| Civilization: The Expansion Project https://dev.civproject.net/forum/ |
|
| Name of Comodities https://dev.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=284 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Jonno [ 2006-02-10 3:56:22 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Today I (finally) made a draft of the updated commodities. I haven't generated any pngs, but the psd can be found at my site as usual (Warning: 27MB download). I, however, have a few issues with the naming of some commodities. Looking through the list it appears that, with a few exceptions, enumerable commodities are named in plural, while non-enumerable ones are named in their only, singular, form. The problem comes with words that can be either enumerable or non-enumerable (ie stone), or are sometimes treated as non-enumerable though technically are enumerable (ie fish, fruit), or words whose plural form can double as non-enumerable (ie spices, herbs). In my draft I have, barring any typos, blindly followed the rulebook (which in one case wasn't the same as on the old cards). However, before final version there is a few issues I'd like to address: 1) Bone and Pearl are in singular form. Imho clearly errors. 2) Imho we should use the non-enumerable form of spices and herbs, as the enumerable form actually refer to kind of spice/herb. This is already the case in the rulebook, and thus my draft, but on the old cards Spice was used in singular. 3) Stone should imho continue to use it's non-enumerable form, as it, in this context, is used analogues to the metals. 4) As for fish/fruit I'm not sure. Technically it should be fishes and fruits, but personally I think we should continue to use the informal non-enumerable form. Myself I never uses "fruit" as non-enumerable in English (but I do in Swedish) and thus initially thought it an error. Fish, on the other hand, I usually use as an non-enumerable, and imho it has a nicer "feel" than fishes. I need input from native English speaker on this! Any comments? - Jonno A small dictionary for the grammatically non-savy: Enumerable nouns: Things you can count. Ex: One bone, two bones, three bones etc. Non-enumerable nouns: Things you can't count. Either because there is only one (eg names) or because it's not possible to divide it into items. The typical example of a non-enumerable noun is water1: You can't have "two waters". You might have two bottles of water, but then it's bottle that is enumerable. Chemical compounds (including all metals) are non-enumerable nouns as well. All non-enumerable nouns are technically considered singular, but that only matter when determining the form of verbs (eg "Water is wet.") Singular: The form of an enumerable noun used when you have only one. Example: One bone. Plural: The form of an enumerable noun used when you have two or more. In English this is usually formed by adding Code: -(e)s Footnotes: 1) Well, there are in fact two different words spelled water. One, the liquid, is non-enumerable, and is the one referred to. The other one is a synonym to body of water and is enumerable. You can sail on two waters during a summer... |
|
| Author: | Pureblade [ 2006-02-16 8:11:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would use singular/non-enumerable form always, thus emphasising that you're trading on the resource level, not item level. I.e. you're trading fur as a resource, not furs as items. The pearl-resource, not individual pearls. Etc. It's a bit awkward to begin with, but it gets better once you get used to "hearing" it. 
|
|
| Author: | Jonno [ 2006-02-16 8:49:46 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pureblade wrote: I would use singular/non-enumerable form always, thus emphasising that you're trading on the resource level, not item level. I.e. you're trading fur as a resource, not furs as items. The pearl-resource, not individual pearls. Etc. It's a bit awkward to begin with, but it gets better once you get used to "hearing" it. Well I'm all for using a non-enumerable form when one excist, but using an enumerable noun in singular implies a "one", while plural does not have to be a fixed amount, but can rather be an arbitrary amount. Thus, in my interpretation, a singular noun is always a single item, while a plural noun can possible refer to a pile, stack, etc of a resource (ex: Squirrels don't hord Code: nut Code: nut[i]s[/i] Would someone natively speaking English correct me if I'm wrong (parts of this is based on Swedish equivalents). |
|
| Author: | Jonno [ 2006-02-17 8:08:18 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Two Scandinavians discussing properties of the English Language, it feel kind of wrong... Isn't there any native English speakers reading this forum? |
|
| Author: | BWR [ 2006-02-17 9:58:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pureblade has a good point. You're trading the commodity as a resource and the singular form is preferable in most cases but there are exceptions. Actually the names on the cards that are available on the site currently are correct except I think fur is preferable to furs, though it could go either way. Other commodities in which the plural form is preferable. Hides Ceramics Textiles Gems Herbs |
|
| Author: | mcbeth [ 2006-02-17 10:10:30 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sure, personal opinion is I don't know. Using non-enumerable when available, and plural when not makes the most sense, but English isn't exactly good at making the distinction between non-enumerable and singular, as you noticed with fish. Spice could stay Spice, as it is often used that way she always adds spice to the conversation the spice extends life, spice expands conciousness Incidentally, water(s) is more complicated than that, it is pluralizable when you add an adjective (since we are now really making the noun phrase plural). He gave me some samples of his healing waters. Part of the problem is that we have generic commodities (Spice/Salt, Cloth/Textiles I've argued myself back in forth on this one several times since I saw your post. Pearls, Silks, Dyes, Gems, Herbs, Spices, Ceramics (why didn't we choose pots?), Furs, Stones, Papyri (only if we talk of books rather than leaves), Bones, Hides I write that list, and I really like the all singular/non-enumerable nouns instead, but when I write the that version seperated out, I like The implication with the plural nouns is that they are distinct in appearance as well as type. In my pile of stones, we have granite and limestone. This is a pile of granite stone. I really don't know which way we want to go. Definitely don't mess with Fish/Fruit. Our hold is filled with Fruit sounds perfectly okay to me. See, not much help from English speakers after all. I see Gems, Herbs, Ceramics, and Furs having to stay. Especially Gems, as the singular is so uncommon (gemstone is more common for singular) |
|
| Author: | BWR [ 2006-02-17 13:59:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was trying to think if there was a rule in English besides common usage that would make the singular name of the commodity preferable. I believe one can follow this rule. If the commodity is a raw material from which other things are made, the singular form is used. If it is a more or less finished product and is enumerable use the plural. Can any one find an exception? |
|
| Author: | Velusion [ 2006-02-17 14:00:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Though it might be inconsistant, sometimes you have to just go with what sounds right... I'm sure an english professor would have a good answer for us... but I've always used what natually sounds right... Like.. I'll trade you 2 Bone and a Spice for your Gems and 2 fish. Maybe a poll would be best... ;P |
|
| Author: | Jonno [ 2006-02-17 16:09:19 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great, finaly some input. Nothin defenite, but way better than nothing! mcbeth wrote: Sure, personal opinion is I don't know. Me neither, that's why I'm posting... mcbeth wrote: Using non-enumerable when available, and plural when not makes the most sense, but English isn't exactly good at making the distinction between non-enumerable and singular, as you noticed with fish. Yea, English is pretty good at exceptions... mcbeth wrote: Spice could stay Spice, as it is often used that way she always adds spice to the conversation the spice extends life, spice expands consciousness Never thought of that. You are probably right though... mcbeth wrote: Part of the problem is that we have generic commodities (Spice/Salt, Cloth/Textiles I'm not sure on this, but in my mind Silks, Dyes, Gems, Herbs, Spices and Wines all refers to "kinds of X", not "items of X". In the case of Silk, Dye and Wine I solved it by using the non-enumerable form, and I think what you said in the previous quote was that I should do the same with Spice. Herbs is still a problem, but I think "Herbs" can refer to "items of unknown/irrelevant type of herb" as well... For gems see below. mcbeth wrote: I've argued myself back in forth on this one several times since I saw your post. Pearls, Silks, Dyes, Gems, Herbs, Spices, Ceramics (why didn't we choose pots?), Furs, Stones, Papyri (only if we talk of books rather than leaves), Bones, Hides I write that list, and I really like the all singular/non-enumerable nouns instead, but when I write the that version separated out, I like It's feeling as if you forgot to end the last sentence. What did you want to say? mcbeth wrote: The implication with the plural nouns is that they are distinct in appearance as well as type. In my pile of stones, we have granite and limestone. This is a pile of granite stone. This is somehow related to my "items of X" vs. "kinds of X" issue above. In my interpretation ther is three meanings of "stone". 1) A mass of stone. Analogues to metals. Non-enumerable. 2) A single stone item. Enumerable. 3) A single kind of stone. Enumerable. I opted to go with (1) Non-enumerable, but one could go for (2) in plural as well. I guess the same is true for Fish and Fruit as well, see below. mcbeth wrote: I really don't know which way we want to go. Definitely don't mess with Fish/Fruit. Our hold is filled with Fruit sounds perfectly okay to me. OK, won't touch Fish/Fruit. In the same spirit I think I'll stick with Stone as well. mcbeth wrote: See, not much help from English speakers after all. On the contrast, you have been of great help. I'm not necessary looking for a definite answer, but mostly what "feel" you convey on the issue. mcbeth wrote: I see Gems, Herbs, Ceramics, and Furs having to stay. Especially Gems, as the singular is so uncommon (gemstone is more common for singular) Well, to me “gems” is actually “kinds of gem” (jade and ruby is two gems) while gemstones is the items. So, My proposal would be to go with "Gemstones". What do you think? BWR wrote: I believe one can follow this rule. If the commodity is a raw material from which other things are made, the singular form is used. If it is a more or less finished product and is enumerable use the plural. Can any one find an exception? Wine is final product, but you don't go to the shop to buy wines (or do you?), you go to buy wine, no matter how many bottles you want. Of course the shop might offer many different wines, but then we refer to "kinds of" and not "items of", and though you can offer to sell many "kinds of", you can't actually sell a kind, only an item... Also, pearls is both a raw material and a finished product at the same time... No mater what rules we make up we will have exceptions, a rule is mostly a tool so we can get a mostly consistent feel without having to go through all 45 commodities, comparing each of them to all the other 44... Your rule is imho quite a good one, though ofcourse imperfect, as was mine more gramatically based one (and as you might notice, in all cases except those mentioned specifically in this thread they agree). Velusion wrote: Though it might be inconsistent, sometimes you have to just go with what sounds right... I completely agree, but imho it's easier if you have some kind of system, and then makes exceptions, rather than only having exceptions... Thats all from me for now, please continue to rant! |
|
| Author: | Pureblade [ 2006-02-19 23:26:52 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jonno wrote: BWR wrote: I believe one can follow this rule. If the commodity is a raw material from which other things are made, the singular form is used. If it is a more or less finished product and is enumerable use the plural. Can any one find an exception? Wine is final product, but you don't go to the shop to buy wines (or do you?) I'm not sure if you meant that to be an exception to BWR's rule or not, but if you did I disagree. Wine, used in this context is not enumerable (because the meaning of it would change when the plural is used, I suppose?). I.e. you can say "I'm going to buy wine" when you mean "I'm going to buy a bottle of wine", but you cannot say "I'm going to buy wines" when you mean "I'm going to buy several bottles of wine". In this sense, 'bottle' is enumerable, but 'wine' (meaning a bottle of wine) is not. Did that make sense? (I'm just a confused Norwegian, you know.  )Jonno wrote: Also, pearls is both a raw material and a finished product at the same time... Not in the same way as stone or metals are. Even if you can assemble pearls and whatnot to make something else (necklace?), you never change it to something else than a pearl. You don't _shape_ it, like you would with stone/metal. At best, you would polish it a bit. (Though, disagreeing on these exceptions doesn't prove that there are no exceptions.) |
|
| Author: | Jonno [ 2006-02-20 6:31:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pureblade wrote: I'm not sure if you meant that to be an exception to BWR's rule or not, but if you did I disagree. Wine, used in this context is not enumerable (because the meaning of it would change when the plural is used, I suppose?). I.e. you can say "I'm going to buy wine" when you mean "I'm going to buy a bottle of wine", but you cannot say "I'm going to buy wines" when you mean "I'm going to buy several bottles of wine". In this sense, 'bottle' is enumerable, but 'wine' (meaning a bottle of wine) is not. Did that make sense? (I'm just a confused Norwegian, you know. )I meant this to be an exception to BWR's rule, as Wine is a final product, and according to his rule should be in plural (eg. Wines) which means "kinds of wine", not "bottles of wine". Ans as you state, bottle, and kind is the enumerable nouns, and you rely should specify which you mean, but, at least in my mind, "Wines" is correct English when you refer to "kinds of wine". However, in this context we are not referring to "kinds of wine", and should thus either call the card "Wine bottles/barrels/whatever" or, contrary to BWR's rule, the non-enumerable form "Wine". Your post did make sense (at least to a confused Swede ), and actually confirms my idea (if perhaps not my confused expression of the same).Pureblade wrote: Jonno wrote: Also, pearls is both a raw material and a finished product at the same time... Not in the same way as stone or metals are. Even if you can assemble pearls and whatnot to make something else (necklace?), you never change it to something else than a pearl. You don't _shape_ it, like you would with stone/metal. At best, you would polish it a bit. You are basically stating my idea here. It is a raw material (you don't shape pearls from something else), but at the same time it's a final product (you can't shape it into something else). Metals, on the other hand, is a raw material and not a final product (you can shape metals into something else). Pureblade wrote: (Though, disagreeing on these exceptions doesn't prove that there are no exceptions.) No it doesn't, and my conclusion still stands: Jonno wrote: No mater what rules we make up we will have exceptions, a rule is mostly a tool so we can get a mostly consistent feel without having to go through all 45 commodities, comparing each of them to all the other 44... Now, what rule will be the base, and which exceptions do we need? |
|
| Author: | BWR [ 2006-02-20 8:30:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
IMHO using wine rather than wines for the commodity name doesn't break my rule as wine, like water, is not enumerable, but there's no point in arguing it I suppose because I think we all agree that it should be "Wine" on the card. The plural "Wines" is generally only used when discussing a variety of wines, e.g. some Burgundy, some Zinfindel and some Riesling. But all wines collectively, are refered to in the singular form, Wine. |
|
| Author: | Jonno [ 2006-02-20 8:42:13 ] |
| Post subject: | |
BWR wrote: IMHO using wine rather than wines for the commodity name doesn't break my rule as wine, like water, is not enumerable, but there's no point in arguing it I suppose because I think we all agree that it should be "Wine" on the card. The plural "Wines" is generally only used when discussing a variety of wines, e.g. some Burgundy, some Zinfindel and some Riesling. But all wines collectively, are refered to in the singular form, Wine. "Wine" is actually enumerable! It just refers to "kinds of wine" when you use the enumerable form... Anyway, Wine will stay, even if we would need an exception for it... |
|
| Author: | BWR [ 2006-02-21 15:28:53 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well if we are to use the "finished product rule" then by my count the finished products that are enumerable are: Papyrus, Which is the same singular or plural. Ceramics. Oil, a liquid, which apparently causes an exception to the rule. Textiles. You make things from textile, but I believe in ancient time unless one were rich, one would ny textiles at the market place. Wine, another liquid. Herbs, Resin, shall we make an exception? Spice, another exception? Are Resin and Spice exceptions because they're of variable form? Gems Pearls Hides are not a finished product except for at the stone age level, but I say we keep them plural. Comments? |
|
| Author: | Jonno [ 2006-02-22 0:09:21 ] |
| Post subject: | |
BWR: I agree with your list, except papyrus. Papyrus is not the same in singular and plural! "Papyrus" is the singular/non-enumerable. "Papyri" is plural of the writing material. "Papyruses" is plural of the sedge. So, unless we make an exception your rule points to "Papyri", which imho would work quite well, especially since I'm not 100% sure if "Papyrus" actually can be non-enumerable... I suppose Furs is the same deal as Hides. I'm also leaning towards "Gemstones" rather than "Gems", as per my previous post, but that has nothing to do with your list. So, to my own list. I have collected alternatives, and this is my list: Bones (Bone) (Bone have no non-enumerable form, and I don't like ordinary singular) Papyri (Papyrus Papyruses) (see above) Ceramics (Pots) Spice (Spices) Gemstones (Gems) Pearls (Pearl) The first is the one I prefer, followed by the alternatives. As we seems reasonably agreed on keeping all other names the way they are, I haven't listed them (as there is currently only one option). Please, do comment on this list! Do you have additional names you want to change, or do you prefer any of my alternatives. Please chime in! |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|