Important Philosophical Questions + POLLS

A tiger shouldn’t have multiple mouths tho? If you ain’t going for something mythological. :thinking:

*or Wittgensteinian :kappa:


I like simplicity. Sometimes I only say “knight,” as an abbreviation of “small knight.”


Yeah, most of the time I go for “knight’s move” and only specify the size for large ones.

1 Like

Singular: /'naits.muv/
Plural: /'naits.muvz/


Let’s compare the varying inflection of these terms in different languages.

Plurality Japanese English Latin
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:

  1. single – plural: tiger’s mouths / knight’s moves

  2. plural – plural: tigers’ mouths / knights’ moves

  3. agglutination: tiger-mouths / knight-moves

  4. reduction: tigers / knights

  5. 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.

eg. this is not a bulge: Play Go at! | OGS
or this: Play Go at! | OGS

1 Like

It’s even more complicated than that.
:one: would be called 扳
:two: would be called 鼓
:three: 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)?

  • II
  • 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)

0 voters

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)? :thinking:


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!?

Do crumpets even have a crust?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


What? That sounds like leaving the cookie when you are eating the cookie. ? :thinking:


Some cakes have “crusts”, like fruitcakes.


You are pedantly right. Changed to cookie and shortened.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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 … :thinking: