Upload
Login or register

Jowi

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:8/20/2010
Last Login:7/23/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4393
Highest Content Rank:#4910
Highest Comment Rank:#1362
Content Thumbs: 630 total,  876 ,  246
Comment Thumbs: 12649 total,  15577 ,  2928
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 59 Content: Sammich eater → Level 60 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 23.4% (117/500)
Level 311 Comments: Wizard → Level 312 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:2
Content Views:65510
Times Content Favorited:36 times
Total Comments Made:4078
FJ Points:12279

latest user's comments

#63 - I'd have thought we'd obviously import war-economy levels of p…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/12/2016 on /pol/ impersonates the queen +3
User avatar
#67 - enragedonion (05/12/2016) [-]
You sir have solved the conundrum!
Quick sire sgtmajjohnson, prepare the planes!
#33 - Voldemort can only be killed by Harry Potter though. If he cam… 05/12/2016 on A tale of epic battles -1
#31 - If you threw in broomsticks for the wizards orc armies would b…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/12/2016 on A tale of epic battles -1
#49 - cdsams (05/12/2016) [-]
Consider the following.
#51 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
For a start, I said Orc army. Secondly there are only 9 Nazghul, not exactly a fearsome number. Without riders they're basically just wild animals that would attack anyone
#56 - khepri (05/12/2016) [-]
The RIDERS are the nazgul. The creatures are called fellbeasts. They're also irrelevant. A nazgul can kill by breathing on you.
#57 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
I know. Hence why I said there are 9 Nazghul and without a rider the beasts would just rampage making them more of a chaotic factor to any battle rather than working for anyone side
#59 - khepri (05/12/2016) [-]
They obey the nazgul, and Sauron. And, if neither were around, orc flesh is abhorrent, even to things like Shelob. They'd go after the tasty wizardlings long before they'd go after an orc.
#60 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
yeah but an unskilled HP managed to out-manoeuvre a dragon. I'm pretty sure a wizard army would be able to do some damage against unintelligent animals being controlled remotely.
And Orcs are big cowards, all you'd have to do is kill their leaders and they'd run like bitches
#61 - khepri (05/12/2016) [-]
He avoided the dragon because he had a tight environment he could maneuver through.
As for routing the orcs? Good luck killing Sauron. He's more powerful then Gandalf, by far. On the cosmological power divine scale thing, it goes Eru Iluvatar > Morgoth/Melkor > rest of the Valar > the Maiar (of whom Sauron is a member of) > the wizards.
#30 - Well Voldemort can't be killed by anyone other than Harry Pott…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/12/2016 on A tale of epic battles -2
User avatar
#52 - ohemgeezus (05/12/2016) [-]
he could be killed by anyone so long as the hocroxes were taken out, what are you talking about?
#58 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
No there is a prophecy that very specifically states that only Neville or Harry could kill Voldemort.
Once V went after HP he marked him as the chosen one
User avatar
#62 - angelious (05/13/2016) [-]
even IF we take it that there is a magical prophecy that for some reason doesnt allow anybody to kill him it wouldnt matter.

gandalf in the books has enough magical prowess to completely ignore the prophecy, scarlet witch could easily just reality warp the universe so that voldemort simply never existed and superman can just bfr him.


in movie versions, potter verse (if we take the illogical conclusion that voldemort is completely invulnerable to everything and everyone other than the two) then they would beat the tolkiens, but superman and avengers would still be able to bfr him easily.

none of the wizards actually hold anything that can hurt any of the avengers or superman, let alone even hit them (well magic technically can hurt superman...but that would still require superman to let himself be hit, and actually stay dead)
#29 - If you are talking about both armies from both sides I think i…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/12/2016 on A tale of epic battles +1
#39 - archiethesailor (05/12/2016) [-]
Isn't Gandalf the LOTR equivalent of an angel? And wasn't he immortal and Über powerful when he was brought back to life? I'm not an expert, but I think he was something like that
#40 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
Voldemort can only be killed by Harry Potter though. In a straight fight HP would be obliterated by Gandalf but Voldemort would be immortal once HP was dead
#41 - archiethesailor (05/12/2016) [-]
Oh, I didn't know that. I don't know a lot about Harry Potter. I thought all of his soul pieces (don't know how to spell the actual word) had to be destroyed and then anyone could kill him.

So he can't die, can his body still be destroyed or removed from the context of the battle?
#43 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
You're right about the soul pieces but basically it's prophecised that only a child born in June will kill Voldemort which was either Harry or Neville. Since Voldemort chose Harry because they were both half bloods and Voldemort considered them more equal he ensured that it was Harry that would be the chosen.
After Voldemort fell the first time and if Harry died of cancer or some shit and Voldemorts followers had been able to give him his body back Voldemort would have gone on to take over the world without a problem
#44 - archiethesailor (05/12/2016) [-]
Oh, OK. Thank you for telling me.
#45 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
No probs
#36 - Steel balls can't melt wood beams 05/11/2016 on That's not how you play Jenga +3
#92 - Obviously where I wrote known I meant noun I'm discosexy or dy… 05/11/2016 on and I think that's beautiful 0
#91 - The fact that the child doesn't understand what you mean doesn…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/11/2016 on and I think that's beautiful +2
User avatar
#130 - languagexplain (05/12/2016) [-]
Ah but then we are arguing a different case.
You are arguing that if the intention is the same, the translation is perfect.
I cannot agree with that. Language does not exist in a vacuum where you can count only intentions. It is a medium of communication, and communication needs an intention, communicated by a sender, via a medium, to a receiver, who makes an interpretation.
Translation will always provide some degree of distortion here, however slight.
#131 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
No it does not fit in a vacuum, it adheres to very specific rules called grammar. You cannot have misinterpretation making defining language or else the entire idea becomes pointless.
If our language contained another word for general moons and you used it to refer to the Moon people would think you had made a mistake. If you used the word for the Moon to refer to moons in general you would also be making a mistake.
When someone learning English uses the wrong, or similar but clunky-sounding, word to describe something their intention to say what they mean does not make what they say correct English.
If you use the common phrase "hoover" to refer to your vacuum cleaner and it is a general model you are still wrong, even though the phrase is used widely, because it is a slang term which does however have different connotations in meaning. However if you refer to it as the Dyson f-blade 220 then it can only literally refer to that one model because you have used a name that only applies to that model.

We are not arguing different cases, we are arguing about whether there is a 100% accurate translation for a word from one language to another. And since we were talking about Japanese I can tell you since, in English, the word moon comes from the Old English mōna which shares the same Indo-European roots as the word mens in Greek and mensis in Latin both meaning month, and in Japanese the word comes from the exact same idea (because, as I said before, Moon worship was a big thing across the world and the knowledge that the Moon's cycle is roughly 28 days would have become apparent pretty quickly) so yes both are translations from older versions of their tongue but both meaning month.

What is it that you do that you think you're right here? I can only imagine that you're either an English or a Language student who has had someone teach them something idiotic along the way. I've even tried to find stuff backing what you're saying and all I can see is that literal-translations don't work for idioms but anything with a set definition (like the Moon) as long as it is correct in both spelling and grammar and in the correct context cannot mean anything else.
Proper nouns cannot be mistranslated because they refer to something specific that, in the case of the moon, exists in both cultures and, once named by both cultures and the language standardised, cannot be misinterpreted if you speak both languages correctly.

Correct language does not account for misinterpretation, mistake, age of the person hearing the words, whatever. Words exist to define things, to argue that they are just rough guides to interpreting what the other person is saying is wrong.
User avatar
#132 - languagexplain (05/12/2016) [-]
Your view of language, like basically everyone else on this site, is a couple decades behind.
To be fair, the point I'm arguing has no practical value and is true pretty much only in the context of academic debate and language and communications theory.
Your point is largely valid. It's just not true.
#86 - You really don't know the difference between the word Moon, wi…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/11/2016 on and I think that's beautiful +1
User avatar
#87 - languagexplain (05/11/2016) [-]
Even the proper noun Moon still has different connotations. Again, you and I will probably take it to mean the hunk of rock that orbits the earth, the average child will imagine a crescent with a face on it. Same word, different meanings. Now elaborate why this is dumb and why I should kill myself.
#92 - Jowi (05/11/2016) [-]
Obviously where I wrote known I meant noun I'm discosexy or dyslexic or whatever
#91 - Jowi (05/11/2016) [-]
The fact that the child doesn't understand what you mean doesn't change the intention of what you said.
If you are talking to a child about our moon, The Moon, but they misinterpret it as referring to some ambiguous cartoony moon then the fact stands that the word Moon still only means the lunar object orbiting our Earth.

And we are talking about translation between languages. Defined and documented systems of communication not an arbitrary concept of free interpretation.
If, in an English exam, you wrote "the moon" when referring to the object 370,000 km from our planet then I would hope you get marked down for not using the proper known.
Similarly in a language exam (where the language you are translating into has a metaphorical or otherwise differently written word that refers to moons in different galaxies, moons with faces, crescents or even just a collective noun like the word moon etc but another word for the Moon by itself) and you used the wrong one you would get marked down.

Once again, there is a difference between Moon and moon
User avatar
#130 - languagexplain (05/12/2016) [-]
Ah but then we are arguing a different case.
You are arguing that if the intention is the same, the translation is perfect.
I cannot agree with that. Language does not exist in a vacuum where you can count only intentions. It is a medium of communication, and communication needs an intention, communicated by a sender, via a medium, to a receiver, who makes an interpretation.
Translation will always provide some degree of distortion here, however slight.
#131 - Jowi (05/12/2016) [-]
No it does not fit in a vacuum, it adheres to very specific rules called grammar. You cannot have misinterpretation making defining language or else the entire idea becomes pointless.
If our language contained another word for general moons and you used it to refer to the Moon people would think you had made a mistake. If you used the word for the Moon to refer to moons in general you would also be making a mistake.
When someone learning English uses the wrong, or similar but clunky-sounding, word to describe something their intention to say what they mean does not make what they say correct English.
If you use the common phrase "hoover" to refer to your vacuum cleaner and it is a general model you are still wrong, even though the phrase is used widely, because it is a slang term which does however have different connotations in meaning. However if you refer to it as the Dyson f-blade 220 then it can only literally refer to that one model because you have used a name that only applies to that model.

We are not arguing different cases, we are arguing about whether there is a 100% accurate translation for a word from one language to another. And since we were talking about Japanese I can tell you since, in English, the word moon comes from the Old English mōna which shares the same Indo-European roots as the word mens in Greek and mensis in Latin both meaning month, and in Japanese the word comes from the exact same idea (because, as I said before, Moon worship was a big thing across the world and the knowledge that the Moon's cycle is roughly 28 days would have become apparent pretty quickly) so yes both are translations from older versions of their tongue but both meaning month.

What is it that you do that you think you're right here? I can only imagine that you're either an English or a Language student who has had someone teach them something idiotic along the way. I've even tried to find stuff backing what you're saying and all I can see is that literal-translations don't work for idioms but anything with a set definition (like the Moon) as long as it is correct in both spelling and grammar and in the correct context cannot mean anything else.
Proper nouns cannot be mistranslated because they refer to something specific that, in the case of the moon, exists in both cultures and, once named by both cultures and the language standardised, cannot be misinterpreted if you speak both languages correctly.

Correct language does not account for misinterpretation, mistake, age of the person hearing the words, whatever. Words exist to define things, to argue that they are just rough guides to interpreting what the other person is saying is wrong.
User avatar
#132 - languagexplain (05/12/2016) [-]
Your view of language, like basically everyone else on this site, is a couple decades behind.
To be fair, the point I'm arguing has no practical value and is true pretty much only in the context of academic debate and language and communications theory.
Your point is largely valid. It's just not true.
#143 - You're either mistaken or outright lying right now 05/11/2016 on GERMONEY IS WAKING UP +2