You ever play Skyrim and just forget anything you might feel is bad or wrong about the game, that point where you just start having fun for a few hours?
Daily reminder that the Greek terms "dragon" and "drake", Germanic "wurm" and "wyrm", French/Latin "wyvern", Slavic "saň", semitic "leviathan" and Persian "bahamut", even the Japanese "Orochi" all refer to the same mythological archetype, and all merely represent different etymological routes, which actually all even share similar semiotic logic, as literally every single one of them is in some way derived from ancient roots related to either snakes, or snake-like motion.
For an instance, wyrm/wurm originate in PIE "vrmis", a word refering to snake or worm like motion - the same root that in english also formed the words "worm" and "vermin". In slavic languages, the same root formed words like "vrťet" (to fiddle, to move erratically" or "vrtat" (dig, bore).
Wyvern on the other hand comes from latin "vipera" - compound of "vivi" (life) and "parere" (parent), literally refering to live-birth class of snakes, which includes adders.
Dragon/drakon/drake are greek terms of terrifying snake-like beast, with a secondary meaning of "terrifying/cruel/powerful being" (hence the term "drakonic rule").
Leviathan and it's bastardization of "bahamut" are derived from old Semitic root "l-v-t", meaning "to coil or to revolve like a snake".
Slavic "saň" comes from liturgic slavic, and is directly related to the word "saně" (sleigh), as they both also refer to a limbless, snake like motion, sliding or slythering.
None of these words really refer to a particular, unique set of physiological features. They all simply denote a snake-based representation of chaos. Number of legs, wings, or heads is never actually specified or relevant to any of these terms.
Mythological concept aren't biology. They aren't defined - unlike Linné's biological taxonomy, which comes much later, by physiology. The only reason why we assume physiological features would be determining for the terminology, is because MODERN biology cultivated such sentimens in us. Historically, they are irrelevant.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Old definition good new definition bad
Kys moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And who and when provided these "new definitions" exactly? On which authority, in which works?
You're not funny. Why make this shitty thread? Wiverns are dragons as are serpent like creatures, the latter even more so since a dragon is simply a literal big serpent.
Daily reminder that the Greek terms "dragon" and "drake", Germanic "wurm" and "wyrm", French/Latin "wyvern", Slavic "saň", semitic "leviathan" and Persian "bahamut", even the Japanese "Orochi" all refer to the same mythological archetype, and all merely represent different etymological routes, which actually all even share similar semiotic logic, as literally every single one of them is in some way derived from ancient roots related to either snakes, or snake-like motion.
For an instance, wyrm/wurm originate in PIE "vrmis", a word refering to snake or worm like motion - the same root that in english also formed the words "worm" and "vermin". In slavic languages, the same root formed words like "vrťet" (to fiddle, to move erratically" or "vrtat" (dig, bore).
Wyvern on the other hand comes from latin "vipera" - compound of "vivi" (life) and "parere" (parent), literally refering to live-birth class of snakes, which includes adders.
Dragon/drakon/drake are greek terms of terrifying snake-like beast, with a secondary meaning of "terrifying/cruel/powerful being" (hence the term "drakonic rule").
Leviathan and it's bastardization of "bahamut" are derived from old Semitic root "l-v-t", meaning "to coil or to revolve like a snake".
Slavic "saň" comes from liturgic slavic, and is directly related to the word "saně" (sleigh), as they both also refer to a limbless, snake like motion, sliding or slythering.
None of these words really refer to a particular, unique set of physiological features. They all simply denote a snake-based representation of chaos. Number of legs, wings, or heads is never actually specified or relevant to any of these terms.
Mythological concept aren't biology. They aren't defined - unlike Linné's biological taxonomy, which comes much later, by physiology. The only reason why we assume physiological features would be determining for the terminology, is because MODERN biology cultivated such sentimens in us. Historically, they are irrelevant.
>That's a japanese mistranslation of Baphomet which is completely different.
What the actual FRICK are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut#:~:text=The%20name%20is%20thought%20to,in%20the%20pre%2Dislamic%20period.
You ever play Skyrim and just forget anything you might feel is bad or wrong about the game, that point where you just start having fun for a few hours?
I can’t though because it has wyverns yet calls them dragons
Aren't wyvern still considered dragons like how a gorilla and orangutan are both considered apes?
yes. the "wyverns aren't dragons!" meme is ancient and always been wrong
No, wyverns have two legs and a pair of wings. Dragons have four legs and a pair of wings
It’s more like insects vs arachnids, insects have 6 legs while arachnids have 8
>Dragons have four legs and a pair of wings.
This is why western educations will be the downfall of humanity.
That's a wyrm.
See
>Old definition good new definition bad
Kys moron.
And who and when provided these "new definitions" exactly? On which authority, in which works?
I just play Skyrim to bang bimbos dude
I don't need to because Skyrim is a good game by default
>Skyrim is a good game by default
No because magic blows ass in skyrim and I only play wizards
Because Akatosh don't give a frick.
And Khajit are supposed to be elves, what a wacky world.
>reptile
>reathes fire
>flies
>has wings
>looks like a dragon
What's your problem Anon? Who gives a frick about that?
Believe it or not, it's achtuahally a wyvern!
You're not funny. Why make this shitty thread? Wiverns are dragons as are serpent like creatures, the latter even more so since a dragon is simply a literal big serpent.
>we all need to follow D&D's categorization of dragons
Frick off nerd
Daily reminder that the Greek terms "dragon" and "drake", Germanic "wurm" and "wyrm", French/Latin "wyvern", Slavic "saň", semitic "leviathan" and Persian "bahamut", even the Japanese "Orochi" all refer to the same mythological archetype, and all merely represent different etymological routes, which actually all even share similar semiotic logic, as literally every single one of them is in some way derived from ancient roots related to either snakes, or snake-like motion.
For an instance, wyrm/wurm originate in PIE "vrmis", a word refering to snake or worm like motion - the same root that in english also formed the words "worm" and "vermin". In slavic languages, the same root formed words like "vrťet" (to fiddle, to move erratically" or "vrtat" (dig, bore).
Wyvern on the other hand comes from latin "vipera" - compound of "vivi" (life) and "parere" (parent), literally refering to live-birth class of snakes, which includes adders.
Dragon/drakon/drake are greek terms of terrifying snake-like beast, with a secondary meaning of "terrifying/cruel/powerful being" (hence the term "drakonic rule").
Leviathan and it's bastardization of "bahamut" are derived from old Semitic root "l-v-t", meaning "to coil or to revolve like a snake".
Slavic "saň" comes from liturgic slavic, and is directly related to the word "saně" (sleigh), as they both also refer to a limbless, snake like motion, sliding or slythering.
None of these words really refer to a particular, unique set of physiological features. They all simply denote a snake-based representation of chaos. Number of legs, wings, or heads is never actually specified or relevant to any of these terms.
Mythological concept aren't biology. They aren't defined - unlike Linné's biological taxonomy, which comes much later, by physiology. The only reason why we assume physiological features would be determining for the terminology, is because MODERN biology cultivated such sentimens in us. Historically, they are irrelevant.
>persian bahamut
That's a japanese mistranslation of Baphomet which is completely different.
>That's a japanese mistranslation of Baphomet which is completely different.
What the actual FRICK are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut#:~:text=The%20name%20is%20thought%20to,in%20the%20pre%2Dislamic%20period.
Yeah, here's an interesting video with information on that subject.
?t=4108
>gets upset about semantical naming conventions of a mythical creature which has no pure source material or real life source of fact.
You know...because they aren't real?
>developer calls their game a roguelike
>it's actually a roguelite
Why is this allowed?
It has 4 legs OP. They're just invisible and you can't see them because you're not magical enough.
>game features wyverns
>they're actually dragons
Wyverns are better because they don't have miscellateous arms.
>its a wyvern because dnd says so
Kys
Disregard dragontards, post wyverns
God I hate the fanged wyvern skeleton so fricking much
>launch Skyrim
>"Never should of come here!"
>of
>uninstall