THE TAPROOM 2
MMP › Mithril in Middle-Earth › The Prancing Pony › THE TAPROOM 2
- This topic has 3,998 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by Barliman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 31, 2012 at 9:19 am #22937Barliman wrote:Take a look at the latest LOTR crud coming from the dread GW:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat750002a&rootCatGameStyle=
I’m not damning the quality of the modelling work, most of which is to a high standard no doubt, but the concepts themselves. I mean, where are their visualisers coming from with these ideas?
Sorry, but I have to leave now or I wont reach the lavatory before I throw up…..
I’m agree with you master Barliman… fine modeling figures but only impersonal copies of film characters…..
p.s. Have you managed to reach the lavatory or you have vomited in your wife’s favorite carpet :lol::rolleyes::mad:
January 31, 2012 at 9:22 am #22938Gildor Inglorion wrote:yes actually i was about to say the same… compared to GW… Mithril is less expensive now !! Ironic isn’t it?It is not ironic… they have now thousands of customers across teh world and they can afford consumerist arrogance…..
January 31, 2012 at 9:23 am #22939Gildor Inglorion wrote:my doctor , who is a tolkien figurine collector&painter too (if you can believe that!) showed me one of the last olog hai troll in resin from GW…. supposedly of high quality and better than metal… we both agreed that it was very poor… bad assembly, bent parts due to “plastic” resin… and the whole thing for 25€ !!!!definitly Mithril is a better “affair” than GW at the moment!!! even with their high price, HD2 is better quality and less expensive than GW!!
Agree 100%
January 31, 2012 at 9:29 am #22940Master Cameosis is right. At the time he bought the metal piece and now enjoys. Figre of resin are fragile…..and good enough for true collections. Collections, which should last for many years. I am all that I had donated to the neighbor’s children and little cousins….
January 31, 2012 at 9:48 am #22942Gildor Inglorion wrote:I just received today at last the first five HD2 figurines! I could not believe it, HD2 in my hands at last!no Sauron yet though…
Well those figurines could be celtic warriors actually I’m certain you can boost up this army with the celtic warriors range from PA
I will add them to database soon
These are very good news… Now that minis are back on production on Mithril, I hope that the some of us that are pending from MS532 get them soon (still not in stock, as still says in mithril webpage)
January 31, 2012 at 12:37 pm #22946Barliman wrote:cameosis wrote:Barliman wrote:“this” what……?online lingo for agreeing completely with something someone wrote earlier.
Sorry, that’s me being old-fashioned I guess – I only speak English, not txt or computer patois!
i’d have to disagree here — english it is — patois would be “dis”.
January 31, 2012 at 1:20 pm #22947There’s no such word as “dis” in the English language, so I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean. And if you start excluding borrowed words like patois from English we’d soon end up with no language left!
January 31, 2012 at 4:29 pm #22949dear innkeeper,
au contraire, “dis” is a verb -> “to dis someone”. colloquial english, but english nonetheless.
besides, you mentioned patois … ask jamaicans if they are more familiar with “this” or with “dis” …
January 31, 2012 at 4:34 pm #22950Huuooommmm … linguistic discussions in the “Pony” … rhuoommm … all I know is that “Dis” is a Mithril-figure …. huoomm …
January 31, 2012 at 5:12 pm #22953cameosis wrote:“dis” is a verb -> “to dis someone”. colloquial english, but english nonetheless.Au contraire, I’m afraid “dis” isn’t in any English dictionary I’ve ever seen, and I have five by me – all the latest editions – even as I key this. As far as I’m concerned it’s simply slang – calling it a colloquialism is a courtesy it doesn’t merit.
Texting is already murdering the English language. If we’re going to adopt every temporarily trendy new word invented by spotty teenagers then the language is doomed.
Which it probably is…
January 31, 2012 at 5:49 pm #22957Huuuoooommmm … I wasn’t trying to interfere in linguistic talk between wise men or even experts, Master Barliman …. rhuuooo mmm … I simply tried to point out that “Dis” is a name in Dwarven language provided in the Mithril-range …. rhuom … you might ask Master Thrain about this, then he’ll tell you she’s his daughter … huomm … Master Gildor, for example, would rather call her M161, I think … huoomm … and besides, Entish is much more difficult to cope with than English, I think … huoomm … though it doesn’t change very much, but has to descibe each new word correctly … which, sometimes, takes a lot of time … rhuuohûomrh hoooooom huom oooooohmmm … hom! .. húuuoomm óm ûm huom
January 31, 2012 at 7:02 pm #22958Not a problem, Master Tree. I’ve about given up hope of people wanting to preserve formal English, so it makes just as much sense to talk about Dwarves or Entish. They’re more interesting subjects anyway.
And on another subject entirely, I notice that no one has as yet offered to interpret the copyright boundaries for me regarding the rights owned by MEE and Newline. It was a seious question – I really don’t understand at the moment, though I’m guessing it has something to do with movie rights versus the printed word. The thing is, I’m genuinely appalled at the horrible monstrosities that GW are about to inflict upon the world under the LOTR banner without apparent objection from anybody. I mean, Mithril submit The Man’s designs for approval ny MEE. Don’t GW have to do anything similar? Would MEE give permission for the same figures to be produced by Mithril? I don’t think so!
January 31, 2012 at 9:28 pm #22960Barliman wrote:cameosis wrote:“dis” is a verb -> “to dis someone”. colloquial english, but english nonetheless.Au contraire, I’m afraid “dis” isn’t in any English dictionary I’ve ever seen, and I have five by me – all the latest editions – even as I key this. As far as I’m concerned it’s simply slang – calling it a colloquialism is a courtesy it doesn’t merit.
Texting is already murdering the English language. If we’re going to adopt every temporarily trendy new word invented by spotty teenagers then the language is doomed.
Which it probably is…
here you go:
http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=&search=disbest dictionary portal there is, to my mind (not only for english) — they collaborate with dictionary publishing houses and companies which donate specialized dictionaries to the project.
without wanting to hijack the thread (i will leave it at this post in regard to the subject), let me add that slang is a very important area of any language, no less than formal language. great writers have used colloquial language and slang extensively in their work, and of all the dictionaries i own (and i own a lot), the slang ones are the most fun to read.
living languages change, evolve, transform — it’s inevitable. saying that “texting is murdering the language” is wrong as far as i am concerned — and i’m not even a fan of cell phones, or better yet, own one.
it’s just change through means that are accessible to most people … were this not the case, people in britain would still use old english (perish the thought). successful words will become part of the language, others will fade back into oblivion.
the beauty of it is that we don’t have to follow trends, but it doesn’t mean that our choices are better than those other people prefer (although we like to tell ourselves that they are). for instance, everybody and their mother uses english loanwords in german, whenever possible, regardless if anybody really understands what is meant. i refuse to do so, and stick to german — and i’m fine with that.
on another note the verb “dis” has been around for some 30 years, if not more … i first heard it on hip hop records, but there may be older sources, so definitely not a fad: “the new york times” has been known to use it, too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edlife/edl-24rap-t.htmlif you don’t want a language to “succumb” to nasty trends, you’ll have to turn to latin — it’s dead.
and yes, the ent has again proven that he has a keen eye and a swift mind: there is a mithril figure called dis!
January 31, 2012 at 10:08 pm #22961we have the same problem with french being sometimes totally “raped” in its integrity under the banner of a “living tongue that has to evolve”…. I personnaly am against such nonsense but that’s my personnal opinion… some modification, new words are fine and necessary but some radical change in the spelling of names to fit phonetics rather than ethymology is absurd and grotesque…
well that’s my point of view…. Now about english that’s a bit more complex as there is original british english…. and american english… and there are quite some differences, long time established
January 31, 2012 at 11:02 pm #22962Hmmmm. Debating the matter any further is clearly futile, Master Cameosis, since you’re as dedicated to your viewpoint as I am to mine. In the meantime I think I’ll continue to use the classic Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as I earn my crust every day editing books.
Happily, since English has thrived over the centuries, as you say, by being flexible, fleeting slang terms such as dis will eventually vanish. The sooner the better.
Even the online dictionary still fails to answer my original query regarding what “dis” actually means, and I note that it defines the word as American slang (hence the NY TImes being happy to use it), and therefore, of course, not actually English at all.
But to paraphrase a famous Elf, by trying to preserve formal English in the age of misspelt blogs I am, of course, no more than fighting a rearguard action in a long defeat.
January 31, 2012 at 11:05 pm #22964Gildor Inglorion wrote:we have the same problem with french being sometimes totally “raped” in its integrity under the banner of a “living tongue that has to evolve”…. I personnaly am against such nonsense but that’s my personnal opinion… some modification, new words are fine and necessary but some radical change in the spelling of names to fit phonetics rather than ethymology is absurd and grotesque……and I agree entirely, Master Elf!
February 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm #22996Huuoommm … Master Barliman, about that copyright and other right-thing I always thought, that GW has its rights from what you call “movie rights” (at least concerning the very early figures right after each part of the film trilogy was published). …huom..
those first figures clearly referred in detail to the films (outward appearance and even facial expressions of some of the actors)… huooommm …. though even among those there were many figures I would ragard as being very disputable (avoiding the words “very bad”) … then the ranges were quickly expanded … many more awful figures saw the light … rhuuoommm … it never came to my mind that MEE was in a position to accept or give a go for those figures …. huuooommm … but, of course I don’t know anything about such licence-things and the way some companies are involved in such matters and others seem to be not … huuooommm …
Huom … unfortunately that development cought me in moments when I had a lot of time left and was keen on painting Mithrils again …. rhuuooommm … but those were the days I call myself the “dark ages of Mithril” after all attempts (LR and LO series) failed and nothing new was in sight …. rhuoomm … that’s why in those days I bought many of those early GW-figures (yes, I do admit – mea culpa) just to have something to paint …. rhuuoommmm ….
huooommm … when I had a look at the link you provided here laterly I know better now what the word disgusting could mean … huoooooooooommm … aaargghhhh …February 1, 2012 at 2:37 pm #22997Huuoommm … sorry, gentlemen, but I just witnessed that this serious discussion about language and linguistics still keeps on … rhuoommm … I did not want to interfere here, but wasn’t aware of that while I was writing my last enty … huomm …and I’m not good at typing, you know … huomm … I just wanted to react to Master Barliman’s comment about GW and MEE and things like that … rhuom huomhom
February 1, 2012 at 3:10 pm #22998As far as I’m concerned the debate is over, Master Tree, and I’d rather talk about LOTR stuff anyway.
Yes, you’re qute right about the early GW figures being true – indeed, accurate – to the movie artistry, while the latest stuff by contrast is….well, crap, for want of a kinder description. It doesn’t look as if any of it is by the Perrys, which is where the problem is, of course; if it was by them it would at least be artistic, if not true to JRRT’s vision (as I’ve said several times before, the GW figure sculptors’ hands are tied to a great extent by having to adhere to what the company’s so-called visualisers invent, and those guys were raised in the Fantasy with a capital F school of big-swords-and-heads-too-large-to-fit-a-shirt-over.
End product? Well, the link shows it. Most times that GW release some LOTR stuff there are at least a couple of figures that have some merit, but there’s not a single one here that I’d even think about buying. Ever.
February 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm #23000Huuuoommmm … me too, Master Barliman … and, as you pointed out, mind the price … huoomm … so many coiny-things for such … err, “things” … huoommm …. then I better spend some of my left coiny-things for a rat-tailed-scrumpy-liquid in your premises … huoomm … oh, err … GW doesn’t provide a barrel of scrumpy with rat tails hanging over the brim … huom … I can imagine you didn’t give them a licence to do that, eh? …
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘THE TAPROOM 2’ is closed to new replies.
MMP › Mithril in Middle-Earth › The Prancing Pony › THE TAPROOM 2
