Page 77 of 81

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Thu 31 Aug 2017, 11:24
by elemtilas
Keenir wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Clearly my good sir, Keenir has come back to us from some far distant corner of the polyverse where the named work is, in fact, a thing. [>_<] [O.O]
(unless the faulty memory is also - unawares to my awareness - a glimpse at another corner of the polyverse)
Ah, very likely to be the case! Memories of that elusive Elsewhere...

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Mon 04 Sep 2017, 09:25
by eldin raigmore
elemtilas wrote:
Keenir wrote:(unless the faulty memory is also - unawares to my awareness - a glimpse at another corner of the polyverse)
Ah, very likely to be the case! Memories of that elusive Elsewhere...
Anyone who has ever been married surely believes on the basis of personal experience that, not only are there alternative futures, there are also alternative pasts.
When one person remembers an event one way and their spouse remembers it the other way, clearly the simplest and most Occam's-Razor-compatible explanation is, that they have arrived (all unawares until just now) from alternate histories.

Also; when the numbers on the scale your spouse steps on are higher than they were previously, that is clearly because the Earth's gravitational force has fluctuated.
(It's just too far-fetched to think that they've gained weight.)

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Mon 04 Sep 2017, 11:26
by Lambuzhao
@Eldin

[+1]
[xD]
Spoiler:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :roll: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Mon 04 Sep 2017, 14:33
by elemtilas
eldin raigmore wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Memories of that elusive Elsewhere...
Anyone who has ever been married surely believes on the basis of personal experience that, not only are there alternative futures, there are also alternative pasts.
When one person remembers an event one way and their spouse remembers it the other way, clearly the simplest and most Occam's-Razor-compatible explanation is, that they have arrived (all unawares until just now) from alternate histories.
How true!

At the risk of raising the ire of the Defamationists and other assorted tan bechemised Busybodies, anyone who has lived within that Blessed Estate knows that, in truth, Occam's Razor only cuts one way in this circumstance: Hers is the true Reality, usassailable, brooking no argument; thine is the misremembered and illformed phantasy!, surely the application of Her sound Logic & firm Reason will enlighten a poor boy of his folly, if only he would open his eyes and see the Truth of all things!

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Mon 04 Sep 2017, 16:16
by lsd
There is just one reality...
man rules the world for the pleasure of woman...
woman rules man for her pleasure...
(Is that sociobiology...)

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 20 Sep 2017, 21:36
by Ahzoh
Do the majority of the rivers of the world travel towards the equator or just southwards?

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 20 Sep 2017, 22:17
by lsd
Image
difficult to say...

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 20 Sep 2017, 22:21
by Ahzoh
Maybe there is some connection between river directions and the trade winds. Otherwise, running towards the equator makes alot of sense.

Also I've been looking for a map like that for ages.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 20 Sep 2017, 22:49
by gach
Ahzoh wrote:Maybe there is some connection between river directions and the trade winds. Otherwise, running towards the equator makes alot of sense.
You are kind of assuming here that there forces that can make rivers run against gravity. On flatter land erosion has a say on gradually changing the paths of rivers but they'll still flow where gravity takes them, i.e. downhill. There's a certain logic in saying that the centrifugal force caused by Earth's rotation should give rivers a push towards the equator, but in fact it already pushes the planet's rocky body the same way, making it slightly squashed. This means that the surfaces of constant gravity are also deformed, bulging at the equator, and the downward direction where the apparent gravity points isn't exactly towards the centre of the planet. In the end, it's still just topography that makes rivers flow where they do.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 20 Sep 2017, 23:41
by elemtilas
gach wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Maybe there is some connection between river directions and the trade winds. Otherwise, running towards the equator makes alot of sense.
You are kind of assuming here that there forces that can make rivers run against gravity. On flatter land erosion has a say on gradually changing the paths of rivers but they'll still flow where gravity takes them, i.e. downhill. There's a certain logic in saying that the centrifugal force caused by Earth's rotation should give rivers a push towards the equator, but in fact it already pushes the planet's rocky body the same way, making it slightly squashed. This means that the surfaces of constant gravity are also deformed, bulging at the equator, and the downward direction where the apparent gravity points isn't exactly towards the centre of the planet. In the end, it's still just topography that makes rivers flow where they do.
Right. That whole "rivers flow (generally) to the South", towards the equator, was really only valid back during the Shenhua Epochs of Earth's history. Of course, this was well back in geological history, before the Reshaping. The shape of the Earth during those early periods, travelling towards the equator really did mean a (slightly) downward shift in elevation and it certainly made sense for rivers to, by and by, ultimately flow in that direction.

Can still see some evidences of this tendency in the flow direction of the most ancient of Earth's rivers. Even those that now flow northwards, originally were part of lengthier rivers that flowed eventually equatorwards. The (modern) Meuse, though it now flows northwards, simply emptied into the great Archaeomanica River that eventually flowed into the southern sea. Also of note is the Susquehanna which did and still does flow entirely equatorwards, and also the New which at one time flowed west-southwestwards, then southwards into the Mississippian Embayment and thence to the southern sea towards the equator.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Thu 21 Sep 2017, 00:51
by esoanem
In general (once the earth's had a long time to settle down into an equilibrium state), as a physicist (but not a geophysicist), I can't see any reason to favour any particular direction because, in general, on geological timescales, the crust's pretty good at settling into an equipotential surface. The main effect forcing river formation are orogeny (which is itself affected by plate tectonics, which could pick up an orientation from the rotation of the core I guess but I'm not sure what directions it'd prefer). Prevailing winds could be a very tiny effect helping gouge rivers into mountains and they'd encourage east-west (or vice versa, depending on latitude) rivers.

Looking at the map and doing some very orugh and unscientific guesswork of numbers most of the rivers look diagonal to me with only a few exceptions (although those exceptions are big ones: the Danube, Ganges, and Amazon all run approximately west->east and the Nile runs approximately south->north)

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Thu 21 Sep 2017, 19:31
by eldin raigmore
esoanem wrote: .... The main effect forcing river formation are orogeny ....
Didn't the Amazon reverse direction because of the rise of the Andes?
Isn't that the reason for vaquitas (fresh-water river dolphins) evolving in South America?

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Thu 21 Sep 2017, 19:39
by qwed117
eldin raigmore wrote:
esoanem wrote: .... The main effect forcing river formation are orogeny ....
Didn't the Amazon reverse direction because of the rise of the Andes?
Isn't that the reason for vaquitas (fresh-water river dolphins) evolving in South America?
Yep!
(Picture below of open-mouthed bufeo, possibly not for the squeamish)
Spoiler:
Image
(Aren't they so cute!)

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Sat 23 Sep 2017, 00:29
by eldin raigmore
After the Andes blocked the Amazon's route to the ocean, but before the Amazon finished reversing its course;
wasn't there a very big lake near the foothills of the Andes, fed by the Amazon?
And isn't that where/when the freshwater porpoises evolved?

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 11 Oct 2017, 14:36
by LinguoFranco
Is anyone else concerned that a conculture built from the ground up may be too similar to another IRL culture? I understand that some resemblance is inevitable due to environmental, religious, political, and cultural factors, I just want them to be different enough.

The current conculture I'm working on inhabits a river valley in a desert, and I'm afraid it may end up being too similar to ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 11 Oct 2017, 15:43
by gestaltist
LinguoFranco wrote:Is anyone else concerned that a conculture built from the ground up may be too similar to another IRL culture? I understand that some resemblance is inevitable due to environmental, religious, political, and cultural factors, I just want them to be different enough.

The current conculture I'm working on inhabits a river valley in a desert, and I'm afraid it may end up being too similar to ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia.
It's definitely my concern, yes. But there is also something to be said about derivation. If you intend to share that conculture with others in any form, it's way easier for people to relate to it than if it were completely foreign. I guess that's also the reason why so few conworlds don't have humans.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Thu 12 Oct 2017, 08:40
by Keenir
eldin raigmore wrote:After the Andes blocked the Amazon's route to the ocean, but before the Amazon finished reversing its course;
wasn't there a very big lake near the foothills of the Andes, fed by the Amazon?
that would probably explain why, when the Octonauts' globe was shown (earth day special), there was a huge lake in that part of South America.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Tue 28 Nov 2017, 20:24
by Void
A newbie question, but still: if my language is generally VSO, and has postpositions, would it be classed as a head-initial language?

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 29 Nov 2017, 01:02
by elemtilas
Void wrote:
Tue 28 Nov 2017, 20:24
A newbie question, but still: if my language is generally VSO, and has postpositions, would it be classed as a head-initial language?
I believe so. As I understand it, and I could be wrong!

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Posted: Wed 29 Nov 2017, 10:03
by Creyeditor
Void wrote:
Tue 28 Nov 2017, 20:24
A newbie question, but still: if my language is generally VSO, and has postpositions, would it be classed as a head-initial language?
So here is the non-newbie answer: It's not that easy. Most language are actually mixed and for a lot constructions/phrases linguists do not agree what the head is. Verb before object is usually considered head initial. Postpositions are condiderd head final, if you assume that postpositions are the head of a postpositional phrase.
So your languages is classified as mixed, as most languages, I would say.
Actually languages can exhibit another pattern of mixed-ness. German for example has a lot of prepositions, but some postpositions.