Minor request concerning wording.

[Sapidianus]

I find the description of the Pacifist ethos a bit repetetive:

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a ridiculous concept. It is by nature destructive, destroying what was to be obtained or giving room to grow that which was to be destroyed."

Maybe it's better to use some synonyms to avoid using the same word (destroy) three times in one sentence?

 

[Mordaith]

I find the description of the Pacifist ethos a bit repetetive:

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a ridiculous concept. It is by nature destructive, destroying what was to be obtained or giving room to grow that which was to be destroyed."

Maybe it's better to use some synonyms to avoid using the same word (destroy) three times in one sentence?

Seems fine to me. I didn't find it repetitive.

I would think that getting out a thesaurus to actively avoid words of the same root, would make it seem forced? I'm not sure, but I think I would find that more irritating.

 

[Sapidianus]

Seems fine to me. I didn't find it repetitive.

I would think that getting out a thesaurus to actively avoid words of the same root, would make it seem forced? I'm not sure, but I think I would find that more irritating.

You dont need thesaurus to use common words like obliterate, wipe out, exterminate, raze, ruin, dismantle, eradicate, ravage and etc. It's creative and is easier to read.

 

[Yenzen]

Seems fine to me. I didn't find it repetitive.

I would think that getting out a thesaurus to actively avoid words of the same root, would make it seem forced? I'm not sure, but I think I would find that more irritating.

I think your argument is corrosive by nature, wrecking what he was trying to obtain or giving room to grow that which was to be demolished.

 

[Mordaith]

You dont need thesaurus to use common words like obliterate, wipe out, exterminate, raze, ruin, dismantle, eradicate, ravage and etc. It's creative and is easier to read.

It may boil down to personal choice then, I suppose. I don't think that the slight repetition changed the quality of the creativity.

 

[Yenzen]

Seems fine to me. I didn't find it repetitive.

I would think that getting out a thesaurus to actively avoid words of the same root, would make it seem forced? I'm not sure, but I think I would find that more irritating.

But to be serious, I don't think you're completely wrong in this specific case, because the repetitiveness was used in the quote to reflect back on the initial statement (that conflict is by nature destructive), in that it destroys both progress and fails to destroy unwanted behavior.

It would be more jarring if it was not used this way:

"She looked back upon the destruction of her homeworld, as the Blorg had left everything destroyed in their destructive invasion of the planet in the name of their particular form of destructive friendship."

 

[Koopatin]

Not 100% on topic but i once spoke to a friend of mine about such "word stuff". It is somehow very cultural if you like or don't like repetitive words. As Germans for example you would learn in school that it is almost a sin to be repetitive. Phrases can't start the same 2 times in a row. In the above example we would use 3 different words for "destroy" just because it is "right".

My friend now, was in Australia, writing some report. He was asked what the fuck all that words for the same fucking thing should do in there. Everybody would know what was meant. He should be more simple. Of course I can not speak for any Australians or English speakers for that matter but it seems to me it is very hard to speak about "correct" English through such barriers.

And yes... i am bored ^^

 

[beckermt]

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a ridiculous concept. It is by nature destructive; destroying what was to be obtained or giving room to grow that which was to be destroyed."

There I fixed it.

 

[moglus]

Also in rhetoric (as an academic field) the general rule of thumb is that if you are going to repeat something, do it thrice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)

 

[Sapidianus]

Also in rhetoric (as an academic field) the general rule of thumb is that if you are going to repeat something, do it thrice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)

Did you read your link? It's about using three concepts or synonymous/same words in one group, not about repeating the same root thrice. The description in question uses same root for an adjective, for a verb in present continious and a verb in simple past.

 

[moglus]

Did you read your link? It's about using three concepts or synonymous/same words in one group, not about repeating the same root thrice.

The same concept applies. Using the same root three times underlines its importance to the overall meaning of the quote in a way using synonyms would not, the same effect of being easier for the reader to remember due to repetition and rhythm also applies.
This is some extremely basic English Lit 101 stuff

 

[Sapidianus]

The same concept applies. Using the same root three times underlines its importance to the overall meaning of the quote in a way using synonyms would not, the same effect of being easier for the reader to remember due to repetition and rhythm also applies.
This is some extremely basic English Lit 101 stuff

If that was a pre-school book I would've agreed with you, but it isnt one. I believe that majority of Stellaris players are educated readers who do not need simplified English to understand information.

 

[moglus]

If that was a pre-school book I would've agreed with you, but it isnt one. I believe that majority of Stellaris players are educated readers who do not need simplified English to understand information.

"Simplified".....

The rule of three has nothing to do with "simplified english". It is a rhetorical device based off of what the human subconscious notices and remembers when reading a text. There is a reason this stuff is taught in English Lit 101, at university (not pre-school), because it is such a prevalent part of rhetoric and the entire written english language as a whole.

 

[Murmeldjuret]

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a ridiculous concept. It is by nature destructive, ruining what was to be obtained or giving room to grow that which was to be rooted out"

I mean regardless of what synonyms you use, it comes off as weird. Its a standard opposite contrast expression, and it actually will sound more coherent when using the same word.
They are saying it is destructive, because it destroys, which does make a whole lot of sense.

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a self-defeating ideal. It is by nature destructive, destroying what was to be obtained or obtaining that which was to be destroyed."

Now it is a more standard opposite contrast expression. I find it better.

Remember:
Repetition is not bad.
Big words are not better.
"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use." -Ernest Hemingway

Edit: Fixed spelling on repetition, slight irony ensued.

 

[Sapidianus]

"Simplified".....

The rule of three has nothing to do with "simplified english". It is a rhetorical device based off of what the human subconscious notices and remembers when reading a text. There is a reason this stuff is taught in English Lit 101, at university (not pre-school), because it is such a prevalent part of rhetoric and the entire written english language as a whole.

What we discuss isnt an example of rule of three, it doesnt carry a rythm and the only thing it makes you notice, is that it's the same root for three self-sufficient words. It's a simplified English, not a special technique to make it more comprehensible.

 

[moglus]

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use." -Ernest Hemingway

I have the strangest feeling of déjà vu...

 

[Murmeldjuret]

I have the strangest feeling of déjà vu...

Can't say his campaign has been ineffective.

The Hemingway quote is in response to:
Faulkner on Hemingway: "had never been known to use a word that might send the reader to the dictionary."

 

[Sapidianus]

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a self-defeating ideal. It is by nature destructive, destroying what was to be obtained or obtaining that which was to be destroyed."

Now this is a case of proper repetition, that has an effective constrast in it, but I'd add a minor change to make it perfect:

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a self-defeating ideal. It is by nature disruptive, destroying what was to be obtained or obtaining that which was to be destroyed."

 

[Smiles_]

"We come in peace."

While the militarists can have their's rewritten to say:
"We come for the pieces."


Smiles

 

[HighGain]

Like others, I think that the original pacifist ethos description is fine. However, I have my own immersion quirks that I might need the OP's or forum's help on to better articulate, improve, and possibly get inserted into the game. So, as a forum newbie, by thoughts for improvement on this subject...

Personally, I liked:

"Conflict as a mean to an end is a self-defeating ideal. It is by nature destructive, destroying what was to be obtained or obtaining that which was to be destroyed."

With a little imagination, I expanded for a more comprehensive description of our beloved pacifists:

"Through long lasting peace, a society will gain repeated explosions of progress, prosperity, and tranquility unattainable from the explosions of conflict. War is the truest enemy of civilization and the universe; destructive by nature, destroying what was to be gained or gaining the evils that were to be destroyed. War wrecks entire generations, as even those survivors that claim the victor's title are forever darkened, lost, and ruined in spirit. We must have peace. Peace today, peace tomorrow, peace forever!"

Just my cut...