Does he wear rings? He should.

I've beaten Calus on Xbox (thanks, guys), and I've gotten through rounds with over half damage on the PS4. (And for the record, I can't take all the blame for the wipes.)

Anyway, I'm not going to post an event because it's so tentative and I won't have much time tonight, but if any of your ringers (you know who you are) want to devote an hour to the cause beginning promptly at 9 EST, look for me. I have a checkpoint.

Destroyo and Kupkake sent me invites last night. Were you in that group? If so, I’m sorry. I was getting ready to walk out the door right when I got the messages otherwise I would have helped.

I should be around at that time tonight, send me an invite if you need help.

- No text -

- No text -

The Dawnblade strategy is my new default strat...

The Dawnblade strategy is my new default strat...

What's that?

The Dawnblade strategy is my new default strat...

What's that?

Running Dawnblade with Empowering Rift while wearing Starfire Protocol. Combine that with Heat Rises, and you can use it to grant you Empowering Rift on every single platform, giving your team a 30% damage boost throughought the entire damage phase. We had a quasi-accident due to miscommunication on platform order, and Calus's shield was blown too early, but we still dropped him in two phases.

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

The Dawnblade strategy is my new default strat...

What's that?

Running Dawnblade with Empowering Rift while wearing Starfire Protocol. Combine that with Heat Rises, and you can use it to grant you Empowering Rift on every single platform, giving your team a 30% damage boost throughought the entire damage phase. We had a quasi-accident due to miscommunication on platform order, and Calus's shield was blown too early, but we still dropped him in two phases.

A more detailed description.

- No text -

- No text -

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of. People stay inside the Shadow Realm, and others choose to go outside of the realm.

Inside does not necessarily mean "indoors". You can be inside the Bath House, or the Castellum, despite them both having an open sky. It's simple stuff... Then again, people were confused about something as simple as "Left Conflux" and "Right Conflux", even though they were labeled in plain English...

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of.

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of.

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

You are teleported from one realm to another. The Shadow World is not the natural realm. You couldn't just walk out of it and head home, so for all intents and purposes, you are trapped inside of it. You can get out of that realm back to the real world. Whether you are transported to the walled Throne Room or an island in the middle of the ocean is irrelevant. You are now outside of the unnatural Shadow realm.

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

Look at the Vault of Glass. "Inside" was a point in time, not a place. You got "out" of the past or the future to rejoin your team in the current point in time. Everyone always said that they were "coming inside" during the challenge, or "headed out" when they were leaving.

Inside is a place, yes. But it's a place in relation to another, not to how much ceiling you can see. There is an outside. Both can have equal amounts of open sky (being "inside" or "outside" of city limits can have pretty identical surroundings). Speed's entire argument revolved around seeing the Sky in the Shadow Realm, which may simply be a screen displaying a sky.

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of.

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

You are teleported from one realm to another. The Shadow World is not the natural realm. You couldn't just walk out of it and head home, so for all intents and purposes, you are trapped inside of it. You can get out of that realm back to the real world. Whether you are transported to the walled Throne Room or an island in the middle of the ocean is irrelevant. You are now outside of the unnatural Shadow realm.

Wait, you know this... how? (I mean, MY experience with the Shadow Realm is confined to a single encounter in the Calus raid... do you have more info that I'm not aware of?)

For what it's worth, how do we even know what it's called, officially? (I'm not saying 'Shadow Realm' isn't official - I'm asking a serious question about where this terminology came from.)

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

Look at the Vault of Glass. "Inside" was a point in time, not a place. You got "out" of the past or the future to rejoin your team in the current point in time. Everyone always said that they were "coming inside" during the challenge, or "headed out" when they were leaving.

Heh. You did, certainly. I've played with tons of groups that did no such thing.

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of.

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

You are teleported from one realm to another. The Shadow World is not the natural realm. You couldn't just walk out of it and head home, so for all intents and purposes, you are trapped inside of it. You can get out of that realm back to the real world. Whether you are transported to the walled Throne Room or an island in the middle of the ocean is irrelevant. You are now outside of the unnatural Shadow realm.

Wait, you know this... how? (I mean, MY experience with the Shadow Realm is confined to a single encounter in the Calus raid... do you have more info that I'm not aware of?)

For one, I doubt a giant floating head that vomits skulls is something that exists in the real world. We can deduce that this is something made by the Psions (specifically Calus' Counselors), especially since you only encounter Psions inside the Shadow Realm.
I always assumed it was some technological doohickey, much like the way Psion Flayers can transport themselves into the digital systems (it's how they hacked Rasputin in the Dust Palace), I assume the Counselors are magnitudes more powerful, and able to transport Guardians themselves.

For what it's worth, how do we even know what it's called, officially? (I'm not saying 'Shadow Realm' isn't official - I'm asking a serious question about where this terminology came from.)

I think it's a common term for a demiplane that has a dark version of our world. I've always heard it called that, and a quick Google shows that everybody calls it this, though I'm not sure if Bungie's ever called it that themselves.
As for where the terminology originated from, I dunno. You'll have to ask a nerdier guy than I am, likely started as a DnD thing.

I'll have to do a better job of reading text in the game, but I can be persuaded to change my terminology.

Can I just say that I love this raid? I love the taunts, and dropping into the room of robotic Caluses cracked me up the first time. Ask breitzen. The underbelly adds another layer of interest, but I feel like I've just scratched the surface of that.

I also appreciate the rotation week and week, and the opportunity this gives casual players more opportunities to experience most of the raid.

Great job, Bungie.

Edit: is that joke too obtuse?

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

I really have to disagree?

The issue is you can be fairly said to be inside when in either position; my group worked that out pretty easily, and made a bunch of joking names before going with Throne Room and variations on Shadow Realm, Nega-Zone, Dark World. And also still slipping up and saying inside for both positions.

See, here's the issue. You can use "inside" and "outside" as words synonymous with "indoors" and "outdoors". But this isn't the only way you can use them? Not even the most common way! That most common way is in reference to a specific thing.

I mean, you're inside a town or village or city or something, inside a country, inside a solar system, right now, aren't you? You're within the boundaries of a space, whether those boundaries are manmade or physical barriers at all.

So without context on "I'm inside", people will supply their own. They might think "Oh, they're indoors", but they also might think "Oh, they're inside [the throne room]" or "Oh, they're inside [the crazy dimension we all got teleported into]". So it's just a bad callout unless you get everyone on the same page about it.

Also, um, the direction you enter a thing (up, down, whatever) has nothing to do with if you're inside of a thing. Inside isn't a direction, but it's not just a place. It's a relative spacial quality, or, more simply, it's a thing you can be in relation to a space. If you parachute down to the forest floor from a plane, you are now inside of the forest.

Forgive me if I'm explaining the obvious, but I'm feeling about as confused as you guys are saying you're confused by people using inside for things that aren't indoors.

- No text -

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

I really have to disagree?

I mean, you're inside a town or village or city or something, inside a country, inside a solar system, right now, aren't you? You're within the boundaries of a space, whether those boundaries are manmade or physical barriers at all.

I really have to disagree?

I have never said or heard anyone say "inside" in conjunction with any of your examples. "inside" implies actual and obvious boundaries--a confined place, walls, ceiling, etc. That's what the sides are. What confused me about hearing the void described as "inside" was that we were going from a place that had obvious boundaries to a place that has no obvious boundaries. Intuitively, the throne room is inside, and the void may have boundaries, but we can't see them. Intuitively, it's outside.

That's... strange? I honestly can't explain how weird this is? Or how to progress, because this is my basic understanding of a whole concept up against what seems to be yours?

It's... bizarre?

I have heard it used in those contexts, so I've really got nothing. Is it a generational or regional thing? That seems, strange. But I don't know what else it could be? Normally I would assume I'm just the weird one, because I am about a lot of linguistic things, but uh- I've seen this so much, from other people, that it can't be.

I've, really got nothing, other than that it's still worthless as a callout since different people think it means different things.

For what it's worth, I ran a little thought experiment with a friend of mine, who hasn't played Destiny, that went something like this, if you'll excuse the IM formatting:

"Hypothetical question:
You start in space
You then travel to a gigantic space catfish, large enough to devour planets
And enter the palace built atop it
You navigate through the palace, and come to a massive set of doors
Past them, which close behind you, is a lavish, opulent throne room, built as a dome
A very porculent space rhino greets you
He claps his hands, and you find yourself transported to a strange new realm
Eerie and disjointed and kind of purple tinted
A large stone path extends forward, towards a giant spectral space rhino head floating in the void
The void is on all sides of the path, even below, seemingly carrying on forever
You find a glowing orb
It takes you back to the throne room
The porculent space rhino waves you off, and you are escorted to the other side of the massive doors
You then hear a voice, fraught with concern and panic
It seems to be coming from somewhere else, but you can't place it, as it echoes around
But it's saying "Help! I'm inside!"
So the question is,
Where do you think it's coming from, the throne room or the void?"

Obviously hardly scientific, and with a sample size of one, but they actually said the void. And without prompting explained, quote, "You're in the void, in = inside", so uh.

That's a thing?

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

I really have to disagree?

I mean, you're inside a town or village or city or something, inside a country, inside a solar system, right now, aren't you? You're within the boundaries of a space, whether those boundaries are manmade or physical barriers at all.

I really have to disagree?

I have never said or heard anyone say "inside" in conjunction with any of your examples. "inside" implies actual and obvious boundaries--a confined place, walls, ceiling, etc. That's what the sides are. What confused me about hearing the void described as "inside" was that we were going from a place that had obvious boundaries to a place that has no obvious boundaries. Intuitively, the throne room is inside, and the void may have boundaries, but we can't see them. Intuitively, it's outside.

Inside does imply boundaries, with relation to something outside of those boundaries.

If you play Footbaw, you must remain inside of the field of play. "But the field doesn't have any walls or ceiling!" That's right, that means it's outdoors, which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It's all about the predefined space that you are in as a player. There are no walls, but there is a defined space that you are contained in.

If you're in a line, and you stand outside of the line, you may lose your place in line. Is the line indoors? Outdoors? Doesn't matter. It has a defined space of containment in regards to the space outside of the line. You didn't start inside of the line, you had to get into the line. So if you get back out, you are outside of the defined line.

Say that you are inside of a house. You are indoors. Now say that someone climbs inside of a box. In relation to them, you are outside of the box. They are trapped within a limited environment, even if the inside of the box has a painting of the sky, they are inside, and you are outside. The Shadow world is a pocket of space that you go into from the real world. It is the box. The fact that the house has walls and a ceiling has nothing to do with the fact that it is outside of the box, because Inside and outside relates to a space in relation to a different space with defined boundaries that don't have to be physical.

The Shadow World has a limit to where you can go. It is a contained space in regards to the entire rest of the raid. When you are pulled into it, you have to get back out of it.

That's... strange? I honestly can't explain how weird this is? Or how to progress, because this is my basic understanding of a whole concept up against what seems to be yours?

It's... bizarre?

It truly is. You and people you know say ....

I'm inside the town.

I'm inside the village.

I'm inside the city.

I'm inside the country.

I'm inside the solar system.

I'm incredulous. If this is really true, then I have bad news for you. We now know that you and your tribe are aliens. Your cover is blown.

That's... strange? I honestly can't explain how weird this is? Or how to progress, because this is my basic understanding of a whole concept up against what seems to be yours?

It's... bizarre?

It truly is. You and people you know say ....

I'm inside the town.

I'm inside the village.

I'm inside the city.

I'm inside the country.

I'm inside the solar system.

I'm incredulous. If this is really true, then I have bad news for you. We now know that you and your tribe are aliens. Your cover is blown.

I googled this (a common tactic when researching terminology, which is not outside the realm of my professional responsibilities).

"I am in the town" -- 3,340,000 hits.

"I am inside the town" -- three, count 'em, THREE hits.

"I am in the town" -- 3,340,000 hits.

"I am inside the town" -- three, count 'em, THREE hits.

Google: "I am inside the town" -- "About 190,000,000 results (0.75 seconds)"

Are you asking Jeeves, man?

"I am in the town" -- 3,340,000 hits.

"I am inside the town" -- three, count 'em, THREE hits.

Google: "I am inside the town" -- "About 190,000,000 results (0.75 seconds)"

Are you asking Jeeves, man?

You're clearly searching without the quotes. And Kermit is clearly searching WITH them.

"I am inside the town"

is not the same search as

I am inside the town

- No text -

I did a verbatim search, which yielded 166 million results. the problem is that "In the town" and "Inside the town" are two completely different contexts, so if you search with quotations, you're filtering an exact phrase. Nobody says "I'm inside town this weekend", which is why he has so few results that way. If that's the argument that Kermit is making, then yes, nobody says that, but I think he's totally misunderstanding the point, as astoundingly simple as it is, I think.

We're talking about inside and outside as prepositions. That's it. If he's unfamiliar with those specific uses of the words outside of them being interchangeable with "indoors" and "outdoors", then that's where the misunderstanding lies.

I'll grant that I say "I'm in the town" much more than I say "I'm inside the town", (although I would probably say either say "I'm in town" or "I'm inside of the town", for what that's worth) but that's because in is a shorter word that means the same thing in this context?

I would say that I am in Kent, right now. But I would not deny that I'm inside of it! And I would say I'm inside the township limits. I am inside the continental United States, right now.

I am inside the town, because I am in the town. Whenever you are in a space, you are inside the boundaries of the space. We just talk more about the space than the boundaries, and in is a shorter word. But if I walked into the space from outside, I would say I'd walked inside the space. Regardless, it's not about which word choice is more popular, it's about whether mine makes sense. And I can't see how it doesn't?

Besides, all the google hits argument answers is that people don't talk about being "inside the [generic location]"; but I don't think that's because inside doesn't work that way, I think that's because that's clunky as all get out? A search for "inside of town" gets fourteen million hits. Even if some of those are "inside of town hall" or some other building reference, I think that's enough of a counterargument?

There are twenty eight million hits for "inside the forest" (and nineteen million for "inside of the forest"), and two hundred ninety nine million for "inside the field". 562 million for "inside of the field"! While "in the field" only has 383 million. That's catching some things like baseball fields, of course, but those are usually open to the sky, and only sometimes have walls around them.

Let me put it this way; if we're in an endless desert, and I draw a circle in the sand, and stand in it, and say "I'm inside this circle", are you really going to tell me that I'm wrong? That I'm outside the circle, or that the circle has no sides? No. Now let's say I don't draw a circle. Let's say I'm just standing there, in the same desert, and another person gets a little too close. I might say "Hey, you're inside of my personal space", despite there being no clear external boundary. Are you going to tell me I'm wrong then? Well, if you do, had I said "Hey, you're in my personal space", would that be wrong? Why not? It's implying there's an in and an out just as much, and since it's some kind of space around me, that must mean there's an inside and an outside of that space!

So now you can circle around to "But Raichu, we're just saying, nobody really talks like that", which is fair. But now we've established that things in spaces must be inside of those spaces, logically, right? So then if there is a context where saying in is clunky- people say "I'm inside" more often than they say "I'm in" when they're not infiltrating something- so since I can say I am in the Shadow Realm, if I want to quickly state that, I could say "I'm inside", with context there to indicate what I'm inside of.

The problem isn't saying "I'm inside an open area", it's trying to let context fill the gap when there just isn't enough context! Context clues could point to that meaning "I'm inside the Shadow Realm", but they could also possibly point to "I'm inside the throne room" or "I'm indoors". So just saying "I'm inside" could mean any of those things, because you could be inside another dimension, or inside a room, or inside as in just inside like indoors, and you would be correct in saying you're inside, but it just doesn't offer enough context to tell which.

Trying to arbitrarily limit where it's appropriate to say you're inside just strikes me as ridiculous, and bound to fail? We're not going to agree on a rule, because that wouldn't make sense; we could agree on a convention, like "Without context, presume inside means inside the throne room", and you can argue all you like which convention is better, but, you won't be able to show that one of them doesn't make sense? If somebody asked if I was inside the shadow realm, would that strike you as talking like an alien?

Because using inside to mean indoors, and also like a preposition, but only that preposition when you are indoors sounds more ridiculous to me.

I asked another person the experiment thing, by the way, this time having the voice come through a radio to try and eliminate a potential spot of bias. And they also said the void?

I feel like maybe I should bow out of this, because I don't know what more I can say? And it doesn't feel pleasant. I'm worried about coming off as an ass, and it's not really that great to have to defend a concept that's just basic to me against forms of criticism that feel unfair? Which is probably my fault for how I put things to begin with, but, bleh.

As for the rest of you, you should all be ashamed.

I did a verbatim search, which yielded 166 million results. the problem is that "In the town" and "Inside the town" are two completely different contexts, so if you search with quotations, you're filtering an exact phrase. Nobody says "I'm inside town this weekend", which is why he has so few results that way. If that's the argument that Kermit is making, then yes, nobody says that, but I think he's totally misunderstanding the point, as astoundingly simple as it is, I think.

We're talking about inside and outside as prepositions. That's it. If he's unfamiliar with those specific uses of the words outside of them being interchangeable with "indoors" and "outdoors", then that's where the misunderstanding lies.

You're responding to a conversation between him and RaichuKFM which discussed the usage of exactly that phraseology. Not the concept, but the word choice. Kermit has misunderstood nothing here.

The basic issue is this:

This thread proves how confusing the phrase "I'm inside" is, when you're actually participating in the Calus raid. Whether you can prove that your phrase is grammatically correct (or even common) is irrelevant - NOBODY SHOULD BE USING THE PHRASE "I'M INSIDE" WHEN PARTICIPATING IN THE FINAL ENCOUNTER OF THE CALUS RAID, BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEAR.

This is as stupid as the 'Mars/Venus/Green/Brown/Past/Future" argument on VoG - teams with common sense (and ANY new players at all) settled on 'Left/Right' (sometimes with the clarification of 'while looking at Atheon', to avoid the Templar issues) just because anything else generated unnecessary frustration. "Inside/Outside" here generates exactly the same unnecessary frustration, so why not just not use those words?

(Okay, I'm talking to the biggest troll on DBO, so that last was a dumb question. But in general, for most people... why not just not use those words?)

Okay, I'm talking to the biggest troll on DBO

This is as stupid as the 'Mars/Venus/Green/Brown/Past/Future" argument on VoG - teams with common sense (and ANY new players at all) settled on 'Left/Right' (sometimes with the clarification of 'while looking at Atheon', to avoid the Templar issues) just because anything else generated unnecessary frustration. "Inside/Outside" here generates exactly the same unnecessary frustration, so why not just not use those words?

I get what you're saying, though if we were to nitpick, anyone who used the term "Mars and Venus" was being factually incorrect, and defending that made people sound flat-out stupid, since anyone with at least one functioning eye could tell that they were in the same room on Venus at different points in time...
But that's neither here nor there, I guess, since three years never seemed to help people agree to a single term (which was made worse by the fact that you never had to call anything out, since your Radar always told you where people were being teleported to).

I guess if we turn back to Google (even with quotations, hork hork!), it seems like the widely accepted term for the Shadow Realm is "Inside". But yeah, if we want to hand-hold people who find fancy terms like that scary, we can just call it Throne and Shadow, just for them.

For the record, from the start my argument has been "They both make sense, so it's unclear and thus a worthless callout". I was going to apologize if that was unclear, but I looked back and saw that was pretty clear. I don't know what Kermit's position is, I suppose, but I don't think anyone is arguing that inside/outside should be used; it's just over whether one use of them is legitimate or not.

As far as Atheon went, I think it's possible for any of the callouts to work? As long as everyone is on the same page. I don't know, I generally found myself in groups using Past and Future, if I remember correctly, and I only played the Vault after The Dark Below came out. Unlike Calus, where Inside/Outside is ambiguous, all of the callouts in Atheon are very clear (although Mars/Venus is wrong) and it's simply a question of whether you want the away team to work out which color is on what side, or the remaining team. Since teams are chosen randomly, it's kind of moot, but it's a thing; if somebody says a description immediately, one of the other three might be able to immediately say the correct side, even if everybody there somehow blanked. I dunno. Or am I misremembering some cue as to the side you're on from within the other location? (Oh, right, there's the radar; and also the possibility people trip up right vs. left, since the two teams are facing in opposite directions. That's the thing, it just matters that a callout gets everyone on the same page; however reasonable a case you can make for a callout, if people in that group trip over it, that doesn't really matter. And even if a callout doesn't make sense, or is wrong, if it gets everyone on the same page, it's doing its job? So there's not going to be any One True Answer, it's a thing that will vary depending on people, even if there's a thing that generally works best.)

But the "any team with common sense" thing, and Korny's being Korny, is the kind of stuff that's putting me off of this conversation. I guess I didn't have common sense at all, just how like taking a while to figure out that it can be a bad thing to hold A on Shores of Time meant I was playing high, or whatever other "Everybody using this forum and working out the systems has generally agreed on this thing, and it's better, so anyone who just went with the simplest route without thinking that hard about it is an idiot" digs that go around occasionally.

Not that it's a big deal, or that I'm trying to say you were being a dick or anything for it, they're just the kind of things that turn me off of a conversation. Because I feel for people that make a stupid mistake despite not being idiots, even when I'm not one of them.

Apologies for any offense. This issue is a sore point for me because I didn't start playing VoG until long after everyone was comfortable with it. (I think my first run-through was at the end of 2015.) You say 'past/future or brown/green are "very clear"... but they're only clear to people who've actually gone there. The first few times I ran it, I wasn't ever teleported. Folks would say "brown" or "past" or whatever... and I'd stand there like an idiot, not knowing where to go. (Of course I asked, the first time. And the second. I was made fun of both times I asked, so I stopped asking. I just waited until the other two non-teleported folks went somewhere, and I followed. But this led to trouble - usually getting blown up by a Supplicant, because I wasn't in the right place.)

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I didn't ever notice that the away team showed up on the radar; I learned that today. (I've cleared Atheon dozens of times.) I bet I'm not the only one, though.

I've seen similar confusion over the sisters in Oryx, and many other places in raids where jobs are split into two groups.

The VAST majority of groups I've raided with have minimal patience for new people. Almost all of them are willing to walk someone through what they need to know the first time, but get progressively shorter after that as mistakes are made. (Chappy's groups are a standout set of exceptions.) So to me, it matters a lot that callouts are unambiguous. Saying "I'm going inside" during the Calus fight doesn't tell me ANYTHING - so it shouldn't be used.

I guess that was my real point. I'll try and stay away from personal insults when making those.

I think I'm the one that triggered Kermit because I said "inside" when referencing the shadow realm, as in meaning "inside the realm". RaichuKFM is right. I've heard all of those examples and use many of them. "I live inside city limits" is another good example.

Apologies for any offense. This issue is a sore point for me because I didn't start playing VoG until long after everyone was comfortable with it. (I think my first run-through was at the end of 2015.) You say 'past/future or brown/green are "very clear"... but they're only clear to people who've actually gone there. The first few times I ran it, I wasn't ever teleported. Folks would say "brown" or "past" or whatever... and I'd stand there like an idiot, not knowing where to go. (Of course I asked, the first time. And the second. I was made fun of both times I asked, so I stopped asking. I just waited until the other two non-teleported folks went somewhere, and I followed. But this led to trouble - usually getting blown up by a Supplicant, because I wasn't in the right place.)

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I didn't ever notice that the away team showed up on the radar; I learned that today. (I've cleared Atheon dozens of times.) I bet I'm not the only one, though.

The main thing that frustrated me with that part is that people relied on the callouts. I think it was the 4th or 5th time that someone told me that you can look at the radar to figure it out, and then I never ever asked for a callout. Rather than arguing over what the correct callouts were I wish everyone had taught everyone "oh yeah and if you don't know the callouts, just look at the radar." Would've pretty much stopped all arguments about callouts.

Oh! I actually didn't consider that case. I suppose I've just had good luck, by contrast.

But yeah, you're right, those callouts don't work as well for people who don't know what's going on. I honestly hadn't thought of that, sorry.

Really just more evidence that how useful callouts are depends on what works for the group, not some measure of objective correctness.

And for what it's worth, I never noticed the radar either, until someone pointed it out on the forum. I just saw a post about it a long time ago.

I still don't know which side is which, even after running the VoG a couple dozen times. Unless people say right or left, I don't know which side future or past is on. Even though I'm comfortable with the encounter, I never played it regularly enough to know off the top of my head which is on each side.

I think I'm the one that triggered Kermit because I said "inside" when referencing the shadow realm, as in meaning "inside the realm". RaichuKFM is right. I've heard all of those examples and use many of them. "I live inside city limits" is another good example.

Inside can logically and equally refer to the Shadow Realm or the Throne Room. The biggest takeaway from all of this for me is to just go over the callouts beforehand if you're raiding with someone you haven't before.

When we ran it a few weeks ago and played with someone new, we weren't exactly clear about the strategy for the Royal Pools. One of the guys that the team hadn't raided with before knew the strategy, but his crew had always done front or back rather than right and left sides, and we made it ridiculously far into the encounter without the chains locking before we actually figured out what the hell was going on and where the confusion came from. We clarified and cleared it on the next try, I think, but all too often stupid little things like that can turn an enjoyable experience into an exercise in frustration really quickly.

So just go over the strategy and callouts quickly before the encounter, just to make sure everyone's on the same page.

This is as stupid as the 'Mars/Venus/Green/Brown/Past/Future" argument on VoG - teams with common sense (and ANY new players at all) settled on 'Left/Right' (sometimes with the clarification of 'while looking at Atheon', to avoid the Templar issues) just because anything else generated unnecessary frustration. "Inside/Outside" here generates exactly the same unnecessary frustration, so why not just not use those words?

I get what you're saying, though if we were to nitpick, anyone who used the term "Mars and Venus" was being factually incorrect, and defending that made people sound flat-out stupid, since anyone with at least one functioning eye could tell that they were in the same room on Venus at different points in time...

Beside the point entirely. Using Mars/Venus or even Red/Green is the fastest way of communicating the information as received (although it slightly slows the decoding on the other end). Its continued use was not meant to assert that the players have actually been transported to Venus, but rather a shorthand for saying "we're in the environment that looks like Venus, or in the one that looks like Mars".

The idea that every Raid callout needs to be canon-safe is silly.

Using left/right is nearly as good, but it slows down the encoding slightly. You have to look at the environment and then remember which side that corresponds to. And then the people hearing the answer "left" or "right" need to make sure they are properly oriented to decode that and translate it into action. But since they can't start decoding the information until they get it, it makes sense to try an minimize the delay on the encoding side, by giving the person making the callout as simple as possible a connection between what they are seeing and the information they have to relay.

The idea that every Raid callout needs to be canon-safe is silly.

Disagree. :)

I'll grant that I say "I'm in the town" much more than I say "I'm inside the town", (although I would probably say either say "I'm in town" or "I'm inside of the town", for what that's worth) but that's because in is a shorter word that means the same thing in this context?

Wow, RaichuKFM, so many words. You need an editor. It just so happens I am a seasoned professional editor in real life. Those words don't mean precisely the same thing. They mean approximately the same thing, but as your editor I would ask, why are you saying "inside the town"? That's awkward. Sure, the reader might understand what you mean, but they would likely be stopped by your word choice. You don't want people stopped because you unnecessarily abandoned the common usage of a word. Now if the conditions of your parole required that you stay inside the city limits (blue's example), and your parole officer is accusing you of breaking that condition, you might point at the city limit sign and say "I'm inside the city limits." That usage of "inside" is a good fit because you're drawing attention not just to your location (in the city) but you're location relative to the boundaries of your location. You're emphasizing important information.

I would say that I am in Kent, right now. But I would not deny that I'm inside of it! And I would say I'm inside the township limits. I am inside the continental United States, right now.

I never said you were wrong. I said this wasn't common usage. Common usage is important when clear and efficient communication is the goal.

I am inside the town, because I am in the town. Whenever you are in a space, you are inside the boundaries of the space. We just talk more about the space than the boundaries, and in is a shorter word. But if I walked into the space from outside, I would say I'd walked inside the space. Regardless, it's not about which word choice is more popular, it's about whether mine makes sense. And I can't see how it doesn't?

It can be about which word choice is more popular because the more popular word choice is more likely to be understood without confusing anyone.

Besides, all the google hits argument answers is that people don't talk about being "inside the [generic location]"; but I don't think that's because inside doesn't work that way, I think that's because that's clunky as all get out? A search for "inside of town" gets fourteen million hits. Even if some of those are "inside of town hall" or some other building reference, I think that's enough of a counterargument?

Nope. Flawed methodology. There are million storie--er, structures in the city, and you could be inside any of them and they would be called the town _____.

There are twenty eight million hits for "inside the forest" (and nineteen million for "inside of the forest"), and two hundred ninety nine million for "inside the field". 562 million for "inside of the field"! While "in the field" only has 383 million. That's catching some things like baseball fields, of course, but those are usually open to the sky, and only sometimes have walls around them.

Look at them though. In how many of them does forest serve as adjective for words like "service" or again, draw attention to a boundary ("inside the forest boundary")? (By the way, one of the three "I am inside the town" search hits was "I am inside the town limits.") In many of these search results the unspoken subject is "ecosystem." The emphasis is on forest as bounded place. Such usage does not mean it's just as clear to say "I'm going for a walk inside the forest" as it is to say "I'm going for a walk in the forest."

Let me put it this way; if we're in an endless desert, and I draw a circle in the sand, and stand in it, and say "I'm inside this circle", are you really going to tell me that I'm wrong? That I'm outside the circle, or that the circle has no sides? No. Now let's say I don't draw a circle. Let's say I'm just standing there, in the same desert, and another person gets a little too close. I might say "Hey, you're inside of my personal space", despite there being no clear external boundary. Are you going to tell me I'm wrong then? Well, if you do, had I said "Hey, you're in my personal space", would that be wrong? Why not? It's implying there's an in and an out just as much, and since it's some kind of space around me, that must mean there's an inside and an outside of that space!

Again, I never said you were wrong. Your example of the circle in the sand is actually perfect and "inside" is the ideal word choice there because you're emphasizing the boundary. Your other example: "You're inside my personal space"? I'd question your word choice. People don't generally say that. They say "you're in my personal space."

So now you can circle around to "But Raichu, we're just saying, nobody really talks like that", which is fair. But now we've established that things in spaces must be inside of those spaces, logically, right? So then if there is a context where saying in is clunky- people say "I'm inside" more often than they say "I'm in" when they're not infiltrating something- so since I can say I am in the Shadow Realm, if I want to quickly state that, I could say "I'm inside", with context there to indicate what I'm inside of.

The problem isn't saying "I'm inside an open area", it's trying to let context fill the gap when there just isn't enough context! Context clues could point to that meaning "I'm inside the Shadow Realm", but they could also possibly point to "I'm inside the throne room" or "I'm indoors". So just saying "I'm inside" could mean any of those things, because you could be inside another dimension, or inside a room, or inside as in just inside like indoors, and you would be correct in saying you're inside, but it just doesn't offer enough context to tell which.

Your mental model of the void area may well be different than mine. I still not sure what it's supposed to be called. Just in terms of my experience of that final fight, though, I'm inside what is clearly a room and then I'm not in the room, and the area I'm in seems to have no boundaries. To MY mind is the room is inside if anything is. It's that simple. So when someone says "I'll go inside" before the encounter starts, it's confusing. You're already here, dude.

Trying to arbitrarily limit where it's appropriate to say you're inside just strikes me as ridiculous, and bound to fail? We're not going to agree on a rule, because that wouldn't make sense; we could agree on a convention, like "Without context, presume inside means inside the throne room", and you can argue all you like which convention is better, but, you won't be able to show that one of them doesn't make sense? If somebody asked if I was inside the shadow realm, would that strike you as talking like an alien?

Maybe an ESL student. ;)

We've established that "inside" is confusing. Maybe your usage is less confusing if you're very familiar with the concept of being inside a shadow realm, whatever that is. On the other hand, most of us have tons of experience being inside rooms. Language (especially English) is idiomatic. Good communication often relies on making choices that are most likely to be clearly understood by the most people, so on some level, it is a popularity contest.

Because using inside to mean indoors, and also like a preposition, but only that preposition when you are indoors sounds more ridiculous to me.

Because inside can mean either it makes sense to me to use it only where no one can deny you're inside in both senses of the word (the throne room). Seriously, though, I'm okay with never using "inside" without an identified subject.

I asked another person the experiment thing, by the way, this time having the voice come through a radio to try and eliminate a potential spot of bias. And they also said the void?

The only good experiment I can think of is to take someone through that part of the game. Turn off the TV and ask, "Someone says, 'I'm inside.' Where are they?" I bet most would say in the room.

I feel like maybe I should bow out of this, because I don't know what more I can say? And it doesn't feel pleasant. I'm worried about coming off as an ass, and it's not really that great to have to defend a concept that's just basic to me against forms of criticism that feel unfair? Which is probably my fault for how I put things to begin with, but, bleh.

I'm so sorry you feel this way. I get paid to have these kinds of discussions all day, and I kind of like it.

I love the concept of "encoding lag." This is a good way to describe the problem I talk about often at work--how the way we present material requires readers to think more than they should need to.

I feel like this got sidetracked by conflating my attempt to argue that the usage of inside can be factually true even when there is no physical boundary, with how I use inside. (Which is my fault, really.) And yeah, I don't say inside without a subject, in the Calus fight. That hasn't ever been the argument, no.

I just don't see why "I am inside the Shadow Realm" is somehow less sensible than "I am in the Shadow Realm"; it sounds like it just comes down to "It's a little clunky to say inside when you can just say "in"; which is then turned on its head in the Calus fight, where you're announcing, "I'm inside". If you said "I'm in", it would to me sound like you had just entered a place, whereas inside means you're inside of something. So if you can be said to be inside of an area when you are in that area, even if it's clunky, if you find yourself in a position where it would be clunky to say in, then inside makes sense.

I don't really care about which is common usage and I don't understand how "I'm going for a walk inside the forest" could possibly be confusing?

When does in, when in reference to whether you are in or out of an area, not mean the same thing as inside?

If you think it's clunky, that's fine, but at the start it seemed like you thought it didn't make sense. That you didn't understand how it could.

But you actually get it, you just think it's odd, and suboptimal.

Which is completely different?

I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned, the in/inside distinction is weird, because to me the very act of defining a space is necessarily defining a delineation of the space? You might not know exactly where to draw a line, but by defining some spaces that are in, and some spaces that are out, you have made a boundary, around a shape, and thus, necessarily, an inside, and an outside. So, when you don't have ambiguity about where you're talking about, inside shouldn't ever be ambiguous or unclear, if in wouldn't be?

It might be weird, I just find it odd that it should be considerably weird, and not just a little odd.

It's really simple to me. Inside implies being in a confined space. In implies being in an open space. That open space can still have boundaries but by using "in" you're putting emphasis on your location rather than your location relative to the boundaries of the location. Inside can also be a synonym for indoors.

You may not care about common usage but it greatly affects readability, which isn't about whether something makes sense and is about how easily words can be read and understood. You can say you're going for a walk inside the forest and be understood, but you may not be pegged as a native English speaker. :)

You're trying to apply a sense of logic to the usage, which won't work.

If we examine the difference between in and inside etymologically, you'll note that in is a pre historic English word, whereas inside is modern and its prepositional usage comes about in reference to the noun, the IN side, versus the OUT side, implying a border. This is irrelevant, but I am surprised nobody made the argument based on history. Good for you people.

You've also tried to employ Grice's maxims of Quantity and Manner. These explain your confusion, as you think that saying inside is necessarily more specific than in, which is true.

The maxims are rules of communication that every speaker assumes his interlocutor follows by default. The maxim of quantity states that people give as much information as needed, and no more. The maxim of manner states that one avoids ambiguity.

Example: you call your friend on the phone. "I'm on your street, but what's your address?" "123 Sesame Street, Crossville, Tennessee."

This is a weird answer and you think he thinks you're in the wrong city because he shouldn't have needed to state so much info if you're on his street.

"What does it look like?" "It's lovely"

This is weird because the information is not helpful and it's ambiguous.

When people violate these maxims (among a few others), they are either being deceptive or don't understand them, which means they are awkward conversationally.

Now, who is to say that inside versus in violates these maxims? Easy. We all can, using set theory and native speaker intuition.

If {x|inside} ⊂ {x|in}, then we can say that the set of all things inside are contained in the set of all things that are in, and the set of all things that are in are NOT contained in the set of things that are inside.

I think most of us would agree. You can be in the groove, but not inside the groove. These mean different things. You can color inside the lines, and in the lines, and while in the lines is uncommon, it isn't wrong.

Hence, saying inside is necessarily more specific than in, implying extra information which confuses the other person, as he infers it to rule out all things that are in but not inside, and even borderline cases, as interlocutors with the goal of information exchange would not provide the extra information unless necessary in this case.

Some may actually disagree, and say that the set of all things that are inside has the same members as the set of all things that are in. In this case, which is what I think Raichu is arguing, there is no meaningful distinction between the two, that all things that are in are also inside and vice versa.

There is no logic in this. We have native speaker intuition on the meanings of inside versus in. If Raichu thinks they mean the same thing, he either lacks some kind of way of picking up language subtleties, can't follow the maxims (we all know someone like this), or exhibits a fundamental semantic shift in the meaning of inside, which is possible, even in as short of a time as we've been around (examine the change of "ground zero" to mean the origin point from which something has spread, for example).

Either way, the argument is useless and Raichu's ideas cannot be changed, as he either disagrees with the definition (against which one cannot reasonably argue at this level of subtlety) or doesn't follow conversational maxims (which are innate to most of us, and are nigh impossible to learn).

This is incontrovertible proof that the canonically wrong callouts are practically superior.

- No text -

We raided together and my first instinct was to refer to the shadow realm as inside because I conceptualized it as in his mind. I had no idea of a shadow realm concept. To me, inside was perfectly intelligible. That being said, I totally understand how that was confusing to you. In this case, our own context (what we bring to the table and how that builds our perceptions) really has an impact on what “makes sense.” What makes sense is not universally apparent in this scenario and your retreat to “common usage” feels out of place in a raid place where people are building concepts as a problem solving tool. I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the sense that because it doesn’t make sense to you, you’re suggesting the usage as wrong. Our team encountered this confusion and found those descriptions unhelpful, but I would not fault any team for using whichever choice if it was immediately recognizable to the whole group.

It's really simple to me. Inside implies being in a confined space. In implies being in an open space. That open space can still have boundaries but by using "in" you're putting emphasis on your location rather than your location relative to the boundaries of the location.

I think you have a predilection for what "inside" means, and it's probably why it's so confusing to me how badly you've been missing the point (no offense, of course). Indoors does mean inside (because indoors is relative to being outside of those doors), but inside does not inherently mean indoors.

You may not care about common usage but it greatly affects readability, which isn't about whether something makes sense and is about how easily words can be read and understood. You can say you're going for a walk inside the forest and be understood, but you may not be pegged as a native English speaker. :)

See that's where it's weird. I'm not a native English speaker, but I also don't feel like I need to be a "professional MLG writer" to understand such a simple concept.

If someone says "I'm going to be in the forest", then obviously he will be in the forest. If he says "I'm going to be inside the forest", then obviously he will be located somewhere within the confines of that forest. I don't need giant walls put up around the forest, or a bright crayon line circling the forest to understand where he will be relative to the forest's border (hint: within the area considered "forest"). There does not have to be a visible thing for it to be contained within to understand that he is giving a point relative to another point that could be considered "outside" of the established area.

Would I wonder why he said that he'd be inside, instead of in? No, and you likely wouldn't either. Case in point, When Speed was insisting that the Shadow Realm that he was in was "Outside", and he inevitably screwed up, I deliberately asked "Inside team, what are you doing wrong?" and he immediately started making his patented excuses. Even his brain could process it immediately, because he knew that I was completely right about everything, even if he didn't want to admit it.

I guess what we can take from this entire thread is that sometimes words can have several definitions and contexts, and what may be confusing to some on paper might make perfect sense after all. We just have to start by being able to accept the fact that we might be wrong, even if we consider ourselves experts in a certain field. Ultimately, as with prior compromises (and the point that Claude's been making since before quoted searches became a deciding factor in anything), we just have to agree to using certain terms once we start the encounter, since people might interpret things differently, even in seemingly bizarre ways (like Kermit said, some people on Xbox refer to the Cleavers/Axes as "Scissors"!). Just keep in mind that nine times out of ten, pickup groups will probably refer to the contained pocket of space that you get teleported into as "inside", and the real world that you escape back out to as "Outside", but that doesn't mean that you're dumb if you don't see it that way!
Good talk all around, and God bless.

/thread

Clears up most confusion because our realm is much more easily understood as being home, as opposed to the shadow realm thing which is clearly away.

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of.

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

Not only that, but you get teleported out from the Throne room... then you teleport back in. :)

This is stupid. You don't know you're being transported into the Shadow Realm. You might be transported UP TO the Shadow Realm. Or DOWN TO. Or whatever.

"Inside" is a place, not a direction.

I really have to disagree?

I mean, you're inside a town or village or city or something, inside a country, inside a solar system, right now, aren't you? You're within the boundaries of a space, whether those boundaries are manmade or physical barriers at all.

I really have to disagree?

I have never said or heard anyone say "inside" in conjunction with any of your examples. "inside" implies actual and obvious boundaries--a confined place, walls, ceiling, etc. That's what the sides are. What confused me about hearing the void described as "inside" was that we were going from a place that had obvious boundaries to a place that has no obvious boundaries. Intuitively, the throne room is inside, and the void may have boundaries, but we can't see them. Intuitively, it's outside.

Exactly. When I leave my back yard to go to my living room, I'm not "going outside" even though I am technically "outside" the boundaries of my backyard. Nor do I say "I'm going back in" when I go back out to my yard.

ps

This has got to be the most lovingly stupid debate we've ever had here XD <3

- No text -

- No text -

Would I wonder why he said that he'd be inside, instead of in? No, and you likely wouldn't either.

A native speaker speaking to another person absolutely would, devoid of context.

but I would not fault any team for using whichever choice if it was immediately recognizable to the whole group.

I think if this thread has shown anything, it's that 'inside' is not immediately recognizable to many (if not most) groups, if they haven't played together before. And for that reason alone, 'inside' and 'outside' should be avoided, or at the very least carefully spelled out before the encounter starts.

(I've now done the raid with more than half a dozen groups. When new people are involved (almost all of them), there hasn't been a night when SOMEONE didn't make a mistake due to communication alone. (An exception: the raid I just ran with the PS4 crew. They've all played together - for years. I was completely new to the group. We carefully defined roles before the encounter began (mostly because I asked), and though mistakes were made, none of them were due to miscommunication.)

We raided together and my first instinct was to refer to the shadow realm as inside because I conceptualized it as in his mind. I had no idea of a shadow realm concept. To me, inside was perfectly intelligible. That being said, I totally understand how that was confusing to you. In this case, our own context (what we bring to the table and how that builds our perceptions) really has an impact on what “makes sense.” What makes sense is not universally apparent in this scenario and your retreat to “common usage” feels out of place in a raid place where people are building concepts as a problem solving tool. I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the sense that because it doesn’t make sense to you, you’re suggesting the usage as wrong. Our team encountered this confusion and found those descriptions unhelpful, but I would not fault any team for using whichever choice if it was immediately recognizable to the whole group.

Geez, Robot. How many times did I tell Raichu he's not wrong? I acknowledged that our conceptions of the void affects how we refer to it. I don't remember how our team referred to it (I don't recall that we were there more than 15 minutes and it was all new to everyone). Irrespective to raiding (which predictably becomes problematic when terminology isn't commonly understood) this debate was about broader English usage because that's where Raichu took the debate. I stand by my point regarding the common usage of "inside" vs. "in." I'll defer to many here regarding many subjects, but not this one.

OOO XXX

Kerm

P.S. I thoroughly enjoyed Funkmon's post.

but I would not fault any team for using whichever choice if it was immediately recognizable to the whole group.

I think if this thread has shown anything, it's that 'inside' is not immediately recognizable to many (if not most) groups, if they haven't played together before. And for that reason alone, 'inside' and 'outside' should be avoided, or at the very least carefully spelled out before the encounter starts.

(I've now done the raid with more than half a dozen groups. When new people are involved (almost all of them), there hasn't been a night when SOMEONE didn't make a mistake due to communication alone. (An exception: the raid I just ran with the PS4 crew. They've all played together - for years. I was completely new to the group. We carefully defined roles before the encounter began (mostly because I asked), and though mistakes were made, none of them were due to miscommunication.)

Who said “you’re running with the right crew”? ;)

but I would not fault any team for using whichever choice if it was immediately recognizable to the whole group.

I think if this thread has shown anything, it's that 'inside' is not immediately recognizable to many (if not most) groups, if they haven't played together before. And for that reason alone, 'inside' and 'outside' should be avoided, or at the very least carefully spelled out before the encounter starts.

Agreed

It's really simple to me. Inside implies being in a confined space. In implies being in an open space. That open space can still have boundaries but by using "in" you're putting emphasis on your location rather than your location relative to the boundaries of the location.

I think you have a predilection for what "inside" means, and it's probably why it's so confusing to me how badly you've been missing the point (no offense, of course). Indoors does mean inside (because indoors is relative to being outside of those doors), but inside does not inherently mean indoors.

It's not just my predilection. It's how it's commonly understood. And I never once said that inside inherently means indoors.

You may not care about common usage but it greatly affects readability, which isn't about whether something makes sense and is about how easily words can be read and understood. You can say you're going for a walk inside the forest and be understood, but you may not be pegged as a native English speaker. :)

See that's where it's weird. I'm not a native English speaker, but I also don't feel like I need to be a "professional MLG writer" to understand such a simple concept.

I don't know what "professional MLG writer" means.

If someone says "I'm going to be in the forest", then obviously he will be in the forest. If he says "I'm going to be inside the forest", then obviously he will be located somewhere within the confines of that forest. I don't need giant walls put up around the forest, or a bright crayon line circling the forest to understand where he will be relative to the forest's border (hint: within the area considered "forest"). There does not have to be a visible thing for it to be contained within to understand that he is giving a point relative to another point that could be considered "outside" of the established area.

Who said you did? Not me. I never said that wasn't understandable. I said that wasn't common usage. It isn't.

Would I wonder why he said that he'd be inside, instead of in? No, and you likely wouldn't either.

I would wonder, at least for a split second, what he means by "inside the forest" instead of "in the forest," and that extra processing gums up efficient communication.

Case in point, When Speed was insisting that the Shadow Realm that he was in was "Outside", and he inevitably screwed up, I deliberately asked "Inside team, what are you doing wrong?" and he immediately started making his patented excuses. Even his brain could process it immediately, because he knew that I was completely right about everything, even if he didn't want to admit it.

Ignoring Korny BS braggadicio™.

I guess what we can take from this entire thread is that sometimes words can have several definitions and contexts, and what may be confusing to some on paper might make perfect sense after all. We just have to start by being able to accept the fact that we might be wrong, even if we consider ourselves experts in a certain field.

If you're saying I'm wrong about common usage, you're mistaken.

Ultimately, as with prior compromises (and the point that Claude's been making since before quoted searches became a deciding factor in anything), we just have to agree to using certain terms once we start the encounter, since people might interpret things differently, even in seemingly bizarre ways (like Kermit said, some people on Xbox refer to the Cleavers/Axes as "Scissors"!).

For comic effect, but I realize you can't resist the opportunity to tease Xbox users.

Just keep in mind that nine times out of ten, pickup groups will probably refer to the contained pocket of space that you get teleported into as "inside", and the real world that you escape back out to as "Outside", but that doesn't mean that you're dumb if you don't see it that way!

A bold claim that may even be right if there is a common understanding among gamers (maybe steeped in fantasy and sci fi) as to what the void is, but I seriously doubt "inside" on it's own will ever be sufficient to prevent confusion simply because EVERYONE conceives of a room as being inside. The funny thing is, this conversation has to happen only once at the beginning, and can be as simple as asking who's staying in the throne room? It isn't nearly as important as the Mars/Venus, past/future confusion.

Good talk all around, and God bless.

/thread

Heh, you wish.

- No text -

Who said “you’re running with the right crew”? ;)

You did, sir. And you were right - it was a solid crew. (The crew I play most often with on Xbox is just as solid. I've learned that playing with solid crews can be a disadvantage, when you step outside that circle - things that seem smooth as butter are not. And that causes extra frustration, on top of the standard "we're not executing" frustration that everyone feels when things aren't going well.)

Who said “you’re running with the right crew”? ;)

You did, sir. And you were right - it was a solid crew. (The crew I play most often with on Xbox is just as solid. I've learned that playing with solid crews can be a disadvantage, when you step outside that circle - things that seem smooth as butter are not. And that causes extra frustration, on top of the standard "we're not executing" frustration that everyone feels when things aren't going well.)

So now you don't need to do the raid this week?

[pouts]

Who said “you’re running with the right crew”? ;)

You did, sir.

Wait, was it really me? I thought it was Korny, lol!

And you were right - it was a solid crew. (The crew I play most often with on Xbox is just as solid. I've learned that playing with solid crews can be a disadvantage, when you step outside that circle - things that seem smooth as butter are not. And that causes extra frustration, on top of the standard "we're not executing" frustration that everyone feels when things aren't going well.)

I’m always fascinated by the way unique shorthands develop within any group that spends a lot of time together. My favourite part of the original “flawless raider” days back in the early months of Vanilla Destiny was not earning the achievement (although that was awesome). Rather, it was super cool and interesting to watch the communication and coordination of the group shift and change as the weeks went by. These days, replaying raids tends to turn things a bit more loose and casual (since we’re all just doing it for fun), but the difficulty tied to the flawless raider trophy meant that we had to stay completely on-the-ball, the whole time.

That level of repitition and focus lead to a fascinating lack of callouts in certain ways. The whole thing started to feel rehearsed and choreographed like a ballet or something. We all came to expect Defender bubbles or Nova Bombs at the exact same time, in the exact same place, run after run. And where things got really interesting was watching people who weren’t part of the core group fill in open spots from time to time. Sometimes they’d slip right in, and other times it was a train wreck... not at all due to any given player’s skill or proficiency, but based on how naturally their instincts fell in line with the rest of the more rehearsed group.

Geez, Robot. How many times did I tell Raichu he's not wrong? I acknowledged that our conceptions of the void affects how we refer to it.

I must have missed this part. I did see you tell him he needed an editor and that toddlers were taught to see things your way. :-) Knowing you, I'm pretty sure those statements were meant with a different tone, but they easily can come off as a means of establishing the other person's ignorance. Given that I initially thought of that realm as inside, I was probably a bit defensive. I'm not saying that inside is the most helpful description, but it isn't without logic.

I don't remember how our team referred to it (I don't recall that we were there more than 15 minutes and it was all new to everyone).

We were there a bit longer than that (long enough to figure out all the major components, albeit with one massive misunderstanding). We had a discussion about the inside vs outside naming because it was not readily apparent to everyone and we decided "away team" was a better descriptor. Mind-Palace came up but was rejected because the throne room was also in a palace.

Irrespective to raiding (which predictably becomes problematic when terminology isn't commonly understood) this debate was about broader English usage because that's where Raichu took the debate. I stand by my point regarding the common usage of "inside" vs. "in." I'll defer to many here regarding many subjects, but not this one.

This is probably my fault in the reading, but I read this whole sub-thread in relation to the validity of the raid usage. While common parlance easily proves your point in the some conceptions (in the city vs inside the city), it becomes a moot point when different conceptions are at play. In my case, being inside his head or mind-palace was the first concept I latched onto. Common parlance gets murky here. Sure getting "in someone's head" is a common phrase, but so is getting "inside someone's head." I guess that, to me, suggesting that these are errors only a non-native speaker would make feels off-putting. Again, this is probably a result of me reading the whole common parlance thing in relation to the initial validity of using inside as a descriptor in the raid, as opposed to a debate of Raichu's specific examples.

That being said, my biggest character flaw may be the ability to play devil's advocate for almost anything. If there's a hill to die on involving competing interpretations, I'll find it.

OOO XXX

Ditto. :-)

-Robot

Geez, Robot. How many times did I tell Raichu he's not wrong? I acknowledged that our conceptions of the void affects how we refer to it.

I must have missed this part. I did see you tell him he needed an editor and that toddlers were taught to see things your way. :-)

I responded to Speedracer (while agreeing with him) that I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls (and ceiling) meant I was inside (referring to the throne room). As did we all.

Everyone benefits from having an editor. People I know who write for a living know this. In my world this is accepted wisdom. No offense to Raichu was intended.

Knowing you, I'm pretty sure those statements were meant with a different tone, but they easily can come off as a means of establishing the other person's ignorance. Given that I initially thought of that realm as inside, I was probably a bit defensive. I'm not saying that inside is the most helpful description, but it isn't without logic.

I don't remember how our team referred to it (I don't recall that we were there more than 15 minutes and it was all new to everyone).

We were there a bit longer than that (long enough to figure out all the major components, albeit with one massive misunderstanding). We had a discussion about the inside vs outside naming because it was not readily apparent to everyone and we decided "away team" was a better descriptor. Mind-Palace came up but was rejected because the throne room was also in a palace.

I now vaguely remember that terminology, and you have to admit, that's a pretty imaginative and very possibly unique descriptor. Again, my perceptions were based on feeling enclosed vs. not.

Irrespective to raiding (which predictably becomes problematic when terminology isn't commonly understood) this debate was about broader English usage because that's where Raichu took the debate. I stand by my point regarding the common usage of "inside" vs. "in." I'll defer to many here regarding many subjects, but not this one.

This is probably my fault in the reading, but I read this whole sub-thread in relation to the validity of the raid usage. While common parlance easily proves your point in the some conceptions (in the city vs inside the city), it becomes a moot point when different conceptions are at play. In my case, being inside his head or mind-palace was the first concept I latched onto. Common parlance gets murky here. Sure getting "in someone's head" is a common phrase, but so is getting "inside someone's head." I guess that, to me, suggesting that these are errors only a non-native speaker would make feels off-putting. Again, this is probably a result of me reading the whole common parlance thing in relation to the initial validity of using inside as a descriptor in the raid, as opposed to a debate of Raichu's specific examples.

That being said, my biggest character flaw may be the ability to play devil's advocate for almost anything. If there's a hill to die on involving competing interpretations, I'll find it.

Gosh, I can't relate to that AT ALL. <3

The non native speaker thing is valid. Even though you can sometimes say both in and inside, it doesn't mean they have the same meaning. There is a subtlety in it that Kermit was getting at, which is being argued against, although everyone kind of acknowledges that subtlety in the argument.

The native speaker intuition is a real thing, and it's a major part of all types of linguistics. Syntax, semantics, morphology, all of it.

A non native speaker, no matter how good he ostensibly is at the language, ends up missing some things. Slight differences in words, like this example, or certain awkward adjective ordering, like saying "red old big house" instead of "big old red house," which are almost identical, and can be argued logically to mean the same thing, but don't to native speakers. All native speakers have an intuition for it.

Raichu has explained himself kinda, why he uses inside and not in, but still maintains that they're functionally identical, which we all natively know is wrong.

Now, I agree with you that it's a moot point in the context of the raid, since it depends on how you see the area (having seen this part, I think "inside"), and I don't think that anyone in the real world has this problem. I just jumped on when I saw claims of language outside the game, which is something to which I have some limited knowledge to add. Maybe I misread the claims as more general than they actually are. But either way, moot points are the purpose of forums.

Who said “you’re running with the right crew”? ;)

You did, sir. And you were right - it was a solid crew. (The crew I play most often with on Xbox is just as solid. I've learned that playing with solid crews can be a disadvantage, when you step outside that circle - things that seem smooth as butter are not. And that causes extra frustration, on top of the standard "we're not executing" frustration that everyone feels when things aren't going well.)

So now you don't need to do the raid this week?

[pouts]

No, I'd love to. Unfortunately, my PS4 is packed up already, in preparation for the trip to Mig's tomorrow night - I won't be able to play until I get to NY.

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of. People stay inside the Shadow Realm, and others choose to go outside of the realm.

Inside does not necessarily mean "indoors". You can be inside the Bath House, or the Castellum, despite them both having an open sky. It's simple stuff... Then again, people were confused about something as simple as "Left Conflux" and "Right Conflux", even though they were labeled in plain English...

I posit that I am being teleported out of the throne room, which I then go back into as my role in the encounter dictates. Therefore throne room is inside and shadow realm is outside

The non native speaker thing is valid. Even though you can sometimes say both in and inside, it doesn't mean they have the same meaning. There is a subtlety in it that Kermit was getting at, which is being argued against, although everyone kind of acknowledges that subtlety in the argument.

The native speaker intuition is a real thing, and it's a major part of all types of linguistics. Syntax, semantics, morphology, all of it.

A non native speaker, no matter how good he ostensibly is at the language, ends up missing some things. Slight differences in words, like this example, or certain awkward adjective ordering, like saying "red old big house" instead of "big old red house," which are almost identical, and can be argued logically to mean the same thing, but don't to native speakers. All native speakers have an intuition for it.

Raichu has explained himself kinda, why he uses inside and not in, but still maintains that they're functionally identical, which we all natively know is wrong.

Now, I agree with you that it's a moot point in the context of the raid, since it depends on how you see the area (having seen this part, I think "inside"), and I don't think that anyone in the real world has this problem. I just jumped on when I saw claims of language outside the game, which is something to which I have some limited knowledge to add. Maybe I misread the claims as more general than they actually are. But either way, moot points are the purpose of forums.

No arguments here. I really enjoyed your post for what it's worth.

That being said, my biggest character flaw may be the ability to play devil's advocate for almost anything. If there's a hill to die on involving competing interpretations, I'll find it.

Gosh, I can't relate to that AT ALL. <3

My friend and I invented a social club called the Church of Pedantry. While many religions use the refrain "amen brother," this society uses, "well actually, brother" as its interjection of choice. Every session must end in a schism. We have openings and there are quite a few on this forum who would meet our credentials for qualification. <3

Actually I think as follows:

The set of all things that are in, is not the same as the set of all things that are inside.

However,

The set of all things that are in a space, by contrast, is.

You cannot be in an area, without necessitating that that area have an in, an out; by virtue of being an area with an in, and an out, there is a boundary or boundaries, of some sort; by virtue of having a boundary, you can then refer to that portion of area as a shape, and thus that portion of which is in can be termed a side of a shape, and in, thus inside. That portion that can be

If I said I walk "in the forest", this would mean "inside the forest", although it could unlikely be taken to mean "into the forest". If I say I walk "out of the forest", it means I left it. I could say I walk "outside the forest", although that does kind of run into the same problem. I would solve this with saying I "walk around, outside of the forest", although there might be a more optimal solution.

But a bad mood is not an area, not a space, so if I was to say I was "inside a bad mood", it would be weird, because it doesn't really make sense.

"But Raichu, it's-"

Look, here's my point. My entire point. The whole point.

It is logically correct by utter necessity in terms of denotation of the words, to say you are inside a space, whenever you are in that space, for any real, physical space.

It can be clumsy in terms of connotation, however, in certain contexts.

But now, moving with this proof,

And shifting the conversational context to one in which "I'm inside!" predominates over "I'm in!", it is suddenly normal to say inside, and it should carry no ambiguity, if there is no ambiguity about the space being referred to and the boundaries of that space.

And if there were those ambiguities, "I'm in!" would run into an identical problem.

And that's my problem with this argument, basically.

It's everyone taking a bunch of examples where inside is clunky and going "There! Look, there! You're not talking like a native English speaker!" When my point is that these are just cases where inside is logically true. To demonstrate that it's not a matter of some list of types of spaces you can be in but not inside of. It's that some words we just want to say in, because of turns of phrase and general habits of language, or whatever.

But when you shift things into a context where inside is more natural, like referring to which part of a boundary you happen to be on, like the context in the Raid, it suddenly becomes completely normal to say inside.

That's where I was saying it was normal to say it!

Which was pointless, because in that part of the Raid it's unhelpful, but my whole point was saying that because it makes sense for both, it's unhelpful. If I was wrong, then one might be able to predominate, the convention that "inside" refers to the Throne Room; but look! Look at the strongest evidence here! It hasn't.

Pointing out other places where it makes sense was just an attempt to correct people's apparent notions that there are spaces you can be in, but not inside of, which is an argument that doesn't make sense.

They were arguing that it's about boundaries. But any space you can be in or out of will have a boundary! It just has to! It might be as simple as a wall, or as arbitrary as a line on a map, or as strange as the case with the Shadow Realm- where you don't know the boundary, because the two areas don't seem to ever touch- but you must accept there is a boundary in some way to be saying in or out of.

Look, just.

Just give me one example where saying you're inside of something is wrong,

When that something is a space, area, location, or the like,

Where saying you're in that something is right,

When in refers to whether your location is in the area or not,

And not "into" or something silly like how people can take "coloring in the lines" to mean coloring over the lines, and not the spaces between the lines. (An ambiguity that I'll note "coloring inside the lines" doesn't have, because, used correctly and barring accidentally bridging into figures of speech or turns of phrase, inside will never be more ambiguous than in. "Raichu, the whole point is that by specifying this extra bit of context when you don't need to, you're-" Look. If you or anyone else sees this incredibly minor difference, that is, if anything, a little helpful, if clunky, and thinks "Wow this person has an inalienable difference in their entire approach to language and are out of step with English convention" and not "Huh, okay", then I think I've gone past the realm where it's my communication problem.)

Would I wonder why he said that he'd be inside, instead of in? No, and you likely wouldn't either.

A native speaker speaking to another person absolutely would, devoid of context.

I wouldn't. I can say I actually, definitely wouldn't.

Am I... Am I not a native English speaker now?

Fuck, when did I get excommunicated from English?

- No text -

Feels good to get it done. Next I'd like to try from inside the throne room.

Thank you for recognizing that room (that has a ceiling above you) as an inside location. ;-)

We actually had a brief conversation about that. A group I played with earlier kept referring to the void as inside. Maybe there's some lore I'm unaware of but I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls meant I was inside.

Contextual reorientation is a foreign concept to Speed, you'll have to forgive him.

You get teleported into the Shadow Realm, which you can then get out of. People stay inside the Shadow Realm, and others choose to go outside of the realm.

Inside does not necessarily mean "indoors". You can be inside the Bath House, or the Castellum, despite them both having an open sky. It's simple stuff... Then again, people were confused about something as simple as "Left Conflux" and "Right Conflux", even though they were labeled in plain English...

I posit that I am being teleported out of the throne room, which I then go back into as my role in the encounter dictates. Therefore throne room is inside and shadow realm is outside

There you go, short and sweet.

Dude, you're in NC? Where?

That being said, my biggest character flaw may be the ability to play devil's advocate for almost anything. If there's a hill to die on involving competing interpretations, I'll find it.

Gosh, I can't relate to that AT ALL. <3

My friend and I invented a social club called the Church of Pedantry. While many religions use the refrain "amen brother," this society uses, "well actually, brother" as its interjection of choice. Every session must end in a schism. We have openings and there are quite a few on this forum who would meet our credentials for qualification. <3

That's hilarious. I'll strongly consider converting. But on the other hand...

Unlike most of the examples, forests are something I do use inside with, pretty commonly. Why is that? I don't think it's a flawed native speaker intuition.

No, I think it's that as a kid, there were forests around. At the least, woods. But they were all bordering farmland, roads, or the like. So they were closely cropped, with definite treelines. Stories talked about forests as big, sprawling things.

Being inside one just makes sense to me, on a level beyond "being inside the plains" or something. Same with cities, which I never went to often at all as a child but knew as dots on a map and scenes of sprawling buildings.

If anything is a culprit, here, it's the boundary having been built into my concept of the thing from the start. There's also how I rationalize spaces and boundaries, but if we're talking basic concepts built into early understandings...

Maybe we happen to hit on a verbal tic you have? Most of us have them.

I'm a decent writer. As a speaker I'm hit or miss. Ask Claude.

A big chunk of our discussion was you arguing the logic and my arguing for what is the clearest communication. Editors think about the latter, and by the latter I mean, we generally believe that anything that impedes understanding or distracts the reader in the slightest from the main idea that you're trying to convey needs to be removed or revised. Many people think that many words are interchangeable. It's our job to think about the ways in which they are not.

"Wow this person has an inalienable difference in their entire approach to language and are out of step with English convention" and not "Huh, okay", then I think I've gone past the realm where it's my communication problem.)

Yeah, I won't say that Kermit is coming off as pretentious... but it does seem a bit prejudiced; being a native speaker does not grant you a superior and/or innate understanding of language. Like I pointed out earlier, I'm not a native English speaker, and yet I have notebooks filled with grammatical/syntax errors made by native speakers (I won't name names, but at least I know how to spell "Legacy"). And heck, just the other night, I had to remind a certain native speaker that the proper term was "Claude and I will go" not "Me and Claude will go".
So his presumption about having a better understanding of the English language simply based on the fact that he only speaks English is... fallacious, at best (and you'd think a professional writer would know better).

But yeah, you and I have been on the same page, even if our approach has been different. Your explanations are more nuanced, for sure, but they sum up everything that I've been trying to get across, so +1 to everything that you've contributed (although I'd give you a +1 for your patience alone, even if you disagreed with me).

Imagine a phone call.

"Hey Phil, where are you?"

"Oh just walking in the woods."

Versus

"Oh, just walking inside the woods."

One might make you think "oh, which woods?"

Which one might make you think that?

"Wow this person has an inalienable difference in their entire approach to language and are out of step with English convention" and not "Huh, okay", then I think I've gone past the realm where it's my communication problem.)

Yeah, I won't say that Kermit is coming off as pretentious... but it does seem a bit prejudiced; being a native speaker does not grant you a superior and/or innate understanding of language. Like I pointed out earlier, I'm not a native English speaker, and yet I have notebooks filled with grammatical/syntax errors made by native speakers (I won't name names, but at least I know how to spell "Legacy"). And heck, just the other night, I had to remind a certain native speaker that the proper term was "Claude and I will go" not "Me and Claude will go".
So his presumption about having a better understanding of the English language simply based on the fact that he only speaks English is... fallacious, at best (and you'd think a professional writer would know better).

Once again you mischaracterize me and I do wish you would stop it. Plenty of native English speakers speak terrible English--myself included sometimes. At the same time being a native speaker can give you intuition regarding nuances of usage that a non-native speaker would have to learn. (I don't quite agree with Funkmon's assertion that this sort of thing can't be learned.) I characterized Raichu's non-conventional word choices as characteristic of non-native English speakers. That is all.

Once again you mischaracterize me and I do wish you would stop it. Plenty of native English speakers speak terrible English--myself included sometimes. At the same time being a native speaker can give you intuition regarding nuances of usage that a non-native speaker would have to learn. (I don't quite agree with Funkmon's assertion that this sort of thing can't be learned.) I characterized Raichu's non-conventional word choices as characteristic of non-native English speakers. That is all.

Did you know the hit TV show on NBC "This is Us" is actually incorrect? Grammatically it should be "This is We". But which sounds better? Language is flexible. Be adaptable. Or else we'd be stuck with "to go boldly where no one has gone before".

Inside means whatever you want it to mean as long as that meaning is clear to the listener.

Once again you mischaracterize me and I do wish you would stop it. Plenty of native English speakers speak terrible English--myself included sometimes. At the same time being a native speaker can give you intuition regarding nuances of usage that a non-native speaker would have to learn. (I don't quite agree with Funkmon's assertion that this sort of thing can't be learned.) I characterized Raichu's non-conventional word choices as characteristic of non-native English speakers. That is all.

Did you know the hit TV show on NBC "This is Us" is actually incorrect? Grammatically it should be "This is We". But which sounds better? Language is flexible. Be adaptable. Or else we'd be stuck with "to go boldly where no one has gone before".

Inside means whatever you want it to mean as long as that meaning is clear to the listener.

WUT

It flat out isn't this is we. We is the nominative, us is the accusative and dative.

S V O
This is us

Subject verb object.

Some may be under the misapprehension that is is an auxiliary verb thereby meaning it doesn't have the power of the predicate and needs another one, like "Steve is dancing," where dancing is the verb and is is the auxiliary.

English is very clear on this.

Some style guides, which often have huge amounts of made up modern rules (like Strunk and White having rules that are simply pet peeves of Strunk, with zero agreement at the time from other sources), suggest something like "It was I." It's a flat out misuse of English pronouns, and we know this, because we have to be taught it. At this point, things like "It was I," are accepted among some and exist idiomatically, but are not productive in speech.

But you're right, English does change, and you just gave great examples of language change that has been thrust upon English from its speakers, like rules to not split infinitives, not organic change itself.

Few native English speakers speak bad English.

Inside means whatever you want it to mean as long as that meaning is clear to the listener.

It is a small miracle anytime some idea goes from one person's head to another person's brain resulting in a shared understanding. I'm pretty forgiving of word choice and grammar if communicating the idea is successful. Korny's example of "me and Claude" does not bother me in the least because more precise language does not result in a more precise transmission of the information. Same goes for This is Us. Sometimes precision with grammar is really important in the transmission of concepts, but I find that many of us get hung up on things that are perfectly intelligible.

In this case, inside, as a forum-wide descriptor, fails because too many people have competing understandings of what it implies.

And, really I think Lag is a bit off, Decoding Overhead, maybe?

Inside means whatever you want it to mean as long as that meaning is clear to the listener.

It is a small miracle anytime some idea goes from one person's head to another person's brain resulting in a shared understanding. I'm pretty forgiving of word choice and grammar if communicating the idea is successful. Korny's example of "me and Claude" does not bother me in the least because more precise language does not result in a more precise transmission of the information.

And the thing is that it doesn't bother me either, because the idea gets across. 90% of the time, I won't say anything when someone makes a mistake, because it's pure pedantry. I'll catch it, yeah (call it an intuition, lol), but I'll only point it out when doing so would be funny to me, and because I know that it annoys the person that it's directed at.
I used that example because it shows that the whole concept of "intuition" with language is false, because someone who should have that so-called intuition clearly doesn't; while someone who doesn't speak English as their first language, and who (in Kermit's mind) has to "learn" it (because it couldn't possibly develop naturally as a result of their learning of the language itself)... does.

But yeah, this thread has been derailed by dumb excuses like that, as well as misunderstandings about context, when at the end of the day, it's all about a simple concept and perception of what an area is, and the refusal of some people to see things in a broader and more logical manner.

In this case, inside, as a forum-wide descriptor, fails because too many people have competing understandings of what it implies.

If folks want to say "Scissors", for example, there is not going to be any confusion about what symbol they mean. If someone says that being taken into Calus's mind space is "inside", then the team can easily accept it as being "inside". Any whining after that is simply a result of stubbornness.

Look, just.

Just give me one example where saying you're inside of something is wrong,

When that something is a space, area, location, or the like,

Where saying you're in that something is right,

When in refers to whether your location is in the area or not.

I'm in Michigan.

I'm inside Michigan.

In normal use, without context, inside Michigan means you've just entered the state recently, or are in the borders and that's surprising. In Michigan implies nothing. Hence, the sets are not equal.

As I have said previously, you literally acknowledge the difference between them, in explaining why you say "inside." You do this. You can argue it all you want, that inside is identical to in, but you yourself show it to not be true.

In this example, all things that are inside are in, but if I have no reason to leave the state and haven't left for 10 years, then saying "inside" is misleading my interlocutor. You know this.

Do not argue logic to this, it's pointless. In much the same way you might say "my daughter's mother" to refer to a person with whom you have a child but almost zero connection with otherwise, you would not say it to refer to your wife. You would say wife. Saying "my daughter's mother" implies extra stuff. Even if we restrict the context to just your wife, saying something that's technically true, like my daughter's mother, and your wife, which, again, because of context can never not equal one another. However, if you say "my daughter's mother," you're implying some kind of very close relationship between them in a story you're about to tell, even though they always, 100% of the time, refer to your wife. There's a semantic difference.

This semantic difference goes into Grice's conversational maxims, and your interlocutor assumes something about it. These are not English conventions. These are universal semantic maxims, observed in every language among those who wish to share information. They can be broken, but either knowingly or by someone who is difficult to speak to.

Example, exaggerated:

"Hey dad, how did the Tigers do?"

"Grass is green."

Ostensibly, these have nothing to do with one another, but I, as a human, assume my father is following these maxims, and he is trying to tell me something. Is the grass green because the outfielders barely had to move and Boyd threw a no hitter? Maybe it was a rainout and now the grass is greener. I have to think about what he could mean by that because I assume he is giving me relevant information. This happens.

Example:

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm inside the bathroom."

I wonder what he's doing.

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm in the bathroom."

I can assume what he's doing.

As you demonstrably know, inside means you've recently arrived, are within confines, or are in there surprisingly. In means nothing. I assume it's routine.

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm inside the USA"

"What? Where were you?"

He just arrived, is what I'm reading into this.

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm in the USA."

"Thanks, dick."

He's being a dick.

Again, I agree with your usage in the raid case, but trying to say they're the same when you obviously know they aren't doesn't work.

Just because you can say one to mean the other, technically, doesn't mean they are practically the same, and your interlocutor will draw conclusions based on your words. It's how you think you can lie to your mom when you're a kid. "Did you eat all the cookies?" "I had one." Yes, it's technically true, but you're deliberately obfuscating that you indeed did eat all the cookies, relying on Grice to let your mother assume that you only at one of the cookie. Then, when you get smacked for lying, you even convince yourself "but I didn't lie!" You did and you know it.

In the same way, you literally show the two words are different in your explanations but are arguing that they can technically be the same.

You've passed the schism test.

Yeah, I won't say that Kermit is coming off as pretentious... but it does seem a bit prejudiced; being a native speaker does not grant you a superior and/or innate understanding of language.

Actually it does. It's built into the definition. A native English speaker has an intuitive understanding of English, learned it at a young age, speaks a dialect, and is productive.

You gave examples of poor writing from English speakers. You'll find that Claude and me is a perfectly fine usage, albeit an exception to the normal writing rule. Claude and I is nonstandard, and breaks the speaking rule of using me in a plural verb.

Me is actually all right to use in an impersonal verb, like methinks, or as a verb ellipsis, like saying "me too," in other words, "me can ___ too."

"Me and myn ayres..haue releissit..al my rycht clayme persuit chalenge or askyng..to fourty markis worth of land." This is from the Douglas book, in 1885. Jane Austen used this form. Everybody uses this form.

This, like the impersonal verb and verb ellipsis, is just another exception in the pronoun usage where it's used in a plural verb form. This is well known, well documented, and a common feature of all major forms of English.

This is a product of fairly recent efforts to standardize English, and usually identifiable as one man's idea. The split infinitive Cody came up with is anonymous, but if I recall correctly, this specific issue of a plural verb me came up with Robert Lowth, a poet who was interested in applying Latin grammar rules to English, which he knew was an issue, but it resulted in nice poetic sentences using emulations of the oblique case and stuff. His book on the subject, not written for English learners, but those interested in grammar analysis, was adapted as a style guide, and so some of this became entrenched in writing, but not in speaking.

The difference in writing and speaking what are supposed to be the same language is called diglossia. Any foreign speaker can write in English fairly, well, but there is an intuition about actual rules of the language, as opposed to split infinitives and the non-standard use of I in plural verb form construction built into native speakers. Non native speakers don't have it, by definition.

S V O
This is us

Is is not a transitive verb dude. It doesn't take a direct object. It links two nouns that are the same.

My father taught english. When someone asked if he was speaking on the phone, he'd reply "This is he".

And the thing is that it doesn't bother me either, because the idea gets across. 90% of the time, I won't say anything when someone makes a mistake, because it's pure pedantry. I'll catch it, yeah (call it an intuition, lol), but I'll only point it out when doing so would be funny to me, and because I know that it annoys the person that it's directed at.
I used that example because it shows that the whole concept of "intuition" with language is false, because someone who should have that so-called intuition clearly doesn't; while someone who doesn't speak English as their first language, and who (in Kermit's mind) has to "learn" it (because it couldn't possibly develop naturally as a result of their learning of the language itself)... does.

It kills me because I agree with much of what you say, yet you coat your arguments with trollish phrases. You know that you are misrepresenting Kermit here. Kermit has suggested that it's hard to blend into the vernacular of a culture until you've spent time gaining fluency (however you want to describe that). I suck at French. I can speak a bit and convince non-native speakers that I'm decent at it, but I will get instantly recognized by those more familiar with French for stumbling across these pitfalls. I'm pretty sure this is the scenario Kermit had in mind. I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to make a universal rule that suggested non-native english speakers cannot develop fluency or even surpass native speakers.

My bone to pick with Kermit was the suggestion that inside would be indicative of a non-native speaker. There are other logical interpretations that could lead to that usage.

But yeah, this thread has been derailed by dumb excuses like that, as well as misunderstandings about context, when at the end of the day, it's all about a simple concept and perception of what an area is, and the refusal of some people to see things in a broader and more logical manner.

I was with you on this until you said broader and more logical. Systems can have an inherent logic to the users that appears baffling to the outside observer. Inside can be perfectly cromulent to one group and make no sense to another for perfectly valid reasons.

Stubbornness, however, is a different matter. When approached with other valid interpretations, flexibility or compromise should be valued above all.

That being said, I'm surprised you haven't defended stubbornness as a valid expression under the condition that it elicits the lols. :p

"Hey dad, how did the Tigers do?"

"Grass is green."

Ostensibly, these have nothing to do with one another, but I, as a human, assume my father is following these maxims, and he is trying to tell me something. Is the grass green because the outfielders barely had to move and Boyd threw a no hitter? Maybe it was a rainout and now the grass is greener. I have to think about what he could mean by that because I assume he is giving me relevant information. This happens.

Heh - my first thought would be that he's saying that the Tigers did what they always do. (I don't know what they always do - maybe they lose a lot, maybe they win a lot. I know nothing about the Tigers. I'm just saying that I'd interpret that response as "Grass is green, water is wet, the Tigers ______.")

But then again, you know your dad better than I do. :)

My bone to pick with Kermit was the suggestion that inside would be indicative of a non-native speaker. There are other logical interpretations that could lead to that usage.

Indeed.

But yeah, this thread has been derailed by dumb excuses like that, as well as misunderstandings about context, when at the end of the day, it's all about a simple concept and perception of what an area is, and the refusal of some people to see things in a broader and more logical manner.

I was with you on this until you said broader and more logical. Systems can have an inherent logic to the users that appears baffling to the outside observer. Inside can be perfectly cromulent to one group and make no sense to another for perfectly valid reasons.

I agree, but I meant logical in the sense that through logic, you can deduce what a person means, even if by definition it is incorrect from your perspective. It's why I said that calling the Cleavers/Axes "Scissors" is perfectly fine, because the people are logically referring to a specific symbol. It's always best to be willing to adapt, and if you accept that "x" will, for the purposes of this specific run, be referred to as "y", then there is zero confusion about what the people mean when they say "y", especially if the other options are "a/b/c".

Stubbornness, however, is a different matter. When approached with other valid interpretations, flexibility or compromise should be valued above all.

+1

That being said, I'm surprised you haven't defended stubbornness as a valid expression under the condition that it elicits the lols. :p

I have standards, man. :P
Defending stubbornness in any manner teeters on defending ignorance and inadaptability, which is a troll's low-hanging fruit.

Continuing in my series of inadvertently taking a dump on your father, he is making a distinction that isn't needed.

Is is very often not transitive. However, in copular form it is, and it is when doing the passive voice.

I continue to correct people on singular they. It doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate form.

"Hey dad, how did the Tigers do?"

"Grass is green."

Ostensibly, these have nothing to do with one another, but I, as a human, assume my father is following these maxims, and he is trying to tell me something. Is the grass green because the outfielders barely had to move and Boyd threw a no hitter? Maybe it was a rainout and now the grass is greener. I have to think about what he could mean by that because I assume he is giving me relevant information. This happens.

Heh - my first thought would be that he's saying that the Tigers did what they always do. (I don't know what they always do - maybe they lose a lot, maybe they win a lot. I know nothing about the Tigers. I'm just saying that I'd interpret that response as "Grass is green, water is wet, the Tigers ______.")

That was my initial interpretation too. Human minds are amazingly creative at filling in the blanks when data is missing.

Continuing in my series of inadvertently taking a dump on your father, he is making a distinction that isn't needed.

Is is very often not transitive. However, in copular form it is, and it is when doing the passive voice.

I continue to correct people on singular they. It doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate form.

A king proclaims "It is I, so and so!"

It'd be be weird if he said "It is me, king so and so!"

When you link two nouns (the copular form) with is, they are of the same case.

Let me try again.

Put aside the implications of saying "I am inside" versus "I am in" for a moment. Because I agree with you, largely.

My contention by saying they mean the same thing is rather that the state of being in a space, and the state of being inside a space, are identical, regardless of how physical the boundaries of the space are.

The way you express that state varies on context and semantic baggage. "I am in the mountains" probably sounds like "I'm in this mountainous area", while "I am inside the mountains" might sound like you are inside the big rock formation itself. But if you arein a cave inside a mountain, you are in that mountain, and inside that mountain. As a matter of fact. Right?

So, I think we agree, there is no class of spaces that you can be in, but not inside of. That's just incoherent, right?

So it depends on implications and semantics; while the nature of the space impacts that, it doesn't categorically limit it.

"Hey! Have you made it out yet?" "No! I'm still inside!"

I hope we can all agree that that's valid, right? Even though "it" could be any space imaginable?

That was my main point.

The rest was faffing about and poorly communicating it, and accidentally implying I'm very nonstandard, when I'm actually just a little nonstandard and not thrown by this one difference when others use it.

I hope I got myself across this time, else I'm giving up.

The copula links the complement to the subject. In Latin, whence this English rule came a couple hundred years ago. Now, in Old English, we DID mark this with a nominative case. Case markings are essentially gone, however, and nobody did this for a long time. Nobody continues to do this. Disjunctive pronouns are accusative in the past 800 years of English and are treated as objects, and I think also were in Vulgar Latin. They are in French iirc.

It's currently an idiomatic usage in people who know the "rule," who say things like your father. We know it's idiomatic as it doesn't show up except in certain phrases, like "this is he" or "this is I."

Your father wouldn't say of your mom's picture, "this is she in 1971," he would say "this was her in 1971," more than likely.

Were he to have completely internalized that rule, which I highly doubt but is not out of the realm of possibility, he is very steadfast in his choices, and I would say non standard in all but idiomatic usage, like what you say he does on the phone.

- No text -

So it depends on implications and semantics;

Yes, we're literally arguing over semantics, which is fun. Normally when people say "we're arguing over semantics," it's usually people quoting dictionaries at each other, then realizing they agree. Of course, this entire argument is based on semantics, which is fun.

You're making an argument that is immaterial. It doesn't matter about what you're asserting is technically true, and it isn't semantic baggage, it's actual meaning.

No, no physical spaces can you be in, but not inside of. In much the same way, reusing an example from last time, you have no wives who aren't mothers of your children. But they mean differently.

One is more specific. One implies you're inside the cave. The set of all things that mean inside (which is probably how I should have written it before) is a strict subset of the things which mean in.

If you told me "oh I'm in the mountains" and I found out you were spelunking, I would consider that hiding the truth. I would ask why you didn't tell me that. If you told me "I'm inside the mountains," I would ask, first thing if you were in a cave, playfully making fun of you for using an awkward construction which has only one context independent meaning.

"Hey dad, how did the Tigers do?"

"Grass is green."

Ostensibly, these have nothing to do with one another, but I, as a human, assume my father is following these maxims, and he is trying to tell me something. Is the grass green because the outfielders barely had to move and Boyd threw a no hitter? Maybe it was a rainout and now the grass is greener. I have to think about what he could mean by that because I assume he is giving me relevant information. This happens.

Heh - my first thought would be that he's saying that the Tigers did what they always do. (I don't know what they always do - maybe they lose a lot, maybe they win a lot. I know nothing about the Tigers. I'm just saying that I'd interpret that response as "Grass is green, water is wet, the Tigers ______.")

But then again, you know your dad better than I do. :)

Actually I started with F=MA, then I thought "well that's so far off, the only thing I could do is propose that he might be stating some kind of truism about the universe and infer the Tigers are in a zen like state of maintaining a .500 record."

Then I went with grass is green to be more reasonable and you went there anyway.

If you find this fun, here's a good one.

-------

"Hey dad, how did the Tigers do?"

"Well, the Lions won."

-------

There's a lot going on in this one. He's not answering my question, so he's apparently not trying to follow the maxims...but I assume he is. So okay, he knows the answer, but won't tell me. Why? Well, there's an idea floating around of a "politeness" maxim. People don't like to say no, or give bad news. They are averse to it so strongly that they willingly break these fundamental maxims to avoid giving it. So, they break the maxim, knowing that somewhere deep inside we understand why they might break the rules. I would assume here that the Tigers lost, as my dad was changing the subject to a Lions victory.

Or, maybe there's a better explanation for it. My exposure to semantics is one graduate course, so there's probably some explanation beyond the politeness maxim, otherwise surely it would be generally accepted by now.

Yeah, see, we agree about the mountains thing.

I'm saying this is semantics because certain things (eg "I am inside town") were meant to make the equivalency I just described; but were misunderstood as saying they were constructions I use in real life.

I then complicated matters, trying to defend the technical validity of the construction despite its awkwardity, which just sounded like I was affirming the "This is a completely fine, equivalent construction" position I accidentally made it sound like I was saying.

Further complicating things is that there is a semantic difference here, it's just not as broad as all that. I think "I am inside the woods", or "I am inside the building", are perfectly innocuous, while some other inside constructions are awkward, or even problematic (like with the mountains).

Good point. And now that you've mentioned it, I recall that I've used the phrase "mental overhead" to describe this.

My bone to pick with Kermit was the suggestion that inside would be indicative of a non-native speaker. There are other logical interpretations that could lead to that usage.

Predictive, not indicative.

- No text -

And the thing is that it doesn't bother me either, because the idea gets across. 90% of the time, I won't say anything when someone makes a mistake, because it's pure pedantry. I'll catch it, yeah (call it an intuition, lol), but I'll only point it out when doing so would be funny to me, and because I know that it annoys the person that it's directed at

THIS. This is telling. How old are you now--30? SMH.

I got home, forgot the book I quoted cause I wanted to look into it more, read my post, noticed a typo. Can't let it go.