Auri and Ishgard, can we truly be allies?

[Viridiana]

No it's not. As niether is the phrase "sleeping with the enemy" to mean you literally jump in the same bed.

Are you trying to tell me that "lay" is not the past tense of "lie," even though it is (for lying down, but not for lying about your age)? Or are you trying to tell me that "lie with" is not an archaic way of saying "have sex with," even though it is?

[Sapphic]

Are you trying to tell me that "lay" is not the past tense of "lie," even though it is (for lying down, but not for lying about your age)? Or are you trying to tell me that "lie with" is not an archaic way of saying "have sex with," even though it is?

That is exactly what I am saying, a phrase of that context you do not break it down to the meaning of each individual word, but the whole phrase.

Here you go:

In everyday speech, a phrase may be any group of words, often carrying a special idiomatic meaning; in this sense it is roughly synonymous with expression.

I bolded the important part.

Layaing with the enemy is another way of saying sleeping with the enemy. Definition below.

The phrase “sleeping with the enemy” is often used to describe a situation involving a non-adversarial relationship between two individuals or entities that would normally be unfriendly or adversarial. This frequently includes business deals between competitors, joint projects tackled by enemies, and political maneuverings that require the cooperation of competing parties. Sometimes, sleeping with the enemy involves cooperating just for the purpose of gaining inside information or the upper hand in a competitive situation. In other situations, however, opposing parties may actually work together for the good of a common goal.

Bolded the important part, conjecture here, but the common goal for Shiva may have been the ending of hostilities between Ishgard and Dravania.

[Viridiana]

Layaing with the enemy is another way of saying sleeping with the enemy. Definition below.

No, lie with is literally an archaic way of saying "have sexual intercourse with."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lies+with Definition 22.

[Sapphic]

No, lie with is literally an archaic way of saying "have sexual intercourse with."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lies+with Definition 22.

You are still breaking the phrase into smaller parts, phrases do not work like that, You take the WHOLE phrase, returning back to "Sleeping with the enemy" If you read the dfefinition, you wouldn't use the word sleeping from the phrase as closing your eyes and sleeping. It is contextual as a whole phrase, not as singular words of a sentance.

Also with your definition you are using only one of the definitions (taken from your link) to fit your conceived notion of the meaning behind the phrase.

You forgot to also add the first definition: to be the duty or function of: So taking the first definition could translate the phrase to lie with the enemy, as to work with them or for them which would fit more in line with the phrases lie with the enemy and sleeping with the enemy.

Some other phrases that make no sense if you break them down to a word by word definition.

An arm and a leg (meaning something was expensive cost wise).
A piece of cake (meaning: something was easy)

Taking one from inside FFXIVs auto translator

Chewing the fat. Which means chatting and/or gossiping. Where is the "chewing" in chatting? or the fat? neither of those words singularly have any contextual meaning to what the whole phrase is saying, so you cannot in the context of a phrase use the definitions of those words to state the correct meaning behind the phrase. The same with To lie with the enemy.

[Viridiana]

You are still breaking the phrase into smaller parts

No, I'm not. I'm looking at the definition for the phrase "lie with". The definition of the phrase as a whole.

You forgot to also add the first definition: to be the duty or function of: So taking the first definition could translate the phrase to lie with the enemy, as to work with them or for them which would fit more in line with the phrases lie with the enemy and sleeping with the enemy.

No, you're ignoring the examples given by that definition.

The power to declare war lies with Congress.
The fault in this matter lies with him.

Those are examples of the first archaic meaning given.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind.

That's an example of the second definition (regardless if it's a message we should agree with). I mean, if you want to go tell all the right-wing Christians in the US that they're reading their bibles wrong and that the verse they've been using for the past 400 years to condemn homosexuality is actually condemning two men working together, more power to you, but you'll be wrong (about what the verse says, anyway).

Some other phrases that make no sense if you break them down to a word by word definition.

Yes. I know this. Convincing you that I know what I'm talking about might be a picture of rice cake, though.

[lilirulu]

Instead of arguing; why not consider the following? Shiva both had sexual intercourse with and was allied to (a) dragon(s). Because it can go both ways after all.

[Mholito]

The way I see it: They're wording it in such a way that we are expected to believe that Shiva actually had sexual intercourse with a dragon. That said; it's still posible that she did not. It might have just been slander.

[Sapphic]

No, I'm not. I'm looking at the definition for the phrase "lie with". The definition of the phrase as a whole.

Yert you admit in that sentqance you are breaking the phrase into seperate words and using one definition of that word without the whole phrase. We are not talking about the definition of to lie, we are talking about the whole phrase. To lie with the enemy. You CANNOT split phrases into its seperate components, use the definition of each word and dictate that that is what the phrase means.

Yes. I know this. Convincing you that I know what I'm talking about might be a picture of rice cake, though.

I know the feeling. As you avoid every argument outside of your own conceived notion, with evidence that you also ignore proving you cannot break phrases down into single word definitions and arrive at the meaning behind the phrase, which is why I gave you examples of other phrases to hold context to my argument. Something you have failed to do.

The power to declare war lies with Congress.
The fault in this matter lies with him.

Those are NOT phrases thus hold no meaning in this discussion.

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

Heres another example.
To let the cat out of the bag. It's used in a context that there is not bag and that there is no cat. But using your argument to define the phrase it would mean there IS a cat and a bag.

[myahele]

With the "darker" tone Heavensward will have. Perhaps we'll have a quest dealing with the mysterious disappearances of some Auri refugees/ adventurers in Ishgard?

Only to find out some country folk and clergy kidnapped and killed some of them via the "Witches Drop" trial?

[Viridiana]

Yert you admit in that sentqance you are breaking the phrase into seperate words and using one definition of that word without the whole phrase. We are not talking about the definition of to lie, we are talking about the whole phrase. To lie with the enemy. You CANNOT split phrases into its seperate components, use the definition of each word and dictate that that is what the phrase means.

You keep using the word phrase when you clearly mean idiom. You can't even use the word you actually mean, and you want to give me a lesson in English? Here, let me make it easy for you:

"Lie" is an individual word. As an individual word, it means "to recline." I'm not using this definition.
"Lie with" is a phrase. As a phrase, it carries an archaic meaning of "to have sex with." I am using this definition.
"Lie with the enemy" is a phrase. It's not, however, an idiom.
"Idiom" is an individual word. As a word, it means "a fixed phrase whose meaning cannot be derived from the individual words comprising the phrase."
"Sleep with the enemy" is an idiom. As an idiom, it means "to ally with the enemy."
"Lie with a dragon" again, is not an idiom. Therefore, it does not have the idiomatic meaning of "to ally with the enemy."

The thing about idioms is, you can't just go changing words at random and expect the meaning to stay the same. "Pulling my leg" and "yanking my chain" are idioms for the same thing, but "pulling my hair" is not. To make "lie with a dragon" into an idiom meaning "ally with the enemy," you have to make all of the following steps:

1) Lie with -> Have sex with
2) Have sex with -> Sleep with
3) dragon -> the enemy
4) Sleep with the enemy -> Ally with the enemy

You can't just take a phrase and assert that it's an idiom. Especially when that interpretation is not at all supported by the context. You're completely ignoring the further context, where Minfilia goes on to say:

How such a thing could even be possible is quite another question.

You don't get people asking how it's possible to ally with the enemy. You get people asking how it's possible for a normal Elezen woman to have sex with a huge dragon.

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?