I need resources for an essay.

[Tedective]

Use us as interviews. Use the advanced search option to filter out all slenderman references. Define Tibetan Buddhist tulpas as well. Gloss over how to create one. Skim over what they do. Now I want to make a research paper. o.o

[Riku Aotsuki]

Anyway, when that happens in google, imput the following in the search field: "tulpa effect -slender -slenderman". This should eliminate anything with the words slender and slenderman... also, using "" around a word/group of words forces google to search exactly for that, and not slight variations (in this case, tulpa effect results into tulpa affect sometimes).

I'm ashamed of myself for forgetting you can do that.

Please don't write "tulpae" in an essay, that's not English.

 

your English teacher would probably laugh at you for putting 'tulpae'. You should at least go full fag and do 'tulpæ' if you want to use one of those.

 

This.

Use "tulpas" as the (correct English) plural form.

Otherwise, you will surely lose marks.

---

It's not that they hate it, but they do hate it if you use it extensively. (They don't mind if you use it, but you shouldn’t rely on it)

If Wikipedia is the only website you list, they will shit all over you.

I think it's just because it makes research "too easy" that information from multiple sources is already compiled in one place.

I usually follow the links listed in the references of the Wikipedia article and list the ones with relevant information as resources in my bibliography as well.

Um. "Ae" is definitely an English plural, it's just irregular. Teachers certainly don't complain about antennae, nebulae, larvae, pupae, or ballistae. And yeah, they plain hate Wikipedia here. Pretty much every teacher insists that just because anyone can alter it, it's totally invalid.

 

In general, yeah, I'll probably have to do a lot of browsing this site to get the majority of my info. Thanks for what you came up with though guys, you helped me quite a bit.

[Lacquer]

Those are originally Latin words, to my knowledge, but I didn't check.

 

[EDIT]: I just checked all those words (by googling " etymology" without quotation marks and replacing with the word in question) and they are all Latin in origin. To go into further detail why "tulpas" should be used instead of "tulpae", see this link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lama#English

[Riku Aotsuki]

Those are originally Latin words, to my knowledge, but I didn't check.

 

[EDIT]: I just checked all those words (by googling " etymology" without quotation marks and replacing with the word in question) and they are all Latin in origin. To go into further detail why "tulpas" should be used instead of "tulpae", see this link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lama#English

 

My apologies, but my point was that it's still a correct plural, so they won't care. Fish, fishes. Just cause the first is more accepted doesn't mean the second's wrong.

 

Now let's not derail this thread entirely, please.

[waffles]

Too late.

 

No, it's just wrong. What you are doing is suffixing a Tibetan word with a Latin plural. If we were speaking Latin then this would be alright, but we aren't. We are actually speaking English, where we suffix imported words with English plurals. We have two precedents for Tibetan words ending in 'a' being imported into English: lama and sherpa. Their plurals are lamas and sherpas respectively. Furthermore, 'tulpa' has been used in English prior to this site - surprise surprise - and everyone else used 'tulpas'. Even Wikipedia.

 

Yes, English words end in 'ae'. But they are all originally Latin words, and furthermore irregular. You are just making up your own English in a way that reflects badly on you because it makes you look both ill-educated and pretentious.

[Sands]

As for fish and fishes, fish is the plural for fish. Fishes is the plural for multiple kind of fish. So, I ate four fish: four trouts. But I ate four fishes: a trout, a burbot, a pike and a motherfucking shark.