StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2010-07-30 11:27am**

Like Percy's.

Or Whirlies.

Seriously, demon. In a Beanie. With a propeller. Flying through the air.
Giggling.

[EDIT]

General Petraeus tells it like it is.

Posted: **2010-07-30 12:08pm**

Commander Xillian wrote:Like Percy's. Or Whirlies. Seriously, demon. In a Beanie. With a propeller. Flying through the air.
Giggling.

Somebody came up with Percies for angels back in the early days of TSW:A but it didn't catch on. I like Homo Caelis Agelicus and Homo Caelis Daemonis. We'll know the right popular name when somebody comes up with it and everybody else says "I was thinking that"

Posted: **2010-07-30 12:25pm**

How about Tomato Soup?

For a name, that is. Not for like, some giant Demonic Soup Kitchen.

... Stuart, is it possible for you to create a giant demonic soup kitchen?

Posted: **2010-07-30 12:54pm**

Stuart wrote:
Commander Xillian wrote:Like Percy's. Or Whirlies. Seriously, demon. In a Beanie. With a propeller. Flying through the air.
Giggling.
Somebody came up with Percies for angels back in the early days of TSW:A but it didn't catch on. I like Homo Caelis Agelicus and Homo Caelis Daemonis. We'll know the right popular name when somebody comes up with it and everybody else says "I was thinking that"

On the scientific name issue, which is somethin that can be agreed on coldly:
you got to squeeze sapiens in there somewhere. if homo is, as the wikipedia suggests:

Code: Select all

The English adjective human is a Middle English loan from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjective of homō "man". Use as a noun (with a plural humans) dates to the 16th century. The native English term man is now often reserved for male adults, but can still be used for "mankind" in general in Modern English. The word is from Proto-Germanic *mannaz, from a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root *man-, cognate to Sanskrit manu-.

The generic name Homo is a learned 18th century derivation from Latin homō "man", ultimately "earthly being" (Old Latin hemō, cognate to Old English guma "man", from PIE *dʰǵʰemon-, meaning 'earth' or 'ground').

the last part is interesting. since these aren`t earthly beings. So the tree would have to change accordingly, not only the name of the specie. So far, the human hierarchy in biological classification goes something like this, again, according to wikipedia:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

so, to accomodate angels and baldricks, we need to modify at least the genus. as such, we need a word that represents an attribute familiar to all this species of sentient beings. common qualities can be sociological, psychological or physical.

so I would propose, to acommodate everyone:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae (using homo as root in its meaning of man)
Subfamilies: Hominini (earthly humans), Caelini (celestial humans)
Hominini Genus: Homo
Hominini Species: H. Sapiens (and the other earth bound species, already extinct).

Caelini Genus:
Angelus (this is pig latin, remember. Since all angels are the same species and the change are cuantitative and not qualitative, there is only one genus).
Daemonis (grouping all demons subspecies. I still dont like daemonis, I dont know if its accurate. If it is, latin-wise, that is good.)

Caelini Species: Angelus Sapiens (the only known one. I liked Khulan also. after all, the name of a species takes after a decisive characteristic of it. Concealment an deception are quite prominent on angels, so...)

Daemonis Species: Daemonis Sapiens (daemonis infernalis can work too. Full name would be homo daemonis infernalis, pig latin for the man-demon of hell, while sapiens would be homo daemonis sapiens, or knowing man of hell)
Daemonis subspecies: have a ball here. There are so many to choose from.
daemonis sapiens ictius, for the water daemons, daemonis sapiens draconis for large aerial demons, and etcetera.

anyway, the movement of all the genus and families can`t guarantee anything will stay in place above the Mammalia clasification...

Posted: **2010-07-30 12:55pm**

...why did I just think of "Angels and Demons" being a wonderful name for a comedy show?

Anyhow...Stuart, I've got to say that while there obviously need to be parents of some sort, there's enough talk in mythology of lousy family relations that the existence of parents does not dictate their current presence. Also, knowing how genetics can be wonky at times, it also seems plausible that the parents in question might not be on par with the kids in terms of power...or, for that matter, might be more or less powerful. It's also interesting, thinking of Uriel as the youngest brother...actually, you seem to have a pretty good set of family dynamics there.

And, of course, I've now got this image in my mind of those three having a little old pensioner angel for a mother (with big wings and all) who they visit once a week living in an apartment, and who always tells them that they should be more like their father.

Posted: **2010-07-30 01:16pm**

GrayAnderson wrote:...why did I just think of "Angels and Demons" being a wonderful name for a comedy show?

Anyhow...Stuart, I've got to say that while there obviously need to be parents of some sort, there's enough talk in mythology of lousy family relations that the existence of parents does not dictate their current presence. Also, knowing how genetics can be wonky at times, it also seems plausible that the parents in question might not be on par with the kids in terms of power...or, for that matter, might be more or less powerful. It's also interesting, thinking of Uriel as the youngest brother...actually, you seem to have a pretty good set of family dynamics there.

And, of course, I've now got this image in my mind of those three having a little old pensioner angel for a mother (with big wings and all) who they visit once a week living in an apartment, and who always tells them that they should be more like their father.

"Now, now Lucy, my boy- said the old, wrinkly angel grandmother, her gray feathers caressing the savage, teary face of the child gently- I`ve told not to steal the human toys from your brother."
"But, grandma, he doesn`t do anything with them! he just puts them in line to chant and let`s Uriel break them, and doesn`t give one to me! It`s not fair!!"
"I promise you, that when you grow up, you can have all the toys you want, and a great home just for you. An Yahwe won`t take your toys, or I`ll send him to bed with no dinner."
"And the little red angel smiled again."

Posted: **2010-07-30 03:05pm**

you know, i would just call angels Celestials as the common name for them.

Not sure about a common name for demons though.

Posted: **2010-07-30 04:04pm**

Name the Demons red shirts. Skin tone and how many casualties they sustained durring the Salvation Wars would make that a logical choice.

Posted: **2010-07-30 04:41pm**

Maybe something like "Sups" or "Supers" (from super-naturals; clearely angels and daemons aren't supernatural in TSW universe, but they were considered supernatural before the first contact; it would have a bit of mockery in it, because they and their powers have been proven to be far from supernatural)

Posted: **2010-07-30 05:06pm**

darksoul wrote: Caelini Genus:
Angelus (this is pig latin, remember. Since all angels are the same species and the change are cuantitative and not qualitative, there is only one genus).

What about Yahweh-class beings? Yahweh, Elhmas, Uriel and Satan were this.

Angelus Sapiens Maximus?
Angelus Sapiens Deus?

Or, if they were an entirely different species (I think this was rebuked earlier, but still): Deus Sapiens?

Posted: **2010-07-30 05:13pm**

Evolutionary Biology Degree is finally useful (actually, I've been mulling this post for a while).

1. Remember that even scientific names are frequently puns, gags or references. Discoverer's names, friends, or any sick joke they can get away with.

2. The timeline/structure of human evolution will need some revisions. Stuart - You just spoke in favor of Homo Caelis, which definitely makes this a genus level division. You also had Luga place the timeline of the Celestial War as 4.5 MYA (million year ago). This is right around the divergence of proto-humans from proto-apes. The problem is that proto-humans were then Genus Australopithecus. The first Homo's were 2.5 MYA. BUT - Canon rules, and the fossil record is spotty.

I see a couple of options:
Humans and Angels both evolved somewhere else. Or somewhen else. If there is an infinite cycle of universes represented by the Taijitu Yin Yang then all bets are off, Closed Timeline Curves give me a headache.

and/or

Genus Homo emerged fully formed from our Austro ancestors like Athena from the head of Zeus. We then split off about the same time into H.Sap and H.Cae.

and/or

H.Caelis evolved first, evolved the ability to open portals, and was sentient 4.5 MYA. Which Yaya remembers. Yaya and his group mated with Australopithecines. Due to inbreeding, interbreeding and selection by H.Caelis H.Sapiens evolved. God bred us in his image. (Backcross breeding. I wonder if susceptibility to anthrax is something Caelis has too. Hybrids are usually healthier, but not always.) - I like this idea.

or something else Stuart will think up.

The 4.5 Million years angels and demons have been separate populations is certainly enough to form them into separate species. The interesting thing is the change in the appearance. This implies that the human genome, when given a regenerative ability, is capable of re-forming the body according to wildly differing body plans. Given that then even small differences in genetics would create wildly different looks. Satan's breeding programs would help that more.

Do we have a firm statement that angels 4.5 MYA looked like angels now? Did angels make statuary? Is this the origin of the prohibition on graven images? Over that long an individual might not even remember looking different.

Posted: **2010-07-30 05:59pm**

kulervo wrote:I wonder if susceptibility to anthrax is something Caelis has too.

Not likely. The Angels carrying the First Bowl did so in cauldrons.

Posted: **2010-07-30 06:59pm**

I was thinking in terms of slang naming that you might have "Buffaloes" (as in buffalo wings) for Angels, not just because of the wings, but also because of the whole thing about wiping out the great herds...

Posted: **2010-07-30 07:22pm**

Methinks a good red-bull joke is needed here, I don't have any.

Posted: **2010-07-30 07:47pm**

Humans and Angels both evolved somewhere else. Or somewhen else. If there is an infinite cycle of universes represented by the Taijitu Yin Yang then all bets are off, Closed Timeline Curves give me a headache.

I concur.

Genus Homo emerged fully formed from our Austro ancestors like Athena from the head of Zeus. We then split off about the same time into H.Sap and H.Cae.

Some intelligent design there. Something akin to the stargate/ star trek seeder race theory.

H.Caelis evolved first, evolved the ability to open portals, and was sentient 4.5 MYA. Which Yaya remembers. Yaya and his group mated with Australopithecines. Due to inbreeding, interbreeding and selection by H.Caelis H.Sapiens evolved. God bred us in his image. (Backcross breeding. I wonder if susceptibility to anthrax is something Caelis has too. Hybrids are usually healthier, but not always.) - I like this idea.

Backcross breeding INDEED. There is no rule written on the hybrids being healthier. Besides, there is no need for us to be breed from Caelis. Our ancestors lived at the same time angels were fighting demons, true. but they also had ancestors, and on and on, from which we don't have registries. Maybe we weren't evolved into our current shape from oceans and lower animals, but rather from the ancestors the angels evolved from, that somehow stayed in their original form. the branch is even further than thought. That would address the angels not being native to heaven, would account for any and all missing links that might exist in human evolution before the homo habilis, and still would provide a basis for genetic compatibility between all species of the hominini family as described above, or Homo genus as seems to be Stuart`s choice.

(Time for sick side thought: Can a Herald mate with a dwarf Japanese woman? Ok... no need to actually answer that.)

The 4.5 Million years angels and demons have been separate populations is certainly enough to form them into separate species. The interesting thing is the change in the appearance. This implies that the human genome, when given a regenerative ability, is capable of re-forming the body according to wildly differing body plans. Given that then even small differences in genetics would create wildly different looks. Satan's breeding programs would help that more.

this is interesting, but forming separate species(genus, actually) by the processes of evolution as known has not been observed, AFAIK. That's one of the great points in favor of creationism, so debunking it using angels are demons is, well, a Crowning Moment of Irony, if such exist

.
I would like to point out, however, that species does not interbreed with each other, and as such nephilims are aberrations, if not outright impossible. please someone more knowledgeable pronounce on this matter... If species cant interbreed, then baldricks, angels and humans are subspecies, if not races, of homo sapiens as known, which we know they dont because of the differences being so marked. If they can, it would be something like wolves and dogs, or cows and buffalos... not precisely the same as interspecies breeding, understanding as such the crossing of individuals of different genuses.
I haven't thought about that, but it is a decisive factor in constructing the biological hierarchy in either direction, modifying at genus level, family level or species level.

Do we have a firm statement that angels 4.5 MYA looked like angels now? Did angels make statuary? Is this the origin of the prohibition on graven images? Over that long an individual might not even remember looking different.

Yes, do we? This is a very important point. Are angels ashamed of what they were, so they forgot? Does human (hominid, for that matter) genetics has a component, perhaps in the so called junk DNA, that makes it react heavily to environment? that would account for the separation of the three kinds according to the wildy different environments they were. And would allow satan to carry on his breeding plans at a sufficiently rapid rate, by choosing a suitable environment to each of his subspecies. In a less degree, the same response can account for races in humans. Angels didnt get races because conditions are even in Heaven in all known areas. Hell offers a more diverse environment and as such allows for more races, even subspecies. And Earth is somewhere in between, in what environmental ranges are concerned.

I feel I'm giving too much thought into this, like the portals before.
I'll just go with what is decided...

Posted: **2010-07-30 08:10pm**

Ruadhan2300 wrote:Methinks a good red-bull joke is needed here, I don't have any.

red bulls or jokes?

Posted: **2010-07-30 08:16pm**

well, I can certainly see Maion getting asked as spokesmodel for Red Bull.

As for nicknames, I could see angels being called something derogatory like pidgeons or pidge for short - based on the whole "rats with wings" thing.

Also people talking about blowing away angels like shooting clay pidgeons.

Anyway, just a thought - blaze away

Posted: **2010-07-30 08:45pm**

Hofner1962 wrote:well, I can certainly see Maion getting asked as spokesmodel for Red Bull.

Actually, Luga would rather do that.
Maion would be campaigning against drugs: "if you think cocaine is angel`s dust, think again"

Posted: **2010-07-30 08:52pm**

With the regards to the Percy idea, I think Stuart should include it in the story somewhere, but rather than being a catch-all term for all angels, it should instead become the nickname of one particular angel as something of an in-joke reference to the whole "Baldrick" thing, as in a human meets an angel with a particularly hard to pronounce name and says, "Look, I'm just going to call you Percy-lan-Percy, okay? You should be your own damn boss anyway..."

(Time for sick side thought: Can a Herald mate with a dwarf Japanese woman? Ok... no need to actually answer that.)

Ahmmm... Well, based on the whole, "These dogs of widly different sizes and appearances are all the same species and could technically mate" thing, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes"... Picture it like this...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/280 ... 48c8c8.jpg

Posted: **2010-07-30 10:04pm**

Maybe we can call the angels "wingnuts" or something. Seriously, though, I never expected coming up with a slang term for angels could be this hard.

Posted: **2010-07-30 11:12pm**

Ilya Muromets wrote:Maybe we can call the angels "wingnuts" or something. Seriously, though, I never expected coming up with a slang term for angels could be this hard.

If you thought it would be easy, you REALLY got some strange priorities in life...

Posted: **2010-07-30 11:15pm**

I'm a nicknamer. Nicknaming the people around me is habit. If that's a strange life priority, then, yeah, I guess I do.

Posted: **2010-07-30 11:18pm**

No, I mean, just saying out of the blue "Oh, sure, yeah, I did this years ago. Wasn't that hard."

Didn't mean to strike a personal blow, sorry if I came across like that.

Posted: **2010-07-30 11:24pm**

No apologies needed. I didn't take it personally. I was just clarifying.

Posted: **2010-07-31 01:40am**

On the topic of creating common vernacular to refer to both demons and angels, may I propose 'Wingers'?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty One Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up

Re: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty Up