I'm gonna reply out of order this time. Quote tags I'm trying to reserve for the most important quotes; bold for the rest.

To add to my earlier example, that would be like saying that Birds would be the closest English word to what the Kadin does.

No, to use your example, "Flight" is a simple, well-known English word that describes the power. For this mask, though, there is no such word, so I thought of going the poetic route, a route that had never yet been tried (not with direct metaphor, anyways; to a degree it had been with Kindred).

That's the Bionicle way -- to try new things, when they make sense.

And like Talvak said, I'm still waiting for a good alternative to Vulture. Necrophagy is a "real" English word for the power (or anyways, it's as close to it as Vulture; there is no word for the energy version of it), but it's obscure (unlike Flight).

And, merely saying you don't like the name we've got doesn't help me -- I need alternatives.

Another problem I also have, is that it just doesn't really fit with the rest of the precanon of Bionicle.

Again, it's an intentional new style. You could have made that argument about Kindred or Psychometry; both established new naming styles for masks at the time. The only real Bionicle tradition is that tradition is not to be adhered to blindly. Innovation is the core Bionicle tradition -- hence robots on a tropical island.

Besides, this whole argument is silly -- you're appealing to the canon to try to disprove the canon. Greg approved this; it's canon.

You're saying, "anything that was canon before this is okay because it was canon." Well, this is canon too now. By that logic, either nothing in the canon is okay (since by defintion, nothing was canon until it became canon ), or this is okay.

Yes, but would they be called vultures? Even "animals" are renamed "Rahi" in the MU.

There are many Rahi (and other creatures) that use English names. Glance through this page, and you'll see many.

What you aren't seeming to understand is, in the storyline, whenever English words are used, it's intended as the best translation from (the fictional language of) Matoran. So the Matoran would NOT call them "Vultures" or "Phase Dragons" or "Crystal Serpents" etc. -- but in those cases Matoran language words were not granted, as that's a complicated legal process they try to avoid for non-sets.

So the mask power name wouldn't actually be "Vulture", it would be some other name, which would literally mean "absorbing the energy of the recently deceased". But since English has no such word (as far as anyone has suggested), we have to find a close equivalent, and given the obvious Vulture-like shape of the mask (and Vultraz's name), I thought it was most fitting to use the metaphor of Vulture.

And "Rahi" means animals. From time to time in the story, they are referred to as animals so as not to use the same word too much. That just tells as that Rahi were sets, so they got a legal-approved Matoran word. These aren't sets. So that logic cannot be applied here.

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.

Willpower always plays a role with Bionicle powers. I'm not saying it would have MUCH affect. But with the dead, there'd be literally NO affect.

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?

Well, go back to the Miru vs. Kadin example. Likewise, people who weren't thinking through on their own what the advantages of the more limited Miru could be (remember, you yourself said that people should use their own imagination and think these things through), concluded that Miru is useless. But Greg and I showed otherwise.

I've showed many advantages Vulture has over Hunger; especially that Vulture gives you access to a larger amount of energy per being. Another I don't recall if I mentioned is it would be automatic; anything that dies in your vicinity, including Rahi, including small Rahi in fact, you get the energy of. With Avsa, you have to actively target them.

The key point I think you're getting to is that the Avsa is (at least a little) more useful. I agree. I think it's a big exaggeration to say it's "far" more useful though. But again, Kadin vs. Miru. Nobody disputes that the Kadin is MORE useful, maybe even "far" more useful. But that doesn't make the Miru pointless.

And how you define "far" is subjective anyways.

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.

Vulture's main use, again, is on the battlefield. That was the whole original idea, as it was invented primarily for inhabitants of the Multiverse planet of Barrawahi; nicknamed "Warzone." They're almost always at war there, and many clans fight to the death.

But battles are not unheard of in Bionicle. During battle, the Avsa would be a distraction, best saved for if you are dying yourself and need energy. But the Vulture would automatically give you a ton of energy as warriors fall all around you, throughout the battle, without being a distraction. All you'd need to do is make sure you're in range. Given that battles are high-risk, I think many villains or questionables would definately want this power when entering battle. Makes you more likely to not just survive the battle, but actually keep on fighting for your side.

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.

Nobody disputed that.

Then use to the Avsa to drain them before you kill them

That won't work in a battle situation -- who said you were the one to kill them? Who said you have time to drain all the enemy fighters' energy instead of killing them to end the battle? Sure, situations might exist where that would work fine -- nobody's arguing that Hunger is useless after all. But that doesn't make Vulture useless either.

In fact it really is irrelevant; it's the "This power overlaps that one, so you don't need that one" argument. That's not realistic at all.

Again, look at how many varieties of cars exist, and yet they all basically do the same thing -- get you from point A to point B -- and that overlap has certainly not stopped carmakers from developing each car with its own unique, minor differences to suit different specific needs.

A pickup truck and a little two-seater might both have the same basic function -- travel -- but there are enough minor differences that lead some people to choose the one ideal for hauling, and the other for traveling comfortably in style, whatnot.

Even among each type, there are many different specific models, and many have little to no practical difference, or differences only a car expert would notice or care about. This doesn't mean that one is banned from existence. It just means that both are used about half as much. Or one is used based on availability. Etc.

Normally, the only type of powers that can be resisted are mental powers. Physical powers like the Avsa

Ah ah ah, wait right there. Read the definition of Avsa again:

It allows its user to drain light, energy, or positive emotions from a target at a distance.

And remember the light being talked about there includes moral light, which is also a mental issue (as the draining of it turns you evil).

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

No, no, that's not how elemental energy works. In Bionicle, elemental energy is natural (at least in the protodermic world of the MU), and it powers elemental power. In order for those things to happen, in intelligence must be running EE through TE, with a brain and much focus. Naturally, EE is dormant or contained in natural elements. (Thus Toa can absorb it from, ex: Gali absorbing from a pool in MOL to recharge.)

As to your doubt of it escaping when they die, again, we don't really know, but what could contain it given that they are dead?

There's no living brain anymore, no intelligence. Dead things decay, and radiate whatever energies they had stored up. As far as we've seen, that rule applies in Bionicle like gravity does; it's not something Bionicle physics changes. It changes which energies there are; life energy instead of heat, and obviously the whole powers thing, EE or not, is fictional. But the principles of those energies seem to be the same.

Again, though, the definition does not specifically say EE. Life energy is the main example. The mask still works just fine even if Greg says "EE doesn't leak out of dead Toa." A little less benefit from it, but life energy was the example I had in mind originally anyways.

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.

It does. If you don't have the mask of adaptation to "give you the power" to mutate your body to adapt to your surroundings, you can't continue to adapt. You're stuck in whatever form you were in at the time of losing it.

Remember, adapt is a verb.

If you don’t have the mask to keep you adapted, then you can’t stay adapted.

You already know by now what the power does; I've explained it clearly. I don't see why we need to keep going back and forth on this. You don't like the power as it is; fine. You don't have to. Can't please everybody.

But for the reasons of being a unique power (with its own unique uses) already given (having its own pros and cons, different from other masks), its power is "physically mutate the body to adapt to environment."

Yes, it's different from other powers; that's the whole point lol!

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.

Not in general. You are adapted to your current situation, as long as you have the mask.

Technically, if someone tried to drown you, you used this mask, then lost it, and got stuck breathing water, then you could never be drowned. But you could be killed in other ways, such as putting poison in the water, and you'd be unable to adapt to that.

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?

Sigh. Alright, here comes the Larryboy quote.

"Alfred... we've been over this."

It can't grant you flight powers. So Kadin/Miru have nothing to do with this. Granted, if you're falling off a cliff, it might give you glider wings, but that's about it. Its adaptation is intended to keep you alive in any given moment, not to give you any old power, even if your mission requires you to have such a power. Even if you knew you would die if you failed your mission, that's beyond the mask's sight -- if it sees "you're fine surviving on the ground right now, so you're adapted to your surroundings."

As for the point of the Kaukau... will you pardon me if I get a little frustrated at you now? I freakin just told you that, and you even quoted parts of it. *sighs* Pardon the irritation. Not trying to flame. But why are you asking the same questions I already answered? This befuddles me.

But I'll say it again. Kaukau lets you breathe water, without actually mutating you. If you lose it, you aren't stuck breathing water, but then neither can you continue to do so if you need to.

Adaptation lets you breathe water, by mutating you. If you lose it you ARE stuck breathing water, but on the other hand you CAN continue breathing water if you need to.

So, it is NOT doing the same thing. IF I changed it to be a temporary mutation, as you want, THEN they'd be doing the same thing, right. But that is not the case. And this is the very reason, in fact, that I'm NOT doing it the way you want it done.

Now, I'd better not see you missing this point again. I've said it at least three times now.

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.

I'd think not. As soon as it switched masks, the body is no longer animated, and then how can it switch back ever, let alone use the mask it switched to?

Might be able to do Toa Vakama's trick of putting another mask on overtop the Undeath mask though.

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?

Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere.

I wouldn't mind that. But, how long would it take before (to continue with the water breathing example) you could no longer breathe water? I would only be happy if you could still breathe water for at least a couple of minutes.

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.

Lol. Works for me.

But who did the changing; the surgeons who used the tools or the tools themselves?

Doesn't matter. If the surgeons die, do the surgeries they performed magically revert? Surgeons and tools alike both correlate to the mask in this example; the person on the operating table (who agreed to the surgery and will pay for it, or got insurance etc.) correlates to the user.

I would hope the “changes” made by the surgical tools wouldn’t be permanent, you could lose a lot of blood that way.

Actually, the stitches are changes too.

Only if the same old same old is costing them more than they’re getting in return.

Right; that's when it becomes same old same old.

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

Very good.

Until the Kanohi Nuva came out, the Great Kaukau didn’t need a limitation.

Well, yes it did, it just wasn't directly stated. Without a limitation, the Kaukau would have been more powerful than a Great mask. That's the reasoning.

The depth limitation was there; it was just that the reader's intelligence was needed to figure that out on their own, and most didn't even think of it. There's a major difference between deciding that the readers don't need to be told a limitation, and saying that when actually programming a power in a mask of Conjuring, the program doesn't need to know its own details.

In both cases, the fictional programming exists, weakness included, but in the first case, the reader simply wasn't informed of the full programming.

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.

Yeah, but that's still a limitation.

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 those are all just synonyms. Level of mental acumen determines ability to use power level. But level of energy contained in a mask makes sense to confine the power time too; even if a Toa uses a Noble mask, they might have more than enough concentration, but the mask itself literally has less power than a Great version.

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.

Those are all working around limitation. When cutting a piece, you must work with the physics of cutting through plastic. To get more of a piece, you must work with the process to get them. You can't just snap your fingers Q style and have them in front of you instantly. Same with paint, etc. All of that is working around limitations.

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.

Lol, well, that's a matter of ignorance of what factors go into faceoffs and such. The story tells those things. But obviously that "level equals win" illogic is a mindset we run up against often. It's a "childish" thing, which is to say, we should expect that kids will think it. But the story challenging it provides a teaching opportunity, so they can learn.

Hmm... I did it again. I just convinced myself that my own argument was false. tongue.gif You’re right to keep the limitations, but we shouldn’t put limits in fear of “overpowering” the mask.

Lol. But there's no "fear" involved.

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.

Alright, no problems with that. I'm not out to please everybody.

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."

Unless there's a better name that describes the power.

Vulture, however, does not fit. The mask itself does not control "Vultures"

You are correct -- it controls the power that is named Vulture.

As I've gone over with Thormen, grammatically the name "Mask of Vulture" could not mean "controls vultures"; it would either have to be "Mask of Vultures", or it would just be grammatically incorrect. That tells you that "Vulture" must be the power name itself, and it must simply be a definition of the word "Vulture" that you don't yet know. Read the definition, and you'll see why; the power does something similar to what vultures do.

And sorry, I cannot pardon your example. It's totally irrelevant and does not belong on BZPower. Your post got edited, whee. Vultures are best known for what they do -- eat the dead. Plain and simple.

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.

Those are random things you pulled out of your head. This isn't -- this has at least three reasons inspiring it. The Vulture-like mask shape, Vultraz's name (he wears a Matoran version of this), and the power itself is Vulture like. Plus all the reasons said before about how it's the most concise and well-known term to sum up the power in a name.

I apologize for that example...I should have thought it through quite a bit more.

Well, I guess Vulture will have to do until another name is found...

However, you did mention that one of the reasons for the name is Vultraz's name. Is the mask then named and thus made especially for him?

I suppose you can put it that way. In real life, anyways. If you mean in the story, probably more like he is named after the mask, or renamed himself after it when he became evil, or something like that.

Okay.

But I'd suggest not mentioning that until Greg confirms it, just in case.

And besides, the English launguage is always changing. Who knows, Vulture might actually be a verb in a few years.

Sorry for the late reply, been a little busy last week.

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.

Nope, it doesn't, that's why I agree with you that your definition of 'vulture' fits grammatically in my example phrase. However, 'vulture' had an existing definition which wouldn't fit, and that's why it sounds weird before you get accustomed to it.

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).

I agree.

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.

In this case it's not about not knowing the definition, it's about knowing the wrong definition, which makes it sound grammatically incorrect, and that's because if the wrong definition were the right one it would actually have been incorrect. That's not a grammatical rule though, that's a consequence of the fact that there are grammatical rules.

As I said before, sure, you can guess what the phrase is supposed to mean, but if the phrase is grammatically incorrect it technically doesn't convey meaning, because there technically is no structure and the structure contributes to the 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.

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.

Poetry does convey meaning but it's generally harder to figure out and much more open to your own interpretation, and that's not what the purpose of naming masks is. From a grammarian's perspective though, poetry does not convey meaning when the structure is messed up.

All of that is beside my point though, because it really isn't about whether the structural flaw makes it convey no meaning, but about the fact that there is a structural flaw (in my phrase that is).

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.

I don't recall saying that there's no relation between vocabulary and grammar... I only said that grammar wasn't about context and I took that back later. There are, however, things that will definitely fall into either of those fields, like the difference between a shovel and a spade (vocabulary), or whether an adjective precedes the noun it belongs to or the other way round (grammar). The problems you raised with 'levitation' or 'shielding' clearly fall in the vocabulary category, while 'vulture' is a mix of the two.

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.)

True, but that's not about grammar, that's about being accurate with the information you provide. An example of sterile and literal prose is legislation. The reason why poetry is really not supposed to be used in there is because, contrary to poetry, in legislation you have to be crystal clear and perfectly accurate about what you mean. Poetry is supposed to bring up emotions and sometimes it does that with grammatically incorrect sentences, but sometimes, like in your examples, it uses grammatically correct sentences.

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.

I know, that's why I know that your new definition makes 'vulture' an abstract noun, but the thing about intuitively feeling something is that it usually doesn't 'switch your brain on' to come to conclusions.

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.

Not merely because it is a different definition; it's because it is a different definition which is a part of speech that doesn't fit into the phrase. Same goes for a Mask of Of. People are gonna say that that's grammatically incorrect but I could dodge that by saying I have a new definition for the word 'of' which makes it synonymous with 'possesion'. Doesn't change the fact that it sounds weird though.

Lol! That's what I've been saying, but it seemed to be you who was arguing otherwise. Or you who was theorizing why others were arguing it, anyways.

Somewhat, but with one major difference and that is that I made a point about the difference in word class (or part of speech etc.).

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.)

I suppose those for whom English is there mother tongue use the dialect that's favored in their homeland, don't they? Or do you mean a lot of American people for instance get confused over the '-or'/'-our' thing because they do it differently across the pond?

I'll follow your advice though, looking at the average BZPer's country makes the most sense.

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!

The thing is, there are people who think other suggestions are better than 'vulture', so doesn't that qualify those suggestions for equal chances in a poll? The fact that you don't like 'scavenging', 'necrophagy' etc. doesn't mean that 99% of BZP can't like it.

Not that I think you're required to do that though, you and Swert run the EM and that means you have to make some decisions on your own, but since you insisted the aim is to please... wouldn't a poll with all the options be the logical conclusion?

I see you've made the poll now though, and did include most of the suggestions. I think that was a good choice seeing as there were so many people who criticized 'vulture'. I hope the results won't disappoint you.

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.

I like 'vulturation' more than 'vulture' because it sound correct in the phrase. From a logical perspective they have the same problem though: they are both essentially new words. I would prefer a word with an existing definition and that's why I like 'necrophagy' a lot. The only criticism I can see for that word also counts for 'psychometry': it's a greek-ish scientific-sounding name that doesn't immediately make clear what the power is.

I see both made it into the poll, so I don't think it can get any fairer than that.

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.

There are lots of things you can come up with that aren't so close to the definition. The mask could turn you into a vulture, or let you control vultures, or give you the ability to eat like a Rahi... Those all make a bigger difference than 'levitation' and 'levitating' and you criticized my theory because of that difference.

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.

Or you could pick the name of some random, unimportant Matoran that already existed, like Kalama or Boreas. It would be a coincidence, but it wouldn't be a far stretch from stuff like Kopaka/Kopeke.

Masks with Matoran names still have English power names.

With only one function: to give a short, albeit a little inaccurate, description of what the power is. They have no storyline function because they aren't used in the actual story, seeing as they're supposed to be translations of the Matoran words. An actual Matoran never says 'Mask of Shielding', only 'Kanohi Hau'. The only reason LEGO gave the masks English names is so the fans would have a short, memorable description of the masks' powers, which would be inaccurate but would be corrected by the less memorable, longer description.

However, if what you want is to make the short and memorable description extremely accurate, you'd have to invent a new word. You are already doing that by naming the mask in Matoran though (or establishing that the mask has a Matoran name), so why invent a new English word if there really is no need to?

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.

That's exactly not the point I was making. If the Matoran name was similar to 'vulture' it would ruin the whole effect because it would bring in possible meanings of the word. You were claiming that 'vulture' couldn't be mistaken for another power, but I disagreed because the fact that 'vulture' already has a meaning makes it possible to guess wrong new meanings (wrong powers). If you're going to take a Matoran word derived from 'vulture' you're dragging that problem with you, people still think 'Oh, it sound like "vulture", I wonder if the mask gives you a vulture-like ability, like... [insert wrong powers]'.

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

Well, I did say that not all change is equal, but I have something more important to say on this: actually, I didn't allow a change to be made, because all that happened was that my phrase reverted back to the original would-be-synonym. For instance, an analogy would be someone saying 'I'm putting clothes in the washing machine to do the laundry' and then the next person would ask what 'laundry' meant. The first person would explain that it meant washing clothes and the like, and then the second person would claim it is a grammatically incorrect sentence because 'washing' and 'clothes' were repeated. He would be wrong because in the original sentence it wasn't the case, only when the other explained it to him through the use of a synonym words got repeated.

Similarly, the 'Mask ... control' phrase would seem to be a synonym of 'Mask of', and seeing as 'Mask of' is what people are actually reading, there isn't any word repetition.

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).

I said vocabulary affects grammar because of the difference in word classes. What I was arguing against is the idea that vocabulary affects grammar purely through the meaning of words, as in the difference between 'shielding' and 'creating a protective bubble around oneself that will stop any attack that's seen coming'.

For the record, the quote you were responding to did mention that adding new words changes the meaning but that wasn't what I was focusing on. My reasoning was more along the lines of: If you add new words to a phrase, you change the meaning of the phrase, and if the meaning changes the grammatical properties might also change, therefore, adding new words to a phrase can make a difference in whether the phrase is grammatically correct. (I know there are some leaps in there, but you agreed with me on the conclusion anyway, so...)

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.

As I said above I didn't really change it, it just reverted back to its original equivalent. On top of that, I am denying that this is a grammar problem. Sure, it looks a little ugly, but that's got nothing to do with grammar. If you look at my example of 'sterile, literal prose', legislation, again, you'll find lots of instances where words are repeated like that. That doesn't make the legislation grammatically incorrect, otherwise the legislation would be unsuitable because people in court could claim they didn't understand the law.

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?

Be correct unchanged, feel correct changed. The former would lead to the latter to my idea.

You're acting again as if all change is equal, which means you're definitely overgeneralizing. Let's use your logic on the mask itself (the toy): can you change that mask? Sure, you can cut it in half with a pair of secateurs. So can you change it in another way too? 'If you can change it, then you can change it', so you might as well turn it into an elephant. Except you can't, 'cause that's impossible. Commprannday tew missmoe?

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.?

Again, I didn't fix anything, the phrase reverted back to its original, plus it wasn't a grammar issue, it was an issue of speaking eloquently. If I did have to fix anything though, I'd say I'd draw the line where the grammatical properties start to change, meaning the use of synonyms or words of the same word class is still allowed, but adding new words isn't if they change the grammatical properties. I wouldn't mind adding new words if the grammatical properties stay the same, for instance, you could add 'with lilies' and I'd be fine with that, because 'Mask ... control [word] with lilies' still expects an abstract noun.

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.

As you said, we're talking feel. That's why fixing it a posteriori with the new definition doesn't work. The issues with the other masks aren't grammatical except for 'kindred'.

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.

I said 'possibly', so it doesn't have to be a grammatical issue. For instances, if you're adding new words to a different sentence altogether, that's not going to be a grammatical issue for the sentence you are focusing on. Adding grammatically correct clarifications to a grammatically correct phrase is not a grammatical issue because it doesn't change anything in the grammatically correct-ness.

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?

'Levitation' can follow 'control' in this structure, so there is no grammatical issue. There is only an issue concerning the meaning of the phrase and that's what you can fix with clarification.

By the way, I don't understand where you draw the line here, seeing as you admit that 'control light' isn't completely accurate either, you just say it's 'close enough'. First you admit that you don't need to know the limit of the power to see the description as grammatically correct, but then you say that you should clarify how the Miru is limited to just lifting the user and can only lift upwards.

Moreover, I never said adding words is inherently grammatical, I said adding words possibly changes the grammatical properties, possibly, not inherently. If it does change the grammatical properties, it makes a world of difference in the question whether the phrase is grammatically correct or not, but if it doesn't, it won't make a difference in that question either.

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?

I'm not making a point about whether it's a good or a bad thing that the incorrect interpretations are grammatical. I'm just theorizing that everybody actually cares whether the wrong interpretations are grammatical because the wrong interpretations are the first thing they see, meaning they are what people's intuitions are going to assume in judging if the phrase sound correct. If you think those wrong interpretations shouldn't be 'encouraged' and you think you can prevent that by making the wrong interpretations ungrammatical, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that people intuitively do have a problem with it because of the way their intuition works.

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

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

Firstly, I only think it's worth this much textwall to discuss because I want to explain what my theory is. I don't see how that could possibly be a reason for me to have to pick a side in the question whether it's a good or a bad thing. People have written entire books stating objective facts or theories and discussing how plausible those theories are. On top of that, I'm pro-'vulture' at the moment (although I find some alternatives better, I think 'vulture' isn't bad).

Not that I mind playing Devil's Advocate though, I would agree to doing that even if we were just starting the discussion. I could imagine this would be bad because when people think a mask name sounds incorrect they're gonna like it less, meaning they like the overall of BIONICLE just a little less and the sales might drop a bit, or, seeing as this is EM-related, people are gonna like the EM less and won't participate as much as they otherwise would; or, on an even smaller scale, people don't like the mask in question because of its name and will therefore not use it in their fanfics, or maybe realityshiftify it into a different mask.

Sure, the fact that BIONICLE is intended to require work to understand means that those fans maybe should try to understand the name first before they make the above decisions, but that doesn't remove the a priori 'stain' of it sounding weird. People say not to judge a book by its cover, but how often does the cover become totally unimportant in people's judgement of a book? It will always have a little effect, won't it? Why do you think the Harry Potter books have 'adult' versions with less childish covers?

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.

It's not about not understanding the definition per se, it's about not understanding the fact that the word has a new word class. That's something that isn't clearly stated in the description (and I'm glad it isn't), so I expect that for most people it will need a little explanation. You can understand what the new meaning of the word is without understanding that that makes it into an abstract noun, examples abound in this comments section.

Like I said at the start, it depends on which English (or History ) 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.

When a History prof says that you shouldn't use ambiguous wording I expect he doesn't do so because of grammar but because he just wants you to write a concise, historical piece. I can imagine an English teacher doing the same for similar reasons, in fact my Dutch teacher ('cause I'm from the Netherlands) made a clear distinction between grammatical errors and 'style errors', the latter being things that were grammatically correct but still strongly discouraged because they would damage the flow of the text, or make your point unclear.

Lol. A lie is, by definition, having the intent to decieve.

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... )

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.

True, grammar is related to everything in language, but that doesn't make any language-involving mistake a grammatical error. You can cleverly use grammatical structure to muddle the meaning of what you're saying, but that doesn't make a difference to whether it's grammatically correct.

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.

The word 'grammar' has a different meaning in linguistics than in conventional use. I was assuming we were using the conventional definition because that's what I originally meant and you seemed to respond with the same idea in mind. If you look at it linguistically, 'Mask ... control vulture' is probably not grammatically correct, as I expect that almost every informant you'll question will say so. Grammar in the usual sense is the combination of syntax and morphology.

Since you say syntax is in the field of grammar I think we're pretty much agreeing on that point. I also agree that semantics isn't totally independent from grammar, so I think all we'd be disagreeing on is whether a semantically 'incorrect' phrase is grammatically incorrect. I'd be fine with agreeing to disagree on that, although I think I put some arguments in the above half of this post and I don't feel like weeding them out. I'd be fine with those arguments staying unanswered though. It's after all your choice whether you want to respond to something.

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.

I believe the technical term is actually lexicon... but that aside, yes, those are chunks of meaning so those words wouldn't be entirely devoid of meaning. I was just illustrating the difference between the vocabulary issue of 'vulture' and the issues of all the other masks.

Well, again, we're quibbling now, but functions are part of meaning.

True, true... not the entire scope of meaning is what I meant, just those functions.

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?

Sure, the pictures would matter, but they wouldn't matter to the backbone of the puzzle: the structure. They would only matter to the picture itself. Everything would still fit, the picture would just be nonsense.

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.

That's again the linguistic definition of the word 'grammar' which is really different from the contemporary one. Contemporary grammar does refer purely to structure and not the sender/receiver stuff.

No, it isn't. But isn't that what I'm saying?

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...

I indeed agree that vocabulary and grammar are connected but you seem to be assuming that that proves every vocabulary 'error' to be a grammatical one, which is really a big leap of logic.

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.

Same as above really. I agree with you that syntax plays a role in how the error manifests but that still doesn't make the error a syntactical one. If you misinterpret someone's (crystal clear, for the record) instructions that's a mistake, and the other person does in fact play a role in that mistake, but that doesn't make it his mistake, does it? That makes it your mistake.

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.

Again, that's not a syntactical error. In fact, I don't think you can make syntactical errors in RMK3... but if it were

possible, those errors would crash the test run.

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. 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.

Reading this I think I have to agree with you to agree to disagree (because I still disagree ). All I can answer to this is 'No, that's not a grammatical rule.', because I'm convinced that semantics isn't a field of grammar. So, unless you know more arguments as to why the meaning is as important to grammar as you claim it is, I don't think there's much left to discuss here.

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.

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? 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)

I didn't mean that you should be purely maverick in respect to the rules of grammar if you're speaking, I meant that not every order people are giving is a grammatical rule. Using your sports analogy, if the opposing team yells at you 'Just give up, losers!' and you ignore that, is that considered a foul? No, because the opposing team isn't laying down the rules of the game, it's just trying to wreck your spirit. Same with your 'Convey your idea in one sentence.'. If someone tells you so it doesn't become a grammatical rule, all it could become is the rule of whatever he's the authority of. (And if that's a language, it must suck for writers!)

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.

So... you're agreeing with me? Your main point here seems to be contradicting what your earlier objections against my theory were. You were criticizing how I claimed 'I control levitation' to be grammatically correct on the grounds that it had the incorrect meaning, which leads to the rule that meaning must be correct for the grammar to be correct. That in turns means that every time the meaning, the information, doesn't get or wrongly gets across, it's a grammatical issue. Here, however you're saying that it depends on whether it's actually a grammatical issue...

Lol, now there can be no doubt we are supergeeks. 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.

Uh... sounds like if we'd manage to discuss that, we had best wait with it and reserve it for a Ph.D.

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).

Except that I said 'possibly', which would turn the conclusion into 'Unclear wording is possibly a grammatical issue.'. I don't have a problem with that, as far as I'm concerned that's right.

However, I don't think that's a valid argument. As far as I know logic, it should be:

P1: Adding words is a grammatical issue. (Synonymous with: If you add words, you create/bring up a grammatical issue.)

P2: If a wording is unclear, you must add words.

C: If a wording is unclear, you must create/bring up a grammatical issue.

I don't see a problem with that conclusion either. If you're going to clarify what you're saying, sure, you'll have to consider grammar otherwise you aren't making it any clearer, you'll just end up spouting gibberish.

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.

Like earlier, all I can say is 'No, that's not a grammatical issue'.

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. 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.

The debate started when you said 'levitation' etc. were grammatically incorrect too. In support of that claim you didn't just presuppose that vocabulary and grammar are connected, you presupposed that any flaw in respect to the intended meaning is a grammatical error. Or, if I misunderstood and that's not what you were presupposing, you were arguing a non sequitur.

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.

No disagreement here. I never said 'Vulture' was actually grammatically incorrect in 'Mask of Vulture', nor did I say people who felt it sounded wrong were thinking it through very well. Like I said, it's not a logical argument against 'vulture', it's just my theory of what people's minds do when they feel it doesn't sound right.

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 , 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.

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.

I'm curious what you mean every time you say 'affecting grammar'. I could understand this argument if, instead of saying the latter, you said 'affecting my post' or 'affecting the text', but I don't see how any of those things affect grammar. Sure, they make you have to reconsider what you're writing and therefore they make you have to reconsider the structure of the sentence, but that doesn't affect grammar itself. The only thing I think affects grammar is the evolution of a language, which changes its grammatical rules.

That doesn't mean I don't agree that grammar is connected to all of those thingss, but the way I see it those things, along with grammar, affect your text.

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.

But that's not enough to justify what you originally originally said, namely how 'vulture' wasn't the only mask power that didn't fit grammatically. A mere connection isn't enough to argue that, unless you assume that if two things overlap, that automatically means they fully overlap each other, which is definitely not true.

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.

Thanks for the compliment.

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.

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.)

Everytime you say something factual you say something improvable. I know I can never be a 100% sure of a thing's nonexistence (even if the thing contradicts itself, it might only appear a contradiction to everybody) but in some cases you can come really close to a 100%, close enough for all practical purposes. In those cases I always say I'm sure for the sake of simplicity, but when asked I admit you can never be a 100% positive.

In this case I might be incorrect according to some English professors but I still consider what I said to be correct (meaning I'm 99,999999999999999999999999% sure it's true). I myself agree with those that say ambiguity isn't a grammatical issue and the only way I can see how context influences grammar is that it consists of words and structure which determine the structure the 'uncontext'(?) (I mean the text that's not the context because it's the text focused on).

The bottom line is I'm still convinced vocabulary and grammar are only connected through the word class overlap. That's in the end a side issue though, earlier you seemed to concede that you thought my theory plausible after all.