So, here’s the thing. I have this setting I’ve been working on for years now. And the setting ended up with almost 5000 years of extensive lore, and you need to be familiar with several different philosophies and cultures to understand any of it. I was trying to come up with some names for characters in a story I am writing in said setting. And when I was researching how names and languages change I was struck with a thought. Am I overcomplicating this? Do I really need an explanation why there is a guy named “Al Banian” and why the name is actually a remnant from a completely different reality? I’m getting to the point where the lore is so complex it starts to sound stupid if you don’t know all the details. Case and point, a guy named “Al Banian”.
Another example. There are several creation myths, and three of them are technically correct.
I need some advice. Feel free to ask questions.
I never tried to prove you wrong. I was just correcting WHY we know that. We know he wasn’t fiddling, because the fiddle wasn’t invented yet. If he was playing anything (and he wasn’t) then it would’ve been a lyre or a lute. This is all I wanted to say.
Explain how this is a ‘correction’ to this.
Of course. The correct version would be: “Do we know that Nero wasn’t actually playing the lyre while Rome burned? Yes.”
Fiddled is a verb. The only person who fixated on it being a noun is you, a point I should have addressed immediately.
Fool! You think I know what the difference is?
spoiler
This is a sarcastic, over exaggerated reaction. Just so you know I’m not actually trying to insult you.
No, really, I think I understand even less now. And how is the word “fiddled” being a verb change anything?
The term “fiddling/fiddled” implies there is a fiddle involved. My problem with the statement is that there couldn’t be a fiddle involved. Because fiddles were not invented yet. Lest Nero was fiddling himself (or someone else), I cannot accept your version of the idiom as correct. Just because there is no such thing as “luteing” or “lyreing” doesn’t mean “fiddling” is the correct verb to use.
Edit: I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming from. Are you assuming I am disagreeing with any part of your statement? I am not. I am simply saying that the correct version of the saying would not mention fiddles. Because there were no fiddles. Unless that is the point. We know he wasn’t playing the fiddle because there were no fiddles? Is that the point?
This just isn’t how language works. You can dispute the idiom all you want, that doesn’t make you right; ‘Nero fiddled while Rome burned’ is a well known saying.
What you’re saying is like trying to say that Julius Caesar wasn’t assassinated because the term wasn’t coined in English until Shakespeare. No one agrees with that, just so we’re clear.
In my country/culture the idiom goes “Nero didn’t play (or did, people use both versions) the lyre while Rome burned”. I don’t know what else to tell you. The term being invented or not doesn’t matter since the instrument wasn’t invented. Your example with Cesar is different. If knives weren’t invented by that time (or other stabbing implements) would you still say he was stabbed to death? Language doesn’t matter in face of physical reality.
To me, it is the objectively correct version of the idiom, as it involves a historically accurate instrument.
So you’re just wrong, still - being willfully ignorant because you’re a pedant doesn’t change anything.
Imagine being so pompous as to think your interpretation of an old saying is objectively correct. I would tell you to read up on language prescriptivism but you’ve already proven you don’t read. Doesn’t bode well for your story.
No, not interpretation, the way to say it. Where I’m from, the idiom explicitly mentions playing the lyre. I checked.
And no, I don’t read things that don’t interest me or have no impact on my life. This argument is purely for the fun of it. I mean, at this point it is. Thank you by the way for engaging with me. This was a surprisingly nice exchange. My mind still isn’t changed. I prefer to believe things that I am told in real life by people, rather than things I read on the internet. Whenever it suits me, of course. I am a hypocrite after all. You know what they say. “Billions of flies can’t be wrong, there’s gotta be something to this shit.” In any case, thank you for your time, and I wish you all the best.
spoiler
Since I assume we’ll be ending the conversation soon, I’ll be honest. I know I was wrong. Maybe not wrong, but definitely not objectively correct. However, I cannot admit that. Not 20 comments in. At this point if I admit I was wrong, it means all of this was for nothing. It means this was all wasted time and wasted words. And I don’t want to admit that. Because it wasn’t. It was fun. Right? Arguing about something silly? Neither of us willing to concede, even though the subject has no actual impact on our lives. I enjoyed this. It was so much more civilized than my everyday life. Thank you. Genuinely.