Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Rasaad dialogue error?

SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
edited May 2014 in BG:EE Bugs (v1.2)
I don't know if it's already been mentioned (couldn't find it anywhere), or if it's correct and it's my english that is bad.

Rasaad dialogue :

"Gamaz and i, used to life on Calimport streets, searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla"

How does that work?


image

Post edited by SionIV on

Comments

  • Glam_VrockGlam_Vrock Member Posts: 277
    I think he's saying he's used to life on the street in general, not that Calimport is somehow in Athkatla. Kinda awkwardly written, but not incorrect.

  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
    edited May 2014
    How is it proper english to say "Life on the street" shouldn't it be "Live on the street" or "Were used to the life on the street".

    And how does the entire dialogue in itself work? searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla?

    So they were used to the life on the streets of calimport, but they searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla?

  • BalquoBalquo Member, Developer Posts: 2,743
  • Glam_VrockGlam_Vrock Member Posts: 277
    SionIV said:

    How is it proper english to say "Life on the street" shouldn't it be "Live on the street" or "Were used to the life on the street".

    And how does the entire dialogue in itself work? searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla?

    So they were used to the life on the streets of calimport, but they searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla?

    The commas enclose a parenthetical phrase. It's essentially the same as writing "Gamaz and I (who were used to life on the streets) looked for blah blah blah"

    And as I said, he's not saying Calimport and Athkatla are the same place. He means "We grew up on the streets of Calimport, therefore we were used to life on the streets, therefore we searched Athkatla's streets."

    SionIV
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
    edited May 2014

    SionIV said:

    How is it proper english to say "Life on the street" shouldn't it be "Live on the street" or "Were used to the life on the street".

    And how does the entire dialogue in itself work? searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla?

    So they were used to the life on the streets of calimport, but they searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla?

    The commas enclose a parenthetical phrase. It's essentially the same as writing "Gamaz and I (who were used to life on the streets) looked for blah blah blah"

    And as I said, he's not saying Calimport and Athkatla are the same place. He means "We grew up on the streets of Calimport, therefore we were used to life on the streets, therefore we searched Athkatla's streets."

    And had they written that it would have been fine, but what is actually in that dialogue can't be considered correct English?

    I'm not a native speaker when it comes to English so it might just be that i'm wrong here, and that's fine. I just can't help but to read that dialogue several times and the way it's written just seems odd.

  • Glam_VrockGlam_Vrock Member Posts: 277
    SionIV said:

    And had they written that it would have been fine, but what is actually in that dialogue can't be considered correct English?

    Read this.

    Take the first example. "Queen Victoria, one of England's greatest monarchs, ruled for sixty-three years." You don't need to say "Queen Victoria, WHO IS one of England's greatest monarchs" in that instance. Likewise, you do not need to say "Gamaz and I, WHO WERE used to life on the streets."

    SionIV
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
    edited May 2014

    SionIV said:

    And had they written that it would have been fine, but what is actually in that dialogue can't be considered correct English?

    Read this.

    Take the first example. "Queen Victoria, one of England's greatest monarchs, ruled for sixty-three years." You don't need to say "Queen Victoria, WHO IS one of England's greatest monarchs" in that instance. Likewise, you do not need to say "Gamaz and I, WHO WERE used to life on the streets."
    But that reads completely different than the dialogue with Rasaad in my opinion.

    I've read every single dialogue in Baldur's gate 1&2 and never have i had to stop up and read a dialogue several times, because they were all written in a smooth way that was understandable. This just stood out to me, but then again it's probably correct and i just find the wording odd compared to the rest of the dialogues in the game.

  • Glam_VrockGlam_Vrock Member Posts: 277
    Yeah, I actually gave you the wrong example there. It's an absolute phrase, not an appositive. Still valid, though. I agree it's clunky, but it's not technically wrong.

  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    edited May 2014
    @Glam_Vrock‌
    @SionIV‌

    Technically it is correct.
    Anyone with a most basic understanding of how linguistics work should be able to figure out: the comma serves not only to enumerate concepts, but also to indicate a transgression on the usual order of an indo-european sentence, which is "Subject + Verb + (if the verb is transitive) Complement", as explained by Noam Chomsky in his Gerativist theory.
    For instance:
    'I stared at a rainbow" - Usual order
    'At a rainbow, I stared" - Transgressed order
    By analyzing this, it becomes apparent that it is impossible to separate a subject of its verb, due to the fact that the transgressive order can only hapen if the complement is put to the back of the subject - essentially, in linguistical terms: In a sentence, it is impossible to separate a subject of its verb, for they form an unbreakable linguistic sign as strong as those that link the complementary words together, just as you cannot break the middle "at a rainbow" with a comma without it becoming gibberish, so can't you separate "I, stared" without it losing its fluence too - however, there is one exception...
    Now, while this dialogue features none of this, it does feature a Subordination, which linguistically functions as follow: "Subject + Subordination + Verb + (complement of the verb)" with subordination being "Verb + Complement of the verb" with the subject being the same as the one used by the dominant sentence - since Subordination is technically a transgression of coordination, it must be put between commas to indicate that is not the usual order followed by the language - this being the one exception to the rule of comma separation . If they were coordinated they would become like this: "Gamaz and I searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla since we were used to life on the streets of Calimport", which transpires the fact that the usual order for conjuction of sentences is "Subject + Verb + Complement + Conjunction + Subject + Verb + Complement" - Subordination becomes possible if, in the Coordenation, the subjects of both phrases refer to the same thing.

    ... I think I got a little carried away, but this is the most accurate explanation available for the phenomenon that caused in you confusion , and should satisfy your doubts should you make a little effort to try and understand it.
    And this is also a demonstration of Asperger's knowledgeability, as well as its lack of comprehension on how to pass such information in simple terms.

    SionIVCrevsDaak
  • JenzafarJenzafar Member Posts: 303
    I have a different question about this dialogue, actually. It would appear that Gamaz and Rasaad were in Calimport when the monks in Athkatla were slaughtered, correct? And they were sent to investigate.

    So why (spoiler alert) is it that, later, Rasaad is thought by the Sun Soul order to have been the killer of those monks? Did I miss something?

  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    edited May 2014
    Jenzafar said:

    I have a different question about this dialogue, actually. It would appear that Gamaz and Rasaad were in Calimport when the monks in Athkatla were slaughtered, correct? And they were sent to investigate.

    So why (spoiler alert) is it that, later, Rasaad is thought by the Sun Soul order to have been the killer of those monks? Did I miss something?

    Scapegoating.

  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
    edited May 2014
    Thank you for that @Loub.

    It wasn't that i couldn't understand what he tried to say, i just had to read it again to make sure. It just sounds really odd to me and sticks out. Had it been written like you wrote : "Gamaz and I searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla since we were used to life on the streets of Calimport" I wouldn't have given it a second look, but ah well, it's probably just my English.

    Jenzafar
  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    edited May 2014
    SionIV said:

    Thank you for that @Loub.

    It wasn't that i couldn't understand what he tried to say, i just had to read it again to make sure. It just sounds really odd to me and sticks out. Had it been written like you wrote : "Gamaz and I searched for rumors on the streets of Athkatla since we were used to life on the streets of Calimport" I wouldn't have given it a second look, but ah well, it's probably just my English.

    Yes, it does sound strange to the untrained ear due to the fact transgressive orders of sentences are not common in everyday life.
    Do not, however that 'transgressive' does not mean 'wrong', but merely that it deviates from the Usual order.
    If you are puzzled as to why I know this: I *am* a Linguist and as such have studied the very essence of the language at its truest form, unlike the lies your so called 'grammar' feeds us.
    @Dee‌ @Tresset‌ @bengoshi‌ - I believe this should be moved to 'Not an Issue'.

    On grammar: I would disregard @Glam_Vrock‌ 's explanations since they have been disproven well over a century ago by Ferdinand de Saussure. The 'grammar' you know is not, never was, and never will be a science - it is a half-hearted attempt to normalize the language while prescribing completely unnatural laws to govern it - it doesn't even bother analyzing reality, simply because it would be impossible to prove its prescriptions by taking a corpus. Any reputable professional of the language should be able to confirm this, as should any student of the letters of any remotely worthwhile university on the entire planet. The only reason this 'grammar' is still taught is due to stupid tradition, since Chomsky has long developed better methods for analysis of the language.

    Post edited by Loub on
    JuliusBorisov
  • JenzafarJenzafar Member Posts: 303
    Loub said:



    Scapegoating.

    Well, yeah, I get that, especially with his name scrawled on the wall and everything, but . . . isn't that incredibly dumb?

    Why pin it on someone who was *known* to not even be in town when it happened? Someone who was sent there after the fact, specifically to look into what happened?

    Hm, maybe that's why it's so easy to convince the Tears of Selune . . . eh, I'll stop hijacking the thread now.

  • Glam_VrockGlam_Vrock Member Posts: 277
    edited May 2014
    Loub said:

    On grammar: I would disregard @Glam_Vrock‌ 's explanations since they have been disproven well over a century ago by Ferdinand de Saussure. The 'grammar' you know is not, never was, and never will be a science

    That's all well and good, but if this "so-called grammar" is still in common use then it's not very smart to disregard it.

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,154
    @Loub‌ I will let @Jalily take a look at this. Just for future reference: Troodon80, Gate70, and I are the ones who manage the support section so tag one of us if you want us to look at something here.

    JuliusBorisov
  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,154
    Also @SionIV‌ You should report BG1 text errors here and BG2 text errors here.

  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471

    Loub said:

    On grammar: I would disregard @Glam_Vrock‌ 's explanations since they have been disproven well over a century ago by Ferdinand de Saussure. The 'grammar' you know is not, never was, and never will be a science

    That's all well and good, but if this "so-called grammar" is still in common use then it's not very smart to disregard it.
    Religious denial of various scientific theories and laws by various religious organizations are still at large, should we scientists heed to them?

  • Glam_VrockGlam_Vrock Member Posts: 277
    Loub said:

    Religious denial of various scientific theories and laws by various religious organizations are still at large, should we scientists heed to them?

    Yes. How are you going to refute them if you don't know what they're saying?

    My point is, rubbish or not, it's what most people are taught, and therefore what most people will apply to their writing. It's important to understand what people think is true as much as what is actually true.

  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,686
    edited May 2014
    Let's not argue in this thread please.

    I'm glad that people took their time to explain to me how this works when it comes to grammar. I still feel that the dialogue could have been written in another way, but i guess it's one of those things that come down to opinions.

    Tresset
  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    edited May 2014

    Loub said:

    Religious denial of various scientific theories and laws by various religious organizations are still at large, should we scientists heed to them?

    Yes. How are you going to refute them if you don't know what they're saying?

    My point is, rubbish or not, it's what most people are taught, and therefore what most people will apply to their writing. It's important to understand what people think is true as much as what is actually true.
    It is, and has always been, the duty of a Teacher to educate people on the various natural laws that apply to the world and humanity - even if some of them are still teaching things wrong, I will not, for my students deserve better than what you had - I will not perpetuate this vicious cycle of ignorance.

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,154
    SionIV said:

    Let's not argue in this thread please.

    I will second that. Stay on topic, especially here. The support section is an important part of the support process for the game and is definitely not a place for arguing.

    CrevsDaakJuliusBorisov
  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    Tresset said:

    SionIV said:

    Let's not argue in this thread please.

    I will second that. Stay on topic, especially here. The support section is an important part of the support process for the game and is definitely not a place for arguing.
    Point taken.

    JuliusBorisov
  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,154
    Thread closed at request of OP. I think everything that needed to be said on this matter was said.

    SionIVCrevsDaakJuliusBorisov
This discussion has been closed.