@Vulsaarkven, This thread is for Word Revisions only, please don't put off topic subjects on the thread

Could some moderator delete that post? It's pulling up some pop-up playing music.

dirtmonkeyal

Could some moderator delete that post? It's pulling up some pop-up playing music.

Sorry about that, everyone. The post has been removed.

dirtmonkeyal

Fend

Shouldn't this be based off of must? You SHOULD go. You MUST go. Shall/fent is just a more formal way of saying will/fen.

I don't think that works how you think it works. If you want to get really technical, should is an epistemic modal verb and must is a deontic modal verb (in the examples you gave). Here's a wikipedia page on it. 

Foduiiz

dirtmonkeyal

Fend

Shouldn't this be based off of must? You SHOULD go. You MUST go. Shall/fent is just a more formal way of saying will/fen.

I don't think that works how you think it works. If you want to get really technical, should is an epistemic modal verb and must is a deontic modal verb (in the examples you gave). Here's a wikipedia page on it. 

And according to this table in the very same wikipedia page that you sent me, most of the modal verbs in said table (could, should, will, must, can) are epistemic and deontic. Would is only epistemic even though it's seemingly from will which is epistemic and deontic. And can is all three forms, but could is still only epistemic and deontic. And shall is only deontic.

If you want to get really technical, Dovahzul is based off of stupid, crazy English.

dirtmonkeyal 

So what exactly is wrong with how it's set up at the moment?

Foduiiz

dirtmonkeyal 

So what exactly is wrong with how it's set up at the moment?

Exactly what I said in the first post. Shouldn't should be based off of must? I can understand why kunt might be out of the question, but vis/vust, and fen/fund ... so kent/kund?

dirtmonkeyal

Foduiiz

dirtmonkeyal 

So what exactly is wrong with how it's set up at the moment?

Exactly what I said in the first post. Shouldn't should be based off of must? I can understand why kunt might be out of the question, but vis/vust, and fen/fund ... so kent/kund?

Not unless there's a particular reason for it to be, no. 

Foduiiz

Not unless there's a particular reason for it to be, no. 

I'm sorry for the delayed response, but ... What? What is this non-argument? What is your rebuttal to my reasoning exactly? It's been this way too long so it should stay that way? Fine, I guess. But say that, please?

dirtmonkeyal

Foduiiz

Not unless there's a particular reason for it to be, no. 

I'm sorry for the delayed response, but ... What? What is this non-argument? What is your rebuttal to my reasoning exactly? It's been this way too long so it should stay that way? Fine, I guess. But say that, please?

Krosis, I'm not trying to argue with you!  

You haven't given a reason why should should be based off must. It wasn't an argument, it was my answer to your questions (and they are questions)...

"Shouldn't this be based off of must?"

and...

"Shouldn't should be based off of must?"

Arguments do not always have arguing. This is a debate/rebuttal sort of thread I had assumed. In any case, I drop my side because I've already found the answer. One that, someone defending the word, could have brought up instead of grammar jargon.

I guess I only ask that people remember that one of Bethesda's original, big problems was making the language too complex.

Heyz

Also adjective

Feyz

What's the difference between this and Bruleyk?

Tiiraazom

could be better as "tiirazom" (one less "a")

Vodrem

Extend the definition to mean unpeacefull, violent. Delete grem.