Is This Why Dr. Saxton Used Apparently Layman's Nomenclature

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Is This Why Dr. Saxton Used Apparently Layman's Nomenclature

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

It just hit me.

"Cruiser" is a much abused term in the SW EU thusfar, with everything from the *Consular-class "light assault cruiser" (Republic diplomatic cruiser from TPM with guns stapled on) to Bothan Assault Cruiser, the size of a VSD.

So, does Dr. Saxton use "battlecruiser" in his official work for destroyer-to-battleship intermediates because IRL some lesser than capital warships were known as battlecruisers and cruiser (the correct term) is too abused to risk the Procurator or Praetor being realized as a miniscule 500 meter shitbox?

Similarly, is "dreadnought" used in favor of the more fitting "battleship" because of the nonmilitaristic, relatively small, and certainly not front-line-combatant in the Lucrehulk-class Trade Federation "battleship"?

*Note: Why do these imbeciles have to insist on making adjectives the name of warships? Consular? What a shitty name - especially for a supposed (but actually shitty) warship.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
VT-16
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4662
Joined: 2004-05-13 10:01am
Location: Norway

Post by VT-16 »

I think Consular was used ever since before the CW, when they were just used for diplomacy.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

Out of universe? Everyone went shit nuts with WWII nomenclature and ship types. Everyone went shit nuts with vessel design of various diamentions and wanted to stick 'cruiser' on for effect. So now we have ~300 meter long 'light cruiesers' with 1600 meters long destroyers (though I disagree with the system, it seems more and more like it is the system).

It's a mess.

IMO, Saxton is just reiterating a two tier system, as it is the only way to make sense of all the bullshit.

Edit; Guess I might as well address your question. :P I think he is using 'Battlecruiser' more to denote the over all militaristic nature of the new KDY designs rather than Lucas's regular use of 'cruiser' as a 'fast ship'.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Publius
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1912
Joined: 2002-07-03 08:22pm
Location: Novus Ordo Sæculorum
Contact:

Post by Publius »

"Consular" is not necessarily an adjective. A consular is a Roman senator who had previously been elected consul. This is an example of a substantive adjective, a grammatical concept in which an adjective functions as a noun.

It is also noteworthy that the Royal Navy has a number of ship classes named after adjectives, including 1895's Majestic-class first-class battleship, 1908's Invincible-class battlecruiser, 1940's Illustrious-class fleet carrier, 1941's Indomitable-class fleet carrier, 1944's Implacable-class fleet carrier (Implacable and HMS Indefatigable having adjectival names), and 1980's Invincible-class "through-deck cruisers."
God's in His Heaven, all's right with the world
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

Publius wrote:"Consular" is not necessarily an adjective. A consular is a Roman senator who had previously been elected consul. This is an example of a substantive adjective, a grammatical concept in which an adjective functions as a noun.

It is also noteworthy that the Royal Navy has a number of ship classes named after adjectives, including 1895's Majestic-class first-class battleship, 1908's Invincible-class battlecruiser, 1940's Illustrious-class fleet carrier, 1941's Indomitable-class fleet carrier, 1944's Implacable-class fleet carrier (Implacable and HMS Indefatigable having adjectival names), and 1980's Invincible-class "through-deck cruisers."
OK, I should have clarified. An instance where they take a descriptor previously attached to a ship (e.g., the Imperial Star Destroyer and the Republic consular cruiser, and styling it as the Imperial-class and the Consular-class). Its unimaginative and shitty.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
dworkin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1313
Joined: 2003-08-06 05:44am
Location: Whangaparoa, one babe, same sun and surf.

Post by dworkin »

I take it as evidence of a large pluralistic galactic society.

Society A builds a fleet and range of ships at a totally different scale to society B. At different periods the conception of how big ships need to be changes and more pacific societies name their ships with more peaceful designations like 'cruiser', 'frigate' and 'escort' even though said 'escort' is in actuality a 2km long behemoth capable of slagging contients.

With the Empire and Palpy's love affair with really big ships we of course get the 1.6 km 'Destroyer' and a host of truly big bastards ending with the Death Stars.
Don't abandon democracy folks, or an alien star-god may replace your ruler. - NecronLord
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

dworkin wrote:I take it as evidence of a large pluralistic galactic society.

Society A builds a fleet and range of ships at a totally different scale to society B. At different periods the conception of how big ships need to be changes and more pacific societies name their ships with more peaceful designations like 'cruiser', 'frigate' and 'escort' even though said 'escort' is in actuality a 2km long behemoth capable of slagging contients.

With the Empire and Palpy's love affair with really big ships we of course get the 1.6 km 'Destroyer' and a host of truly big bastards ending with the Death Stars.
Palpy didn't necessarily have a love affair with 'big ships' to make a 1mile 'destroyer. Tradefed had their converted freighters at least 3km's and depending on how you scale it, up to 5km's.

Republic Venator is just over 1km (Yes Palpy was in control but some how I doubt he took personal interest in KDY ship building to make sure his new ships were 'big')

The size of the 'Stardestroyers' seem in line with large 'outfits' like the Empire or large, powerful sectors/private industry like Kuat and/or various guilds.

It seems there is a step below that which poorer or groups with less need than a crew intesive, resource gobbling ship along the lines of a SD in the >1000m group.

Hence, if you have only one or two planets in which you have $ and need to police against pirates and such, a 150m Corellian Corvette is up your alley or a 300M KDY frigate, or various gunships all >500m.

If your unbelieveabley rich and have vast holdings and good political connections, a fleet of 1000m plus KDY Starcuisers or Stardestroyers is up your alley.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Gorefiend
Padawan Learner
Posts: 288
Joined: 2004-11-22 08:38am

Post by Gorefiend »

http://people.freenet.de/swrs/ships.jpg (WEG Rebel Alliance Sourcebook) :roll:
Image
User avatar
SPOOFE
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3174
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:34pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Contact:

Post by SPOOFE »

I imagine that there have been many flubs and flummoxes in nomenclature with the switch from sea-bound to space-bound navies. The hypotheticals are too numerous to even delve into... I don't even see why it's an issue.
The Great and Malignant
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

SPOOFE wrote:I imagine that there have been many flubs and flummoxes in nomenclature with the switch from sea-bound to space-bound navies. The hypotheticals are too numerous to even delve into... I don't even see why it's an issue.
You have to call them something and give them somesort of role. Its not like only SW does this.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
SCVN 2812
Jedi Knight
Posts: 812
Joined: 2002-07-08 01:01am
Contact:

Post by SCVN 2812 »

To get back to OP I think that that may very well have been part of the reasoning for the ship designations. Though there are numerous instances of less than inspiring dreadnoughts and battlecruisers in the EU.
Image

"We at Yahoo have a lot of experience in helping people navigate an environment full of falsehoods, random useless information, and truly horrifying pornography. I don't think the human soul will hold any real surprises for us." - The Onion
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

SCVN 2812 wrote:To get back to OP I think that that may very well have been part of the reasoning for the ship designations. Though there are numerous instances of less than inspiring dreadnoughts and battlecruisers in the EU.
Its hardly as abused as "cruisers" of all types. There's only the Kaloth-class battlecruiser and the Invincible-class dreadnought, that I can think of, that dispoil his plans. And Saxton's have the "star" prefix and outnumber the counterexamples. He couldn't have managed the latter with cruisers.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
Post Reply