Would you object to a setting that, instead of using horses, uses an animal like a flightless bird or dinosaur but still calls them "horses"?
>>43745850
Absolutely not.
Would you object to a setting that, instead of dogs, uses an animal like a flightless bird or dinosaur but still calls them "dogs"?
>>43745850
I would object to any setting that calls by a blatantly wrong name for no good reason. Call them a steed, if you want.
>>43745850
Depends.
If the term is applied by an outsider who comes from somewhere where these creatures don't exist and it's the closest word to the real term he knows, then maybe. Though I feel he'd probably use a more apt comparison like "ostrich" or "raptor".
If it's the actual name the people use for it then I would definitely object. It's bad writing to use established words for something that looks and behaves completely different. I don't care what point you think you're making about word fluidity or whatever, it's just confusing. Even a silly made-up world would be better than calling a big chicken a horse.
Not at all, so long as it was made perfectly clear from the get go that these were not what we would normally think of as horses.
>>43745850
I wouldn't object to it. As long as the setting doesn't have horses that we need to call "flightless birds" or "dinosaurs".
Would you object to a setting that, instead of using faggots, uses a flaming homosexual man but still calls them "OP"?
>>43745890
What's wrong about it?
>>43746116
Horse = the animal's name. Anon's right. Steed is a better choice.
>>43745850
>Would you object to a setting that...
I would object to the misuse of the term "horse". But this alone is insufficient to make me reject a whole setting.
>>43745850
If you can justify it via something like "there used to be horses and the word transferred across to an animal used for a similar purpose", like how there are unrelated species with similar names in real life, then that's fine.
If it's just you being lazy and/or squeamish about inventing a new fantasyspeak name then I could live with it, but I'd judge you.
>>43745850
Contrary to the rest of the posters here, I wouldn't since the word horse comes from an ancient Indo-European word for runner/racer. So long as the creature involved can run at a fairly good pace, then its perfectly fine.
Of course there shouldn't be an animal that is an Earth horse within the setting.
>>43747244
Maximum autism.
>>43747278
How?
>>43747278
Creating a good setting requires large amounts of autism.
>>43746116
Not him but because it's an imaginary world and we as players are trying to immerse ourselves into it, and using the same names for shit only to say "BUT IDS DIBFRNDT" is mentally jarring for no good reason.
>>43747309
Because you're being precious about minor details.
>>43747319
No it doesn't. Legit autists usually make settings with lots of detail but no relatability or sparkle.
>>43745850
> "By an amazing coincidence, our languages are exactly the same, except for the word "horse", which refer to a very large herbivore dinosaur which is actually used like a horse.
> "Actually, the language there is "Gaean" and every single word we use is actually another anyways. Let call these "horses" just for simplicity.
Seems pointless.
I think the only purpose would be to cause ambiguity. If you want something else than what people usually picture as horse, call'em something else and avoid yourself the confusion.
>>43745850
Would you object to a setting that, instead of using women, uses young boys but still calls them "women"?
>>43745876
>>43745850
Would you object to a setting that, instead of swords, uses an animal like a flightless bird or dinosaur but still calls them "swords"?
>>43748924
underrated post
>>43745923
>If it's the actual name the people use for it then I would definitely object. It's bad writing to use established words for something that looks and behaves completely different. I don't care what point you think you're making about word fluidity or whatever, it's just confusing. Even a silly made-up world would be better than calling a big chicken a horse.
This.
Still riding birds sounds fun if done right
>>43745850
Would you object to a setting that, instead of using stock markets, uses an animal like a flightless bird or dinosaur but still calls them "stock markets"?
unless the final fantasy world you're playing in is tactics you're a massive faggot...also just call them what they are, chocobos
For the record, the animal doesn't have to be a bird or dinosaur. I just figured those would be closest to the meaning of a horse.
>>43749277
It totally could be fun. Take Final Fantasy for example. They're always riding along on giant chickens and it's cool.
But instead of being morons and calling it a horse they gave it a unique name: chocobo.
>>43750169
> just figured those would be closest to the meaning of a horse.
The "meaning" of a horse is "horse". You call something a horse, people are going to think it's a horse and will only be confused if you correct them and say it's actually a big bird.
It'd be like calling something a shovel, and when someone tries to dig a hole with it you remind them that in this world what we would call shovels are actually rakes.
Don't do it.
>>43745850
Maybe if the players are mostly non-natives to that world, and the universal translator's giving them 'horse' as the nearest translation.
Having different riding animals is fine and all.
But the exact reason why you want them to be called horses when they aren't, well, knowing that would probably be a great aid to your psychiatrist as he tries to figure out what's wrong with you.
>>43747244
Well, that's nice and all if you're writing it all down in that ancient language, and speak that as you play, and didn't use "horse" but whatever the root word is. But if you're writing in English, and speak English as you play, then horse doesn't mean runner or racer any more, it means the animal.
I'd call them steeds or mounts, not horses. Unless you're in a goofy world where everything is renamed so a butterfly is called an elephant and dogs are called cats or whatever.
>>43745850
As horsekin, I find this highly offensive and strongly request that you delete this post.
>>43745850
I'd be okay with it if those who named it horses had seen horses originally, and then called these new creatures the same name due to affectionate sarcasm. Later generations might simply use this slang as the proper word for it, without really thinking about the original context of the word.
>>43745850
I'd be fine if the original namers had known horses and called these new creatures "horses" out of affectionate sarcasm/nostalgia, and this slang simply catching on, with later generations calling them "horses" without really thinking about the original context.
>>43745850
Absolutely fine, OP.
I'd like to play a human Paladin with a sword in your game.
Of course, "Human" is in fact a name for a 30-foot long AI controlled ceramite-plated main battle tank, which was built by a sentient cuttlefish race 1000 years ago, and which are used as planetary exploration and defence systems.
"paladin", well, that's a word that means the AI has developed an unfortunate habit of murderhoboing its way through entire nations by flattening everything in its path. But everyone still calls it a paladin while sweeping up the charred remains of a torched school.
Oh, and "sword", yeah. about that. Everyone still calls them "swords" but that's a name used to describe the 1/2 gigawatt plasma cannon mounted on my human's shoulder (that's the part of the body above its two legs. Well, I say "legs" but that's what everyone calls the antigravity suspensor array and tracks into which the main "body" is mounted.)
Here's a pic of my human, using his other weapon, a bow and arrow.
>>43747718
>being "precious" about minor details
>provides etiological explanation for the word "horse"
That's not autism at all. You're just assblasted about your lack of knowledge.
>>43753254
>>43745923
Plus, it's not like IRL linguistic economiy wouldn't lead to making up or finding a more apt name. "Horsebird" seems a given.
I can see this working two ways:
1: in the far future and/or on another world there are no horses, but people know about horses from the history of old earth and apply the name to their local domesticated riding animal.
2: on a world completely separate from our own there have never been any horses, any more than there is an english language. When describing this place in real world language the writer uses terms from our own culture for things that serve similar functions in the one he's describing, like using "horse" when talking about any riding animal. This is a literary device to draw potential readers into his setting without having to learn a bunch of made up jargon.
Either of these scenarios are perfectly fine by me.
>>43745850
>>43753254
>>43753254
This setting keeps getting better.
>>43745850
No, you give them a made-up name with superfluous apostrophes between the syllables. To do anything less is dereliction of duty.
Your flightless bird-horse creatures are now hereby known as gr'wyd'gyuans.
>>43753274
I think the autism jab comes from the implication that providing the origination of the term "horse" is moot because regardless of what the word originally meant, nobody thinks it means anything other than the actual animal. And that trying to "correct" people to provide justification for OP's idea is just being a know-it-all who's super picky about details nobody gives a shit about.
>>43756035
Awesome, thanks. I feel like I can be a successful fantasy novelist now.
>>43753254
Not going to lie, I would play in this setting.
>>43745850
I would play the shit out of a Nausicaa based game, yes.
>>43745850
Yes.
