Yeah, most of the time I go for “knight’s move” and only specify the size for large ones.
Let’s compare the varying inflection of these terms in different languages.
|single – single||猫の顔 neko no kao 1||tiger’s mouth||félis ós / tigridis ós|
|single – plural||" "||tiger’s mouths||félis óra / tigridis óra|
|plural – single||" "||tigers’ mouth||félium ós / tigrium ós|
|plural – plural||" "||tigers’ mouths||félium óra / tigrium óra|
1 neko, ofc, just means broadly “cat”
Japanese has no inflection for the plurality of the terms; English has a minor one relying on the addition of -s and the movement of the apostrophe, and Latin (an example of a heavily-inflected language) has a fuller declination.
Let’s also look at the approaches available in English:
single – plural: tiger’s mouths / knight’s moves
plural – plural: tigers’ mouths / knights’ moves
agglutination: tiger-mouths / knight-moves
reduction: tigers / knights
adjectival?: tigrine mouths / equestrian moves
For the knight’s move, I just use sg. keima, pl. keima and get around the thing.
One could use Chinese hǔkǒu (虎口) in the same style as the tiger’s mouth: sg. hukou, pl. hukou.
Of course when I say “keima” I don’t inflect for the plural, but I tend not to use that. New solution: say /'naits.muv/ and /'naits.muvz/, but orthographize both as “keima”. Don’t let Japan hog all the fun of multiple readings!
Usually, we just use 虎 (huˇ). 虎口 is specifically meant for the shape. But a verb like “making a tiger’s mouth” is just 虎 (and no need for a whole sentence).
Also, there is a separate verb for creating a tiger’s mouth from a one space jump - 鼓(guˇ).
I see that one of the translations of 鼓 is bulge, but a bulge in English Go terminology is something slightly different – it’s a tiger’s mouth made over the top of the opponent’s stones.
The SL page, though, does translate that back to 鼓. Does a 鼓, in Chinese, have to be a contact move?
I think there is still a heavy implication that the bulge has to be made from a one-space jump.
It’s even more complicated than that.
would be called 扳
would be called 鼓
would be called 虎
It’s all about the context.
Nice, the thousandth post of the thread (not counting deletions)!
That also finally seals the top ten threads as a 1000+ club, although another ten posts are needed for that to become official~
And a worthy post it is too!
Which sequel usually kills the franchise (quality-wise, not production-wise)?
- III (also adding some jest in the title)
- IV (aka the revamp)
- V (straight to IMDB twilight zone)
- VI (nobody from the original cast is even remotely attached to the project)
- VII (if it wasn’t about zombies, it is now)
- VIII- infinity (brain function not required to watch, greenlit for nefarious accounting purposes)
Note: I put the number as it would appear on a title, for example ATARI II is the 1st sequel.
EDIT: Is ATARI II-The Sequel, actually The Ko (spinoff)?
My wife leaves the crusts from her sandwich / toast. I don’t agree with this but I can at least understand it. But she also leaves the crust from her crumpet. What!?
What? That sounds like leaving the cookie when you are eating the cookie. ?
Some cakes have “crusts”, like fruitcakes.
You are pedantly right. Changed to cookie and shortened.
If you had a time machine, and time-space continuum wasn’t an issue, how would you use it to make the most money possible?
You can only travel once in each direction (future-past).
I’d claim the nobel price for inventing a time machine.
You would just stay at the present and submit the invention?
Jup. I’m assuming that a time machine would, if used correctly, be able to solve all kinds of problems, like global warming etc. Then again, if used incorrectly, it might cause much greater problems. Maybe I should destroy the time machine instead …
But, in your scenario,
how are making
What worth has money when the world as we know it is going to pieces due to abusive use of time machines?