Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7417727" data-attributes="member: 5142">However, we are not discussing whether an orange is an apple or an apple is an orange. 'Apples' and 'oranges' are physical objects that have physical properties that we can ascertain. We are discussing what constitutes the definition for an abstract concept that pertains to fiction-making: e.g., &quot;Mary Sue,&quot; &quot;Anti-hero,&quot; &quot;Second World,&quot; etc. Yes, and you and you alone misread what he quoted to mean &quot;the entire world&quot; and then proceded to gloat in song and dance that you got [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to &quot;refute&quot; a point that he never made. &quot;LOL,&quot; indeed. Simply pulling monsters from a monster manual, however, would likely not fall within the conventional usage or sense of &quot;worldbuilding.&quot; Again, to echo Bedrockgames, I think that this is you splitting hairs. Did you have a reason for intentionally leaving out the following sentence? &quot;However, J. R. R. Tolkien described the goal of worldbuilding as creating immersion, or &quot;enchantment&quot; as he put it, and descriptions of the world can be wholly disconnected from the story and narrative.&quot; This implies that worldbuilding can be done without regard for story or plot, simply as an exercise or process in itself. That in itself implies a distinction between &quot;story&quot; and &quot;worldbuilding&quot; in which &quot;story&quot; is not inherently a sub-section of &quot;worldbuilding.&quot; And just because that is the ideal &quot;goal&quot; of worldbuilding that does mean that is the result. I don't think that he is intentionally or even &quot;selectively&quot; leaving these out to &quot;redefine&quot; the term, Max. That seems either disingenuous or a misreading, whether intentional or not, of his argument. In terms of cognitive linguistics, it's about determining what definition(s) and meaning(s) are more central and integral to the term and its most common sense of usage. This is not to discount other meanings, but, rather, the goal is determining the core and most frequent sense of meaning of the term. I.e., What central ideas are most likely to be &quot;tapped&quot; in the usage of the term? Again, this is by no means about re-defining the term: it's about the core (and contextualized) sense and not the exhaustive sense. This is why I frequently find your meaning less conventional than Hussar's. If we were hypothetically to provide a survey of the meaning of &quot;worldbuilding&quot; in its use and implied use - particularly in articles, threads, and books about &quot;worldbuilding&quot; tips - we would likely find some meanings or senses of the word more frequently understood than others. We can even limit that contextualized usage to RPGs, and there would likely be a similarly restricted range of meaning(s) in terms of conventional usage. In my estimation - and likely that of Hussar, Pemerton, and others - the most frequent set of recurring tips would likely pertain to the more limited scope(s) that we seem to be collectively operating under to varying degrees.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7417727, member: 5142"] However, we are not discussing whether an orange is an apple or an apple is an orange. 'Apples' and 'oranges' are physical objects that have physical properties that we can ascertain. We are discussing what constitutes the definition for an abstract concept that pertains to fiction-making: e.g., "Mary Sue," "Anti-hero," "Second World," etc. Yes, and you and you alone misread what he quoted to mean "the entire world" and then proceded to gloat in song and dance that you got [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to "refute" a point that he never made. "LOL," indeed. Simply pulling monsters from a monster manual, however, would likely not fall within the conventional usage or sense of "worldbuilding." Again, to echo Bedrockgames, I think that this is you splitting hairs. Did you have a reason for [I]intentionally[/I] leaving out the following sentence? "However, J. R. R. Tolkien described the goal of worldbuilding as creating immersion, or "enchantment" as he put it, and descriptions of the world can be wholly disconnected from the story and narrative." This implies that worldbuilding can be done without regard for story or plot, simply as an exercise or process in itself. That in itself implies a distinction between "story" and "worldbuilding" in which "story" is not inherently a sub-section of "worldbuilding." And just because that is the ideal "goal" of worldbuilding that does mean that is the result. I don't think that he is intentionally or even "selectively" leaving these out to "redefine" the term, Max. That seems either disingenuous or a misreading, whether intentional or not, of his argument. In terms of cognitive linguistics, it's about determining what definition(s) and meaning(s) are more central and integral to the term and its most common sense of usage. This is not to discount other meanings, but, rather, the goal is determining the core and most frequent sense of meaning of the term. I.e., What central ideas are most likely to be "tapped" in the usage of the term? Again, this is by no means about re-defining the term: it's about the core (and contextualized) sense and not the exhaustive sense. This is why I frequently find your meaning less conventional than Hussar's. If we were hypothetically to provide a survey of the meaning of "worldbuilding" in its use and implied use - particularly in articles, threads, and books about "worldbuilding" tips - we would likely find some meanings or senses of the word more frequently understood than others. We can even limit that contextualized usage to RPGs, and there would likely be a similarly restricted range of meaning(s) in terms of conventional usage. In my estimation - and likely that of Hussar, Pemerton, and others - the most frequent set of recurring tips would likely pertain to the more limited scope(s) that we seem to be collectively operating under to varying degrees. [/QUOTE]

Verification