MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 415 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Casting by "Jake (Rynath *OIB*)" <102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com> 2) Re: Companions 'n' Stuff by "Jake (Rynath *OIB*)" <102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com> 3) RE: Black Characters in SF/F by "Jake (Rynath *OIB*)" <102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com> 4) Re: Lendel/Stefen by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 5) Re: Sean Connery? Bleeech (was Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech!) by CHONNI 6) Re: Sean Connery? Bleeech (was Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech!) by Chelsea Amberle Fischer 7) Re: Castings by Chelsea Amberle Fischer 8) Re: Companions choosing by The Master of Karma 9) Re: Why you shouldn't use acronyms by Roger Dahl 10) Re: Why you shouldn't use acronyms by Roger Dahl 11) Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech! by Roger Dahl 12) Re: Why you shouldn't use acronyms (long) by Roger Dahl 13) Re: Cast list by dbush-+AT+-usa.pipeline.com (dbush) 14) Re: People we'd like to meet by catwoman 15) Re: Nother Newbie by catwoman 16) Re: Nother Newbie by catwoman 17) Re: Out Of Print - Copyright Ethics (fwd) by catwoman 18) Re: Nother Newbie by catwoman 19) Re: catwoman's english essay by catwoman 20) Re: Sean Connery? Bleeech (was Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech!) by catwoman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Mar 96 19:58:47 EST From: "Jake (Rynath *OIB*)" <102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com> To: M-L mailing list Subject: Re: Casting Message-ID: <960313005846_102744.2515_GHT82-3-+AT+-CompuServe.COM> Heather Watson wrote: .I like Patrick Stewart as Alberich. Remote, but not vicious. I agree .that Sean Connery is cool, and I think he'd make a wonderfully swell .Withen Ashkevron (yes, different time period, I know.) And while .Harrison Ford is also cool, I'm afraid he's way the heck too old to play .Skif. Patrick Stewart: Not Alberich. Alberich seems a more rough and ready kind of character, and I see Stewart as a refined, gentelmanly type of person. I know this is a bit off-author, but I could see him playing Tynstar from Jennifer Roberson's "Chronicles of the Cheysuli." And I could see him as Charliss, with the right makeup... Sean Connery: A Withen Askevron with a Scottish accent? Does that mean we can get Christopher Lambert to play Vanyel? ("There Can Be Only One Herald-Mage") Seriously, he'd make a good Withen... Harrison Ford: Nobody. He's a cool actor, yes, but I can't *see* him in any part of Misty's work. Especially a fifty-something Skif. (Then we'd have to make Elspeth around that age and Selenay really old!) .Somebody's going to go ballistic here, .but I think Sharon Stone is a better actress than people give her credit .for, and she has the sheer presence to be a good Kerowyn. If that's too .much to stomach, I'd say maybe Renee Russo. And...Uma Thurman for .Talia? She's probably too old by now, too, but I'm thinking of the .character she played in Dangerous Liaisons. Uma Thurman is one of those .actors who look like a completely different person in every single .movie, so other people's mental images of her may be vastly different .from mine. I don't like Sharon Stone as Kerowyn. She's too, I hate to say it this way, soft. Kerowyn seems to be hard-bodied, and, having a sex-symbol-type character play it would just ruin the part for me. I don't know who could play Kero (still thinking). Uma Thurman: Uma Uma Uma!!! We've got to give her a curly wig, but I could see her as Talia. .Wow, Tim Curry was an amazing Long .John Silver. He's the ultimate in sympathetic bad guys. Darned if I .can think of just the right Misty character to cast him as, however. Tim Curry is an amazing anything (even in ... Rocky Horror .) Maybe we could have Tim Curry as Tremane... . Will I get flamed if I suggest Tom Cruise as Kris? (Judging from the .subject lines, some -- um -- controversy surrounded Brad Pitt.) Didn't expect that Pitttt thing to get out of hand :) .I really .like poor Tom and always have, from Legend on down to Interview. And, .please, no one tell me that I only like him because he's good looking. .I promise you, that's not the case, although I get that every time from .somebody. If I were just casting based on attractiveness, I'd have .Julia Roberts playing Kris Julia Roberts. (Not as her playing any Misty character, but in general). I could see Julia Roberts as Yfandes (she's got a face like a horse, IMVHO.) Shade and Sweet Water to You, ========================== Rynath (OIB) / Jake ======================= "The point is, you see, that there is no point in driving yourself mad trying to stop yourself from driving yourself mad. You might just as well give in and save your sanity for later." -- Ford Prefect ========================102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com =================== ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 96 19:59:03 EST From: "Jake (Rynath *OIB*)" <102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com> To: M-L mailing list Subject: Re: Companions 'n' Stuff Message-ID: <960313005902_102744.2515_GHT82-8-+AT+-CompuServe.COM> CHELSEA wrote: .. .On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Becky Anne Christensen wrote: .. .> Sesame street is okay, my favorite part is still the theme song. It's .> not as good, since Snuffulufagas (sp?) isn't there. I LOVE .. .But they *changed* the theme song a couple of years ago!!!!! (<---5 :) .I remember, 'cause my friends and I were all outraged at the time.... .. .. . ---Chelsea .. .P.S. *My* favorite has always been the "1,2,3,4,5...6,7,8,9,10....11,12" .song.... no, I'm not completely insane... my friends remember it, too :) I like that song, better than the theme song. Of course, I also love "A Very Unhappy Birthday to You" by Oscar and "Doin' the Pigeon" by Bert. MUPPETS TONIGHT got the highest ratings share Friday! But my question was... where's Fozzie? (Hey Kermiiiiiiiiiiit!) OBMISTY: There are no Muppets in Valdemar. ;) Zha'hai'allav'a! ========================== Rynath (OIB) / Jake ======================= "The point is, you see, that there is no point in driving yourself mad trying to stop yourself from driving yourself mad. You might just as well give in and save your sanity for later." -- Ford Prefect ========================102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com =================== ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 96 19:58:53 EST From: "Jake (Rynath *OIB*)" <102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com> To: M-L mailing list Subject: RE: Black Characters in SF/F Message-ID: <960313005853_102744.2515_GHT82-5-+AT+-CompuServe.COM> Our Lady of the List wrote: .Several of Mike Resnick's books are set in Africa, or Africa-derived settings, .so there's a good chance of finding black characters in there. (I'm sorry, I .can't remember them well enough to know for sure.) .. .Also, there are a couple of Heinlein books where the main characters are .not white; Friday, whose main character is mixed-race (_very_ mixed), and .Starship Troopers, whose main character turns out to be Filipino (very .peripheral, though) .. .There have to be others -- Samuel Delany might be another good place to look -- .but it's not something that I pick up on very often. I wonder if there is an .FAQ for it over on rec.arts.sf.written, perhaps? I don't know about strict African-derived characters, but I'm reading Jennifer Roberson's "Chronicles of the Cheysuli" eight book cycle. The Cheysuli are a shape-changing race formerly oppressed by a genocidal government. Dark skinned with yellow eyes, the Cheysuli are kind of more AmerIndish than African (although there are some parallels) and the work goes to show how an oppressed people survive. If you can stomach an eight-book epic, I suggest BUY IT BUY IT BUY IT! The first book moved me to anger and the emotions I've been experiencing reading these books since led from joy to outright despair. And it has a really cool group of villains (who I would *definitely* not like to live with) Roberson's Cheysuli kind of parallel the Shin'a'in clans in a way (bonded to animals) although the bond is much much stronger (since they can shapechange). The series came out before the Winds stuff too--Misty could have based Hawkbrothers on a toned-down version of the Cheysuli. Too bad Roberson only wrote those books and the Sword-something books. She has a very good writing style. Zha'hai'allav'a! ========================== Rynath (OIB) / Jake ======================= "The point is, you see, that there is no point in driving yourself mad trying to stop yourself from driving yourself mad. You might just as well give in and save your sanity for later." -- Ford Prefect ========================102744.2515-+AT+-compuserve.com =================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 12:08:32 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Lendel/Stefen Message-ID: <9603130208.AA20686-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> The Master of Karma wrote: > Well, how to explain this. I guess what I mean is that I liked Stefen. > He was easily one of Misty's most compelling and fascinating characters. > He was one of the few characters in the LHM series that was plausibly > strong enough to deal with Van. And then, Misty went and spoiled > everything by making him just a reborn Tylendel. All of the sudden, he > went from a complex, powerful character to a mere plot device to > resurrect a character who didn't deserve it. I mean, let's face it, > Tylendel was not worth giving up Stefen for. Why couldn't Ty just stay > dead and let Stefen be a real person of his own. I think you're missing the point. We don't ever really get a chance to see 'Lendel when he's not soul-torn - this wonderful complex, powerful character you liked so much *is* Tylendel, just as much as he is Stef. A few other miscellaneous points. 'Lendel was also strong enough to deal with Vanyel as an equal. Stefan was recognizably 'Lendel reincarnated almost from the start (Misty doesn't seem to go in for subtle ambiguities). Stefen was a real person of his own. We didn't really know 'Lendel - I mean, not *really* in the way we know Van and Savil, but what we glimpse is enough to make me want to see more about who 'Lendel was and Stefan being such a great character *does* let me see more of who 'Lendel could have been. On the intimation that 'Lendel more-or-less overshadowed Stefan - Misty didn't think so or the figure with Van in _Winds_ in the Forest wouldn't have been so predominantly Stef. > And Van and Stef could > be in love and follow their destinies. That would have been such a cool > message: love can die, but that is not the end and you can find a new > love and be happy. But NO!!!! We have to have that old story of "one > true love" crammed down our throat. Stef had to be Tylendel reborn, > since there is only enough room in a person's heart to love one person, > and if Van loved Stef that would mean he didn't love Ty. Not true. That's not the message we get. Van knows he loves Stefan all the way along and only realizes just before he dies who Stefan really is. Van also realizes (Tylendel tells him in Dreamtime? Can't remember) that loving other people doesn't mean he didn't love 'Lendel. Another refutation to that is that a person is also affected by their experiences - when Van falls in love with Stefan, Stefan is, in one sense another person from 'Lendel - he's had 17 years of a different life. Their souls may be the same, but their life-experiences are vastly different. > That is such a crock! I can't talk about this anymore. I am so upset > that I can barely type, and I am screaming aloud! Suffice to say that I > HATE the Tylendel/Stefen plot device. It wasn't a plot device. A 'plot device' implies some contrived artificial thing that doesn't really sit with the rest of the story - 'Lendel's death provides the underpinning for the whole of Van's emotional maturity, loneliness, willingness to die for Valdemaar and is a major major major part of who Vanyel is.. Meeting Stef again is what gave Vanyel the strength to go on. Ummm, anyway, I think you get the point. I disagree. :) Cheers, Kerry. "Got a pocket full of power. Got a handle on control. Take a better man than you, babe, to rectify the damage to my soul." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:34:43 -0800 (PST) From: CHONNI To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Sean Connery? Bleeech (was Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech!) Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Marissa K Lingen wrote: > Oh, for heaven's sake, I wasn't talking about Sean Connery as a romantic > interest! Ick!! is right!! But he can be a way cool guy without being a > romantic interest. Uff da. Hey, I *liked* Ramirez in "The > Highlander"--now granted, he was an Egyptian recently from Spain who > somehow had a brogue, but that shouldn't really bother me any more than > his Russian submarine captain did. "A misogynistic dinosaur"...where > have I heard that phrase before...ah yes, the new Bond movie. Did anyone > else think it was completely *irrelevant* whether James Bond is a > misogynistic dinosaur? He's James Bond! Yeah, my sentiments exactly. Besides, M more than made up for his vaguely sexist image. And, after all, if a guy can save the world, sleep with anybody he wants to and come out of any situation the winner, wouldn't you ooze with smugness? Besides, I was talking with my mother about the whole Bond thing, and she explained to me that some women liked him cuz you could imagine just sleeping with him, have a great time, with no worries in the morning cuz you didn't really want to get together with a guy who has as many emotional problems as Bond. That's why I hated Timothy Dalton as Bond; he looked like he should be married with a couple kids!!! > > And that brings up a good one: who could Pierce Brosnan play? hmm...Daren? ooh, maybe a bad guy like orthenallen (sp?); Brosnan can be very evil if he wants to be. > anyone in Misty's books, though. And I'm having a singularly hard time > casting Dirk. I have this sinking feeling that they'd cast him as good > looking, which would make me very, *Very* bitter. Almost as bitter as if > Cindy Crawford played Talia. I'd have to go with my original choice for Dirk; Gary Oldman. The man's an awesome actor, and not overly good looking. (he was Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Sid Vicious in Sid&Nancy). *************************************************************************** "What are we doing tonight, Brain?""The same thing we do everynight, Pinky." "What's that?" "I have no idea." ******************************************Herald Chonni Brightwolf********* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 21:43:33 -0600 (CST) From: Chelsea Amberle Fischer To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Sean Connery? Bleeech (was Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech!) Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Adrienne York wrote: > Now i want to know who Tim Curry is going to play? he's gotta be in there! How 'bout Tim Curry as Ancar????? <--5! ---Chelsea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 21:42:18 -0600 (CST) From: Chelsea Amberle Fischer To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Castings Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Shadow-Lover wrote: > Sigourney Weaver as Hulda... Lou Diomond Phillips as Darkwind... I *definitely* second that nomination of LDP for Darkwind.... I think he'd be perfect! ---Chelsea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:28:53 -0500 (EST) From: The Master of Karma To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Companions choosing Message-ID: Hmmm. You know, this whole thread about Companions choosing reminds me of a very profound bit of insight into the human spirit that I happened to see on a rerun of _Blossom_ (I know, I know, the irony is stunning!). Anyway, Blossom and her bf were agonizing over whether they should go to different (and distant) schools or if one of them should give up his/her plans. Basically, they felt that they were lifebonded (or at least in the bonds of the "one true love") and that they should not betray this bond. Barnard Hughes character (I think he was supposed to a grandfather to someone) came up with a line that I liked. He said something to the effect or "have you ever noticed that when people start talking about finding their one true love, they are always talking about someone within about 50 miles? They never think that they are supposed to fall in love with someone in China." His point, of course, is that proximity is one of the most important factors in falling in love. There may be hundreds, even thousands, nay verily I say unto you, tens of thousands of perfectly acceptable soulmates in the world. People tend to fall in love with someone close to them. It cuts down on airfare, among other reasons. Anyway, this all relates to the whole Companions thing in the following way: maybe being Chosen by a Companion is sort of the same kind of thing. Maybe the Companions choose someone available, and/or accessible, rather than having a predestined partner. Now, I will grant you that it seems likely that a few bondings are predestined, Rolan/Talia being a prime example, since it is clear that he had to go rather further afield that normal to get her. (Alberich and his Companion would be another example.) Anyway, for the most part, maybe it is the same as love: there are lots of perfectly good partners all over the world, so the Companions just pick someone conveniently close? Just a thought! =) Kenny Kenneth Allen Hyde | No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife Univ. of Delaware | between the shoulder blades will seriously Dept. of Linguistics | cramp his style -- Old Jhereg proverb kenny-+AT+-strauss.udel.edu | A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:14:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Roger Dahl To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't use acronyms Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Becky said: > Absolutely! When was the last time you took a long time to figure out > what NAACP or NASA or snafu meant? (And yes, snafu is an acronym, not a > word.) Heh, don't you see what's the difference between the acronyms you mention (which are popular in the real world) and the ones used on this list? The acronyms above, all can be lexicalised as names. A noun, a basic building-block of writing, like Roger. You don't have problems with those acronyms because you DONT need to comvert them to their actual meaning when reading them; NAACP is read like a name and we know what it represents instantly. Who cares that NAACP acutally means "Association for the Advancement of Colored People". Now look at IIRC. It's antirely different. IIRC has an abstract meaning which can't be grasped instantly. You need to convert it to something you can understand first. -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*# Roger Dahl - rd-+AT+-redleaf.bbs.no #*+- Now Hounds of Love are Hunting ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:57:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Roger Dahl To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't use acronyms Message-ID: First. Sorry for disturbing the peace whis this thread. During the time I've been here I've only seen discussions on books and characters and maybe that's how the group want's it. So if this is not a thread you want to see, I will mail privately instead. Give me some feedback on that... On Sun, 10 Mar 1996, The Master of Karma wrote: > On Sun, 10 Mar 1996, Roger Dahl wrote: > > > Acronyms are not good things, particularly not unestablished and rare > > ones as those used rather extensively on this mailing-list. > > > > There's several good reasons not to use acronyms. > > > > The first is that a sentence containing an acronym takes longer to read. > Hmmm. Well, I assume that you can back this claim up with some kind of > evidence? Frankly, I don't think that there is any. Basically, you are > assuming that acronyms are not lexicalized. This is in fact not true. > There is ample evidence of lexicalized acronyms (for example, they can > serve as roots for morphological structure). As you know, language is built up from nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, verbs, and interjections. I would assume that this is not a coinsidence, but somehow based on how the brain works. Now notice that (simplyfing a little :) all of these classes describe concrete things like a thing, place, person, he, you, walk etc, or are modifiyers to these, or connect these in a sentence. Agreed? My point is, there is no single class to describe more abstract concepts like "if I remember correctly". This sentence breaks down to nouns and verbs etc that are the basic building blocks of language. I cannot imagine that this is a coinsidence, but that it reflects how the brain interpretes language. In other words, "if I remember correctly" is not a single "edible" entity to the brain. It cannot convert IIRC directly to that single meaning. About proof, I wouldn't think written proof is necessary. All you need to do is consentrate on what's happening when you are reading. When you read IIRC doesn't the words "if-I-remeber-correcly,-blah-blah-blah" appear in your head? It just doesn't come out as "irk-blah-blah-blah", you know? > Besides, this whole idea > that looking up a term in one's mind would "take longer than just reading > it directly" is a fallacy. Lexical access (which occurs with every > single word that a person reads) is exactly that sort of process. The lexical access the brain performs are based upon the basic building-blocks of language and not entire sentences. If it wasn't langauge wouldn't have the form that it has. So when you read the word "apple" it is directly transformed, but when you read the word IIRC it's not. > Admittedly, looking up an unusual and infrequent acronym takes more time > than looking up a frequent and familiar one, but the same is true of > words. For example, psycholinguistic experiments have shown that high > frequency words are more quickly accessed in the lexicon, whereas very > low frequency words take more time to access. Hmmm. Now that I am > thinking about this, I will have to do some research and see what others > in field say (who knows, maybe someone has done some studies on this very > subject.) I don't think this is relevant. We are not talking about single basic words (which would break down to the basic building blocks), but entire sentences. > > Misunderstandings. If someone is not sure of an acronym it's easy to > > start guessing at them. I saw a list posted recently where "IMHO" was > > "in my humble opinion". I always thought it was 'in my honest opinion'. > > What's correct I don't know. > > The most frequently attested definition in the literature is "In my > humble opinion," but the fact that you don't interpret it that way > doesn't mean that you are wrong. Just that you may speak a slightly > different dialect of internet English. But we want a common language, don't we? What if this goes so far that I can't be sure if I understand what you are saing correctly just because you have your background in another net community than me? > > Stereotyped writing. An acronym is sort of a standardized way of saying > > something, and when using it diversity and shades of writing are > > sacrified. An example is 'IIRC' (if I rember corectly) which is much > > used here. What about "I think", "I can vaguely recall", "I wouldn't > > be surprised if", "Wasn't there..?", etc ad infinitum... The acronyms > > makes for more sterile writing. > > Um. Excuse me, but ALL words are a "standardized way of saying > something." This argument is like saying that there is something wrong > with using a particular word. OK, now stylistically, it is occasionally > nice to use synonyms and the like to vary the text, but on the other > hand, functional terms (and most acronyms that have seen fall into that > category) tend to be a limited set with almost no synonyms. Besides, > brevity being the soul of wit, stylistics would argue for using the more > economical and (perhaps) accurate acronyms than a longer locution. If I > want to say IIRC, I don't mean "I can vaguely recall," or anything else. > I mean IIRC. Same with IMHO. I find it hard to believe that you actually mean this. First, an acronym is not a word, but a collection of words. A collection of basic building blocks of language. Now let's imagine that the acronym IIRC was never invented. Do you think that the actual words "If I remember correctly" would have been used everywhere IIRC is now being used? No, of course writing would be more consise and varied and would reflect what the writer is trying to say more closely. > > Also, the acronyms are confusing and not easy to learn to newcommers. > > Just look at at all the mail like the one under here that has been posted > > recently. > > Any new dialect is going to present challenges to new learners. And one > expects that the largest problems will be lexical. How is learning a > vocabulary of acronyms any more difficult than learning professional > jargon, or regional variation. Personally, I don't think that LIG is any > harder to learn that "ridding up" Read what I said again. I didn't say that acronyms was harder to learn than proffesional jargon or regional variation. But I do think that it's an unnecessary exersice given there is no advantages in using acronyms. Aside, I wouldn't be surprised if acronyms actually is harder to learn than single words that would belong to one of the basic building block classes, since they are what the brain works with and therefore the brain are probably better at storing them. (Just like that it's far easier to remember a number-sequence as a sequence of basic building block words instead). > Anyway, this is what happens when you start making claims about language > around a linguist. Sorry, if I come across as flaming. That wasn't > exactly what I intended. You attacked my arguments and not me personally. So of course this has nothing to do with flaming. I've noticed before on this list that people are talking about flaming once they object to an argument or anything. Now, if I where to say "and you, a linguist and all, really should know what a flaming is, you ***", THAT would be more like flaming.... :) -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*# Roger Dahl - rd-+AT+-redleaf.bbs.no #*+- Now Hounds of Love are Hunting ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:23:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Roger Dahl To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech! Message-ID: And... And.... Jim Carrey as Firesong...! That would be absolutely neat! :))) -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*# Roger Dahl - rd-+AT+-redleaf.bbs.no #*+- Now Hounds of Love are Hunting > > No, no, no and no! Rutger Hauer gets to be Alberich! Harrison > > Ford can be........ummmmm........Jaysen? Anyway, he's not mean enough for > > Alberich. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:58:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Roger Dahl To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't use acronyms (long) Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Jake (Rynath *OIB*) wrote: > How can an acronym which we use extensively here be, then, rare? Internet > English (cyber-speak, of sorts) stems from regular english (a sub-culture of > english, of sorts) and the terminology on this mailing list stems from Internet > English in places, couched with other languages (such as Shin'a'in, etc...) In > our sub-set of english, therefore, these words may not seem, at least to me, as > rare as you claim them. Agreed. On this list these acronyms are not rare. When I said they where, I was thinking about the world in general. You know, the text I read on this list is not much compared to what I read in a day. > Words merely symbolize the objects they represent. Just like the english word > "apple" denotes a lexical symbol for some type of fruit existing in reality, the > english acronym "IIRC" denotes a lexical symbol for the word phrase "If I > Remember Correctly." And it seems to me that people use similar recall > processes to remember what "apple" denotes and to recall what "IIRC" stands for. You are saying it yourself... As you say, people will recall what IIRC *stands for*. This is what I'm saying. First you will recall what IIRC stands for, then analysing that you will understand what it's meaning is. Unlike "apple" which gives a meaning directly. This takes longer time than just reading the meaning directly. > And (in a similar vein) what about using non-lexical symbols, like pictures? Or > ideograms (sp?), which don't use letters per se, but symbols? (Not on the > internet but IRL [In Real Life], that is) Look at the chinese language. Even in such a different language using symbols instead of words, the symbols group into the same kind of basic building-blocks as english do, that is verbs nouns etc. There isn't any (well, few if any) symbols representing abstract meanings like "if I remeber correctly". In fact, research shows that the brain sees and processes a word as a complete symbol (picture), not a string of characters. > I, at least, find it much quicker (and cheaper, depending upon your internet > provider) to type or download "IIRC" than to type "If I Remember Correctly." > Or, to take it further, to type "YKYBRTMML" instead of "You Know You've Been > Reading Too Much Mercedes Lackey." And why would we say things that we would > not mean? Using IIRC (for example) isn't a requirement, just an option. If I > mean I Can Vaguely Recall I would use something more like ICVR. :) Yes, yes, it is quicker and easier to type IIRC than "If I remember correctly". But remember, you are only typing it ("coding" it) once while 200-300 people has to "decode" it. See it that way, and typing IIRC is kinda egoistic... As for download/upload it really makes no difference. And as for ICVR... :) > When I learned Internet English, it was a whole bunch of > new words. Just like when I started to work in public relations for TCG (a > telephone company) and had to learn a bunch of terms dealing with telephony. > I try and explain ridiculous internet abbreviations, but there are standard ones > such as IMHO and IIRC and others which mostly everyone uses (even outside of our > sheltered mailing list). It's like learning lingo for your new job and trying > to remember what in the nine Shin'a'in Hells a SONET ring is or ATM phone > technology is. I think you are wrong. The technical terms you had to learn either belongs to one of the basic building blocks like verbs, nouns etc, or they are acronyms which function as names. You see? > There are books out there that explain what some abbreviations mean. Internet > abbreviations are part of the "slang" here. Just because the internet is > available to everyone with an address, that doesn't mean that the sub-language > will neccesarily (sp?) change because of that. The acronyms that has evolved on internet exists because of lazy typists and because people think it makes their text shorter and more consise. It IS shorter to type, and it is shorter on paper. But it takes longer to read. Why do you think we aren't walking around sayin things like "IIRC" in real life when we are talking? It is after all a lot easier to say. If there where any merit in shortening abstract meanings like that don't you think our spoken language would have had lots of them, evolving from thousands of years back? -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*#*+- -+*# Roger Dahl - rd-+AT+-redleaf.bbs.no #*+- Now Hounds of Love are Hunting ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 06:35:47 GMT From: dbush-+AT+-usa.pipeline.com (dbush) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Cast list Message-ID: <199603130635.GAA02372-+AT+-pipe11.h1.usa.pipeline.com> Well, with all the cast suggestions I thought I would stick my oar in. Falconsbane-Dennis Hopper Skif-Tim Roth Orthallen-Christopher Walken Alberich-Clint Eastwood Kris-Hmmm, maybe Bruce Campbell? Still working on more... ______________________________________________________ May the wind under your wings bear you where the sun sails and the moon walks. ______________________________________________________ Dean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:41:14 -0800 From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: People we'd like to meet Message-ID: <199603130641.WAA18857-+AT+-inreach.com> At 04:16 3/12/96 GMT, you wrote: >>She wasn't a herald, but a herald-trainee, so I suppose she did already >have the knowledge, didn't she? >IIRC Talia was briefed on this arrow-code when she was a trainee, either, >so she had time to practise the fletching (sp?), but books-+AT+-home and so >on, so I may be wrong. Talia learned the arrow code before she and Kris left on their field assignment. (AFlight) I think it was, like, the day before they left. She sat in Kyrill's office until she could do her pattern perfectly, behind her back, and in the dark. :) -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:41:12 -0800 From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Nother Newbie Message-ID: <199603130641.WAA18854-+AT+-inreach.com> At 15:25 3/11/96 GMT, you wrote: >I have the first ... um ... I think I have the first two, read the third from >the library, didn't bother with number 4. Why? Well, the Rowan was doing so >well as a character. And then she went all soppy over -- Jeff, was it? I'm >so bad with character names. After that they all went downhill rather. > >Don't get me wrong. It's not that I have anything against women who come over >all romantic when faced with a Strong Man. It just didn't ring true, to me, >that the Rowan -- up until then strong, independent, etc etc etc -- would >suddenly turn to marshmallow. > I agree...the books are great...but the first book did start to go down hill once she met (dreamy eyed voice here) Jeff. (dreamy sigh) anyways, good books but the heroines always got totally sappy once they fell in love.. least in Misty's books, Elspeth and Talia didn't get all mushy-eyed when they bonded (well, Talia life-bonded anyways...) -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:41:17 -0800 From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Nother Newbie Message-ID: <199603130641.WAA18862-+AT+-inreach.com> At 09:33 3/12/96 GMT, you wrote: >CATWOMAN wrote: > >.I'm starting to re-read all my Misty books, so I can keep up with everything >.here...finished _Magic's Pawn_ in two days..down from four. ;) > >Two days?? I finished it in three hours. That's why I both love and hate >Misty... I love her because her books are so *good* but I hate her because her >books are so *good* I can't put them down. I try to, but I keep wondering >what's going to happen next, so I am forced to pick it up again and finish it. > >Especially when I get too immersed in a book, feel everything which goes on with >it, and then am depressed when the book is over! (And look up at the clock and >go "Dear Goddess. It's been three hours!) My craving for Velgarath stuff has >reached epidemic proportions.... I *have* to put them down for a while, or I get so drawn into them its *scary*!! I start putting myself in Vanyel's place or something, and its just darn scary. I can finish any of the Arrows books in a few hours, but the Last Herald-Mage takes me a bit longer (shrug) I dunno why..but i usually blaze through them. Plus, my boss doesn't look too kindly on me reading while i'm supposed to be working.. :) -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:41:20 -0800 From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Out Of Print - Copyright Ethics (fwd) Message-ID: <199603130641.WAA18870-+AT+-inreach.com> At 11:26 3/12/96 GMT, you wrote: >> I don't know which S&S you're looking for, but I know that there's a totally >> rad Barnes & Noble in Fresno, and they always special order stuff for their >> customers, so you may want to inquire. You tell them what you want, and two >> weeks later you pay for it when it comes in. Nifty, huh? :) >> -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com >> looking for a spiffy signature.... >> > Yep, I love Barnes & Noble, one of the few places in Fresno that >is worth anything (even if the parking is beyond horendous) but if it was >out of print, then ordering it wouldn't do any good would it? Or can you >order put of print things? dunno...no harm in asking, I guess. like i said before, I didn't know which one you were looking for... A tad frustrating, isn't it? I'm dying to read the Tarma and Kethry stories...I have got to start book hunting again. -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:41:22 -0800 From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Nother Newbie Message-ID: <199603130641.WAA18872-+AT+-inreach.com> At 11:30 3/12/96 GMT, you wrote: >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Mary Temple wrote: > >> Actually, she has at least two stories is that series of anthologies. >> "Skitty" in the first "Catfantastic", and "A Tale of two Skitties" in >> "Catfantastic III". >> I THINK there's even one Skitty story in the second one, but since my copy >> of it is currently in a box, I can't verify/deny that impression. I liked >> the stories, but I preferred Andre Norton's Thragun Neklop stories. :) >> >> >-Free Bard Oriole >> > > YES!!!!I love those stories! The Thragun Neklop ones are the >best! I haven't read Catfantastic, or Canfantastic II for a while, I >should go dig them up and read them. I didn't know there was a >Catfantastic III yet, is it any good? I have it and its pretty good. its been out for....(goddess..gotta think about that one) a good year or two. Its got a picture of a big Mane Coon cat dressed up like Henery VIII, and holding a cat mask in front of his face. I haven't finished it yet..i always get sidetracked. Joyous, eh? :) Too many gosh darn Misty books to read. -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:41:15 -0800 From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: catwoman's english essay Message-ID: <199603130641.WAA18859-+AT+-inreach.com> At 05:06 3/12/96 GMT, you wrote: >Catwoman wrote: >> At 02:54 3/8/96 GMT, you wrote: >> >> People I don't want to meet- >> >> 1. Ma'ar/Falconsbane- evil evil evil. I like my own body, thank you. >> >> I don't want the possibility of being forced out of it, thank you. >> >only if you're a blood descendant of him with the Mage-Gift. And I >> >hope you aren't, because that would dually scary because a) you >> >would be a fictional character, and b) I would be thought insane for >> >speaking to a fictional character! > >already! >> >> with my luck, I would be. and there are times in my life I feel like >> a fictional character, so don't worry about it. :) > >Me too! :) Then again, I think I _am_ a fictional character in >someone's horror story! :> I second that...sounds like my whole life. ugh. ;) >> >> Actually, I want a companion. Anybody know where I can get >> >one? :) >> >Firebird Arts and Music :) >> great, do they have a mail order catalog? :) I wonder how much they are? >> 19.95 plus shipping and handling? >They have a web-page somewhere. Do a web search of "Mercedes Lackey" >and it'll show up about a million times. :) I found it. :) I was lookin' around and I found it. Then proceeded to find a whole lotta stuff to waste my paycheck on, including a companion!! The little stuffed ones...I think I'm gonna get one. :) -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:41:18 -0800 From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Sean Connery? Bleeech (was Re: Brad Pitttttt? Bleeech!) Message-ID: <199603130641.WAA18867-+AT+-inreach.com> At 11:00 3/12/96 GMT, you wrote: >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, The Master of Karma wrote: > >> Sean Connery?!? Ick!! Now that is one infatuation that I have never >> understood. OK, fine, I suppose if you are really into the "daddy" >> types, he is maybe passable. But please, the man is a misogynistic >> dinosaur. I personally think that if anyone were to play Alberich, it >> would have to be Patrick Stewart. I mean, he can do the intimidation >> factor very nicely. And he might be able to pull off the weapons work >> convincingly (which Mr. Connery could never do...I mean did you *see* him >> in Highlander? HA!). > I still defend the choice for Sean Connery, Patrick Stewart would >be okay I guess, but I think he would be better for someone else. He >wasn't all *that* bad in highlander. I've seen worse. Now, if we want >people who can really do weapons work, get Kerry Elwes (I think, you >know, the guy from the Princess Bride...as...you...wish...) he could be >Kris maybe. ye Gods above, you read my mind! Carey Elwes would be the *perfect* Kris! He's devistatinly handsome, and a great swordsman to boot. And to see him in Whites...yum! anyways.. Patrick Stewart....Orthallen would be a good place for him. But I dunno...maybe Withen... but he's gotta be there somewhere.. -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 415 *********************************