Jump to content

Tips for Hearing Your Tulpa


Recommended Posts

Guess I'll just post this before a large debate ensues, especially if the majority might approve for Tips & Tricks either way. Approved for Tips & Tricks. People already gave detailed explanations on how you can assess the submission. But whatever points you couldn't agree on, at least you clarified on those aspects, and I'm sure that based on what you stated on editing the post either way, it can help build up the guide submission. It's not so much of editing to everyone's suggestions, but seeing it as a chance to clarify to the point where your thoughts and desires can be known to people in general.


The secret is to filter out whatever emotive content is in the critique and criticism, and finding the underlying problems of why those individuals stated their reasons in the first place. You're the one that has the control over the submission, and being able to word things differently in case to help get the same idea should be pretty easy. Maybe the whole tulpa and tulpae debate that may ensue can be split into some other thread, seeing how this could pose as a complaint towards the GAT in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, I'll approve for Tips. Looks fine.



About that plural though, I was gonna link you that pastebin but it looks like Sands already did. I guess I'll just be brief since there's nothing new here.


No, 'tulpae' isn't wrong if you claim that anything that people use frequently can't be wrong. Obviously, this means that any spelling or grammar mistakes, like the dreaded 'its' or 'there' are all correct in all their varied and erroneous forms, and given this you are of course free to do what you want. I recommend the plural 'tulpaæeis'. You'd be even more in the minority than you are with 'tulpae', although I think that's slipping away a bit. It certainly used to be seen around a lot more than you do nowadays, just looking around at recent posts here and elsewhere.


Seriously though, if you want to stick a Latin ending on a Tibetan loanword into English then be my guest. It will forever elude me as to why you'd want to do that, given that every other Tibetan loanword ending in '-a' pluralises to '-as' in English, and 'tulpas' is (to me) both better aesthetically as well as easier (and more dignified) to say. Whatever motivates you to use it must somehow outweigh the above, as well as the urge to conform to the rest of the English language, which I personally find quite strong. But perhaps that's not for me to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I wasn't expecting you to slap my tl;dr in the OP, but hey. I guess that at least solves the issue of there only being one way to try to approach the problem. Even if you say it wasn't the main focus in this article after people started having issues with it, they are having issues with it because you went ahead and said it anyways. "Just trust them/just believe" can be some very poor mindsets that lead into some destructive loops which I have seen others go through – and not everyone is able to climb back on top. As GAT's job is to look for stuff that is potentially very harmful, they're just doing their job pointing it out for you. And I feel that now that you're offering another way as well, that issue is mostly settled.


As for unconscious parroting, well, you can say that it doesn't exist but is that necessarily the best stance to take? Especially if you read what I said about tulpas claiming that their host did it. I do agree that it's probably so rare that it's basically nonexistent (or that tuppers in general are "just" unconscious parrots but at that point there just is no difference between that and a separate sapient being), but it might not mean it doesn't exist. You are giving me rather conflicting messages here. You tell hosts to trust their tupper except when they say the host is unconsciously parroting them? I'm not sure if this is such a big issue to me but you might want to think if you want to say your opinion so strongly in the guide and claim that it's a fact. Sometimes being too sure about something is a bad thing as it can make you blind for another possibility.


I always have mentioned the wrong plural when I have seen it used and this is no exception. I've never held a guide or whatever back because of it though, so I guess with my main issue fixed, I can approve for Tips and Tricks. I do suggest that you copy the linked Reddit posts somewhere for yourself just in case so you can restore them if they ever disappear.


But hey, we got the time so we'll just talk about dem plurals and languages in general, I guess. But this is less GAT-related now and just me yapping. We've had the plural conversation so many times that you could just search for it and read everything, so I don't think this is really worth it to split or anything. But I guess now that we're talking about it, I might as well give you my finishing words. You did get an approval out of me already so it's not really important what you do now when it comes to the thread.



I do find it somewhat hypocritical how you have no problem with using the "wrong" word to describe a thoughtform (as "tulpa" means "to create" in Tibetan, yet we use it to mean "thoughtform") yet insist it's "wrong" to use the "wrong" plural.


Loanwords are a difficult beast, especially with a language like English that feels the need to loan words from everything and then never really make sure that people know how to pronounce them or something. But hell, all languages do it and bastardize words so that they fit the language. English is hardly even the worst, you should see some of the crazier Japanese ones. But English already had a proper verb for the verb tulpa but decided it wanted to use it as a noun instead. There's really not much I can do about that.


But as our usage of tulpa isn't identical to the common definition that includes all kinds of magic-y stuff, you could say that "tulpa" as we use it is more like a name and less of a definition. If I want to call my unique breed of dog I created as "cat", why not, right? Or if I want to name my brand of milk as "cola"? Legal issues might pop up in these cases, but I don't think anyone's having a problem with us calling our thoughtforms/imaginary friends/mind dolls/tupperware/mind demons "tulpas" even if we're not using the magic definition. We do say that pretty clearly and I'm sure people would accept my "cola" milk if I explain it's just milk or my "cat" dog if I said it's a dog. This far we don't have a better name for tuppers but I think that the creatures we're creating are pretty far from the Tibetan tulpas in definition – though ultimately they probably are identical in the end as far as the psychological side goes.


Once we get a better name though, sure, I'm all for changing it. Right now tulpa as a term is something I would never use in a conversation outside tupper communities because of how these communities have turned out to be. Just like how I would never use the words furry or brony to describe me even if I somehow would technically fit the description. The name has been soiled and you would get a reputation I don't want with it. So hell, this guy living in my head is just a "person" to many, not a "tulpa".


Let me guess, you also think it's acceptable to pronounce "karaoke" as [kæɹioki] (the way it's said in English) even though it's borrowed from Japanese, where the correct pronunciation is [kaɾaokɛ] ("kah-rah-o-keh")? Why, because we pronounce things differently in English? [kæɹioki] doesn't even make sense as an acceptable way to pronounce an English word spelled as "karaoke" - "a" is never pronounced as ("ee") in English, and an "e" following a consonant at the end of a word is almost always silent. So why, then, is [kæɹioki] correct? It's correct for the same reason that "tulpae" is correct - because that's what's in common use.


Actually, I don't pronounce it that way. English isn't even my native tongue. Similarly, anime is not anniemay, Ryu is not REE-you (it's just one syllable, people) and cache rhymes with stash. I don't find incorrect pronunciations acceptable so they do annoy me often, and I would try to help and tell them how it's really pronounced. In some cases it can't be helped, I wouldn't mind it if you said karaoke fine otherwise but couldn't do the right r because it's not something English really uses – and I do think that if you go ahead and loan words, you need to make sure it fits the mouths of the users. If some sound is too rare or even doesn't exist, you can't really be blamed for that. I won't be mad if you say "Lock" Ness, I don't think I could even pronounce the ch properly myself.


And pronouncing something the right way after it has been ruined could lead into communication issues. You do need to make sure that both you and the listener are on the same page. And hey, it does make for a nice conversation to talk about how something is pronounced and how it should be pronounced, spread the knowledge. As someone who doesn't speak English as their first language, I know I only appreciate it when people correct my mistakes.


However, how a word pluralizes always comes as you loan it and we can say when that is wrong or right or looks stupid. Either we borrow how it would work in the original language or give it its own plural marker – or none I guess, if you want to be like that. This was already mentioned in the Pastebin and waffles said many good things in his post above there.


And guess what? We have another case of "tulpae" – that is, a word borrowed from one language and then getting the plural from some other language – that has been commonly used and is now just said to be plain wrong by many. Octopi. Hell, even my spellcheck doesn't recognize that word. It's a Greek word that got a plural from Latin somehow, but it's no longer really accepted – and if you do see teachers or professors or whatever using it, it's a good idea to tell them about it. It's one thing when you have just been taught wrong from the start, you can't really help it at that point. But if you refuse to stop using the wrong plural then hey. It's not like we can stop you, but you also can't stop us from saying that it's wrong. Some people just like to slap Latin everywhere they can and look pretty pretentious with their virus/virii and penis/penii – both which are wrong by the way.


My point is, though, what's "correct" or "incorrect" is determined by actual use, not what people say others should or shouldn't say, which means "tulpas", "tulpae", and "tulpa" are all perfectly acceptable to use as the plural of "tulpa".


Both tulpas and tulpa are used as plurals outside this community which would make them the more used ones. Tulpas seems to be the one winning and I do approve of a plural that clearly marks itself as a plural as "tulpa" can be misleading. Tulpae is just wrong and barely used even on .info these days, good luck trying to find it in a dictionary or an article not written by someone in this community.


Alternatively, its quite clear I'm not having much of an affect on you. I am quite adverse too poor grammer, but I know I won't illicit any complements by trying to fix this mess. Weather or not I do this, I'm sure you will precede to write as you have. You're mind is set and there is so much better ways for me too use my time – could of even spent time with the tupper! I insure you that I will stop talking about this for now. Guess I just can't nip it in the butt. For all intensive purposes, it's a doggy dog world and I just gotta curl up in the feeble position. Guess you got away scotch free. Their is nothing else for me.


My head hurts.

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

Guest amber5885

Can we all just agree that as far as plurals go ANYTHING is better than Tupperware? Who thought of that anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all just agree that as far as plurals go ANYTHING is better than Tupperware? Who thought of that anyway?


I don't even like calling him a tupper. He likes tulpa though.

Chance, an anthro husky, wolf or fox.

Birthdate September 20, 2014.

Sentient October 1, 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all just agree that as far as plurals go ANYTHING is better than Tupperware? Who thought of that anyway?


Excuse me, the plural is Tupperware containers.

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

Can we all just agree that as far as plurals go ANYTHING is better than Tupperware? Who thought of that anyway?


A genius.

"The Question is not who is going to let me, its who is going to stop me"~ Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does look like absolutely everyone approves of this guide, and nobody is holding it back because of "tulpae".


Why is it the most common argument? Well, for other Tibetan words ending in -a, like "lama" and "sherpa", the plurals are "lamas" and "sherpas", although I believe "lama" and "sherpa" are also acceptable plural forms. The actual Tibetan plural should be something like "tulpa-rnams" or something like that. So we have three correct ways to pluralize it, and "tulpae" isn't one of them.


However, creative plurals are a hacker tradition.


From The Jargon File, 4.4.7 (emphasis mine):

Further, note the prevalence of certain kinds of nonstandard plural forms. Some of these go back quite a ways; the TMRC Dictionary includes an entry which implies that the plural of `mouse' is meeces, and notes that the defined plural of `caboose' is `cabeese'. This latter has apparently been standard (or at least a standard joke) among railfans (railroad enthusiasts) for many years


On a similarly Anglo-Saxon note, almost anything ending in `x' may form plurals in `-xen' (see VAXen and boxen in the main text). Even words ending in phonetic /k/ alone are sometimes treated this way; e.g., `soxen' for a bunch of socks. Other funny plurals are the Hebrew-style `frobbotzim' for the plural of `frobbozz' (see frobnitz) and `Unices' and `Twenices' (rather than `Unixes' and `Twenexes'; see Unix, TWENEX in main text). But note that `Twenexen' was never used, and `Unixen' was seldom sighted in the wild until the year 2000, thirty years after it might logically have come into use; it has been suggested that this is because `-ix' and `-ex' are Latin singular endings that attract a Latinate plural. Among Perl hackers it is reported that `comma' and `semicolon' pluralize as `commata' and `semicola' respectively. Finally, it has been suggested to general approval that the plural of `mongoose' ought to be `polygoose'.


The pattern here, as with other hackish grammatical quirks, is generalization of an inflectional rule that in English is either an import or a fossil (such as the Hebrew plural ending `-im', or the Anglo-Saxon plural suffix `-en') to cases where it isn't normally considered to apply.


This is not `poor grammar', as hackers are generally quite well aware of what they are doing when they distort the language. It is grammatical creativity, a form of playfulness. It is done not to impress but to amuse, and never at the expense of clarity.


I don't think anyone objects to wordplay. The objection is that new people hear "tulpae" and believe it to be correct, and through common usage it may become correct, or may already have become correct. And I guess that's bad or something. Sands says it looks stupid, but that's a matter of opinion, and I'm sure we don't hold his opinion so sacred that we let it dictate our own.


Since we're certainly not throwing such a fuss over a matter of opinion, I believe the sentiment is that the original usage is the correct usage. I say let's not be lazy about it. Lots of these words fennec is using entered the language relatively recently. She should aspire to rewrite her guide in the following fashion:


(edlæhtede fram mín reddit gewrit)


Íc sylfre geþeaht for þára þæs sylfre angsumnes heorcnung hiera tulpa (elles “fornýdan má”):


My Old English is a bit rusty

(actually, I find Old English completely unintelligible -- I hardly understood Chaucer, and he wrote Middle English)

so that might not all be entirely correct, but from the standpoint that older usage is more correct, it's more correct than the way the guide stands now.

"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...