diligence, I looked at the first ten search:[star-trek],enterprise questions and none of them employed this convention except one (which was edited by you).

@Jenayah, that's great, but I'm not convinced this convention applies to Star Trek and/or scifi.SE

@Praxis, oh this is right. To my list, we need add "Qudei" or something like that. I guess this kid was retconned out. Or perhaps The universe is a spheroid region seven hundred and five metres in diameter. Uh oh.

@Praxis: He lives! Picard, 7of9, "Data", and Praxis are all back!

@Jenayah, is it really convention to italicize ships' names? I don't think so.

Again, with escaping the tick marks...by my account, we have: Mok, Tiamé, Ja'Lok Noq, [roughly Z3UƐ], Devyn, [roughly ZJOƮ3, same script as previous], BLitn, [W-with a line, kind-of-fancy-N, captial-I-with huge serifs], Robert, [tilty-W-with-a-dot, L'H-joined], [green-reptilian?-hand-print], Michael

Interesting, I believe this is pretty much the only time we see an Enterprise resident using a written language besides Earth script for day-to-day communication.

By my account, we have: Mok, Tiamé, Ja'Lok Noq, [roughly Z3UƐ], Devyn, [roughly ZJOƮ3, same script as previous], BLitn, [W-with a line, kind-of-fancy-N, captial-I-with huge serifs], Robert, [tilty-W-with-a-dot, L'H-joined], [green-reptilian?-hand-print], Michael

@terdon: Well, yes, I'm dancing around touchy language. Was this not clear enough: "a character just happens to note that they have genetic ancestry from more than one area of the Earth"

@terdon: Because even though he grew up in America, he appears to be entirely of Asian ancestry.

@MikeScott: Yes, yes, everyone knows that the concept of race is poorly defined and possibly doesn't really exist at all from a biological perspective. It doesn't means that in the context of casting a TV show it wouldn't be notably different to have a character state they are 1/4 Asian, 1/4 black, and 1/2 aborigine versus the unrealistic mess we are given here. And speaking to your specific example, everyone originating from Africa 200k years ago is different than where someone's family originated from 1000 years ago.

Related

@FinnO'leary: I gave a bunch of potential examples. It's deliberately obtuse to imply that there aren't things that would demonstrate fluency. I shouldn't have to list them because I don't know what evidence exists. That's what answers are for. And like I said, Valorum is doing a good job of showing what evidence exists and what it likely means. If you don't like it, please just downvote and move on because this discussion isn't productive.

@Valorum: In the interest of completeness, did you see BenCrowell's comment up top?

@FinnO'leary:Firstly, there are clearly any number of things that would demonstrate his fluency. Suggesting that there's nothing I would accept and calling me a trolling is blatantly preposterous. Any conversation. Any evidence that anyone else in the universe (besides a holo-program) speaks French routinely. Any statement that French is his native language, like Valorum's quote from a novelization. I'm not the one that's not accepting evidence here because the evidence is the same as I noted in my original question. Obviously there are any number of things that would irrefutably show fluency.

Valorum's answer is excellent and it properly makes the argument that it appears he is fluent. This is exactly right. The ones with the pitchforks here are the people complaining that this evidence isn't enough. It's enough for what it is, and I'm not refuting that. It's evidence that the writers probably intend him to be fluent, even if the direct evidence is a little weak. The direct evidence is lower on the canon scale. This is the way answers should work. You don't argue over the interpretation. You present what evidence there is and what's its pros and cons are.

I feel like I need to add: I don't have a dog in the race. I don't care either way. But I do still stand by the appraisal that we don't have evidence of his fluency from the shows/movies. If we didn't have Data calling French "obscure" then the bar would be a lot lower.

@JanusBahsJacquet: I'm okay with that quote, but only to the extent that we accept the canonicity of novelizations. Usually for Star Trek, we don't.

@Valorum: Who filled their baby bottles with tea!

@JohnP, and Shufflepants: How do you reconcile that with the statement that apparently French is "obscure" and that the entire Picard family have English (not French) accents? What you assume is not evidence of what is true. We just don't know what is true in this future world, so how to you justify your assumption? Also, Shufflepants, your immediately preceding comments is a great example of a strawman/slippy-slope argument. I don't accept either as particularly convincing.

Singing songs is a really low bar. Especially those songs. That doesn't demonstrate fluency.

@Jenayah, yeah. My point is there's a long way from comprehension to fluency. (Aside, I always thought it was enfin being poorly pronounced given their terrible accents until, but this au fond may make more sense. I got it from this transcript, but I'm not certain I should trust it because there have been other mistakes.)

Um, I already quoted that and explained why it doesn't prove either way whether Picard is actually fluent.

@JohnP, well, there's this thing going on where people try to trick out the letter of the text instead of trying to understand and core idea. And it shows a lack of understanding that language and ideas and the arts, like the world, are not black and white. Interesting questions and interesting answers may require some nuance, explanation, and context. I just think the whole thing is wrong headed, simplistic and ruins the interest for others just so some people can say "Aha! I got you! Let's pile on!" Why? Just walk away if you don't like a question.

@JohnP: Are you talking about a 2013 film about Yugoslavia 1942? If the film didn't intend that the wireframe was computer-generated (doubtful) then it doesn't satisfy the question. The question is about a future-looking extrapolation of technology, not just any 3D representation of something. ... plus, you know, 2013.

@Valorum: There is a certain logic to that, but the underlying assumption is that an early depiction of 3D CGI (predating its actual practical existence) is most likely to be in a work about the future.

@NKCampbell, respectfully, you didn't. Or if you did and I'm being dense, I'd appreciate an explanation.

Am I supposed to infer from the lack of an answer to my comment and @Valorum's link, that people thinj the answer is the "Rendering of Planned Highway"? That is not an in-universe representation of CGI. It's just actual CGI. There's no in-universe here.

@NKCampbell, this is the history of actual computer animation. It doesn't tell you when a film intended to depict 3D CGI, if it was accomplished using other special effects or artwork.

@NKCampbell, I'm sorry, but what do you think the answer to the question is, based on that page? It's not obvious to me. Maybe I'm obtuse, but if I can't tell the answer there you can't claim the answer is obvious from basic research.

@NKCampbell: Incorrect. That answers the question "What was the first use of computer animation in film?" That is not the question at all! Please re-read and if it's not clear, ask questions.