Soldier for the Empire and Darksabre

Discussion in 'Literature' started by AdmiralZaarin, Oct 3, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    No, your logic and analogy is flawed.

    By extending the term navy they are going up with technolgy, which moves in direction forward with what you have in space.

    Much like how in real life, the term Cannon which refers to weapons that propelled balls by combustion of gunpowder. Was converted over to devices in the real world such as water cannons, which spray out water, but do not sue combustion. Or Laser Cannons(early stages of development but do exist) which fire a laser, but do not use combustion, like the original word the term comes from.

    Were as near-human is non-sensient ancestors of humans, to extend it forward(when the terminology is limited to those that are Human(homidae) ancestors(early nonsensient primates)) onto human species, that are first humans(sensient species), or those that come after humans does not work, since it would be implying that those evolved from humans are less than human. Oh, they would be next stage of evolution, and beyond-homo sapien, but would not be any less than human. To try to use that analogy used is utterly and inneffectually flawed.

    Recap:
    In other words, Near-Humane was invented by anthropoligists, to describe those ancestors of humans, that are non-sensient ape like creatures. To apply it to Humans, or the next stage up would be misinterpretaion of the word, and flawed.

    Were as a term like navy, or cannon invented for use in a present tense, move forward to expand with the times and technology advances, and the new ideas in war fare.

    Further Recap:
    Near-human works backwords from Prehumanity.

    The words you picked for you analogy work forward from present time of there invention.

    To inccorectly interpret that meaning is complete and utter nonsense, and ignorance.
  2. TalonCard •Author: Slave Pits of Lorrd •TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2001
    star 5
    This is a pointless debate. The term "near-human" has been used in many EU sources, however inaccurate the name may be. When someone says "near-human" we all know what they're talking about.

    TC
  3. Muke_Skywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 9, 2000
    star 4
    Darksabre is my all time most favorite Star Wars novel of all time. BAR NONE! Its the closest to GL's vision of SW of all of the books. Its just a big, loud, over the top book thats just pure entertainment.

    And it's the only book I ever liked Callista in.
  4. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    Yes, TC we know what the Humans are, but I prefer to use Correct terminology, since it's an insult to all human species out there, to call them non-sensient human ancestors, that Near-human implies, ;). Stop the bigotry, please ;).

    Did you know that the nazis called Jews near-human?

    Or that white americans treated blacks as near-human?

    Just because they were different?
  5. Sturm Antilles Former Manager

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2000
    star 6
    Well, you shouldn't use an analogy for humans, really. Since "Near-human" ( or whetever the correct terminology is ) is a mixture of 2 species, not race. But you know that.
  6. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    "Well, you shouldn't use an analogy for humans, really. Since "Near-human" ( or whetever the correct terminology is ) is a mixture of 2 species, not race. But you know that."

    Actually that depends on the human species.

    For instance chiss are next stage in human evolution. But biologically they would still be a human species, because there ancestors were humans, and earlier near-humans(ape like non-sensient primates.)

    Those species who do not evolve from primate-species would not be Humans(homidae species).

    those that are combination of two species would still fall under the genetic dna of man, would have to have share similer DNA, or some kind of variable dna.

    What this means, both of those species wouldn't be Homo Sapiens, but both would have to fall under Homo genome, to even be able to reproduce.

    But they wouldn't be same species, and what you get is a Mixed-species offspring.

    So while Human covers many species, pre homo sapien, or beyond homo sapien, all would be human, but not all would be homo sapien.

    Now consider, races that do genetically compatible with humans but are evolved from say lizards, or dogs, or some other non primate ancestor etc. Well, that would be some kind of Variable-DNA which on earth no creature has. It would be DNA that can vary itself almost like Genetic Manipulation to insure that offspring could be born.

    What would these mixed-species be called? Most likely Half-human, or mixed-species, or half-alien, etc.

  7. Sturm Antilles Former Manager

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2000
    star 6
  8. PrinceXizor Former TF.N Foreign Book Cover Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 2001
    star 5
    Never, NEVER attack Valiento on the near-human subject !!! That's dangerous. :D
  9. Matthew Trias Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 8, 1999
    star 6
    That's what you get for messing with a god,Sturm. ;) :D

    *Bows down in reverance to Valiento's knowledge and wisdom *
  10. TalonCard •Author: Slave Pits of Lorrd •TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2001
    star 5
    >Yes, TC we know what the Humans are, but I prefer to use Correct terminology, since it's an >insult to all human species out there,

    Last time I looked, there was only one human species. That is, humans are a species.

    >to call them non-sensient human ancestors, that Near-human implies, . Stop the bigotry, please .

    There is no bigotry. "Near-human" is a perfectly acceptable SW narrative term. It means that the race in question is close to being a mainstream human, but for whatever reason (mutation, alien-human hybrid, adaptation to a planet beyond Earth norms, etc) is not completely human. It is not used in a derogatory sense at all in the EU. If it were used in real life, it would be different.

    TC
  11. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    "Last time I looked, there was only one human species. That is, humans are a species."

    Actually, humans is the overall term for many a different family of species falling under Homidae category. Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neandethalus, etc. If a race sensient and evolved from a primate species, it is human. You can't avoid this, and I recommend you take a class in basic Anthrapology and learn something. We know chiss evolved from humans so it too falls under the broad category of being human.


    "There is no bigotry. "Near-human" is a perfectly acceptable SW narrative term. It means that the race in question is close to being a mainstream human, but for whatever reason (mutation, alien-human hybrid, adaptation to a planet beyond Earth norms, etc) is not completely human. It is not used in a derogatory sense at all in the EU. If it were used in real life, it would be different."


    No, it's not perfectly accepteble term, if the authors or you are going to use earth based terms, they need to used correctly, instead of taking it out of context and using in there own way. If authors or you decided to tell me 2+2=5, or Up is down, that still doesn't make them or you correct. Infact it makes them quite ignorant of language, and science. So the only way to reconscile there pathetic excuse for a use of a real anthropology term, and the way they Fudged it up in the way they use it for antropology purposes is to say that it is some form of slanged bigotry from some past time period in the gffa, that has stuck in the GFFA's language usage. But in no sense of the word is it correct use of the word. If the authors wanted to create new anthropology words unique to the gffa fine, but then shouldn't use english terms out of context. If they are going use an english term, they need to use them correctly, or they are ignorant and foolish, of world terminology, which is about as pathetic as I can think of. Remember a person who follows foolishness is still foolish themselves, and as ignorant as the person who wrote the misinformation in the first place.

    Being obstinate to defend ignorant misinformation doesn't make look any smarter, and shows that you don't think for yourselve, and have to be dragged around on the leash of someone ignorant of standard english(or anthropology) terminonolagy or language, that books on earth are forced to use.
  12. The Cat Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 24, 2000
    star 3
    That's what I said, TC. Near-human means just that, near human. Genetically, almost a normal human. Basically human with just a little bit of difference. You'd think any idiot with an even rudimentary understanding of the English language could figure it out.

    But no, that makes no sense, for near-human to mean near-human, and is an excercise in ignorance. Near-human means less than human, don't you get it? Never mind that it's called a near-human, it really means near-human-but-automatically-less-somehow. Just like how "near Pittsburg" only describes things to the south of the city, and not to the north, east, or west. Really, anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.

    And it's okay for old terminology to apply to new technology as it evolves, but not new life forms.

    Wait, I'm sorry. I said I was through with this foolishness.
  13. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    "And it's okay for old terminology to apply to new technology as it evolves, but not new life forms."


    Considering that the term near-human were it originated in anthropological studies, was assigned for all creatures of human ancestory, that were not quite fully ape, and not quite fully human. The word moves backwords from one of the first human species(actually backwords from the missing link, but that hasn't been discovered yet). Homo erectus for example, would be an early human. The near-human term, doesn't move forward, and wasn't meant too. If going by your logic, homo sapiens would be near-human, as well as the next species to evolve after us. But you would ber completly and utterly wrong if you did.

    Where cannon was invented for a technology invented at the time in the middle ages, and evolved forward to apply to other technologies that were invented.

    Or the use of navy in space, etc.

    They are totally different terms, that can't even fall under the same analogy.

    One is technology which is always in a state of flux and moves forward. The other is a for Anthropoligical use, which is study of the past, and created to describe those things which are ancestors.

    So if you want to continue to follow the authors bad and incorrect use of terminology yes, you too would be ignorant.

    If you think it's rudimentary use of the english language, you would be right, you are showing a very rudimentary use of language, infact so rudimentary it's "3 : very imperfectly developed", and won't allow you to accept the correct terminology. Obstinatly stuck to your own foolish beliefs, go ahead and continue that's up to you, but still it doesn't make you right. But who am I to stop you, go and continue what ever you like to believe.
  14. Sturm Antilles Former Manager

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2000
    star 6
    "Bueller?

    Bueller?

    ...

    Bueller?" :p
  15. TalonCard •Author: Slave Pits of Lorrd •TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2001
    star 5
    >Actually, humans is the overall term for many a different family of species falling under Homidae >category. Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neandethalus, etc. If a race sensient and evolved >from a primate species, it is human.

    Ok, but, as far as I know, there is only one human species in existence. The rest are extinct. And as you had said:

    >Yes, TC we know what the Humans are, but I prefer to use Correct terminology, since it's an >insult to all human species out there,

    As we don't really need to worry about offending dead people, much less a dead species, your statement only applies to the single human species "out there."

    >We know chiss evolved from humans so it too falls under the broad category of being human.

    True, just as humans fall under the broad category of primate. You might argue the fact that, as humans are substantially different from mainstream primates, (monkeys, gorillas, lemurs, etc) we could be called "near-primates."

    >No, it's not perfectly accepteble term,

    It is in the GFFA.

    >if the authors or you are going to use earth based terms, they need to used correctly, instead of >taking it out of context and using in there own way.

    You are always saying that, if we want to enjoy a fictional universe, then we need to play by the rules. Well, here's one. "Near-human" is a slang term in the GFFA. It may not be entirely accurate, but that's what is used. Someone might say "hand me that Zip-Lock (TM) bag," even though it's a store brand, and "Zip-Lock" is a trademark applying only to one particular brand. "Zip-Lock" has become the accepted slang term for a resealable plastic bag.

    >Infact it makes them quite ignorant of language,

    Might I point out that "infact" is not one word, "Up" and "Fudged" should not be capitalized, you forgot an "a", and your "there" should be "their"?

    >Being obstinate to defend ignorant misinformation doesn't make look any smarter, and shows that >you don't think for yourselve, and have to be dragged around on the leash of someone ignorant of >standard english(or anthropology) terminonolagy

    Thanks for the insult. Look, if someone told you that the writer of COPL made an ignorant mistake, as Han and Leia were married in POTDS, you'd say, "yes, he did make an ignorant mistake, but it's part of the GFFA, so we'll have to go with it."

    TC
  16. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    "Ok, but, as far as I know, there is only one human species in existence. The rest are extinct."

    Yes, because homo sapiens brutally murdered the other human species that co-existed at the same time as them, homo neanderthalus.

    But in the GFFA, there are way more planets, so more species exist, at the same time. We know for certain that at least chiss, is a human species. Because term near-human works backwords from pre-human species, not forward, because the term, has only one meaning. No matter what the authors tell you.


    "True, just as humans fall under the broad category of primate. You might argue the fact that, as humans are substantially different from mainstream primates, (monkeys, gorillas, lemurs, etc) we could be called "near-primates.""

    Actually the term you might want to use is close cousins, and family they fall under the familes of "Hominoidea", "Callitrichidae", "Cebidae", and "Cercopithecidae". They all coevolved with humans. People may say the cliche phrase that we all evolved from apes, but that's incorrect asumption. All species evolved from some prehistoric primate. Apes, and monkeys went one direction, near-humans(then the later human species) went off in the other direction.

    Near-human refers to human ancestor species of primate, that existed before the first Human Species, but was closer to human, then it was to one of the other families of primate. But it evolved into a sensient species, of early humans, until homo sapiens, and homo neanderthals existed. Then homo sapiens deciding they didn't like the neanderthals brutally killed the other existing species.

    "You are always saying that, if we want to enjoy a fictional universe, then we need to play by the rules. Well, here's one. "Near-human" is a slang term in the GFFA."

    Well, that's what I've been saying all along, it's slang, and like most slang it's not the most correct usage of words(infact it's wrong). But I know what they are trying to say. As can be seen it's grown to be widely accepted by the galaxy. Which is true, but to be precise, yes near-humans are humans, but not the same species, and like history has shown, if something is different than us, we see them as alien. So yes they would be aliens.

    Then you have your aliens that evolved from other stock dna, equines, reptilian, etc etc. They are completly alien.
  17. TalonCard •Author: Slave Pits of Lorrd •TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2001
    star 5
    >Well, that's what I've been saying all along, it's slang, and like most slang it's not the most correct >usage of words(infact it's wrong). But I know what they are trying to say. As can be seen it's >grown to be widely accepted by the galaxy. Which is true,

    Ah ha! Here we go!

    >Then you have your aliens that evolved from other stock dna, equines, reptilian, etc etc. They are >completly alien.

    Yup. Chiss are near-human, and Twi'leks and Fallen are aliens.

    TC
  18. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    "Ah ha! Here we go!"

    Yet slang still not precise, or correct.

    "Slang: an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech"


    "Yup. Chiss are near-human, and Twi'leks and Fallen are aliens."

    Chiss can only be human because they evolved from stock humans, this is common anthropology. Now if humans evolved from chiss, and chiss happened to be Missing Link(I.E. Near-Human ancestor.) then, yes they too could be near human.

    Twileks, I don't even begin to guess what they evolved from, falleen same for them(though BHW does say that trandoshans and falleen are closely related.).

    Though star wars might use a slang term, that doesn't make it Correct use. But don't let me stop you from being imprecise, that's up to you. But don't you think that because you are being imprecise on your own choice, that makes you correct. People can say Ain't all they like but it still be an imprecise terminology. But hey who am I to stop you?
  19. AdmiralZaarin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 5
    I have a theory on the Chiss.
    They are human, or incredibly close to it, but the males are bright blue to attract a female, kinda like male birds with colourful feathers.
    We haven't seen female Chiss, they could have more human-like skin.
    The Faleen are reptiles, Zelosians are plants and Twi'leks are thingys (very technical ;))
  20. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    actually a picture of a female chiss is in Gamer #5.

    The blue skin comes from mineral in there soil which they ingest. Over time of evolution, they absorbed enough of it to pass onto there offspring.
  21. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    I have just been skimming what you guys have been blabbering about, but here is a really dumb question. What would you call all of the aliens that are close to human form? Would you call them "Humans that have some maybe ovious diffrence from the human norm?" I could see a mob running around yelling that....
    Also, dont you think that in the star wars universe, some words may not translate exactly?

    So what if the scientific dmeaning of a word is not how it is normaly used. It is normal.
  22. Muke_Skywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 9, 2000
    star 4
    Messing with Valiento on this subject is ALMOST as crazy as arguing with Genghis 12 about.. anything!

    It's a no win situation..
  23. Sturm Antilles Former Manager

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2000
    star 6
    Which reminds me...Star Tours occured at 9 or 10 ASW6! ;)
  24. TalonCard •Author: Slave Pits of Lorrd •TFN EU Staff

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2001
    star 5
    >Yet slang still not precise, or correct.

    Is there an echo in this thread?

    >"Slang: an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed >words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech"

    Thanks loads, Valiento. I know what it means.

    "Though star wars might use a slang term, that doesn't make it Correct use."

    I didn't say it was "Correct" use, I was pointing out that it was the accepted term in the EU.

    >But don't let me stop you from being imprecise,

    I am not being imprecise. When I say "near-humans" on these boards, people will think "Aha! A group of human beings altered though extended contact with alien conditions, or interbreeding with alien races!" Not "Aha! Humanity's evolutionary precursors!" If I were posting on an anthropology message board, it would be different.

    >that's up to you. But don't you think that because you are being imprecise on your own choice, >that makes you correct.

    It is correct on this board.

    >People can say Ain't all they like but it still be an imprecise terminology.

    True, but if someone created a fictional universe and populated it with creatures called "Ain'ts," then it would be perfectly correct to use the word in discussions regarding said fictional universe.

    TC
  25. Valiento Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2000
    star 7
    yes, it's still imprecise, when someone lies, and imprecisely uses a real word in fiction, it's still a lie and imprecise use of the word by the authors. It's bad research skills, and incorrect use of english(scientific or otherwise).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.