Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 556 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
taylank (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
Starting in about an hour
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26021
1 reply
Open
Azralynn (898 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
12h phase World Game
gameID=25992
Please Join! :D
0 replies
Open
trip (696 D(B))
06 Apr 10 UTC
happiness is a belt fed weapon
anyone up for a live wta anc med gunboat? 5min turns - 10pts
0 replies
Open
taylank (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
live classic in 20 mins
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26020
1 reply
Open
ormi (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
live game now?
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26017
0 replies
Open
Melzorg (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
Ancient Med Game (15min)
join! http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26011
4 replies
Open
Frank (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
live gunboat, 1 more needed
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26009
2 minutes
0 replies
Open
Xerxis (0 DX)
06 Apr 10 UTC
FAST AND NOT FURIOS
Reg Game
gameID=26008
1 reply
Open
conefrog (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
game for mediocre players
name says all really... http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25911#gamePanel
7 replies
Open
Panthers (470 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
Tuesday Gunboat Livenation
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26007
0 replies
Open
stephenlovepump (225 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
quick fast game starting soon ;) 5min phase
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26005
0 replies
Open
zarat (896 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
Some people up to a live game?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26004

if you want another map or other rules, just say so
0 replies
Open
taylank (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
quick game, need players
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25998
0 replies
Open
taylank (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
classic live 5 minute phase, starting in 15
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25996
2 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
JOIN "JOIN THIS" NOW!!!!
please join this game we need one player!!
1 reply
Open
5nk (0 DX)
06 Apr 10 UTC
Live WTA Gunboat JOIN
9 replies
Open
Fenris (532 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
Join this world game please
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25414

Only one person needed
2 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
ancient gunboat 17 minutes
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25991
0 replies
Open
nola2172 (316 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
Position for Ghaha open on World Variant
There is an open position for Ghana on an ongoing World Variant map. The game is currently in the autumn retreat phase and will be in the build phase next, so missing units can be easily replaced:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=21458
Please note that this is an anonymous game, so if you join, do not post to this thread.
2 replies
Open
shadowlurker (108 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
3 more needed
3 replies
Open
baumhaeuer (245 D)
06 Apr 10 UTC
Conlang
I will be making a live game called "Conlang" around 7pm (Pacific Daylight Savings Time).
5-min turns, 10 point bet, ppsc. Anybody interested? If so, leave a reply. And if not enough people do that, I won't bother with creating the game.
12 replies
Open
5nk (0 DX)
05 Apr 10 UTC
Live wta gunboat
4 replies
Open
pastoralan (100 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
Anyone?
Two more players needed:

gameID=25792
1 reply
Open
flashman (2274 D(G))
05 Apr 10 UTC
Emergency need for a sitter...
I shall be travelling within 48 hours and have no certain access to the Internet for the following week...
24 replies
Open
Jamie_nordli (122 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
Live game join quick
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25967
0 replies
Open
Serioussham (446 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
Passworded anon gunboat
Anybody interested?
Try to start in the next 20mins, smallish pot 20-40, WTA, 5min phases
3 replies
Open
Jamie_nordli (122 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
CD Italy LIVE good shape
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25954&msgCountryID=6
1 reply
Open
dep5greg (644 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
New World Game, just join
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=25963

22hour phases, 10 D, fun
0 replies
Open
tmg996 (147 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
cheating?
WTA Gundayboat, england attacks himslef supporting turkey into his land they never attack each-other in the end....
11 replies
Open
baumhaeuer (245 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
What would good english spelling reform be?
This is not a thread to debate whether or not spelling reform should be done.
This is a thread to speculate about what that reform should be.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
The obvious most important thing: making it phonetic.
KingSpillBlood (155 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
Teach the British how to spell "color" and "armor." :P
Stukus (2126 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
None needed. Spelling preserves etymology well, and phonetic spelling in English looks ridiculous. With the English corpus as huge as it is, is it worth it to change spelling and render all the previous works unreadable?
Beetle Bailey (394 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
While we're at it, let's tell them that a torch is a stick that is on fire and a bonnet goes on a baby or a pioneer woman and a boot goes on a foot. :)
baumhaeuer (245 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
My thoughts are that any spelling reform proposal should be, in descending order of prominence:
1. Phonetic
2. Able to catch on
3. Consice (no reason to spell a word as three letters when two will do)
4. Good-looking (no "QtyHO>Lqq" )

1. Because that is the main problem
2. Because it is only pointless speculation if nobody other than yourself uses it
3. Because shorter is more likely to catch on, due to it being easier to write, shorter
would make printing/publishing businesses more willing to use it, as it uses less ink and thus is cheaper, and because it looks betther (yuu verses yu).
4. For art's sake and because nobody's going to want to write in something ugly/clunky/ostentatious.
Zeno Izen (100 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
The thing to do is go through the writings of young school children. When little kids can't spell a word, they guess. Which seems like it would be a good guide to how words sound like they ought to be spelled.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
@ Stukus:
Feel free to start a debate thread.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
@ Zeno:
I like that.

Everyone else: keep talking, I have to log off soon.
Beetle Bailey (394 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
Brigham Young, the great Mormon colonizer, actually tried a phonetically based English writing system called the Deseret Alphabet. I don't know much about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet
Zeno Izen (100 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
You could eliminate every instance of "ough" but that would make me sad.
Stukus (2126 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
@baumhauer, you can't separate what a reform should be from whether it should be implemented. If it shouldn't be implemented, it's a sucky reform, isn't it?

And really, this seems like a masturbatory thread. "What should a spelling reform be?" Well no one's going to suggest we make spelling worse, are they? Of course everyone's going to agree with you if you limit the question enough.

My spelling reform (do nothing) is:
A) Largely phonetic. I can pronounce 99.9% of words I come across just by their spelling, and I assume you can, too. I can also spell 99% of words I hear, except for those damn -ance vs -ence endings, for which I use Latin etymology when I can.
B) Has already caught on with the entire Anglosphere.
C) Concise, at least in comparison to pre-standardization spelling.
D) Looks beautiful.
E) Is awesome.
Zeno Izen (100 D)
30 Mar 10 UTC
I love English just exactly like it is, too. But that doesn't repel me from thinking about changes. Fact is, changes can't be made by design. Language evolves and that's all there is to it. So what's the harm in thinking about hypothetical reforms?
baumhaeuer (245 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
@ Stukus:
You see my the point exactly. I want a discusion in which we all agree about that issue.
You will see a new thread marked "Spelling reform--go!" My reply to your last paragraph is there.
Stukus (2126 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
OK, so you want a thread for your cheerleaders, then?
Octavious (2732 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
I suggest that we make spelling worse!

Seriously though, "correct" spelling is a relatively modern invention. Before Dr Johnson wrote his cursed dictionary it was quite common for words to have a variety of spellings (as some still do). I say we abolish fixed spellings and return to a system in which if the reader can easily understand what you write, it is good. A new age of democratic spelling of English will sweep the globe, and the idiotic spellings we are forced to learn will be lost!

(Scientific words will of course need a fixed spelling, but they're mostly Latin or Greek anyway)
Sys_Error (998 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
This reminds me of an old joke... Even the companies in the joke have already demerged! Perhaps because of this reform:

Directors at Daimler Benz and Chrysler have announced an agreement to adopt English as the preferred language for communications, rather than German, which was another possibility.

As part of the negotiations, directors at Chrysler conceded that English spelling has some room for improvement and have accepted a five-year phase-in plan.

In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Also, the hard "c" will be replased with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but komputers have one less letter.

There will be growing kompany enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replased by "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 persent shorter.

In the third year, DaimlerKhrysler akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible.

DaimlerKhrysler will enkourage the removal of double letters, whish have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"'s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps sush as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" by "v".

During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be droped from vords kontaining "o", and similar shanges vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis, and employes vil find it ezi to kommunikat viz eash ozer.

Ov kors al supliers vil be expekted to us zis for all busines komunikation via DaimlerKhrysler.

Ze drem vil finali kum tru ….

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.
hammac (100 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
English is English - if you colonists want different spelling and language perhaps you should call it something else or use esperanto ;-)
Hunter49r (189 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
I hope none. Prologue is my favorite word, and I would no longer have an excuse to pronounce it pro-log-gew. :P
Maniac (189 D(B))
31 Mar 10 UTC
Let's just take one example of a spelling reform suggestion and see how it goes. Many people advocate doing away with the 'e' at the end of words like 'have'. Now assuming that some government authority somewhere will sit down and authorize this as the new correct spelling, where does that leave our children. Those who already knw the old way will have to relearn the new way presumerably? And the children that don't yet know how to spell will b taught (tort) the new way. Great, but what about when the write to their aged grandmother? Won't grandmother think her grandchild a poor/pour/pore/paw speller?

Recently (well last year sometime) the government spelling tzar proclaimed that the 'i' before ' e' except after 'c' rule would no longer be taught in schools, because they thought it too difficult ad had too many exceptions. But it was probably the only spelling rule most of us can remember and are parents and careers supposed to stop reciting the rhyme?

Let's just try and teach children the basic rules and not get too het up if sometimes their spelling isn't spot on.
Maniac (189 D(B))
31 Mar 10 UTC
Oh by the way I recommend www.spelltube.co.uk for primary aged spellers.
KaptinKool (408 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
@Sys_Error - literally laughed out loud... in English class (I wasn't listening... oh the irony)... prof was fairly ticked.
I'll suggest a specific idea, the most significant one I can think of: the addition of a letter to the alphabet to represent the "schwa" sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa

As written in the above article, the Schwa is actually the most common vowel sound in English, and is represented by all vowel letters of the alphabet. For example (taken from the wiki page):

'a' in "about"
'e' in "taken"
'i' in "pencil"
'o' and 'e' in "eloquent"
'u' in "supply"

So this is just one sound, ubiquitous in English, being notated in ways idiosyncratic to each word. If you look at the common spelling errors made in English today, a major portion of them involve choosing an incorrect letter to represent the schwa.

For example, infamous errors such as "definate" for "definite" or "relevent" for "relevant" stem from the schwa sound in the words, represented correctly by 'i' and 'a' respectively.

So the solution:
1) Educate folks to recognize the Schwa in all of their words (it's not hard to miss) and
2) Create a new letter (that upside-down e will do) to notate all instances of it.

These changes will cut down on a majority of vowel-related spelling mistakes in English (leaving, of course, the old "ei" v. "ie," but that's another story).

It's just one needed change out of many.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
31 Mar 10 UTC
One thing this is going to have to do is find a median between all the acents/dialects in english without making one group's regularity another's irregularity. This allows the system to get adopted more readily. So, instead of having "runner" as "runne" or "runnr," (British and American versions), keep the "er," which Americans can read as a syllabic r and Britishers a schwa.
Stukus (2126 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
Hm, it's almost as if the system we have now works really, really well, and people have adapted to it, and phonetic spelling would suck for everyone without your accent. How strange...
baumhaeuer (245 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
How about punctuation? That works pretty well. Anybody want to change that, or should we leave it intact?
dexter morgan (225 D(S))
01 Apr 10 UTC
The only change I would like to see as far as punctuation would be the addition of those leading upside down exclamation points and leading upside down question marks that Spanish uses at the beginnings of sentences... very useful when reading text... helps you emphasize the sentence properly if you know going into it that it's an exclamation or a question rather than a generic sentence. That's it.
If I were reforming punctuation, I might put in the Interrobang, just for fun.
sicinat (129 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
They should teach kids IPA and then do away with the whole inferior 26-letter alphabet altogether :)
Zeno Izen (100 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
Regarding the modernness of standardized spelling... pretty much the entire concept of standardization of language is a side effect of Gutenberg's press. Regarding the masturbatoriness of the thread... what's wrong with masturbation? It's sex with someone I love.
Stukus (2126 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
Interrobangs rock. I think we should increase awareness of the name Solidus for / . Why would you call anything a slash when you could call it a solidus[interrobang]
Zeno Izen (100 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
What's this one called?: \
Zeno Izen (100 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
Oh, and I want my cents sign back!
Samianus (471 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
I agree with sicinat. In IPA you have a ready-made alphabet that many people already know, plus people will write things the way they say it so you can hear someone's accent in their messages during a game.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
01 Apr 10 UTC
@Samianus:
One problem with changing spelling according to accent is that if someone has a thick accent (native, since a foreigner whose accent is rather strong would still write like he had a good accent), you wouldn't be able to read what they're writing anymore than you could what they were saying...

That is why I suggested the thing with the "er." Any thoughts?
Timur (684 D(B))
01 Apr 10 UTC
@Sys: brilliant
Hmm… in thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that English is a shitty language, and that no amount of spelling reform is going to fix it.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
03 Apr 10 UTC
@ Bear:
. . . Well!
Timur (684 D(B))
03 Apr 10 UTC
@Bear:
Nobody's forcing you to speak English, are they? Go speak another language. Good idea. Then we won't be able to understand your crap.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
03 Apr 10 UTC
Bear->Timur:
. . . Well!
Mujus (1495 D(B))
04 Apr 10 UTC
The English language fits its alphabet about like Cinderella's ugly stepsisters' feet fit into the glass slipper! Due to an accident of history, namely that the Romans conquered England rather than the other way around, the English language was shoe-horned into the Latin alphabet--well, a close approximation anyway.
Mujus (1495 D(B))
04 Apr 10 UTC
By way of illustration, most dialects of English have ten vowel phonemes, and some have eleven, which should each have its own symbol in a rational alphabet. (A phoneme means all the variations of a sound that are still recognizable as that sound).
Mujus (1495 D(B))
04 Apr 10 UTC
Plus which each consonant sound should have its own symbol. For example, the sound signified by "th" in the word "think" is different than the sound represented by "th" in the word "that," so there's two sounds that English does not have symbols for. Greek has the letter "theta," a circle with a horizontal line through it, and old English had the runic symbol "eth," which looks like fancy letter "y," but English does not.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
05 Apr 10 UTC
GO MUJUS!!!
alamothe (3367 D(B))
05 Apr 10 UTC
I was always impressed how adding a single letter makes totally different pronunciation: tough, though, thought :-))
Timur (684 D(B))
05 Apr 10 UTC
shit / shite


45 replies
Page 556 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top