Auri and Ishgard, can we truly be allies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

In short, you're ignoring English and ignoring the game in order to for some reason claim that the game is not saying she had sex with a dragon. Why are you so determined for this to not be the case?

---

Definition of Phrase that applies to this:
a characteristic, current, or proverbial expression:

That is a definition of phrase.

ONE definition of lie with is to have sex. Another definition is not, but to ally with. You cannot take one definition and ignore the other just because the one you use fits into your conceived definition of what Lie with the enemy means.

Also you are counterarguing yourself with the the definition you post of Sleep with. Then saying Sleep with the enemy is to ally with.

Whereas you should be putting: 1) Lie with -> have sex with OR ally with.

Unitil we get a definitive post either way, both our opinions are conjecture, but you seem to insist it is one without taking into consideration it could be the other.

A phrase is “a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit”, while an idiom is “a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words”. So, the difference is that an idiom as an established meaning not directly linked to the individual words. Any idiom is a phrase.

If you want to be settled with, in the french version it's clearly stated that she had sex with a dragon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Definition of Phrase that applies to this:
a characteristic, current, or proverbial expression:

That is a definition of phrase.

---

Yes, but proverbial expressions have meanings that can be derived from their constituent parts. Unless they are also idioms, which have meanings not derivable from their parts. "Fun for the whole family" is a phrase, but you can determine from its meaning that, yes, something is being described as promising fun for any member of the family. "Raining cats and dogs" is an idiom, because if you take the literal meaning of the words making up the phrase, you would come to an incorrect conclusion that pets are falling from clouds in the sky.

Unfortunately for your point, there is no idiom "lie with a dragon." Since "lie with a dragon" is not an idiom, it's just a generic phrase. That means that the meaning can be derived from the individual words and phrases within the larger phrase. "Lie with" means "have sex with;" "a" means. . ."a;" and "dragon" means "dragon." Thus, "lie with a dragon" means "have sex with a dragon." This isn't hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

ONE definition of lie with is to have sex. Another definition is not, but to ally with. You cannot take one definition and ignore the other just because the one you use fits into your conceived definition of what Lie with the enemy means.

---

I'm glad you finally admitted that "lie with" does not mean "ally with." And I'm not just ignoring the other definition. I'm taking the one that makes sense in the context. The other definition of "lie with" only works for intangibles, such as power, fault, and responsibility. The definition of "lie with" that works with people is "to have sex with."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Also you are counterarguing yourself with the the definition you post of Sleep with. Then saying Sleep with the enemy is to ally with.Whereas you should be putting: 1) Lie with -> have sex with OR ally with.

---

Nooo. . .that was my showing what chain of logic you (literally you, not "whoever's reading this" you) would have to follow to go from "lie with a dragon" to "sleep with the enemy." I'm not actually arguing that "lie with a dragon" is somehow an idiom meaning the same as the idiom "sleep with the enemy." You are, for some strange reason. Even though to get to "sleep with the enemy" from "lie with a dragon" you have to go through the part where "lie with" means "have sex with."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Unitil we get a definitive post either way, both our opinions are conjecture, but you seem to insist it is one without taking into consideration it could be the other.

---

It's not conjecture. It's what the game is literally saying. It remains to be seen if it's actually something that happened in the game world, but it's very clearly being said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

A phrase is “a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit”, while an idiom is “a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words”. So, the difference is that an idiom as an established meaning not directly linked to the individual words. Any idiom is a phrase.

---

Congratulations on telling me something I already told you. >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Yes, but proverbial expressions have meanings that can be derived from their constituent parts. Unless they are also idioms, which have meanings not derivable from their parts. "Fun for the whole family" is a phrase, but you can determine from its meaning that, yes, something is being described as promising fun for any member of the family. "Raining cats and dogs" is an idiom, because if you take the literal meaning of the words making up the phrase, you would come to an incorrect conclusion that pets are falling from clouds in the sky.

---

Well that is where you making an assumption that the phrase "to lie with the enemy" is an actual phrase that you can break down into its lesser parts, with out taking into consideration it could be another way of writing "to sleep with the enemy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Unfortunately for your point, there is no idiom "lie with a dragon." Since "lie with a dragon" is not an idiom, it's just a generic phrase. That means that the meaning can be derived from the individual words and phrases within the larger phrase. "Lie with" means "have sex with;" "a" means. . ."a;" and "dragon" means "dragon." Thus, "lie with a dragon" means "have sex with a dragon." This isn't hard.

---

Which would be true IF to lie with only had one definition that could fit into the phrase, But it doesn't it has more than just to have sex with, the second you ignore for your own definition of the phrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

I'm glad you finally admitted that "lie with" does not mean "ally with." And I'm not just ignoring the other definition. I'm taking the one that makes sense in the context. The other definition of "lie with" only works for intangibles, such as power, fault, and responsibility. The definition of "lie with" that works with people is "to have sex with."

---

Yet you are assuming that it isn't an idiom. You are assuming enemy, which is a broad term, means a definitive entity. But as I said, until we get definitive confirmation from the lore term, both of our opinions are based on cojecture and self translation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

You keep using the word phrase when you clearly mean idiom.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Congratulations on telling me something I already told you. >_>

---

Yet you clearly told me I was misusing phrase to refer to an Idiom, yet as all Idioms are phrases referring to them as phrases is correct. Which you now admit to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Well that is where you making an assumption that the phrase "to lie with the enemy" is an actual phrase that you can break down into its lesser parts, with out taking into consideration it could be another way of writing "to sleep with the enemy".

---

You're making the unfounded assumption. Phrases that can be understood by considering their parts is the default. If you're going to claim that this phrase is not one of those phrases, the onus is on you to explain why. You haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Which would be true IF to lie with only had one definition that could fit into the phrase, But it doesn't it has more than just to have sex with, the second you ignore for your own definition of the phrase.

---

There is only one definition that fits with the context. You're claiming that definition 22a fits here, when it doesn't. Definition 22a only works with intangibles, such as responsibility, blame, guilt, duty, power, etc. Definition 22b is clearly what's meant here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Yet you are assuming that it isn't an idiom.

---

That's not an unusual assumption, it's the default. I'll note that you haven't assumed anything I've said in any of these posts is an idiom, yet you want to assume this phrase is. Idioms are common, yes, but they're a small proportion of the total language. Unless you're dealing with a known idiom, there's no reason to assume that something is an idiom. "Lie with a dragon" is not an idiom I've ever heard. Have you seen it attested anywhere in any other context meaning "sleep with the enemy"? I mean, you keep asserting it's an idiom that means "sleep with the enemy," so surely you've seen it somewhere else to mean that. I mean, idioms aren't one-off things. They get reused. So, show me one other source that can attest "lie with a dragon" as being an equivalent idiom to "sleeping with the enemy."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

You are assuming enemy, which is a broad term, means a definitive entity. But as I said, until we get definitive confirmation from the lore term, both of our opinions are based on cojecture and self translation.

---

You're the one who keeps bringing up the word enemy. Without you making things up, the word enemy isn't even in this phrase. I'm not trying to put the word enemy into the phrase, you are. Also, I'm not translating anything. It's English. I'm reading English and taking the English meanings of the words as they're used in English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Yet you clearly told me I was misusing phrase to refer to an Idiom, yet as all Idioms are phrases referring to them as phrases is correct. Which you now admit to.

---

In the same way that all squares are rectangles. So sure, saying that rectangles have four equal sides is right sometimes, but that doesn't mean you should say rectangle when you mean square. There's a reason we have multiple words for things. Because if you say "Rectangles have four equal sides. That's the definition of a rectangle." people are going to look at you like you have no clue what you're talking about. >_>

Shiva didnt have sex with a dragoon, end of the story! LOL
She allied with them, thats why it is said that she is the first heretic, period. >_<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick22

Shiva didnt have Sex with a dragoon, End of the Story! LOL

---

Probably not, but the House Fortemps texts totally say she did. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Probably not, but the House Fortemps texts totally say she did. :p

---

Remeber what Alphinaud said. Also this has being debated long ago, you know how Ishgardian's behaviour and fanatism is, specialyy towards to dragoons. Its really logic that the meaning got mistranslated with time or that it was exagerated on purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick22

Remeber what Alphinaud said. Also this has being debated long ago, you know how Ishgardian's behaviour and fanatism is, specialyy towards to dragoons. Its really logic that the meaning got mistranslated with time or that it was exagerated on purpose.

---

Yeah, that's what I've been saying since 2.4 came out. Shiva was almost certainly a heretic, possibly even the first (or just first famous) heretic, and she was since demonized by the Ishgardians. I suspect propaganda and demonizing more than just simple mistranslation, but I do agree that she likely didn't actually have sex with a dragon. That said, the records in House Fortemps' library certainly say she did.

I think Shiva was romantically involved with a dragon and that's why she started her crusade to unite man and dragon. If she had sex with one or not doesn't really matter in the end outside it seeming to me that it was Ishgard's way of defaming her and her cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greven

Just in case someone missed it: during the Nico Super FATE Day 1 Q&A, link to a translation posted on reddit. In the last point below "Draconian Cloud Sea" it says <<Aura are not related to Dragons. Their motif are demons.>>

---

Honestly I find this to be such a horrid decision and to not make much sense within the lore of the game. I really wish they remove their comment on that and revert them to be at least semi-Draconin in origin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samcaesar

Honestly I find this to be such a horrid decision and to not make much sense within the lore of the game. I really wish they remove their comment on that and revert them to be at least semi-Draconin in origin.

---

It certainly makes it easier to digest how the Au Ra came to be. Demons/whatever race (most likely Hyur or Elezan) mating to make Au Ra make more sense than Dragon/whatever race (most likely same as before). Of course fantasy can cover it, and I'm still saying they should go with Demonic Dragons.

All the signs led us to believe they were in someway related to dragons, but with us now knowing they are demonic in nature actually makes a lot more sense especially with an expansion that is set in a city at war with dragons. Nobody freaked out in Coerthas with Yugiri walking around without her mask. With the impending opening of Ishgard and the influx of Au Ra players, it would be very confusing to have a people who have been at war with the Dravanians for so long to suddenly make peace with random dragon adventurers running around the city. I just hope we get some quests that tell us about the history of the Au Ra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murakami7

Snip

---

Not really, I mean it kind of forgets the whole fact that we've been having constant issues with Voidsent in dungeons and story all the time, look at Crystal Towers and WoD. While Ishgard might be apathetic to demonic people, I really doubt Gridania would be fine with them. The whole fact that no one did freak out in Coerthas is just weird, it's stated that it's a common misconception that people think they are related to dragons, so unless if every Ishgardian was completely reasonable and in the total know of Auri biology, I'm very much sure they would still freak out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualblade

Snip

---

Demonic dragons would be the best of both worlds, no? With Migards association with Hydaelyn, he might make a good Dawn Father I suppose :P But you know, I'm not quite sure how on earth a race of man would mate with a voidsent, it doesn't seem like it's work too well for either of those beings really.

We don't know that the Coerthans saw Yugiri, she does that ninja vanish thing so well. She could have been guarding Tataru's flight from a stealthy vantage. The only people in the room when the WoL saw her was Tataru and Alphinaud, and yourself.

Until they officially release more ore though, it's anybody's guess as to how well known the Auri race was in Eorzea prior to now. All we have is conjecture, such as the Odin minion text etc.

edit- possibly the guy guarding the door had to let her in, so perhaps one or two people in Dragonhead saw her, with Tataru to vouch for her. But her presence could still have been very limited.

Honestly, I figure no one would have had to have seen Yugiri to not cause alarm. While her appearance isn't as alarming as some of us would have thought, it would still cause Ishgardians some kind of alarm.

I really wish it wasn't super ambiguous on that Auri warrior, perhaps it'll be the set up for Odin EX or something? Maybe we'll find out it was a lone Xaela warrior or maybe the Au Ra used to populate Eorzea long ago and just slowly moved up to Othard with the ages, I just hope we find out :P