Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculous?

[BillJ]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Also: Metres not Meters

It's 'meters' here in the United States.

 

[MacLeod]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Here in the UK a meter is a measuring device, and metre is a unit of measurement

 

[BillJ]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Here in the UK a meter is a measuring device, and metre is a unit of measurement

Being that we're an international board, it is important to remember that something we see as correct isn't the case for everyone.

 

[MacLeod]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

^quite correct it is an international board and as such we can discuss variances in language uses even if it's nominally the same language.

You can also add that not everyone might use the same system of measurements i.e. tempature so people should mention if it's degrees C, F or K.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

^quite correct it is an international board and as such we can discuss variances in language uses even if it's nominally the same language.

But the post I referenced wasn't a discussion on variance, it was a correction. A correction that was wrong.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Resources or lack therof doesn't seem to much of an issue for the Federation

While the citizens of the Federation may live under a cornucopia and just need to open their mouths every once in a while, Starfleet actually seems starved of resources.

After all, Star Trek plots depend on our heroes being the only ones to respond to a distress call in time, on them being unable to summon reinforcements in time, and on there being unexplored stuff everywhere. If Starfleet had resources to burn, surely it would build a tad more ships so that these would actually arrive in time to save a colony in distress?

Since something keeps Starfleet from having as many ships as it really needs, it may be a very good idea to make each and every one count, by supersizing. That doesn't appear to be blocked by lack of resources.

Timo Saloniemi

Well, dilithium certainly seemed to be in short supply on TOS, with both Starfleet and the Klingons quite interested in finding new sources of the precious substance.

 

[Maurice]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

^quite correct it is an international board and as such we can discuss variances in language uses even if it's nominally the same language.

But the post I referenced wasn't a discussion on variance, it was a correction. A correction that was wrong.

On an internet on which people routinely write "could of", "infinate", and "your wrong", are we really arguing over "meter/metre"?

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Well, dilithium certainly seemed to be in short supply on TOS, with both Starfleet and the Klingons quite interested in finding new sources of the precious substance.

The Klingons definitely seemed to need dilithium, but I was never clear as to whether the Federation wanted it because they needed it or because they wanted to control it to keep it from those who would use it for war - like the Klingons.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

^quite correct it is an international board and as such we can discuss variances in language uses even if it's nominally the same language.

But the post I referenced wasn't a discussion on variance, it was a correction. A correction that was wrong.

On an internet on which people routinely write "could of", "infinate", and "your wrong", are we really arguing over "meter/metre"?

Don't forget "cannon" instead of "canon" and "Kahn" instead of "Khan."

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

"Kahn"

 

[BillJ]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

^quite correct it is an international board and as such we can discuss variances in language uses even if it's nominally the same language.

But the post I referenced wasn't a discussion on variance, it was a correction. A correction that was wrong.

On an internet on which people routinely write "could of", "infinate", and "your wrong", are we really arguing over "meter/metre"?

 

[Elder Knight]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

^quite correct it is an international board and as such we can discuss variances in language uses even if it's nominally the same language.

But the post I referenced wasn't a discussion on variance, it was a correction. A correction that was wrong.

On an internet on which people routinely write "could of", "infinate", and "your wrong", are we really arguing over "meter/metre"?

Don't forget "wired" for "weird", an oft-used word for folk who think that i-before-e is an absolute rule, e.g., "You guys are wired!" Weird!

 

[Ithekro]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

At least it wasn't written out as "meatear".

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

But the post I referenced wasn't a discussion on variance, it was a correction. A correction that was wrong.

On an internet on which people routinely write "could of", "infinate", and "your wrong", are we really arguing over "meter/metre"?

Don't forget "wired" for "weird", an oft-used word for folk who think that i-before-e is an absolute rule, e.g., "You guys are wired!" Weird!

And, increasingly, people seem to be using "roll" instead of "role."

As in "Who should be cast in the roll of Wonder Woman?"

The pain, the pain!

 

[MacLeod]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Well English does like to have words which sound the same but are spelt differently which have different meanings depending on the spelling. Counsellor/Councillor for example.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

And, increasingly, people seem to be using "roll" instead of "role."

As in "Who should be cast in the roll of Wonder Woman?"

The pain, the pain!

Let me axe you a question.

Do you think that things like this are just a natural part of the evolution of the language, to be embraced, or do you think that - since we have the media and the understanding to do so if we really wanted to - we should make the language as static as possible?

 

[dswynne1]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Personally, I'm fine with the larger size, for certain class of Federation starships. Closer to home, you can have the smaller ships. Beyond the border, especially in uncharted space (with families on board no less), you would need to have a more self-supporting vehicle. That includes basic manufacturing capabilities and space to use for emergencies (like botanical gardens).

Besides, over-thinking FICTION is quite silly, IMO.

Define what qualifies as over thinking it.

SNIP!

Glad you asked.

There is a phrase that has been quoted in Star Trek before, which is based upon Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is the best answer. Now, we can go on and on about why Starfleet ships have increased in size, which is fine. But I hazard to guess that the reason for the increase size is because the production script calls for it. That's it. In TOS, we had a crew compliment of 400+ for the Constitution-class, and the interior designs reflected this. In TNG, the Galaxy-class was much larger, had a crew compliment of 1000+ (including civilians and the crew's family), and the ship was designed for long-ranch missions outside of Federation territory. That's it. And, again, I am fine with the idea of larger ships, but for mission-specific purposes. Ships closer to home should be smaller, simply because space ports, outposts and starbases are accessible. Out there in the unknown? You would need to be a bit more self-sufficient for a number of reasons. At any time, you may be attacked, get stranded or even have supply problems. And just because there are replicators, that requires ENERGY. You would need to figure out a way to extract the energy requirements necessary to survive, and maybe find somewhere to rest, maybe permanently. So, in my opinion, having a larger ship should not be a big deal. And, again, making a mountain out of a mole hill, while interesting, serves no real purpose other than to second-guess what the producers of 'Trek wanted to do. Ergo, over-thinking fiction is quite silly.

Just a thought.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

And, increasingly, people seem to be using "roll" instead of "role."

As in "Who should be cast in the roll of Wonder Woman?"

The pain, the pain!

Let me axe you a question.

Do you think that things like this are just a natural part of the evolution of the language, to be embraced, or do you think that - since we have the media and the understanding to do so if we really wanted to - we should make the language as static as possible?

I edit books for a living; I can't not wince at somebody using the wrong word when the right one is available. It's like nails scraping on a blackboard

Deliberate wordplay and coining new words and expressions are one thing. Carelessly using the wrong word (especially where homonyms are concerned) just causes confusion and interferes with the fundamental purpose of language: to communicate.

Case in point: Just the other day, I was puzzling over a sentence in a manuscript until I realized that, although the author had written "formally," he meant "formerly." Completely changed the meaning of the sentence!

And, sadly, this a mistake I've seen before . . ..

(Don't get me started on "discrete" versus "discreet" . . . )

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

And, increasingly, people seem to be using "roll" instead of "role."

As in "Who should be cast in the roll of Wonder Woman?"

The pain, the pain!

Let me axe you a question.

If it was good enough for Chaucer, it should be good enough for us.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

And, increasingly, people seem to be using "roll" instead of "role."

As in "Who should be cast in the roll of Wonder Woman?"

The pain, the pain!

Let me axe you a question.

If it was good enough for Chaucer, it should be good enough for us.

Chaucer needed a better copyeditor.