StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Anarchist Bunny wrote:I remember a courscanti politian using a Hover-Limo in I believe a NJO book.

If you're considering "limousine" to be an Earth phrase, then "speeder bike" should be included as well.

Personally, I'm willing to accept the notion that humans and most Earth flora and fauna exist in the Star Wars universe and take it as artistic license. As long as they avoid explicit references to our history, which to my knowledge they do, I'm fine and I'm not going to be bothered by the word "falcon". Iain Banks' Against a Dark Background, the anime Wings of Honneamise, and, hell, one of my own personal SF worlds all have similar "parallel universe with humans" settings, and I'm perfectly willing to accept them.

Junghalli wrote: References to Earth animals and such are a different story. A falcon is a very specific animal, and while you could explain it away as a translation it'd be a very subjective one (exactly how does one decide what SW animal is a "falcon" and what is an "eagle" etc.).

Well, there ARE earth animals in Star Wars, at the least there are- or were- on Endor. Hawks, chickens, ponies, goats, and ferrets have all been trained or domesticated by the Ewoks, and there's probably a lot more. Not to mention the birds of Naboo.

So, yeah, earth animals, or at least excessively similar ones exist, and Falcon may actually be a direct translation of their common word for the equivalent animal.

In the X-wing and TIE fighter games, the Imperials tend to use greek letters to denote squadrons during missions

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, yeah, sure...
How about a big "no" on that?

How about let's hear your conclusive evidence that Star Wars cannot possibly be set in the future.

Junghalli wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, yeah, sure...
How about a big "no" on that?

How about let's hear your conclusive evidence that Star Wars cannot possibly be set in the future.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

Because it's explicitly set in the past somewhere else. Anybody who thinks Star Wars is set in our future is just frankly fucking kidding themselves.

Junghalli wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, yeah, sure...
How about a big "no" on that?

How about let's hear your conclusive evidence that Star Wars cannot possibly be set in the future.

"Long long AGO In a Galaxy far far away."

Unless you want Time Travel here, it ain't happening.

"A long time ago--", Fluke.

I would mention IP and my Hyperspace Alien theory, but it's really not too relevant, and I frankly don't want little Fluke Starbucker to spaz out all over me.

...

I hate you...

Sorry, it's the truth: you seem to freak out over almost anything and blow the tiniest thing totally out of proportion into a big to-do.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Because it's explicitly set in the past somewhere else. Anybody who thinks Star Wars is set in our future is just frankly fucking kidding themselves.

There are a ton of ways of interpreting "a long time ago". All it means is the narrator is adressing somebody who lived after the events described in SW, doesn't necessary mean they happened in Earth's past.

No, I can't prove SW happened in the future. I'm not trying to, it was just a suggestion. But there's no way you're going to tell me that one line conclusively disproves it either.

I think it's a total waste. I mean, seriously, our future? That's certainly what Lucas intended way back with the rough draft of the script, but back then, "The Star Wars" was something completely different, and soon he decided on the "Long time ago in a galaxy far far away" thing because he wanted some distance to his story.

Really, the "hypothesised" future angle just seems nonsense and a waste, nothing more.

That and having it be from the perspective of the future complicates things because it's being told to an audience in the PRESENT. It frankly hinges on far too much of an assumed premise. It's narratively complicated.

A large number of vessels in the games have Earthian names: Agincourt, Maria, Cathleen, Maximus, Grey Wolf, Shotgun, Jeffrey, Halifax, etc.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I think it's a total waste. I mean, seriously, our future? That's certainly what Lucas intended way back with the rough draft of the script, but back then, "The Star Wars" was something completely different, and soon he decided on the "Long time ago in a galaxy far far away" thing because he wanted some distance to his story.

If it happened way in the future, when Earth is basically a historical footnote/legend like in Asimov's Foundation series, then it would have plenty of "distance".

Really, the "hypothesised" future angle just seems nonsense and a waste, nothing more.

And what does that have to do with anything? This has absolutely no bearing on the theory factually, and it's not like I'm going to write an SW book here or something.

That and having it be from the perspective of the future complicates things because it's being told to an audience in the PRESENT. It frankly hinges on far too much of an assumed premise.

Well, to my perspective having SW set in the past makes things needlessly complicated, as it requires some Deus ex Machina mechanism for humans to get into the SW galaxy. Either that or we have to accept that there's an independently evolved species in SW that's identicle to humans, which IMO comes off as ridiculous. So much simpler and more elegant to just disregard that one line and go with the obvious solution.

Star Wars has to take place in the future, unless some sort of time travel comes into play (which is impossible both to us and to Star Wars society). Humans simply haven't existed long enough for it to be otherwise.

Unless, of course, Star Wars takes place in an entirely different fantasy universe than ours... in which case the whole "A Long Time Ago" is even more pointless.

I'm dropping out of this part of the discussion, though mind you that's not a concession: I just simply don't care to continue.

I will say though that you'll find that a time travel, transportation line of thought does have a pretty wide range of acceptence here, or at the least, lacks a significant degree of objection.

000 wrote:A large number of vessels in the games have Earthian names: Agincourt, Maria, Cathleen, Maximus, Grey Wolf, Shotgun, Jeffrey, Halifax, etc.

Halifax and Agincourt?!

I remembered two more glaring issues regarding this:

First, X-wing and Y-wing. The letters were chosed due to the similarity of the shape of the letter to the craft represented. Apparently, later writers realized that this is a problem if SW doesn't take place in a universe with the same alphabet, so there is no shape relation for the A-wing, B-wing, E-wing, K-wing, and V-wing.

Second (and this is extremely glaring), the wordplay Daala uses in Darksaber, when she renames the Super Star Destroyer Night Hammer into Knight Hammer.

I don't recall other instances of wordplay like that, but that just jumped at me.

That's not too unbelievable. Some puns do translate easily across languages. Most don't, but it happens often enough. Now, if it happened more often, I'd be worried, but a one-off isn't enough to worry about.

Where's that pic of Vader's chest plate with Hebrew writting? Dr Saxton had it on his SWTC website didn't he?

TIE being the abbreviation of Twin Ion Engine is also a very English language thing.

IIRC B-Wing was named because it was shaped like a "blade". Again, language based.

Well stuff like that can still be transliterated. The word for TIE in basic could be an acronym for the first characters of "Twin," "Ion," and "Engine" or equivalent and we substitute in both cases the English equivalents.

Likewise with B-Wing, X-Wing, etc.

To them it might be a gobbledeegook-wing, but since it was named for its approximate shape to a character or symbol, we use our X because that's our equivalent term for the same basic shape.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Because it's explicitly set in the past somewhere else. Anybody who thinks Star Wars is set in our future is just frankly fucking kidding themselves.

Ah yes, your fanon Hyperspace Aliens theory (shared in belief by at least one other prominent member of this board!)...

Sorry pal, but Star Wars is clearly set in our past, the 1980's to be exact..
See E.T... CANON!!.


End of story.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Well stuff like that can still be transliterated. The word for TIE in basic could be an acronym for the first characters of "Twin," "Ion," and "Engine" or equivalent and we substitute in both cases the English equivalents.

Likewise with B-Wing, X-Wing, etc.

To them it might be a gobbledeegook-wing, but since it was named for its approximate shape to a character or symbol, we use our X because that's our equivalent term for the same basic shape.

That, yes. But not the the Knight/Night pun. The words being homonyms in two completely unrelated languages is too much to take.

What about names like Ben and Luke? Are they earthisms, or is it possible to do something there?

General_Soontir_Fel wrote:What about names like Ben and Luke? Are they earthisms, or is it possible to do something there?

Autotranslation, like in Lord of the Rings; after alll, there really weren't hobbits named "Frodo," "Peregrin," "Mariadoc," and "Samwise." That's just what they were translated into from the Westron "Maura," "Razanur," "Kalimac," and "Banazîr."

Another line of thought is that their names ARE "Ben" and "Luke," but in Basic they're simply not spelled in the corresponding manner as in English. Just by sound, those names also don't really automatically connotate English or even Terran connections; they're rather generic so they could easily be totally native to the Galaxy.

As for the night/knight thing: it's because Kevin J. Anderson is an idiot and wasn't thinking beyond his desire to make a "clever" (stupid) word pun.