[Retros] linguistic hole

[Kevin Begley]

To briefly clarify...

I think it is fine to introduce new fiction when naming new themes (or
new fairy elements); but, here the suggestion was to claim some
tattered thread existed between a modern fiction and ancient
mythology, for a long known (and commonly employed) theme.

That "common thread" has already been debunked in this forum -- to
restate: modern fiction does not establish a lasting link to ancient
mythology simply by having referenced the latter.

You don't change the rules for vampires by simply incorporating new
rules into a popular blockbuster movie.  The rules change when other
movies accept that these new rules help further the character
development (read: other movies draw upon the rules of said
blockbuster).

And, without having made any case for the haphazard precedent that
this suggestion might create for other naming conventions, it is now
suggested that this forum should select (by vote) the name of a long
established (and often employed) theme, from a field of forum
suggestions, which are likely to prove equally misguided.

I vote that the convention, not the suggestions, should be voted upon.

Kevin.


On 2/21/10, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's my take:

>  The consensus should be that whomever had the idea to name this after

>  Harry Potter fiction had no business naming such a theme -- and the

>  suggestion deserves not one place in the nomination of fifty (to be

>  later voted upon) names for any given theme.

>

>  Before you can call for a vote, you must call for a process to select

>  what is to be voted upon.

>

>

>  Kevin.

>

>

>

>  On 2/21/10, Otto Janko <otto at janko.at> wrote:

>  >

>  >

>  > Ok, now some time has gone without any mail w.r.t. this topic. How do we

>  > come to a conclusion? Voting? Or is there consensus? (If yes, which ohne?)

>  >

>  > ~ÔttÔ~

>  >

>  >

>  >  ________________________________

>  >  From: retros-bounces at janko.at

>  > [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of andrew

>  > buchanan

>  > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:30 AM

>  > To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List

>  > Subject: Re: [Retros] linguistic hole

>  >

>  >

>  >

>  >

>  > If consensus can't evolve, then I think voting would be a great idea.

>  >

>  > Thanks for all the suggestions.

>  >

>  > I think that for the general term for surviving promoted pawns, Guus'

>  > suggestion of "parvenu" is better than either of the other suggestions I

>  > made. Parvenu is a word in English, but obviously derives from French.

>  > Sometimes these borrowed words have different meanings. What is the sense in

>  > French?

>  >

>  > As far as the specific term for non-Phoenix survivor there are a number of

>  > good suggestions, I am awestruck by the appositeness of Otto's "Horcrux". I

>  > am far too old to know Harry Potter well, but I enjoyed the movies. Key

>  > things that Wikipedia pointed out to me is that the Horcrux creation

>  > precedes the death of the original, that it can be a person (SPOILER WARNING

>  > heh), and that it involves a sacrifice (just as a promotion implies a

>  > capture). It's a 7 letter word ending in "x" referring to a fictional object

>  > and I don't think we could ask for more. Also would be recognizable to

>  > younger newcomers who we ought to be interested in introducing to our little

>  > hobby.

>  >

>  > It also occurs to me that in some proof games it may be difficult to

>  > determine which pieces are Phoenix, and which are "Horcrux".

>  > Suppose:

>  > - a rook is captured

>  > - two pawns promote to rook

>  > - another original rook is captured

>  >

>  > Which pawn is the Phoenix? Unless there is some kind of Pronkin action going

>  > on to associate "parvenus" with originals, there is no clear way to do it.

>  >

>  > All the best,

>  > Andy.

>  >

>  > PS: I think Parsefal should be made a term some day, for something.

>  >

>  >

>  >  ________________________________

>  >  From: Steve Dowd <sdowd367 at gmail.com>

>  > To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List <retros at janko.at>

>  > Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 7:59:38 PM

>  > Subject: Re: [Retros] linguistic hole

>  >

>  >  Why not ask Milan if the Mat Plus forum survey option could be used for

>  > seeing who likes  whichof the various options we have seen here? It seems

>  > perfectly suited to the task, or perhaps another webmaster might post a

>  > survey?

>  >

>  >

>  > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Forlot <dominique.forlot at wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>  >

>  > > What do you think about the term:

>  > >

>  > > 'Perceval'

>  > > or

>  > > 'Parsifal'

>  > >

>  > > for these promotions!

>  > >

>  > > Its universal in the meaning, ( everybody Know "his Name" )

>  > > A simple man who 'promote' ... and find the graal!

>  > >

>  > > Best regards!

>  > >

>  > > Forlot Dominique.

>  > >

>  > >

>  > > -----Message d'origine-----

>  > > De : retros-bounces at janko.at

>  > [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] De la part de

>  > > andrew buchanan

>  > > Envoyé : dimanche 17 janvier 2010 15:09

>  > > À : Retros Mailing List

>  > > Objet : [Retros] linguistic hole

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > > Dear Retrofriends,

>  > >

>  > > It seems to me there is a hole in our language for describing promotions.

>  > >

>  > > We like promotions, and we like to have diagrams which are free of

>  > > non-thematic extraneous promoted units. So if there is a promotion,

>  > > something may have to be captured at some point, to keep things looking

>  > > nice.

>  > >

>  > > - If it's the promoted unit which is captured, we call it Ceriani-Frolkin

>  > > and pat ourselves on the back.

>  > > - If it's an original unit which is captured, we call the promoted unit

>  > > Phoenix *but* *only* *if* *the *original* *unit* *died* *before* *the

>  > > *promotion*.

>  > >

>  > > We haven't any term for the more general case of a non C-F promotee, where

>  > > the diagram is free of extraneous promoted units of that type.

>  > >

>  > > Some problems are sometimes described as "double Phoenix", e.g.:

>  > >

>  > > Henrik Juel

>  > > rnbqkb1r/ppppp1p1/8/3B4/8/4n3/PPPP1P1P/RNBQK1NR

>  > > Thema Danicum no. 86, 1997/04

>  > > (no. 22 in Alain Brobecker's Introduction to Proof Games)

>  > > PG in 6.0 moves.

>  > >

>  > > But actually it isn't - only the second promotion is Phoenix.

>  > >

>  > > What we have here I suspect is another adoption of a non-PG term to the PG

>  > > world, where it doesn't quite work the same way. See:

>  > >

>  > > http://dt.dewia.com/yacpdb/?id=271408

>  > > www.selivanov.ru/download/Magazins/Kudesnik/Cud-104.pdf

>  > >

>  > > which are referring in the world of directmates to a Nissl theme (as a

>  > > subtype of Phoenix I think) where the capture must come *immediately*

>  > before

>  > > the promotion. Clearly in direct mates it is more elegant for the original

>  > > unit to be saced before the promotee reappears.  [Hmmm... Nissl could be

>  > an

>  > > interesting theme for a PG exploration...] (Maybe others on the mailing

>  > list

>  > > have more experience than I of use of the Phoenix theme in forwards

>  > > composition.)

>  > >

>  > > But what should we do in PG world?

>  > > (a) continue to abuse the term "Phoenix" some of the time

>  > > (b) use the term "non-C-F"

>  > > (c) decide that we don't need a word for this

>  > > (d) invent a new term

>  > >

>  > > I think options a-c are unacceptable. I suggest the term "inheritor". So a

>  > > Phoenixes is a kind of inheritor (a posthumous one! :). We have still no

>  > > term for non-Phoenix inheritors, but let's not worry about that now.

>  > >

>  > > Comments welcome,

>  > > Andy.

>  > >

>  > > _______________________________________________

>  > > Retros mailing list

>  > > Retros at janko.at

>  > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>  > >

>  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>  > > -----------

>  > > Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.

>  > > Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > >

>  > > _______________________________________________

>  > > Retros mailing list

>  > > Retros at janko.at

>  > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>  > >

>  >

>  >

>  > _______________________________________________

>  >  Retros mailing list

>  >  Retros at janko.at

>  >  http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>  >

>  >

>