sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:As I said before.....As with many verbs it can be applyed to describe a persons gender, and/or number of some of its arguments.
If you can use a verb to describe a persons gender you can use the verb "Mutate" to describe what a character is.
But you CAN'T use a verb to describe a person. A verb is an ACTION not a DESCRIPTION.
You're confusing verb with adjative. An adjative is a word used to describe a noun.
Verbs can NOT be used as adjatives.
["Saber Prime"]Not everyone who gets bit by a real vampire will become one. Vampires can either turn humans or outright kill them at will.
Your mixing Vampire myth from other fiction with Marvels.
At the time Mobious was created Marvels Vampires would be made from a single feeding with out any need to "Turn" them.
It was very simular to the spreading of the Zombie virus.A single bite could do the job.
Some of this has changed over the years with Marvels Vampires.[/quote]
You've lost me completly. I don't by any means understand what you just said has anything to do with what I said.
If if what you said did have any conection with what I said I'm still lost on the line "vampires would be made from a single bite without any need to "turn" them." I've read that like 8 different times and it makes absolutly no sence.
Vampires would be made from a single bite. The problem here is I never said ANYTHING about how many times a vampire would have to bite someone to turn them so I don't get why you even said that.
Without any need to "turn" them. Adds to the confusion by contridicting the first part of the statement that made no sence to begine with. To "turn" a human and make a vampire are the same thing so you basically said "vampires can make other vampires without makeing other vampires."
So yeah, could you rephraise this whole section here because I really have no clue what the heck you're trying to say and have no idea how to respond other than to exsplain why it makes absolutly no sence.
Saber Prime wrote:While we're on the subject, I don't remember if the cartoon ever talked about familiars like the movie did. Was that ever in the comics or is that something that was only in the movies. Familiars for anyone that doesn't know because I'm probly spelling it wrong, are humans who help the vampires for personal reasons. Of course as far as the movies show, familiars have never been repaid for their services.
Some familiars want protection, they like being human and convince the vampires they could be more use as workers than as food. Of course they end up getting killed once their usefullness runs out. Others want to be vampires themselfs however, selective breeding, for whatever reasons the vampire doesn't want to turn that particular human and just use them untill their usefullness runs out and kills them.
All familiars are "branded" like cattle with the mark of their "owners".
In the marvel U "familiars" were a bit different but they were there in some cases.
And not just with vampires....there were Witches and vodo preast that had them as well.
Some were shap shifters, mostly cats, while others were pretty normal.
I dont remember if the Vampire familiars were branded in the comice nor do I remember if there were such large numbers of them.
I only remember a few differet vampires even having any.
I think you're mixing media there with the witch talk. Witches familiars are an entirely different thing from Vampires. Vampire familiars were just mortals, cattle really. Witch familiars are useually but not allways, animals or former witches in the form of animals, mostly cats.
Vampire familiars serve as workers, someone who can easily walk around in daylight and do the jobs the vampires themselfs can't. Witch familiars depending on the fiction can be either talking or non talking animals that are either teachers, protectors, or the true source of their magic.
When I did "Bell, Book, and Candle" at SRT the witches familiar for that show was not a speaking animal but it was an animal. A black cat who got passed to the youngest witch in the familiy each generation and kept the magic for the whole family. When the main character fell in love with a mortal the cat ran off because witches can't fall in love and keep their powers. Of course sence the whole family drew their powers from that familiar everyone became mortal allthough not all at ounce. It took a while before the ripple effect hit previous generations.
So in this case calling Spiderman a "Mutate" is as a report on his condition....as state of his being.
The verb does not require an action.
Did you even read the definition you just put up? Yes a Verb not only requires an action, IT IS AN ACTION. The definiton you put up only says that about 10 times. It allso gave about 10 examples of verbs that were ALL ACTIONS.
I read the definition you put up just now and guess what, it's the same definition I was tought in school and that is that a verb is an action.
How are you getting that it's a describing word? That would be an adjative. I use to get nouns and adjatives mixed up in school, alot of people get thoughs two mixed up but this is the first I seen anyone confuse a verb for an adjative.
We've been threw this kind of argument before and you never win.And I dont mean to disrespect you.I went to school to try to learn to become a writter and artist for comics so I know the use of these terms a bit better.
Not to dissrespect you, but they teach this stuff in elimentry school and again in high school. It's verry basic stuff and you are in fact getting it wrong. The defintion you posted will even tell you what you're saying is wrong if you bothered to read it yourself.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Nounhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verb
any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in many languages, as in English by taking the past ending in -ed, that function as the main elements of predicates, that typically express action
, state, or a relation between two things, and that (when inflected) may be inflected for tense, aspect, voice, mood, and to show agreement with their subject or object.
The part of speech that expresses existence, action
, or occurrence
in most languages.
a content word that denotes an action, occurrence
, or state of existence
A word that represents an action
or a state of being. Go, strike, travel, and exist are examples of verbs. A verb is the essential part of the predicate of a sentence. The grammatical forms of verbs include number, person, and tense. (See auxiliary verb, infinitive, intransitive verb, irregular verb, participle, regular verb, and transitive verb.)
A word which affirms or predicates something of some person or thing; a part of speech expressing being, action
, or the suffering of action.
A verb is a word whereby the chief action
of the mind [the assertion or the denial of a proposition] finds expression. --Earle. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adjective
A word used with a noun, or substantive, to express a quality of the thing named, or something attributed to it, or to limit or define it, or to specify or describe a thing, as distinct from something else. Thus, in phrase, "a wise ruler," wise is the adjective, expressing a property of ruler.
There you go sto, I quoted the dictionary and not only am I right but I didn't even have to look it up to know I was right. I've had this one drilled into my head for 12 years of school.
The verry simple meanings are.
Noun = Person, place, or thing. Spider-man, New York, and sword are all examples of nouns.
Verb = an Action. Punch, kick, jump, swing are all examples of verbs.
Adjective = a describeing word for a noun. If you read the definitions I quoted and sited you'll notice you have in fact been useing a verb as an adjective.
Nouns and Adjectives are easy to confuse and actully preddy common to mix up the two but how you get adjective confused for Verb I'll never know.
BTW, I had my spelling corrected by a 12 year old today allthough I don't remember leaveing the letter out when I wrote it. I wrote nevisly insted of nervisly.