Quick Fire Questions (A Place to Ask and Answer)

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by David Evil Overlord

But even without any real history behind it, an urban myth can still form the basis of a fantasy story. Especially if the reason for mutilation is personal revenge rather than potential ransom or lack of it.

Originally Posted by allmywires

For me the fact the story is false is almost better. I can appropriate it for my work under the guise of originality

Actually, I am with allmywires; I have numerous times deliberately used the "false" explanation for names and things in my own writing. They're quite handing.

Another example is the "Riding" as an administrative district; there's a common misconception that the name derives from the area that can be covered in one day on horseback, but actually it comes from "thriding" (where "th" represents the Old English letter "thorn", and derives from the same Old Norse root as "farthing" (þriðjungr, meaning "one third")). The initial "th" was dropped because it was absorbed into the north, south, east, or west prefix (interestingly, at the same time "farthing" came to mean 1/4 rather than 1/3).

In one of my kingdoms there are two parallel tiers of authority; the local lord plus the crown authority. To this end, all territories are divided into administrative district with a single knight assigned by the crown as the law officer, responsible for enforcing the law of the king, and ensuring the lords remain within their bounds.

Each individual "Shire Reeve" is responsible for an area, and he has to be able to cover his area in a day's riding, thus in the north these areas are called "Shires" (hence Shire Reeve for their role) and in the south these areas are called "Ridings".

Thus I'm using familiar names (Reeve, Riding, Shire) but their meanings and origins are totally different.

I think using the two-finger salute origin story in a fantasy setting is a great idea.

[Gumboot]

Regarding grips for the draw of a bow, there's three main methods:

Mediterranean Draw
This is the only draw traditionally attested in Europe, and consists of three fingers; the index finger above the arrow and the middle and ring fingers below. A variation used by English longbowmen was to have all three fingers below the arrow; this enables the arrow shaft to be much closer to the eye, allowing for better aiming.
The three-finger draw is the most widely used even today. The two-finger draw is very rare, and the only historical examples are the Inuit and Sassanians. English longbows had such a high poundage that it would be exceedingly difficult to draw with two fingers, if not impossible.

Pinch Draw
The arrow is pinched between the thumb and index finger. This allows for a cleaner release and a faster draw, but only works for low-draw bows as the grip cannot hold a powerful bow under draw and the arrow slips free.

Mongolian Draw
The string is drawn using only the thumb.

[dask]

This looks like a good place to ask a question that's been bugging me. Do languages other than English use the stupid subjunctive clause?

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by dask

This looks like a good place to ask a question that's been bugging me. Do languages other than English use the stupid subjunctive clause?

I'm presuming you mean the subjunctive mood. Yes, it exists in many languages (it's pretty necessary), although how it is used in each language varies.

[dask]

Okay, just curious. Many thanks.

[David Evil Overlord]

I have a character who slipped over while running around the edge of a swimming pool.* His right arm landed on the paving stones, and the beer bottle he was carrying landed in between.

It is now one year later. He has a serious scar, but I also want him to have some more-or-less permanent damage. So, would/should he have severed tendons, nerve damage, or something else I haven't thought of?

I'm after a result that makes this right-hander's right hand a bit slower and clumsier than his left. Just enough that he'll never pass the physical for the police force, or to be an astronaut, or a professional footballer.

*Not the brightest thing to do, but he was only sixteen at the time. Hands up all of us who did stupid things when we were sixteen. That's a whole lot of hands!

[allmywires]

You could go with the glass having damaged/partially severed the thumb tendon, which could have healed but left him with limited movement. I'm no medical expert but my thumb still gives me a twinge of pain many years after I bent it back at school during a tense game of Red Rover.

If you want to make his reactions slower, maybe give him some brain damage? As in, his hand physically is fine, but the nerve signals from his brain are damaged. He could have damaged the movement centre of his brain and not fully recovered.

[springs]

Which of these versions is most grammatically correct/or does it matter? Sam is not the speaker btw.

“Do you get tired if you read too much?”
Sam nodded.
“It’s the same. I know what I want to do, and my mind does it.”



Instead of:


“Do you get tired if you read too much?” Sam nodded. “It’s the same. I know what I want to do, and my mind does it."

[Interference]

Originally Posted by springs1971

“Do you get tired if you read too much?”
Sam nodded.
“It’s the same. I know what I want to do, and my mind does it.”



Instead of:


“Do you get tired if you read too much?” Sam nodded. “It’s the same. I know what I want to do, and my mind does it."

The first leaves it unclear who's speaking the second line, probably Sam. The second suggests the first speaker continues his/her thought through to the second speech.

[Hex]

I'm not sure either is unambiguous like that... Might I suggest something like:

“Do you get tired if you read too much?”
Sam nodded.
“It’s the same," Kare continued. "I know what I want to do, and my mind does it.”


Edited to say: I must be insane since both Inter and Aber feel otherwise, but the second version implies to me that Sam is speaking -- at least that he's speaking the second bit. Does it depend on the context?

[Abernovo]

I agree with Inter. The second version flows better and makes it clear that there is only one speaker. I have seen examples of:

“Do you get tired if you read too much?” Sam nodded and X continued, “It’s the same. I know what I want to do, and my mind does it."

EDIT: Hex got in before me anyway with similar comment.

[springs]

I think if Sam was speaking I probably would have went:

"Do you get tired if you read too much?"
Sam nodded. "It's the same...."

I tend to use the second style quite a lot as a run on piece of dialogue with action in the centre, sometimes the speaker's, sometimes someone else's, and I'm hoping it's clear the first speaker continues on.

[Interference]

Yes, it is

[allmywires]

Originally Posted by springs1971

“Do you get tired if you read too much?” Sam nodded. “It’s the same. I know what I want to do, and my mind does it."

I think that's right (that's how I would do it anyways). Speech interrupted by someone else doing something always leaves a bit of ambiguity (regardless of whether it's correct or not). I think it throws the reader a bit - they're focusing on who's talking: then, hang on, there's someone else here...

[Vertigo]

I agree with Allmywires if there has been an interruption in the speech, especially if it involves another person or people, it can leave ambiguity in the readers mind, even if it is grammatically unabmiguous. It drives me potty when that happens in books and there are no obvious clues asa to who is speaking.

I have often read half a dozen lines of dialogue after such an interruption only to have to go back and read them again when I discover I have the speakers the wrong way around.