User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Reference Desk/@comment-24894325-20160309221053/@comment-24894325-20160804194357: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Thank you all for answering my question. My hesitation stemmed from two sources, both resolved now. First, CzechOut explained in which sense time can be seen as vitreous. Second, there does not seem to be an in-universe object behind the other spelling (I was thinking of something along the lines of [[Kamelion]] sounding similar to "chameleon"). | Thank you all for answering my question. My hesitation stemmed from two sources, both resolved now. First, CzechOut explained in which sense time can be seen as vitreous. Second, there does not seem to be an in-universe object behind the other spelling (I was thinking of something along the lines of [[Kamelion]] sounding similar to "chameleon"). | ||
Regarding the use of scripts, I understand they are not a primary source. But I still envy those who have them: scripts do make editing simpler if treated with caution and, yes, primarily for proper names. For instance, I would never have been able to properly spell [[Brighella]] without the help of the script. If a dictionary or encyclopaedic word is outside of my vocabulary, a script is really helpful, even a script with a typo. | Regarding the use of scripts, I understand they are not a primary source. But I still envy those who have them: scripts do make editing simpler if treated with caution and, yes, primarily for proper names. For instance, I would never have been able to properly spell [[Brighella]] without the help of the script. If a dictionary or encyclopaedic word is outside of my vocabulary, a script is really helpful, even a script with a typo. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Reference Desk/20160309221053-24894325/20160804194357-24894325]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:31, 28 April 2023
Thank you all for answering my question. My hesitation stemmed from two sources, both resolved now. First, CzechOut explained in which sense time can be seen as vitreous. Second, there does not seem to be an in-universe object behind the other spelling (I was thinking of something along the lines of Kamelion sounding similar to "chameleon").
Regarding the use of scripts, I understand they are not a primary source. But I still envy those who have them: scripts do make editing simpler if treated with caution and, yes, primarily for proper names. For instance, I would never have been able to properly spell Brighella without the help of the script. If a dictionary or encyclopaedic word is outside of my vocabulary, a script is really helpful, even a script with a typo.
