For Love of Blog and Allosaur Discussion

[Spiderman]

You've declared that none of that matters, but you didn't say why it doesn't matter, nor why the etymological connection does matter.

Because I'm not talking nor concerned about any of that, it has no bearing on what I'm saying. I'll repeat myself from a previous post

The four letters "saur" mean/translates to "lizard".

Let me put it another way, there's no place you can find that says "-saur" does NOT translate to "lizard".

And what's wrong with my initial statement?

 

[Oversoul]

Because I'm not talking nor concerned about any of that, it has no bearing on what I'm saying.

I want to be clear that you mean what you typed there, as the way it reads is quite baffling. Your use of a comma makes it look like you're saying...

"Because of the fact that I am neither talking about nor concerned about X, X cannot have bearing on what I am saying."

But I suspect that maybe you actually meant for those to be separate statements and for the first clause to be actually be a response to my statement that you quoted, rather than dependent on your second clause...

"I have declared that X doesn't matter because I'm neither talking about nor concerned about it. Also, X has no bearing on what I'm saying."

I realize that it's just a comma, but the meaning that I read out of it from the way it is written is a rather striking non sequitur. It seems obvious enough that things people are not talking about or are not concerned about can have bearing on the things that people say.

If those are supposed to be separate statements, the second is merely a repetition of the assertion that the details don't matter, and the first, well, it certainly is something. Here, let me try it...

I declare that I am neither talking about nor concerned about your lack of concern for the things about which I am talking. Therefore, your lack of concern for the things about which I am talking does not matter.

...I can see the appeal.

Let me put it another way, there's no place you can find that says "-saur" does NOT translate to "lizard".

If you find something like that, do share. It sounds like a passive-aggressive reference work of some sort. The encyclopedia of things that are not. "Magic: the Gathering is not an ancient farming tool."

 

[Spiderman]

I'm not really up with the grammer as apparently you are, but I surmise you can interpret what I meant well enough from the past discussion.

The onus isn't on me to share, as I already did a google search and didn't find anything to support your position and everything to support mine. I suspect that you just can't isolate what I'm saying and/or deliberately being stubborn to hold to your position as mine is fairly simple and explained multiple times in one sentence.

 

[Mooseman]

So, does everyone agree that erattaing the Pygmy Allosaur to be a lixard was an oops moment for WoTC Magic division?

 

[Oversoul]

I'm not really up with the grammer as apparently you are, but I surmise you can interpret what I meant well enough from the past discussion.

Well, in one case (comma used to link your two statements with one being dependent on the other) I have no response other than bewilderment. In the other case, it's pretty much a discussion-ender anyway. I could potentially attempt to show that the second statement (that things have no bearing on what you said) is false, but even if I thought I could do that, you'll have also made your fiat: it doesn't matter anyway. While I haven't gone to great lengths for this silliness, I have taken some time to state facts that I deemed pertinent and also why I consider them to be pertinent.

The onus isn't on me to share, as I already did a google search and didn't find anything to support your position and everything to support mine.

Oh, really? I don't believe you actually understand my position. Perhaps I don't understand yours either, but if I don't, at least I'm not making the lofty claim of having debunked it with the magic of Google. Did I get something wrong here? If so, what exactly?

I suspect that you just can't isolate what I'm saying and/or deliberately being stubborn to hold to your position as mine is fairly simple and explained multiple times in one sentence.

Well, I suspect that you're a Venusian sleeper agent working to prepare for the invasion of Earth. You probably think that's ridiculous, but it's cool because I added "I suspect" in there, so I don't need to support any aspersions I follow that phrase up with. It's just a suspicion, after all.

And to which position would I be so stubbornly clinging, anyway? Maybe I've missed something, but I don't recall you so much as attempting to rebut any of my claims (you merely declared that they don't matter, which is not the same thing as telling me why they are wrong or why they do not matter). It must take some real hardheadedness to stand in the face of such overwhelming force as zero arguments to the contrary. Truly, my arrogant persistence in holding to points that have been challenged not once, not twice, but never, is the stuff of legends. And yeah, I'm letting this drift away from the original topic of dinosaurs or whatever and onto the new topic of me and speculation about my disposition, but there's a point to that, which is to remind you, in case you missed it: you didn't actually argue with the things I said about biology, etymology, history, scientific naming conventions, or any of that stuff. You didn't say I was wrong. You said it didn't matter. You didn't say why it doesn't matter. You just dismissed it all. You're entitled to do that if you're so inclined, but then, so can I. It's a zero-sum game.

So, does everyone agree that erattaing the Pygmy Allosaur to be a lixard was an oops moment for WoTC Magic division?

I'd guess that the individuals responsible for the change were perfectly aware that dinosaurs aren't lizards, but decided that the backlash of some nerdrage at the change was outweighed by the greater good of consolidating creature types. They drew on the historical misunderstanding of dinosaurs as reptilian, and chose the reptilian creature type that they thought fit the best (not a snake because it has legs, and not a crocodile because it lives on land). That's complete speculation on my part. I think it's a good guess, but for all I know, they threw a dart at a board with creature types on it an Pygmy Allosaurus' dart landed on "lizard."

 

[Spiderman]

And to which position would I be so stubbornly clinging, anyway?

That -saur does not mean/translate to lizard.

You didn't say why it doesn't matter

I did, which further makes me think you're either not paying attention or if you are, then you're deliberating ignoring what I'm saying. But I'll repeat again for your benefit:

None of what you're saying changes the fact that -saur translate/means lizard.

... but for all I know, they threw a dart at a board with creature types on it an Pygmy Allosaurus' dart landed on "lizard."

I suspect it's because "dinosaur" translates to "terrible lizard" and so rather than making a Type-Terrible, they chose the next word.

 

[rokapoke]

So, I don't really want to get embroiled in this argument, as I can definitely see both sides (believe it or not).

That said, the word "Kindergarten" translates as, essentially, garden of children. So would a "Kindergarten" land card be a garden or a school? One is correct based on actual classification, and one is based on direct translation.

Again, I see Spidey's point, that WoTC basically took a simple approach and ignored "nerdrage" (Oversoul's word) at the misclassification. I personally don't care, and despite Oversoul's knowledge on the issue, I think it's close enough for a card game that's much more heavily reliant on imaginary creatures like elves and goblins. That said, relying on translation isn't really a great move.

That is all. Just my two cents.

 

[Spiderman]

That said, the word "Kindergarten" translates as, essentially, garden of children

Exactly. Thanks for coming up with another example of literal translation, since I had no idea what to look for since there's so many words

And of note, according to the the wiki on kindergarten, just as the first dinosaur fossils were thought to be lizards, the person who developed the kindergarten idea thought

that children should be nurtured of and nourished 'like plants in a garden'.

, so there is also some reasonable basis for why garden is in there.

 

[turgy22]

And to which position would I be so stubbornly clinging, anyway?

That -saur does not mean/translate to lizard.

I'm pretty sure Oversoul acknowledged on multiple occasions that -saur translates to lizard.

And the "saur" part usually interpreted as "lizard."

To be clear, I am not saying that "terrible lizard" is an inaccurate translation for the term.

But if you mean that "saur" is correctly interpreted as "lizard" I think I've already addressed this twice. Yes, that's the usual translation and works well enough most of the time. I realize this.

I am not saying that you are wrong that the "saur" morpheme is derived from a label for lizards. You're right about that.

Oversoul has basically acknowledged here (and a few other occasions in the thread) that the translation from "saur" into "lizard" is valid. But he's also a pedant. So he's not going to come outright and say "saur means lizard" because that would miss all the very important (in Oversoul's mind) things that "saur" could also mean.

 

[Spiderman]

Hm. I guess I have a problem with the "hedging" because to me, it flat out means lizard (or reptile), so there's no "usually interpreted" or "works well enough". It *is*. But thanks for stepping in and providing another look at his position.

 

[Oversoul]

Yes. It comes from a word that would have been used to refer to lizards, but also to other animals that are not thought of as lizards, or at least are not thought of lizards anymore.

 

[Oversoul]

https://twitter.com/kellydigges/status/875016198789804032

 

[Terentius]

'Sposed to be dinosaur creatures in the next block.