left and right
Jacob Munkhammar
messages) using the directions left, right, forward and back, as well as
navigating in those directions and referencing objects, depending on from
what direction the player's character entered the room.
There are two issues here that currently bugs me.
Firstly, I cannot decide if (or when) the directions should change while
the character is in the same location.
Let's say you enter a room and get the description, "You are in a room, to
the right is a door, and a corridor leads away behind you."
Should 'EXAMINE THE DOOR' make the character turn right? (Giving "You are
in a room, in front of you is a door, and a corridor leads away to the
right." at the next 'LOOK')
And how about 'GO RIGHT', giving "You try to open the door, but it is
locked." Will the player then have turned?
Generally, I think the directions should stay static while in the same
room. For a very few actions, however, I am unsure whether this can be a
bit confusing.
I can, of course, add a report when a turn is performed, like: "You turn
right and try to open the door, but it is locked."
While in the same room, is always keeping the directions constant, or
sometimes changing them, the best option?
(Note: If the directions are changing, one may have to 'LOOK' before
navigating.)
I have no plans to supply 'TURN LEFT' or 'TURN RIGHT' verbs - in version
1, anyway. (It really has no function, except as cosmetics, at this time.)
The other thing is that I would like to include the directions southeast,
southwest, northwest and northeast in this mechanism. (It only works for
the 4 basic directions as of now.) But how are the direction between left
and forward, between right and back, a.s.o., to be described. Any creative
suggestions?
/Jacob
--
Jacob Munkhammar -- utan Microsoft-certifikat
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~jacob/
PowerMac 4400, Mac LC, Mac Plus, ZX Spectrum, HP 41CV
Erik Max Francis
> CAVE will have a system for generating location descriptions (and
> other
> messages) using the directions left, right, forward and back, as well
> as
> navigating in those directions and referencing objects, depending on
> from
> what direction the player's character entered the room.
That sounds awful.
> Firstly, I cannot decide if (or when) the directions should change
> while
> the character is in the same location.
That sounds _really_ awful.
> Generally, I think the directions should stay static while in the same
> room. For a very few actions, however, I am unsure whether this can be
> a
> bit confusing.
What is the goal of giving relative directions in the first place?
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@members.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ But since when can wounded eyes see
/ Joi
Jacob Munkhammar
<m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> What is the goal of giving relative directions in the first place?
Well, the whole idea is motivated by two things.
Firstly, because of the (in this group sometimes impopular) notion of
"realism". When I walk about in the real world, especially in-doors, I
have no idea about compass directions.
Secondly, I prefer to test games and i-f that I make on inexperienced
players - that is, players without preconceptions about how i-f "should"
be controlled.
Very often this "class" of players actually get *confused* by compass
directions. Like me, when they walk around the real world, they walk
forward and turn left and right, and it is closer linked to their
subconcious (mental maps) what happens when they walk left and right,
partly because they don't need to keep track of compass direction, but
only have to "live" with the descriptions and their more real-life
actions.
Actually, I think a world described solely through relative directions
will be a more "direct" experience, in that it is less "map like". I think
you will be - and move - more "there".
Inexperienced players also demand a more flexible and more natural
language input - one less "command line"-like - while experienced players
often prefer the command line approach, like ">x object". Thus my problem
to find good ways of refering to the "half-way" directions in relative
terms. (Of course, I will provide user control suitable for both these
types of users.)
Directions like 'CORRIDOR' a.s.o. may of course be used, but that is
really independent of relative directions. (There are already basic
mechanisms for doing this in CAVE without any programming, but I may in
the future formalize this even further.)
Also, a major goal with CAVE is to make the resulting output as prose-like
as possible, and as far from a game status report as possible. The goal is
that the reader should live the game as he lives the story of a book, only
with more control. (That is why I keep command line and things like
command errors *outside* of the story, and keep the prose window - as I
prefer to call it - for what is happening in the virtual world only.)
For this reason also, having a status line with exits, is not an approach
I am currently planning to take.
Think less game status report and more interactive prose to understand the
idea behind CAVE. Or rather, as I've formulated it here before: CAVE is
about "the experience of virtual worlds through prose".
Having said that, it is perfectly possible to design a game with only
compass directions with CAVE. I just want to provide a feature that I feel
is a more natural approach to interactive fiction, to those authors who
want to make use of it.
Of course, I appreciate both arguments for and against, but in this case
there is no need to argue against. I have decided to implement it, one
need not use it, but for those who want it, I want to make available the
best possible sollution in my power. :-)
Mike Roberts
>In article <372A1C54...@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis
><m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> What is the goal of giving relative directions in the first place?
>"realism".
I wouldn't dream of speaking for the group at large, but I think it is a
slight misconception that realism is in and of itself unpopular. For my own
part, I've nothing against realism, but I place a higher value on other,
sometimes conflicting, elements of game design. Making the basic mechanics
of the game easy and transparent for the player is much more important to me
than realism, and I have no qualms about sacrificing realism when it would
be at the expense of transparency.
>Secondly, I prefer to test games and i-f that I make on inexperienced
>players - that is, players without preconceptions about how i-f "should"
>be controlled.
That's worthwhile, but ultimately any game will have a set of conventions
that players must learn. It's straightforward to explain to a new player
the typical convention (compass directions), and I don't doubt it would be
straightforward to explain a relative system. But you will have to explain
it; no one's real-world intuition is going to apply perfectly to any
computer simulation short of fully-immersive VR.
--Mike
Jacob Munkhammar
<mjr-S...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jacob Munkhammar wrote in message ...
> >In article <372A1C54...@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis
> ><m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> What is the goal of giving relative directions in the first place?
> >Firstly, because of the (in this group sometimes impopular) notion of
> >"realism".
>
> I wouldn't dream of speaking for the group at large, but I think it is a
> slight misconception that realism is in and of itself unpopular. For my own
> part, I've nothing against realism, but I place a higher value on other,
> sometimes conflicting, elements of game design. Making the basic mechanics
> of the game easy and transparent for the player is much more important to me
> than realism, and I have no qualms about sacrificing realism when it would
> be at the expense of transparency.
>
OK, I could have skipped that comment. But I *did* use the word "sometimes". ;)
I am not always a fan of realism in fiction myself. Anyway, it's not important.
I only agree in part that the mechanisms of the game should be obvious to
the player.
Of course, the commands for controlling the game or piece of interactive
fiction should be self-evident, but if this has to be at the expence of
the story told by the game (like being forced to use "game technical"
references in the text), then we are captured by the technology.
> >Secondly, I prefer to test games and i-f that I make on inexperienced
> >players - that is, players without preconceptions about how i-f "should"
> >be controlled.
>
> That's worthwhile, but ultimately any game will have a set of conventions
> that players must learn. It's straightforward to explain to a new player
> the typical convention (compass directions), and I don't doubt it would be
> straightforward to explain a relative system. But you will have to explain
> it; no one's real-world intuition is going to apply perfectly to any
> computer simulation short of fully-immersive VR.
>
Yes, I know, but when I find that a lot of people get confused by a
concept, I try to find a way to do it in another, hopefully less
confusing, way.
Anyway, I have never really liked the north/south way of navigating
myself. Not because it isn't practical, but just because it doesn't relate
to life and to "being there". Perhaps I don't like it because it is *too*
practical? Or should I say technical?
This, of course, is my subjective view and there are a lot of systems and
authors (and gamers) that prefer it the established way (which admittedly
is - to some extent - result of an evolution, but also of convention).
There are just things about some of the established ways of doing it that
aren't as I like them. Therefore I make a system that does it in a way
that I feel is more satisfactory. And I will release it to the public in
case there are others who feel the same.
Those who don't agree with me have a number of other systems to chose
from, or don't have to use these features of CAVE.
I want to get away from the more board game-ish and role playing map-ish,
and - when you think about it - technical, way of interacting with
interactive fiction, and get closer to the book experience.
I know, these are just words, and we will see how close CAVE will get. In time.
Remember, much of the ways computers do things is because it is easier for
the computer - and we have gotten used to it. And we are very fond of our
habits, aren't we? ;)
/Jacob
Fred M. Sloniker
Munkhammar) wrote:
>Anyway, I have never really liked the north/south way of navigating
>myself. Not because it isn't practical, but just because it doesn't relate
>to life and to "being there". Perhaps I don't like it because it is *too*
>practical? Or should I say technical?
Something you might want to consider, instead of having the player
doing rotations and translations (turn left, go right) (unless you
*want* to code a Doom/Tomb Raider IF) would be Nord and Bert's
movement conventions: exits named after the destinations. That is, if
you're in (just for instance) my TV room, there are four exits: up the
stairs to the front room, east through a door to the back yard,
southwest through a doorway to the laundry room, and south into a
hall. Suppose you're facing north. Do you really want to type TURN
LEFT 145 DEGREES then GO FORWARD? SW is a lot easier, but you're
trying to avoid that. So, type LAUNDRY ROOM, or, if you're a stickler
for grammatical correctness, ENTER LAUNDRY ROOM.
You'd have to list the exits, of course, preferably in two forms:
seamlessly integrated into your room description, and in a simple list
to be displayed on the status line or by typing, say, EXITS. If the
character doesn't know where an exit leads, you'd describe it by what
they can tell about it: OAK DOOR, ACCESS PORT, DEEPER WOODS, what have
you. If the exit is secret, it wouldn't appear in the list until
discovered.
So what do you think?
William Adderholdt
Jacob Munkhammar <ja...@stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
>CAVE will have a system for generating location descriptions (and other
>messages) using the directions left, right, forward and back, as well as
>navigating in those directions and referencing objects, depending on from
>what direction the player's character entered the room.
You might like to know (if you don't already) that there are games with
this kind of interface already out there. The one I remember off the top
of my head is "Battlestar," written in 1979, which comes with the BSD-games
package. Here's a quote from the man page:
DIRECTIONS
The compass directions N, S, E, and W can be used if you have a compass.
If you don't have a compass, you'll have to say R, L, A, or B, which
stand for Right, Left, Ahead, and Back. Directions printed in room de-
scriptions are always printed in R, L, A, & B relative directions.
It's really strange the first time you play it, but after a while it
becomes perfectly natural.
Here's a short transcript. Notice how the relative positions change as you
walk around:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a luxurious stateroom.
The floor is carpeted with a soft animal fur and the great wooden furniture
is inlaid with strips of platinum and gold. Electronic equipment built
into the walls and ceiling is flashing wildly. The floor shudders and
the sounds of dull explosions rumble though the room. From a window in
the wall ahead comes a view of darkest space. There is a small adjoining
room behind you, and a doorway right.
>-: right
These are the executive suites of the battlestar.
Luxurious staterooms carpeted with crushed velvet and adorned with beaten
gold open onto this parlor. A wide staircase with ivory banisters leads
up or down. This parlor leads into a hallway left. The bridal suite is right.
Other rooms lie ahead and behind you.
>-: back
This is a luxurious stateroom.
The floor is carpeted with a soft animal fur and the great wooden furniture
is inlaid with strips of platinum and gold. Electronic equipment built
into the walls and ceiling is flashing wildly. The floor shudders and
the sounds of dull explosions rumble though the room. From a window in
the wall right comes a view of darkest space. There is a small adjoining
room left, and a doorway behind you.
>-:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My one complaint would be that if you type "l," it automatically assumes
you mean "go left" instead of "look." It's very hard to get out of that
habit.
William Adderholdt
Jacob Munkhammar
I think the "exit names" and "relative directions" are two different
issues - even though they, of course, do interact.
I do support exit names in CAVE today - both by refering to name of
connecting location ("kitchen") and by refering to name of connection
("oak door").
My main interest for relative directions is not in the "facing" aspect as
such, but in the "relativity" aspect. That is to say, I want to describe
the room depending on the way the person entered it, rather that making -
as you so aptly put it - a text based Tomb Raider.
Of course, this can in the future be extended to have significance in
combat systems and such, but this is not currently an issue.
The discussion about facing and turning is intersting.
My original idea was only to use relative directions in the descriptions -
and following from that - provide vocabulary words to refer to them.
Facing in a certain direction has no practical consequence, other than in
the choice of words.
If it is confusing to have relative directions in the descriptions (and in
navigating) without being able to turn (and change faced direction), then
I will have to take that into consideration.
And, no, I do not want the player to have to type 'TURN LEFT 145 DEGREES'
and then 'GO FORWARD'. That is my problem; how do I relate to these
halfway directions in relative terms?
Of course, I can select to only support the four main compas direction in
the relative system, so that any author who wants to use this feature will
have to skip SW and its kin. That would be a pity though, and I hope to
find a sollution.
/Jacob
--
Jacob Munkhammar -- utan/without Microsoft-certifikat
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~jacob/
CPU: PowerMac 4400, Mac LC, Mac Plus, ZX Spectrum, HP 41CV
OS: MacOS 8.5, 7.0, 6.0, BeOS, MkLinux & (ehrm) Windows95
okbl...@my-dejanews.com
ja...@stud.ntnu.no (Jacob Munkhammar) wrote:
> CAVE will have a system for generating location descriptions (and other
> messages) using the directions left, right, forward and back, as well as
> navigating in those directions and referencing objects, depending on from
> what direction the player's character entered the room.
OK. Optional, of course, because some authors may wish to present the room
differently based on what way the player is facing. When you start presume a
genuine (movable) point of view, you add a massive degree of depth (and
complexity) for the author who wants what the player reads to reflect that.
> Firstly, I cannot decide if (or when) the directions should change while
> the character is in the same location.
> Let's say you enter a room and get the description, "You are in a room, to
> the right is a door, and a corridor leads away behind you."
> Should 'EXAMINE THE DOOR' make the character turn right? (Giving "You are
> in a room, in front of you is a door, and a corridor leads away to the
> right." at the next 'LOOK')
> And how about 'GO RIGHT', giving "You try to open the door, but it is
> locked." Will the player then have turned?
I should think so.
> Generally, I think the directions should stay static while in the same
> room. For a very few actions, however, I am unsure whether this can be a
> bit confusing.
Yes, it probably will be. With the added complexity meaning that most authors
will ignore the option.
> I can, of course, add a report when a turn is performed, like: "You turn
> right and try to open the door, but it is locked."
> While in the same room, is always keeping the directions constant, or
> sometimes changing them, the best option?
I don't think you can determine that absolutely. That is, one who wishes to
use this system is going to have to make this decision for himself.
> I have no plans to supply 'TURN LEFT' or 'TURN RIGHT' verbs - in version
> 1, anyway. (It really has no function, except as cosmetics, at this time.)
But the cosmetics will be important. Much of IF is based on observation.
Which way the player is facing in a room could (as in real life) dramatically
affect his perception of the room.
> The other thing is that I would like to include the directions southeast,
> southwest, northwest and northeast in this mechanism. (It only works for
> the 4 basic directions as of now.) But how are the direction between left
> and forward, between right and back, a.s.o., to be described. Any creative
> suggestions?
I suggest that your basic premise is flawed, i.e., that people think in terms
of left and right. Yes, they're more likely to think in terms of left and
right than they are to think in cardinal directions, but I don't, for example
get to my kitchen by: leaving my bedroom by the door on the left, following
the hallway until it turns right, navigating the corner into the dining area
and going straight through the doorway. I simply go to the kitchen.
And it's very unnatural for me to think in terms of left and right, and even
*difficult* to do so the less familiar I am with where I'm going. I keep an
internal map, and I often don't know until I get there which way I'm going to
turn.
This is not meant to discourage you, as there are doubtless many very
interesting things that could be done using a system like this (judiciously)
as well as many awful things.
I'd like to see directions move more toward this kind of realism: If I've been
there before, I can get there again without having to retrace my steps.
Exceptions for tricky areas can be made, but navigating over terrain with
nothing new to add to the experience makes for one of the more frustrating IF
experiences.
Not only that, in an area that is not especially tricky, I can get to a place
I know exists =without= ever having been there before simply by gauging
relative distance and position. My feeling is don't force the player to stop
in a room that doesn't impact the game.
Let's just say I've been in too many N/S passages. :-)
--
[ok]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Irene Callaci
>In article <jacob-30049...@ti29a96-0172.dialup.online.no>,
> ja...@stud.ntnu.no (Jacob Munkhammar) wrote:
>> CAVE will have a system for generating location descriptions (and other
>> messages) using the directions left, right, forward and back, as well as
>> navigating in those directions and referencing objects, depending on from
>> what direction the player's character entered the room.
>
>I'd like to see directions move more toward this kind of realism: If I've been
>there before, I can get there again without having to retrace my steps.
>Exceptions for tricky areas can be made, but navigating over terrain with
>nothing new to add to the experience makes for one of the more frustrating IF
>experiences.
>
>Not only that, in an area that is not especially tricky, I can get to a place
>I know exists =without= ever having been there before simply by gauging
>relative distance and position. My feeling is don't force the player to stop
>in a room that doesn't impact the game.
Another scenario:
In my current WIP, the player character is in familiar surroundings
from the start of the game, even if the first-time player has never
seen those locations. GO TO THE BANK or GO TO THE DRUGSTORE will
always work, because the PC is assumed to know where that stuff is.
irene
Jacob Munkhammar
> In article <jacob-30049...@ti29a96-0172.dialup.online.no>,
> ja...@stud.ntnu.no (Jacob Munkhammar) wrote:
> > CAVE will have a system for generating location descriptions (and other
> > messages) using the directions left, right, forward and back, as well as
> > navigating in those directions and referencing objects, depending on from
> > what direction the player's character entered the room.
>
> OK. Optional, of course, because some authors may wish to present the room
> differently based on what way the player is facing. When you start presume a
> genuine (movable) point of view, you add a massive degree of depth (and
> complexity) for the author who wants what the player reads to reflect that.
>
I think I will, in first version, only have functionallity to substitute
cardinal directions with relative. And then check the consequenses in
practice through experiment.
If I add functionality like turning, things invisible behind the back,
a.s.o., it seems to me we have a snowball rolling.
Yes, I know, it was the descriptions that started the snowball, but it
appears to me that this is a complexity hard to overview through theory.
> > Generally, I think the directions should stay static while in the same
> > room. For a very few actions, however, I am unsure whether this can be a
> > bit confusing.
>
> Yes, it probably will be. With the added complexity meaning that most authors
> will ignore the option.
>
They are, of course, very welcome to ignore it. ;)
> > I can, of course, add a report when a turn is performed, like: "You turn
> > right and try to open the door, but it is locked."
> > While in the same room, is always keeping the directions constant, or
> > sometimes changing them, the best option?
>
> I don't think you can determine that absolutely. That is, one who wishes to
> use this system is going to have to make this decision for himself.
>
> > I have no plans to supply 'TURN LEFT' or 'TURN RIGHT' verbs - in version
> > 1, anyway. (It really has no function, except as cosmetics, at this time.)
>
> But the cosmetics will be important. Much of IF is based on observation.
> Which way the player is facing in a room could (as in real life) dramatically
> affect his perception of the room.
>
Perhaps you are right. I was hoping that the actual *facing* would be less
of an issue (by f.ex. describe things "behind" the character with equal
significance as in any other direction), and that this would work as
nothing but other names for the directions.
Perhaps this wont work.
This functionality is so easy to implement (description generation and
command words, that is) that I will try it. If it's too awful in use, I
wont release it; if I find it is basically a matter of taste, I'll include
it.
> > The other thing is that I would like to include the directions southeast,
> > southwest, northwest and northeast in this mechanism. (It only works for
> > the 4 basic directions as of now.) But how are the direction between left
> > and forward, between right and back, a.s.o., to be described. Any creative
> > suggestions?
>
> I suggest that your basic premise is flawed, i.e., that people think in terms
> of left and right. Yes, they're more likely to think in terms of left and
> right than they are to think in cardinal directions, but I don't, for example
> get to my kitchen by: leaving my bedroom by the door on the left, following
> the hallway until it turns right, navigating the corner into the dining area
> and going straight through the doorway. I simply go to the kitchen.
>
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, this functionally (room names) is
provided for, but given the interest it has been given in this discussion,
I will probably give it even more attention (read think about further
automation) in the future.
However, I see this as - technically - a completely different problem.
> And it's very unnatural for me to think in terms of left and right, and even
> *difficult* to do so the less familiar I am with where I'm going. I keep an
> internal map, and I often don't know until I get there which way I'm going to
> turn.
>
> This is not meant to discourage you, as there are doubtless many very
> interesting things that could be done using a system like this (judiciously)
> as well as many awful things.
>
That is up to the authors. ;)
> I'd like to see directions move more toward this kind of realism: If I've been
> there before, I can get there again without having to retrace my steps.
> Exceptions for tricky areas can be made, but navigating over terrain with
> nothing new to add to the experience makes for one of the more frustrating IF
> experiences.
>
> Not only that, in an area that is not especially tricky, I can get to a place
> I know exists =without= ever having been there before simply by gauging
> relative distance and position. My feeling is don't force the player to stop
> in a room that doesn't impact the game.
>
You do have a point there.
/Jacob
--
-- Jacob Munkhammar
-- http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~jacob/
--
okbl...@my-dejanews.com
ical...@csupomona.edu wrote:
>
> Another scenario:
>
> In my current WIP, the player character is in familiar surroundings
> from the start of the game, even if the first-time player has never
> seen those locations. GO TO THE BANK or GO TO THE DRUGSTORE will
> always work, because the PC is assumed to know where that stuff is.
>
On behalf of everyone who has struggled to find the bathroom in a house they
have lived in for years, I thank you. :-)
Irene Callaci
>In article <372e3495....@news.csupomona.edu>,
> ical...@csupomona.edu wrote:
>>
>> Another scenario:
>>
>> In my current WIP, the player character is in familiar surroundings
>> from the start of the game, even if the first-time player has never
>> seen those locations. GO TO THE BANK or GO TO THE DRUGSTORE will
>> always work, because the PC is assumed to know where that stuff is.
>>
>
>On behalf of everyone who has struggled to find the bathroom in a house they
>have lived in for years, I thank you. :-)
I still haven't decided what response I should give to
GO TO THE BATHROOM
That command will take you to the location of the bathroom,
but how can I let such a golden opportunity pass?
irene
Ryan N. Freebern
>I still haven't decided what response I should give to
>
> GO TO THE BATHROOM
>
>That command will take you to the location of the bathroom,
>but how can I let such a golden opportunity pass?
Ha, ha. "Golden" opportunity. Bad, bad pun.
Also, ha, ha. "Pass."
But anyway, I think "go to the bathroom" is an American idiom. In most
cultures, people say they need to take a piss, or use the restroom
(facilities/w.c./toilet/whatever) or something. "Go to the bathroom"
is usually meant as a command to travel, not defecate.
-r
Hello, I am 20-years-old,cute,Japanese girl.
My hobby is shopping,movie. Do you like movie?
Kathleen M. Fischer
> I still haven't decided what response I should give to
>
> GO TO THE BATHROOM
>
> That command will take you to the location of the bathroom,
> but how can I let such a golden opportunity pass?
> GO TO BATHROOM
Having no spare clothes with you at the moment, you head north to
the restroom.
--
*******************************************************************
* Kathleen M. Fischer *
* kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov (nospam = l l n l) *
** "Don't stop to stomp ants while the elephants are stampeding" **
David Given
ry...@SPAMcorknutSPAM.org (Ryan N. Freebern) writes:
[...]
> But anyway, I think "go to the bathroom" is an American idiom. In most
> cultures, people say they need to take a piss, or use the restroom
> (facilities/w.c./toilet/whatever) or something. "Go to the bathroom"
> is usually meant as a command to travel, not defecate.
Not in the UK; `go to the bathroom/go to the toilet' are equally widely
used.
BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphomistic
`restroom'. The rest of the (English-speaking) world uses bathroom and
toilets.
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+ A friend is someone you call to help you
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | move. A real friend is someone you call to
| Play: dgi...@iname.com | help you move a body.
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+
Kathleen M. Fischer
> In most
> cultures, people say they need to take a piss, or use the restroom
> (facilities/w.c./toilet/whatever) or something.
Is w.c (water closet?) used anywhere besides England and architectural
drawings?
Hmmmmm... twisting this back to IF... does anyone know the date that
the name "water closet" came into common use there (ie. was it before
1876?)
Kathleen (who would never say "where is the toilet" is unless she was
in a hardware store looking for the actual fixture to purchase.)
Magnus Olsson
Kathleen M. Fischer <kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov> wrote:
>Ryan N. Freebern wrote:
>> In most
>> cultures, people say they need to take a piss, or use the restroom
>> (facilities/w.c./toilet/whatever) or something.
>
>Is w.c (water closet?) used anywhere besides England and architectural
>drawings?
"WC" (without periods) is perhaps the most common word for "toilet" in
Swedish. This despite the fact that the Swedish equivalent of "water
closet" is "vattenklosett", so the abbreviation really should be "VK"
(which is never used).
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Daniel Barkalow
> On behalf of everyone who has struggled to find the bathroom in a house they
> have lived in for years, I thank you. :-)
If only it were that simple for us absent-minded folk in real life...
> GO TO THE BATHROOM
You walk out of your bedroom, down the stairs, around to the kitchen,
pick up a banana and walk back to the living room.
Living Room
You are in the middle of your living room, looking confused.
The book you've been reading is under the coffee table.
The phone begins to ring.
>
-Iabervon
*This .sig unintentionally changed*
Jacob Munkhammar
anson@DELETE_THISpobox.com (Anson Turner) wrote:
> In article <s4hsg7...@pearl.tao.co.uk>, d...@tao.co.uk (David Given) wrote:
>
> :BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphomistic
> :`restroom'. The rest of the (English-speaking) world uses bathroom and
> :toilets.
>
> How is "restroom" more euphemistic than "bathroom", especially when there
> is no bath (which is almost always the case when "restroom" is used)?
>
Don't forget "powder room"!
Being a Swede, the first time I heard this word was at a tour around a
Frank Lloyd Wright builing somewhere in the US. Looking into the room
under the stairs where they supposedly stored all their powder, I found
nothing but a toilet! (And no mirror for admiring any freshly powdered
nose either.)
L. Ross Raszewski
<kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov> wrote:
>Ryan N. Freebern wrote:
>> In most
>> cultures, people say they need to take a piss, or use the restroom
>> (facilities/w.c./toilet/whatever) or something.
>
>Is w.c (water closet?) used anywhere besides England and architectural
>drawings?
>
>the name "water closet" came into common use there (ie. was it before
>1876?)
>
It appears to have been in US usage during the early days of their existance.
>Kathleen (who would never say "where is the toilet" is unless she was
>in a hardware store looking for the actual fixture to purchase.)
Ditto.
Mo
> "WC" (without periods) is perhaps the most common word for "toilet" in
> Swedish. This despite the fact that the Swedish equivalent of "water
> closet" is "vattenklosett", so the abbreviation really should be "VK"
> (which is never used).
This is also true for German, except that "water closet" is
"Wasserklosett" (which sounds very oldfashioned nowadays).
--
Mo Bonn, Germany
Matthias Oborski http://private.freepage.de/mo/
x...@gmx.de
Volker Blasius
> BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphemistic
> `restroom'
I never understood how anyone can use 'restroom' in this context. Just
the thought of taking a rest in a crowded, soiled, stinking public
toilet is revolting.
Shudder
Volker
Larry Smith
> Don't forget "powder room"!
It gets worse. "Need to wash my hands" (yes, but we
don't explain that they aren't yet dirty). And my
personal favorite "Need to write a letter to Congress."
--
.-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-. | Never, ever underestimate
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / | the power of stupid people
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' | in large groups.
My opinions only. |
L. Ross Raszewski
facilities, the problem probably stems from the fact that, at least in the US,
the word "toilet" refers to the fixture itself, so "public toilet" would be
inaccurate, unless one was speaking of a single fixture without a room
associated. Most (US) Americans would probably not refer to the room in their
own home where the fixture resides as a "toilet" either; 'bathroom' is the
common term there, which is also innacurate when speaking of public
lavatories (and 'lavatory' is a sort of funny sounding word), hence the
euphenism.
Kathleen M. Fischer
>
> Most (US) Americans
As opposed to non-US Americans? :)
Kathleen (very nice department stores CAN have very nice womens
restrooms, with comfy chairs/sofas in a roomy well lit anti-room.
I haven't heard of such things in the men's room, but haven't
done any investigation of it either <g>)
Jake Wildstrom
L. Ross Raszewski <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 7 May 1999 15:02:57 +0200, Volker Blasius <volker....@gmd.de> wrote:
>>David Given <d...@tao.co.uk> wrote:
>>> BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphemistic
>>> `restroom'
>>
>>I never understood how anyone can use 'restroom' in this context. Just
>>the thought of taking a rest in a crowded, soiled, stinking public
>>toilet is revolting.
>>
>>Shudder
>>Volker
>>
>Well, aside from the very nice lounges I've heard women speak of in their own
>facilities, the problem probably stems from the fact that, at least in the US,
Well, here's a long shot: in a lavatory you relieve yourself. Relief = rest,
for certain definitions of both words. Hence, it is a restroom. (reliefroom
being way too cumbersome a word)
>the word "toilet" refers to the fixture itself, so "public toilet" would be
>inaccurate, unless one was speaking of a single fixture without a room
>associated. Most (US) Americans would probably not refer to the room in their
>own home where the fixture resides as a "toilet" either; 'bathroom' is the
>common term there, which is also innacurate when speaking of public
speaking of bathrooms, (OT warning) finger bath...@bathroom.mit.edu to get
an idea of what the residents of Random Hall do with their spare time (there's
also a more venerable lau...@laundry.mit.edu).
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
J. Robinson Wheeler
>
> Jacob Munkhammar wrote:
>
> > Don't forget "powder room"!
>
> It gets worse. "Need to wash my hands" (yes, but we
> don't explain that they aren't yet dirty).
What? When I tell people "I need to wash my hands," it means my
hands are dirty and I'm going to go wash them. Have I been telling
them something else this whole time?
Volker Blasius wrote:
>
> David Given wrote:
> > BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphemistic
> > `restroom'
>
> I never understood how anyone can use 'restroom' in this context.
> Just the thought of taking a rest in a crowded, soiled, stinking
> public toilet is revolting.
Say, I don't know which lavatories you've been using, but the
majority of the public ones I use are neither crowded nor soiled
nor stinking. I suppose they may be crawling with invisible
bacteria or something, but for mental health I try not to dwell
on that.
Also, it isn't just "restroom" that's used. "Men's room" and
"women's / ladies' room" are still often used. Though I agree
with whoever said it was probably the relief->rest connotation
that explains the wording.
--
J. Robinson Wheeler
whe...@jump.net http://www.jump.net/~wheeler/jrw/home.html
Kathleen M. Fischer
> Also, it isn't just "restroom" that's used. "Men's room" and
> "women's / ladies' room" are still often used. Though I agree
> with whoever said it was probably the relief->rest connotation
> that explains the wording.
Of course, there is the definition of rest that means "remainder",
but it's probably best not to dwell on that one.
Little Girls Room
Little Boys Room
Potty
Kathleen (why, oh why am I still posting to this thread?)
fra...@sinopsis.com
>BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphomistic
>`restroom'. The rest of the (English-speaking) world uses bathroom and
>toilets.
I use the word "loo" a lot; unfortunately the Americans that matter
(like the guy in the service station, the tattoo place, etc) don't
understand what I mean, requiring an embarassing last minute correction
to "bathroom".
Normally, one adapts to the local lingo fairly quickly. Unfortunately,
most of the people I know *really* *like* the word "loo" and have started
using it. Darn!
Most of these little ... uh ... discrepencies are harmless, the word
"pissed" as in "I'm really pissed" is an interesting exception. Of
course, I never need to use it in either sense, being a relaxed and
well-balanced individual.
Not.
Somebody told me how to translate "taking the piss" to American English,
but I've now forgotten. It's a bit like "yanking your chain," but not
quite.
ObIF: Ban north, south, east and west! It's an artifact of the interface,
but there has to be a way out of it, or at least removing the archaic
dependence on them! I like games that don't require me to map anything.
On the other hand, dynamic directions such as "in front" "behind" "left"
and "right" are even worse if moving around relies on them.
But how do you explore new locations without referencing a direction?
What does non-interactive fiction do? I guess it follows streets, turns
right, that sort of thing.
Hmmmm.
Fraser.
okbl...@my-dejanews.com
"Volker Blasius" <volker....@gmd.de> wrote:
>
> I never understood how anyone can use 'restroom' in this context. Just
> the thought of taking a rest in a crowded, soiled, stinking public
> toilet is revolting.
(Memo to self: While driving through Germany, hold it until I get to
Switzerland.)
Probably in an attempt to mitigate the very presence of indoor plumbing
dedicated to waste elimination, Victorian-minded interior designers provided
many reasons to "visit the facilities" for the upper classes.
The vestiges of this (chaise lounges, attendents with hot towels, and so on)
can still be found in department stores and upscale restaurants.
Ricardo Dague
>
>
> Little Girls Room
> Little Boys Room
> Potty
Can
Head
John
The, uh, You Know
-- Ricardo
MFischer5
In article <3733314E...@greenhouse.nospam.gov>, "Kathleen M.
Fischer" <kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov> wrote:
> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
> >
> > Most (US) Americans
>
> As opposed to non-US Americans? :)
>
America *is* four times the size of US, or so, isn't it?
>>
It certainly is bigger - can't say by how much - but I guess I've just never
heard any citizen of Canada, Mexico, or other local in the Americas (outside
the US) call themselves an American. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't!
My appoligies if I have offended anyone... certainly didn't mean to :)
Kathleen
Matthew T. Russotto
MFischer5 <mfis...@aol.com> wrote:
}<<From: ja...@stud.ntnu.no (Jacob Munkhammar)>
}
}In article <3733314E...@greenhouse.nospam.gov>, "Kathleen M.
}Fischer" <kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov> wrote:
}
}> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
}> >
}> > Most (US) Americans
}>
}> As opposed to non-US Americans? :)
}>
}
}America *is* four times the size of US, or so, isn't it?
}
}>>
}
}It certainly is bigger - can't say by how much - but I guess I've just never
}heard any citizen of Canada, Mexico, or other local in the Americas (outside
}the US) call themselves an American. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't!
Mexicans not only don't call themselves Americans, but they use the
term "Norteamericanos" to refer to people from the US! Even though
Mexico is indisputably part of North America. Canadians would never refer to
themselves as Americans, but they ARE always willing to object when
people from the US refer to themselves as such.
Also in Mexico "Estados Unidos" refers to the USA, despite the full
name of their own country beginning with "Estados Unidos". The
Canadians haven't caught on to this and started objecting to "United
States" yet.
The term "America" typically refers to the US, the continents being "North
America", "South America", and collectively "The Americas". And we
Americans like it that wat.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Joanna Marie Delaune
: Kathleen (very nice department stores CAN have very nice womens
: restrooms, with comfy chairs/sofas in a roomy well lit anti-room.
: I haven't heard of such things in the men's room, but haven't
: done any investigation of it either <g>)
Yes, but they always stink of some foul air freshener that's worse than
what the room would smell like if they didn't use any!
*cough cough choke*
Joanna M. DeLaune
jdel...@ocean.otr.usm.edu
Matthew T. Russotto
Men's rooms have no such thing. They do sometimes have a guy whose job
it is to hand out towels, and who expects a tip. I appreciate their
realization that those hot air dryers are useless, but replacing them
with a maitre d'bathroom seems like overkill to me. Good old
fashioned paper towels work just fine, and don't expect a tip.
--MTR the uncultured
(and of course the men's room in LGOP is depressingly realistic)
TenthStone
<kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov> wrote:
>Ryan N. Freebern wrote:
>> In most
>> cultures, people say they need to take a piss, or use the restroom
>> (facilities/w.c./toilet/whatever) or something.
>
>Is w.c (water closet?) used anywhere besides England and architectural
>drawings?
I believe it's still somewhat widely used in France.
Adam J. Thornton
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
>Mexicans not only don't call themselves Americans, but they use the
>term "Norteamericanos" to refer to people from the US! Even though
>Mexico is indisputably part of North America. Canadians would never refer to
>themselves as Americans, but they ARE always willing to object when
>people from the US refer to themselves as such.
And if they keep up their bitchin' we'll bomb their embassy too. So there.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"There's a border to somewhere waiting, and a tank full of time." - J. Steinman
Petter Sjölund
Jacob Munkhammar wrote:
>I agree that navigating should be more flexible than it generally is in i-f.
Some people may recall that I actually started coding an Inform game
that got rid of directions in the way Jacob tries to do it.
I relied on the typing of the name of a room or an object to move the
player there, i.e. "DOOR" = "GO THROUGH THE DOOR". As far as I remember
it almost worked.
A pity I'm not working on it anymore. It had quite a nice system of
money as well...
Martin Jerabek
> restrooms, with comfy chairs/sofas in a roomy well lit anti-room.
Anti-Room
You are not in a roomy well-lit anti-room. There are no exits to the
north and east. The missing trap door under the non-existent rug does
not lead downwards into the dark. In one of the 180-degree-corners a
non-open chest does not sit emptied with anti-matter gold coins
reflecting the black light from no torch which does not belong to you.
What do you not want to do now?
--
Martin "Jerry" Jerabek
<mailto:m.je...@xpoint.at>
Erik Max Francis
> Anti-Room
>
> You are not in a roomy well-lit anti-room. There are no exits to the
> north and east. The missing trap door under the non-existent rug does
> not lead downwards into the dark. In one of the 180-degree-corners a
> non-open chest does not sit emptied with anti-matter gold coins
> reflecting the black light from no torch which does not belong to you.
>
> What do you not want to do now?
I was thinking more along the lines of:
You are in a dark cave. To the east there is light.
There is a human skeleton here.
Next to the skeleton is a strange device with an moveable appendage
in the shape of a rod. It clicks quietly.
> GET DEVICE
Taken.
> EAST
You are in a narrow causeway. It is lighter to the east.
The device clicks more frequently.
> EAST
You are in the mouth of a cave. There is strange flashing coming
through the east.
Above the mouth is a sign.
The device is clicking even more frequently, as if it's going to
explode.
> READ SIGN
The sign says, "Anti-Room."
You feel sick.
> EAST
*** BOOM ***
*** You have died ***
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@members.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ Dear World: I am leaving because I am bored.
/ George Sanders (in his suicide note)
Florian Edlbauer
> Some people may recall that I actually started coding an Inform game
> that got rid of directions in the way Jacob tries to do it.
>
> I relied on the typing of the name of a room or an object to move the
> player there, i.e. "DOOR" = "GO THROUGH THE DOOR". As far as I remember
> it almost worked.
>
> A pity I'm not working on it anymore. It had quite a nice system of
> money as well...
Maybe you would like to post the code? It could be expanded upon by the IF
community (I, for one, will try, but I'm not good at it) and used by everyone who
likes it. I think it'd be very useful indeed.
Florian
Larry Smith
> Larry Smith wrote:
> > Jacob Munkhammar wrote:
> > > Don't forget "powder room"!
> > It gets worse. "Need to wash my hands" (yes, but we
> > don't explain that they aren't yet dirty).
> What? When I tell people "I need to wash my hands," it means my
> hands are dirty and I'm going to go wash them. Have I been telling
> them something else this whole time?
Yup. Unless you were about to start dinner and
your hands were noticably grimey. Retroactive
embarrassment, eh? =)
L. Ross Raszewski
<russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
>Also in Mexico "Estados Unidos" refers to the USA, despite the full
>Canadians haven't caught on to this and started objecting to "United States"
My fuzzy recollections of spanish class tells me that in Mexico, the
United States of America are referred to in full as
"Los Estados Unidos de los Estados Unidos" to disambiguate from their own
country. This, of course, means that rather than using the perfectly
good name which the USA has printed on all its documentation, they have named
the country "The United States of the United States"
Petter Sjölund
Florian Edlbauer wrote:
> Maybe you would like to post the code? It could be expanded upon by the IF
> community (I, for one, will try, but I'm not good at it) and used by everyone who
> likes it. I think it'd be very useful indeed.
It's a nice idea. But I really think my code is too messy right now to
really be useful to or understood by anyone save myself.
I still hope to get started on it again some day. We'll see.
--
Petter Sjölund
----------------------------------------------------
Stockholmsvägen 53
S-182 74 Stocksund
Sweden
Phone +46 (8) 85 43 34
Beeper +46 740 455 606
----------------------------------------------------
Larry Smith
> My fuzzy recollections of spanish class tells me that in Mexico, the
> United States of America are referred to in full as
> "Los Estados Unidos de los Estados Unidos" [...]
> "The United States of the United States"
Must've been from the Department of Redundancy Department.
Kathleen M. Fischer
>
> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
>
> > My fuzzy recollections of spanish class tells me that in Mexico, the
> > United States of America are referred to in full as
> > "Los Estados Unidos de los Estados Unidos" [...]
> > "The United States of the United States"
>
> Must've been from the Department of Redundancy Department.
Their charter? "To eliminate and eradicate superfluous redundancies"
Kathleen
Stefan Blixt
>ObIF: Ban north, south, east and west! It's an artifact of the interface,
>but there has to be a way out of it, or at least removing the archaic
>dependence on them! I like games that don't require me to map anything.
Connecting to the thread where someone talked about doing IF in Chinese:
If I remember correctly from the four-week intense course I took, in
Chinese the words "right" and "left" don't exist (or at least aren't
commonly used). When people give street directions they say things like:
"Go down that street, turn south, go past three blocks, turn west" etc.
Possibly other languages do this as well.
Not that this really is an argument here, since most IF is done in
English (or other European languages).
/Blixt
Philip W. Darnowsky
: Connecting to the thread where someone talked about doing IF in Chinese:
: If I remember correctly from the four-week intense course I took, in
: Chinese the words "right" and "left" don't exist (or at least aren't
: commonly used). When people give street directions they say things like:
: "Go down that street, turn south, go past three blocks, turn west" etc.
: Possibly other languages do this as well.
Huh? How do they talk about an individual hand or foot? And what if you've
got a poor sense of direction?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Darnowsky pdar...@spameggsbaconandspam.qis.net
Remove spam, eggs, bacon, spam, and dot to reply.
The IBM Pollyanna Principle:
Computers should work. People should think.
Stefan Blixt
>Stefan Blixt (fl...@bartlet.df.lth.se) wrote:
>
>: Connecting to the thread where someone talked about doing IF in Chinese:
>: If I remember correctly from the four-week intense course I took, in
>: Chinese the words "right" and "left" don't exist (or at least aren't
>: commonly used). When people give street directions they say things like:
>: "Go down that street, turn south, go past three blocks, turn west" etc.
>: Possibly other languages do this as well.
>
>Huh? How do they talk about an individual hand or foot? And what if you've
>got a poor sense of direction?
Eh... beats me :) But I think I remember the street directions thing
correctly.
/Blixt
MIDI_Samkim
Martin Jerabek wrote in message
<1drk3z5.1q0...@dialin5166.xpoint.at>...
>Anti-Room
>
>You are not in a roomy well-lit anti-room. There are no exits to the
>north and east. The missing trap door under the non-existent rug does
>not lead downwards into the dark. In one of the 180-degree-corners a
>non-open chest does not sit emptied with anti-matter gold coins
>reflecting the black light from no torch which does not belong to you.
>
>What do you not want to do now?
> EAT SCRAPPLE
msk
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> David Given <d...@tao.co.uk> wrote:
> > BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphemistic
> > `restroom'
>
> I never understood how anyone can use 'restroom' in this context. Just
> the thought of taking a rest in a crowded, soiled, stinking public
> toilet is revolting.
Um, I don't know what you've been told about the U.S., but we *do*
have working plumbing...
Now, in someplace like Cedar Point the sheer volume of people dictate
that it will be crowded and furthermore that they generally can't get
in there to clean it except after the place closes. But most public
restrooms are not usually crowded (one can frequently expect to be
the only person in the room, despite multiple fixtures) and are kept
essentially clean most of the time. Well, around here anyway. I
should like to think it's similar elsewhere.
As for the babblings other people have uttered about sofas and
attendants, please tell me where these things are common so I can
dutifully avoid travelling there.
-- jonadab
Username in email address is dyslexic; correct to jonadab
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> BTW, it seems to be only the US that has the overly euphomistic
> `restroom'. The rest of the (English-speaking) world uses bathroom and
> toilets.
If you think 'restroom' is euphemistic, what about 'lavatory',
'laboratory' (a mutation of the preceeding), or 'facility' (which is
occasionally used in the plural, sometimes even when there's only
one)?
Oh, and 'office'. Also "throne room"; however, those last two are
probably said more facetiously than euphemistically.
Of course, if you want to go in the reverse direction there's 'potty'
(which is spelled any number of ways) as well as various
colloquialisms ('john', 'commode', 'pot', ...)
We also have "men's room" and "women's room" as well as "ladies'
room" (but not "gentlemen's room" AFAIK). Also "boys' room" and
"girls' room", although the apostrophes are usually either misplaced
or left out altogether. (Or the label on the door just says "boys"
or "girls" or "men" or "women" or "ladies", or has a visual icon
instead (usually a stick figure that either is or is not wearing a
skirt, but occasionally you'll see a variation of some kind), and you
never see the possessive form in print, in spite of the fact that
it's always prounounced with the word "room" tagged onto it.)
Actually, pretty much the only thing we *don't* call it is WC (or the
written out form of same).
Kathleen M. Fischer
> But most public
> restrooms are not usually crowded (one can frequently expect to be
> the only person in the room, despite multiple fixtures)
Well, I can certainly tell which restroom you are used to
frequenting.
Kathleen (willing to vote for most any politician advocating
potty parity)
okbl...@my-deja.com
bad...@bright.net (Jonadab the Unsightly One) wrote:
>
> As for the babblings other people have uttered about sofas and
> attendants, please tell me where these things are common so I can
> dutifully avoid travelling there.
>
You'd need a time travel machine and a tuxedo.
[ok]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
AFranzman
> `restroom'. The rest of the (English-speaking) world uses bathroom and
> toilets.
In the US, "bathroom" is often used (even when said room contains no actual
bathing facilities.) Do the English still use "water closet" or "W.C."?
Alan "A.J." Franzman
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
My e-mail address does not compute.
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> I use the word "loo" a lot;
That's common enough here that most people would know what you meant
if you used it in the phrase "go to the loo", although I had always
spelled it "lou" for some reason...
> Somebody told me how to translate "taking the piss" to American English,
> but I've now forgotten. It's a bit like "yanking your chain," but not
> quite.
"taking a leak" will work , although it's *decidedly* informal.
> ObIF: Ban north, south, east and west! It's an artifact of the interface,
> but there has to be a way out of it, or at least removing the archaic
> dependence on them! I like games that don't require me to map anything.
>
> On the other hand, dynamic directions such as "in front" "behind" "left"
> and "right" are even worse if moving around relies on them.
What about if moving around can be done by these but does not rely on
them, with north/south/etc being also allowed?
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> > What? When I tell people "I need to wash my hands," it means my
> > hands are dirty and I'm going to go wash them. Have I been telling
> > them something else this whole time?
>
> Yup. Unless you were about to start dinner and
> your hands were noticably grimey. Retroactive
> embarrassment, eh? =)
Depends on the people in question. My dad considers it important to
wash one's hands after such activities as petting the dog.
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> Mexico is indisputably part of North America.
I have been officially taught four different answers to the question
of which continent includes Mexico. North America is the most
frequent but still accounts for the "correct" answer less than half
the time, in my limited experience.
Erik Max Francis
> russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
> > Mexico is indisputably part of North America.
>
> I have been officially taught four different answers to the question
> of which continent includes Mexico. North America is the most
> frequent but still accounts for the "correct" answer less than half
> the time, in my limited experience.
Well, it sounds like you had pretty poor teachers. :-)
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@members.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ It is much safer to obey than to rule.
/ Thomas a Kempis
Allen Garvin
russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
Mexico is indisputably part of North America.
I have been officially taught four different answers to the question
of which continent includes Mexico. North America is the most
frequent but still accounts for the "correct" answer less than half
the time, in my limited experience.
Well, there's the North American Free Trade Agreement, which includes
Mexico. I'd be interested to here the other possible 3 continents Mexico
belongs to.... Antarctica, because of all the penguins running around?
--
Allen Garvin Is it not strange that sheeps'
--------------------------------------------- guts should hale souls out of
eare...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu men's bodies?
http://faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu/~earendil -- Shakespeare
Brent VanFossen
Unsightly One) wrote:
>I have been officially taught four different answers to the question
>of which continent includes Mexico. North America is the most
>frequent but still accounts for the "correct" answer less than half
>the time, in my limited experience.
I know that at least in Venezuela, the Americas comprise three
continents: la América del Norte, la América Central, y la América
del Sur. Presumably, Mexico is part of la América Central.
If you look at any birdwatcher's guide, such as the "National
Geographic Society Field Guide to the Birds of North America", you'll
find that Mexico is specifically excluded.
Brent VanFossen
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> I know that at least in Venezuela, the Americas comprise three
> continents: la América del Norte, la América Central, y la América
> del Sur. Presumably, Mexico is part of la América Central.
A geography book we studied from in elementary school included Mexico
in Central America, yes. Interestingly, that makes for seven
continents we learned about; Antarctica was not included, presumably
not being a continent because nobody lives there. I have also seen
this view (that Mexico is part of Central America) elsewhere. (I've
also seen elsewhere the view that Antarctica does not qualify as a
continent because it's not inhabited; this always goes together with
considering Europe and Asia as separate continents; if Eurasia is one
continent Antarctica is always included.) Considering that fair
portions of Mexico were inhabited (I mean prior to the European,
ahem, influence; when the Spaniards came they also settled further
north, where other ethnic groups resided in what is now the
southwestern US) by the same people-groups as the nations to its
south, this makes a fair amount of sense, from a certain point of
view. (Categorising Central America as a separate continent in the
first place may not really make sense, but nevermind; many things
don't.)
The most indefensible view on the matter is that Mexico is part of
South America, and I'd agree that the teacher in question was an
idiot, as someone else postulated. But it's a view I was taught in
school nevertheless. In junior high if I recall, but I'm not sure
about that.
The fourth view comes from a college professor who teaches "Cultures
in Development", part of the alternative to taking a modern foreign
language where I went to school (which I took because I chose to take
a classical or ancient language instead of a modern one). He's
actually spent almost as much time in third-world (a term he does not
like, but if I used the terminology he prefers few of you would have
any idea what I meant) cultures as elsewhere. He espouses the view
that Mexico is part of Latin America on the grounds that it's part of
the "two-thirds world" -- that is, because it's part of the oppressed
majority. This is a rather non-geographical argument, but there you
go.
Actually, all four of these views apply to all the nations from
Mexico to Panama (although Mexico is sometimes included in North
America even when the nations immediately to its south are included
in one of the other designations, generally either Central or South
America).
For the nations in the Carribbean there is also a fifth view, which
is that they are part of Oceania, which is variously considered as a
distinct continent or as a group of nations that aren't on any
continent. In the former case Australia is sometimes included (and
sometimes not), but in the latter case Australia is generally not
considered as part of Oceania, since it is usually considered a
continent. (Those who divide continents by culture and those who
devide them by geography generally agree on this (and little else),
and I've only very rarely heard it called an island, generally not by
anyone who is big on geography, and I've never heard it called part
of any other continent except when Oceania is considered a continent;
I've never yet heard anyone accuse Australia of being part of
Eurasia, for example; by this I conclude that the world has not lost
its senses entirely).
And, to confuse matters further, Hawaii is variously considered as
part of North America, Asia, Eurasia, or Oceania.
For your entertainment only, here are a few other anomolous views of
continental structure I've run across. Please don't flame them; I
didn't make these up and don't necessarily agree with them or
anything; these are just things I've been taught at various points by
various teachers and/or textbooks in various schools.
- North Africa and the Middle East together comprise a
continent which is distinct from Asia and Africa.
(The argument was cultural.)
- All of Russia is part of Europe. (But not all parts of the
former USSR.)
- The Americas are really only one continent. (After all,
they're only divided by a man-made canal...)
- Iceland is part of North America. (I don't remember
the argument for this one. I wish I did.)
- All the territories controlled by any given country
are part of that country's continent. The example given
was Hong Kong, which was stated as being part of Europe
since it was at the time under British control.
- Since the split of the Soviet Union, there's no second
world anymore; everything that was part of the second
world is now part of the first world.
- India is a separate continent from Asia. (This argument
comes from plate tectonics; by the same argument parts
of California aren't part of North America, but nevermind.)
- The southern part of Spain is part of North Africa, not
really part of Europe. (The argument was mostly cultural.)
- Japan is not part of Asia. (It's either part of Oceania or,
I even heard once, part of Europe. (The argument in the second
case was ecconomic...))
- The Pacific Ocean is a continent. (The argument was based
on plate tectonics again.)
Neil Cerutti
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
Since when is Central America a continent?
> And, to confuse matters further, Hawaii is variously considered as
> part of North America, Asia, Eurasia, or Oceania.
Actually, it's an island. In the Pacific Ocean.
Neil Cerutti
ne...@norwich.edu
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> Since when is Central America a continent?
Depends whom you ask.
> > And, to confuse matters further, Hawaii is variously considered as
> > part of North America, Asia, Eurasia, or Oceania.
>
> Actually, it's an island. In the Pacific Ocean.
Sure, but Brittain is an island in the Atlantic Ocean, and it's still
generally considered part of Europe. (At least, that's what they
teach us here. Maybe in the UK or in Europe they consider it
differently... I don't know.)
Allen Garvin
Jonadab wrote:
And, to confuse matters further, Hawaii is variously
considered as part of North America, Asia, Eurasia, or
Oceania.
Actually, it's an island. In the Pacific Ocean.
Sure, but Brittain is an island in the Atlantic Ocean, and it's
still generally considered part of Europe. (At least, that's what
they teach us here. Maybe in the UK or in Europe they consider it
differently... I don't know.)
Well, Hawaii is an island created by volcanic activity pretty far away
from any other land mass (except for the other volcanic islands in the
chain) (As is Iceland, but on a much larger scale. In fact, if you're
going to explain continents in plate tectonic terms, what do you do about
Iceland, which is right on the border of two separating plates? Culturally
of course it's European). Britain is better explained as an extension
of Europe with only a narrow bit of water separating it. During the
last ice age there was no English channel.
Gareth Rees
> Well, Hawaii is an island created by volcanic activity pretty far away
> from any other land mass (except for the other volcanic islands in the
> chain) (As is Iceland, but on a much larger scale. In fact, if you're
> going to explain continents in plate tectonic terms, what do you do
> about Iceland, which is right on the border of two separating plates?
> Culturally of course it's European). Britain is better explained as
> an extension of Europe with only a narrow bit of water separating it.
> During the last ice age there was no English channel.
The Scotland Highlands (northwest of the great fault) is, geologically
speaking, part of North America - it got left behind when the continents
re-separated c. 100mya.
--
Gareth Rees
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> considered as part of North America, Asia, Eurasia, or
> Oceania.
>
>
> still generally considered part of Europe. (At least, that's what
> they teach us here. Maybe in the UK or in Europe they consider it
> differently... I don't know.)
eare...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu (Allen Garvin) wrote:
> Well, Hawaii is an island created by volcanic activity
The volcanic activity only matters if you determine continents by
geology and plate tectonics -- a common approach, but certainly not
the only one. I almost used Iceland instead of Britain as my
example... probably should have.
> pretty far away
> from any other land mass (except for the other volcanic islands in the
> chain)
The distance is a valid point and would seem to argue that Hawaii is
not part of any continent at all -- which makes sense intuitively,
but a lot of classifiers don't care to leave anything in the cracks,
so to speak. They take it as a personal insult if their notions of
what constitutes a continent and how to tell them apart don't specify
a particular continent for any given location, and they go out of
their way to find definitions that can handle every case and assign
every location to a continent. Which is where you get the notion of
Oceania...
> (As is Iceland, but on a much larger scale.
Yes, Iceland is a better analogue for Hawaii than is Britain. I only
chose Britain because (unlike Iceland) I've never (yet) seen it
argued as part of any other continent than Europe.
> In fact, if you're
> going to explain continents in plate tectonic terms, what do you do about
> Iceland, which is right on the border of two separating plates? Culturally
> of course it's European).
The people who divide continents by culture place it with Europe.
Most of the people who divide continents by plate tectonics don't
bother to argue because it's not clearly North American. But I
*have* seen it classified as part of North America, on the grounds
that it's together with Greenland.
> Britain is better explained as an extension
> of Europe with only a narrow bit of water separating it. During the
> last ice age there was no English channel.
Shall we then also consider Alaska to be part of Eurasia?
I agree that Britain is part of Europe. But the narrowness of the
channel was not part of my reasoning.
David Brain
Unsightly One) wrote:
> > Actually, it's an island. In the Pacific Ocean.
>
> Sure, but Britain is an island in the Atlantic Ocean, and it's still
> generally considered part of Europe. (At least, that's what they
> teach us here. Maybe in the UK or in Europe they consider it
> differently... I don't know.)
There was a famous UK newspaper headline once which read "Fog in Channel - Europe
cut off"
On the whole the UK
--
David Brain
London, UK
David Brain
(David Brain) wrote only half of a message apparently.
> There was a famous UK newspaper headline once which read "Fog in Channel
> - Europe cut off"
>
> On the whole the UK
>
I have no idea what I was going to say there, but it can't have been important.
okbl...@my-deja.com
You were going to explain how the English don't (or do) think of
themselves as part of Europe.
"Important" is a relative term.
--
David Brain
> > In article <memo.19990615...@atlan.cix.co.uk>,
> da...@atlan.cix.co.uk
> > (David Brain) wrote only half of a message apparently.
> >
> > > There was a famous UK newspaper headline once which read "Fog in
> Channel - Europe cut off"
> > >
> > > On the whole the UK
> > >
> > I have no idea what I was going to say there, but it can't have been
> > important.
>
> You were going to explain how the English don't (or do) think of
> themselves as part of Europe.
>
That's right. Of course, we have just had a democratic election for the European
Parliament in which only 23% of the British population voted (an astonishing 1.5% turn
out at one polling station!) so it probably wasn't important after all ;-)
Personally I blame that strip of water between England and France as the major reason
why Britain has never felt a true part of Europe (although this doesn't explain the Irish
position, although I suspect that nothing can ;-) When it is possible to live in one
country and work in another without difficulty, I suspect that your opinion changes.
And the real difficulty is that the anti-European arguments deployed in England (and it is
mostly England that is hostile) are really very shallow but hit nerves: "losing our national
identiry", "giving up the Pound" or, possibly worst of all, "what did we fight two World
Wars for?"
I don't hold out much hope for England ever becoming integrated into Europe (although
Scotland, and maybe even Wales will) simply because it just can't handle the idea of
co-operating with the French and the Germans. At heart, we're just a bunch of
small-minded xenophobes, and given that this is true of pretty much the rest of the
population of the planet, I can't really see any solution.
> "Important" is a relative term.
>
No, "family" is a relative term. ;-)