spartaxoxo wrote: »

It does vary from culture to culture. Plenty of teen girls worldwide will talk cutesy about certain things or make cutesy voices.

I have to admit it's been a while since I finished school, but back then people (no matter which gender) rather tried to appear more adult than they actually were, because they wanted to be taken seriously. Talking like a preschooler would have been more than counterproductive.

And then there were those wanna-be gangster types, of course. Playing rough all the time, or trying to be egdy, using five swearwords in every sentence and yelling at everyone and everything. Those were also most likely to use slang, normally something they picked up from rap videos. Those mostly weren't the smartest people around.

At least that's how it is in my country.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If you equate intelligence to the use of slang by teenagers, then I will say that is no correlation between the two. Plenty of college capable teens use slang.

I'd go so far to say that educational success doesn't neccessarily equate with intelligence I've seen both people with high intelligence who weren't that good at school because of a complicated family background or factors like autism or depression, as well as fellow university students who had very good grades but were almost incapable of thinking for themselves, of finding creative solutions or critical thinking. Their good grades based solely on learning things by heart. As soon as something did not fit the textbook example, they were screwed.

Syldras wrote: »

I'd go so far to say that educational success doesn't neccessarily equate with intelligence

It is a much superior indicator than the use of slang by teens.

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think it's just supposed to be childish to reinforce her age. She's supposed to come off much younger than the rest of the case. Barely qualifies as an adult and definitely still talks like a teen. I'd guess she's supposed to be like 18 or so.

I think it's supposed to come off the same as "chicken nuggies" or "doggy," rather than chicken nuggets or dog.

Be that as it may, it’s grammatically incorrect. It’s possible to be linguistically “childish” and still be grammatically correct. Most children who can string together complete sentences implicitly understand basic syntax. You wouldn’t, for instance, ask “doing something with doggy?” if you were trying to be cute. You’d ask “doing something with a doggy?” or “doing something with doggies?”

It really doesn’t make any sense to turn “magic” into a diminutive noun by adding -y at the end. There is no linguistic or etymological precedent for it. Again, it would be like trying to use “sciency” or “musicy” as diminutive nouns, rather than adjectives. Not one person in the history of the English language has declared “let’s learn about musicy!” and been grammatically correct.

Hanky, doggy, aunty, girly....

"In his Dictionary of English Grammar (2000), R.L. Trask points out that the English language "usually forms diminutives by suffixing -y or -ie, often to a reduced form of the source word, as in hanky for a handkerchief, doggie for dog and Tommie for Thomas. But we also use -ette, as in statuette and kitchenette."

As for the doggy example...dog is a noun that is countable. Magic is not. So, I don't think you'd say, "Doing something with a magic?" Likewise, you wouldn't say, "Doing something with a magicky?"

I think it is dumb and doesn't have a good real world equivalent. But it's not necessarily wrong, per say.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think it's just supposed to be childish to reinforce her age. She's supposed to come off much younger than the rest of the case. Barely qualifies as an adult and definitely still talks like a teen. I'd guess she's supposed to be like 18 or so.

I think it's supposed to come off the same as "chicken nuggies" or "doggy," rather than chicken nuggets or dog.

Be that as it may, it’s grammatically incorrect. It’s possible to be linguistically “childish” and still be grammatically correct. Most children who can string together complete sentences implicitly understand basic syntax. You wouldn’t, for instance, ask “doing something with doggy?” if you were trying to be cute. You’d ask “doing something with a doggy?” or “doing something with doggies?”

It really doesn’t make any sense to turn “magic” into a diminutive noun by adding -y at the end. There is no linguistic or etymological precedent for it. Again, it would be like trying to use “sciency” or “musicy” as diminutive nouns, rather than adjectives. Not one person in the history of the English language has declared “let’s learn about musicy!” and been grammatically correct.

Hanky, doggy, aunty, girly....

"In his Dictionary of English Grammar (2000), R.L. Trask points out that the English language "usually forms diminutives by suffixing -y or -ie, often to a reduced form of the source word, as in hanky for a handkerchief, doggie for dog and Tommie for Thomas. But we also use -ette, as in statuette and kitchenette."

As for the doggy example...dog is a noun that is countable. Magic is not. So, I don't think you'd say, "Doing something with a magic?" Likewise, you wouldn't say, "Doing something with a magicky?"

I think it is dumb and doesn't have a good real world equivalent. But it's not necessarily wrong, per say.

I understand how diminutive nouns work. I’m saying there is no precedent for turning the word “magic” (or other similar intangible nouns, like science, music, mathematics, physics, etc.) into a diminutive by adding -y. As I mentioned before, diminutives are overwhelmingly created using tangible nouns — and often to describe small, “cute” versions of said nouns.

It’s wrong. It looks wrong, it sounds wrong, and it is wrong.

Well none made fun of Sheogorath when he lost his "Forky"

xilfxlegion wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

I've never heard Ember say "is it over yet?" I've heard her say "is it over?" in a sort of flattened tone, as if she's bummed out that all the excitement and fun are done.

thats the one --- guess i just hear it differently

@xilfxlegion I and some friends hear it the same was as you. She sounds scared and worried. A very childish stuttered "I-i-s it over?". Definitely doesn't sound flat like she's bored to me. The scared tone also fit some of her other rather childish things like OP's mentioned "magicky".

Her childish nature which makes it feel like my character is babysitting (an adult woman at that), conflicting charactersation, and how she's supposed to be a thiefy companion but is terrible to have along for thieving, makes her barely used by me.

Syldras wrote: »

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

I think of Ember as the ESO equivalent of a Valley Girl.

"Linguistic characteristics of valleyspeak are often thought to be 'silly' and 'superficial' and seen as a sign of low intelligence. Speakers are also often perceived as 'materialistic' and 'air-headed'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_girl

Seems about right. Do some people actually find that likeable?

Back in the day the Valley Girl largely became the subject of jokes at their expense (to the heights of being the subject of a Frank Zappa song). Today they would become a meme of someone not all there, shallow and living in their own little bubble.

As to finding it likeable, to other teens at the time I guess so. To parents not so much but that is kind of the way it is between most generations of teens and their parents. As with most teen behaviors they eventually grow out of it unlike Ember who will be trapped forever as her creators made her.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think it's just supposed to be childish to reinforce her age. She's supposed to come off much younger than the rest of the case. Barely qualifies as an adult and definitely still talks like a teen. I'd guess she's supposed to be like 18 or so.

I think it's supposed to come off the same as "chicken nuggies" or "doggy," rather than chicken nuggets or dog.

Be that as it may, it’s grammatically incorrect. It’s possible to be linguistically “childish” and still be grammatically correct. Most children who can string together complete sentences implicitly understand basic syntax. You wouldn’t, for instance, ask “doing something with doggy?” if you were trying to be cute. You’d ask “doing something with a doggy?” or “doing something with doggies?”

It really doesn’t make any sense to turn “magic” into a diminutive noun by adding -y at the end. There is no linguistic or etymological precedent for it. Again, it would be like trying to use “sciency” or “musicy” as diminutive nouns, rather than adjectives. Not one person in the history of the English language has declared “let’s learn about musicy!” and been grammatically correct.

Hanky, doggy, aunty, girly....

"In his Dictionary of English Grammar (2000), R.L. Trask points out that the English language "usually forms diminutives by suffixing -y or -ie, often to a reduced form of the source word, as in hanky for a handkerchief, doggie for dog and Tommie for Thomas. But we also use -ette, as in statuette and kitchenette."

As for the doggy example...dog is a noun that is countable. Magic is not. So, I don't think you'd say, "Doing something with a magic?" Likewise, you wouldn't say, "Doing something with a magicky?"

I think it is dumb and doesn't have a good real world equivalent. But it's not necessarily wrong, per say.

I understand how diminutive nouns work. I’m saying there is no precedent for turning the word “magic” (or other similar intangible nouns, like science, music, mathematics, physics, etc.) into a diminutive by adding -y. As I mentioned before, diminutives are overwhelmingly created using tangible nouns — and often to describe small, “cute” versions of said nouns.

It’s wrong. It looks wrong, it sounds wrong, and it is wrong.

Just because it's not something that is done, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. That's how language evolves.

It is only the case that there aren't current examples. But, things like this are often how that type of thing comes to be. Someone does it. It flows well because it does follow the rules, it just isn't something done before. And voila, you have yourself a new word. You can add -y to the end of nouns. Nobody does it to intangible nouns, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so.

OK, standard precedents language of follow I will not, wrong not to so do. Fun with magicky let’s!

Sendockle the Klen. Do you understand? The Klen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMmmu1iukXM

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think it's just supposed to be childish to reinforce her age. She's supposed to come off much younger than the rest of the case. Barely qualifies as an adult and definitely still talks like a teen. I'd guess she's supposed to be like 18 or so.

I think it's supposed to come off the same as "chicken nuggies" or "doggy," rather than chicken nuggets or dog.

Be that as it may, it’s grammatically incorrect. It’s possible to be linguistically “childish” and still be grammatically correct. Most children who can string together complete sentences implicitly understand basic syntax. You wouldn’t, for instance, ask “doing something with doggy?” if you were trying to be cute. You’d ask “doing something with a doggy?” or “doing something with doggies?”

It really doesn’t make any sense to turn “magic” into a diminutive noun by adding -y at the end. There is no linguistic or etymological precedent for it. Again, it would be like trying to use “sciency” or “musicy” as diminutive nouns, rather than adjectives. Not one person in the history of the English language has declared “let’s learn about musicy!” and been grammatically correct.

Hanky, doggy, aunty, girly....

"In his Dictionary of English Grammar (2000), R.L. Trask points out that the English language "usually forms diminutives by suffixing -y or -ie, often to a reduced form of the source word, as in hanky for a handkerchief, doggie for dog and Tommie for Thomas. But we also use -ette, as in statuette and kitchenette."

As for the doggy example...dog is a noun that is countable. Magic is not. So, I don't think you'd say, "Doing something with a magic?" Likewise, you wouldn't say, "Doing something with a magicky?"

I think it is dumb and doesn't have a good real world equivalent. But it's not necessarily wrong, per say.

I understand how diminutive nouns work. I’m saying there is no precedent for turning the word “magic” (or other similar intangible nouns, like science, music, mathematics, physics, etc.) into a diminutive by adding -y. As I mentioned before, diminutives are overwhelmingly created using tangible nouns — and often to describe small, “cute” versions of said nouns.

It’s wrong. It looks wrong, it sounds wrong, and it is wrong.

Just because it's not something that is done, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. That's how language evolves.

It is only the case that there aren't current examples. But, things like this are often how that type of thing comes to be. Someone does it. It flows well because it does follow the rules, it just isn't something done before. And voila, you have yourself a new word. You can add -y to the end of nouns. Nobody does it to intangible nouns, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so.

OK, standard precedents language of follow I will not, wrong not to so do. Fun with magicky let’s!

Magicky is adding a -y to a noun. That's why it's a lot easier to parse than this sentence. It's not just ignoring how it works. English is a pretty malleable language with new words added all the time. I don't think this one will catch on, but it's not entirely out of left-field. Anyway, I'll digress from here.

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think it's just supposed to be childish to reinforce her age. She's supposed to come off much younger than the rest of the case. Barely qualifies as an adult and definitely still talks like a teen. I'd guess she's supposed to be like 18 or so.

I think it's supposed to come off the same as "chicken nuggies" or "doggy," rather than chicken nuggets or dog.

Be that as it may, it’s grammatically incorrect. It’s possible to be linguistically “childish” and still be grammatically correct. Most children who can string together complete sentences implicitly understand basic syntax. You wouldn’t, for instance, ask “doing something with doggy?” if you were trying to be cute. You’d ask “doing something with a doggy?” or “doing something with doggies?”

It really doesn’t make any sense to turn “magic” into a diminutive noun by adding -y at the end. There is no linguistic or etymological precedent for it. Again, it would be like trying to use “sciency” or “musicy” as diminutive nouns, rather than adjectives. Not one person in the history of the English language has declared “let’s learn about musicy!” and been grammatically correct.

Hanky, doggy, aunty, girly....

"In his Dictionary of English Grammar (2000), R.L. Trask points out that the English language "usually forms diminutives by suffixing -y or -ie, often to a reduced form of the source word, as in hanky for a handkerchief, doggie for dog and Tommie for Thomas. But we also use -ette, as in statuette and kitchenette."

As for the doggy example...dog is a noun that is countable. Magic is not. So, I don't think you'd say, "Doing something with a magic?" Likewise, you wouldn't say, "Doing something with a magicky?"

I think it is dumb and doesn't have a good real world equivalent. But it's not necessarily wrong, per say.

I understand how diminutive nouns work. I’m saying there is no precedent for turning the word “magic” (or other similar intangible nouns, like science, music, mathematics, physics, etc.) into a diminutive by adding -y. As I mentioned before, diminutives are overwhelmingly created using tangible nouns — and often to describe small, “cute” versions of said nouns.

It’s wrong. It looks wrong, it sounds wrong, and it is wrong.

Just because it's not something that is done, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. That's how language evolves.

It is only the case that there aren't current examples. But, things like this are often how that type of thing comes to be. Someone does it. It flows well because it does follow the rules, it just isn't something done before. And voila, you have yourself a new word. You can add -y to the end of nouns. Nobody does it to intangible nouns, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so.

OK, standard precedents language of follow I will not, wrong not to so do. Fun with magicky let’s!

Magicky is adding a -y to a noun. That's why it's a lot easier to parse than this sentence. It's not just ignoring how it works. English is a pretty malleable language with new words added all the time. I don't think this one will catch on, but it's not entirely out of left-field. Anyway, I'll digress from here.

The point I was trying to make is that linguistic precedents prime us to “hear” or read sentences in a particular way. When I hear “doing something with magicky?” I don’t hear “doing something with magicky (diminutive noun)” because there is no precedent for it. I hear “doing something with magicky (adjective),” which is grammatically incorrect and therefore grating. It is true that English evolves, but I don’t think that’s what ZOS was going for here. I strongly believe they (or the voice actor) made a simple mistake, that would be easy to correct by removing the preposition “with” from the audio file and subtitles.

In other words, stop trying to make fetch…er, magicky happen, Ember.

I do actually agree that we're primed to view it as wrong, and that it contributes to why so many people find it grating. It does sound like it should be an adjective and then it's not used as one. And the word not following that pattern makes the little lizard part of our brain hulk out.

That's why I said it's a dumb line and I don't think it will catch on.

I only take issue with it being wrong, because I personally don't view it as such. I find it annoying but technically correct. The best kind of correct. It's like it has maliciously complied with the rules, and that is the only thing I find somewhat amusing about it. I do agree with the rest of what you're saying though. It would absolutely sound better if she had used it as adjective instead.

Don't worry I'm not trying to make fetch happen lol.

While I don’t really like Ember’s personality either, I find this discussion amusing. You’re arguing about “magicky” being wrong when I read so many made-up social media words in zone text chat that kids use nowadays - like “lit”. I mean that’s a legitimate word that people have made up an alternate definition, and it went from an adjective to a verb. I don’t ever hear anyone getting upset about that, lol. Drives me crazy.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

While I don’t really like Ember’s personality either, I find this discussion amusing. You’re arguing about “magicky” being wrong when I read so many made-up social media words in zone text chat that kids use nowadays - like “lit”. I mean that’s a legitimate word that people have made up an alternate definition, and it went from an adjective to a verb. I don’t ever hear anyone getting upset about that, lol. Drives me crazy.

I don't look at zone chat at all because I'd get a headache about the nonsense some people are posting there, making the use of "lit" look like a rhetorical masterpiece in comparison. Not sure why to complain, though, as I don't have to read or hear it (unlike Ember's lines, who can't be muted completely, if I'm not wrong?) and complaining wouldn't change it in any way. Also, it's none of my business if I'm not addressed directly.

old_scopie1945 wrote: »

Seems to me that there are too many English teachers trying to make everyone talk like John Snagge. (Famous old time British BBC newsreader). Local dialects can change in so many ways in a short distance.

I'm not even a native English speaker. Generally, I'm not bothered by dialect. I'm not bothered by sociolect, either, or in general, by different levels of language. As an example for ESO, it would seem logical and natural that a farmer from some remote village talks differently than a scholar from the Antiquarian Circle or the College of Sapiarchs.

What I personally can't stand, is Ember's character design. Talking cutesy is only one aspect, but she just seems totally childish to me. Not like a teen, but like a child. While physically being an adult woman. And enjoying murder.

You don't like Ember, fair enough, many of us do. At the end of the day Ember is a pixel cat, cats being hunters intend to like killing things. At least Ember doesn't play with her prey before dispatching it. It does get on my nerves when she kicks-off when I sneak or am doing my writs. That being said, I love cat's. BTW what in the devil is a 'Valley Girl'.