JRRT

Very interesting stuff! Great work. I'm wondering if there is any rationale behind the word-creation, or is it mostly a priori? I've done a little creative work on a Skakdi dialect of the Matoran Language, and one of the phonotactic patterns that stuck out to me was the fact that Skakdi doesn't seem to have any stop consonants in word-initial position. The closest it gets is the equivalent of a fricative (zaktan, vezok, hakann, skakdi, thok, etc.) or an approximant/nasal (reidak, nektann). Any other patterns you've identified?

Also, note that the term fenrakk looks suspiciously Skakdian in origin to me, in which case you could add [f] to the sound inventory. That said, it would interfere a bit with your explanation of stress (always assigned to a [k]-containing syllable), since BS01 lists the pronunciation as ['fEn.rak]. Likewise, the island name Zakaz would seem a good candidate for a Skakdi term, but would also interfere with the stress rule (BS01 says ['zej.kaz]).

 

Added it up myself, just to make sure. Haha.

This is awesome! Based on the resemblance between the Latin characters and the Okotoan characters, it seems like the glyphs for <x> and <y> should be switched. Possibly a small error?

There seems to be some inconsistency between the original intent of the topic-poster in this topic and the direction that the discussion has taken, and I guess it’s mainly due to a failure to define the word “language”. Looking at RahiSpeak’s original post, the intent of this topic was to derive a workable, fan-made writing-system based on the set of symbols/glyphs evidenced in the new Bionicle media. To be clear, a writing-system is very different from a language: the former is a systematic means of representing the latter graphically, and the two are by no means equivalent. As far as I can see, the topic seems to have veered away from developing a writing-system and toward trying to develop a language itself, which is a completely different task.

Personally, I’d say the original goal of the topic—i.e. the development of a non-canon writing-system that is usable by Bionicle fans—is definitely an achievable one, with the resources available. The goal of creating a language for the inhabitants of Okoto, on the other hand, is less feasible, simply because we have very little to work with at this time. At the very least, there are three authentically Okotoan names (Ekimu, Makuta, Okoto), but with no indications as to what these names might mean. We could also include the names of the six Toa, despite their ostensibly foreign origin, since the name of Makuta seems to have been carried over unchanged from G1 to G2. However, until we have more information about the relation between G1 and G2 (is G2 connected to G1 at all? Are the Toa of G2 the same as the Toa Mata from G1?), no definite conclusions can be made there.

That said, there’s some really interesting discussion here! For what it’s worth, I suppose I've made a slight contribution to the original goal of developing a writing-system in this recent blog post. As for the newly-emergent second goal, let it not be said that I have anything against fan-creativity. =p The idea that the names Ekimu and Makuta could be translated as “Mask Maker” and “Mask Hoarder” feels like it could have some traction, and IcarusBen and Akavakaku have already given some proposals on that subject, so here is some critique of those proposals, followed by an account that builds on what’s already been discussed:

IcarusBen derives ekimu from makimu < ma-eki-mu (eki “maker”, ma an additional morpheme “the”) and makuta from mamukuta < ma-mu-kuta (kuta “hoarder”, which I assume was typo’d as kita in the original post). These derivations require some rather complex phonological rules. First, a rule that deletes /m/ in initial position in some cases (*maekimu > *aekimu > ekimu) but not all cases (mamukuta > makuta, unless the deletion affects the entire morpheme ma after it has influenced the vowel of mu, mamukuta > mamakuta > makuta). Also, I don’t feel like it’s necessary to assume an extra morpheme to signify “the”, since the only purpose it serves is to (presumably) alter the vowel of mu in ma-mukuta. Otherwise, it isn’t very well-supported.

Akavakaku goes a different route: ekimu < eki-mu (eki “mask”, mu “doer, maker”), makuta < muakiuta < mu-eki-uta (mu “doer, maker”, eki “mask”, uta “to keep, hoard”). Two phonological rules are required: (1) the first vowel in a sequence of two vowels is deleted, and (2) /e/ becomes /a/ word-internally. This is a more optimal version of the facts. However, the assumption that there is a phonotactic restriction on the appearance of /e/ word-internally seems pretty tenuous, since it’s based only on the observation that /e/ doesn’t appear word-internally in any of the three Okotoan names in evidence thus far, and also on the observation that the narrator in the Bionicle media pronounces Lewa’s name as “lee-wah” (phonetically: ['li.wa]) rather than the expected “leh-wah” or “lay-wah”. Personally, I wouldn’t put much stock in the pronunciation of character names in media, since there has always been inconsistency there (The pronunciation of Lewa’s name in particular has ranged from “lee-wah” to “lay-wah” to “loo-wah”, and that is clearly due to interference from English pronunciation, accent, and spelling). That said, Akavakaku brings up the important point that there is a syntactic contrast between the names ekimu and makuta that must be accounted for, and that this might line up with a semantic contrast like concrete vs. abstract (similar to how it worked in the Matoran Language).

Alright, now that I’ve reviewed the previous accounts, here’s an alternate version of the facts which draws upon some elements of both. The first challenge is, of course, to identify a common element in both names to signify the morpheme “mask”. I’ll start by noting that both names incorporate a discrete sequence /m+vowel/: mu in eki-mu and ma in ma-kuta. We can postulate that these in fact represent manifestations of a single morpheme mu/ma, which would then provide an optimal candidate for “mask”. In order to make this connection a bit more solid, it might be prudent to devise some minor sound changes which derive the two variants mu and ma from an older common form, say *mau “mask”.

Rule 1a: /au/ becomes /u/ at the ends of words (*eki-mau > ekimu)

Rule 1b: /au/ becomes /a/ elsewhere (*mau-kuta > makuta)

I think these rules are a bit simpler and more general than rules that have been proposed thus far, since they are based on a single sound change (the postulated sequence /au/ becoming something else), rather than multiple disconnected sound changes (deletion of word-initial /m/; deletion of the first vowel in a sequence of two vowels; /e/ > /a/ word-internally, etc.).

So, having identified a morpheme for “mask”, all that’s left is to identify morphemes signifying “maker” in the case of ekimu and “hoarder” in the case of makuta. This task is in some ways simpler, since we need only take the remainder after removing mu/ma: eki “maker” in the former case and kuta “hoarder” in the latter. Slightly more difficult is reconciling the semantic and syntactic properties of these (alleged) compounds. For example, semantically, the compound “mask-maker” is equivalent to that of “mask-hoarder”, since both indicate concepts where an agent (a maker or hoarder) affects an object; namely, masks. However, according to the assumptions made above with ma/mu (deriving it from *mau as the common element “mask”), both of these words have contrasting syntactic compositions, despite their assumedly similar semantic composition. That is, the word ekimu places the element eki “maker” before the element mu “mask”, while the word makuta places the element kuta “hoarder” after the element ma “mask”. How can we resolve this issue?

One way is to devise some additional rules of syntactic and semantic composition for the Okotoan language, taking as inspiration the rules which apply in the Matoran Language with respect to how adjectives modify nouns; namely the fact that adjectives placed before a noun appear to have a “concrete” or “physical” interpretation (e.g. nui-jaga “big scorpion”) while adjectives placed after a noun appear to have an “abstract” or “non-physical” interpretation (e.g. mata-nui “great spirit”). If we transplant these rules from Matoran into Okotoan, we can actually get some pretty good results, as follows:

Rule 2a: A modifying element placed before another element receives a concrete/physical interpretation (eki-mu “mask maker”; eki is to be interpreted as a “maker”, “creator”, or “fabricator”, in a physical sense, of masks)

Rule 2b: A modifying element placed after another element receives an abstract/non-physical interpretation (ma-kuta “mask hoarder”; kuta is to be interpreted as a “hoarder”, “keeper”, or “collector”, in an abstract sense, of masks)

With these two rules in place, we can explain the differing syntactic structure of eki-mu “mask maker” and ma-kuta “mask hoarder” without sacrificing the previous two phonological sound-change rules which allowed us to identify the common element *mau “mask” in the first place. Furthermore, if we were to reverse the situation for each name (i.e. place eki after *mau and kuta before *mau), we could derive some slightly different results:

1. *mau-eki > maeki? “mask initiator/originator” (assuming that the abstract/non-physical interpretation of eki would be something like “initiator/originator” as opposed to its concrete/physical interpretation of “maker/creator/fabricator”)

2. *kuta-mau > kutamu “mask holder/grasper” (assuming that the concrete/physical interpretation of kuta would be something like “holder/grasper” as opposed to its abstract/non-physical interpretation of “hoarder/keeper/collector”)

I think the next step would be to take the two resulting terms eki “maker/originator” and kuta “hoarder/keeper”, both of which are clearly agentive in that they express agents which are related to concepts of “making” on the one hand and “hoarding” on the other, and try to dissolve them a bit more (common element /k+vowel/, ki in e-ki, ku in ku-ta, perhaps a couple more phonological rules to derive ki/ku from a common form kui “agentivity; -er”, leaving e- “making/originating” and -ta “hoard, group”, which might provide a basis for a noun-verb distinction...). But I’ll leave that for a later post, perhaps, and see what people think of this rather verbose alternative account instead. =p

JRRT

Although it's true that G1 had an overall "serious" tone (good vs. evil and all that), it had its fair share of comedy, and G2 seems to be following the same path. MNOG had plenty of humor, as I recall. In fact, I distinctly remember a fart joke during the first encounter of the Ta-Matoran with Tahu. On balance, that scene had more humor than the G2 version does (although admittedly we haven't yet seen how the G2 scene plays out fully). 

So no, I don't detect a shift in the underlying presentation of Bionicle G2 thus far. I see the same combination of epic ("serious") scope with light-hearted ("non-serious") fair, and I'm liking it so far.

JRRT 

2. Fair enough, but if that's the case, you need to clarify that right up front, or else all of this happens.

 

3. Yes, I was a bit uncertain about that bit myself. But consider this: We've been given the official number of Matoran in the universe: 10,000. Ten-thousand is a very small number. How many other species exist in the MU? Dozens? This and this confirm that much. We know not ALL of them can use Kanohi, but there are many that can. When you consider the sheer number of different sapient species, and the planet-like size of the GSR, we have to assume that the populations of those other species easily dwarf that of the Matoran. Also, the term "Matoran Language" is a name we use. The Great Beings may just refer to it as a programming language, since all the beings inside Mata Nui were intended to speak it, and they gave Mata Nui instructions for the creation of the other races besides Matoran. This implies that Matoran were just the first step. We call it that because the Matoran have a bit of an ego and like to claim greatness of anything that is theirs. Notice how only the Matoran call their islands "great." As such, they would probably name the universe and the language after themselves, too. (Metru Nui=Matoran, Stelt=not Matoran. See what I mean?)

 

4. Okay. Again, fair enough. Clarify that ahead of time (and Regit should have done that, too, if he was even aware of the fact). But still, you say "what they might have meant." Yours was just one translation. If someone else had gone in and taken up this same project, I can guarantee that their results would have been significantly different. No reason to assume that yours is the only way to look at it, though your reasoning makes sense.

 

5. Already covered in the above points. But, "mask" and "thing that sustains energy" are entirely different. I understand that you were intending to expand upon the official definitions, but something like that is not an expansion--it's an addition That's like adding the definition of my laptop's charger to the definition of my favorite hat. (I'm sure that's not the extent of your work, but I'm just going off that one example now since I'm in a bit of a rush this morning.)

 

6. Anyway, my main issue here is the whole "wrong forum for this" thing. I will use this example to explain it: A few years back, a member on here drew an amazing art piece that featured Toa Nuparu running through a rocky plain beneath Mount Valmai, slaying the Voya Nui Resistance Team Wolverine-style with his claws. That image used canon elements: Nuparu, the VNRT, and Mount Valmai. The events and actions portrayed in it are not. What if someone had done what RegitNui has done here with that same fan-created bit? Brought it to S&T and treated it as though it were applicable to official canon? You're welcome to use canon material to give credibility to your fanon project, but Regit's use of it by trying to apply fanon to canon and assuming that it is allowed to take precedence over it is not what this is for. That belongs down in the Creative Forums or in his personal blog. That's the point I'm trying to make.

2. I didn’t need to clarify anything in the original context you pulled that quote from. In this context, however, clarification is necessary.

3. You’re begging the question here: Is 10k a “very small number”? We have zero knowledge about the population-size of non-Matoran species in the MU, so Matoran could easily constitute the general population. And regardless, the fact remains that non-Matoran species may be the exception that proves the rule: Non-Matoran species don’t require Kanohi, but Matoran do. Kanohi were clearly created with a function related to Matoran (and Toa, Turaga). Without Matoran, there would be no purpose for Kanohi (powerless Kanohi, at least). As for your ideas about the Matoran ego…this is an example of baseless speculation. For all we know, Metru Nui and the other -Nui islands could’ve been named by the Great Beings. Not relevant.

4. Again, clarification wasn’t necessary until now, because no one objected (or misunderstood) in the previous context. Also, I’ve never claimed that my version of Matoran is the only version. I’m not even sure how that’s relevant here. In fact, I’d love to see other people step in with their own versions—I shouldn't have a monopoly on this stuff, and I’ve made that clear on various occasions.

5. “Mask” and “thing that sustains energy” are not entirely different within the context of the Bionicle storyline. You seem to think that by “expansion” I mean “randomly adding whatever” to the meaning of a word. That’s hardly fair. Extrapolating that the word kanohi originates from a complex incorporating the well-established and highly-salient fact that Kanohi function as energy-sustainers for Matoran (and as objects granting special powers, in the case of Great Kanohi) isn’t a random addition. It’s an addition, yes, but it’s an addition in the form of a highly-constrained hypothesis grounded in the canon. In that sense, your laptop ~ hat metaphor is nonsense, since that is a truly random addition.

6. Point has been made. I've reported the topic to see what the mods think.

JRRT

@~T1S~: Thanks for your clarification. I think everyone agrees that this material isn't really appropriate for S&T, but then again we don't seem to have a policy for where discussion of Bionicle linguistics should go, since the topic of Bionicle names/terms is uniquely sensitive in that there is zero possibility for addition to the canon (so speculation is, by S&T standards, somewhat pointless), but at the same time it can't be entirely divorced from the canon, since any such discussion is by nature tied to the canon words/definitions that we have. In this case though, it's clearly a creative addition, so maybe the topic should be moved?

I'll respond to your specific objection about word "redefinition" in the dictionary:

I do have some qualms about various bits where you redefined words. I quote:

So for us humans, kanohi translates as “mask”, but for a Matoran, it might translate more accurately as “something that sustains energy”.

This speaks for itself. And it makes very little sense when we consider that other beings, like Axonn, can use Kanohi, but it does not sustain them, rendering that redefinition invalid when you take the entirety of the story into perspective. This was done with some other official terms, as well. In other words, you redefined the words to fit your dictionary, rather than changing your dictionary to fit the definitions. Make sense? 

While I admit to this quote, it's my turn to clarify what I meant: I should properly have inserted "historically" before "translate" in that quote: "...for a Matoran, it might historically translate more accurately as...". In which case this is simply a misunderstanding about the concept of etymology.

No, I'm not claiming that, when a Matoran says the word "Where's my Kanohi?" they're really saying "Where's my thing-that-sustains-energy?" The word kanohi means "mask". The idea is simply that, if you look into the history of the name, it derives from a slightly more complex semantic concept that references the function of Kanohi.

And although it's a moot point given these facts, I could easily counter your objection about non-Matoran beings wearing Kanohi by saying that these are the exceptions that prove the rule. Matoran are the most prevalent being in the MU, and they are uniquely dependent on Kanohi. I don't think it's a stretch, therefore, to say that Kanohi were made for Matoran, and that the majority function of Kanohi is to sustain the energy of Matoran (and Toa, to a lesser extent). So the name-origin for Kanohi could easily reference a Kanohi's function for Matoran (i.e. sustaining energy). In addition, the word kanohi is a word in the Matoran Language. Why shouldn't it refer to the Matoran-specific function of a Kanohi? Lastly, setting all of this aside, even if a being like Axonn doesn't wear a Kanohi for energy-sustenance, he does gain something from a Kanohi, namely access to a mask power. The element ka in my decomposition of kanohi isn't specific as to what kind of energy is involved. Neither does it refer to energy-sustenance in particular. 

So again, while it doesn't matter due to the fact that I'm not claiming that kanohi means something other than "mask", even if I was, I think it's a defensible position. I expect the same will apply to other words where you claim I've "redefined words to fit my dictionary". No, I haven't. I've taken the canon meanings of words and tried to extrapolate based on their form and similarity to other words what their etymologies (i.e. historical meaning) might have been.

Last point: You offer up that the other option available to us is to "change the dictionary to fit the definitions". This doesn't really make much sense, since, according to this logic, such a dictionary would consist of an entry for every canon-defined word with it's canon-defined meaning, with no extrapolation about etymology. Because of the fact that the canon has less information, making the dictionary a slave to the canon means having no real dictionary, no discussion of etymology (since there is no canon information on word-etymologies). In fact, if you want that sort of thing, you can easily peruse BS01's page on Languages, which is just a list of what the canon definitions of words are.

JRRT

@Regitnui: This is a very creative attempt at filling in some of those pesky gaps in the canon, and I commend you for the thought and effort you put into it (and I think others should as well, since you’ve clearly spent time putting this together). However, as others have said, since canonization isn’t a possibility, this is more of an artistic work than a theory about the canon (although it may be based on canon material). In that sense, it’s in the same vein as what I’ve done with the Matoran dictionary – not canonizable, but still fun to think about and totally legitimate as a creative endeavor. I love to see other fans come up with stuff like this (juparga is particularly innovative: I assume ju- from ju-tlin “decay”, with par- “strength(ened)”, but not sure where -ga comes from?). Cool ideas.

@~T1S~: I feel like I ought to respond to your second post in detail, since you seem to have a pretty negative view of this, but don't really have time at the moment. However, I have actually addressed most of the objections you’ve articulated elsewhere. This post from my tumblr blog, in fact, hits most of the main points. Check it out, if you're interested. Otherwise, just two comments:

1. You start your second post by saying "What I have against it is..." I can't say that I understand why you'd have something "against" a project like the Matoran dictionary. I’ve never claimed that any of the material in the dictionary is canon, nor that it should be canonized. Canonization isn’t even a possibility anyways. Notice also that I’ve never posted it in S&T and have instead largely restricted it to my blog, where it belongs.  In that sense, the Matoran dictionary and everything related to it is one big art project. That’s how I like to think about it, at least. Explain to me why would you have something “against” that?

"After the great war and the scourge of Marendar, Tahu shed his golden armor and retreated to the red wastes to meditate, the last of the ancient Toa..."

JRRT

Thanks for the topic and birthday wishes everyone, memes and all. =p

@Lin: Old? Try "well-preserved". >>

@Nuile: I don't have a hankering to see mountains yet, luckily.

@Sumiki: The sentiment is appreciated. I will have to look into this matter.

@B6: Thanks--can’t wait to be a quadranscentenarian. It will be so chill.

JRRT

Don't know if this really counts, since it's more a contributor to the Bionicle fandom who impacted me back in the day...but I want to give a shout-out to Hurdy on the Library side of things, as well as Takuta-Nui. Fantastic writers both.

Furthermore, Schizo Kaita, Toa of Art, and Natha all deserve major, major kudos for their ancient exploits.

JRRT

Well this is a unique idea for a topic. =P Myers-Briggs can be pretty insightful. I've taken it a few different times over the years, and I'm a consistent INTJ. Go figure.

JRRT

Hm...alright, even taking initial "sapience" into account, I still think that, based on what we known about the GBs' intentions for the Matoran, and based on the fact that the Matoran Language was specifically constructed to serve a purpose in the MU, we shouldn’t make the assumption that the GBs would've encoded moral or emotional value-judgments into the initial state of the language—neither would they have mixed in arbitrary semantic distinctions from Agori without a functional reason (unless they were just goofing around).

Let’s think about it: The GBs clearly didn’t intend for the Matoran to have emotion/morality in the "human" sense. Angonce’s reaction to the emergent behavior of the Matoran demonstrates that. But if, based on other elements of the story (e.g. the Toa Mata flashback), we are led to believe that the Matoran started with "simple" emotion (which I think is what you’re claiming?)...okay, what form would that take? Because of the fact that these elements of cognition presumably would’ve fulfilled a purpose in the original design, I think we could define "simple" emotion in a very specific, almost deterministic way, based on its potential function. For example, "fear" might consist of a value-judgment based on a pre-coded category [safe] or [not-safe]. A Matoran who assigned an object or circumstance to the category [not-safe] would technically "fear" said object/circumstance. I could see that as a potential way to characterize "simple" emotion, since it would make sense as a functional element of GB-design: Matoran would need access to that kind of metric in order to work in a non-uniform environment.

So the question becomes: What kinds of value-judgements would the GBs have encoded (if any) in the initial state of the Matoran language? In the case of *kar(a), it seems pretty solid to assume that there was no initial value-judgment ("neutral", as you mentioned). As for kra, it's a little less clear. Shadow could easily be associated with [not-safe] (later "fear") due to practical/functional concerns, e.g. "can’t see to function". But is that a part of the original GB-encoded meaning or is it a value-judgment made by the Matoran later on? Either way, I think we all agree that the conflation of kra with a complex moral concept like "evil" would’ve had to happen later, once such concepts fully emerged.

Interestingly, this also ties in to language change. If the Matoran Language was originally designed as a system of pure functional-efficiency (e.g. as a means of conveying precise information/instructions between units without interference), we wouldn’t expect it to change at all, since that would negate its long-term usefulness. In spite of this, we know that the Matoran Language has been subject to changes that appear similar to human language ("archaic" words, dialectal variation, arbitrary assignment of reference, etc.), and that’s really interesting, since it’d be a departure from pure functional-efficiency (as initially programmed by the GBs). In fact, it’d be easy to postulate that the appearance of diachronic variation is a direct result of the eventual cognitive shift to full-blown creative self-awareness (or full-sapience, or free will, or whatever your favorite term is). Fun stuff.

JRRT

@Aanchir: No prob--basic difference of opinion, I suppose. Thanks for the kind words tho. =P I promise to leave off the search for the etymology of aanchir…

@bones: Cool beans, thanks.

And since you mention it, here’s my take on the (possible) negative connotations of *kar(a) and kra. I agree that a loose connection is plausible—in fact, likely. However, the idea can be significantly sharpened based on what we know about Bionicle chronology.

Before that though: Your point about the intent of the GBs is important. I don’t actually think we should assume that either *kar(a) OR kra started off with negative connotations. This is because of the fact that the GBs didn’t create the Matoran/etc. with sentience. Sentience was a "glitch" (sigh) in the system. Thus, we shouldn’t (I think) expect concepts like "negative emotion" or "moral judgment" to even play a role in the pre-history of the Matoran language. Anything related to moral/emotional evaluation in semantic domains would have to be acquired after the advent of Matoran culture, i.e. as a result of emerging Matoran perspectives on the world, not necessarily on GB perspectives.

With that background in mind: We do know that both *kar(a) "repulsion, etc." and kra "shadow" eventually acquired some negative connotations. When did this happen and why?

1. *kar(a):

As noted in the main post, I think the name kar-zahni is a pretty good candidate for *kar(a). Furthermore, I think it’s pretty clear that Karzahni’s actions are, in essence, the first definitive MU-wide example of something "going wrong". Karzahni didn’t start out bad – he clearly began with a GB-commissioned purpose in the MU – but he went off track, and the Matoran made a "moral" evaluation of that. So I’d make the claim that, as a consequence of his actions, Karzahni’s name (and its subcomponents, namely kar- < *kar(a)) was associated with his "rejection" of his original purpose.

That’s actually the reason why I’ve proposed additional meanings for *kar(a), e.g. "application of power". If this represents the "original" meaning of the term, then Karzahni’s name would have initially involved something like "application of power [toward some goal?]".

2. kra

It’s not unlikely that kra acquired negative connotations as a natural consequence of its meaning once Matoran sentience developed. Matoran obviously have very human reactions to shadow/darkness: They feel fear, etc., and, in Matoran culture, darkness is pretty clearly associated with things like fear/unknown, and potentially "evil".

If there is a connection between kra and *kar(a), however, I would expect it to be based on the semantic shift discussed above. The term *kar(a) first acquires negative connotations, and later on, based on the surface similarity, kra begins to acquire similar connotations. Pretty simple.

------

The last point I’ll make is about the individual etymologies of *kar(a) and kra. Due to the aforementioned surface-similarity, and the loose connection in meaning, it might be attractive to say that these two words come from basically the same source. However, I’m more inclined to keep both the meanings and etymologies of these terms separate. Here’s why:

If *kar(a) and kra have a common source, and if the claim about the semantic shift of *kar(a) due to Karzahni’s actions holds, we would have to characterize the path of development in one of two ways:

(1) start with one and derive the other, e.g. "application of power" > "shadow", or vice versa, or

(2) have both meanings exist in the same semantic domain from the beginning, "application of power; shadow".

Addressing (1): kra is a word for one of the elements of the MU, and as such, it’s pretty important. It seems likely that the GBs would’ve given Shadow a distinct designation alongside the other elements (ta, ga, ko, etc.). In fact, if true, this would completely rule out "application of power" > "shadow", since "shadow" would necessarily have to exist alongside "application of power" at the start. The opposite development ("shadow" > "application of power") also doesn’t appear plausible in the context of Karzahni’s name—would it make more sense for kar-zahni to incorporate "shadow" or "application of power" originally? I think the latter.

Addressing (2): Incorporating "shadow" with "application of power" seems problematic due to apparent incompatibility of meaning—it’s tough to draw a connection, even metaphorical, between these two meanings, especially considering that "shadow" would’ve had to be very distinct as an elemental designation from the get-go. Furthermore, the only semantic reason we have to assume these terms derive from the same source is the common negative connotations of their modern forms (e.g. crast "repulsion"). But, as I’ve argued above, it’s more likely that these connotations were acquired, independently or not, at later stages in history – hence, the original semantic connection between kra and *kar(a) doesn’t even fit anymore.

This leaves the surface similarity between the two words as the only real argument for a common source. I’ll stop there. =P Thanks for the replies, ppl.

JRRT

While I doubt the story team ever put this much effort into it beyond basing certain Matoran words on other English or foreign words,

 

Personally, I don't have any doubts. We know that the story-team didn't put this much effort into it. =P But I'd like to. It's fun to (attempt to) bring order to what was original disordered.

I'd be interested in seeing a similar deconstruction of other Matoran words and phrases.

Me too, man. Me too.

The Kanohi Krakhaan is another name which uses KRA, by the way. It's image is a source of fear and mistrust among Matoran. You could say it repulses them.

 

Well, let's see what we have to work with: the Kraahkan is the Mask of Shadows, and we also have kra- as a confirmed elemental-prefix for "shadow". Now, on a surface glance, it seems like a bit of a stretch (to me) to connect "shadow" with "repulsion" or "concussive force" or whatever. Although considering what we know about the effects of elemental shadow, it's not completely impossible. But in the end, my intuition is that we might not have to make that direct of a linkage. My suggestion is that the kra- of crast derives (via one phonological process or another) from an older form *kar(a), which then shows up in at least the words keras, carapar, and kardas. The kra- of kraahkan needn't derive from exactly the same source, especially given that we already have kra- "elemental shadow" as an independent word-form with an independent meaning. Even so, there could easily be indirect influences between the two. Interesting suggestion!

JRRT

1. Introduction

Over the years, I’ve messed around with a few ideas about the languages of Bionicle, the Matoran Language especially. While messing around, I’ve happened to stumble across certain patterns in the pool of Matoran words that we have access to – patterns that consistently stand out as meaningful. This topic is about one of those patterns, and a pretty minor one at that. Here, let me throw some words atcha:

crast, keras, carapar, kardas

What a mish-mash! The Kanohi Crast, Mask of Repulsion; Keras, a species of Rahi crab; Carapar, a Barraki warlord; and the Kardas Dragon, a...well...it’s a dragon. What's all this? Seems kind of random, right? On the surface, maybe so, but my hope is that by the time you reach the end of this post, you’ll see that things might not be as random as they look.

Put simply, these words look/sound alike in some ways, and I think that, if we do some informed guesswork, we can also postulate a common thread of meaning, thereby tying together these seemingly disconnected points of data into a coherent whole. That’s the purpose of this topic: to put forward a proposal to derive elements of (at least) these four Matoran words from a common etymological source. And hey, if we can do that, who knows what further insights we might gain into Matoran etymology? Gotta start somewhere. Let’s begin.

2. Analysis: Initial Proposal

First, some preliminaries: Do you want to take Matoran etymology seriously? Hey, me too! Isn’t it great? But what does "taking it seriously" mean? It pretty much just means that whatever theory we propose must be acceptable within already-established Bionicle canon, and we must make the fewest unfounded assumptions possible, or try to, at least. Those’re the rules. Alright, so where do we start? Let’s start with the facts. We actually have a lot of facts to work with:

• First, there are the words themselves, from which we can identify patterns and (surface) similarities. In this case, I’ve started by saying crast looks/sounds kinda like keras, which looks/sounds kinda like carapar, kardas, and so on. Deep thinking here.
• Second, we have official translations for some of the words. In this case, we know the meaning of precisely one of the words under analysis: crast "repulsion". One down!
• Third, we can draw upon general knowledge about the in-universe context of these words, including the ones for which there is no official translation. In spite of the absence of a translation, we can usually make some pretty well-educated guesses based on the entities to which these words are assigned in the Bionicle world.

So those are the guiding principles. Pretty straightforward, no? I’ve already noted the surface similarities between the different words and the fact that we have a translation for one of them, so the third point bears some further explanation. What is the in-universe context of the words that we don’t have translations for, these being keras, carapar, and kardas? Here are my ideas as to what’s relevant:

Starting with Keras: It’s a species of Rahi crab, plain and simple. What defines crabs? Shells? Claws? Eye-stalks? Gangly legs? Keeping in mind the analogy with crast, let’s go with the first choice, shells. Is it plausible that the Matoran name of a species of crab might reference the fact that these crabs have shells? Crabs are creatures with shells, and shells could be said to repulse or resist outside threats. Interesting.

Next up, Carapar: A Barraki warlord, pretty rough character...eventually mutated into a crab-like form, complete with shell and claws. Irony? Destiny? In addition, if we break the fourth wall for a moment here, the name is pretty obviously taken from "carapace". Even so, would it be that much of a stretch considering Carapar’s background and personality (to the extent that he had one) to theorize that his name might’ve had a metaphorical connection to something like "repulsion"? Think "resistance" or "obstinancy". There are lots of options, but these seem reasonable to me.

Moving on, the last item on the list is Kardas: A Rahi dragon, a pretty powerful beast, whose defining ability is the power to emit blasts of "concussive force". I don’t think that much needs to be said there, actually. The connection between "concussive force" and "repulsion" shouldn’t be too hard to make. Let’s run with it. Time to try formulating a proposal:

Initial Proposal: Based on their surface similarity to each other and the word crast, as well as some minimal assumptions about the in-universe entities that these words refer to, I propose that the words keras, carapar, and kardas all incorporate a meaning within a semantic domain that includes "repulsion".

That seems like a lot of words for not much of a proposal, and it is. Gotta make sure this thing is iron-clad, if possible. Baby steps!

3. Analysis: Revised Proposal

The logical progression from the proposal above would be to see if we can identify precisely what part of crast, keras, carapar, and kardas encodes the meaning of "repulsion", and, even more theoretically, if we can use comparative reconstruction to come up with a "basic stem" from which these words descend historically. The first step isn’t all that hard. What are the common elements amongst these words?

crast < cra-st

keras < ker-as or kera-s

carapar < car-apar or cara-par

kardas < kar-das

The results are in: cra, ker(a), car(a), and kar all appear to be potential candidates for "repulsion" (or some broader, related meaning) within their respective words. Alright, next, we actually have some spelling variation going on with <c> vs. <k>. Let’s normalize that, shall we? That gives us kra, ker(a), and kar(a), and we’ve easily reduced the options by one, merging car(a) and kar. Putting forward another conjecture, it is possible that the ker(a)/kar(a) contrast could just be a matter of phonological variation (or even another spelling difference). Of course, the distinction could actually be significant, but for now let’s take the leap and merge those two as well. That leaves us with two options: kra and kar(a).

Can we go any further? Well, for human language, these forms kra and kar(a) could easily be descended from a common root. For example, if we take *kar as the original form (the * indicates a reconstructed stem), it could undergo a process of "metathesis", which is a fancy word for "the sounds get switched", and end up as kra. On the other hand, we might postulate *kara as the original, with simple reduction of the first syllable: kara > kra. Either way works, and at this point we could safely leave it as is.

We could...but you know what? Let’s not. Let’s go one tiny step further and pin down *kar(a) as our final reconstructed form, for no other reason than that it covers both possible reconstructions. Minor point. Whew!

Alright, after all that, here’s the official revised proposal, incorporating an expanded version of the first proposal:

Revised Proposal:

(a) The four variants, namely cra (< cra-st), car(a) (< cara-par), ker(a) (< kera-s), and kar (< kar-das), all derive from one common stem, which I propose to reconstruct as *kar(a).

(b) Based on their surface similarity to each other and the already-translated word crast, as well as some minimal assumptions about the in-universe references of these words, I further propose that the stem *kar(a) covers a semantic domain containing abstract concepts such as "repulsion" or "resistance", as well as potentially more concrete meanings such as "shell, barrier" or even "concussive force; (destructive?) application of power".

4. Final Remarks

And that’s the gist of it, folks. Before I conclude though, here are some suggestions for future research. The following is a short list of words whose analyses, I believe, become immediately accessible to us if the etymology proposed above holds true. In no particular order:

karda "heart" < kar-da (repulsion...concussive force/energy...engine?)

karzahni < kar-zahni (a being who rejected his original purpose?)

krekka < kre-kka? (brute force, anyone?)

pakari "strength" < pa-kar-i (leaning more towards "application of power", perhaps?)

cordak "desolation" < cor-dak (bit of a stretch, perhaps)

icarax < i-cara-x, i-car-ax?

krana < kra-na

parakrekks < para-kre-kks? (cf. krekk-a)

I’ll leave it at that. Comments are welcome. Have fun with it.

JRRT

P.S. If you're interested in a more uninhibited (but also somewhat outdated) interpretation of the proposal sketched here, check it out, yo.

(Thought I'd jump in here real quick:)

An important distinction needs to be made between the etymology/dictionary that I've come up with and the actual canon. My dictionary is not canon, although it does attempt to account for the canon English translations of words. For example, canonically valmai is defined as "cursed place"--that's what the canon says. In my dictionary, it acquires that meaning later, but its actual etymology is defined as something else. Likewise, a term like kaukau is canonically defined as "water-breathing". In my dictionary, kaukau could potentially be translated into English as "water-breathing", but etymologically it originates as a reduplicated form of kau which I (non-canonically) define as "breath" (kau-kau "lit. breath-of-breath"). See the difference? The etymologies are largely designed to approximate the canon terms, but there isn't always a one-to-one correspondence, since, unfortunately, you can't get very far with Matoran etymology under the assumption that the canon English translations are literal (e.g., kaukau literally incorporates meanings of "water" and "breathing", valmai literally incorporates "cursed" and "place", etc.).

The suggestion that I made with Arka is, therefore, non-canon. While I'd be delighted if people want to use it in their own headcanon, if the goal of the topic is to come up with a term that could legitimately be canonized in the future, then it probably won't work.

JRRT

"Find the Power", by Wasp hath been reviewed.

JRRT

Hi there Wasp. I’ve an official SSCC review for you here. No need to sign for it. There are no refunds. =)

I’ll start by saying that, while the plot was very straightforward, it did have some good emotive content. As a reader, I felt for Kranos by the end, and it was a nice upturn as opposed to the potentially very sad ending that you could have gone with, so kudos there. There was good portion of dialogue in this story, and it’s pretty well done. The description is also nicely written, and I definitely liked your application of the FFM theme. Very original. Well done!

Because the plot is very straightforward, I won’t comment much on it beyond that. Instead, I’ll focus on a couple of things related to writing structure that I think, if revised, would make for a more fluid narrative overall. Now, the critique:

----------

"Hello Kranos." A familiar voice said. "Made a decision yet?"

 

"No." Kranos replied flatly. "And it doesn't matter what you think. You're dead."

 

First off, I don’t usually mention punctuation in-depth, but I did notice a lot of inconsistency in the punctuation of dialogue. Here’s a general guide: A period should follow a full sentence, including a dialogue tag. If you have a line of dialogue followed by a tag, the dialogue should end with a comma and the tag should be followed by a period (as if the dialogue and the tag were a single sentence) Example:

“Sentence 1,” he said. “Sentence 2.”

If the first line of dialogue is not a full sentence and is continued in the second line, then the dialogue tag should be followed by a period, instead of a comma. Example:

“Sentence 1,” he said, “sentence 1.”

Five weeks ago, the Makuta began their assault on Karda Nui.

Minor point: Since this is a flashback to a past tense scene and the Makuta begin their attack at a prior point in time, past perfect would probably work better: “Five weeks ago, the Makuta had begun their assault on Karda Nui.”

It was a fierce battle between Kranos and the Makuta. But in the end, with a sword though his thigh, Kranos fell.

Recognizing that this is a piece of flash fiction and that you had to suffer under a word limit, I cannot complain about the fact that this sentence should have been expanded. That said, if you ever considered doing a revision/expansion of this story, this is a moment that is ripe for expansion. =P

White was in the edges of Kranos' eyes, he knew that his time had come.

First: Switch the comma between “eyes” and “he” to a period and make both clauses separate sentences, since they’re both independent clauses.

Second: The phrase “White was in the edges of Kranos’ eyes” is somewhat awkward. Maybe consider rephrasing.

And really, that’s all the criticism I had. I suppose a shorter review would correspond with a shorter story, but whether that’s good or bad is up for you to decide. Overall, I enjoyed reading this story. With a few minor tweaks, it’ll make for a great piece of short fiction. Nicely done, once again. I look forward to more from you. =)

JRRT

Member Name: TolkienTheme: A Dark HuntWord Count: 750Story: "Fearsome"

"Fearsome"

The waves still washed at the foot of the cliff. The spires of the ancient fortress that crowned the cliff still gnawed at the sky above. The figure still crouched, shadowed by the overhang, where the shore met the water of the Silver Sea. He crouched and waited with colorless eyes.

The ship must have wrecked last night. Debris littered the shoreline. It reminded him of a time he had almost forgotten, but not quite. Four millennia, was it? Maybe more.... But the years were meaningless to him. This was his home now—his realm. Even his name was lost to time.

Before him, the body of the blue-and-gold-armored creature bobbed with the tide. It was the only survivor of the wreck, it seemed. He squinted down from his shadowed perch, tail swishing back and forth as he weighed his options: It would be easy to end the thing where it lay. Just a glance, and the shore would be a wasteland of glass. Yes, it would be easy. Too easy.

Old memories arose: memories of rolling surf, sand against his face, coughing up seawater, and then struggling up the shore. It had been night, pitch black. He’d set one of the thorn-trees aflame with his vision to provide some light, then lay beneath it, weak and shivering. Eyes had glittered beyond the firelight, and fear had paralyzed him for a time. But then his will had returned, and he’d met the gaze of those beastly eyes with the fearsome power of his own.

In the morning, he’d awakened to find the remains of their bodies. Ravenous Kavinga and razor-toothed Hapaka, feral and gaunt. Their corpses were burnt and half-destroyed, but worst of all was what he found among them: the seven-toed tracks of the night-stalking Muaka. Muaka Elnikrai: the Dark Hunter. He knew the tracks, but no body remained. The beast had escaped into the darkness. It was still out there, somewhere, and his fear of it had bitten deep....

A sound brought him back, and he focused once more upon the figure in the surf. It was moving now, struggling up. Water dripped from its armor and face. Was that a Kanohi it wore? No, it was no Toa. In fact, they were much alike. The same species, perhaps. Sunlight gleamed on the being’s armor as it rose. It did not see him yet, hidden in the cool shadow. It surveyed its surroundings: side to side, then upward. Its gaze lingered upon the fortress atop the cliff. Such irony, that both of them should end up marooned on this island; forgotten, just like the Beings who had raised that fortress in ancient days....

Their eyes met suddenly, gaze to gaze. A long moment passed, and another memory leapt to the forefront of his mind then. It was amid the stones of the fortress high above. Years had passed since he’d been marooned, and he had survived. He had established himself as the strongest predator in this island realm. Any creature that opposed him fell to his gaze. All but one...the Dark Hunter stalked him still, cunning and terrible. It pursued him always, lurking just beyond his sight.

Until one night, when he had led it on a long, dark hunt through the night, high upon the cliffside, into the stony heart of the fortress walls. And there it had ended, same as now. For a moment he had hesitated, creeping through a courtyard, and in that moment the Hunter had struck. Claws raked, teeth bit, and he had thought his death was near.

But then morning had poured over the broken walltops, and the beast had recoiled from him, blinking, as he collapsed in the shade. Their eyes met—one bathed in sunlight, one in shadow—and the Dark Hunter had perished at last.

And now? The silence stretched. Neither figure moved. The one who crouched in shadow felt the sudden urge to act. He was the Dark Hunter now. He was the dark.... He would hunt. He felt the fearsome power welling up behind his eyes. And then—

“What is your name?” the other being asked, and something changed. The moment was broken. The power.... It ebbed away.

“I...I have forgotten,” he said, hesitating. The words felt strange. “I have lived...in shadow...too long.”

“Well, shadowed one, my name is old and forgotten too. In fact, it is beyond ancient. I see you wear the skull of the Muaka Elnikrai...”

“...I believe you must be a fearsome Hunter.”

Bliðe Byrddæg, Batman. c:

JRRT

Reviewed "Foundations from Unity", by Takua Dragonstar7.

JRRT

Hello there, Takua Dragonstar7. I’m from the SSCC, and this is your requested review. Enjoy!

First off, I’ll say that I definitely liked the ambiance of the story. It was a unique spin on the concept of how the Matoran might have reacted after waking up on Mata Nui, and how they could have adjusted to their new life, as well as an interesting exploration of how the Turaga might have (re-)introduced the Matoran to the concept of the Three Virtues. Overall, I thought the narrative was well-written, if somewhat straightforward. For the length and scope of the piece, I thought the conclusion was also satisfying. Well done on those accounts!

Now, on to the critique. Because of the simplicity of the plot, I won’t comment much on plot-related points, and instead I’ll restrict my comments to writing-structural issues and some grammatical nitpicks.

I think the main suggestion that I have (which was also briefly noted by Portalfig) is the inconsistency of tense-usage throughout the story. That would definitely be something to rectify on a second revision. I’ll go through several areas that could use improvement and provide suggestions for each:

The first thing I remember was waking up, in a round bed. Nothing else before, just that. I look around, seeing a large beach, filled with beings like me. There were also six others, similar, but taller than me. There were many greetings, and excitement on the beach. Then the taller beings, the ones in charge, it seemed, called us over to gather around them. We waited excitedly and eagerly for them to speak. One of them, a red and orange one, began talking.

Opening passages are always important to get right. I’ve bolded some of the crucial verbs in this passage, and you should be able to pick out where the tense goes awry. You start with “was”, putting the story in past tense, but then shift to present tense with “look”, and then back to past tense with “were”. This could easily be fixed by switching “look” to “looked”, although, honestly, I think the story might actually work well if it were written in present tense. (“The first thing I remember is waking up in a round bed...”) That’s up to you though.

Also, as the previous reviewer noted, the comma in the first sentence should be dropped, as it would definitely make that opening phrase flow better.

"This is the island of Mata Nui, named in honor of the Great Spirit." He also went on to explaining who we are, the Tohunga, humble villages of the island. They are the Turaga, the elders of the villages which we dwelled in. He said that we didn't have villages yet, and we are to build them. This lead to a lot of questions for me. Who is the Great Spirit? How do we build the villages, and where? I was abou to find out.

Another confusion of tenses. The second sentence starts with past tense “went” followed by present tense “are”. You also have “are” (present) in the third sentence, followed by “dwelled” (past). Same pattern in the fourth and fifth sentences. Remember to keep the tense consistent throughout the narrative. In this case, once again, you could correct the present tense verbs to past tense pretty easily, but you might also consider rewriting in the present tense, since this is largely a first person story, and present tense can work well.

The Turaga separated all of us into six groups, for each village. I was disappointed, partly because I didn't have a lot of time to meet the others. However, I was also very happy to have time meeting these fellow Tohunga. Our Turaga led us in further into the island, until we stopped at a large area.

Just a few quibbles:

- You can drop the comma in the first sentence, and possibly reword to make the sentence flow more smoothly. One possibility: “The Turaga separated all of us into six groups, one for each village.”

- You could drop “in” in the last sentence, since “in further into” is redundant. You could also drop the comma after “island”.

On the beach, there were large pieces of scrap metal, and those could be used for building. We could also use the material around us, the natural resources that we've been provided. Around half of the Tohunga went to the beach. I stayed, and looked for plants, rocks, anything to build with. The other Tohunga came back, and we slept on the ground for the night.

Another issue with tense. Consider switching from present perfect “we’ve been provided” to past perfect “we’d been provided” in order to stay consistent with the overall past tense.

Everything was going well until about noon, some of the Tohunga burst into argument. Over small things, but it still saddens me to see the lack of teamwork.

Unity, duty, and destiny. In order to succeed in the last two, we had to be united. That means, no arguing or anything like that.

Same issue with past vs. present tense in both of these passages, easily fixed by switching present tense forms to past tense.

When I woke up, it was dawn. No, not just any dawn, a new dawn. A new dawn in a new village, a new village in the treetops. The Turaga called the village Le-Koro. I like the sound of it, as a reminder of the Great Spirit and his virtues. As a reminder of our hard work. As a reminder of us.

No criticism here, just noting a simple, yet nicely-worded ending. The usage of present tense in the fifth sentence (“I like the sound of it...”) could work well, once again, if you switched to present tense throughout, although it could also work as a concluding statement capping off the past tense perspective of the story. Either way, this was a nice piece. I enjoyed it, and I look forward to more.

JRRT

Might as well take the opportunity to request a review:

The Power, by Tolkien.

JRRT

Reviewed "Let us remember", by Dual Matrix.

JRRT

Hi Dual Matrix. One SSCC review coming up.

Overall, I felt like this was a nice, brief slice out of a larger storyline, and it left me wanting to read more about the larger context, so good job there! If I’m right, this is a speech by Tahu that occurs sometime after the defeat of Makuta on Spherus Magna? That seemed to make the most sense. Either way, it’s a well-worded piece of dialogue, with a very meaningful and inspiring message. Nicely written.

----------

Time for the critique! Now, because this story consists mostly of a single passage of dialogue, I’ll mainly focus on issues related to writing structure. The first thing I will note is the overall format that you’ve used: it’s basically a passage of dialogue that has been split onto different lines. Now, usually if you’re splitting up dialogue like that, you’d have to enclose each line of dialogue in quotation marks, like so:

"Let us remember, my friends, what happened today, for once good overruled the ever-present corrupting power evil and we finally won."

 

"Altough, freedom had it's price, many brave innocent lives have come to a sudden end."

This isn’t normally a problem, but the fact that most the story is in dialogue-form makes things a little odd, since technically it would be better if you had just combined all of the lines into one big paragraph of dialogue.

My suggestion for this would be to sprinkle some action into the dialogue. Maybe have Tahu do something while he’s talking: look at something, gesture in some way, etc. Inserting those little actions between lines of dialogue would help breaks things up and would also help give some structure to the narrative as a whole.

Here’s one spot where I thought you might insert something, since there seems to be a natural shift in topic:

And we'll keep this future safe and happy, as a thanks to who gifted it us.And today, the real heroes aren't the Toa, for we were not alone, Matoran, Skadii, Vortixx, Turaga,... our victory, is yours, for we all now share the name my species held, for we were all heroes on that battlefield, for we are all heroes now.

Maybe add in something like: “Tahu gestured toward the crowd” after the first line? That’s one suggestion out of numerous possibilities, but it would help connect the reader to what’s actually happening in the scene.

One more general suggestion related to writing structure/style:

"Let us remember, my friends, what happened today, for once good overruled the ever-present corrupting power evil and we finally won.

In a critique, I always focus on the opening lines, because in many ways they are the most important part of the story. The opening lines need to hook the reader in and get them interested in reading further. With that in mind, this opening line felt a little off, and I think that’s mainly because of the wording. There’s an overload of adjectives at the end, coupled with a couple of grammatical inconsistencies that make the sentence seem unbalanced. I’ll note these in succession:

... for once good overruled the ever-present corrupting power evil and we finally won.

- First, a slight nitpick: I assume it’s “power of evil” in the middle there.

- Secondly, the number of adjectives before “evil” feels unnecessary. You could easily trim a few (or all) of them without diminishing the effect of the sentence. I think it would definitely make the sentence flow better.

- The verb “overruled” feels slightly odd here, although it’s not terrible (the meaning of “overruled” makes me think of a court-case). I would probably switch it with something like “overcame”, but that’s up to you.

- Lastly, the end of the sentence doesn’t quite work grammatically: “for once good overruled. . . .and we finally won.” This construction implies that something happened after we won, but the sentence ends there. My suggestion would be to simply drop “once”: “for good overruled . . . and we finally won.”

Finally, a few nitpicks:

Altough, freedom had it's price, many brave innocent lives have come to a sudden end.

“Although” and “its”.

But their deaths, their sacrife, will not be forgotten ...

“sacrifice”

Because of their sacrifice we can live today, because of them, there will be a tomorrow.

This would flow better if it were split into two sentences: “Because of their sacrifice we can live today. Because of them ...”

Although that is somewhat of a stylistic choice, it was actually a common suggestion that I had throughout the story. A few other examples where it would be better/more grammatical to split lines into separate sentences (I have highlighted where the split should occur):

Yes, there will be battles, we will once again have to fight.

Many challenges still await, old and new enimies are to be fought.

(also: “enemies”)

And today, the real heroes aren't the Toa, for we were not alone, Matoran, Skadii, Vortixx, Turaga,... our victory . . .

Of course, we could have surrendered, and indeed we could have ran

“run”

And I think I’ll conclude things there. Again, I definitely thought it was a nicely written piece overall. With a few tweaks to the formatting and some of the writing structure, it would make for an even more effective piece of short fiction. I look forward to reading more!

JRRT