Generic human's appearance (Lore question)

[Naisho]

I doubt the question is IC-sensitive in any way.

So I have submitted my wonderful lovely character, missing the rule about "75 characters per line" accidentally, still hoping it would get formatted automatically or the mod would forgive me and format ht line length on their own...

...but this is not the point. The point is - in short description I mentioned "tanned". Tanned. In the world of hot desert. Huh.
Maybe she can be more tanned than other citizens to some extent. The character is supposed to spend a lot of time "outside" ICly, unlike, say, crafters or artisans, who can afford staying indoors, hiding from the sun. So, I can, basically, assume that short-description containing the word "tanned" can be still approved?

Another moment. When I was writing description I felt tempted to add "Caucasian", but... aren't all the humans supposed to be the part of the same race (race in a RL meaning of course)? Of course, there are different ethnic groups (something I have to learn about ICly), there are nomads, but do all of them still belong to the same race, and how can that race be described?

I mean, would it make sense to make a blondy? Somewhere in the Getting Started section the new players are suggested to pick either fantasy or any "non-Western" name (sorry, I am not sure about exact wording). So, if I choose some Japaneses-sounding name like Yukiko (well, this name actually sounds pretty fantasy too) or something even more typical, like Haruka, does it mean I would have to make an Asian looking character? Now, if so, what would that character be? A nomad?

Or, say, what about actually black-skinned character. Would it make sense? Or all the human characters have approximately the same skin colour/facial features? If not, then where could I "place" a black character, where can I place the character with an "Eastern Asian" or Mongolian look? What city or tribe? I tend to imagine the characters in this world having either Caucasian or Central Asian look, myself, and I am not sure players tend to go into details at all.

Of course I have never been in-world yet so I cannot be absolutely sure about other players... I simply make assumptions on those logs you can find on this forum.

[BleakOne]

Tanned is definitely an acceptable keyword. It just means that you are likely more tanned than the average Zalanthan. Many city folks wouldn't spend their whole day outdoors, for example, but a tribal might.

The terms Caucasian, Asian and such aren't really used in Zalanthas. Fairer shades of skin are more common in the North, darker in the South. Neither is a large majority though, and both can be found in either area. Mutation is not uncommon in the Known either, so sometimes people have tints of blue or red to their skin or eyes.

Hair is a similar issue. Colours of any natural (and some unnatural) colour are found pretty much everywhere. Tribals do tent towards certain appearances depending on their tribe, but even they are not wholly singular in their appearance. Although racism of the fantastical kind (hate of elves, breeds, ect) is rife, racism based on skin colour is pretty much non-existant. The sole exception is if the skin is clearly mutation-based (scaled, or bright pink, or whatever) in which case they would be treated as less than human.

As for names, generally it is preferred that the names not have any Earth-relation. Staff decide on a case-by-case basis though.

Just my thoughts. Welcome to Armageddon. 

[Barsook]

For Caucasian, couldn't you use "pale skin"?

And welcome, can I haz your boots?

[Naisho]

For Caucasian, couldn't you use "pale skin"?

I could, though Caucasian is not just about the skin too. The point is, is it really justified to have a character with pale skin in the desert world?

And welcome, can I haz your boots?

Nuuu, I haz no boots yet.


...now I am worrying of the possibility of being rejected because of this "the muscular, tall man" thing. My character is neither muscular, nor tall, nor a man, and in my case the phrase was very different, but the point is - I didn't put comma in there.

My native language is the one of the Indo-European family, with generally the same punctuation as in English, and not putting comma between two adjectives is largely accepted.

Basically I have found the same rules in English grammar book, dated back to 1908 and now ready to defend my views with that book in hands   Though it seems in case absolutely everyone puts a comma there, I would need a more solid reason to not to put one, rather than just doing it on my whim.

c. Plain honest truth wants no colouring.—B.
(...)
Of type (c) the characteristic is that we have two or more adjectives attached to a following noun; are there to be commas between the adjectives, or not? The rule usually given is that there should be, unless the last adjective is more intimately connected with the noun, so that the earlier one qualifies, not the noun, but the last adjective and the noun together; it will be noticed that we strictly have no enumeration then at all. This is sometimes useful; and so is the more practical and less theoretic direction to ask whether and could be inserted, and if so use the comma, but not otherwise. These both sound sufficient in the abstract. But that there are doubts left in practice is shown by the type sentence, which Beadnell gives as correct, though either test would rather require the comma.

Source - http://www.bartleby.com/116/402.html

Unfortunately AND can be inserted in my case. And no-one else seems to refer to this rule, which means my short-desc would differ grammatically, which is not a good thing also.

On the other hand, even the author of the book doesn't know if those rules can actually be applied, and still "Plain honest truth wants no colouring" is claimed to be correct by some (surely respectable!) man known as Beadnell.

[RogueGunslinger]

Don't worry about being rejected. If it happens, it happens. Staff will let you know what to fix and bam, you fix it easy as that. Rejection has happened to most all of us.

Don't worry about your sdesc, as long as it makes sense grammatically you're good.

Welcome to Armageddon I hope you enjoy your stay.

[Quirk]

The comma is optional. Do not fear that its absence will bring you any inconvenience or harm.

[Lizzie]

I don't usually include commas in my sdesc unless the inclusion is grammatically necessary or unless its exclusion would result in awkwardness. So the tall muscular man would not get a comma for me. But the green, blue-haired man would - so as not to confuse anyone into thinking that the guy's hair is both green and blue.

[Drayab]

Absolutely nothing wrong with 'tanned' in your short description. I've seen it plenty.

Avoid directly referencing real-life ethnic groups (e.g. - Caucasian, Asian, African), but there is nothing wrong with using a real-life ethnic group as a model in describing your character. Describe how your character appears African/Asian/whatever rather than explicitly telling the reader that they do.

There's nothing that says that Asian looking characters must have an Asian name. Any acceptable name can go with any acceptable appearance.

The appearance of humans vary tremendously and is only loosely correlated with location. You should feel free to make your human look however you like, within reason, no matter where they are from. That said, people from the south (Red Storm and Allanak) tend to be darker skinned, while people from the north (Tuluk) tend to be lighter skinned. This isn't to say that fair skinned people are common in the north, but rather skin shades are just typically lighter. If you want your character to be typical of their homeland, then follow these trends. Personally, I tend to look to Persian inspiration in terms of naming and appearance for my northies, and I look to Arabic inspiration for my southies.

[tiptoe]

I don't usually include commas in my sdesc unless the inclusion is grammatically necessary or unless its exclusion would result in awkwardness. So the tall muscular man would not get a comma for me. But the green, blue-haired man would - so as not to confuse anyone into thinking that the guy's hair is both green and blue.

Tall, muscular man is grammatically correct. Coordinate adjectives require a comma to separate them...

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/

[Naisho]

Thank, it's just that when you are new you want to try it ASAP and being rejected means I would have to spend 1-2 more days on registration which is sad ._.
Not like I would have much free time tomorrow anyway though~

I found a similar rule in my native (Russian) language!

Well, curiously enough, it seems to be quite well-defined. Unfortunately. Because most of those well-defined things are outdated now, and I had to teach foreigners Russian just a little bit, and was a bit appalled by the amount of useless rules which not even native speakers use anymore.

I will just write it here in case someone could be interested. It still looks very curious that Russian and English have the same usage precedence - not putting the comma in the example I have shown before, though it seems to be not very well defined in English. I think these punctuation rules were borrowed either from French or Latin.

The rules are similar, yes, thank you tiptoe~ I have already started doubting....

PS. I have deleted a part of my post since tiptoe wrote basically the same a couple of minutes (seconds?) before I posted it.

[Barzalene]

I think the staff want to make it as easy for you as possible to play. They'll reject an application that is a mess or completely inappropriate for the setting. I cannot imagine they'd reject anyone for a comma. If that comma is so crucial they'll give you a comma.

Welcome to Arm. I love that you're thinking about the details. The details are fairly crucial in this game and make a huge difference.

[Barzalene]

My boss is a native Russian speaker. I think his English is often better than mine - except for the articles. Please remember to add your THEs and As.

[Naisho]

My boss is a native Russian speaker. I think his English is often better than mine - except for the articles. Please remember to add your THEs and As.

I am not very skilled with articles myself. The very concept is completely absent in Russian language - I know the basic rules of articles usage, but sometimes the usage is very complicated... I would be glad if people would show me my mistakes though.


2 Lizzie and tiptoe

So, it actually seems it was a correct decision not to put the comma there!
It's also curious to notice that according to that rule the young dark-haired woman, athletic dark-haired woman, etc. is not correct to put the comma there too.
Not like it matters, I just feel enlightened to learn it was not a mistake from my side ^^

PS. It's curious that the "tests" and the rules themselves are different from Russian, and in case of Russian punctuation rules - there are at least 2 pages describing the same usage. But what is really important - the usage seems to be absolutely the same.

Well, I heard that punctuation is a way more important in Russian language, while in English people don't bother much about it.

[Lizzie]

My boss is a native Russian speaker. I think his English is often better than mine - except for the articles. Please remember to add your THEs and As.

I am not very skilled with articles myself. The very concept is completely absent in Russian language - I know the basic rules of articles usage, but sometimes the usage is very complicated... I would be glad if people would show me my mistakes though.


2 Lizzie and tiptoe

So, it actually seems it was a correct decision not to put the comma there!
It's also curious to notice that according to that rule the young dark-haired woman, athletic dark-haired woman, etc. is not correct too.
Not like it matters, I just feel enlightened to learn it was not a mistake from my side ^^

PS. It's curious that the "tests" and the rules themselves are different from Russian, and in case of Russian punctuation rules - there are at least 2 pages describing the same usage. But what is really important - the usage seems to be absolutely the same.

Well, I heard that punctuation is a way more important in Russian language, while in English people don't bother much about it.

Oxford says that the tall, muscular man needs a comma. I learned from an old Elements of Style edition that the comma was not necessary (later editions say to use it). Personally I think the test should be this: does including the comma change the meaning of the phrase?

So - the light blue man - is he light-weight, or is the blue of his skin a light shade of blue? If it's the light, blue man, then you know it's his weight that's light. Without the comma, the implication is that the man has light blue skin.

That's how I decide whether or not to use a comma in sdescs. I'm not too concerned with whether or not it's correct, I'm much more concerned with the natural flow for the reader.

As for your comment about English-speaking people punctuating poorly - it's partially because we have so many rules, and so many exceptions to the rules, that it's difficult to really understand the rules -and- when to make exceptions. It's partially because the school systems in the USA don't really drill the kids much anymore like they used to, and many kids grow up not even able to define an adverb, let alone use one correctly in a sentence. Part of it can be blamed on technology - chatrooms and texting with tiny little keyboards where you hunt and peck with two fingers to type out what's needed, and no longer have to use pen and paper and take the time to write. All of this combined results in a general laziness and ignorance. Some of us know how to write well, and punctuate properly. Some of us do, when appropriate. And some don't. I'm sure there are plenty of Russians who abuse ellipses and neglect commas and misuse semi-colons.

[Naisho]

As for your comment about English-speaking people punctuating poorly - it's partially because we have so many rules, and so many exceptions to the rules, that it's difficult to really understand the rules -and- when to make exceptions. It's partially because the school systems in the USA don't really drill the kids much anymore like they used to, and many kids grow up not even able to define an adverb, let alone use one correctly in a sentence. Part of it can be blamed on technology - chatrooms and texting with tiny little keyboards where you hunt and peck with two fingers to type out what's needed, and no longer have to use pen and paper and take the time to write. All of this combined results in a general laziness and ignorance. Some of us know how to write well, and punctuate properly. Some of us do, when appropriate. And some don't. I'm sure there are plenty of Russians who abuse ellipses and neglect commas and misuse semi-colons.

Ah, I never meant not paying attention to punctuation is a bad thing! And Russian language is actually notorious about having too many exceptions and having too complicated rules. For example, if you open this page: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/43.htm And go to §84 - this would be the paragraph which describes the same rule that was quoted by tiptoe over here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/ (Number 6).

I think the reason why I was puzzled with this rule is because I, sort of, didn't realise that "and" is used to describe words that share the same features. Maybe it works only with adjectives though. You cannot say "fast and Siberian river" indeed. When you use "and" you imply that both adjectives are somehow linked. "This was a tall and muscular man" sounds pretty much consistent. While if you say "It was a dark and fast horse", you would be implying there is some connection between dark and fast. Which sounds absurd. Or in the sentence "It was a small and fast horse" you would somehow conclude that small has something to do with being fast, which may be true.

It seems like a curious insight for me. Especially keeping a mind I want to do PhD in Linguistics~

Well, sorry for bothering, this thing is not that important for RPing and enjoying the game of course!

[Barzalene]

Do a PhD.

You did ask!

[Harmless]

Welcome to Armageddon. Your language skills are exceptional, and your enthusiasm warms my cold, dead heart. Please don't forget that helpers are an amazing resource, and can be found at the main website.

[Lizzie]

As for your comment about English-speaking people punctuating poorly - it's partially because we have so many rules, and so many exceptions to the rules, that it's difficult to really understand the rules -and- when to make exceptions. It's partially because the school systems in the USA don't really drill the kids much anymore like they used to, and many kids grow up not even able to define an adverb, let alone use one correctly in a sentence. Part of it can be blamed on technology - chatrooms and texting with tiny little keyboards where you hunt and peck with two fingers to type out what's needed, and no longer have to use pen and paper and take the time to write. All of this combined results in a general laziness and ignorance. Some of us know how to write well, and punctuate properly. Some of us do, when appropriate. And some don't. I'm sure there are plenty of Russians who abuse ellipses and neglect commas and misuse semi-colons.

Ah, I never meant not paying attention to punctuation is a bad thing! And Russian language is actually notorious about having too many exceptions and having too complicated rules. For example, if you open this page: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/43.htm And go to §84 - this would be the paragraph which describes the same rule that was quoted by tiptoe over here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/ (Number 6).

I think the reason why I was puzzled with this rule is because I, sort of, didn't realise that "and" is used to describe words that share the same features. Maybe it works only with adjectives though. You cannot say "fast and Siberian river" indeed. When you use "and" you imply that both adjectives are somehow linked. "This was a tall and muscular man" sounds pretty much consistent. While if you say "It was a dark and fast horse", you would be implying there is some connection between dark and fast. Which sounds absurd. Or in the sentence "It was a small and fast horse" you would somehow conclude that small has something to do with being fast, which may be true.

It seems like a curious insight for me. Especially keeping a mind I want to do PhD in Linguistics~

Well, sorry for bothering, this thing is not that important for RPing and enjoying the game of course!

In the case of the fast Siberian river -

"Siberian" is defining river. Which river is it? It's the Siberian one.

"fast" is describing river. What kind of river is it? It's a fast one.

So there would be no comma; each serves a different function and there is no implied "and."

Also, neither you nor Barzalene are correct. You want a PhD. You don't want to do PhD, nor do you want to do a PhD. You just want the thing. Want would be the verb, not do.

Just sayin . . .

[Barsook]

Thank, it's just that when you are new you want to try it ASAP and being rejected means I would have to spend 1-2 more days on registration which is sad ._.

Sometimes, waiting is a good thing.  It can help you to create a PC that you will enjoy playing.  During the wait, you can think about how to roleplay your PC and read the docs, also.

[joyofdiscord]

Speaking as someone who just got out of graduate school in linguistics, I assure you, a Ph.D. is very much something you "do."

[Marauder Moe]

Huh.  I thought the rule was something like if you can change the order of adjectives without changing/confusing the meaning, you use commas.

[tiptoe]

Huh.  I thought the rule was something like if you can change the order of adjectives without changing/confusing the meaning, you use commas.

It is. If you can replace the comma with 'and' then it should be there. These are coordinate adjectives. You should also be able to change the order of the adjectives and have it make sense. If it's a non-coordinate adjective, there's no comma, and you can't reverse the order and have it still make sense.

He was a difficult, stubborn child. (coordinate)

They lived in a white frame house. (non-coordinate)

She often wore a gray wool shawl. (non-coordinate)

Your cousin has an easy, happy smile. (coordinate)

I think we're going off an a tangent, though... Either way, I doubt staff is going to reject an sdesc for lack of a comma.

[Lizzie]

Huh.  I thought the rule was something like if you can change the order of adjectives without changing/confusing the meaning, you use commas.

It is. If you can replace the comma with 'and' then it should be there. These are coordinate adjectives. You should also be able to change the order of the adjectives and have it make sense. If it's a non-coordinate adjective, there's no comma, and you can't reverse the order and have it still make sense.

He was a difficult, stubborn child. (coordinate)

They lived in a white frame house. (non-coordinate)

She often wore a gray wool shawl. (non-coordinate)

Your cousin has an easy, happy smile. (coordinate)

I think we're going off an a tangent, though... Either way, I doubt staff is going to reject an sdesc for lack of a comma.

I saw that too and I'm still not getting why a gray wool shawl would be non-coordinate. The shawl is gray and the shawl is wool. It is both gray and wool. The white frame house I get - the white is describing the frame, not the house.

The staff isn't going to go nuts over misplaced or missing commas though, unless the meaning is changed and no longer means what the writer intended for it to mean. And even then, it usually takes someone to typo it for them to even realize there was a mistake.

[joyofdiscord]

I saw that too and I'm still not getting why a gray wool shawl would be non-coordinate. The shawl is gray and the shawl is wool. It is both gray and wool. The white frame house I get - the white is describing the frame, not the house.

The usual rule of thumb is that adjectives that are more essential to the object being described surface closer to the noun.  A gray wool shawl is more "wool" than it is "gray," presumably because color can be changed, but material composition cannot.  "White frame house" is actually ambiguous about whether "white" refers to "frame" or "house."  You can see it more clearly in "tall brick building," while "*brick tall building" is impossible.  "Tall" obviously must refer to "building," but it must appear before "brick," because composition is more essential to the object being described than size.

There's a wrinkle with "tall white house" vs. "*white tall house," since you might think color is more changeable than height. That may be true in a practical sense when it comes to houses, but semantically/grammatically, form occurs outside of color, suggesting that in the grammar of English, color is considered a more essential property than size.

Coordinate adjectives tend to exist within the same domain, as in tt's examples: "easy, happy" and "stubborn, difficult."

[Quirk]

The comma is an unimportant thing, a nit for those who like to pick nits.

Listen:

The farm possessed three horses now besides Clover. They were fine upstanding beasts, willing workers and good comrades, but very stupid.

Could we say "fine and upstanding beasts"? We could. Could we say "upstanding fine beasts"? We could.

But add the comma, and the sentence becomes barbarous. Just look at it.

They were fine, upstanding beasts, willing workers and good comrades, but very stupid.

I could choose other writers. Hemingway sprang to mind as one likely to toss the comma aside if he disliked the look of it, but I chose Orwell quite deliberately because of his great precision and the clarity of his prose, and I did not have to look hard or far for an example.

There will be sentences in which a comma feels right, and sentences where it is too much. Your character's description may feature in either. It doesn't matter, and the imms will not judge you.

More generally, however, I would suggest that prescriptive guides to grammar must tread lightly if they are to be relevant.