: I think I finally see where you're coming from. You're
: taking "undead" and "undeath" to
: be forms of the hypothetical verb "undie;"
: therefore you're using the definition of
: "un-" as a verbal prefix. An undead being is
: someone who has undied. :-)
No, actually. Time and action is required, such as a verb would give, but your word still makes the process seem to be a true reversal backwards in time; pure resurrection. What we see of undeath, however, is not of complete reversal, but only a partial version of it. The term "undead" in general seems to be faulty for more precise definitions, as we ultimatly seek.
: Much
: simpler to follow the dictionary and take
: "undead" as "un" +
: "dead." And since "dead" is an
: adjective, you use the adjectival definition for
: "un-", namely "deprived of the state of
: being" or simply "not."
Actually, that's only half of the definition for "un-". The other half describes reversal or undoing. Both are equally used, it seems, as it always comes back to reversal.
: Even "un" adjectives derived from real verbs
: more often than not take on the adjectival definition.
Lol, you don't know that. I think we should drop this adjective-verbdefinition-of-un debate since it no longer has relevance to the conversation; we know that undead can take the definition of either homonym.
: So for "undead," the adjectival definition of
: "un" is doubly appropriate. It's an
: adjective itself, and it doesn't derive from an
: existing verb.
Sure it does
do you really want to go into this? I'll go insto this pointless argument if you really want to, but I'd prefer not.
: Beyond our etymological play, how does your dictionary
: actually define undead?
There are two equally possible definitions:
Main Entry: 1un-
Pronunciation: "&n, often '&n before '-stressed syllable
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German un- un-, Latin in-, Greek a-, an-, Old English ne not -- more at NO
1 : not : IN-, NON- -- in adjectives formed from adjectives [unambitious] [unskilled> or participles [undressed], in nouns formed from nouns [unavailability], and rarely in verbs formed from verbs [unbe] -- sometimes in words that have a meaning that merely negates that of the base word and are thereby distinguished from words that prefix in- or a variant of it (as im-) to the same base word and have a meaning positively opposite to that of the base word [unartistic] [unmoral]
2 : opposite of : contrary to -- in adjectives formed from adjectives [unconstitutional] [ungraceful] [unmannered] or participles [unbelieving] and in nouns formed from nouns [unrest]
Main Entry: 2un-
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English un-, on-, alteration of and- against -- more at ANTE-
1 : do the opposite of : reverse (a specified action) : DE- 1a, DIS- 1a -- in verbs formed from verbs [undress] [unfold]
2 a : deprive of : remove (a specified thing) from : remove -- in verbs formed from nouns [unfrock] [unsex] b : release from : free from -- in verbs formed from nouns [unhand] c : remove from : extract from : bring out of -- in verbs formed from nouns [unbosom] d : cause to cease to be -- in verbs formed from nouns [unman]
3 : completely [unloose]
That's how. Both are potentially useable prefixes, and I might contend how "undead" is a participle derived from the verb. But neither of us can be proven right or wrong, and this debate is pointless anyway.
Oxford's just says "1)
: alive" and "2) technically dead but still
: animate." Both from the adjectival
: "un," clearly, and neither suggesting any
: sort of necessary passage of time.
Lol! That's truly pitiful if the grestest, most elitist clan of self-proclaimed "English scholars" wrote that. My God; Oxford English must be the most limited dialect of English.
The Germans (during my school's exchange and my stay in Germany) explained this to me: "We were taught to learn the British English," in response to many of my questions of their limited use of the language. For instance, they believe that, like their German, English could only have one form, i.e., "He is coming" is the only right way to say it and that all others are completely wrong. Others would be "He comes" and "He does come."
Lol! I cried. According to them, the British only use one form at any time and will never make a mistake because the British are perfect. (They're so arrogant and condescending to Americans in that we don't speak in "proper" English and how we're worse than Bavarians to the Northern Rhreinlanders, in their implication. They think we all speak with the heaviest of Midwestern accents and/or a heavy Southern accent. Well, some of us don't. I heard one of their tapes when I was over there; it was Germans trying to mimic an American accent, and it sounded like a horrible mishmash of the worst kinds. The British accents naturally sounded wonderful, not some of the truly painful ones you can get .:) They obviously have never visited Great Britain :-). Oh, the British will make mistakes, all right. They have slang too, a lot of which they adapted from American, even more of their very own (lol, "leughy," or however it's spelled :).
They said, "Oh, well, all right. We speak the Oxford English and were taugh to learn only that." Lol again! I said how Oxford English can not be so limited as that. However, Sili, if it is as limited as you're saying, lol, the poor Oxfordians never read
anything, and certainly not Shakespeare, and are pretty much just self-proclaimed arrogants.
I suspend my thought, however, in the interest that I cannot believe such is so. I certainly didn't think so then, and I don't think so now. Eventually, we came to a conclusion:
The Germans were taught to learn the most ridgid and inflexible form of pseudo-English, based on a very, very tiny lexicon and gramatical usage of Oxford English, because of the difficulty of the rest (supposθdly). They are taught everything else is wrong.
: And do we even need to discuss this for Myth? Thrall and
: Wights are explicitly described as Undead.
They're undead without a doubt.
: Beyond
: this, the narrator characterizes Balor's army as
: mostly Undead. (The army includes living Ghτls and
: Fetch, certainly, but that in no way diminishes the
: likelihood that any given other unit under Balor is
: Undead; rather, it increases it.)
You know those stupid, terribly strategy guides that came with the Codex? God
what pieces of crap. They say all of the Dark is undead, including Trow, Ghτls
the guy never played past Bagrada, I guess.
: And the manual tells
: us that Undead units are withered by healing. From
: this it's evident that Soulless, Ghasts, Mahir,
: Myrmidons, Shades and probably even Stygian Knights
: are all Undead.
Agreed, and good determination via the manual's definition.
: Which fits perfectly with the
: dictionary definition--except possibly with Stygian
: Knights, who aren't "technically dead" so
: much as "technically inanimate."
Right.
: It's really a simple and straightforward classification
: system.
That's right! It's like biology. We can't define life, but we can classify its characteristics. Let's get on an Undead Taxinomy right away! now that we know how to go about thinking of undeath.
: We care about the niceties of exactly how each
: creature was animated and how long it was dead for and
: how much of its mind is left, but the common folk of
: Myth don't. If you're a rotting, once-living horror
: animated by dark sorceries, you're Undead and you need
: to be hacked to bits ASAP. If you're breathing and
: your heart is beating and you're not noticeably
: decaying, congratulations--you're alive. Although
: someone will want to hack you to bits anyway.
Lol, very nice.
: Incidentally, even if your definition was that used by
: Bungie, it wouldn't exclude Myrmidons or Shades.
I think you're addressing Welly, not me. He's the one who made a separate definition for unlife and undeath, undeath excluding myrms and shades.
: All
: we know about them is that their minds seem to carry
: over at least partially from their living state, and
: that they volunteered. That doesn't exclude their
: having been killed, lying around dead for a little
: while, and then being reanimated.
Exactly. Very good work.
: It makes sense to
: me that they're more intelligent because they went
: straight from life to undeath, but it's not actually
: stated in-game. Their greater intelligence could
: simply be a function of the power of their creator.
Precisely. Heh, thank you conservative, technical Sili! :-) Agreed.
