30,366
edits
Talk:Zinnia: Difference between revisions
→Aster's namesake
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::::::::You say you don't concede the second point because she's talking to Whismur and not the "original" Aster, but...that seems to me a ridiculous thing to say. (No offense.) As in, I don't understand how you are/can be understanding that in such a way—in any way but the way I'm understanding it; and I hardly even know how to try to explain my view to you or what mistake you're making/how. ..All I can say is: ''again'', it's plainly ridiculous to call a Pokemon your daughter. The (IMO only) reasonable explanation is that Zinnia named Whismur after her daughter; and ''that's'' why she calls it her "daughter". (And, once more, yes, all by itself that's not ''wholly'' convincing; but it's ''not'' all by itself: the game also makes Whismur say "Mum"/"Mama", which should really drive the point home.) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::You say you don't concede the second point because she's talking to Whismur and not the "original" Aster, but...that seems to me a ridiculous thing to say. (No offense.) As in, I don't understand how you are/can be understanding that in such a way—in any way but the way I'm understanding it; and I hardly even know how to try to explain my view to you or what mistake you're making/how. ..All I can say is: ''again'', it's plainly ridiculous to call a Pokemon your daughter. The (IMO only) reasonable explanation is that Zinnia named Whismur after her daughter; and ''that's'' why she calls it her "daughter". (And, once more, yes, all by itself that's not ''wholly'' convincing; but it's ''not'' all by itself: the game also makes Whismur say "Mum"/"Mama", which should really drive the point home.) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::: And in my opinion and many others', it's not the only reasonable interpretation at all, hence the reason we're having this conversation at all! You're surprised that I saw it another way, but I was very surprised that some people thought the first Aster was her daughter. In the Japanese version, one of the ways she says she loved Aster is "''daisuki datta''", which is NOT how one would talk about a daughter. To me, the ridiculous thing (no offense) is to state that and act like that is the only valid interpretation of the game's ambiguousness, when very, very little is stated on the topic. There are many people and many views on this, and it's hard to completely confirm or invalidate any of them. I'm really not comfortable with letting the character's article stating anything like an objective truth when none of the points you mention seem like proof to me, aside from the fact that Aster was most likely a human. It is only your opinion, and not a neutral statement of the few facts we do have for sure. [[User:Azalee|Azalee]] ([[User talk:Azalee|talk]]) 00:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::: And in my opinion and many others', it's not the only reasonable interpretation at all, hence the reason we're having this conversation at all! You're surprised that I saw it another way, but I was very surprised that some people thought the first Aster was her daughter. In the Japanese version, one of the ways she says she loved Aster is "''daisuki datta''", which is NOT how one would talk about a daughter. To me, the ridiculous thing (no offense) is to state that and act like that is the only valid interpretation of the game's ambiguousness, when very, very little is stated on the topic. There are many people and many views on this, and it's hard to completely confirm or invalidate any of them. I'm really not comfortable with letting the character's article stating anything like an objective truth when none of the points you mention seem like proof to me, aside from the fact that Aster was most likely a human. It is only your opinion, and not a neutral statement of the few facts we do have for sure. [[User:Azalee|Azalee]] ([[User talk:Azalee|talk]]) 00:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::I don't consider myself qualified to say how likely a mother might be to use 'daisuki' to say she loved her daughter...but right after that she also says 'kokoro kara aishiteita', which I suppose is more "acceptable". In that context, then, I think 'daisuki' would have to get a pass; you generally try not to be too repetitive in writing (I'm fairly sure this is true enough of Japanese or English), so it shouldn't be unreasonable to use 'daisuki' first. | |||
:::::::::::You're railing against this "objective truth". From that tone, I would have to imagine this page said ''"Aster is named after Zinnia's dead daughter"''. It most certainly does ''not'', though. The page says, ''"Aster seems to have been named after a [dead] daughter of Zinnia's"''. There is a world of difference there. It is not a problem for the page to say that, not when the evidence it is based off of is stated next. | |||
:::::::::::And, again: with all the evidence currently being discussed, you are the only person who is currently saying that you don't accept that Aster was named after Zinnia's daughter. Of course, by the same token, I am also the only person saying it was her daughter. But my point is: your claims that "many others" believe exactly as you do are not currently supported. Please stop trying to claim authority in numbers. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== B/W reference == | == B/W reference == | ||