Sands March 4, 2013 Share March 4, 2013 It was a joke... The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timestalker and Psyche March 4, 2013 Share March 4, 2013 Psyche: "I will always prefer to refer to myself as a construct." Sybil: "Where is the logic in arguing over a label? Tulpae, tulpas, tuppers, constructs, juggalos, rocks, the labels themselves do not define us, and therefor do not matter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sands March 4, 2013 Share March 4, 2013 We're talking about grammar, mate. The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Z March 5, 2013 Share March 5, 2013 Happy Grammar Day, Sands! This just might be the weirdest grammar discussion on the internet today. But I digress, I accept all of the plural forms mentioned in this thread. For myself, I have used 'thoughtforms' or when that didn't workm 'tulpas' as my prefered plurality; but I have to say, I am beginning to lean towards 'tulpa' instead. my thoughtform = Isis her appearance = stylized rabbit with dark fur and glowing eyes her developmental stage = imaginary friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacquer March 5, 2013 Share March 5, 2013 Psyche: "I will always prefer to refer to myself as a construct." Sybil: "Where is the logic in arguing over a label? Tulpae, tulpas, tuppers, constructs, juggalos, rocks, the labels themselves do not define us, and therefor do not matter." Hippies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous March 5, 2013 Share March 5, 2013 http://tulpa.info/forums/Thread-Pluralization We already have this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolke April 16, 2013 Share April 16, 2013 Considering that it isn't of Latin origin, but of Tibetan origin, it is absurd to use Latin inflection, i.e. "tulpae". One should either say 'tulpa' -- in both plural and singular, as in the original language -- or just follow standard English plauralisation (tulpas). But to arbitrarily follow Latin rules of pluralisation for a Tibetan word is absurd. Let people say what they're going to say. It doesn't matter Sure, let people say what they're going to say. People will say all kinds of illiterate things, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. But we should still educate them and point out that 'tulpa' isn't a Latin word and therefore need not conform to Latin rules of pluralisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous April 17, 2013 Share April 17, 2013 Tulpafuckinglamas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpony April 17, 2013 Share April 17, 2013 I type/say "tulpae," but often catch myself thinking "tulpa." Not even "tulpas," just "tulpa." Cordy: I prefer "tulpas." Pix: "Tulpae" all the way! http://tulpa.info/forums/Thread-Pluralization We already have this thread. And this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolke April 17, 2013 Share April 17, 2013 I think it's pretty straight forward: 1.) Use standard English pluralisation (tulpas) 2.) If you want to be pedantic, I guess you could use Tibetan pluralisation. In the Tibetan language, the plural form of tulpa is tulpa, just as in English the plural form of moose is moose. 3.) Or you could just translate 'tulpa' into some English equivalent (such as thoughtform, or thought-construction) But to arbitrarily use Latin pluralisation for a Tibetan word is kind of silly. It is a sign of illiteracy, but I guess that's to be expected from a community that seems to have sprung from 4chan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.