Jump to content
  • entries
    276
  • comments
    3,441
  • views
    212,444

Updates: Multiverse, Bohrok Kool, My Horrible Memory, Etc.


bonesiii

1,446 views

 Share

Updaaaayyyyytzzzz!

 

1) Okay, before BZP went offline, I had been talking to someone, about something, and it came out that I said I would PM Greg and ask him about it. And I can't, for the life of me, remember who I was talking to or what it was about. If you're that guy, please PM a reminder. :P

 

2) Bohrok Kool contest deadline is extended to September 15, midnight EST (a Tuesday. I like ending contests on Tuesdays, have you noticed? lol).

 

3) Multiverse stuff is happening fast! First, go read Swert's summary of the behind-the-scenes scoop on the Multiverse. We have a 100-page PDF guide, an 11 slide art Slideshow (see news article for those), a Discussion Topic, a Story Submission Topic, and best of all, the next contest: EMC#3: Denizens!

 

4) Coming soon, the Industrial Weapons Guide PDF, and the BRC topic. About one third of the way done with the weapons guide. Probably will have another news article once those two things are ready. Maaaybe that update will include the first Cipher Chronicles episode, which I have a (tentative) outline for.

 

5) Among the Multiverse stuff, we used some of the unknown Kanohi shapes for some of the Multiverse mask powers, and while we were at it, we asked Greg for approval to canonize them. And he approved! (After some confusion from some members who were unsure if he meant it as canon approval, Swert checked, and he did.) Fun fun.

 

6) While I was at it, I asked him if he could approve the Av-Matoran three masks and Shadow Matoran three masks to be the Noble shapes of the masks corresponding to the Toa and Makuta the Matoran could attach to. He approved this with the Multiverse powers.

 

Afterward, though, good points were raised about how, at least for the Shadow Matoran masks, that might not make much sense. I had an idea to explain that, but have NOT yet asked him about it. While I'm asking for help remembering that other thing I was supposed to ask him (lol) I figure I might as well ask opinions on this too. This is the relevant part of the PM I have NOT yet sent:

 

1) Some people are bringing up points about the Shadow Matoran masks I had asked you if could be considered Noble versions of the corresponding Makuta's masks. My question on that part had been:

And while I'm at it, the 2008 Matoran six Kanohi look an awful lot like noble versions of the Toa Nuva's 2008 masks -- and no official shapes have ever been established for Noble Miru, Kakama, or Akaku. Could those six (including the Shadow Matoran three) be officialized as all Noble shapes corresponding to the Toa or Makuta they could attach to?

Which you approved, but the point is, for the Shadow Matoran, that might not actually make sense. If they're wearing the same masks they had been before being corrupted, of course it wouldn't make sense for them to wear evil power-shapes -- even if they're just shapes. Yet, like I said, they do look so very much like the Makuta's shapes.

 

So I had an idea for a solution. Perhaps the Makuta hate good mask powers almost as much as Toa/good Matoran hate evil powers? So as soon as those Matoran became Shadow Matoran, perhaps the Makuta ordered them to swap their normal masks (whatever they were) for Matoran masks shaped like Noble versions of the Makuta's masks. That way, the shapes would still be considered Noble Jutlin, etc.

 

 

2) Another problem brought up was whether Noble versions of evil masks would ever be invented in the first place. What do you think? I can imagine that perhaps Makuta would think of it, just for the purpose of having their slaves have more evil shapes available for Matoran masks, so it's easier to tell slaves apart. (But it wouldn't make sense, as far as I know, for any living Turaga to actually wear Noble versions of those.)

Does this idea make sense to yall?

 

7) So, we aren't sure enough that it will work yet to announce what it's about, but Ojh is working on concept for another computer game. Proooooobably we'll be using RPGMaker 2003 again. I would describe what we're doing now is "testing to see if we can really do what we want to" phase. If it works, it will involve stuff from weapons contest, denizens, and the next two contests planned for the EM after denizens (next one to be Tyrant species, and the next one not ready to be announced yet). So, it is planned to be a fair time before it's done for that reason alone.

 

 

EDIT: Twilight Jack was PMing me about the masks of Vulture and Untranslation specifically; he didn't like them, and since a few people have thought similarly, I wanted to explain what my thinking was, publicly (he has given me permission to quote from our conversation). I have some important points relevant to the whole concept of Bionicle, thought it would be nice to say this on the blog. :)

 

May I lodge a small complaint? Unimportant in the long run, but just a thought. Most of the new mask titles (the newly canonized ones) seem professional enough, and fit with the overall naming scheme. However, two do not: the Mask of Vulture, and Mask of Untranslation. I don't have a replacement name for Vulture, but wouldn't Untranslation be known as Encryption or Scrambling?

 

First, my reasoning for Untranslation, which I admit I'm not really sure is best:

For Untranslation, it's a good point. Scrambling is a good suggestion to replace it, and someone else suggested that too. The thinking currently, though, is that a name for a mask that has a power to scramble speech makes sense to be a weird name. Since a name is speech. Also, both Swert and I like the name better than scrambling.

 

Vulture (the power is basically like in the Eragon books; when something dies, you absorb its escaping energies; it's an evil power, as is Untranslation too):

As for the mask of Vulture, I've seen a few people not liking it, and I'm really confused as to why. The power is directly inspired by Vultraz's name. Also, the power is clearly related to what real-world vultures are -- "eating the dead". If anything, it's the mask power that fits best IMO. tongue.gif Besides that, the very design looks like a Vulture (which is probably what inspired Vultraz's name). So I guess I'm curious why people think it doesn't fit?

I love the power, it does fit Vultraz perfectly. I don't like calling it "Vulture," however. I meant keep the power, it's brilliant, I just don't like the name for it.

I was talking about the (three good) reasons we used the name Vulture for the power. But again, I'm curious why you don't like it? The only reason you've given is that you don't happen to like it. Which is fine -- I'm all about personal taste, but that's subjective. If there's no objective reason not to call it that, you see what I'm asking? Just curious if you can explain why you don't like it. Of course, sometimes with personal taste we can't answer that, heh, it "just is". But yeah, wondered. If there are good reasons to change it we might consider doing so.

Oh, you had to ask. laugh.gif Heh, let's see how to put it...it just doesn't...sound like the rest of the Kanohi titles. Let me go down the list: Mask of Shielding, Mask of Water Breathing, Mask of Levitation, etc.

You see, there's a naming pattern - ings and ions.

 

Then there are Speed and Strength, which, while not matching the name pattern, are more ethereal concepts than actual tangible things. Same applies to the masks of Fate and Kindred. Then there are those like Concealment and Translation, which are actions. Further, the rest of them have things that are technically "powers": Telepathy, Summoning, Clairvoyance, etc.

 

There are no masks, however, that use a noun that stands for a creature, like Vulture. Vulture isn't an act, an ethereal concept, an action, or a power. It's a creature.

 

I think that's why I don't like it. Does that make sense?

I see... well, in that case my answer would be, then Vulture is a challenge, to expand your mind, to look at things in new ways, besides just what you're used to! happy.gif Which is the hallmark of Bionicle -- remember "robots" on a tropical island. So, in that sense, that just makes it even more fitting, to me. smile.gif

 

IMO, there really is no such "naming pattern" intended. It's just that the clearest, one-word preferably word for power, that fits the feeling of that power best has always been used. In English, there is no word for what the mask of Vulture does, except Vulture itself, which fits the bill the best. So that's the thinking there. smile.gif With levitation, sheilding, etc. those words fit the idea of that power best, thus were used. So, it looks like you may have a bit of a misconception about naming reasoning anyways.

 

Also, if you look beyond just mask powers, many tools, characters, powers, etc. don't fit into your assumption of naming patterns. There are several Toa tools that are named after animals, many Rahi that are (though of course that makes sense), powers that are, even characters whose Bionicle names -- like Vultraz himself! -- are clearly named after animals. Since Vultraz himself is, so obviously, named after Vultures, I think it's especially fitting for the mask shape he wears.

 

I think the strong lesson that Greg has always argued for, and tried to illustrate in Bionicle, has always been never to let ourselves fall into an imagination 'rut' where we only accept things that just fit into the pattern we're already using, instead of using our imaginations to branch out and try new things. smile.gif So what you say only further convinces me that the mask is very well-named, and very true to what Bionicle is all about.

 

So I thank you for bringing it up, regardless. tongue.gif

You have a very good point, and I am happy to accept the name under that intention - to branch out and establish new things. It was just something that was in the back of my mind, that it didn't fit. Now it kinda does.

There was more to the PMs but shortening it to focus on the most important parts. :) And that is my reasoning for Vulture. :)

 Share

55 Comments


Recommended Comments



Incomprehension scrambles the message itself.

 

Your other question is extremely brilliant. :P I don't think it would be fair to say the mask could repair damage. That would make it a mask of Healing. However, if your only issue is you are low on life energy, perhaps you could slowly draw some of what you had charged the mask up with back out. And Swert suggested (asked him 'bout this) that it would take TONS of mental focus, as this is not how the mask is supposed to work.

Link to comment

A few general things come to mind, first of all:

 

1) It was my understanding that the Miru allowed you to hover and achieve verticle motion like a helicopter/hot air balloon, while the Kadin did no such thing. The Kadin allowed you to "fly" forward quickly, whereas the Miru's forward motion was much lazier, like a hot air balloon. I also believe that while Lewa was close to flight with a Miru when he also used his Air power, he couldn't truely fly like a Kadin until he got his Nuva weapons.

 

2) Also, about my arguments of, as you put it, "rare use = shouldn't exist" etc etc that seem to have become the main focus of most of this: I'm not exactly arguing that all of these masks shouldn't exist at all in the world of Bionicle. When you're mixing melted Kanoka together, some similar-powers, sub-powers and werid-powers are bound to come out. (As far as repetitive sub-powers we already have Freezing and Weight, which I'd forgotten about.) I guess what I'm arguing and what I'm a little upset about is the fact that, when the opportunity persented itself for you guys to cannonize some new masks, the waters were further muddied with these kind of masks (rare immoral masks, masks one might not use unless the superior mask wasn't available, sub-power masks etc.) instead of going with powers that would probably be more traditional and widely-used, like Healing for example.

 

I'm no logician so I can't say it any more eloquently than "I think it would have made a lot more sense to go with A instead of B," but there you have it. More my opinion on what kind of things were accepted into cannon rather than saying "there's no way they would ever even exist."

 

I feel like I worded all that exceptionally poorly so do tell if I still wasn't clear enough about my personal feelings, lol.

 

Absorption: "For now it's basically, you temporarily get the power of another being, as long as they're in range. And probably it is a very limited range. The details aren't quite established yet." I highly suggest we get this sorted out before anything else.

 

See Pouks': "“What makes you think Teridax is down here?” asked Toa Pouks. The others knew Pouks was just buying time. His mask was analyzing and copying Miserix’s power, but that took a while to do." It doesn't mention copying any specific power, but Miserix wasn't performing any specific power at that moment. He HAD just teleported a few moments before, I suppose it's possible Pouks needed to see the power in action to copy it, but I don't know. Also, he was standing right next to him.

 

So so far, they both probably have a short to semi-short range. They both copy single a power of another being. I think they are similar enough to be called the same, in my opinion, but then again I'm not the one who created it and got it put on BS01. If you can't think of something to differentiate them, would you be willing to just eliminate this from the official listing in favor of Pouks' mask? Just a thought. Also I had no idea the poll on the name was actually happening! Exciting stuff.

 

Mechanics: "One great benefit of this mask is you could "telepathically' give out orders to clockwork-brain robots like Vahki, Nektann, etc. If you manufacture an army of robots without clockwork brains, you could control them directly. A disposable army (because they're not alive) under your instant command."

 

Again, just a misunderstanding of mine from BS01. They made it sound much more limited than that. A quick aside, do you know why there is any debate about this at all? Every other official mask has it's own individual page. For better or worse, these are official masks. What's there even to debate about (since the decision of them existing is final) ? So you're saying a wearer of this would be able to control Vahki and Bohrok completely? And more than one at once? How far does the extent go with normal biomechanical beings? (After all, the muscles that cause movement are organic, right?)

 

Sensory: Sorry if I was unclear, I realize the Arthron doesn't increase hearing. What I meant was, if you can use super hearing to detect a stealthy adversary crawling along the wall behind you, surely the Arthron would detect the same adversary, just using Sonar instead.

 

Untranslation: I like "Incomprehension." But for the record, it only does work on a single target? I guess my beef with it is, in 9 out of 10 situations, having Tahu give specific orders isn't going to be crucial to the immediate situation's success. The other 5 Toa all have brains and have all saved the day themselves on occasion. If Tahu suddenly spouted jibberish, couldn't Kopaka step it and give valid orders? At the very least, everybody would be put on the alert. Not saying it wouldn't freak them out and sow a little confusion if they'd never been "Incomprehended" before, but I think they'd get around it without much incedent 9 out of 10 times.

 

For the sake of random discussion: Local Omniscience: I'm making this up as I go along so I probably didn't word it very well. What I was thinking was something like this: You could assign the mask to a specific single room. Due to the small area, you get more detailed feedback if an enemy enters, if something goes wrong, etc. If it's power is widened to the max, say a whole Metru, the effect is a much more vague "disturbance in the Force, somewhere a little north of here" kind of thing. I don't think that's any more over powered than Adaptation, personally.

 

Edit: Might I also ask what the specific effects and benefits are from this generic energy the Vulture absorbs and what time-table they are on?

Link to comment
1) It was my understanding that the Miru allowed you to hover and achieve verticle motion like a helicopter/hot air balloon, while the Kadin did no such thing.

Meaning, the Kadin couldn't lift you off the ground? Yes, it could. It totally overlapped the Miru. This was discussed to death at the time, heh. That detail specifically was made very clear because believe you me people wondered.

 

The Kadin allowed you to "fly" forward quickly, whereas the Miru's forward motion was much lazier, like a hot air balloon.

As far as I know, the Miru had no forward motion. That had to be supplied by some other power (Lewa's air power), or by having forward motion before you left the ground, like jumping forward, or possibly letting wind carry you like a hot air balloon.

 

And, more to the point, if the Kadin did not allow lift, its forward motion would have to be more like Kakama -- you couldn't leave the ground, unless you started from a hill, perhaps. :P That's not how it works officially -- it gives you the standard Bionicle flight power; up down side forwards etc.

 

I also believe that while Lewa was close to flight with a Miru when he also used his Air power, he couldn't truely fly like a Kadin until he got his Nuva weapons.

Well, yes and no. The Nuva weapons gave him the ability to glide and be more aerodynamic, so he could fly faster. Technically, though, he could hover, raising and lowering his height, and blow himself along, even before becoming a Nuva.

 

Most other Toa using Miru would not have that option, though.

 

Also, about my arguments of, as you put it, "rare use = shouldn't exist" etc etc that seem to have become the main focus of most of this: I'm not exactly arguing that all of these masks shouldn't exist at all in the world of Bionicle.

Alright...

 

When you're mixing melted Kanoka together, some similar-powers, sub-powers and werid-powers are bound to come out.

Right... With you so far...

 

 

(As far as repetitive sub-powers we already have Freezing and Weight, which I'd forgotten about.)

Right, and to apply pros-and-cons analysis to them, they are easier to use for that specific focus than an overall Ice/gravity mask, yet the overall masks would be/are (don't think we've actually seen a mask of Ice yet, but anyways, we could) more versatile. Pros and cons.

 

 

I guess what I'm arguing and what I'm a little upset about is the fact that, when the opportunity persented itself for you guys to cannonize some new masks, the waters were further muddied with these kind of masks (rare immoral masks, masks one might not use unless the superior mask wasn't available, sub-power masks etc.)

Well, as I clarified, you were mostly mistaken about most of the powers as far as them being all that rarely useful. :) We didn't intend them to be rarely useful any more than the average range of kanohi, of this number (eleven; not considering the Noble six). That's more of a perception you had. A few are intended to be more obscure (mainly Fusion), but again, that's perfectly consistent with the traditions Bionicle has already established anyways.

 

Are you objecting specifically to the number of them that are evil (or taboo) powers, BTW? You listed that in this quote, but rarity was the common factor in the other things you listed, so not sure if it was meant as a criticism.

 

instead of going with powers that would probably be more traditional and widely-used, like Healing for example.

Like I said, Healing wouldn't have worked for these purposes since it was already in existence in the EM. Oh, and BTW, Swert likes the idea of a mask contest at some point in the future. Maybe mid 2010 or something.

 

But anyways, I don't see how most of them don't fit within the traditions we've seen. It is true there are a number of evil powers here, perhaps more than the ratio of evil powers we've seen previously, but that was largely because so many of them were Karzatoran. Also, for the EM purposes, we had to have a number of evil masks to be realistic.

 

And the real core of the traditions we seen is originality. Many of the objections against these masks would seem to be chalked up to, "they're too original". But Bionicle is all about being original, doing the unexpected, etc. :)

 

And besides, tons of them are inspired either directly or partly by official powers, skills, themes, etc. Like the examples of Biomechanics, Fusion, Rebounding especially, and a number of the others are similar to, or are exactly, powers that already existed officially, but just not in masks.

 

So on the issue of Bionicle tradition, I would say these masks are very strong.

 

Not that Healing (the example that seems to be being brought up mainly) would be a bad choice either.

 

'm no logician so I can't say it any more eloquently than "I think it would have made a lot more sense to go with A instead of B,"

Bah, you don't have to be a logician to think through whether something makes sense. :P Just think of it in terms of considering all the factors you can think of fairly, objectively, and considering pros and cons.

 

Sure, a logician might be better at it, though. :P But this is what discussion is for, anyways. Dat's why I here.

 

More my opinion on what kind of things were accepted into cannon rather than saying "there's no way they would ever even exist."

That's perfectly fair. But we did the best we could with what we had, which is all anyone can do. ^_^ And again, I am liking this Masks contest possibility a lot. If Greg goes for it, there will be opportunity to have other powers officialized.

 

It doesn't mention copying any specific power, but Miserix wasn't performing any specific power at that moment. He HAD just teleported a few moments before, I suppose it's possible Pouks needed to see the power in action to copy it, but I don't know.

What I have heard is that he has to see the power in operation and analyze it. I may have misinterpreted it though.

 

Also, he was standing right next to him.

Right.

 

So so far, they both probably have a short to semi-short range.

Well, if the power works by actually reading what the power is, in a physics sense, then yes, I agree, they sound like they could be the same power. We could just rename this whatever is chosen in the poll. (Looks like Imitation is winning, last I saw it.) Because if that's how it works it would seem to be range-based too, yeah.

 

At the very least, Greg should be consulted on this confusion as to what Pouks' mask actually does.

 

Again, just a misunderstanding of mine from BS01. They made it sound much more limited than that. A quick aside, do you know why there is any debate about this at all? Every other official mask has it's own individual page. For better or worse, these are official masks. What's there even to debate about (since the decision of them existing is final) ? So you're saying a wearer of this would be able to control Vahki and Bohrok completely? And more than one at once? How far does the extent go with normal biomechanical beings? (After all, the muscles that cause movement are organic, right?)

 

Wait wait, what's up with the part in italics there? I thought you were using italics for quotes. I must have missed something... I didn't say that. Are you asking me that or quoting somebody else or something?

 

The argument against individual pages is, there is not as much detail about the masks as with other powers that have individual pages. As it is, some of those individual pages barely have reason to exist as separate pages.

 

My proposal (and partly Bold Clone's) is to have a single page with all of these powers on it, plus move in some of the other Kanohi that don't have many details known. Possible to be called "Less Known Kanohi" or the like.

 

No, I'm saying Vahki are too complex to actually control. But you could telepathically communicate with them. Nektann or a different robot might be a better example -- Vahki tend not to care what anybody else thinks XD.

 

Bohrok -- as long as the Bohrok did NOT have its krana, you could argue this mask might have some limited control over them, perhaps. I believe that for the most part, without krana, all they could do was respond to orders given either vocally or sent from the Bahrag or Kal or whatnot. I was under the impression they had SOME clockwork processing, though, so it shouldn't be that easy.

 

Of course, now that we know Matoran language is programming language, perhaps I was mistaken about that. Perhaps the spoken commands worked their powers directly without need of clockwork processing. No idea.

 

I dunno how to answer how far the extent goes with biomechanical beings -- it wouldn't make you as strong as a Pakari would, for example. Mainly for the reason you stated. Basically I imagine it would just make your mechanical components easier to use, so your muscles wouldn't have to do all the work. Depending on the specific muscle to piston design of the wearer. A being with more mechanical function than muscle would have a better effect.

 

Sensory Aptitude: Well, do you mean on your side of the wall or behind it? Sensory Aptitude would -- depending on the wall and how stealthy they really are :-P help you hear them if they were behind the wall, etc.

 

Also, it would seem to me that if they're behind you, Arthron wouldn't do it, but not sure. Sonar is the sending out of aimed sound waves, they bounce off, and come back. I had always assumed that meant, in the forward direction. I suppose that is just an assumption though.

 

Incomprehension: Again, I'm not sure. Can the Great Rau work on multiple targets? If so, then this can. If not, then this probably shouldn't.

 

Yeah, that's a fair point about someone else stepping up with an idea over the babbling leader. The initial confusion is still there, as you say, but it could be less. Perhaps, we can stick with single target at a time, but remember that since this isn't the same as the Rau, it needs to have different rules -- perhaps the effect would last a while on each target, so as soon as Kopaka started talking, the mask user could target him, while Tahu is still scrambled for a few moments.

 

The main question is, if multiple beings are talking in a foreign language to you, and you have a Great Rau, do you understand all of them, or do you have to focus on one, then another? Ah, but then, if multiple people are talking, you'd have hard time understanding anyways. Yeah, maybe it should just work for targets in a range, regardless of what Rau does, on those grounds.

 

Yeah, that Local Omniscience (or whatever) power is a very cool idea!

 

 

Might I also ask what the specific effects and benefits are from this generic energy the Vulture absorbs and what time-table they are on?

As far as effects, it's life energy. So, same as when a Matoran eats, but would work over a range and give you much more energy that you'd get from your typical fruit. Improves your focus, strength, etc. in the same ways that good does.

 

Time table, good question. Depends on how fast the energies of a dead being escape. I imagine that the main benefit (from the perspective of an evil user) would come in the first few minutes after a being dies. After that, maybe an hour or so would still be of some use. After a day, probably very little use. (Hence the murder temptation.) That's the basic sense of what I imagined when I invented it. I didn't write down exact details on that, though.

Link to comment

No disrespect intended, but I'm 99% sure you're not correct about the Kadin completely overlapping the Miru.

 

Firstly, I think you either took me too literally or I misspoke. The Kadin doesn't allow ZERO vertical movement, I mean obviously you have to get off of the ground. What I meant was, you behave like an airplane or fighter jet. You need to be moving forward to stay aloft, you can't just hover there or safely land without coming in at the ground like a little runway.

 

I remember the whole debate at the time and I rememer very specifically the answer Greg sent me then, because I was convinced that the Miru was useless too! I asked him, in what possible situation could the Miru beat the Kadin? He said, well what if your island is in a cavern where all of the fruit grows on the ceiling? Would you rather have a Kadin and zip around trying to grab the fruit without hitting the roof, or would you rather have a Miru that allows you to getly float up and then float back down once you've picked a basket comfortably?

 

But back to more on topic:

 

"Well, as I clarified, you were mostly mistaken about most of the powers as far as them being all that rarely useful."

Really? I can see how some of them may not be rare-use to the people who do choose to don them, but I still maintain that those who would chose to use most of them would be few and far between. There are four immoral masks; I consider the group of beings who would use them to be rather small based just off of what we've seen in the Bionicle universe; not all that many bad guys besides Makuta use Kanohi, and we know most of their favored masks. Very few use the Conjuring, by the very description. Fusion is rare, as you say. Rebounding, I do admit would be useful if one is has taylored one's attack style for it, but I still maintain that the use of retrievable projectiles is uncommon for Toa. Perhaps "rare" is to harsh, but would you agree to uncommon? Just as I'm sure the Rau is uncommon. By my personal reconning, 6 rare and 1 uncommon leaves 4 that are not uncommon or worse. But that's just how I see it.

 

A more personal question, did you actively seek to give all the Karzahni Matoran evil shapes? We do know that all of the Inika Kanohi came form there and none of them have ever been considered immoral, right?

 

"Wait wait, what's up with the part in italics there? I thought you were using italics for quotes. I must have missed something... I didn't say that. " No, you're right, I meant to put ( ) around that. But I.... didn't. For some reason. My mistake. The sentences in question were of my writing. But, hammering out the details and getting more info is what we are doing here, now, yes? And I dunno if you've checked out the individual Kanohi pages that are alread there but let me tell you, some of them are pretty information-poor themselves.

 

So do you have to ask Greg about details like, the Incomprehension targets to get them cannonized, or are things like that up to you?

 

EDIT:

QUOTE

Hey there Greg, long time no see. I wanted to confirm something about the Kadin and Miru. The Miru DOES offer advantages that the Kadin does not, correct? The Kadin is analogous to a jet plane, it can't make you hover and you can't stay in the air unless you are undergoing forward motion. Whereas the Miru is like a hot air balloon, it lets you move up and down in a straight line, it lets you hover, and while it does have leteral motion it's slow and not an effective method of "flight." Does all that sound about right? Thanks for your time!

 

 

That's correct

Link to comment
Guest Thormen

Posted

I think the issue most people are having with 'vulture' is that the 'english' names of nearly every other mask the phrase 'mask of' could be replaced by something along the lines of 'mask that grants the user the power to control' and still make a sensible sentence. That phrase would intuitively seem synonymous (while in reality it's not) and that's why 'vulture' doesn't 'feel' right.

 

Consider how you can control shielding, levitation, speed, concealment etc., but saying 'I control vulture' just sounds weird and meaningless (and that doesn't apply to Mind/Rahi Control, as saying I control mind control does not sound meaningless and only sounds weird due to word repetition, which is resolved by using a would-be-synonym).

 

Mind you, as I said above I'm not arguing that this is actually what the masks do, so I'm not arguing that this is a logical argument against the name 'vulture'. Powers such as Truth, Possibilities and Elemental Energy can't be described by just saying the user controls truth, possibilities or elemental energy as that's not what those masks do. It does, however, sound correct to say those phrases, which makes the names 'feel' correct.

 

This also puts -Toa Lhikevikk-'s comment that 'Mask of Vulture' is grammatically incorrect in a different light, seeing as 'I control vulture' is indeed a grammatical error. You'd have to turn it into 'vultures' or 'a vulture' to make the latter correct, which of course only digresses from the power's meaning further. However, seeing as we aren't talking about 'I control vulture' but 'Mask of Vulture', the phrase is in reality grammatically correct, contrary to what it may 'feel' to be.

 

With all that said, I won't argue against the word 'vulture' anymore for several reasons, one being that all the arguments I can think of are not based on logic but only on intuition.

 

Another reason is that there is one already official mask power that also doesn't conform to the above pattern: the Faxon Mask of Kindred. I found that a weird name too back in '07 but if it's official, so be it.

Link to comment

jimmybob:

 

No disrespect intended, but I'm 99% sure you're not correct about the Kadin completely overlapping the Miru.

No disrespect taken, but I'm 100% sure I'm right, because many people specifically asked Greg about this at the time, and he confirmed it. That was the whole point of the raging debate at the time. You sure you weren't a part of that? I recall debating mask powers with you many times before; you do tend to dislike the more "radical" mask choices, if I recall correctly, though it escapes me which debates you specifically participated in.

 

[update: But see below; from what you said later it looks like you misunderstood what I meant about overlapping, so I've tried to say it again clearer. :P]

 

Firstly, I think you either took me too literally or I misspoke. The Kadin doesn't allow ZERO vertical movement, I mean obviously you have to get off of the ground. What I meant was, you behave like an airplane or fighter jet. You need to be moving forward to stay aloft, you can't just hover there or safely land without coming in at the ground like a little runway.

Wrong; Greg confirmed it can be used to hover. Airplanes work like that because of their wing design; to get lift, they physically must be moving forward. There is no such reason attached to the Kadin -- it's confirmed to be Flight, fully.

 

However, I'm glad you didn't literally mean that. See below.

 

I remember the whole debate at the time and I rememer very specifically the answer Greg sent me then, because I was convinced that the Miru was useless too! I asked him, in what possible situation could the Miru beat the Kadin? He said, well what if your island is in a cavern where all of the fruit grows on the ceiling? Would you rather have a Kadin and zip around trying to grab the fruit without hitting the roof, or would you rather have a Miru that allows you to getly float up and then float back down once you've picked a basket comfortably?

It sounds like you misunderstood him, then, because that was brought up in that debate. That is true; that's what I'm talking about. The Mask of Levitation is specifically designed to gently levitate, and nothing else. It does what it does do better than the Kadin.

 

But the Kadin is flight, in general. You move in the direction you will yourself to move in. But it's much harder to specifically will yourself to gently hover. You can do it -- will yourself to fly upwards gently, and drop a bit, then fly up a bit, etc. But it is much harder. Also, you must choose the direction and the intensity, and all that. Whereas with the Miru, all you have to do is switch it on and control the height.

 

A specific example was asked of Greg, whether you could use the Kadin to hover over an enemy and materialize a ball of Earth (Nuparu, that is), and drop it on the enemy, and Greg said yes. It was also discussed in detail what you'd have to do to mimic the Miru, which I've tried to sum up above. There was more to it even than that that I had pointed out, but this is long enough as is. XD

 

So, it sounds like we're actually agreeing with each other, just using different words. :P

 

Notice that this makes the Miru exactly qualify for the overlap problems you have brought up with some of the new powers. Greg's answer to you defeats that logic; it sounds as if you didn't quite get his point. He's saying, power overlap is not a reason not to have the mask, and actually use it -- but yes, the use IS more rare. Yes.

 

See that?

 

 

Really? I can see how some of them may not be rare-use to the people who do choose to don them, but I still maintain that those who would chose to use most of them would be few and far between.

Well, okay. That's fair. Nobody challenged that point -- that's half the point of them. They are Matoran masks in obscure locations and the like, that nobody bothered to assign powers to until now, that we haven't seen among Matoran on Metru Nui or Mata Nui, etc.

 

But that just illustrates another folly of the simplified argument "one in a million," because what ratio you get with that totally depends on what information you factor into it. It all depends. If you look at a Toa who DOES have this mask, the ratio is going to be much higher than for a Toa who has access to a wide range of other masks.

 

If you look at how many Toa are likely to want to choose it as their own, that makes it totally subjective, because that depends on their personality. How many Toa have the sorts of personality that make them like unique powers, the tactical intelligence or experience to understand the benefit of unique powers, etc.?

 

There is simply NO way to pin that down in an accurate way. We have no way of knowing the personalities of hypothetical fictional characters that haven't been invented. :P

 

The best you can really do, IMO, is consider the ratio in terms of usefulness to a Toa, in his situation, who has the mask. Or, consider it for a Toa who has access to this mask among others, with a Suva, etc. Even here, obviously you can get different numbers depending on the scenario you start with.

 

Ultimately the real question, like I said, boils down to what is the range of usefulness of the actual power, knowing that as fully as you can. Because if you don't focus first and foremost on that, none of the other stuff can possibly be accurately judged.

 

Which is the mistake I see many people making. They're declaring "one in a million" without even bothering to think through what the mask can actually do, or so it seems.

 

 

But, again, hence discussion. :)

 

 

And that's usually the very same problem with people who complain about new mask powers, regardless of who invents them, as they've been doing for as long as I've been on BZP, heh. They don't switch on their imaginations -- which is why I love it when powers like this are used, because it challenges these people. Exposes them for their lack of imagination, yet also provides us an opportunity to challenge them to USE their imagination more. To think more. It's a great opportunity.

 

I'm not speaking per se to you jimmy, here, just speaking generically, but not excluding you either. :P

 

 

 

There are four immoral masks; I consider the group of beings who would use them to be rather small based just off of what we've seen in the Bionicle universe; not all that many bad guys besides Makuta use Kanohi, and we know most of their favored masks.

So, you are complaining about the number of evil masks?

 

My thinking on that, to explain then, was that up to now we had not really seen a good cross-section of the sorts of evil powers that might exist in the Bionicle Universe. In fact before 2008, we had seen very little indeed. Any complaint made along these lines about these powers would logically have to complain about the 2008 opening up of this corner of the MU. yet, it was clearly done. I felt that this corner needed more exploring than just the few that a group of Makuta happened to be wearing.

 

And partly, as I said, because we needed a good cross-section for the Expanded Multiverse. We didn't need to come up with a wide range of good powers, because in the EM, we had all the official ones, my Paracosmos ones (the ones linked to are all good powers), and many other among the 30 Multiverse powers. Of the powers we used official shapes for, the ratio is roughly proportionate to the ratio of other evil masks we had in that 30. Really invented very few of these when you think about it in terms of sheer number.

 

Also, on Aethion planet Warzone (Barrawahi) specifically, there is much more moral ambiguity, and there is a wide percentage of Toa among them, not following the Toa code (among the evil or questionable clans anyways), so that's another reason we had to have a better cross-section of evil powers.

 

Also, any mask can be used for evil, some in more ways than others; not that this is grounds to ignore the cultural attachments Bionicle beings make about them. Technically many evil powers could be used for good, but (normal) Toa would not do so -- but of course OoMN would.

 

And if we do this mask contest and a large percentage of evil Kanohi win, I would stand by that on the same grounds; this aspect of Bionicle needs better explored. As many great writers have said, your story is truly made by the strength of your antagonists.

 

Perhaps "rare" is to harsh, but would you agree to uncommon?

Yeah, I guess, although it can be seen as a synonym. Somewhat rare is better.

 

My point was, "one in a million" is a ludicrous exaggeration. Million is a huge number, despite the impression you might get from newscasts about government budgets. :P

 

 

A more personal question, did you actively seek to give all the Karzahni Matoran evil shapes?

I sought to give the shapes that were best visible in the images shapes and the shapes that I judged best fit the powers. For example, that one with two blue masks in one pic I rejected because the second one is too hard to make out exactly what it is (although I did consider focusing only on the foreground one; ultimately I had no power to assign to it that I thought fit it).

 

We do know that all of the Inika Kanohi came form there and none of them have ever been considered immoral, right?

Not that I know of.

 

Reanimation is questionable, but that's Mahri. They're certainly stranger masks, as has been pointed out by others, establishing good grounds for the principle of the thing. Fate, Detection by Headache, etc.

 

 

And I dunno if you've checked out the individual Kanohi pages that are alread there but let me tell you, some of them are pretty information-poor themselves.

Right; again, my proposal was to combine those with these on a single Less Known Kanohi page. Idea from Bold Clone originally.

So do you have to ask Greg about details like, the Incomprehension targets to get them cannonized, or are things like that up to you?

Yes, I'd ask him about renaming that and Absorption -- especially the latter if it is made into Pouks's mask. I have no authority to make canon decisions like that myself. :P

 

The little details about working out the powers, I don't think it's worth cluttering his inbox with. This is the sort of thing we work to clarify all the time in officializing contests and such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thormen:

 

I think the issue most people are having with 'vulture' is that the 'english' names of nearly every other mask the phrase 'mask of' could be replaced by something along the lines of 'mask that grants the user the power to control' and still make a sensible sentence. That phrase would intuitively seem synonymous (while in reality it's not) and that's why 'vulture' doesn't 'feel' right.

I'm not sure I followed the flow of this paragraph enough to get what you're saying. :P That first sentence got kinda complex man. lol

 

You're saying, the issue people are having is that Vulture doesn't fit, in your view, in the phrase "Mask that grants the user the power to control Vulture"?

 

Well, let's look at other masks.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Levitation" -- that's not right. It's "the power to Levitate." It doesn't give you overall control over levitation -- barring Nuva version; you can't make other things levitate.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Sheilding" -- again, not quite right. It gives you the power to make an energy shield around yourself, depending on your awareness of the incoming danger.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Water Breathing" -- again, this phrase fails. It's more "power to breathe water."

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control X-Ray Vision" -- here we have many problems, the biggest being that's obviously just an English cultural reference, very similar to Vulture but not referring to an animal and also with the word Vision attached. The power is the ability to see through things, which isn't actually what X-Ray vision literally does. The mask is actually a mask of "through-vision", and even the more common name of "Vision" doesn't convey that. And again, we have the problem of the mask not controlling other people's "through-vision", but rather granting you "through-vision".

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Strength" -- well, sort of. But again, that implies you can control it in other beings or even inanimate objects, and that's wrong; it's "grants the user added strength."

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Gravity" -- here, with an elemental mask, you've got it exactly.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Spirit" -- again, fails for Iden.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Illusion" -- you got it for Mahiki.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Telekinesis" -- it borderline works for this one; but again, you can't control other people's telekinesis. It's not the normal way to define it.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Fate" -- big fail there. Fate is a highly poetic name for what basically means, making your body perform at its ideal state. Your logic would have the mask appear to control destiny on a grand scale.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Kindred" -- lol @ that one.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Stealth" -- again, doesn't quite fit.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Corruption" -- again, major fail. Implies you control corrupt governmental leaders or the like, lol. It gives you the power to corrode or corrupt inanimate objects. Again, the power name gives you a sense of it when you say "Mask of Corruption," but it doesn't follow in your expanded phrase.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Rahi Control"

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Elemental Energy" -- not really -- it recharges your elemental energy faster.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Light" -- again, elemental ones work great with this phrase.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Possibilities" -- works.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Time" works; again, elemental.

 

 

So no, if I understood you right, your logic doesn't really work for at least half the previously established Kanohi.

 

"Mask that grants the user the power to control Vulture" -- doesn't work; you're right, but "Mask that grants the user Vulture-like sapping of energy from the dead" works.

 

 

 

 

 

Consider how you can control shielding, levitation, speed, concealment etc., but saying 'I control vulture' just sounds weird and meaningless

Again, saying you "control shielding" makes it sound like you have an elemental, wide range of control over the basic idea of Shielding (more like the EM Mask of Forcefield Control). That fails to convey accurately what those masks do. But "Mask of Shielding" is more accurate. Just like "Mask of Vulture".

 

 

(and that doesn't apply to Mind/Rahi Control, as saying I control mind control does not sound meaningless and only sounds weird due to word repetition, which is resolved by using a would-be-synonym).

Copout. :P

 

Mind you, as I said above I'm not arguing that this is actually what the masks do, so I'm not arguing that this is a logical argument against the name 'vulture'. Powers such as Truth, Possibilities and Elemental Energy can't be described by just saying the user controls truth, possibilities or elemental energy as that's not what those masks do.

Actually, with Possibilities, that is largely what it does. You're right with Truth and Elemental energy, but the same problem with them applies to most of the other masks too, including the ones you inexplicably thought worked with the phrase, like levitation, speed, etc.

 

It does, however, sound correct to say those phrases, which makes the names 'feel' correct.

Eh, by that logic I might as well just argue that "control Vulture" "feels correct", since I already understand the definition of Vulture. :P

 

 

This also puts -Toa Lhikevikk-'s comment that 'Mask of Vulture' is grammatically incorrect in a different light, seeing as 'I control vulture' is indeed a grammatical error.

Actually, again, grammar doesn't really work this way. If the word "Levitation" means, in your mind, ONLY lifting yourself, then to say "I control Levitation" could be grammatically correct, as long as it's used purely among people who know the definition.

 

Likewise, if you already know that "Vulture" as a power name in Bionicle refers to the sapping of energy from the dead, then "I control Vulture" is grammatically correct for you.

 

But that is a copout, because the argument relies on people who do NOT yet know the exact definition; whether for them the mask names convey the closest sense of what the power does. And nobody has been able to argue that Vulture either fails at that, or that any alternative exists which better conveys the sense of the power on the spot.

 

In that sense, both "I control Levitation" and "I control Vulture" would fail grammatically -- because the hearer or reader of the phrase in question would not have enough information to "translate" the phrase into the right meaning in their head. If they didn't know the definition of either, they might conclude the Miru lets you levitate other things, or make hovercraft fail, or whatever, while Vulture lets you control a specific kind of Rahi bird. :P

 

Remember, grammar is syntax; it is about the logical flow of the conveying of meaning through vocabulary.

 

Grammar cannot be separated from vocabulary; if you say "The flower is light," the meaning the hearer understands totally depends on the connotations and definitions they attach to the word light in that phrase. If they think it means "lightweight," they would see no problem with it. If they think it means "light in color," they would also have no problem.

 

If someone is talking to someone in jargon they understand; if "light" always refers to bright colors among particular florists (dunno if it does, random example :P but there are many such words that have specific meanings in jargon but a wide variety of meanings otherwise), then there is no grammatical issue.

 

But if you use this as a Bionicle phrase, where light can be physical, it might be possible to misinterpret it as saying it's a flower Elemental; made of physical light. In that case it fails grammatically because the wording does not provide enough context to know which of the vocabulary definitions is intended.

 

An example from my real life; "Buddy's in the crate." Since we deliver newspapers on weekends, we have many of those white, lightweight plastic crates which we carry the bagged and taped papers in, in the car. Buddy, our cat, likes to jump in the empty ones.

 

Yet, we also have dog cages. I call them cages, but the official term among the dog rescue organization my parents help out with sometimes is "crate" (I guess they feel it's less negatively connotated). Sometimes, Buddy does go in the empty dog cages too, and sleep in there. (We don't own a dog at the moment but dogsit sometimes.)

 

There have been several times where my Dad will say something like that phrase, and it isn't immediately clear just by his wording which possibility he means. But if we're bagging papers on a weekend, we instantly know he means the newspaper jargon "crate." If we are dogsitting, and no dog is in their cage which we have set up at the time, and we've got the newspaper crates all stacked away in the basement, we know he means the dog cage.

 

If we're doing both, we might not be sure. In that case, it fails grammatically. But in the other cases, it's perfectly fine grammatically.

 

However, seeing as we aren't talking about 'I control vulture' but 'Mask of Vulture', the phrase is in reality grammatically correct, contrary to what it may 'feel' to be.

Right; glad we're clear on that part at least.

 

With all that said, I won't argue against the word 'vulture' anymore for several reasons, one being that all the arguments I can think of are not based on logic but only on intuition.

Intuition is merely subconscious logic. ;) Any other reasons you can think of that you might only be subconsiously feeling for now, go right ahead. If reasons lurk in a lot of people's subconscious that I'm not considering, that wouldn't be countered by the reasons I've already given, then it could be enough of a problem. Obviously, since so many people are having issues with this one, there's something the matter. I am gathering that it's really mainly just the unique style of the word, from what people are saying, which has been answered. But maybe there's something else for some of yall.

 

Or maybe we're all overthinking it, yeah. :P

 

Another reason is that there is one already official mask power that also doesn't conform to the above pattern: the Faxon Mask of Kindred. I found that a weird name too back in '07 but if it's official, so be it.

I don't think it's anywhere near the only one, as I said. I especially think Mind/Rahi Control, X-Ray Vision, Fate, Spirit, Kindred, Corruption, Time Duplication, Regeneration, Wisdom, Valor, and Creation do not fit the patterns.

 

And there are many "ing" masks and many "tion" masks anyways; the latter of which is a noun, the former of which could be seen as a noun or a verb. There are some that are much simpler, like Speed and Strength. Some that are fiction-inspired scientific words like "Psychometry" and some that instead use simple multi-word definitions like "Water Breathing," instead of naming them The Mask of Item Reading and "Hydrorespiration". The Mask of Growth versus the Mask of Diminishment, instead of the Mask of Shrinking and the Mask of Expansion or Enlargement.

 

Speed instead of Velocity. Etc.

 

And I, for the record, applaud those mask name choices too for the same reason -- it challenges your imagination, your brain. Same as Metru Nui, same as Voya Nui, same as Bara Magna -- the longstanding tradition of Bionicle to avoid the ruts, to challenge the comfortable, to spark the mind.

 

 

 

There is NO single pattern.

 

The only "pattern" people are really identifying, IMO, is simply the basic styles that the majority of masks happen to follow. So simply Ad Populum logic, basically, "Since most masks are this way, this is the right way." If the balance were to tip towards the mask styles that are in the minority, which are all clearly okay within the Bionicle "rules" (which don't really exist per se), and by Greg's opinion, which these do, then by the very same logic, "More masks are now in the style of Vulture, so now Vulture is okay," since it is, after all, official.

 

It's also circular reasoning -- you're just pointing to what was approved before as proof that that was what was okay -- well, by the very same logic, since Vulture was approved too, it's okay.

 

That sort of pattern argument really doesn't work. It's better to focus specifically on the power itself and argue from there. Look at what words best describe each power and best fit for whatever other power or shape related reasons there are (like Vultraz's name, since he wears this shape; which is actually logically connected to this, unlike the "approved styles" logic).

Link to comment

Dunno if you saw my edited last post so here goes:

 

QUOTE

Hey there Greg, long time no see. I wanted to confirm something about the Kadin and Miru. The Miru DOES offer advantages that the Kadin does not, correct? The Kadin is analogous to a jet plane, it can't make you hover and you can't stay in the air unless you are undergoing forward motion. Whereas the Miru is like a hot air balloon, it lets you move up and down in a straight line, it lets you hover, and while it does have leteral motion it's slow and not an effective method of "flight." Does all that sound about right? Thanks for your time!

 

That's correct

 

-----

 

"Notice that this makes the Miru exactly qualify for the overlap problems you have brought up with some of the new powers."

 

Well, I still wouldn't say so, no. I think the distinction for me lies in the ammount of effort involved. And no I don't mean the mental Kanohi-concentration sort of effort. I mean the difficulty of "hover" and "go down gently" commands compared to "Ok, go up a little let me fall a little go up a little let me fall a little..."

 

I imagine myself as a non-Earth/Stone Toa and I need to explore the bottom of a mine shaft. I'd personally vastly prefer the Miru to let me get down safely than having to rely on a Kadin and being forced to do a sort of "boost myself up a few times so I don't hit with splattering force."

 

Also, I'd imagine painting the Sistine Chapel would be easy with a Miru and not feasible with a Kadin. :) In my book that definitely qualifies as a job the Miru can preform that the Kadin cannot, hence, not complete overlap.

 

To relate this again to something actually on-topic: to a Miru you can think "hover" and it can, to a Kadin you think "hover" and it cannot. Yet you can say "Kanoka, return" to a Matatu and it can, and it also can equally well with the Rebounding. Hence my opinion of overlap. (Since I'm not a Toa though, I can't judge to what degree the mental command is easier to execute.)

Link to comment
Notice that this makes the Miru exactly qualify for the overlap problems you have brought up with some of the new powers

Well, I still wouldn't say so, no.

Well, then I don't see how you can say that. For example, with Fusion, you brought up examples of Speed or Quick Travel overlapping with the example usage. Barring my point about that only doing an escape instead of helping with defeat, that is the sort of overlap we're talking about with the Miru.

 

My whole point about the Miru IS that it, yes, has advantages over the Kadin. That's the point I was championing at the time, against people who were saying "Kadin makes Miru useless".

 

But the way you defined "overlap", but the examples you gave in your post, the Kadin totally overlaps. What the Miru does, you can do with the Kadin -- you can go up, and sort of stay roughly at the same average height with some strategy -- but the Kadin doesn't do it as well as the Miru.

 

Now, apply the same principle to Fusion (to continue that example), or others you alleged to overlap. :) That is my point.

 

I dunno how to say it any clearer than that. :P

 

 

I think the distinction for me lies in the ammount of effort involved.

Well, that's exactly my point about the Miru. With any overlap like this, barring exact dupe powers due to different mixings, one mask will have less effort to accomplish certain effects, the other the other, etc. (Or the other won't be able to do it directly at all, as with the Miru for Toa not of Air.)

 

Make sense?

 

And no I don't mean the mental Kanohi-concentration sort of effort. I mean the difficulty of "hover" and "go down gently" commands compared to "Ok, go up a little let me fall a little go up a little let me fall a little..."

In terms of mask powers, mental concentration is the main component of effort. :P The whole thing is poweredf by concentration, basically.

 

You could mimic a gentle rise and a hover with the Kadin, but only with good skill and intense focus, and it wouldn't do as good of a job. Sort of like The Thing thing -- with careful focus, he can avoid smashing the cup, but without focusing, it's shattered.

 

 

 

I imagine myself as a non-Earth/Stone Toa and I need to explore the bottom of a mine shaft. I'd personally vastly prefer the Miru to let me get down safely than having to rely on a Kadin and being forced to do a sort of "boost myself up a few times so I don't hit with splattering force."

Right. And that's my whole point. :)

 

 

To relate this again to something actually on-topic: to a Miru you can think "hover" and it can, to a Kadin you think "hover" and it cannot. Yet you can say "Kanoka, return" to a Matatu and it can, and it also can equally well with the Rebounding.

Wrong -- the Matatu would require more mental focus. As you know -- which is probably why you tried to have that thrown out of consideration, but that's not objective. You can't throw factors out just because they don't help your argument. The rebounding handles it very easily, almost subconsciously, but it cannot do as wide a range of things as the Matatu. (Also, the Matatu wouldn't involve the bounce-off angle aspect of Rebounding, so you'd have to compensate for that too.)

 

Exact same concept as with the Miru -- just different powers under consideration.

 

 

(Since I'm not a Toa though, I can't judge to what degree the mental command is easier to execute.)

I can. I have trained myself to be able to use actual powers along these lines in real life.

 

...

 

In dreams. :P But yeah, I've had many dreams where my powers are based on the level of concentration. Perhaps because I'm a Bionicle fan, not sure. In fact, these are great examples because the main powers I usually have in dreams are hover/flight and telekinesis. Never thought of doing the Rebound thing in a dream, but hey. :P

 

But as I've imagined it, anyways, I can usually hover up about twenty feet, but going any higher, and going forward at any appreciable speed, is incredibly difficult. It takes an intense mental focus. And that is very draining.

 

Had similar experiences with telekinesis. If I'm mentally tired, moving even the lightest objects, say, a milk jug (full), is very difficult. But if I focus directly on it and consciously will it to move harder, it will.

 

It's just dreams, but I think that is very similar to how mask powers would work, since they depend on mental concentration exactly like dreams. (Especially telekinesis; it was in the original definition of the power.)

 

I wouldn't blame you if you just chalk that up to my opinion. :P

 

But this is the sort of thing I think about constantly, as a fiction writer. Powers in my Bionicle fanfics obviously work like this. Powers in my non-Bionicle fanfiction work like this too -- depending on the concentration.

 

It's something I HAVE to carefully think through. I don't have the luxury of saying "I'm not a Toa, so I don't know what it would be like." As a writer, it is my DUTY to know what it would be like. :)

Link to comment
Guest Thormen

Posted

After reading your response, I think you misunderstood part of my post.

 

You're saying, the issue people are having is that Vulture doesn't fit, in your view, in the phrase "Mask that grants the user the power to control Vulture"?

I'm saying it doesn't fit grammatically. I don't mean that 'mask that grants the user the power to control vulture' should describe accurately what the mask's function is, I'm saying it should make sense as a phrase to 'feel' right.

 

Well, let's look at other masks.

 

[examples]

None of these are wrong for the reason I mean (except for the Mask of Kindred, but I already covered that one). All of these imply they do something which the masks in question don't actually do, but that's not what my point was. My point was they actually imply something, seeing as they are grammatically correct phrases and therefore convey meaning. 'Mask that ... control vulture' is grammatically incorrect and therefore doesn't convey meaning. Again, I'm not arguing why 'vulture' is unsuitable, I'm arguing why most people 'feel' it's unsuitable.

 

Actually, with Possibilities, that is largely what it does.

Arguably, but it's a little unclear.

 

You're right with Truth and Elemental energy, but the same problem with them applies to most of the other masks too, including the ones you inexplicably thought worked with the phrase, like levitation, speed, etc.

I mentioned Truth, Possibilites and Elemental Energy because they seemed the clearest examples to me, but in reality most of the mask functions don't work with the phrase if you look at it from the perspective that they should be synonymous. My point here was that while the Rode doesn't control truth, it is technically possible for a mask to control truth (which would probably make it more powerful than the Ignika) because saying so is meaningful. Up until the moment where you redefined the word 'vulture' it wasn't possible for a mask to 'control vulture' because that phrase was meaningless. It would be meaningful to say the mask controls a vulture, or vultures, but not 'vulture'. If you'd call it the 'Mask of Vultures' it would technically fall in the same category as the Mask of Truth, except for the fact that 'Mask of Vultures' very obviously implies something totally different from what it's intended to mean.

 

(and that doesn't apply to Mind/Rahi Control, as saying I control mind control does not sound meaningless and only sounds weird due to word repetition, which is resolved by using a would-be-synonym).

 

Copout.

That's not a copout, that's how synonyms are generally used. Being a writer, have you never encountered a situation where you wrote something that sounded weird because it repeated two similar words, which you could fix by using a synonym for one of those words? For example "He rode to Tajun and she rode with him.", which would sound better as "He rode to Tajun and she accompanied him.". This is exactly the same, except the two phrases aren't really synonymous.

 

Eh, by that logic I might as well just argue that "control Vulture" "feels correct", since I already understand the definition of Vulture.

Yes, you might as well argue that, but it wasn't my point to give a universal reason for 'vulture' to 'feel' wrong. I'm just arguing that people said 'vulture' didn't sound right because no one besides you and Swert knew your new definition of the word 'vulture' when they first read it. It's up to you what you do with that knowledge, I personally don't think it is enough reason to discard 'vulture'. All I'm trying to do here is explain why people objected against that word.

 

Likewise, if you already know that "Vulture" as a power name in Bionicle refers to the sapping of energy from the dead, then "I control Vulture" is grammatically correct for you.

True, but my point was people didn't already know that and that's why it seems incorrect, even though it isn't with your new definition.

 

Actually, again, grammar doesn't really work this way. If the word "Levitation" means, in your mind, ONLY lifting yourself, then to say "I control Levitation" could be grammatically correct, as long as it's used purely among people who know the definition.

 

[...]

 

But that is a copout, because the argument relies on people who do NOT yet know the exact definition; whether for them the mask names convey the closest sense of what the power does. And nobody has been able to argue that Vulture either fails at that, or that any alternative exists which better conveys the sense of the power on the spot.

 

In that sense, both "I control Levitation" and "I control Vulture" would fail grammatically -- because the hearer or reader of the phrase in question would not have enough information to "translate" the phrase into the right meaning in their head. If they didn't know the definition of either, they might conclude the Miru lets you levitate other things, or make hovercraft fail, or whatever, while Vulture lets you control a specific kind of Rahi bird. tongue.gif

 

Remember, grammar is syntax; it is about the logical flow of the conveying of meaning through vocabulary.

 

Grammar cannot be separated from vocabulary; if you say "The flower is light," the meaning the hearer understands totally depends on the connotations and definitions they attach to the word light in that phrase. If they think it means "lightweight," they would see no problem with it. If they think it means "light in color," they would also have no problem.

 

If someone is talking to someone in jargon they understand; if "light" always refers to bright colors among particular florists (dunno if it does, random example tongue.gif but there are many such words that have specific meanings in jargon but a wide variety of meanings otherwise), then there is no grammatical issue.

 

But if you use this as a Bionicle phrase, where light can be physical, it might be possible to misinterpret it as saying it's a flower Elemental; made of physical light. In that case it fails grammatically because the wording does not provide enough context to know which of the vocabulary definitions is intended.

 

An example from my real life; "Buddy's in the crate." Since we deliver newspapers on weekends, we have many of those white, lightweight plastic crates which we carry the bagged and taped papers in, in the car. Buddy, our cat, likes to jump in the empty ones.

 

Yet, we also have dog cages. I call them cages, but the official term among the dog rescue organization my parents help out with sometimes is "crate" (I guess they feel it's less negatively connotated). Sometimes, Buddy does go in the empty dog cages too, and sleep in there. (We don't own a dog at the moment but dogsit sometimes.)

 

There have been several times where my Dad will say something like that phrase, and it isn't immediately clear just by his wording which possibility he means. But if we're bagging papers on a weekend, we instantly know he means the newspaper jargon "crate." If we are dogsitting, and no dog is in their cage which we have set up at the time, and we've got the newspaper crates all stacked away in the basement, we know he means the dog cage.

 

If we're doing both, we might not be sure. In that case, it fails grammatically. But in the other cases, it's perfectly fine grammatically.

 

I am pretty sure you misunderstand grammar here, because according to your argument every ambiguous sentence is grammatically incorrect. Grammar, and syntax, is about the structure of a language, it's about combining elements from a language into a phrase that conveys a meaning, or more than one meaning.

 

On top of that, a lie can be grammatically correct too. Therefore, you can't say that the sentence 'The Kanohi Miru is the mask that grants the user the power to control levitation.' is grammatically incorrect purely for the reason that 'levitation' doesn't mean 'levitating oneself'. Actually, you can say that, but it wouldn't be true, just grammatically correct ;) .

 

In fact, it's technically impossible to be absolutely clear what you are talking about. For instance, if your father says Buddy is in the crate you might not know which crate he means, the dog cage or the paper crate, but what if you aren't sure which crate he means because, even though there are no dog cages, there are two paper crates? Would that be grammatically incorrect? And what if he says "Buddy is in the crate. I don't mean the crate we have for storing the papers, but the dog cage.", would that technically be grammatically correct until you split those sentences up? What if you write a story where you don't make it very clear who the protagonist really is, does that make the whole story grammatically incorrect?

 

Grammar is not about context, grammar is structure. You fill the structure up with meaning using a vocabulary and the meaning is further defined in the context.

 

Intuition is merely subconscious logic.

Mostly true, but I'd like to add to that that since it's subconscious, it's very susceptible to being flawed.

 

Anyway, it's exactly that subconscious logic that I wanted to point out. A lot of people intuitively said 'vulture' didn't sound right, and I think that is because of some flawed logic I explained. That doesn't change the fact though that people think it doesn't 'feel' right.

 

And I, for the record, applaud those mask name choices too for the same reason -- it challenges your imagination, your brain. Same as Metru Nui, same as Voya Nui, same as Bara Magna -- the longstanding tradition of Bionicle to avoid the ruts, to challenge the comfortable, to spark the mind.

I agree.

 

There is NO single pattern.

 

The only "pattern" people are really identifying, IMO, is simply the basic styles that the majority of masks happen to follow. So simply Ad Populum logic, basically, "Since most masks are this way, this is the right way." If the balance were to tip towards the mask styles that are in the minority, which are all clearly okay within the Bionicle "rules" (which don't really exist per se), and by Greg's opinion, which these do, then by the very same logic, "More masks are now in the style of Vulture, so now Vulture is okay," since it is, after all, official.

There is a pattern in all of the official powers except for Kindred and Vulture and there are also patterns in the entire collection of mask powers (for instance, none of them are adverbs, all of them are english words), but I agree that none of those patterns should be rules. It's OK to break tradition. As you said, since there are no rules the patterns could just as well be different, with the Hau Mask of Turtle and the Miru Mask of Dragonfly for instance, and that would make the Rau Mask of Translation a break from the tradition.

 

It's also circular reasoning -- you're just pointing to what was approved before as proof that that was what was okay -- well, by the very same logic, since Vulture was approved too, it's okay.

It's circular reasoning insofar as there are no rules to naming the masks. However, if your premise is that a mask should be named conforming to the same pattern all the other masks do to, treating that as a rule, then you wouldn't have circular reasoning since you'd have a premise.

Link to comment
I think you misunderstood part of my post.

Alright. Had a feeling so. Reading on...

 

My point was they actually imply something, seeing as they are grammatically correct phrases and therefore convey meaning.

And are you saying they are all grammatically correct? Other than Kindred?

 

(I think "power to control Kindred" implies something -- it implies that "kindred" is a word that isn't in my vocabulary yet, but that is probably related in some way to the meaning for "kindred" that I DO know -- that the power is involved with commonality between multiple living things in some way. Same with Vulture; you can't say it implies NOTHING -- it implies that there is a meaning for the word "vulture" that you don't yet know, but that the power probably could be compared in some way to what vultures do. :) But for sake of analyzing what you are saying, I'll ignore this from here on in this post.)

 

Well, then it comes down to how much of grammar are you allowing to be considered? I agree that by some measures of grammar (forcing a limitation on what we consider in the field of grammar), Vulture would not be considered "grammatically correct." My point is, that's an arbitrary limitation to force upon grammar, and is we force such limitations, why not force more on it?

 

As I pointed out, vocabulary knowledge is an essential part of grammar. At the moment, the only problem grammatically that I see with Vulture is if you do not have the vocabulary knowledge about it yet. As I showed, the same problem would be true of MANY of those other examples I listed.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's remove that one, and consider other grammatical limitations instead:

 

For example:

 

 

control Water Breathing -- inaccurate to the vocabulary; it doesn't control it, it switches it on.

 

control Rahi Control -- repeated word error (I know you "copped out" of this, but that's not fair -- I could just cop out of Vulture and say it's obvious you need to add "-like energy absorption" to it.)

 

control Spirit -- again, way inaccurate to the vocabulary; the mask lets you send out your spirit, not control spirit in an elemental or generic power sense

 

control Fate -- this one is arguable. Assuming you knew the definition, you could see it as okay. But you might also notice that the wording isn't quite what the power means, according to that very definition, more so than with most others.

 

control Kindred -- again, both you and I have covered that one

 

control Corruption -- another arguable one, but you can't ignore that even knowing the definition, you see that the phrase implies something totally not intended by the actual definition. You'd prefer the phrase to be worded something more like this -- "corrupt material objects" and probably make an analogy to corrosion.

 

control Elemental Energy -- inaccurate to the vocabulary again

 

 

I think those are worse grammatical errors than a lack of vocabulary knowledge with Vulture -- since that is rectified simply by learning its definition, and since as I said, so many other ones would have problems in the phrase by that logic.

 

control Vulture -- grammatically, the meanings of "control a Vulture" or "control vultures" are clearly not possible interpretations, so you would have to consult the definition alone. Once "Vulture" is defined as the absorbing of energy from recently dead, as the name of the power, you see that "control the absorbing of energy from recently dead" works perfectly fine grammatically.

 

At least, barring the problem about not necessarily controlling that ability in others I mentioned for this and many other masks. You could consider that lumped into vocab problem, or call it a focus problem. Either way, both Vulture AND OTHER POWERS share those problems, and do not have any others, as far as I can see.

 

So again, I have to conclude that if "Vulture" is not okay grammatically, a lot of other power names like "Levititation", "Shielding" etc. are not okay either.

 

it should make sense as a phrase to 'feel' right.

Well, how correct they feel depends on how much you know about grammar, I guess. There are lots of technically grammatically incorrect phrases like "I ain't done nothing wrong" that feel correct to lots of people, but to others, feel wrong because they violate certain limitations that those others place upon grammar.

 

However, there is also the linguistic argument that logically, etymologically, historically, there is no actual reason other than sheer arbitrary choice to consider "no none" a double negation, rather than emphasis on its negative-ness. There are many languages that use multiple "no"s to mean "very not". Mathematically, a double negation is always meant, but grammar is not math; if both negatives are modifing "done something wrong" in an allegiance rather than a mathematical step-by-step, then grammatically "ain't done nothing wrong" is perfectly correct.

 

The key is that the speaker and recipient understand what grammar is being intended, and thus get the meaning correctly.

 

Don't blame me for that answer, BTW, that example comes directly from a linguistics professor whose class I took. :P

 

The original speaker in that example is not very educated about grammar, and they see it as okay. If they're speaking to someone else who uses their grammar, this first hearer (who doesn't know much about grammar in general, but knows THIS grammar) thinks it's fine too, and understand it perfectly.

 

The next hearer (the stereotypical English professor lol) knows some things about grammar, but not as much as the third hearer does. Because they only accept the grammar of "Proper English With a Capitcal P", it feels wrong to them -- even though they still probably understand it just fine.

 

But the third hearer in this example -- the educated linguist -- knows that the rules of "Proper English With a Captial P" are arbitrary, mostly made up by English professors trying to find justifications for their jobs (:P), and understands the intended grammar of the original speaker, and approves of it, knowing that "double negation" can be emphasis.

 

This third hearer, if asked, could point out to the second one that there are even examples of this in "Proper" English -- "No, no, no, that is not what I meant," for example. A quadruple negation, yet even by all rules of proper English, it is considered emphasis and just fine, because something else (the commas) mitigate the normal double negation rule. In the case of the original speaker, another something else mitigated that rule; a rule the second hearer simply didn't know.

 

And that got waaaaaay tangential...

 

So again the question comes down to "according to whose grammar, and why should we impose their grammar, rather than the grammar that is actually intended?"

 

 

This is why I'm a grammar rebel, lol.

 

But there IS a possible answer to this. I'm just not gonna feed it to you; you have to figure it out for yourself. :P Maybe we should impose their grammar, but why?

Again, I'm not arguing why 'vulture' is unsuitable, I'm arguing why most people 'feel' it's unsuitable.

I don't see the difference. :P If most people feel it's unsuitable (and I dunno if we've seen most people saying that), then it's unsuitable. Because the aim is to please.

 

Up until the moment where you redefined the word 'vulture' it wasn't possible for a mask to 'control vulture' because that phrase was meaningless.

Which is just a fancy way of saying "Mask of Vulture is one of the clearest mask names we have" -- you can't possibly confuse it for something else. :P

 

Mask of Shielding -- it WAS possible for the phrase "control Shielding" to carry meaning before you knew the definition, but the phrase would convey the WRONG meaning.

 

Mask of Vulture -- no previously-established definition is brought to mind by "control Vulture", so you do not get an incorrect meaning conveyed. The only possible interpretation of that phrase that is grammatical is the one conveyed by its actual definition -- thus the name is very accurate.

 

And that's just another way to say what I pointed out at the beginning -- that the name was chosen because it's the clearest, most concise English word I could think of that conveyed the closest meaning of what the mask does. The power is best compared to a Vulture. Voila, your reasoning has only backed up that statement, in an roundabout fashion. :P

 

It would be meaningful to say the mask controls a vulture, or vultures, but not 'vulture'

Right, but those would be inaccurate meanings.

 

 

That's not a copout, that's how synonyms are generally used.

It's a copout. :P The point is, you modified the phrase to make it "feel right". But don't allow that for Vulture. That's not consistent. No offense (of course), but there's a term for that -- "double standard".

 

Being a writer, have you never encountered a situation where you wrote something that sounded weird because it repeated two similar words, which you could fix by using a synonym for one of those words?

Of course, but the point is, you allowed a change to be made to fix that error. Which ruins the logic that the phrase unchanged must feel correct. If you can change that phrase to feel correct, why not change Vulture's phrase to feel correct?

 

 

 

'm just arguing that people said 'vulture' didn't sound right because no one besides you and Swert knew your new definition of the word 'vulture' when they first read it.

Did anyone know the meaning of "Levitation" before they read the definition of a Miru? That it refers to the levitating of the user -- NOT to of other things? No, they only knew part of it.

 

All this says is, the name spurs you to want to read the definition. Isn't that good? It still conveys the basic idea, but without conveying inaccurate versions of it as much as many other powers would, in that phrase.

 

And at this point I'd just like to remind you that you made up the phrase anyways. :P

 

 

Again, I know what you're trying to say, I think. And better alternatives might exist -- Aanchir has suggested a nice one -- but (to me!) the arguments only raise issues that can be easily remedied by simply reading the definition, and I don't see what's wrong with reading the definition (:P) so I'm (personally) okay with it.

 

 

 

I am pretty sure you misunderstand grammar here, because according to your argument every ambiguous sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Depending on what grammar teacher you listen to, that's right. Ambiguous wording is a structural issue, and often considered to be an error that must be corrected, by changing the structure.

 

(On the other hand, I personally love to use it in story titles, for example, to convey ALL the multiple meanings in various ways throughout the story. In that case, by the grammar I intend, it should be seen as correct. Since I am a fan of multiple meanings.)

 

Grammar, and syntax, is about the structure of a language, it's about combining elements from a language into a phrase that conveys a meaning, or more than one meaning.

Yes, and ambiguous wording is clearly within that definition. You would argue otherwise?

 

On top of that, a lie can be grammatically correct too. Therefore, you can't say that the sentence 'The Kanohi Miru is the mask that grants the user the power to control levitation.' is grammatically incorrect purely for the reason that 'levitation' doesn't mean 'levitating oneself'. Actually, you can say that, but it wouldn't be true, just grammatically correct wink.gif .

Well, if a liar said that, intending it as a lie, it would be grammatically correct because they intend it to do what it does -- to decieve. If a non-liar said it, intending to be accurate, it would be grammatically incorrect, according to their intent. If a language existed where a rule of grammar was "lies are incorrect grammar," then it would be ungrammatical regardless of the intent, because the statement is not structured in the right way with the right words, in the right places, to form a true statement.

 

(Actually, that is virtually a rule of grammar in the thinking of the Unknown in my fanfics. They seek to remain secret, but without lying. So their grammar has all sorts of ways to be purposefully ambiguous without lying. They can answer most questions without lying, by making structural decisions as to how word their answers (something real world politicians do too, but we can't get into that :P).

 

And if a question cornered them, they would refuse to lie, not from a morality that bans deception, but from a rule about speech. I haven't previously thought about this being seen as grammar, but it's definately very close to it. As shapeshifters, they hide using blatant deception visually all the time -- appearing to be a mere rock for instance, but in language they do not use blatant deception, because they see the purpose of language as to communicate truth. It's so ingrained in their way of thinking it probably wouldn't even occur to many of them, the ones who aren't out in the world of the Paracosmos dealing with lying villains, anyways. That definately counts as part of grammar.)

 

All grammar is a game of vocabulary. You must see that. Without the vocabulary meanings of each word, they are mere gibberish. There could be no parts of speech without vocabulary; no verbs, no subjects, etc. Grammar deals with how you arrange those disjointed meanings in ways that make the disjointed meanings, and intended choices of meanings among multiple meanings, be communicated and understood by the recipient. It also categorizes the jisjointed meanings into grammatical parts of speech.

 

I'm not saying that another word might not convey the meaning better -- but I'm saying it's the best word choice I have seen yet. As such, by the intent of naming the power, and since not much else can be mistakenly interpreted from it, it works grammatically.

 

To argue that grammar is not about vocabulary is like saying solving a puzzle is not about the shapes of the puzzle pieces.

 

 

 

In fact, it's technically impossible to be absolutely clear what you are talking about.

Exactly -- it requires the right knowledge be in place in the minds of the sender and reciever, so that the sender can translate their thoughts into sonic vibrations (or visual shapes, in this case, though electronic signals), which the reciever must then translate back into a thought. To do that, the reciever must have all the correct grammaticaly information -- correct meaning, the same grammar that the sender intends.

 

Yet, we each are forced to form our own "translation software" from our own unique formative experiences, different vocabulary and syntax we observe being used by other people, often regional (hence dialect), our own unique brain arrangements genetically, etc. The chances of two people having exactly the same translation software are astronomical. Yet the similarities within one language or one dialect (a version of the language, with its own "correctness" no matter what the Professorahks of a different dialect called "Proper English" claim, but usually subconsciously learned, rather than taught later in a school) are close enough that vast majority of the time, communication is clear enough to be satisfactory to both sender and receiver.

 

 

 

but what if you aren't sure which crate he means because, even though there are no dog cages, there are two paper crates? Would that be grammatically incorrect?

That depends on if 1) I care which crate it is :P oe 2) whether more than one crate is open (they are normally stacked, so only the top one is open).

 

If Dad didn't intend to convey WHICH crate Buddy's in, and I understand exactly what he intended to convey, then even if there are two crates available, I still got the intended meaning. Thus, there was no grammatical issue. If he did intend it, but I don't care, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no grammatical issue (but Dad might see a grammatical issue, and think to clarify on his own, which I might not even register, or wouldn't care about).

 

Likewise, if I already know that only one crate was available, that vocabulary knowledge completes the meaning for me, and thus there is likewise no grammatical issue.

 

Remember, as you yourself said, grammar is about structure, the combining of elements from a language (translation -- vocabulary!) into a phrase that conveys a meaning. The part I would add to what you said is that it is supposed to convey the intended meaning. (Or in my titles example, the intended meanings.)

 

Go back to the sender/reciever idea (which is the basic concept of linguistics, as defined by the aforementioned linguistics prof). The whole point of talking is for the sender to get a thought from their own brain into the reciever's brain.

 

But the reciever does not have a direct nerve connection to the sender's brain. Even if they did, they'd still need to have a brain that reads signals in the same way as the sender's brain. Grammar is the overall topic of what signal translation "software" is needed to be shared by both sender and reciever in order to do what the sender intended -- to send the thought.

 

That is accomplished through structure of vocabulary. Vocabulary can be thought of as sets of strings of signal variations, of specific arrangements, which are attached in both minds to meanings (which are much larger sets of brain data). But these signals can have different connections to different meanings, so they alone are not necessarily enough. Grammar syntax must be used WITH vocabulary -- also called context -- to determine which brain connection should be 'read' by the receiver.

 

 

 

 

And what if he says "Buddy is in the crate. I don't mean the crate we have for storing the papers, but the dog cage.", would that technically be grammatically correct until you split those sentences up?

There is no rule in (normal) English grammar that context be limited to single sentences. Although maybe there should be. :P That's why context is so important to quotes. So yes, the two together would have no grammatical issue -- as long as both sender and receiver STILL have the same grammar. If one speaks a foreign language only, they will lack BOTH the syntax grammar AND the vocabulary grammar to understand it.

 

However, yeah, if someone said "convey your idea in only one sentence", then it would be grammatically incorrect, in that weird instance. :P

 

What if you write a story where you don't make it very clear who the protagonist really is, does that make the whole story grammatically incorrect?

Is your grammar the reason why your story isn't conveying that meaning? Did you want to convey that meaning? Is the reader just skimming and then blaming you? :P

 

If you failed to include any hint in the text of who the protagonist is (that isn't contradicted by other apparent hints, in most readers' eyes), but meant to and thought you did, you have a grammar issue. Either that or you just imagined yourself writing something and forgot to actually do it. :P

 

Grammar is not about context, grammar is structure.

Context is part of structure.

 

Look. Let's get the old Dictionary.com up here. I won't use quote boxes 'cuz I might be approaching the limit...

 

Some examples:

1. the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax.

2. these features or constructions themselves: English grammar.

 

 

1a The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.

1b The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.

1c The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language.

 

2a The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language.

2b The system of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that language.

 

 

The rules for standard use of words. A grammar is also a system for classifying and analyzing the elements of language.

 

 

Here's an interesting one on the history of the word:

grammar

1176, gramarye, from O.Fr. grammaire "learning," especially Latin and philology, from L. grammatica, from Gk. grammatike tekhne "art of letters," with a sense of both philology and literature in the broadest sense, from gramma "letter," from stem of graphein "to draw or write." Restriction to "rules of language" is a post-classical development, but as this type of study was until 16c. limited to Latin, M.E. gramarye also came to mean "learning in general, knowledge peculiar to the learned classes" (c.1320), which included astrology and magic; hence the secondary meaning of "occult knowledge" (c.1470), which evolved in Scottish into glamour (q.v.). A grammar school (1387) was originally "a school in which the learned languages are grammatically taught" [Johnson, who also has grammaticaster "a mean verbal pedant"]. In U.S. (1860) the term was put to use in the graded system for "a school between primary and secondary, where English grammar is taught."

 

Common to all the definitions I quoted, and some I didn't, is the idea that grammar is the OVERALL study of how to convey meaning through language, including the meanings of the words themselves, and even things like linguistic history and even pronunciation! (I've never heard it used for prununciation specifically, but okay. :P Makes sense; pronunciation conveys meaning similarly to how vocabulary does.)

 

In other words, meaning is conveyed by the specific signals themselves (words; which must have vocabulary knowledge in the reciever to "feel" right), variations in those specific signals (pronunciation), and the structure of the words (syntax, word choice, context, etc.). All of these things are important for grammar to "feel" right to the receiever.

 

 

Grammar is not about context, grammar is structure.

Context is part of structure.

 

Surely when you look a bridge, you don't say "those supports around the one I'm looking at are irrelevant to the structure"? Well, most bridge designs do have redundant supports, more than they minimally need, but still -- even that is a structural choice. The whole thing together affects the meaning conveyed.

 

Another example, take a sentence. Let's say:

 

"Grammar is not about context, grammar is structure."

 

Are there any grammatical problems with this?

 

Well, according to Professorahk English, yes; there is a comma splice. Okay, let's be fair and fix that, for the Professorahk's sake. :P

 

"Grammar is not about context; grammar is structure."

 

Okay, we now have something that is totally correct according to the grammar of a Professorahk. But would all people consider this to "feel" right?

 

No. Another professor I had in the field of fiction writing would point out that the semicolon is obsolete. These days, the em dash is preferred, and can be approximated with a space, two dashes, and a space. Okay, so:

 

"Grammar is not about context -- grammar is structure."

 

So is everybody happy? No, the Professorahk and the fiction editor are now warring -- it's semicolon versus em dash, who will win? And some fiction writers are lamenting the lazy use of the double dash instead of a true em dash.

 

Meanwhile, we have other people who would say, "the comma is fine, I don't want this weird stuff". There's a new grammar developing in English (and remember both the grammars of the English Professor and the Fiction Professor developed), in which fancy-schancy-ness is bad. Simple is best; comma splices are fine. This is especially seen on the internet. (I personally still don't like comma splices, but I also can appreciate that this new grammar is essentially another language; a different version of English in the same way English is a different version of the larger Germanic language family from German or Dutch or whatnot. One that English and History professors will likely never accept, so you shouldn't use it on their term papers... but otherwise pretty much okay XD.)

 

Okay, but all three agree that THIS is grammatically correct:

 

"Grammar is not about context. Grammar is structure."

 

Uh-oh.

 

Now, to understand the full meaning of the whole idea you tried to convey, we must definately deal with context. And we got stuck in this predicament for structural reasons.

 

Besides, I'm not sure if anyone would limit the definition of "context" even just to other sentences. Let's see...

 

Dictionary.com #1:

the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

 

Well, okay, according to this definition, words within a statement is fair game for context considerations.

 

Okay, so, let's chop up your statement. :P No reason we can't if context isn't important!

 

"Grammar is not about"

 

Okay, this is not a sentence; it lacks puncuation.

 

"Grammar is not about."

 

:o NEVER END A SENTENCE A PREPOSITION WITH! :P

 

Plus, it doesn't convey the intended meaning. The structure is affected by how many components are included, as is the meaning. But let's take this even further, and fix that preposition error:

 

"Grammar is not about structure."

 

I used words that were included in your original (grammatically flawed) statement as a whole. I just didn't tell you that I left some out. That too is a grammatical problem. But if I was "lying," purposefully messing with context in order to decieve, it would be considered perfectly grammatically correct, as you yourself pointed out. I'd be falsely claiming this is what you said.

 

And so, we could conclude that grammar has nothing to do with structure, because the ONLY thing we didn't consider is context -- everything else was an attempt to fix problems of syntax. Which of course would be silly.

 

We could even say, "oh we don't want to liiiiie" and add this nifty little grammatical trick, I've caught newspapers in several times lol:

 

"Grammar is not about... structure."

 

This is 100% grammatically correct in EVERY way besides context, even using a clear indicator that I left something out. It even implies, since I'm honest that I left something out, that whatever I left out must not change the meaning, or I wouldn't have been so honest about it. It's a subtle way to lie; even telling you it's not totally in context, but relying on sheer trust and laziness that you won't get caught.

 

 

So aaaaanyways. I used your claim that grammar is not about context to prove the exact opposite. :) Context is a part of structure.

 

Whee, that was fun, but tangential again... :P *tries to get back on topic...*

 

I loves da grammers. :D

 

 

You fill the structure up with meaning using a vocabulary and the meaning is further defined in the context.

All my half-joking tangents aside, what you're missing is that the vocabulary meanings affect what structures are grammatical, sometimes even depending on which definition of the same word is used. And at the very least, what part of speech a word is, is a vocabulary issue -- you can't know that without knowing the word's meaning -- and parts of speech is a major grammar issue. Surely even you would not deny that -- you can't just put any old word anywhere within the structure -- it must be the right vocabulary; the right part of speech.

 

(The preposition rule, for example, relies on this. Because I know "about" is a preposition -- it's in my vocabulary -- I know it isn't supposed to go at the exact end of a sentence, according to a grammar rule of Professorahks.)

 

 

Mostly true, but I'd like to add to that that since it's subconscious, it's very susceptible to being flawed.

Oh, it's very susceptible to being flawed alright, but so is conscious logic. :P Instead of going off on another of my tangents this time, I'll just recommend reading what Cesar Millan has to say about this subject in his second book, I think titled "Be the Pack Leader". And say that conscious training can reprogram the subconscious to be more accurate. And say... if many people's subconsciouses are gonna make them not like Vulture, it's a problem, for reasons I've outlined many times about entertainment.

 

 

As you said, since there are no rules the patterns could just as well be different, with the Hau Mask of Turtle and the Miru Mask of Dragonfly for instance, and that would make the Rau Mask of Translation a break from the tradition

XD Excellent example.

 

Dude. *goes off finding animal matches for evey mask power he can think of*

 

Oh, sorry. Tangents...

 

However, if your premise is that a mask should be named conforming to the same pattern all the other masks do to, treating that as a rule, then you wouldn't have circular reasoning since you'd have a premise.

Right -- then what you'd have is arbitrariness. (Arbitraritude? Arbitrariousity? :P)

 

Hey, let's go with that, while I'm arguing for the relevance of vocabulary to grammar. I just stumbled on another example by accident.

 

I want to say that the argument you identified there would be arbitrary. But because I lack the vocabulary knowledge of the commonly accepted ("proper") noun form of the adjective "arbitrary" (if any), I would have to make a structural choice if I wanted to be sure to be correct, within my limited knowledge.

 

"Right -- then what you'd have would be arbitrary."

 

Several structural choices in fact -- the choice to go ahead and use the adjective, the choice of how to do so in a grammatically "correct" way (going with a noun-like direct object format for the verb "have", but substituting a "be phrase" in the place of the noun), the choice to keep the reference to "what you have" for contextual reasons since that was the wording you used, example. Vocabulary and context both influencing structure.

 

Some logicians would demand that you further improve that sentence this way (a syntax decision, forcing me then to choose a word to use as the vague noun to later be modified by the "would be" phrase; a vocabulary decision incited by a grammar rule):

 

"Right -- then what you'd have is an idea that would be arbitrary."

 

And further, some Professorahks would resent my contraction-ifying of "you would" -- that's not allowed in their vocabulary:

 

"Right -- then what you would have is an idea that would be arbitrary."

 

Context and vocab yet again affecting structure, and vice versa. You just can't seperate these things -- they are interrelated.

 

I love it when the words of a debate itself prove my point in that very debate. :D

Link to comment

Well, I came into this way too late, but I'll put my own two cents in anyway.

 

I personally believe mask powers should be easy to understand and judging from the walls o' text, many of these are quite, no, very confusing. Here is what I perceive these powers as being based upon their names:

 

Mask of Vulture: Drains the life energy of those near the wearer.

I would prefer to call this the "Mask of Predation." It is far simpler and should require far less explanation than "Vulture." This also bypasses the need to explain how the mask drains something that is not there.

 

Mask of Untranslation Incomprehension: Encrypts written languages and turns the speech of others into incoherent babble.

Probably best described as an anti-Rau.

 

Mask of Adaptation: Allows the user to take the maximum advantage of an environment.

There should be no confusion over this one. If the mask is removed, its power goes away. If Gali took off her Kaukau while underwater, and had no other way to breathe, she would eventually drown.

 

Mask of Sensory Aptitude: Enhances all five senses of the wearer.

I'd prefer this to be called "Sensory Enhancement." "Aptitude," while having the same basic meaning, does not accurately describe the mask power.

 

Mask of Absorption: Allows the wearer to temporarily absorb and use any power the wearer is exposed to.

This mask works the same way Vezok's power works; In order to use a power, he had to be exposed to it. Pouk's mask power requires him to study it before he can use it. Vezok could use the power instantly, if he survived it. Pouk's would only have to see the power in use. Greater risk= Greater gain or greater loss.

 

Mask of Aging: Allows the wearer to rapidly age anything the wearer touches.

Unlike Voporak who only had to be near something to age it, the wearer has to be in physical contact with the target.

 

Mask of Undeath: Drains minute amounts of life energy from the wearer and stores it till the wearer dies. Then, the wearer's body is infused with the energy and the body performs the last objective the wearer thought of before dying.

Zombification, anyone? This works similar to the Tryna, only the user gets reanimated.

 

Conjuring: Grants the wearer any feasible power desired, as long as the power has a drawback to its use. The mask is limited to one power at a time and will strike out at the wearer with a mental backlash if the power is not feasible or lacks a drawback.

Perhaps the most speculative of all the masks due to its awesome possibilities. Greg was wise to have the mask require a direct downside to the power usage.

 

Rebounding: Deflects the force of an opponent's attack back at them, causing the attacker to be hit with an equal amount of force.

This should function in the same way Balta's Twin Repellers do.

 

Mechanics: Grants the user control over mechanical objects.

This should function in a way similar to the Nynrah Ghost Blasters, only its effect is limited to the wearer's concentration. If the Ghost Blasters can override the mechanical components of biomechanical beings, I don't see why the mask can't control fully mechanical beings.

 

Fusion: Causes a forced fusion between the wearer and whoever or whatever the wearer is touching. The wearer must suppress the conscience of the other being or the merge will be undone.

I consider this something between a Kaita, the Spear of Fusion, and the Makuta's ability to absorb other beings.

 

I do admire your wanting to think "outside the brick" for these powers, but don't allow your originality to get consumed by over-complication. 8 year olds don't want to read a three page essay on a mask power, they just want one or two sentences describing the power and be done with it.

 

However, that's just my thoughts about it.

Link to comment
I personally believe mask powers should be easy to understand and judging from the walls o' text, many of these are quite, no, very confusing.

I'm listening, but the walls of text are coming from people complaining about the powers. Jimmybob and a few others asked some good questions about some of the details of the powers, but that is true of many official masks too (like the Kadin/Miru example). Also, within the traditions of Bionicle, using your brain and exploring what would happen in the rarer situations, exploring the details, is VERY Bionicle. So I don't think you can really say that Bionicle only allows super-short power definitions.

 

But the basic definitions of all the powers (except Conjuring -- but again, Greg himself added to that one :P) are very concise, just as concise as the typical other official powers.

 

:)

 

Mask of Vulture: Drains the life energy of those near the wearer.

That isn't consistent with what Vultures do -- they feed on the dead, not the living. That power would be more like Vorahk, or like the Avsa.

 

I would prefer to call this the "Mask of Predation."

That would imply the mask power preys on the living, or directly kills them, neither of which is the case (and was suggested earlier and turned down for that reason).

 

It is far simpler

It's a longer word, and less accurately sums up what the mask does. IMO, that makes it less simple. :P Besides, then you lose the meaning of the Vulture-like shape, and Vultraz's name (again).

 

should require far less explanation than "Vulture."

The only explanation Vulture really needs is, "Lets the user absorb escaping energies of the recently dead, similar to vultures feeding on the dead." It's a very simple power.

 

This also bypasses the need to explain how the mask drains something that is not there

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

Incomprehension: Encrypts written languages and turns the speech of others into incoherent babble.

Essentially right, but as said before, the word "ecrypts" implies it's encoding for another person who knows the code to decode. "Scrambles" or the like is a better word choice.

 

Probably best described as an anti-Rau.

And it is. :)

 

Mask of Adaptation: Allows the user to take the maximum advantage of an environment.

That's very vague. The current definition is much clearer -- mutates the user's body to suit the environment.

 

 

There should be no confusion over this one. If the mask is removed, its power goes away.

No, it's a permanent mutation; so if you take the mask away without changing back, you're stuck in that form. Which can be both good and bad. If you need to keep surviving in this place, you want this. But then, you would be stuck like that unless you got the mask back or such.

 

 

If Gali took off her Kaukau while underwater, and had no other way to breathe, she would eventually drown.

Right; and that would be an advantage of this mask over the Kaukau. On the other hand, if you didn't want to risk getting stuck as a water breather, you'd choose Kaukau, maybe with this as a backup.

 

Alright, software tells me I have too many quotes. Going to italics.

 

Mask of Sensory Aptitude: Enhances all five senses of the wearer.

That definition would suffice. I would still clarify the "but each is not as enhanced as, for example, the Akaku would enhance vision specifically" line. Or you could just say "slightly."

 

I'd prefer this to be called "Sensory Enhancement."

That would be fine, but it's lengthier. :P

 

"Aptitude," while having the same basic meaning, does not accurately describe the mask power.

Uh... I don't know where you get that. If it has the same basic meaning, it accurately describes the mask power. :P

 

And aptitude was chosen because that's what it does -- it doesn't, for example, give you X-Ray Vision like the Akaku, but you could see farther things better, see details better, etc. That's what "aptitude" means; making better use of what ability you already have.

 

Mask of Absorption: Allows the wearer to temporarily absorb and use any power the wearer is exposed to.

Remember that now this is being turned into Pouks' mask. So, it's more like "Allows the user to study any power they see in use, and slowly [insert a word here] it."

 

The word to insert might be emulate, since that appears to be wining the poll, heh. Although I guess it's better not to use a word in its definition. Copy. Whatever.

 

This mask works the same way Vezok's power works; In order to use a power, he had to be exposed to it.

No, that was the original plan, but now it's being change to Pouks' variation.

 

Pouk's mask power requires him to study it before he can use it. Vezok could use the power instantly, if he survived it. Pouk's would only have to see the power in use. Greater risk= Greater gain or greater loss.

Yeah, but the benefit of fusing the two masks into one is that we know what the shape of the mask Pouks wears is. (Although his actual one would be different, but anyways. :P) Plus, "Absorption" was too easily confused with "Adaptation," I felt. And Greg was fine with making them the same power, so I am.

 

Mask of Aging: Allows the wearer to rapidly age anything the wearer touches.

Unlike Voporak who only had to be near something to age it, the wearer has to be in physical contact with the target.

 

Well, there's already a limitation compared to Voporak -- it's not to the full power of his. It's only a Great mask. Given that, I don't think requiring touch is needed as another limitation.

 

However, that would be a nice limitation to add to the Noble version. :)

 

Mask of Undeath: Drains minute amounts of life energy from the wearer and stores it till the wearer dies. Then, the wearer's body is infused with the energy and the body performs the last objective the wearer thought of before dying.

Zombification, anyone? This works similar to the Tryna, only the user gets reanimated.

Basically, yeah.

 

Conjuring: Grants the wearer any feasible power desired, as long as the power has a drawback to its use. The mask is limited to one power at a time and will strike out at the wearer with a mental backlash if the power is not feasible or lacks a drawback.

Perhaps the most speculative of all the masks due to its awesome possibilities. Greg was wise to have the mask require a direct downside to the power usage.

Yar.

 

Rebounding: Deflects the force of an opponent's attack back at them, causing the attacker to be hit with an equal amount of force.

*bangs head on keyboard*

 

Sigh. That is totally not what rebounding does, lol. That would be Balta's tools. :) And that would be a defensive power, not an offensive power.

 

Rebounding is literally what it means -- rebounding your projectiles. Think basketball, guys.

 

I know, I know, the mistake on this one on BS01 is confusing people, but the correction is ready on the talk page. We can't edit that page right now 'cuz it's locked. (Probably it will be fixed once Pouks' power name is chosen, and such.)

 

But anyways. *sighs long* Rebounding allows your non-shattering, non-exploding projectiles to bounce back to you, so you can re-use them, along the lines of the skill in MNOG 2001. :)

 

So, an offensive power, not defensive.

 

 

This should function in the same way Balta's Twin Repellers do.

No, then it would just be another Hau clone. :P This is turning the 2001 disk skill, which I always loved, into an actual power. :)

 

Mechanics: Grants the user control over mechanical objects.

Again, there was a typo there on BS01; it's "Biomechanics." But nitpicking...

 

This should function in a way similar to the Nynrah Ghost Blasters, only its effect is limited to the wearer's concentration. If the Ghost Blasters can override the mechanical components of biomechanical beings, I don't see why the mask can't control fully mechanical beings.

It can -- but only if they're simple enough. If they're too complex, i.e. with clockwork brains, that would require something more powerful than a Great Mask (or Noble) is capable of.

 

On the other hand, if they're on your side, then technically you can do that. Because your "robotic telepathy" tells them what you want, and their loyalty makes them do it.

 

Fusion: Causes a forced fusion between the wearer and whoever or whatever the wearer is touching. The wearer must suppress the conscience of the other being or the merge will be undone.

I consider this something between a Kaita, the Spear of Fusion, and the Makuta's ability to absorb other beings.

Right.

 

I do admire your wanting to think "outside the brick" for these powers, but don't allow your originality to get consumed by over-complication.

None of them are overcomplicated. They're exactly as complicated as they need to be, for each of them, same as previous powers. :)

 

And most of the things you said aren't any more or less complicated. I could ask you detailed questions about the differences between Noble and Great, what would happen in specific situations, what about overlaps (like Hau with your Balta version of Rebounding), along the same lines as jimmybob did, and you'd end up with as much "complexity." :)

 

And that would be fine -- that's the Bionicle tradition. :) Greg has said over and over that Bionicle is a story you are supposed to have to work to understand.

 

 

8 year olds don't want to read a three page essay on a mask power, they just want one or two sentences describing the power and be done with it.

And they can. We've provided 'em. :) (Or we're working on it, in the case of the current BS01 Kanohi page. :P) Same as any other power. All the questions about "what about this this and this" can be (and are) asked about other official powers too. There is no difference.

 

Are you sure you know what 8-year-olds want, though? Greg's been doing this as his actual job for quite a while now. :P I trust his judgement on that.

Link to comment
Guest Thormen

Posted

(respone to your response to my response to ..., Bones. I'm putting quotes in bold)

 

Alright, I'm going to respond to your whole post but since it mostly digresses from the point I was trying to make in my earlier post I'll start with clarifying that.

 

For the record, I'm not arguing that 'Mask of Vulture' is an unsuitable name. What I'm doing is looking at the responses to this entry and its successor and concluding that there are quite a few people who think it's an unsuitable name because it doesn't sound right to them. I have a theory about what exactly is happening in people's heads when they look at the name and reject it for that reason.

 

You have made a lot of interesting (and a lot of them true) points about grammar, but the fact is the way you view grammar is not the way most people do when they are judging the name 'Mask of Vulture'. They refer back to the rules of grammar they learned in school, according to which "I control levitation." is grammatically correct, while "I control vulture." is not. BZPers don't have intuitive linguists inside of them!

 

So, on to your response...

 

And are you saying they are all grammatically correct? Other than Kindred?

 

Yes, disregarding the fact that 'vulture' and 'kindred' have new definitions.

 

(I think "power to control Kindred" implies something -- it implies that "kindred" is a word that isn't in my vocabulary yet, but that is probably related in some way to the meaning for "kindred" that I DO know -- that the power is involved with commonality between multiple living things in some way.

 

Sure, you can guess often what a grammatically incorrect phrase is supposed to mean. In a broad sense that means they do imply something seeing as they manage to get a part of the message across, but technically, according to the rules of English grammar, the phrase doesn't convey meaning.

 

Same with Vulture; you can't say it implies NOTHING -- it implies that there is a meaning for the word "vulture" that you don't yet know, but that the power probably could be compared in some way to what vultures do. :) But for sake of analyzing what you are saying, I'll ignore this from here on in this post.)

 

That's what you can guess from its etymology, but it still doesn't technically convey meaning.

 

Well, then it comes down to how much of grammar are you allowing to be considered? I agree that by some measures of grammar (forcing a limitation on what we consider in the field of grammar), Vulture would not be considered "grammatically correct." My point is, that's an arbitrary limitation to force upon grammar, and is we force such limitations, why not force more on it?

 

As I pointed out, vocabulary knowledge is an essential part of grammar. At the moment, the only problem grammatically that I see with Vulture is if you do not have the vocabulary knowledge about it yet. As I showed, the same problem would be true of MANY of those other examples I listed.

 

Vocabulary knowledge is only essential to grammar insofar as, if you know what a word means, you also (usually) know what word class it belongs to. That's the grey area where grammar and vocabulary overlap. Since your new definition of 'vulture' has a different word class than the existing definition(s), you need to know your new definition to see the phrase 'I control vulture' as a grammatically correct one. Same goes for 'kindred'.

 

Arguably, other power names changed word class too, for instance 'shielding'. In the original sense, it could be used as a verb, as in 'I shield myself from the attack.'. You can however say that in the power-definition it is an abstract noun, seeing as no one in BIONICLE ever said 'I shield.' and meant 'I used the power of shielding.'. This possible class change isn't relevant though, because both classes are viable with the phrase 'I control'.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's remove that one, and consider other grammatical limitations instead:

 

For example:

 

 

control Water Breathing -- inaccurate to the vocabulary; it doesn't control it, it switches it on.

 

control Rahi Control -- repeated word error (I know you "copped out" of this, but that's not fair -- I could just cop out of Vulture and say it's obvious you need to add "-like energy absorption" to it.)

 

control Spirit -- again, way inaccurate to the vocabulary; the mask lets you send out your spirit, not control spirit in an elemental or generic power sense

 

control Fate -- this one is arguable. Assuming you knew the definition, you could see it as okay. But you might also notice that the wording isn't quite what the power means, according to that very definition, more so than with most others.

 

control Kindred -- again, both you and I have covered that one

 

control Corruption -- another arguable one, but you can't ignore that even knowing the definition, you see that the phrase implies something totally not intended by the actual definition. You'd prefer the phrase to be worded something more like this -- "corrupt material objects" and probably make an analogy to corrosion.

 

control Elemental Energy -- inaccurate to the vocabulary again

 

 

I think those are worse grammatical errors than a lack of vocabulary knowledge with Vulture -- since that is rectified simply by learning its definition, and since as I said, so many other ones would have problems in the phrase by that logic.

 

Barring Kindred, none of these are grammatical errors because the structure allows for those word classes to be used. The fact that the phrase implies something different from what the actual meaning is does not make it grammatically incorrect. (I'll explain further in response to a different section of your post)

 

control Vulture -- grammatically, the meanings of "control a Vulture" or "control vultures" are clearly not possible interpretations, so you would have to consult the definition alone. Once "Vulture" is defined as the absorbing of energy from recently dead, as the name of the power, you see that "control the absorbing of energy from recently dead" works perfectly fine grammatically.

 

Once it's defined as you did, it is grammatically correct. As long as your definition isn't around, 'control a vulture/vultures' are clearly the only grammatically possible phrases (not interpretations...).

 

Well, how correct they feel depends on how much you know about grammar, I guess. There are lots of technically grammatically incorrect phrases like "I ain't done nothing wrong" that feel correct to lots of people, but to others, feel wrong because they violate certain limitations that those others place upon grammar.

 

However, there is also the linguistic argument that logically, etymologically, historically, there is no actual reason other than sheer arbitrary choice to consider "no none" a double negation, rather than emphasis on its negative-ness. There are many languages that use multiple "no"s to mean "very not". Mathematically, a double negation is always meant, but grammar is not math; if both negatives are modifing "done something wrong" in an allegiance rather than a mathematical step-by-step, then grammatically "ain't done nothing wrong" is perfectly correct.

 

The key is that the speaker and recipient understand what grammar is being intended, and thus get the meaning correctly.

 

Don't blame me for that answer, BTW, that example comes directly from a linguistics professor whose class I took. :P

 

The original speaker in that example is not very educated about grammar, and they see it as okay. If they're speaking to someone else who uses their grammar, this first hearer (who doesn't know much about grammar in general, but knows THIS grammar) thinks it's fine too, and understand it perfectly.

 

The next hearer (the stereotypical English professor lol) knows some things about grammar, but not as much as the third hearer does. Because they only accept the grammar of "Proper English With a Capitcal P", it feels wrong to them -- even though they still probably understand it just fine.

 

But the third hearer in this example -- the educated linguist -- knows that the rules of "Proper English With a Captial P" are arbitrary, mostly made up by English professors trying to find justifications for their jobs (:P), and understands the intended grammar of the original speaker, and approves of it, knowing that "double negation" can be emphasis.

 

This third hearer, if asked, could point out to the second one that there are even examples of this in "Proper" English -- "No, no, no, that is not what I meant," for example. A quadruple negation, yet even by all rules of proper English, it is considered emphasis and just fine, because something else (the commas) mitigate the normal double negation rule. In the case of the original speaker, another something else mitigated that rule; a rule the second hearer simply didn't know.

 

And that got waaaaaay tangential...

 

I agree with all that.

 

So again the question comes down to "according to whose grammar, and why should we impose their grammar, rather than the grammar that is actually intended?"

 

 

This is why I'm a grammar rebel, lol.

 

But there IS a possible answer to this. I'm just not gonna feed it to you; you have to figure it out for yourself. :P Maybe we should impose their grammar, but why?

 

If people intuitively think a sentence doesn't sound right, they're obviously imposing their own grammar on the sentence regardless of whether there is a good reason to do so. However, if you want to use language the way it is intended, to get a message across, the best grammar to impose would be the grammar that's understood 'across', at the receiver's end. As long as you know what grammar that is, though, and that's why intellectuals of the past took all different dialects of their language and mixed them to form one 'correct' language.

 

Although I'm often forced to wonder what grammar I should use, seeing as English isn't my native language and I don't have a specific reason to favor (favour?) either British or American. I usually choose American, seeing as I think all the people who want to have a fancy-shmancy British accent make it an overrated dialect. (But that's my personal taste, everyone, I'm not trying to offend anyone.)

 

I don't see the difference. :P If most people feel it's unsuitable (and I dunno if we've seen most people saying that), then it's unsuitable. Because the aim is to please.

 

I don't think it's unsuitable because I don't see a logical argument against it, but I think a lot of people find it unsuitable because of the theory I explained earlier. However, if you don't see a difference between the two... why not make this into a poll? There have been a few suggestions so a poll would be easily created, and that way you can be more sure that the name pleases.

 

Which is just a fancy way of saying "Mask of Vulture is one of the clearest mask names we have" -- you can't possibly confuse it for something else. :P

 

Not a fancy way, rather a negative way. I was more or less pointing out the price you paid for a clear mask name. However, seeing as the price wasn't totally paid, you didn't get a totally unambiguous name either: you see 'vulture' and you think of vultures and try to guess a power behind it, and might come up with the wrong one (if you didn't decide to read the description, of course).

 

If you really want an unambiguous name, you shouldn't have an English name at all, only a Matoran one. That way, no one can presuppose it has different powers than it actually has, but you don't get the aspect of a descriptive name, which is the only function of those English names.

 

Mask of Shielding -- it WAS possible for the phrase "control Shielding" to carry meaning before you knew the definition, but the phrase would convey the WRONG meaning.

 

Mask of Vulture -- no previously-established definition is brought to mind by "control Vulture", so you do not get an incorrect meaning conveyed. The only possible interpretation of that phrase that is grammatical is the one conveyed by its actual definition -- thus the name is very accurate.

 

Entirely true, that's the positive side.

 

And that's just another way to say what I pointed out at the beginning -- that the name was chosen because it's the clearest, most concise English word I could think of that conveyed the closest meaning of what the mask does. The power is best compared to a Vulture. Voila, your reasoning has only backed up that statement, in an roundabout fashion. :P

 

Uh, I don't really think that's what I said... It's more your own reasoning that's bacing your statement up.

 

Right, but those would be inaccurate meanings.

 

Yes, but they'd still be grammatically correct.

 

It's a copout. :P The point is, you modified the phrase to make it "feel right". But don't allow that for Vulture. That's not consistent. No offense (of course), but there's a term for that -- "double standard".

 

No, it's not a copout. People don't actually think the words 'mask ... control' in their mind when they see 'mask of', but they view it as having the same meaning and grammatical properties, i.e. as being synonymous. Adding new words changes the meaning and possibly the grammatical properties, meaning it makes a world of difference in being grammatically correct.

 

Of course, but the point is, you allowed a change to be made to fix that error. Which ruins the logic that the phrase unchanged must feel correct. If you can change that phrase to feel correct, why not change Vulture's phrase to feel correct?

 

My logic wasn't that the 'mask ... control' phrase was supposed to feel correct unchanged, it was supposed to be grammatically correct, which in turn would make 'mask of' phrase 'feel' correct.

 

You are assuming that all change is equal, which is definitely not the case in every situation I can imagine. The term for that is 'overgeneralization'. ;)

 

Did anyone know the meaning of "Levitation" before they read the definition of a Miru? That it refers to the levitating of the user -- NOT to of other things? No, they only knew part of it.

 

No, they only knew the other definitions, which were still grammatically viable with my phrase.

 

All this says is, the name spurs you to want to read the definition. Isn't that good? It still conveys the basic idea, but without conveying inaccurate versions of it as much as many other powers would, in that phrase.

 

Could be good, could be bad. I never tried to argue either one of them.

 

And at this point I'd just like to remind you that you made up the phrase anyways. :P

 

Yes, because that seemed to convey the implicit meaning of 'mask of' to me.

 

Again, I know what you're trying to say, I think. And better alternatives might exist -- Aanchir has suggested a nice one -- but (to me!) the arguments only raise issues that can be easily remedied by simply reading the definition, and I don't see what's wrong with reading the definition (:P) so I'm (personally) okay with it.

 

The problem with reading the definition is it's a posteriori, it happens after you read the name and that's when the 'damage' has already been done: you'll already have the feeling that it sounds wrong.

 

Depending on what grammar teacher you listen to, that's right. Ambiguous wording is a structural issue, and often considered to be an error that must be corrected, by changing the structure.

 

(On the other hand, I personally love to use it in story titles, for example, to convey ALL the multiple meanings in various ways throughout the story. In that case, by the grammar I intend, it should be seen as correct. Since I am a fan of multiple meanings.)

 

Are you sure about it being an error? I've namely never heard anyone claim that ambiguity is a grammatical issue.

 

Yes, and ambiguous wording is clearly within that definition. You would argue otherwise?

 

No, I wouldn't, but that is beside the point. The definition also clearly allows for ambiguity, making it not an error at all.

 

Well, if a liar said that, intending it as a lie, it would be grammatically correct because they intend it to do what it does -- to decieve. If a non-liar said it, intending to be accurate, it would be grammatically incorrect, according to their intent. If a language existed where a rule of grammar was "lies are incorrect grammar," then it would be ungrammatical regardless of the intent, because the statement is not structured in the right way with the right words, in the right places, to form a true statement.

 

No, a lie, or an untruth, is grammatically correct regardless of intent. If you can even call it linguistically incorrect, that wouldn't be in the field of grammar, but semantics (which, contrary to syntax, is not a part of grammar). You can make complex, grammatically correct sentences without anyone understanding what you're trying to say.

 

(Actually, that is virtually a rule of grammar in the thinking of the Unknown in my fanfics. They seek to remain secret, but without lying. So their grammar has all sorts of ways to be purposefully ambiguous without lying. They can answer most questions without lying, by making structural decisions as to how word their answers (something real world politicians do too, but we can't get into that :P).

 

And if a question cornered them, they would refuse to lie, not from a morality that bans deception, but from a rule about speech. I haven't previously thought about this being seen as grammar, but it's definately very close to it. As shapeshifters, they hide using blatant deception visually all the time -- appearing to be a mere rock for instance, but in language they do not use blatant deception, because they see the purpose of language as to communicate truth. It's so ingrained in their way of thinking it probably wouldn't even occur to many of them, the ones who aren't out in the world of the Paracosmos dealing with lying villains, anyways. That definately counts as part of grammar.)

 

Cool! Looking forward to reading that in the epics.

 

All grammar is a game of vocabulary. You must see that. Without the vocabulary meanings of each word, they are mere gibberish. There could be no parts of speech without vocabulary; no verbs, no subjects, etc. Grammar deals with how you arrange those disjointed meanings in ways that make the disjointed meanings, and intended choices of meanings among multiple meanings, be communicated and understood by the recipient. It also categorizes the jisjointed meanings into grammatical parts of speech.

 

If there were words that didn't mean anything but still had a word class, you'd be able to make grammatically correct sentences with them. They'd still be gibberish, but it'd be grammatically correct gibberish. It's impossible to build a building's structure without building blocks, but that doesn't mean you can't use empty ones.

 

I'm not saying that another word might not convey the meaning better -- but I'm saying it's the best word choice I have seen yet. As such, by the intent of naming the power, and since not much else can be mistakenly interpreted from it, it works grammatically.

 

It works grammatically now that it has a new definition with a new word class. The fact that not much else can be mistakenly interpreted from it makes it work semantically.

 

To argue that grammar is not about vocabulary is like saying solving a puzzle is not about the shapes of the puzzle pieces.

 

True, but it's not about the meaning of the words, it's about their possible functions.

 

Exactly -- it requires the right knowledge be in place in the minds of the sender and reciever, so that the sender can translate their thoughts into sonic vibrations (or visual shapes, in this case, though electronic signals), which the reciever must then translate back into a thought. To do that, the reciever must have all the correct grammaticaly information -- correct meaning, the same grammar that the sender intends.

 

Yet, we each are forced to form our own "translation software" from our own unique formative experiences, different vocabulary and syntax we observe being used by other people, often regional (hence dialect), our own unique brain arrangements genetically, etc. The chances of two people having exactly the same translation software are astronomical. Yet the similarities within one language or one dialect (a version of the language, with its own "correctness" no matter what the Professorahks of a different dialect called "Proper English" claim, but usually subconsciously learned, rather than taught later in a school) are close enough that vast majority of the time, communication is clear enough to be satisfactory to both sender and receiver.

 

True, except you'd have to replace 'grammar' with 'semantics'.

 

 

That depends on if 1) I care which crate it is :P oe 2) whether more than one crate is open (they are normally stacked, so only the top one is open).

 

If Dad didn't intend to convey WHICH crate Buddy's in, and I understand exactly what he intended to convey, then even if there are two crates available, I still got the intended meaning. Thus, there was no grammatical issue. If he did intend it, but I don't care, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no grammatical issue (but Dad might see a grammatical issue, and think to clarify on his own, which I might not even register, or wouldn't care about).

 

Likewise, if I already know that only one crate was available, that vocabulary knowledge completes the meaning for me, and thus there is likewise no grammatical issue.

 

Remember, as you yourself said, grammar is about structure, the combining of elements from a language (translation -- vocabulary!) into a phrase that conveys a meaning. The part I would add to what you said is that it is supposed to convey the intended meaning. (Or in my titles example, the intended meanings.)

 

Like I said above, the study of the meaning intended is semantics.

 

Go back to the sender/reciever idea (which is the basic concept of linguistics, as defined by the aforementioned linguistics prof). The whole point of talking is for the sender to get a thought from their own brain into the reciever's brain.

 

But the reciever does not have a direct nerve connection to the sender's brain. Even if they did, they'd still need to have a brain that reads signals in the same way as the sender's brain. Grammar is the overall topic of what signal translation "software" is needed to be shared by both sender and reciever in order to do what the sender intended -- to send the thought.

 

That is accomplished through structure of vocabulary. Vocabulary can be thought of as sets of strings of signal variations, of specific arrangements, which are attached in both minds to meanings (which are much larger sets of brain data). But these signals can have different connections to different meanings, so they alone are not necessarily enough. Grammar syntax must be used WITH vocabulary -- also called context -- to determine which brain connection should be 'read' by the receiver.

 

You're overestimating grammar here. As you said, grammar is syntax, and in actual software, syntax isn't the only thing that matters, is it? If you write a piece of code you can mess it up by typing stuff that won't fit with the syntax; you'll get an error message about a 'syntax error' or 'error in line x, operator y not expected', stuff like that.

 

However, if you mess the code up in another way, you'll create different glitches, which are not 'syntax errors'; otherwise, why would they bother calling it a 'syntax error'?

 

There is no rule in (normal) English grammar that context be limited to single sentences. Although maybe there should be. :P That's why context is so important to quotes. So yes, the two together would have no grammatical issue -- as long as both sender and receiver STILL have the same grammar. If one speaks a foreign language only, they will lack BOTH the syntax grammar AND the vocabulary grammar to understand it.

 

As far as I know, a sentence is supposed to be able to stand alone grammatically... And what do you mean 'vocabulary grammar'? If you're talking about word classes, that's syntax too, and the only other form of grammar is morphology.

 

However, yeah, if someone said "convey your idea in only one sentence", then it would be grammatically incorrect, in that weird instance. :P

 

Grammar is not a matter of doing what other people say... that's obeying.

 

Is your grammar the reason why your story isn't conveying that meaning? Did you want to convey that meaning? Is the reader just skimming and then blaming you? :P

 

If you failed to include any hint in the text of who the protagonist is (that isn't contradicted by other apparent hints, in most readers' eyes), but meant to and thought you did, you have a grammar issue. Either that or you just imagined yourself writing something and forgot to actually do it. :P

That's a far stretch of the definition of grammar. If you unintentionally don't give enough information, people will criticize that, but I've never heard any literary critic call that a grammatical issue.

 

Context is part of structure.

 

I was wrong when I said they weren't related, but I'd say it's the other way round: structure is part of context.

 

Look. Let's get the old Dictionary.com up here. I won't use quote boxes 'cuz I might be approaching the limit...

 

Some examples:

1. the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax.

2. these features or constructions themselves: English grammar.

 

 

1a The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.

1b The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.

1c The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language.

 

2a The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language.

2b The system of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that language.

 

 

The rules for standard use of words. A grammar is also a system for classifying and analyzing the elements of language.

 

 

Here's an interesting one on the history of the word:

grammar

1176, gramarye, from O.Fr. grammaire "learning," especially Latin and philology, from L. grammatica, from Gk. grammatike tekhne "art of letters," with a sense of both philology and literature in the broadest sense, from gramma "letter," from stem of graphein "to draw or write." Restriction to "rules of language" is a post-classical development, but as this type of study was until 16c. limited to Latin, M.E. gramarye also came to mean "learning in general, knowledge peculiar to the learned classes" (c.1320), which included astrology and magic; hence the secondary meaning of "occult knowledge" (c.1470), which evolved in Scottish into glamour (q.v.). A grammar school (1387) was originally "a school in which the learned languages are grammatically taught" [Johnson, who also has grammaticaster "a mean verbal pedant"]. In U.S. (1860) the term was put to use in the graded system for "a school between primary and secondary, where English grammar is taught."

 

Common to all the definitions I quoted, and some I didn't, is the idea that grammar is the OVERALL study of how to convey meaning through language, including the meanings of the words themselves, and even things like linguistic history and even pronunciation! (I've never heard it used for prununciation specifically, but okay. :P Makes sense; pronunciation conveys meaning similarly to how vocabulary does.)

 

In other words, meaning is conveyed by the specific signals themselves (words; which must have vocabulary knowledge in the reciever to "feel" right), variations in those specific signals (pronunciation), and the structure of the words (syntax, word choice, context, etc.). All of these things are important for grammar to "feel" right to the receiever.

 

The history of grammar you gave makes it clear that the word used to have a more general meaning than it has now. In the definitions, the only time the word 'meaning' is used is definition 1b, so obviously meaning isn't a grand focus of grammar. I'm not saying grammar and meaning are entirely unrelated, they are related in the sense that grammar adds meaning, but if the meaning isn't very clear or ambiguous or such, it's not a grammatical issue, it's a semantical issue.

 

Context is part of structure.

 

Surely when you look a bridge, you don't say "those supports around the one I'm looking at are irrelevant to the structure"? Well, most bridge designs do have redundant supports, more than they minimally need, but still -- even that is a structural choice. The whole thing together affects the meaning conveyed.

 

Another example, take a sentence. Let's say:

 

"Grammar is not about context, grammar is structure."

 

Are there any grammatical problems with this?

 

Well, according to Professorahk English, yes; there is a comma splice. Okay, let's be fair and fix that, for the Professorahk's sake. :P

 

"Grammar is not about context; grammar is structure."

 

Okay, we now have something that is totally correct according to the grammar of a Professorahk. But would all people consider this to "feel" right?

 

No. Another professor I had in the field of fiction writing would point out that the semicolon is obsolete. These days, the em dash is preferred, and can be approximated with a space, two dashes, and a space. Okay, so:

 

"Grammar is not about context -- grammar is structure."

 

So is everybody happy? No, the Professorahk and the fiction editor are now warring -- it's semicolon versus em dash, who will win? And some fiction writers are lamenting the lazy use of the double dash instead of a true em dash.

 

Meanwhile, we have other people who would say, "the comma is fine, I don't want this weird stuff". There's a new grammar developing in English (and remember both the grammars of the English Professor and the Fiction Professor developed), in which fancy-schancy-ness is bad. Simple is best; comma splices are fine. This is especially seen on the internet. (I personally still don't like comma splices, but I also can appreciate that this new grammar is essentially another language; a different version of English in the same way English is a different version of the larger Germanic language family from German or Dutch or whatnot. One that English and History professors will likely never accept, so you shouldn't use it on their term papers... but otherwise pretty much okay XD.)

 

Okay, but all three agree that THIS is grammatically correct:

 

"Grammar is not about context. Grammar is structure."

 

Uh-oh.

 

Now, to understand the full meaning of the whole idea you tried to convey, we must definately deal with context. And we got stuck in this predicament for structural reasons.

 

Besides, I'm not sure if anyone would limit the definition of "context" even just to other sentences. Let's see...

 

Dictionary.com #1:

the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

 

Well, okay, according to this definition, words within a statement is fair game for context considerations.

 

Okay, so, let's chop up your statement. :P No reason we can't if context isn't important!

 

"Grammar is not about"

 

Okay, this is not a sentence; it lacks puncuation.

 

"Grammar is not about."

 

:o NEVER END A SENTENCE A PREPOSITION WITH! :P

 

Plus, it doesn't convey the intended meaning. The structure is affected by how many components are included, as is the meaning. But let's take this even further, and fix that preposition error:

 

"Grammar is not about structure."

 

I used words that were included in your original (grammatically flawed) statement as a whole. I just didn't tell you that I left some out. That too is a grammatical problem. But if I was "lying," purposefully messing with context in order to decieve, it would be considered perfectly grammatically correct, as you yourself pointed out. I'd be falsely claiming this is what you said.

 

And so, we could conclude that grammar has nothing to do with structure, because the ONLY thing we didn't consider is context -- everything else was an attempt to fix problems of syntax. Which of course would be silly.

 

We could even say, "oh we don't want to liiiiie" and add this nifty little grammatical trick, I've caught newspapers in several times lol:

 

"Grammar is not about... structure."

 

This is 100% grammatically correct in EVERY way besides context, even using a clear indicator that I left something out. It even implies, since I'm honest that I left something out, that whatever I left out must not change the meaning, or I wouldn't have been so honest about it. It's a subtle way to lie; even telling you it's not totally in context, but relying on sheer trust and laziness that you won't get caught.

 

 

So aaaaanyways. I used your claim that grammar is not about context to prove the exact opposite. :) Context is a part of structure.

 

Whee, that was fun, but tangential again... :P *tries to get back on topic...*

 

I loves da grammers. :D

 

True, what I said was incorrect. What I meant was, if you have a grammatically correct sentence, and you add context which modifies the meaning of the sentence (but keeps the sentence as one piece), that will never turn the sentence into a grammatically incorrect one.

 

All my half-joking tangents aside, what you're missing is that the vocabulary meanings affect what structures are grammatical, sometimes even depending on which definition of the same word is used. And at the very least, what part of speech a word is, is a vocabulary issue -- you can't know that without knowing the word's meaning -- and parts of speech is a major grammar issue. Surely even you would not deny that -- you can't just put any old word anywhere within the structure -- it must be the right vocabulary; the right part of speech.

 

(The preposition rule, for example, relies on this. Because I know "about" is a preposition -- it's in my vocabulary -- I know it isn't supposed to go at the exact end of a sentence, according to a grammar rule of Professorahks.)

 

You're right that vocabulary has some influence, but, as I mentioned above, only to the extent that it shows which word class/part of speech a word is. Beyond that, you won't make any vocabulary related grammatical errors.

 

Oh, it's very susceptible to being flawed alright, but so is conscious logic. :P Instead of going off on another of my tangents this time, I'll just recommend reading what Cesar Millan has to say about this subject in his second book, I think titled "Be the Pack Leader". And say that conscious training can reprogram the subconscious to be more accurate. And say... if many people's subconsciouses are gonna make them not like Vulture, it's a problem, for reasons I've outlined many times about entertainment.

 

Interesting... But I only think that works as long as you point out what earlier subconscious logic was flawed and in what way, otherwise people will train but still keep their flaws as a basic: building on a swamp, as it were.

 

The thing is, if conscious logic is flawed, it's easy to outline to others what conscious logic you were following and is thus easier for them to expose the flaws, but if subconscious logic is flawed, it's harder to expose the flaws because it works subconsciously. I'm trying to expose the subconscious logic everyone's having, but that's of course only theoretical.

 

Right -- then what you'd have is arbitrariness. (Arbitraritude? Arbitrariousity? :P)

 

Hey, let's go with that, while I'm arguing for the relevance of vocabulary to grammar. I just stumbled on another example by accident.

 

I want to say that the argument you identified there would be arbitrary. But because I lack the vocabulary knowledge of the commonly accepted ("proper") noun form of the adjective "arbitrary" (if any), I would have to make a structural choice if I wanted to be sure to be correct, within my limited knowledge.

 

"Right -- then what you'd have would be arbitrary."

 

Several structural choices in fact -- the choice to go ahead and use the adjective, the choice of how to do so in a grammatically "correct" way (going with a noun-like direct object format for the verb "have", but substituting a "be phrase" in the place of the noun), the choice to keep the reference to "what you have" for contextual reasons since that was the wording you used, example. Vocabulary and context both influencing structure.

 

Some logicians would demand that you further improve that sentence this way (a syntax decision, forcing me then to choose a word to use as the vague noun to later be modified by the "would be" phrase; a vocabulary decision incited by a grammar rule):

 

"Right -- then what you'd have is an idea that would be arbitrary."

 

And further, some Professorahks would resent my contraction-ifying of "you would" -- that's not allowed in their vocabulary:

 

"Right -- then what you would have is an idea that would be arbitrary."

 

Context and vocab yet again affecting structure, and vice versa. You just can't seperate these things -- they are interrelated.

 

I agree with that all, but you have to see that this vocabulary influence on grammar is limited to word classes. For instance, you can write almost the same paragraph as you just did with the only difference being you'd replace 'arbitrary' and its derived terms with 'smart' (smartitude? smartiousity?), and it wouldn't change a thing about the grammatical structure. It would change the meaning though.

Link to comment
Mask of Vulture: Drains the life energy of those near the wearer.

That isn't consistent with what Vultures do -- they feed on the dead, not the living. That power would be more like Vorahk, or like the Avsa.

So... the Mask of Vulture transforms the bodies of the deceased into life energy which can then be absorbed by the wearer? That's what vultures do. Unless, of course, you're assuming that there is a type of energy that leaves the body upon death that could be absorbed by a wearer of the Mask of Vulture.

 

I would prefer to call this the "Mask of Predation."

That would imply the mask power preys on the living, or directly kills them, neither of which is the case (and was suggested earlier and turned down for that reason).

Only on those poor souls foolish enough to be around the wearer for a really long time.

 

It is far simpler

It's a longer word, and less accurately sums up what the mask does. IMO, that makes it less simple. :P Besides, then you lose the meaning of the Vulture-like shape, and Vultraz's name (again).

Perhaps not simpler, but easier to understand. Mask power names are not developed based on how "poetic" the name is, they are the power summarized in one to three words. Otherwise, the Kadin could have been called the Mask of Gukko. After all, Gukko birds can fly, so a Kanohi Kadin user would be like a Gukko.

 

should require far less explanation than "Vulture."

The only explanation Vulture really needs is, "Lets the user absorb escaping energies of the recently dead, similar to vultures feeding on the dead." It's a very simple power.

And that brings up the questions; What type of energies? Life? Elemental? Spiritual? How do we know they escape?

 

This also bypasses the need to explain how the mask drains something that is not there.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Never mind that statement. See above.

 

Incomprehension: Encrypts written languages and turns the speech of others into incoherent babble.

Essentially right, but as said before, the word "encrypts" implies it's encoding for another person who knows the code to decode. "Scrambles" or the like is a better word choice.

Agreed.

 

Mask of Adaptation: Allows the user to take the maximum advantage of an environment.

That's very vague. The current definition is much clearer -- mutates the user's body to suit the environment.

Or it could work like the Toa Nuva's adaptive armor.

 

There should be no confusion over this one. If the mask is removed, its power goes away.

No, it's a permanent mutation; so if you take the mask away without changing back, you're stuck in that form. Which can be both good and bad. If you need to keep surviving in this place, you want this. But then, you would be stuck like that unless you got the mask back or such.

So if a team of Toa took turns using this mask, they all could theoretically mutate into water-breathers? The way you want it to work, a Huna wearer would remain invisible, a Pakari would remain super strong, etc, etc... if their masks were removed while active. Every mask will and should shut down its power when removed, the only the exception to this is the Olmak under certain conditions.

 

Mask of Sensory Aptitude: Enhances all five senses of the wearer.

That definition would suffice. I would still clarify the "but each is not as enhanced as, for example, the Akaku would enhance vision specifically" line. Or you could just say "slightly."

Actually, the Akaku would only give you X-Ray vision. Any sight enhancement done by it would be by built-in telescopic lenses. So, I don't see why the Mask of Sensory Aptitude should be limited because of it.

 

"Aptitude," while having the same basic meaning, does not accurately describe the mask power.

Uh... I don't know where you get that. If it has the same basic meaning, it accurately describes the mask power. :P

Never mind that. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time.

 

Mask of Absorption: Allows the wearer to temporarily absorb and use any power the wearer is exposed to.

Remember that now this is being turned into Pouks' mask. So, it's more like "Allows the user to study any power they see in use, and slowly [insert a word here] it."

I understand the reasoning behind it, they both accomplish the same thing, just by different methods, but I still feel as though the methods of copying are different enough to merit individual masks.

 

Pouk's mask power requires him to study it before he can use it. Vezok could use the power instantly, if he survived it. Pouk's would only have to see the power in use. Greater risk= Greater gain or greater loss.

Yeah, but the benefit of fusing the two masks into one is that we know what the shape of the mask Pouks wears is. (Although his actual one would be different, but anyways. :P) Plus, "Absorption" was too easily confused with "Adaptation," I felt. And Greg was fine with making them the same power, so I am.

What about the Mask of Clairvoyance? Or the Mask of Rahi Control? Why not use these for the unnamed Kanohi? Why create new powers?

 

Mask of Aging: Allows the wearer to rapidly age anything the wearer touches.

Unlike Voporak who only had to be near something to age it, the wearer has to be in physical contact with the target.

Well, there's already a limitation compared to Voporak -- it's not to the full power of his. It's only a Great mask. Given that, I don't think requiring touch is needed as another limitation.

For what reason would you limit it in that way? It should be to the full power of Voporak.

 

Rebounding: Deflects the force of an opponent's attack back at them, causing the attacker to be hit with an equal amount of force.

Rebounding is literally what it means -- rebounding your projectiles. Think basketball, guys.

You mean, think boomerangs. Specifically, Hydraxon's exploding boomerangs. If they exploded, they didn't come back. If they didn't explode, they would return to him. Only the mask requires the thrown object to bounce against something in order for it to return.

 

This should function in the same way Balta's Twin Repellers do.

No, then it would just be another Hau clone. :P This is turning the 2001 disk skill, which I always loved, into an actual power. :)

Ah, okay, that makes sense now. However, the Hau just protects, making it a defensive mask. Balta's Repellers, acted as both offensive and defensive tools, making it not just another Hau clone.

 

Mechanics: Grants the user control over mechanical objects.

Again, there was a typo there on BS01; it's "Biomechanics." But nitpicking...

No, I like mechanical. It covers a wider range of abilities.

 

This should function in a way similar to the Nynrah Ghost Blasters, only its effect is limited to the wearer's concentration. If the Ghost Blasters can override the mechanical components of biomechanical beings, I don't see why the mask can't control fully mechanical beings.

It can -- but only if they're simple enough. If they're too complex, i.e. with clockwork brains, that would require something more powerful than a Great Mask (or Noble) is capable of.

Why would it be able to control biomechanics but not full mechanics? Why only simple machines? And how simple is simple? Fire drones? Vahki? Exo-Toa armor?

 

On the other hand, if they're on your side, then technically you can do that. Because your "robotic telepathy" tells them what you want, and their loyalty makes them do it.

What makes a "friendly" robot different from an "unfriendly" robot? The mask should allow the user to control all mechanics, the only limit should be the user's knowledge of mechanics.

 

I do admire your wanting to think "outside the brick" for these powers, but don't allow your originality to get consumed by over-complication.

None of them are overcomplicated. They're exactly as complicated as they need to be, for each of them, same as previous powers. :)

But those powers came from Greg, the story team, and the set designers. LEGO employees. If fans threw a fit about a power, like the Miru/Kadin incident, oh well. These powers were made by fans. Non-LEGO employees. The easier the powers are to understand, the less questions that have to be asked, the closer to the accepted norm, the better it will be accepted among the general fan-base.

 

And most of the things you said aren't any more or less complicated. I could ask you detailed questions about the differences between Noble and Great, what would happen in specific situations, what about overlaps (like Hau with your Balta version of Rebounding), along the same lines as jimmybob did, and you'd end up with as much "complexity." :)

And I will gladly answer any questions you have about the powers I stated.

 

 

8 year olds don't want to read a three page essay on a mask power, they just want one or two sentences describing the power and be done with it.

And they can. We've provided 'em. :) (Or we're working on it, in the case of the current BS01 Kanohi page. :P) Same as any other power. All the questions about "what about this this and this" can be (and are) asked about other official powers too. There is no difference.

 

Are you sure you know what 8-year-olds want, though? Greg's been doing this as his actual job for quite a while now. :P I trust his judgement on that.

I was merely refering to yours and Thormen's emmensly long posts on why Vulture is or is not a good mask power name.

Link to comment

Gonna vary quote tags and italic for quotes.

QUOTE
Alright, I'm going to respond to your whole post but since it mostly digresses from the point I was trying to make in my earlier post I'll start with clarifying that.

For the record, I'm not arguing that 'Mask of Vulture' is an unsuitable name.

And to be crystal clear, I did catch that.

QUOTE
What I'm doing is looking at the responses to this entry and its successor and concluding that there are quite a few people who think it's an unsuitable name because it doesn't sound right to them. I have a theory about what exactly is happening in people's heads when they look at the name and reject it for that reason.

Yeah, got that too. And again, if enough people are going to automatically have that problem (whether the it actually makes sense or not), then we have a real objective problem. Because if something doesn't please most fans, it's arguably a problem.

(Although some things are supposed to be treats to minority fans, something I also support.)

Most of what I'm doing is addressing why I don't think the problem makes sense. But that should NOT be misconstrued as me saying it should be ignored. In some things, perception is reality.


Really, it depends on if enough people mind this alleged problem enough to matter, or if it's a select minority.


You have made a lot of interesting (and a lot of them true) points about grammar, but the fact is the way you view grammar is not the way most people do
Most people aren't English majors. :P I'm well aware of that, but when someone, who doesn't really know much about grammar, claims "it's not grammatically correct," and they're wrong about that, I'ma say dat. But keep my other cautions to that in mind.

They refer back to the rules of grammar they learned in school, according to which "I control levitation." is grammatically correct, while "I control vulture." is not. BZPers don't have intuitive linguists inside of them!
Yeah, and most people aren't interested enough in the topic to get as much schooling on it as I have, or remember all that they -were- exposed to. I get that, don't worry. :P


Sure, you can guess often what a grammatically incorrect phrase is supposed to mean.
Well, true, but again, there's nothing actually grammatically incorrect about it. You can also guess what a new term you don't know means, based on other terms that are spelled the same that you do know, or based on parts of the word you know or have seen in other words you know, etc.

That doesn't mean that all words you don't know are by definition used ungrammatically. :P

Granted, some people tend to make that mistaken assumption about a lot of words. But I don't think that's enough of a reason to not use those words, if they accomplish other things (like brevity, accuracy, fitting-ness, etc. as Vulture does).

In a broad sense that means they do imply something seeing as they manage to get a part of the message across, but technically, according to the rules of English grammar, the phrase doesn't convey meaning.
Again, what I am pointing out is that that is a misconception. There is NO rule in English grammar that words whose definitions someone doesn't know are ungrammatical. Nobody can cite such a rule that would apply here, and nobody has. The only reason the phrase wouldn't convey meaning (and like I said, I contend it does; it conveys a partial meaning, setting the basic theme of the definition) is that the hearer doesn't yet know the definition.

It would be correct to say, though, that according to the flawed and mistaken impression many non-English majors have about grammar, it may sound as if there is a grammatical issue.

Same with Vulture; you can't say it implies NOTHING -- it implies that there is a meaning for the word "vulture" that you don't yet know, but that the power probably could be compared in some way to what vultures do. :) But for sake of analyzing what you are saying, I'll ignore this from here on in this post.)

That's what you can guess from its etymology, but it still doesn't technically convey meaning.

Yes it does. "Vulture" conveys an image, and an action, that fits the shape, and the power. That conveys meaning. That's the whole point of metaphor. ;)

By that logic, more than half the realm of poetry is ungrammatical and conveys no meaning. Poets beg to differ, McFriendly. :P

It might not give you the 100%, sterile, accurate, detailed meaning that the definition does, but that's NOT what names are supposed to do anyways. That's why we have definitions.

Vocabulary knowledge is only essential to grammar insofar as, if you know what a word means, you also (usually) know what word class it belongs to.
That's a connection. You can't on the one hand say "there's no relation", and say there is one. ;) Vocabulary cannot be separated from grammar. But, that aside, there are other ways vocabulary affects grammar, through various tidbits of meaning in various words, which I'll illustrate with an example farther down here.

There are other connections I mentioned, like context, connotation, etc. that may in some situations demand/advise changes in sentence structure. Metaphor, likewise, uses different structure from non-metaphoric sentences.

You would never say, to use an example from that poetry class, "The grassy field is a sea of emeralds" in a sterile, literal prose format. If you were required to do so, you must make structural changes. "The grassy field gave me an impression that made me think of a fanstastical pile of emeralds, as big as the sea."

Or even, you'd have to go away from poetic imagery altogether and say, "The grassy field was a strong green with variations of rich, forest green, and lime sheen."

Metaphor allowed a structure that otherwise would not work, which affected what parts of speech were used, how many phrases were combined in what ways, the arrangement of the words, how many total words were included, etc.

(While I've used my own take on the above example, cred for most of that to the Poetry prof aforementioned.)

That's the grey area where grammar and vocabulary overlap. Since your new definition of 'vulture' has a different word class than the existing definition(s), you need to know your new definition to see the phrase 'I control vulture' as a grammatically correct one.
That's mostly correct. If you've switched your brain on, though, and realized an English Major wouldn't have asked for approval of a grammatically incorrect name, and Greg, a professional writer, wouldn't have accepted it... If you did that, you'd probably get a sliiiiight clue what part of speech the unknown term is, though.

;) :P

Arguably, other power names changed word class too, for instance 'shielding'. In the original sense, it could be used as a verb, as in 'I shield myself from the attack.'. You can however say that in the power-definition it is an abstract noun
Right; that's exactly what it is. In the "Mask of" phrase, for example, that's a preposition, which in normal parlance requires a noun object.

(Apparent exceptions can be done; the Toa of the Green for example, but that is an adjectival noun, technically; an adjective that was turned into a noun.)


Barring Kindred, none of these are grammatical errors because the structure allows for those word classes to be used.
Again, if "Vulture" is a grammatical issue, merely because it is a different definition than you know, then so are those. Inaccuracy to the vocabulary is what you (seem) to be saying it is guilty of. Or at least, that's the only thing you would be correct on farzaisee. :P

The fact that the phrase implies something different from what the actual meaning is does not make it grammatically incorrect.
Lol! That's what I've been saying, but it seemed to be you who was arguing otherwise. :P Or you who was theorizing why others were arguing it, anyways.

Once it's defined as you did, it is grammatically correct.
Right.

As long as your definition isn't around, 'control a vulture/vultures' are clearly the only grammatically possible phrases (not interpretations...).
Well, obviously the definition "is around." Whether a listener knows a definition or not does not affect objectively whether it is grammatical. That is subjective, by definition.

(And you could argue that in that case they would merely wrongly conclude it was ungrammatical, and I would pretty much agree, depending on the word and if elaboration in a sentence would clarify it.)

And I dispute whether it's "clearly only", but more on that elsewhere.




QUOTE
QUOTE
So again the question comes down to "according to whose grammar, and why should we impose their grammar, rather than the grammar that is actually intended?"


This is why I'm a grammar rebel, lol.

But there IS a possible answer to this. I'm just not gonna feed it to you; you have to figure it out for yourself. :P Maybe we should impose their grammar, but why?


If people intuitively think a sentence doesn't sound right, they're obviously imposing their own grammar on the sentence regardless of whether there is a good reason to do so. However, if you want to use language the way it is intended, to get a message across, the best grammar to impose would be the grammar that's understood 'across', at the receiver's end. As long as you know what grammar that is, though, and that's why intellectuals of the past took all different dialects of their language and mixed them to form one 'correct' language.

Although I'm often forced to wonder what grammar I should use, seeing as English isn't my native language and I don't have a specific reason to favor (favour?) either British or American. I usually choose American, seeing as I think all the people who want to have a fancy-shmancy British accent make it an overrated dialect. (But that's my personal taste, everyone, I'm not trying to offend anyone.)

Five gold stars for ye! :D

That's the right answer.

As far as which one to use, well, that's the sticky part, and most English speakers rarely know it either. (In most real life situations, you listen to how people speak around you, and you mimic it.)

And to be clear, British/American is hardly the only split in English. Many smaller regional dialects exist, especially in big ol' America, and of course, there are the internet and other telecommunications dialects, jargon, etc. etc.

On BZP, American English is best, as more members are from here than anywhere else, but here too there is such variety. Since we don't allow flaming, you can basically use whatever variant you want without fear, as long as it's understandable. People see "flavour," and they know what you meant, and they don't criticize you for it. Except in jokes. XD

(And, for example, when bringing in entries for the Weapons Guide for EM, as I am doing now, when I see the British spellings, I just change them to standard American to be consistent with the bulk of other entries.)

why not make this into a poll? There have been a few suggestions so a poll would be easily created, and that way you can be more sure that the name pleases.
Planning, probably, to, as I've said. But I'm hoping for a better suggestion, and haven't heard one, to include along with the ones suggested so far, before I do. Still waiting. So get crackin! :P

Also, I keep asking what people think about "Vulturation", and so far absolutely nobody has said a word. Which I'm taking as "I don't like it," even though it solves some of the criticisms without losing the benefits Vulture has, so I'd naturally be curious why -- and should this be in the poll too? I'm hoping you, at least, will realize that that question is more on-topic than what is feeding the bulk of these posts, and give me an answer. :P

Hey, maybe this can be the subject of this week's blog entry actually; "wanna make a poll, suggest words to be in it, and what about Vulturation?" Maybe.


Not a fancy way, rather a negative way. I was more or less pointing out the price you paid for a clear mask name. However, seeing as the price wasn't totally paid, you didn't get a totally unambiguous name either: you see 'vulture' and you think of vultures and try to guess a power behind it, and might come up with the wrong one (if you didn't decide to read the description, of course).
Yes, but you'll come up with something, and it is likely to be very close to what it does. :)

Whereas some of the other suggestions are more likely to imply a power far more different from what it does.


If you really want an unambiguous name, you shouldn't have an English name at all, only a Matoran one.
Again, that's not what we're doing. That would have to be run by legal, and that's a hassle, and Greg would prefer not to deal with it, and it's unneccessary.

Unless, of course, Vultraz IS the Matoran name, and the guy is named after the mask. That would already come with legal's stamp of approval.

That way, no one can presuppose it has different powers than it actually has, but you don't get the aspect of a descriptive name, which is the only function of those English names.

Masks with Matoran names still have English power names.

However, IF the Matoran name was still similar to "Vulture," then you've got a great point.

Consider: "The Kanohi Vultraz, the Mask of Scavenging" (or insert any other alternative for the English).

Still poetically conveys all the vulture stuff, and a connection to Vultraz.

And then trivia is, "the vulture-like shape of the mask inspired the power, and Vultraz was originally the name of the guy, who is named after his mask shape, yadda".

That might be worth considering. Not sure how to pollify it... but yeah.



Before replying to what you said next, lemme again emphasize my point there, which you didn't disprove:
QUOTE
Of course, but the point is, you allowed a change to be made to fix that error.


Adding new words changes the meaning and possibly the grammatical properties, meaning it makes a world of difference in being grammatically correct.
Lol, you just stated one of the reasons I have been saying that vocabulary affects grammar, which you were trying to deny (apparently, or that's how your wording made it seem anyways).

Adding additional words definately affects grammatical properties. Simple -- consider a grammatical sentence chart. Add a word, the shape of the chart changes. You have to draw on grammatical rules to figure out where to put the word, etc.

Anyways, back on topic to what you meant by this, my point was, you allowed a change to fix "control Mind Control"'s grammar problem (you cannot deny that is a grammar problem; the rule of repeated words). If fixing the phrase to fix grammar problems is allowed, then it must be allowed for Vulture.

Which defeats the point of trying to force all names directly into that phrase to test their grammatical correctness, which is what you seemed to be saying was the litmus test you thought people were (subconsciously) using.



My logic wasn't that the 'mask ... control' phrase was supposed to feel correct unchanged, it was supposed to be grammatically correct
Be correct unchanged, or be correct changed? My point is, if you can change it, then you can change it. You can change it, you make it correct. You make it correct, it do not be incorrect. It do not be incorrect, it grammarlicious. Comprendy?

QUOTE
You are assuming that all change is equal, which is definitely not the case in every situation I can imagine. The term for that is 'overgeneralization'. ;)

Alright, then where and why do you draw the line? You fixed a very clear grammar issue. What makes that minor, something else major, etc.?

And besides, as I pointed out, Vulture doesn't actually have any grammar issue aside from unknown definition, which is not objectively an issue at all, and is (usually) only an apparent issue. We're talking feel, I know, I know. But if that is too big of a grammatical issue to be allowed to be fixed, then again, we have grammatical issues with many other masks, whose apparent meanings do not necessarily match the actual definition.

You cannot deny that is a grammatical issue, because as you yourself said, "Adding new words changes the meaning and possibly the grammatical properties, meaning it makes a world of difference in being grammatically correct." Adding clarifications to the basic idea conveyed by a name -- whether the incorrect interpretation is grammatical or not -- is still a grammatical issue.


Again, think about it.

"control Light." -- No grammatical issue. Apparent meaning (whether right or not) matches actual definition. (Well, for the most part, anyways; it's an elemental power. You don't know all the details of it or maximum power limit, but in general, most things you could imagine there are accurate. Close enough for a town this size, as my old physics prof would say...) To give a basic definition of this, you need not say much beyond what is already

"control Levitation" -- a grammatical issue. You must add words in the definition, beyond the summary of what is implied by the word alone (that it involves raising things up gently), specifically that it lifts the user. Also, a clarification that it doesn't provide thrust in any direction except up would be wise.

Adding words -- as you said -- is inherently grammatical.

See that?

Again, I understand what you're pointing out about the incorrect interpretations still being grammatical, and Vulture not. But I'm trying to get through to you that that's a good thing. ;) It means the mask is less likely to be interpreted incorrectly. :)

Put it another way -- who cares whether the WRONG interpretations are grammatical? They're WRONG, and shouldn't be encouraged.

With me there?



All this says is, the name spurs you to want to read the definition. Isn't that good? It still conveys the basic idea, but without conveying inaccurate versions of it as much as many other powers would, in that phrase.

Could be good, could be bad. I never tried to argue either one of them.

Fine, but play Devil's Advocate, if this is worth taking this much textwall to discuss. :P How could it possibly be bad?

Your answer should take into consideration Greg's statement that Bionicle is intended to require work to understand.


The problem with reading the definition is it's a posteriori, it happens after you read the name and that's when the 'damage' has already been done: you'll already have the feeling that it sounds wrong.
Fair enough, but that's only a problem if reading the definition doesn't "fix" your attitude towards it. Obviously, it isn't for everybody, but I highly doubt that's the majority. Surely most people are smart enough to understand the connection between vultures and sapping energy from the dead? Even a five-year old could tell you that.


Depending on what grammar teacher you listen to, that's right. Ambiguous wording is a structural issue, and often considered to be an error that must be corrected, by changing the structure.

(On the other hand, I personally love to use it in story titles, for example, to convey ALL the multiple meanings in various ways throughout the story. In that case, by the grammar I intend, it should be seen as correct. Since I am a fan of multiple meanings.)

Are you sure about it being an error? I've namely never heard anyone claim that ambiguity is a grammatical issue.
Like I said at the start, it depends on which English (or History :P) teachers/profs/experts you listen to. It's a myth that a single complete set of grammar rules is agreed about by all experts on the issue. There are camps.

In general, it is advised by writing professors, essay-grading teachers, etc. that you be CLEAR in your wording. You word something vaguely and the prof thinks it could be taken the wrong way, you get marked down.

Especially history profs.


Basically, it depends on who's grading. :)


No, a lie, or an untruth, is grammatically correct regardless of intent.
Lol. A lie is, by definition, having the intent to decieve. :P

An unintentional untruth, right, would still be grammatical too by most definitions, because as far as the sender is concerned, they said what they meant to.

An intentional untruth is a lie. (Generally... :P)

Even there, if an unintentional untruth, or even a lie, is pointed out to the speaker, and they seek to clarify it (or muddle it), they are generating different wordings, and that (as you said) involves grammar.


Basically, grammar is related to everything in language. Even (as the definitions I cited included) pronunciation.

If you can even call it linguistically incorrect, that wouldn't be in the field of grammar, but semantics (which, contrary to syntax, is not a part of grammar).
Linguistics focuses heavily on grammar. Semantics is involved with grammar. It's not syntax, it's not (usually) synonymous with grammar, but it's in the field. Grammar is basically an overall umbrella, and everything else, from word choice, sentence structure, and word class, is in different categories underneath it. From there you get into things like semantics.

But anyways. This line of the debate getting rather unimportant now. I'd be okay with just agreeing to disagree on that point; there IS a subject here after all XD.

You can make complex, grammatically correct sentences without anyone understanding what you're trying to say.
XD

Lawyers know. :P


QUOTE
If there were words that didn't mean anything but still had a word class, you'd be able to make grammatically correct sentences with them

Well, the basic idea of what you said there is correct.

But I guess what I was just trying to say is, if you define a word class for a nonsense word, that is a chunk of meaning. ;)

If "blibityblurbistrosity" is a noun, and "hubitybubitygarglefy" is a verb, then those are parts of meaning. They tell you things, which activate certain brain connections, opening larger topics that tell you how to relate to the "words" in a specific way. That is meaning. You must record those bits of meaning in your brain in "slots" that attach those brain connections, in categorized locations in your gray matter. That is called vocabulary. Further, this is categorized inside a larger structure of grammar in their proper word class sections.

Even now, your brain is literally doing all of that -- you can't help it; it's brains work. That is meaning.

QUOTE(ye olde Dictionary.com)
what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?
3. Linguistics.
a. the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of a linguistic form; expression.
b. linguistic content (opposed to expression )

mean·ing (mē'nĭng)
n.

1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.

In psychological terms, most of what's said in those definitions, and others I didn't cite, occurs in the brain with verbs.


Of course, some issue with that strange example would come up with whether the word class is actually conveyed, but then if not you'd run into the question of how you could still consider it to be grammatically correct. Since you said it would, I'd say there's no issue here.



(And of course, I have done this sort of thing in the Paracosmos. Used Unknown words to say things the reader can't understand (yet). Far as the reader knows it's random gibberish, but it has word class and such. Also has specific definitions, but yeah, similar idea.)


True, but it's not about the meaning of the words, it's about their possible functions.
Well, again, we're quibbling now, but functions are part of meaning. :P

But to use your empty example; you could solve a puzzle with many identically shaped pieces but with no image on them, and it wouldn't matter which identical shape went where.

But as soon as you paint a picture on the whole puzzle, which one goes where DOES matter. Like subject versus direct object versus indirect object versus object of preposition etc. -- though they all be nouns. See hwatahmene?


QUOTE
[About the sender/reciever analogy] You're overestimating grammar here.

I'm not estimating anything, I'm telling what many linguists say. You can disagree with them, but you can't deny the opinion exists among experts.

Again, "grammar" is not one, universally agreed-upon set of rules. It refers to sets of rules, and different people believe different sets are "correct".

A simple example:

Many would say that in a list of three or more things, you do not need a final comma, because the other commas represent contractions of the word "and":

This, this and that.

Others argue that the comma denotes a spoken pause, and clarity of seperation, and that this is proper:

This, this, and that.

I fall into the second camp, because the former example is unclear; are you saying, in mathematical terms:

[This], [this] and [that].

Or:

[This], [this and that]

?

The camp with the full comma opinion does not have that problem; in cases of the second, they'd leave out the comma to indicate grouping ONLY. Readers would know exactly what they meant.

But is that rule "GRAMMERHAMMER!1!!"?

It totally depends on who you ask. Many would see the "extra" comma as horrid redundant nonsense. They might even point to the semicolon rule as how you are supposed to denote grouping in lists.

And then you get the whole semicolon war...

Yadda. :P



As you said, grammar is syntax, and in actual software, syntax isn't the only thing that matters, is it?
No, it isn't. But isn't that what I'm saying? :P

All I'm saying is, you can't disconnect vocabulary from grammar (or syntax) entirely. That's what I originally said. I stand by that; I've proven it in examples. You've appeared to even agree with it, so I dunno why we're still discussing it lol...

f you write a piece of code you can mess it up by typing stuff that won't fit with the syntax; you'll get an error message about a 'syntax error' or 'error in line x, operator y not expected', stuff like that.

However, if you mess the code up in another way, you'll create different glitches, which are not 'syntax errors'; otherwise, why would they bother calling it a 'syntax error'?

All correct. But how that other glitch manifests is also connected to the syntax. The syntax combines with the specific inputs to form the overall instructions that are carried out. If you use the wrong inputs to generate wrong instructions, syntax still plays a role in what glitch is produced. If you put the same wrong input into other structures, you could quite possibly get different glitches.

An RPGMaking analogy; if you put the wrong health variable number in an upping instruction, to be carried out when the Hero attacks the enemy, you get the problem of it being either too easy or too hard to defeat the enemy.

But if you put the exact same wrong input into a projectile fork condition check to see whether a special effect animation should be played upon projectile hit of the bad guy, you might be able to defeat them just fine, but you'd inexplicably still be able to hit them with the projectile, playing an animation (often on what would seem to be thin air but is really the enemy turned invisible).

Numerous such examples abound.


Of course, this example serves to illustrate another thing I've been saying. There would be a way to prevent that even if the wrong check number was used for the animation -- when the enemy is defeated, invisibly move event all the way to the edge of the screen (or in TMOMN, we had them "run away" visibly, but we used this invisibly for some things) past the barrier of stuff (like plants) where the weapon can't reach anyways.

That requires more code, which requires syntax. Similar to adding words in an sentence to clarify intended meaning.



As far as I know, a sentence is supposed to be able to stand alone grammatically...
That totally depends on how much complexity is required to accurately convey the entire meaning. Sometimes, in order to do that in one sentence, you must write massive, book-sentences. :P Some audiences would be okay with that; most would say sentences should be short, and in such cases, you should split the idea up. That becomes a grammar rule.

And what do you mean 'vocabulary grammar'? If you're talking about word classes, that's syntax too, and the only other form of grammar is morphology.
Right, parts of speech. Types of vocabulary words. As I've said, part of speech is both a vocab (it must be memorized with the word) and a grammar (it affects how it may be grammatically used in phrases and sentences) issue. That's the main connection between vocab and grammar.

However, yeah, if someone said "convey your idea in only one sentence", then it would be grammatically incorrect, in that weird instance. :P

Grammar is not a matter of doing what other people say... that's obeying.
XD

All the rules of grammar are "what other people say." Come now, come now.

If you want to be grammatical according to your English professor, you must follow the rules they lay out in the syllabus, or in a grammar book they specify, or at least the rules of proper English if that's what they're judging by in general.

That's what the term "grammatically correct" means -- if you deny that, then you can't "grammatically correct" in the first place. :P

If you just want to be grammatically correct in general according to the rules of standard English, at least the ones that a majority or all of experts on it agree upon, then you must obey what they say.

That is a matter of doing what other people say.

Ever heard of grammar books? :P Those are written by people.

And they may not even say it. If you are writing fiction and you hope for readers (and more importantly, publishers/editors, if you wanna be published) to keep reading past the first page, you must know the implied rules of grammar that the typical reader knows -- even if only subconsciously.

A major one is, "Don't lose me." If you construct wildly long, super-complex sentences in an attempt to please some obscure prof you had once who probably isn't the type to want to read your fiction anyways, it's gonna annoy the heck out of readers, confuse them -- and more importantly, the publisher throws your manuscript on the (massive) pile of rejects.

In that case, the rule doesn't have to said by the judge. You just have to know it. Publishers reserve the right to use their judgement on your manuscript, and to throw it out for ANY reason, and not necessarily even tell you why in full!

Besides, I might as well argue that sports rules aren't a matter of doing what the rule-writers say, "because that's called obeying". Well, try breaking a sports rule and using THAT on the ref, and see what happens.

;)

(They'd probably get in your face and say something to the effect of "Rule Number one is Obey The Ref, squirt". Unless you were taller than them, depending. Height and personality affects word choice. XD)

If you unintentionally don't give enough information, people will criticize that, but I've never heard any literary critic call that a grammatical issue.
As I said, it depends on why the information didn't get across. Grammatical reasons could exist. Did you use an ambiguous structure? Did you use pronouns too much, where you should have used some proper nouns to clarify who you meant to refer to? Do you have too many characters, and need to cut some out, forcing an entire rewrite while keeping some parts (requiring you to reword certain sentences, like sewing thread to attach a patch)? Did you phrase sentences in ways that implied multiple points of view? Could you have used first person?

These issues have come up in workshops I've participated in all the time. Especially the pronoun example. They are all grammar-related.


I was wrong when I said they weren't related, but I'd say it's the other way round: structure is part of context.
Lol, now there can be no doubt we are supergeeks. :P We're arguing about cross-relational organizational matrices versus radial organizational trees.

Whee!

And because I'm running late, I won't even open that can of worms just now.... We'd have to get multidimensional and of course it's hard to do that with linear text. Suffice to say I fall on the side of the matrix view.




The history of grammar you gave makes it clear that the word used to have a more general meaning than it has now. In the definitions, the only time the word 'meaning' is used is definition 1b, so obviously meaning isn't a grand focus of grammar.
That's if you assume the other things do not involve aspects of meaning. :P But yeah, you could say that.



QUOTE
I'm not saying grammar and meaning are entirely unrelated, they are related in the sense that grammar adds meaning, but if the meaning isn't very clear or ambiguous or such, it's not a grammatical issue, it's a semantical issue.

Here's how I prove you wrong using your own words. You said that adding words is a grammatical issue. Your words.

If a wording is unclear, and if you decide, or are required to, elaborate to clarify, then you must add words.

Therefore, unclear wording is a grammatical issue. Simple, valid, sound proposition.

That means proven conclusion (or at least you and I would, I would think, agree on the conclusion, since we agree on one of the premises, and I think we would both agree with the second premise -- someone else might disagree whether adding words is a grammatical issue, but you would not, and the format is valid).

True, what I said was incorrect. What I meant was, if you have a grammatically correct sentence, and you add context which modifies the meaning of the sentence (but keeps the sentence as one piece), that will never turn the sentence into a grammatically incorrect one.
Again, it depends on who's grading. If that context doesn't do enough to clarify the meaning according to Da Judjjjjjj, and with a minor structural change to the original sentence, it would be enough, then voila, grammar issue again. Or if you could add a word, etc.

QUOTE
You're right that vocabulary has some influence

Right -- alright, now we're mostly happy. Go back and review how that debate started, and you'll see that's all I said there anyways. :P That you can't separate vocabulary from grammar -- there is a connection, by definition. You've since said some other things we're debating, but that is all I originally intended to discuss. That answers the charge (regardless of who charges it, or subconsciously feels it) that the definition can't affect it grammatically.

If you see "Mask of Vulture", and to you Vulture is a member of the class of words naming types of birds, then you open certain grammar rules. For most members of that overall class, plural requires "-s" (but there are subclasses such as Fish in which that grammar rule is different), and singular requires an article ("the" or "a"). The current format is not grammatical with that class of words.

But once you know the definition, you realize it's not that kind of noun -- it's a power name that is a metaphorical reference to what Vultures do. This places it into the "power names" word class, in which case the singular with no article is used. This loads different grammar rules into your head.

And, if you simply work backwards without even reading the rule, using even the slightest tidbit of brainpower, you realize this is the name of a mask anyways, so of course it's the name of a power, and if you recall the Bionicle tradition of trying what hasn't been tried, you may even conclude it is a metaphor, since no other word class is grammatical based on what you know so far. So from seeing which word class, with which grammar rules, fits this, you already know even more about the power without even reading the definition. Then, by thinking about what the metaphor of "Vulture" conveys, in Bionicle terms, you can guess at parts of the definition beyond just word class.

The only you really wouldn't be able to guess from the name alone is the energy part of it, rather than physically eating Makuta-style or something. But that is shared by most suggestions so far, unless you add "Energy" to it. Which is also a grammar thing in the category of adding words. Actually, if you're a fan of the Inheritance series and remember that Bionicle deals with energy often much like that series, including draining it, you could even guess that, though you'd have no way of being very certain, unless you knew I was too. You might think of Vorahk and add the idea of Vultures eating the dead, and piece it together that way too, all without reading the definition, and all of that could even be subconscious.

Could other guesses be invented? Sure, but likeisay, that's a worse issue with most of the other suggestions, so moot point.


Actually, here's another "words of the debate prove my point" examle. I started this part of the reply with "...now we're happy", as a simple pullup of the cliche I have heard others use, implying an end to the need for debate. I meant it about the part I quoted you as saying ONLY.

That's context, semantics, and figures of speech affecting grammar. In the case of figures of speech, that is vocabulary phrases, which involves stored multi-word structure of the stored vocabulary, which is another way vocab is related to grammar, incidentally.

Point is, upon re-reading it (proofreading affecting grammar) I realized it was unclear whether I meant I was totally satisfied and wanted to imply that nothing else at all needed said, on anything you and I have been debating, or if I meant only that part (ambiguity affecting grammar). Further, the way I worded some of the things I went on to say implied strongly with words like "all I meant" that I meant the "totally satisfied, let's stop talking entirely" interpretation, which is NOT what I meant (context affecting grammar).

I could have fixed it by adding a sentence or a paragraph to fix the false impression I realize I may have accidently created (adding words, which you said is a grammar issue). But I realized it is wiser to kill a weed by attacking the roots (tactics and experience, calling on cliche proverbs in my wisdom memory banks, all affecting grammar), and that brevity is the soul of wit (Shakespeare affecting grammar :P, and my past experiences with feedback on my lengthy posts; experience affecting grammar -- and there is advice on this topic in the Bible, so religion affecting grammar), so it would be better if I just fixed one of the two problem phrases earlier on.

I could have simply removed the "all I meant" phrases, but that wouldn't immediately prevent the wrong interpretation from the first phrase, plus I intended to convey the emotion of satisfaction and the fact that all I originally planned to bring up was that (historical clarity affecting grammar, plus tactics and semantics again rear their helpful and fickle heads, respectively, and hey for the fun of it let's throw in emotional psychology... affecting grammar...). Plus that would be removing phrases, and teeeechnically, you only agreed about adding words. Math affecting grammar. :P

All of that culminated in a simple solution (lol... puns by dog lovers affecting grammar, and if you know the reference... there there) -- simply add a word in the original phrase.

Ah, but what word to add?

Vocabulary choice.

Being.

Forced.

By.

ALL.

Of the previous things that affected grammar. Grammar, vocab, connected. In many, many ways.

So I added "mostly" and stuff.

To do that I had to pick a word class (adverb, modifying an adjective) along with which member of the class, with its own unique connotations, etc. So word class is in there -- not saying otherwise (oh hey, predictions of incorrect interpretations, via my "Possibilities Attitude" philosophy affecting grammar, both here and in the example I'm using, heh). It's all interconnected.

QUOTE
only to the extent that it shows which word class/part of speech a word is.

Again, there are other routes word choice can take to affect structure. I've given examples.

But for the sake of discussion, pretend I agreed. That's enough to justify what I said originally -- that there's a connection. One connection counts as a connection.


QUOTE
I agree with that all, but you have to see that this vocabulary influence on grammar is limited to word classes. For instance, you can write almost the same paragraph as you just did with the only difference being you'd replace 'arbitrary' and its derived terms with 'smart' (smartitude? smartiousity?), and it wouldn't change a thing about the grammatical structure. It would change the meaning though.

Hahaha! I had a designed response you were supposed to use to that, but you cleverly avoided it with an originally-worded joke! Rare the peeps who no use responses I design for them. Excellent, excellent. You've got brains in yo head Thorm.

Again, I have showed ways in which vocab can influence grammar, such as context, ambiguity, etc.


Be very careful with blanket claims of limitation or nonexistence. Remember it is difficult to prove a negative (and easy to disprove in this case). That's a guideline I've learned the hard way -- when I was younger I may have made blanket, and blind, statements of limitation like that. But I've since learned it's foolish, unless you have carefully thought out ALL possibilities totally, perfectly objectively -- no bias at all -- and that is virtually impossible. There's always possibly something you haven't thought of. (So when I do give such statements, as I have in this very post I believe, I either clarify with something like "as far as I can see" or "far as I know", or you know I've tried to think it through veeeery carefully, or it's the denial of a denial, as I'm doing here, based on simple knowledge of an exception.)

You started by saying grammar and vocabulary aren't connected -- or at least apparently saying that by disagreeing with me saying that, and now (it appears) I have convinced you of that connection, through word class/part of speech. Soon I will own you entirely MWAH hahahahaha! *ahem* And now I have shown other connections; you'll be hard-pressed to deny those now. :P

If you would have avoided the blanket statement of limitation to begin with, you'd have remained accurate from the start. :) (But this is usually my role in debates, I don't mind -- I open eyes to things people previously didn't consider. Tis what I do.)














Edit: Alright, for your post, which got in before I finished replying to Thormen, Talvak, I'll use bold for quotes:


So... the Mask of Vulture transforms the bodies of the deceased into life energy which can then be absorbed by the wearer? That's what vultures do. Unless, of course, you're assuming that there is a type of energy that leaves the body upon death that could be absorbed by a wearer of the Mask of Vulture.
It's the latter -- an energy version of what Vultures do.

So, life energy, heat, and any other energies (like elemental, Toa, etc.) are captured. They normally just fade and aren't use for anything, but this mask captures them. A power source that is not usually tapped. (And converts them into life energy for the user.)

Perhaps not simpler, but easier to understand. Mask power names are not developed based on how "poetic" the name is, they are the power summarized in one to three words.
Again, they are whatever word choice is best for the power (hopefully :P... I mean, what I judged best at the time, anyways, and what Greg and/or story team judged best in all cases). As I've shown, Vulture is the most concise (other than Carrion), the most evocative, fits with the shape, Vultraz, etc. etc.

And again, they were not previously (usually) using the poetic option. As I said, I'm introducing a new stylethat Bionicle was lacking previously, and not just for the heck of it, but because in this case, it best represents the power. This is what Bionicle is all about -- innovation. :) Challenging the status quo. So that's a good thing to me.

Otherwise, the Kadin could have been called the Mask of Gukko. After all, Gukko birds can fly, so a Kanohi Kadin user would be like a Gukko.
What do you say about Kindred, Fate, etc.? But again, you're just appealing to past patterns. I have clearly shown that the only real pattern in past mask naming schemes is that there is no clear pattern. :P And again, going into new territory is a core concept of Bionicle.

Again, I can prove that in three simple words.

Robots. Tropical. Island.

:)

And that brings up the questions; What type of energies? Life? Elemental? Spiritual? How do we know they escape?
Whatever escapes from the dead. Whatever they've got.

If they're Toa, they have Toa energy. And usually elemental energy. Assuming they haven't exhausted the EE before dying (which is possible in battle), that would be among them.

Those examples would be if it's a Toa. If it's something else, might be different, or just the basic life energy that everything shares.

Or it could work like the Toa Nuva's adaptive armor.
Well, I'm not sure I'm clear on how that works. Haven't had time to check if BS01 says and such. [As I proofread now, I would check, but due to this post being so long (apparently that's why anyways), my comp is going slow enough to threaten freezup, so won't right now.]

So if a team of Toa took turns using this mask, they all could theoretically mutate into water-breathers?
Yep -- and nice idea -- very Bionicle. Teamwork and a variety of transformation explanations, and such. You may have intended that as an example of why you don't like it, but it hits me the opposite way, since it's true to Bionicle. :)

The way you want it to work, a Huna wearer would remain invisible, a Pakari would remain super strong, etc, etc...
Well, I don't think it could give you Pakari-esque strength or enable you to literally be invisible. For that you'd need a mask of Conjuring (specifying weaknesses, of course). I've never heard that the Rahkshi power could do that.

It might give you chameleon-esque skin/armor, though, and it might improve your muscles and such. Those seem more consistent with how I've always imagined the Rahkshi power; changing your physical structure, not your powers.

If those happened, then you remain that way until you use the mask to change back. :)

Every mask will and should shut down its power when removed, the only the exception to this is the Olmak under certain conditions.
Well, maybe you prefer that, but no such rule actually exists in Bionicle. And again, you must be misunderstanding what the mask is doing -- it is mutating you. Mutations usually don't snap back like that. :P It's like carving a statue -- if the tools used to carve it are destroyed, does the statue magically snap back to its uncarved form? No, of course not.

It's not a matter of a power staying on after removal, it's a power affecting a change in something (the user, in this case), and then the power is no longer active. What happens to the mask after that is irrelevant to the change remaining how it is; the power is already off as soon as it finishes changing you.

Greg approved this, remember. (And he approved the original Rahkshi power, inventing it himself as far as I know.) And there are many transformations that work this way, in fact most do. There are some mask powers Greg thought of on his own that break various traditions of how masks usually work, such as masks that are always on at a low level, etc.

Besides, really think about that. Let's do mythbusters again.

Pakari. Onua smashes something. Then he takes the mask off. Does the thing get unsmashed? No. Myth busted. The Pakari was used to cause a change in something. That change doesn't need a power to stay on; it's just a change. Like the sculpture.

But let's not stop at just busting it -- let's bury the myth. :P

Speed. Pohatu goes somewhere fast using Kakama the entire time. Then he takes the mask off (or just switches the power off). Does he teleport back where he was? No.

Here's a contemporary example. The mask of Incomprehension. You use it on a single target. The target's text is scrambled, and stays scrambled for a time, even if you focus on someone else. Greg suggested that on his own (I had thought of it too but forgot to ask for it, heh.) Given that Greg himself thought of that, myth super-busted. You can't use the fan-created argument on that one. Ground to dust, sorry. :P

Incomprehension again while I'm here; can scramble notes and they stay scrambled regardless of what happens to the mask after that, but that's one of these powers too, so we'll forget that to be fair to your reasoning. :P

Regeneration is especially relevant. You regenerate something. Then you destroy the Kiril (or Kanoka). Does the thing get un-regenerated? No. Myth vaporized.

Kualsi. You teleport. Off mask. You snap back to where you were? No.

Spirit. This always works great to disprove these sorts of un-Bionicle "rigid pattern rule" arguments, lol.

You seperate your astral spirit, send it out. Lemme quote BS01 directly:

Their body is also vulnerable, as they have no way to protect it themselves. If the user's body is killed, their spirit will eventually fade away, as they have no body to return to.
Your rule would seem to require the spirit to instantly magically snap back to the body, and then you're dead along with your body. This doesn't fit that -- the spirit lives on for a time, fading. The Iden merely causes a change in the user. It separates the spirit from the body. True, there is a connection that remains on as long as you're alive -- the spirit can survive in definately. But that's not the mask, that's the body. You can destroy the body and leave the mask fine, and that is just as bad. You can destroy the mask, and the spirit doesn't snap back. (Not sure if it can, then, re-enter, but if it follows the rules established for Makuta possessing un-owned bodies, it should be able to, even with the mask smashed.)

Jutlin. Corrode something. Lose mask. It get uncorroded? No.

Faxon BS01 page doesn't say. I assume it fits your preference, not sure.

Pehkui -- not sure if this applies in the mask version, but for most of the eight basic Kanoka powers including Shrinking, they are timed powers. Shrinking was specifically used as an example; there is a Matoran missing on Metru Nui who has never shown up again because he was shrunken with a powerful one (or at least he hadn't shown up before the others went to Mata Nui... I wonder what ever happened to him anyway...). If you destroy the Kanoka, they don't come back all of a sudden as far as I know. BS01 page doesn't say if the mask works the same way.

Elemental masks. Let's say you make a mask of Stone. We know that's possible (this would be a better example than Light or Shadow). Mask of stone, materialize some stone. Smash mask. Stone disappear? No.

Mask of Creation. Smash mask, stuff get unmade? No.

Psychometry. Mask go byebye, you forget the item histories you learned? No.

Elemental Energy. You recharge some, then mask go bye. You lose energy? No.

Life. It changes the shape of something, while being worn by Toa Ignika. Toa Ignika dies. The something go back? Icarax wishes. :P But to be fair, that's a very strange mask given that it's alive and legendary.

So, Olmak is not the only exception to that idea. And again, no such rule actually exists; that's just your preference. Fine, but that's a personal thing.

Actually, the Akaku would only give you X-Ray vision. Any sight enhancement done by it would be by built-in telescopic lenses.
X-Ray Vision is quite a lot better than normal vision, even twenty-twenty. :P Good point though, that the visor is an addon. Or addin, whatnot.

An example I could give in the Multiverse is, it would not improve hearing as much as a Kanohi Amaru, a mask of Hearing, improves it. But that doesn't exist in canon, heh. This is what I was originally thinking, but given that this was to become officialized I decided against using a BP power as an example, and besides, no guarantee people clicked that link in the EM guide. Still, again, X-Ray vision is better than mere improved normal vision, even without the visor addon.

So, I don't see why the Mask of Sensory Aptitude should be limited because of it.
It's not because of the Akaku per se. That's just the best example I could think of, and again, Akaku improves vision more than "aptitude" would allow, so that just makes the example really... apt. :P

My point is, it's like pouring the milk of one cup equally into five. The five cups now have more milk than nothing, but not as much as a full cup, yanno? Representing the five (basic) senses.

Simple math.


Never mind that. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time.
Alright, it happens, heh.


I understand the reasoning behind it, they both accomplish the same thing, just by different methods, but I still feel as though the methods of copying are different enough to merit individual masks.
Well, I argued the same as a justification for it before it was decided, but I'm okay with fusing these masks for other reasons. :) I'm all for allocation, don't get me wrong; I'm using it to defend some of the other powers. I just think in this case the benefits of having these two be the same mask are best.

Also, the original definition of Absorption didn't think these issues through. The definition was very short with no clarification of it. Just one short sentence. Unlike most of the other powers.

What about the Mask of Clairvoyance? Or the Mask of Rahi Control? Why not use these for the unnamed Kanohi? Why create new powers?
Well, that would be another good route, but nobody thought of it. We thought of doing this, because we needed shapes for Multiverse powers. We wanted thirty new powers for the Multiverse, and using existing powers wouldn't serve that (since we started out by saying that all official masks already exist in the EM, plus the BP ones). So, for our purposes in this case, that wouldn't have worked.

So, if someone else had thought of doing that and got approval for it first, then I'd be fine with it. But the fact remains that nobody did. :)

For what reason would you limit it in that way? It should be to the full power of Voporak.
Voporak was incredibly powerful. If his powers were, to his full extent, captured in a mask power, it would have to be Legendary. If we did that, we'd get complaints of it being overpowered. :P Remember his purpose was to hunt down arguably the most dangerous, Legendary power in existence (given it is so much easier to destroy reality with it on accident with Vahi than Ignika). He had to have very powerful abilities to have a chance at that.

You mean, think boomerangs.
Yeah, except those don't work bouncing off of stuff. This is more what basketball players do because it involves bouncing off. And that's called rebounding.

Specifically, Hydraxon's exploding boomerangs. If they exploded, they didn't come back. If they didn't explode, they would return to him.
Would they do that even if they hit? *checks* But yeah, basically. *reaches BS01 page for Exploding Boomerangs* Well, doesn't say.

Only the mask requires the thrown object to bounce against something in order for it to return.
Right.

Ah, okay, that makes sense now. However, the Hau just protects, making it a defensive mask. Balta's Repellers, acted as both offensive and defensive tools, making it not just another Hau clone.
Oh okay, you're right. :P But anyways, not what I meant.

No, I like mechanical. It covers a wider range of abilities.
The abilities are unchanged either way, but the idea of Biomechanics is, it enhances the connection between living beings, and mechanics. Hence the bio (plus the Bionicle theme tie-in). In the case of strengthening your own mechanical functions or weakening an enemy's, the meaning is obvious. In the case of influencing robots, it is an extension of the theme; life extending its control over nonliving robots (but with a limitation of complexity).

Why would it be able to control biomechanics but not full mechanics? Why only simple machines?
So the mask has limitations. :) And, the more complex something is, it makes sense it would be harder to grasp, doesn't it? At that point, you're going beyond the "biomechanical" power and going more into "The Mask of Robotics". Which is a nice power idea, but not this mask.

And how simple is simple? Fire drones? Vahki? Exo-Toa armor?
Vahki/fire drone brains would be too complex. Simple robotic vehicles would be simple enough (and many quite big, heh).

Exo-Toa strike me as even more complex than Vahki, but if they are just in armor mode, with the brain switched off, arguably you could control it then.

Basically, if it is being controlled by a brain that is roughly comparable to Matoran intelligence, it's too complex. If it's more like a simple robot you control with levers, that's fair game. There's a gray area in between, though, yeah.

Most functions of Metru Nui factory machines would be fair game, as another example.

What makes a "friendly" robot different from an "unfriendly" robot?
Lol. :P "On your side", or willing to listen anyways.

Vahki would normally be unfriendly unless they had orderrs from Dume (slash Dume clone :P) to listen to you. Fire drones would most likely be programmed to take orders regardless. If Dume had this mask, he could give orders to them telepathically at any time, anywhere.

If you designed your own robots and programmed them to be on your side, obviously that would be friendly.

If an enemy had Nektann coming at you, most likely you would not be able to convince them to stop. They're sense your thoughts, but since they see you as the enemy, they wouldn't obey you.

The mask should allow the user to control all mechanics, the on
Link to comment

So, life energy, heat, and any other energies (like elemental, Toa, etc.) are captured. They normally just fade and aren't use for anything, but this mask captures them. A power source that is not usually tapped. (And converts them into life energy for the user.)

If the purpose of the mask power is to drain life energy, why from the dead? Because it fits the Vultraz/Vulture theme?

 

Again, they are whatever word choice is best for the power (hopefully :P... I mean, what I judged best at the time, anyways, and what Greg and/or story team judged best in all cases). As I've shown, Vulture is the most concise (other than Carrion), the most evocative, fits with the shape, Vultraz, etc. etc.

Carrion sounds way cooler than Vulture.

 

What do you say about Kindred, Fate, etc.? But again, you're just appealing to past patterns. I have clearly shown that the only real pattern in past mask naming schemes is that there is no clear pattern. :P And again, going into new territory is a core concept of Bionicle.

But then, you're just appealing to the patterns of S&T buffs and fanfic writers by creating a deeper meaning to something simple. Besides, a vulture is a creature, Kindred and Fate are not.

 

If they're Toa, they have Toa energy. And usually elemental energy. Assuming they haven't exhausted the EE before dying (which is possible in battle), that would be among them.

Those examples would be if it's a Toa. If it's something else, might be different, or just the basic life energy that everything shares.

Life energy I could understand, but who said that Toa Energy or EE leaves when a Toa dies?

 

Yep -- and nice idea -- very Bionicle. Teamwork and a variety of transformation explanations, and such. You may have intended that as an example of why you don't like it, but it hits me the opposite way, since it's true to Bionicle. :)

Why call this a Mask of Adaptation when it mutates the wearer? The name is inconsistent with the power. Call it a Mask of Mutation or rethink how the power works.

 

Well, I don't think it could give you Pakari-esque strength or enable you to literally be invisible. For that you'd need a mask of Conjuring (specifying weaknesses, of course). I've never heard that the Rahkshi power could do that.

You misunderstood. If all Kanohi worked the way you want the Mask of Adaptation to work, if Vakama became invisible using his Huna, then removed it, he would stay invisible until he put the Huna back on. Standard Kanohi powers work in two ways; always on at low power, or consciously controlled by the wearer.

 

Well, maybe you prefer that, but no such rule actually exists in Bionicle. And again, you must be misunderstanding what the mask is doing -- it is mutating you. Mutations usually don't snap back like that. :P It's like carving a statue -- if the tools used to carve it are destroyed, does the statue magically snap back to its uncarved form? No, of course not.

If the mask mutates the user, then it's not a Mask of Adaptation. It's a Mask of Mutation. You've been giving the mask power the improper name. That is what had me confused.

 

Greg approved this, remember. (And he approved the original Rahkshi power, inventing it himself as far as I know.) And there are many transformations that work this way, in fact most do. There are some mask powers Greg thought of on his own that break various traditions of how masks usually work, such as masks that are always on at a low level, etc.

Greg approved the Mask of Adaptation, allowing the user to adapt to situations. You said the mask adapts through mutation, but mutate is not synonymous with adapt.

 

X-Ray Vision is quite a lot better than normal vision, even twenty-twenty. :P Good point though, that the visor is an addon. Or addin, whatnot.

No, the Akaku's power lets you see through things. That's it. This is not a difficult concept. It does not enhance vision the same way a Mask of Sensory Aptitude would.

 

It's not because of the Akaku per se. That's just the best example I could think of, and again, Akaku improves vision more than "aptitude" would allow, so that just makes the example really... apt. :P

Would you limit the Mask of Sensory Aptitude if the Akaku didn't exist?

 

Well, that would be another good route, but nobody thought of it. We thought of doing this, because we needed shapes for Multiverse powers. We wanted thirty new powers for the Multiverse, and using existing powers wouldn't serve that (since we started out by saying that all official masks already exist in the EM, plus the BP ones). So, for our purposes in this case, that wouldn't have worked.

 

So, if someone else had thought of doing that and got approval for it first, then I'd be fine with it. But the fact remains that nobody did. :)

Ah... I see. The purpose of this wasn't to give the unnamed Kanohi canon powers, but to give the unnamed Kanohi fan-made powers.

 

Voporak was incredibly powerful. If his powers were, to his full extent, captured in a mask power, it would have to be Legendary. If we did that, we'd get complaints of it being overpowered. :P Remember his purpose was to hunt down arguably the most dangerous, Legendary power in existence (given it is so much easier to destroy reality with it on accident with Vahi than Ignika). He had to have very powerful abilities to have a chance at that.

No, it wouldn't. He could rapidly age anything close to him. That's the extent of his aging power. The mask power should limit it to direct contact. I don't know how someone could say that would be overpowered.

 

Yeah, except those don't work bouncing off of stuff. This is more what basketball players do because it involves bouncing off. And that's called rebounding.

True, but it gets the point across better.

 

Would they do that even if they hit? *checks* But yeah, basically. *reaches BS01 page for Exploding Boomerangs* Well, doesn't say.

Look at it this way, if they exploded, they wouldn't come back because they would no longer exist as boomerangs.

 

The abilities are unchanged either way, but the idea of Biomechanics is, it enhances the connection between living beings, and mechanics. Hence the bio (plus the Bionicle theme tie-in). In the case of strengthening your own mechanical functions or weakening an enemy's, the meaning is obvious. In the case of influencing robots, it is an extension of the theme; life extending its control over nonliving robots (but with a limitation of complexity).

"Biomechanical" implies that it's limited to partly mechanical beings, not fully mechanical. Which doesn't make sense to me. Why should a robot be harder to control than a living thing?

 

So the mask has limitations. :) And, the more complex something is, it makes sense it would be harder to grasp, doesn't it? At that point, you're going beyond the "biomechanical" power and going more into "The Mask of Robotics". Which is a nice power idea, but not this mask.

This is not the Mask of Conjuring. It doesn't need built-in limitations. I don't know why people insist on building limitations into perfectly good masks.

 

Lol. :P "On your side", or willing to listen anyways.

I figured this mask worked similar to the Komau. Where you could control any robot or mechanical device, as long as you can override its thought processes. I guess not.

Link to comment

If the purpose of the mask power is to drain life energy, why from the dead? Because it fits the Vultraz/Vulture theme?

Again, because it's an untapped power source. That's like asking "If you can get oil from a pocket that's buried deep underground with expensive drills, why bother taking it from that big bubbly pool right next to us with cheaper tools?" (And yes, it does, obviously, fit the Vulture theme of the shape and the only known wearer of that shape.)

 

And, the Avsa already does that:

 

It allows its user to drain light, energy, or positive emotions from a target at a distance.

 

Oh, while I'm on BS01, adaptive armor...

 

Adaptive Armor is specialized Protosteel armor crafted by Artakha and given to the Toa Nuva. It is designed to shapeshift to fit the environment and situation that the wearer enters.

So sounds to me like it's the armor that is mutating, not the person, and actually it doesn't say mutating; it says shapeshifting, but then since it's not organic, and that word could be ambiguous can't be sure -- what I'm driving at is, if you "ruined" the armor somehow, would it magically snap back into a standard form, or remain in the damaged version of whatever shape it last shifted to? Dunno.

 

Regardless, this doesn't work for the Adaptation mask, because it doesn't completely cover the wearer -- only the face. For it to work it must mutate the user.

 

When in its default configuration, the armor reverts to a state similar to the original Toa Nuva armor

This would seem to imply it would snap back, which would be consistent with the word choice of "mutation" (like Great Mahiki).

 

Other than that, and the fact that the set includes adaptive masks, tools, and wepaons, the article doesn't say. This last quote refers to "when in its default config", confirming there is one, but it doesn't actually say it would snap back to its default when destroyed.

 

Carrion sounds way cooler than Vulture.

To you -- but I'm sure you meant that. :)

 

 

What do you say about Kindred, Fate, etc.? But again, you're just appealing to past patterns. I have clearly shown that the only real pattern in past mask naming schemes is that there is no clear pattern. tongue.gif And again, going into new territory is a core concept of Bionicle.

But then, you're just appealing to the patterns of S&T buffs and fanfic writers by creating a deeper meaning to something simple. Besides, a vulture is a creature, Kindred and Fate are not.

I don't understand the relevance of your reply here to the part you quoted. I talked about staying true to the core concept of Bionicle of innovation, and in this case by introducing metaphor, not about fanfic writers or S&T geeks... Perhaps you copypasted the wrong part?

 

And I fail to see how metaphor isn't simple. "Vulture" clearly conveys the meaning; everybody knows what vultures do.

 

Extended metaphors may not be simple, but a simple "This power is comparable to what Vultures do" is not that hard to understand. :P

 

 

And no, kindred are not, necessarily creatures. Usually they are people. :P The point is, that is a new use of the word from what most people know, introducing a (plural) noun in a figurative sense (which, as others pointed out, is part of poetry, so you can't say power names haven't gotten into poetry before -- and hey, we haven't even considered non-Kanohi (yet) power names).

 

As far as the S&T geeks point, again, not sure why you brought it up about that, but like I said, they're the only types who are likely to even see these masks, so moot point.

 

 

Life energy I could understand, but who said that Toa Energy or EE leaves when a Toa dies?

Well, good question. But again, the definition doesn't specify, it just says "captures escaping energies." Whatever escapes, it captures.

 

I can, actually, see an argument that Toa energy might not escape. Given that it is able to remain in Toa stones, for example. Elemental energy, I see no reason why it wouldn't, though. Its nature is very flowing, much more so than life energy even. It's used and recharged, just like life energy, and can be absorbed from things around you, again, just like life energy (food).

 

On the other hand, the only examples we've seen of Toa stones so far don't really tell us either way. In Lhikan's case, they retained a connection with him, and he was still alive. When they were used, the remaining energy he had was drained out of him, and only then did he become a Turaga. We don't really see from that what would have happened if he had died.

 

The other example is the Turaga's Toa stones, but they used the rest of their Toa energy to revive the Matoran. Actually, this possibly helps the escaping theory because clearly, the TE transformed into a different kind of energy here. But then, it may have been guided consciously to do that by the Turaga, so inconclusive. What was left in the Toa stones remained there, but again, they were all still alive.

 

Why call this a Mask of Adaptation when it mutates the wearer?

That was the Rahkshi name. Mutate and adapt are basically synonyms, though.

 

 

The name is inconsistent with the power. Call it a Mask of Mutation or rethink how the power works.

Again, it was the Rahkshi name. Not my idea. :P

 

Also, although I didn't submit it with the EM guide, I have invented a mask of Mutation in the Paracosmos, and it works quite differently from this, so I wouldn't have thought of using that for a new power. The Kanohi Tukranu could possibly exist in the EM, so this is a different power.

 

(The Tukranu is like a compromise between the Rahkshi power and the Great Mahiki. It preserves the original form in a multi-dimensional sense, but makes the shapeshifted form permanent in a more complex way, which I haven't yet delved into in story. It's one of my physics geek ideas. :P So, although it does not automatically snap back into standard form, the standard form exists, and thus the mask can change back to it far faster than the mask of adaptation could -- and yet if the mask "part" of the shapeshifted form fell off, you wouldn't automatically snap back. This way the mask can shapeshift very rapidly, and is not even limited by size, within minimum and maximum ranges.)

 

You misunderstood. If all Kanohi worked the way you want the Mask of Adaptation to work, if Vakama became invisible using his Huna, then removed it, he would stay invisible

Wrong. Again, the mask of adaptation is adapting the physical body of the wearer. The Huna, on the other hand, is continuously bending light around the wearer. If the thing that is doing the bending stops doing it, naturally it stops.

 

However, a version of what you said would be possible, if the mask instead actually bestowed Huna power upon the user themselves permanently. But that isn't what this is doing -- it's not bestowing powers at all. It's changing physical structure.

 

Standard Kanohi powers work in two ways; always on at low power, or consciously controlled by the wearer.

Now, now. :P Always on at low power is a new thing that was never "standard" originally. If that's fair game to be standard even thought it was a change, then so is this. But again, actually there are several masks, like Corruption, that work this way -- they cause a change in something, and then they need not be on, any longer.

 

It's like what I said about Axonn to Aanchir. Back when he first came out, complainers chorused that he was horrible because his name was cheesy, no subtlety, etc. Now, Aanchir would have me believe that Axonn is perfectly okay, but levels the exact same complaint against Vulture. I think what's really going on is, Axonn grew on people. Over time, you get used to things, and once you get used to things, you start to feel that they are okay. When a new thing challenges you, you might not like it at first, but time can wear down animosity to things. Many BZPers have admitted to this (and it's not a bad thing; it's certainly better than stubbornly holding onto resentments your whole life).

 

After all, these aren't real dislike to begin with; people tell themselves they don't like it, for various reasons. IMO -- and no offense -- it's basically lying to yourself. Over time, we start to forget what things we previously claimed we didn't like, and we let ourselves be more honest about it. The problem with lies, even lying to yourself, is you have to remember what the lie was, so you never contradict it in the future. This is not to say that real dislikes do not exist. I think they do. But a lot of the initial dislike is basically self-imposed, because of a non-taste reason -- we have convinced ourselves we must not like change, and so we don't let ourselves enjoy new things, until they are old, heh.

 

I figure, my life is going to be far more pleasant if I just cut to the chase, and let myself enjoy whatever I can, right at the start. :) Someone else has advised -- "pretend this is 2001 again, and this is all new to you", because it's easier to do this when you don't have any preconceived notions about something. Or at least it works for them, and I find it helpful too. In 2001, I wasn't judging based on past Bionicle examples, because none existed. I was judging 2001 for what 2001 was.

 

I say the same thing probably applies here. You accept the newer "always on at a low level" exception as okay for standard. Yet, it was brand new at a time. Heck, the originals themselves were new at a time. :P You've simply gotten used to that. So, give this a few years, have an open mind to it as you did with alwayzonlolevels, and you'll probably realize this is fine.

 

(Or, you could embrace the innovation tradition of Bionicle, cut to the chase, and allow yourself to enjoy it now. You'll be a happier person for it, and it will improve all aspects of your life, not just Bionicle. That's the Bionicle challenge, and I am more than willing to be the champion of it!)

 

And again, the standard of innovation, and even of changing the traditions of Bionicle itself, predate the always-on-at-low level innovation. Thus, if that is "standard", innovation is even more standard. ;)

 

So, I'm afraid Bionicle is never going to work for those who want strict adherence to past traditions as their main objective, because Bionicle itself is defined as innovation.

 

If the mask mutates the user, then it's not a Mask of Adaptation. It's a Mask of Mutation.

Synonyms. :P You're parsing words. It's named that after the Rahkshi/Kraata power.

 

You've been giving the mask power the improper name.

T, it's not a matter of "proper" name. It's of the name that best conveys what we wanted to convey. "Adaptation" conveys what the power is all about -- adapting the user to different environments. Mutation would imply you could randomly mutate into anything at will (and in fact that's basically what the Kanohi Tukranu does in the Paracosmos), but this only only changes you to fit the surroundings -- to adapt.

 

Greg approved the Mask of Adaptation, allowing the user to adapt to situations. You said the mask adapts through mutation, but mutate is not synonymous with adapt.

That's just how it adapts you. :) Why is this so hard to understand? "It mutates you to adapt to your surroundings." Not "mutates you randomly" (that's reconstitute at random) and not "shapeshifts you temporarily" (that's Great Mahiki, mask of shapeshifting), and not "mutates you however you like" (that's, essentially, the Paracosmos Mask of Mutation). This is permanent changing of physical structure, specifically to adapt to situations around you, which the mask power senses.

 

 

No, the Akaku's power lets you see through things.

My eyes can't do that. Yours? :P

 

It does not enhance vision the same way a Mask of Sensory Aptitude would.

Granted; but that's the example we're going to use, because it's an official one. Amaru isn't official. But maybe the milk cup example should be used too.

 

Would you limit the Mask of Sensory Aptitude if the Akaku didn't exist?

Right. Because whether it is established or not, masks of hearing, sight, smell, are possible among the infinite possible mixes of protodermis. :)

 

And, it's worth pointing out that the mask of Conjuring could give you temporary improved sight powers, or smell, or hearing, etc.

 

Ah... I see. The purpose of this wasn't to give the unnamed Kanohi canon powers, but to give the unnamed Kanohi fan-made powers.

Either/or fallacy. :P It was both. :)

 

Giving the unnamed Kanohi canon powers was the original inspiration, but we didn't find a good opportunity or reason to do so, until we did the 30 new EM mask powers, and needed shapes for them. We had shapes sitting around gathering dust, and why not try? So we asked, and Greg approved. :)

 

(And due to the time constraints and inability to contact him during the downtime, we had to go ahead and use the shapes anyways, so if he had turned it down, we would still use them noncanonically in the EM, and just leave it at that. But thankfully that didn't happen.)

 

No, it wouldn't. He could rapidly age anything close to him. That's the extent of his aging power.

Yes, but have you read Time Trap? He aged them to an incredible extent and just kept it a-comin. Read the part about the Rahkshi army, especially. I felt that that was not justifiable according to the traditions we have seen of the limits of a Great mask. I stand by that.

 

 

I don't know how someone could say that would be overpowered.

Well, it's a nice idea, but I'd rather ranged attacks, like the structure example, be possible. Maybe we could actually do both though, while I'm talking Either/Or fallacy. :P Maybe ranged attack is more limited, and touch can be as much as Vopy?

 

Whatthink?

 

True, but it gets the point across better.

To you maybe, but not to me. Maybe it's 'cuz bball was my fave sport. Back when I was even slightly into sports... Rebound is a big word I learned as a kid since I learned Bball. I suppose to those that didn't, it wouldn't be, but that's subjective. I happen to know that BBall is one of the most popular sports on Earth, so it's pretty likely they'd get the connection. :P

 

Look at it this way, if they exploded, they wouldn't come back because they would no longer exist as boomerangs.

True. :P I thought he could use them non-explosively, but maybe I'm thinking of something else. Well, anyways, this is inspired by the Kanoka flight power, so that's why I'm differentiating from hit/miss. That one would only come back if you missed.

 

"Biomechanical" implies that it's limited to partly mechanical beings, not fully mechanical.

Well, it partly is. The main use of it is for biomechanical beings, like the user, allies, and to a degree, enemies.

 

This is exactly why the "stretched" examples of influencing robotics requires them to be simple. :)

 

 

Why should a robot be harder to control than a living thing?

Because the mechanical parts are more complex (with the ones that are too complex to control) than in a biomechanical being.

 

 

his is not the Mask of Conjuring. It doesn't need built-in limitations.

Um, T, the whole point is that EVERY mask in Bionicle needs built-in limitations. Show me the godmod mask in Bionicle, with no limits or downsides at all. Pull out your 2001 comic with the mask powers insert. What do you see? Limitations. That is the tradition I came to know and love, and that's the tradition Bionicle fans as a whole know.

 

(At least, of Great masks, and as I showed, even the Legendary ones have weaknesses, and notice that their downsides are actually far bigger than the downsides of your typical mask -- surely you don't think "risks destroying time and unraveling existence itself" and "has a countdown if things get too evil in which it drains all life" are nice happy bubbles? :P)

 

All Great masks, by definition, have the limitation of the level of power that a Great power level allows. Noble masks have even stricter limitations. Surely this is not lost on you?

 

 

I don't know why people insist on building limitations into perfectly good masks.

Because otherwise you've got a bunch of godmod masks, and besides, that's the rule in Bionicle. People don't tend to like powers that have no possible weakness -- it kinda ruins suspense and stuff. :P

 

If you are one of the rare individuals who isn't like this, more power to you. I actually love godmod powers myself. But I, personally, like limited powers even better, and I know full well I've got a biased audience against those sorts of powers. If I'm suggesting powers to actually be canonized, I cannot impose my very rare like for godmod powers on that, and of course Greg would not accept it anyways, so why would I?

 

I figured this mask worked similar to the Komau. Where you could control any robot or mechanical device, as long as you can override its thought processes. I guess not.

Again, that would be fine as a mask power (and as long as it clarified that it couldn't control biomechanical beings against their will, it would be the perfect partner to this mask). It's just not what this one is about. This one is about capturing the very-Bionicle theme of "biomechanics" in a mask power. :)

 

Since capturing major Bionicle (or EM) themes in powers was one of the main goals in coming up with the 30 EM powers -- and regardless of that, it's fitting for Bionicle. (Same reason for Rebound and Fusion.)

Link to comment

gain, because it's an untapped power source. That's like asking "If you can get oil from a pocket that's buried deep underground with expensive drills, why bother taking it from that big bubbly pool right next to us with cheaper tools?"

If you were an oil company, which would you choose first; The oil that’s going to cost you more time and money to get, or the oil that’s lying right at your feet?

 

And, the Avsa already does that:

Then that makes the Mask of Vulture useless as well, cause then you wouldn’t have to kill someone to take their energy.

 

what I'm driving at is, if you "ruined" the armor somehow, would it magically snap back into a standard form, or remain in the damaged version of whatever shape it last shifted to? Dunno.

Once the mask was removed or destroyed, the armor would probably shapeshift back into the user’s standard form, but the damage would still be there. Just like the Makuta’s armor.

 

Regardless, this doesn't work for the Adaptation mask, because it doesn't completely cover the wearer -- only the face. For it to work it must mutate the user.

If that’s what you prefer. My biggest problem is that you say the user is permanently mutated, until changed back by the mask, but I don’t see why it has to work that way. Why not just say the mask is always on at a low level to keep the user adapted?

 

Other than that, and the fact that the set includes adaptive masks, tools, and wepaons, the article doesn't say. This last quote refers to "when in its default config", confirming there is one, but it doesn't actually say it would snap back to its default when destroyed.

Could adaptive armor even be destroyed? Or would it adapt to the attack to prevent destruction?

 

I don't understand the relevance of your reply here to the part you quoted. I talked about staying true to the core concept of Bionicle of innovation, and in this case by introducing metaphor, not about fanfic writers or S&T geeks... Perhaps you copypasted the wrong part?

No, I was just pressed for time and was not able to clarify myself properly. Don’t get me wrong, I love the concept of innovation. I embrace it, but how much do we here on BZP really know about innovation or what is different? Different is relative to what it’s being compared to. All the mask powers you’ve described, to me, sound like a lot of the various mask powers created by other members in their attempts to be different. That makes them similar to me.

 

I prefer a concept few people here seem to be able to grasp; balance. An equilibrium. Compromising. Changing while staying the same. Now that’s really being different. That’s BIONICLE.

 

And I fail to see how metaphor isn't simple. "Vulture" clearly conveys the meaning; everybody knows what vultures do.

Since vultures eat dead things, how about this; The Mask of Death Eating. (I know, I know, Harry Potter and whatnot) Wait, no, there’s a word for that; Necrophagy. Like Aanchir suggested.

 

As far as the S&T geeks point, again, not sure why you brought it up about that, but like I said, they're the only types who are likely to even see these masks, so moot point.

True, but if you're going to be different, why go half way? I like throwing the metaphorical monkey wrench into the works. Take them out of their comfort zones. Give ‘em something that makes them run for cover. Upsets the estabished order.

 

I can, actually, see an argument that Toa energy might not escape. Given that it is able to remain in Toa stones, for example. Elemental energy, I see no reason why it wouldn't, though. Its nature is very flowing, much more so than life energy even. It's used and recharged, just like life energy, and can be absorbed from things around you, again, just like life energy.

So, if a Toa wore the Mask of Undeath, died, and came back via the mask power, the body wouldn’t have any EE?

 

That was the Rahkshi name. Mutate and adapt are basically synonyms, though.

Again, I don’t see why the mask has to permanently mutate the user in order to adapt. I’d be fine with this mask power if its effect wasn’t permanent.

 

But that isn't what this is doing -- it's not bestowing powers at all. It's changing physical structure.

All Kanohi masks grant the user powers when worn. That’s why they’re Masks of Power.

 

Now, now. :P Always on at low power is a new thing that was never "standard" originally. If that's fair game to be standard even thought it was a change, then so is this. But again, actually there are several masks, like Corruption, that work this way -- they cause a change in something, and then they need not be on, any longer.

Change is good. Change because it’s easier than working with what you got is bad. The Mask of Adaptation, as a “standard” Kanohi, would be an always-on-at-low-power mask with temporary effects on the user. I’m not sure why you don’t like it this way.

 

I say the same thing probably applies here. You accept the newer "always on at a low level" exception as okay for standard. Yet, it was brand new at a time. Heck, the originals themselves were new at a time. :P You've simply gotten used to that. So, give this a few years, have an open mind to it as you did with alwayzonlolevels, and you'll probably realize this is fine.

I accepted the always-on-at-low-power, because it made since to me. We don’t need to think about breathing or keeping our hearts beating, though we have limited control over it. Why should the mask power be any different?

 

(Or, you could embrace the innovation tradition of Bionicle, cut to the chase, and allow yourself to enjoy it now. You'll be a happier person for it, and it will improve all aspects of your life, not just Bionicle. That's the Bionicle challenge, and I am more than willing to be the champion of it!)

Why change what works? I mean, we’ve been getting the Inika/Piraka type builds for canister sets since 2006. LEGO is not going to change that because “change is tradition.” They’re going to change when it is beneficial to them. I’m the same way, I’ll accept change when it benefits me.

 

So, I'm afraid Bionicle is never going to work for those who want strict adherence to past traditions as their main objective, because Bionicle itself is defined as innovation.

Again, change is good. Change only happens when there is something to gain from it. What benefit would we gain from accepting this type of change?

 

Synonyms. :P You're parsing words. It's named that after the Rahkshi/Kraata power.

Not really. My eyes can adjust to see better in the dark, does that mean my eyes mutated? No, my eyes adapted.

 

This is permanent changing of physical structure, specifically to adapt to situations around you, which the mask power senses.

But why does it have to be permanent?

 

My eyes can't do that. Yours? :P

Only if I had an Akaku.

 

Granted; but that's the example we're going to use, because it's an official one. Amaru isn't official. But maybe the milk cup example should be used too.

The Akaku is still a bad example and any argument someone had about it and the Mask of SA having overlapping powers would be moot.

 

Yes, but have you read Time Trap? He aged them to an incredible extent and just kept it a-comin. Read the part about the Rahkshi army, especially. I felt that that was not justifiable according to the traditions we have seen of the limits of a Great mask. I stand by that.

I reread Time Trap not too long ago, actually. He never even had to touch them, which is what I thought would be a good limitation. Can you imagine Voporak having to touch each and every Rahkshi that had attacked him? They might have actually stood a chance. :o

 

Well, it's a nice idea, but I'd rather ranged attacks, like the structure example, be possible. Maybe we could actually do both though, while I'm talking Either/Or fallacy. :P Maybe ranged attack is more limited, and touch can be as much as Vopy?

 

Whatthink?

You mean, the closer to the user, the faster it ages? Nah, we wouldn’t want to make it too easy for the user. What’s life without a couple of challenges?

 

Because the mechanical parts are more complex (with the ones that are too complex to control) than in a biomechanical being.

Matoran can build robots, but not Matoran, and you say robots are the more complex? Besides, complex is like different; relative to what it’s compared to. Most Matoran wouldn’t know about robotic brains, but a Nynrah Ghost, having designed and built several robots, would have no problem understanding the internal clockworks.

 

Um, T, the whole point is that EVERY mask in Bionicle needs built-in limitations. Show me the godmod mask in Bionicle, with no limits or downsides at all. Pull out your 2001 comic with the mask powers insert. What do you see? Limitations. That is the tradition I came to know and love, and that's the tradition Bionicle fans as a whole know.

It’s actually funny, cause I never got the 2001 comics. :P We just don’t need to put limitations in plain sight like we think the reader is somehow inept.

 

All Great masks, by definition, have the limitation of the level of power that a Great power level allows. Noble masks have even stricter limitations. Surely this is not lost on you?

Yes, but we don’t need to say, “It does [insert power here], but not as much as [insert name here] can.” Especially for Great masks. Great masks were supposed to be the,”This is as powerful as it’s going to get.”

 

It’s the kind of limitation that’s typically done by BZPers to “sophisticate” a mask power. The mask powers should be clear at what they can do, the “can’t” should be left to the imagination. No one likes being told what they can’t do.

 

Because otherwise you've got a bunch of godmod masks, and besides, that's the rule in Bionicle. People don't tend to like powers that have no possible weakness -- it kinda ruins suspense and stuff. :P

My statement was actually aimed more towards your “biased audience” than at the mask power itself.

A godmod mask is not a perfectly good mask. You just assumed it was. A good mask is like the Hau, it can defend against any physical attack the user is aware of. That makes the user vulnerable to mental and surprise attacks without having to tell us that. It means you have to work to understand its pro and cons.

 

If you are one of the rare individuals who isn't like this, more power to you. I actually love godmod powers myself. But I, personally, like limited powers even better, and I know full well I've got a biased audience against those sorts of powers. If I'm suggesting powers to actually be canonized, I cannot impose my very rare like for godmod powers on that, and of course Greg would not accept it anyways, so why would I?

What would you define as being a “godmod” power? Invulnerability; being virtually impervious to any physical attack? Which, to anyone with imagination, would realize the user would still be vulnerable to mental assaults. The closest mask power that even comes close to “godmod” is the Mask of Conjuring, which, thankfully, Greg toned down with “must include a weakness. “

 

Again, that would be fine as a mask power (and as long as it clarified that it couldn't control biomechanical beings against their will, it would be the perfect partner to this mask). It's just not what this one is about. This one is about capturing the very-Bionicle theme of "biomechanics" in a mask power. :)

Oh, okay, still not as cool though. :P

Link to comment
If you were an oil company, which would you choose first; The oil that’s going to cost you more time and money to get, or the oil that’s lying right at your feet?

Again, that's my point. Really, if you could do it, you'd go for both. But what we've got now is basically, the Avsa allows you to go for the more common, but harder to get oil that's deep underground (an intelligence is already posessing the energy of the living beings). But now the Mask of Vulture allows you to tap big, easier surface pools of oil, but admittedly ones that are rarer than the underground ones (gathering energy from dying beings that is escaping already on its own, but that nobody was capturing and using previously, and that no other mind is trying to hold onto because the person is dead).

 

And of course, there is a moral issue, but that's already explained. Toa wouldn't use this, but villains and OoMN would -- and so might other questionable mask users.

Then that makes the Mask of Vulture useless as well, cause then you wouldn’t have to kill someone to take their energy.

Well, again, the main use of the Vulture is to absorb energies of someone who has already died. But the mask might tempt you to kill, yes.

 

So, compare that with the Avsa. You don't have to kill with that one to get energy. Correct. But you also don't get the energy of beings who have already died recently -- it just escapes the body on its own and is useless to you.

 

Also, whether you kill them or not, it's easier to get energy from someone who isn't stopping you (due to being dead) than a living target that resists you. Plus simple math -- if they stay alive, then by definition you can't draw out as much energy, since Bionicle beings need at least some life energy to stay alive.

 

My biggest problem is that you say the user is permanently mutated

I understand that, but it's a problem to you only because you're not looking at it "right" IMO. :) This makes the mask have unique pros and cons, making it more distinctive from other, already existing powers.

 

I think the comparison to the Kaukau is the most important, because the need to breathe underwater is probably the most important environment-based issue a Toa might have to deal with.

 

With the Kaukau, you can stay in your normal form. That's the pro. But the con is, if you lose the mask while underwater too deep, you can't breathe. If you NEED to stay underwater for a while (such as to fulfill your mission before something bad happens), then the Kaukau isn't as secure.

 

With Adaptation, you don't stay in your normal form. That's the con. But the pro is, if you lose the mask while underwater, you can still breathe water. To fulfill that mission, you might want this mask to make sure you beat the "countdown" or the like.

 

Actually, a question worth asking is, can this mask make you amphibious? Breathing both water and air? I'm not sure. Perhaps if the mask sensed you need to go in and out of the water a lot, it might do that. Or perhaps for your mission if it's important you BOTH stay breathing water for a while, AND be able to come out and breathe air to finish the mission, maybe the mask might let you breathe both.

 

If so, it would be another benefit from the Kaukau -- you would permanently be amphibious in this case.

 

No, I was just pressed for time and was not able to clarify myself properly. Don’t get me wrong, I love the concept of innovation. I embrace it

Alright, good. :P

 

but how much do we here on BZP really know about innovation or what is different?

Well, as many people have said, no mask name has yet used a direct metaphor like with Vulture. :P Yes, I think we're smart enough to know what is different (within bounds of staying Bionicle). And I definately know Greg is. :P

 

And people tell me I'm pretty innovative. I tend to agree. :P

 

Different is relative to what it’s being compared to. All the mask powers you’ve described, to me, sound like a lot of the various mask powers created by other members in their attempts to be different. That makes them similar to me.

Well, okay. I agree with that, and now I see what you meant. I personally have no problem with that (since Greg had no problem with it).

 

I prefer a concept few people here seem to be able to grasp; balance. An equilibrium. Compromising. Changing while staying the same. Now that’s really being different. That’s BIONICLE.

Well, that's what I tried to do -- Adaptation is from the Rahkshi power, Aging is from Voporak, Vulture is similar to the Avsa, Biomechanics is very Bionicle, Rebound is too, Fusion is too, etc.

 

And I fail to see how metaphor isn't simple. "Vulture" clearly conveys the meaning; everybody knows what vultures do.

Since vultures eat dead things, how about this; The Mask of Death Eating. (I know, I know, Harry Potter and whatnot) Wait, no, there’s a word for that; Necrophagy. Like Aanchir suggested.

Well, it's... okay.... :P

 

 

True, but if you're going to be different, why go half way? I like throwing the metaphorical monkey wrench into the works. Take them out of their comfort zones. Give ‘em something that makes them run for cover. Upsets the estabished order.

Okay. :P Apparently Vulture is doing that. :P

 

But we may not be talking about the same things here.

 

So, if a Toa wore the Mask of Undeath, died, and came back via the mask power, the body wouldn’t have any EE?

By "come back", I hope you mean, body was animated by the mask power. :P But good question. Would Undeath hold in the body's energies until its own energy ran out?

 

Probably not. Otherwise it would seem more like preventing death rather than animating a dead body. Maybe to a certain extent so it didn't start decayig though...

 

 

 

I’d be fine with this mask power if its effect wasn’t permanent.

Well, now here's another idea I was thinking about with my last reply to you but forgot to mention.

 

What if we compromised and said "if you lost the mask, you would stay in form for a certain amount of time, then change back to your default form"?

 

It would be adding complexity though. :P And how long?

 

I would NOT be okay with just making it a totally temporary mutation though; it takes away the unique benefit of using this mask as opposed to Kaukau for the most common issue of needing to breathe water.

 

On the other hand, what if you needed to breathe poisonous gas to get near a vent of it, to seal the vent -- and lost the mask on the way? As soon as you sealed the vent, you'd start dying if you NEEDED to breathe the poisonous gas to survive now. Buuuuut this gets complex too. You'd have to time when you shut the vent off with when you would change back or you'd suffocate before the timed unmutation kicked in.

 

All Kanohi masks grant the user powers when worn. That’s why they’re Masks of Power.

The user uses the power that is in the mask. ;) It does not change the user's body to have the power inside their body. The power comes from the mask -- the mind runs the power through it.

 

Even if they did, again, that is the enabling of a power. This is a power that changes the physical structure of the body.

 

So even if we used your logic here, then there's still no problem -- the mask would be granting you the power to permanently physically change your body to adapt, and as soon as you lost the mask, you would lose the power to change your body back. :P

 

 

Change is good. Change because it’s easier than working with what you got is bad.

It's not about being easier, it's about what works best for what you're dealing with.

 

We don’t need to think about breathing or keeping our hearts beating, though we have limited control over it. Why should the mask power be any different?

Alright, then compare this to certain types of surgery that alter physical structure. After the surgery, if the surgical tools get destroyed, does the surgery magically get reversed? :P

 

(Well, if you count things like pacemakers as "surgical tools" I suppose you could make the argument, but it would be a pretty weak argument, heh. The scalpel, etc. -- if they get destroyed later, it's irrelevant to the physical changes they made. Those changes remain.)

 

 

 

 

Why change what works?

Innovation works. :P

 

But, so it doesn't same old same old. That's why.

 

I mean, we’ve been getting the Inika/Piraka type builds for canister sets since 2006. LEGO is not going to change that because “change is tradition.”

They will if they think it's getting same old same old. :P

 

If you read carefully, you'll see that's actually what I'm saying. I do not want to stick to ANY tradition just for tradition's sake. This is a major moral of mine. I don't want any change merely BECAUSE change is tradition, but because I think a change is warranted at this time. :)

 

Example, to the charge somebody brought up that so many of these powers are evil powers, and that's a change (and to some, apparently thus bad). I didn't ask Greg to approve a change to how many evil powers we know because change is a tradition. I asked for it because I felt we had not delved into this corner of Bionicle enough yet. But I WILL have no qualms about citing the tradition as backup. :)

 

 

 

 

 

My eyes can adjust to see better in the dark, does that mean my eyes mutated? No, my eyes adapted.

The normal scientific use of the word refers to speciation and such (TBC, no origins debate comments here), species adapting through genetic (permanent) changes to different environments. Or, people can adapt to new situations. Our minds actually change -- the physical structure inside our brain, in fact -- to adapt us to be mentally allocated to deal with our situation. We get used to them, and when we enter a radically different situation, our brains have to change again to adapt; we have to work at it. Again our brain's physical structure changes. That is adaptation.

 

If we ever lose the ability to adapt, our brains literally get stuck in those shapes, and to degrees, that is actually the case with humans. All adults' brains get more stuck in the language categories and many others compared to children (which is why babies and young children are far better at learning new languages than adults). And many people make choices that lead their brains' adaptivity to decay, so they become especially resistant to change, and sometimes are unable to adapt fast enough. This is especially common with age; many people when they reach a certain age choose to abandon open-mindedness entirely and get "stuck in their ways". This is comparable to losing the mask; becoming unable to change the brain's physical structure again to adapt.

 

True, we don't normally use mutation to mean that in real life, but then remember that mutation means something different in Bionicle -- it refers to the changing of an already living being. Similar to some comic book uses of the word. And the physical changes in the brain are natural; transformation isn't, so mutation also implies that it's a power, which it is.

 

But why does it have to be permanent?

It doesn't. It's just how I decided to do this one. :) I did think, though, it was more consistent with physical structure changes, which, again, Greg invented with the Rahkshi power.

 

And again, it's not literally permanent. As long as you still have the mask, you can change back. It's "permanent until changed back." But you probably got that.

 

Akaku is still a bad example and any argument someone had about it and the Mask of SA

They both still modify vision in some way.

 

 

You mean, the closer to the user, the faster it ages? Nah, we wouldn’t want to make it too easy for the user. What’s life without a couple of challenges?

Well, good point. I got nothing against that one.

 

*thinks it over long*

 

Alright, what about this? Say, you're next to a structure you are touching to age. How you get out of the way before it falls on you? But this could be solved also by perhaps saying it only works in VERY limited range, not actually touch only... ?

 

Matoran can build robots, but not Matoran

Careful; we don't know (and won't know) how new Matoran are made. :P We do know Matoran can rebuild Matoran, especially their mechanical parts. As far as I know, Greg hasn't denied that Matoran build other Matoran, has he? If he did, he'd be partly answering the question, which isn't supposed to be answered.

 

 

and you say robots are the more complex?

The mechanical parts of totally mechanical robots are more complex than the mechanical parts of biomechanical beings. That's all I meant there. A simple lever-controlled robot is more like the level of complexity of a biomechanical being's mechanical parts. But the clockwork brain of robots has no similar complex mechanical part in the biomechanical being.

 

The mask can't control the organic parts directly; that would be a mask of life. What it does is affect how life interacts with mechanics -- biomechanics.

 

relative to what it’s compared to.

Well, like I said, I admit there's a gray area as far as has been defined so far.

 

It’s actually funny, cause I never got the 2001 comics.

 

We just don’t need to put limitations in plain sight like we think the reader is somehow inept.

Depends on the power (and the reader :P). Kaukau didn't cite its limit; it was implied only that it could only go to a certain depth, but we didn't know that for sure until we got the bio of the Kaukau Nuva, which said it could go to deeper depths than the Mata.

 

And yet someone in one of the EM topics in S&T just said they never knew about that limitation to Kaukau. :P Maybe it would have been better to directly state it.

 

I'm all for not insulting intelligences, but I do not believe crystal clear definitions count as insulting intelligence. A definition is supposed to be exactly accurate. If I don't define the limitations in the definition, many people will not guess right where I intended it to be -- and many will complain that it's thus overpowered. Why not just go simple, and say it to begin with? :P I've got backbone enough to have no qualms about doing so. :)

 

Yes, but we don’t need to say, “It does [insert power here], but not as much as [insert name here] can.”

We do if it wouldn't otherwise be clear. Maybe you're smarter than the average bear (and I don't doubt it :P), so you don't need these limitations cited. But my sense is that most people want it defined clearly.

 

the “can’t” should be left to the imagination. No one likes being told what they can’t do.

Well, IMO, the imagination is better honed when we are aware of limitations, and thus are free to imagine ways around them.

 

The analogy I made recently is to LEGO bricks and Bionicle pieces. When you MOC, you have real limitations you must deal with. You must use your imagination to work around the limitations, just as much as to come up with the original idea. You must adapt your ideas as you build. This provides a powerful imagination skill that otherwise you are robbed, if nobody has the spine to tell you the bad sides of things.

 

If I am too macaroni-spined to say "the mask can't do this," for fear of people not wanting to know what they can't do, then they have no idea what to do with the power. Sure, they can imagine their own version of it -- but they can do that anyways! Fan interpretations and fanfics are your sandbox. But when I define the limitations, it gives you a better mental challenge, and encourages you to exercise your brain.

 

 

A godmod mask is not a perfectly good mask. You just assumed it was. A good mask is like the Hau, it can defend against any physical attack the user is aware of.

Well, I agree -- that's a limitation. Directly stated. :P I dunno why the debate needs continue beyond that. :P As far as what "godmod" is, I'm just telling you what people say; I didn't invent the term.

 

That makes the user vulnerable to mental and surprise attacks without having to tell us that.

It DID tell us that -- it added the limitation of, as long as the user is aware of it, and that it must be a physical attack.

 

It means you have to work to understand its pro and cons.

If the limitation wasn't defined, then you would have to simply invent the pros and cons yourself. Most people would just assume "defend against any attack" means you become invincible, because that's what it would say. :P Words mean things.

 

Lemme throw your argument back at you though, with Adaptation. In the definition, it is made clear, without explaining every reason for it, both that -- and why -- it causes permanent physical changes. And yet, somehow, you "weren't smart enough" (:P) to figure out why that makes sense. You had to ask. But if you would have on your own worked to understand the pros and cons of the mask affecting permanent physical change, compared to the pros and cons of the Kaukau for example, then I wouldn't have needed to directly say it.

 

No offense, I'm sure you understand -- but just applying your words here to that situation. :P And of course, I do not mind explaining it.

 

What would you define as being a “godmod” power?

Well, the traditional is invincibility. Also, extremely overpowered abilities in general.

 

nvulnerability; being virtually impervious to any physical attack? Which, to anyone with imagination, would realize the user would still be vulnerable to mental assaults.

Well, I'm with ya man, but people still don't like it usually. :P They hear "the power makes you invulnerable", and since it doesn't say there's a weakness, they take it literally. They take the definition's word for it, yanno?

 

 

 

(I like the Rahkshi power of limited invulnerability; basically a short timed invincibility along the lines of the Mario Cart yellow star upgrade, and turned it into a Paracosmos mask power too.)

Link to comment

To me, "Vulture" would not make as much sense as a mask name, since there are no Vultures in the Bionicle universe, the name sounds unlike any other Kanohi, and that it just doesn't make as much sense. It would be like calling the Kaukau "The Mask of Fishes" and the Kadin "The Mask of Birds".

 

:k::h:

Link to comment

How do you know there are no vultures in the Bionicle universe?

 

There are wide varieties of Rahi and other creatures, many representing specific Earth creatures like tigers, crabs, dragonflies, etc.

Link to comment

To reply to Kahinuva:

The Matoran name for mask is Kanohi. The Matoran name for the power of shielding is Hau. Kanohi Hau=Matoran name. Mask of Shielding=English name. The Matoran name for the Mask of Vulture would be whatever the BIONICLE equivilent for a vulture is.

 

There is no argument here, you're just misunderstanding the naming system for powers. Vulture is the closest and simplest English word that describes what the mask does and so when we refer to it by its English name, we call it a Mask of Vulture. If we refered to it by the Matoran name, we would call it the Kanohi [insert Matoran word for vulture]. Does that make sense?

 

To reply to bonesiii:

 

Again, that's my point. Really, if you could do it, you'd go for both. But what we've got now is basically, the Avsa allows you to go for the more common, but harder to get oil that's deep underground (an intelligence is already posessing the energy of the living beings). But now the Mask of Vulture allows you to tap big, easier surface pools of oil, but admittedly ones that are rarer than the underground ones (gathering energy from dying beings that is escaping already on its own, but that nobody was capturing and using previously, and that no other mind is trying to hold onto because the person is dead).

I didn’t realize a target’s willpower played a part in whether or not the Avsa’s power worked. I thought once the user chose to drain a target of energy, the target’s only options would be to give up and submit to the mask power or find someway to shut it off. Regardless of which option the target chose, the mask would still drain as long as it was active. That’s the way I see all masks powers as working, as long as the mask is active, so is the power.

 

I’m not against the concept of the Mask of Vulture, stealing from dead things sounds exactly like what vultures do, but where’s the advantage to using it if the only energy you can absorb is from dead things? The Avsa is still far more useful, unless you’re walking through a battlefield after the battle is over, but even then the Vulture would only be useful if the user didn’t expend more energy than he or she gained.

 

And of course, there is a moral issue, but that's already explained. Toa wouldn't use this, but villains and OoMN would -- and so might other questionable mask users.

To be honest, a mask is just a mask, it has no morals. (Well, the Ignika does, but that’s only after it gained a body and learned about morals by hanging around other beings.) The morality of a mask is based on who wears it.

 

So, compare that with the Avsa. You don't have to kill with that one to get energy. Correct. But you also don't get the energy of beings who have already died recently -- it just escapes the body on its own and is useless to you.

Then use to the Avsa to drain them before you kill them, or just drain them completely and kill them that way. The energy can’t escape if it is not there.

 

Or we could say the Vulture drains energy from the user’s environment and converts it into life energy for the user to absorb. That way it does both.

 

Also, whether you kill them or not, it's easier to get energy from someone who isn't stopping you (due to being dead) than a living target that resists you.

Normally, the only type of powers that can be resisted are mental powers. Physical powers like the Avsa or the Felnas can’t be resisted by the target, but the mental based powers like those of the Komau could.

 

On the types of energy that escapes, I don’t see how the Elemental Energy of a Toa would escape after he or she died, since we’ve never heard of a Toa of Fire spontaneously combusting after death or a Toa of Gravity becoming a miniature black hole. On a related note, any Toa Power the Toa didn’t give up before dying would most likely stay in the body, if the amount of concentration the Toa Metru had to use to give up a fraction of their power was any clue.

 

But the con is, if you lose the mask while underwater too deep, you can't breathe.

I thought every Kanohi worked this way, if you don’t have the mask to give you the power, then you don’t have the power. If you don’t have the mask to keep you adapted, then you can’t stay adapted.

 

Actually, a question worth asking is, can this mask make you amphibious? Breathing both water and air? I'm not sure. Perhaps if the mask sensed you need to go in and out of the water a lot, it might do that. Or perhaps for your mission if it's important you BOTH stay breathing water for a while, AND be able to come out and breathe air to finish the mission, maybe the mask might let you breathe both.

Technically, yes. But making you amphibious would only be good in a swamp/shallows environment. How it adapts you would depend on your environment, remember?

 

The real question to ask is this; could this work like Reidak’s power? Never be beaten twice the same way? The Kraata description would imply this, but I’m not sure. :shrugs:

 

If so, it would be another benefit from the Kaukau -- you would permanently be amphibious in this case.

Then what point would it be to have the Kaukau, the Kadin, or the Miru if the Mask of Adaptation can to the same thing they can?

 

By "come back", I hope you mean, body was animated by the mask power. But good question. Would Undeath hold in the body's energies until its own energy ran out?

 

Probably not. Otherwise it would seem more like preventing death rather than animating a dead body. Maybe to a certain extent so it didn't start decayig though...

Ooh… preventing death? Sounds like the beginning of a good story to me. Of course, now I want to know if there’s someway a reanimated body via Undeath could switch with the Avsa or the Vulture to absorb life energy to remain animated.

 

Well, now here's another idea I was thinking about with my last reply to you but forgot to mention.

 

What if we compromised and said "if you lost the mask, you would stay in form for a certain amount of time, then change back to your default form"?

 

It would be adding complexity though. And how long?

 

I would NOT be okay with just making it a totally temporary mutation though; it takes away the unique benefit of using this mask as opposed to Kaukau for the most common issue of needing to breathe water.

Perhaps, your body immediately, but slowly reverts to its original form after the mask is removed. (i.e. fin or flippers become less pronounced, water breathing becomes harder, etc… as the power wears off.) That I would approve of. And you?

 

On the other hand, what if you needed to breathe poisonous gas to get near a vent of it, to seal the vent -- and lost the mask on the way? As soon as you sealed the vent, you'd start dying if you NEEDED to breathe the poisonous gas to survive now. Buuuuut this gets complex too. You'd have to time when you shut the vent off with when you would change back or you'd suffocate before the timed unmutation kicked in.

It wouldn’t be complex at all. If you couldn’t get to fresh air before the gas became toxic to you, you’d die. Quite simple really, but not great for a story.

 

(Well, if you count things like pacemakers as "surgical tools" I suppose you could make the argument, but it would be a pretty weak argument, heh. The scalpel, etc. -- if they get destroyed later, it's irrelevant to the physical changes they made. Those changes remain.)

But who did the changing; the surgeons who used the tools or the tools themselves? I would hope the “changes” made by the surgical tools wouldn’t be permanent, you could lose a lot of blood that way.

 

They will if they think it's getting same old same old.

Only if the same old same old is costing them more than they’re getting in return.

 

If you read carefully, you'll see that's actually what I'm saying. I do not want to stick to ANY tradition just for tradition's sake. This is a major moral of mine. I don't want any change merely BECAUSE change is tradition, but because I think a change is warranted at this time.

Then we are of kindred spirits, you and I.

 

Example, to the charge somebody brought up that so many of these powers are evil powers, and that's a change (and to some, apparently thus bad). I didn't ask Greg to approve a change to how many evil powers we know because change is a tradition. I asked for it because I felt we had not delved into this corner of Bionicle enough yet. But I WILL have no qualms about citing the tradition as backup.

As I said above, the morality of mask powers depends on who views it. I see no reason why a power shouldn’t be a Kanohi power just because someone thinks it’s immoral. It’s still a power.

 

True, we don't normally use mutation to mean that in real life, but then remember that mutation means something different in Bionicle -- it refers to the changing of an already living being. Similar to some comic book uses of the word. And the physical changes in the brain are natural; transformation isn't, so mutation also implies that it's a power, which it is.

Like Roodaka’s Mutation spinner? Or how the Hordika venom mutates targets to become more bestial?

 

They both still modify vision in some way.

True, but not the same way, which is what has people confused.

 

Alright, what about this? Say, you're next to a structure you are touching to age. How you get out of the way before it falls on you? But this could be solved also by perhaps saying it only works in VERY limited range, not actually touch only... ?

You have two major options; touch the part that’s falling and rapidly age it before it could harm you, or do the obvious thing and not stand where it’s going to fall. ;)

 

Matoran can build robots, but not Matoran

Careful; we don't know (and won't know) how new Matoran are made. :P We do know Matoran can rebuild Matoran, especially their mechanical parts. As far as I know, Greg hasn't denied that Matoran build other Matoran, has he? If he did, he'd be partly answering the question, which isn't supposed to be answered.

*facepalm* I was wrong, Matoran can build new Matoran. It says they can, right there in the BIONICLE Atlas, they just couldn’t be built on Mata Nui.

 

Depends on the power (and the reader). Kaukau didn't cite its limit; it was implied only that it could only go to a certain depth, but we didn't know that for sure until we got the bio of the Kaukau Nuva, which said it could go to deeper depths than the Mata.

 

And yet someone in one of the EM topics in S&T just said they never knew about that limitation to Kaukau. Maybe it would have been better to directly state it.

Until the Kanohi Nuva came out, the Great Kaukau didn’t need a limitation. The only limitation it had was the user’s body. If the user dove too deep to the point where the pressure made breathing difficult then the user would eventually suffocate. Looking at the Kaukau page on BS01, I’ve never been a fan of the “for-a-limited-time” limitation. I had always believed the power duration was dependant upon the user’s control and concentration.

 

Well, IMO, the imagination is better honed when we are aware of limitations, and thus are free to imagine ways around them.

Agreed.

 

The analogy I made recently is to LEGO bricks and Bionicle pieces. When you MOC, you have real limitations you must deal with. You must use your imagination to work around the limitations, just as much as to come up with the original idea. You must adapt your ideas as you build. This provides a powerful imagination skill that otherwise you are robbed, if nobody has the spine to tell you the bad sides of things.

That is only if one accepts the limitations. Many people hated the arm spines of the Piraka and, instead of working around or with them, the people simply cut them off. If they ran out of a certain type of piece, they would get more. If the piece didn’t exist in a color they wanted, then they would paint the piece. People naturally hate boundaries and will actively work to remove them. When you MOC, the only real limitation is you.

 

If I am too macaroni-spined to say "the mask can't do this," for fear of people not wanting to know what they can't do, then they have no idea what to do with the power. Sure, they can imagine their own version of it -- but they can do that anyways! Fan interpretations and fanfics are your sandbox. But when I define the limitations, it gives you a better mental challenge, and encourages you to exercise your brain.

Or it confuses the reader like the character stats did/do. When people saw that Nocturn had a strength level of 16 and Hydraxon had a strength level of 13, they couldn’t understand how Hydraxon beat Nocturn.

 

Well, I agree -- that's a limitation. Directly stated. I dunno why the debate needs continue beyond that. As far as what "godmod" is, I'm just telling you what people say; I didn't invent the term.

Lol :lol: . I agree, but we don’t need to specifically state what the mask can’t do. Let the people work to understand them, make it learning process. The only reason people got/get confused with the powers of the Miru and the Kadin is because they couldn’t understand that Lewa combined his air power with the levitation power of the Miru to achieve flight. Same with the Akaku, the Akaku’s power only lets Kopaka see through things, its built-in scope is what gave him the ability to see farther.

 

Hmm... I did it again. I just convinced myself that my own argument was false. :P You’re right to keep the limitations, but we shouldn’t put limits in fear of “overpowering” the mask. That was my beef with the “slightly” in the Mask of Aging’s initial description (which, I notice, is gone now :)).

 

Lemme throw your argument back at you though, with Adaptation. In the definition, it is made clear, without explaining every reason for it, both that -- and why -- it causes permanent physical changes. And yet, somehow, you "weren't smart enough" to figure out why that makes sense. You had to ask. But if you would have on your own worked to understand the pros and cons of the mask affecting permanent physical change, compared to the pros and cons of the Kaukau for example, then I wouldn't have needed to directly say it.

Well, technically, you were trying to introduce a new idea. At the time, I hadn’t realized that, but now I do. And while it makes sense logically, it’s still not an idea I’m fond of.

 

Well, I'm with ya man, but people still don't like it usually. :P They hear "the power makes you invulnerable", and since it doesn't say there's a weakness, they take it literally. They take the definition's word for it, yanno?

That just means they took from it what they wanted to take from it, instead of actually understanding the definition. I’m probably just being cynical though.

 

(I like the Rahkshi power of limited invulnerability; basically a short timed invincibility along the lines of the Mario Cart yellow star upgrade, and turned it into a Paracosmos mask power too.)

I’m glad to know I’m not alone.

Link to comment
Vulture is the closest and simplest English word that describes what the mask does

To add to my earlier example, that would be like saying that Birds would be the closest English word to what the Kadin does.

 

I think the most problem I have with Vulture is that it sounds too much like a noun. Now I know that things as Speed, X-Ray Vision, Fate, Life and Time as well as many others are nouns as well, but they can also be somewhat similar and/or identical to verbs as in "live", "sped" and "time" (such as when you time your speed), others, like X-Ray Vision, describe a very certain, specific kind of power or explain what the Mask User can control, such as Fate.

 

Vulture, however, does not fit. The mask itself does not control "Vultures", nor does it make the user have all the abilities of a vulture. It is almost unrelated to vultures themselves, having only a somewhat-related characteristic or habit of them (eating/draining energy from the dead).

 

Another problem I also have, is that it just doesn't really fit with the rest of the precanon of Bionicle. It would be like having a Toa of Peanuts, or "United States Nui". It contrasts heavily against what has gone before.

 

:k::h:

Link to comment

I'm quite certain bonesiii has been open to name suggestions instead of "Vulture" for a long time. If you could find a better word that suited your tastes and accurately summarized the mask power, I'm sure bones would be happy to consider it.

 

I, myself, didn't like the name "Vulture" for the same reason. The problem is; in order to find a better word, you have to change the way the power works. So, unless the power gets rethought, the name remains "Vulture."

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...