Too cute.

So, is it likely that these two could become a couple in canon? I only watched the trailer for the anime way back and it seemed like it was mostly about Michiru and the guy in the picture story here (pg 12). Also, most yuri related stuff I see of BNA seems to ignore his existence. Obviously cause he's a guy, but is there also any sort of feelings between him in the show? I just want to know if it's yuri goggles, love triangle, "close friends", pseudo father/daughter, zero romance whatsoever, or what does the canon situation seem like?

So, is it likely that these two could become a couple in canon? I only watched the trailer for the anime way back and it seemed like it was mostly about Michiru and the guy in the picture story here (pg 12). Also, most yuri related stuff I see of BNA seems to ignore his existence. Obviously cause he's a guy, but is there also any sort of feelings between him in the show? I just want to know if it's yuri goggles, love triangle, "close friends", pseudo father/daughter, zero romance whatsoever, or what does the canon situation seem like?

There are a few subtexty scenes but overall romance plays no role in BNA at all. But based on those few subtexty scenes Michiru definitely has more romantic energy going with Nazuna than with Shirou, he and lil tanuki sit squarely in the "good friends and partners, that's it" corner.

Now this is nice. We need more BNA yuri doujinshi.

howd you guys know i was thinking of these two today

So, is it likely that these two could become a couple in canon? I only watched the trailer for the anime way back and it seemed like it was mostly about Michiru and the guy in the picture story here (pg 12). Also, most yuri related stuff I see of BNA seems to ignore his existence. Obviously cause he's a guy, but is there also any sort of feelings between him in the show? I just want to know if it's yuri goggles, love triangle, "close friends", pseudo father/daughter, zero romance whatsoever, or what does the canon situation seem like?

this shouldnt be a spoiler, but michiru is a high school student while the guy is an obviously older man. so yea, really just partners in crime!
also bc studio trigger is notorious for setting up gay characters

cute and gay, Very Cool

So, is it likely that these two could become a couple in canon? I only watched the trailer for the anime way back and it seemed like it was mostly about Michiru and the guy in the picture story here (pg 12). Also, most yuri related stuff I see of BNA seems to ignore his existence. Obviously cause he's a guy, but is there also any sort of feelings between him in the show? I just want to know if it's yuri goggles, love triangle, "close friends", pseudo father/daughter, zero romance whatsoever, or what does the canon situation seem like?

There are a few subtexty scenes but overall romance plays no role in BNA at all. But based on those few subtexty scenes Michiru definitely has more romantic energy going with Nazuna than with Shirou, he and lil tanuki sit squarely in the "good friends and partners, that's it" corner.

Yeah fr, that seemed like the "obvious" ship at first but none romance developed between them at all then. Also, the yuri-energy between Michiru and Nazuna was REALLY something else

This is canon. I can't be convinced otherwise.

God that really was wholesome. So precious

c&c

omg I love this so much

I remember when ending a sentence with a superfluous “with” was something only some Midwestern hicks did. But Hollywood adopted it and decided to push it, and then a share of the audience thoughtlessly began doing it.

I remember when ending a sentence with a superfluous “with” was something only some Midwestern hicks did. But Hollywood adopted it and decided to push it, and then a share of the audience thoughtlessly began doing it.

Linguistic prescriptivism is for losers. Language is fluid and always has been — otherwise we'd all still be living in caves, grunting at each other. You calling out people for talking wrong has exactly as much merit here as it did when Japan erased a large part of the Ryukyu Islands' cultural legacy through imposing standard Japanese on their populace.

People talk different from each other sometimes. There is literally, absolutely, nothing wrong with it.

So, is it likely that these two could become a couple in canon? I only watched the trailer for the anime way back and it seemed like it was mostly about Michiru and the guy in the picture story here (pg 12). Also, most yuri related stuff I see of BNA seems to ignore his existence. Obviously cause he's a guy, but is there also any sort of feelings between him in the show? I just want to know if it's yuri goggles, love triangle, "close friends", pseudo father/daughter, zero romance whatsoever, or what does the canon situation seem like?

There are a few subtexty scenes but overall romance plays no role in BNA at all. But based on those few subtexty scenes Michiru definitely has more romantic energy going with Nazuna than with Shirou, he and lil tanuki sit squarely in the "good friends and partners, that's it" corner.

Yeah fr, that seemed like the "obvious" ship at first but none romance developed between them at all then. Also, the yuri-energy between Michiru and Nazuna was REALLY something else

this shouldnt be a spoiler, but michiru is a high school student while the guy is an obviously older man. so yea, really just partners in crime!

Just wanted to say thanks for the responses, people! Much appreciated. Maybe I should finally give it a watch, now that I know I can keep my monkey, yuri brain under control.

I remember when ending a sentence with a superfluous “with” was something only some Midwestern hicks did. But Hollywood adopted it and decided to push it, and then a share of the audience thoughtlessly began doing it.

Linguistic prescriptivism is for losers. Language is fluid and always has been — otherwise we'd all still be living in caves, grunting at each other. You calling out people for talking wrong has exactly as much merit here as it did when Japan erased a large part of the Ryukyu Islands' cultural legacy through imposing standard Japanese on their populace.

People talk different from each other sometimes. There is literally, absolutely, nothing wrong with it

I like how this page seems to have a lot of descriptive grammar/language > prescriptive grammar/language type of persons

No furry lols. art 10/10. furries disgusting/10 literally I can cook them.

The best romance that trigger makes are ironically, females friendship

I remember when ending a sentence with a superfluous “with” was something only some Midwestern hicks did. But Hollywood adopted it and decided to push it, and then a share of the audience thoughtlessly began doing it.

Linguistic prescriptivism is for losers.

No, prescriptivism is for people who know that language is a tool for communication and who want the most effective tool practically possible. It's pretty stupid not to see that and agree. (Don't level unwarranted insults if you don't want to be met with warranted insults.)

Language is fluid and always has been — otherwise we'd all still be living in caves, grunting at each other.

And I don't know a single real-world prescriptivist who doesn't accept change, so long as that change doesn't directly or indirectly undermine the efficacy of language.

You calling out people for talking wrong has exactly as much merit here as it did when Japan erased a large part of the Ryukyu Islands' cultural legacy through imposing standard Japanese on their populace.

Your bald claim is based on your not recognizing when and how a word is made useless.

People talk different from each other sometimes. There is literally, absolutely, nothing wrong with it.

No one said that difference as such was bad. You need to rid yourself of the habit of jumping on your high horse in response to your delusional conjectures.

No, prescriptivism is for people who know that language is a tool for communication and who want the most effective tool practically possible. It's pretty stupid not to see that and agree. (Don't level unwarranted insults if you don't want to be met with warranted insults.)

Ok loser

Oeconomist posted:

People talk different from each other sometimes. There is literally, absolutely, nothing wrong with it.

No one said that difference as such was bad. You need to rid yourself of the habit of jumping on your high horse in response to your delusional conjectures.

Honestly, you do too. We've already been over this once, so - you've been banned for day. Please stop italicizing so many things in your posts, too. It makes them kind of hard to read, and I don't think it adds much to the meaning. Thanks, take care.

Linguistic prescriptivism is for losers.

No, prescriptivism is for people who know that language is a tool for communication and who want the most effective tool practically possible. It's pretty stupid not to see that and agree. (Don't level unwarranted insults if you don't want to be met with warranted insults.)

Ok loser

In the end, when anti-prescriptivism doesn't get to filter or to misrepresent the argument, it collapses.

For those still following, a few points:
- Though it is almost always misrepresented as descriptive, anti-prescriptivism is virulently normative.
- Indeed, languages evolve, in the sense that they change, but “evolution” is a loaded word; languages don't always progess. (For example, the English language used to form compound words, then abandoned the practice, then reimported it. These contradictory changes weren't both progress.)
- Prescriptivism isn't outside the evolutionary dynamic; it is part of the evolutionary dynamic. Attempting to contrast prescriptivism with evolution is absurd.

People talk different from each other sometimes. There is literally, absolutely, nothing wrong with it.

No one said that difference as such was bad. You need to rid yourself of the habit of jumping on your high horse in response to your delusional conjectures.

Honestly, you do too.

Okay, quote a passage in which I expressed a delusional conjecture, treating it as fact.

We've already been over this once,

What we went over was your objections to two things that I said that you regarded as insulting. In the interest of peace, I didn't offer a defense. Now I was blocked for responding to a personal insult (which had stood for more than a day) with an insult, while that prior insult seems to get a pass. A pirate ship cannot be sustained with capricious rules nor with capricious enforcement.

so - you've been banned for day.

Yeah, after an admin silently slapped a one-day ban, you did, apparently without checking, so it became a ban of nearly two days.

Please stop italicizing so many things in your posts, too. It makes them kind of hard to read, and I don't think it adds much to the meaning.

My sad experience, over decades, is that some important things just get ignored or glossed-over if not italicized. So, I can use them less, but the result will be more verbal churning.

Too cute, thanks for your hard work!

Oeconomist posted:

What we went over was your objections to two things that I said that you regarded as insulting. In the interest of peace, I didn't offer a defense. Now I was blocked for responding to a personal insult (which had stood for more than a day) with an insult, while that prior insult seems to get a pass. A pirate ship cannot be sustained with capricious rules nor with capricious enforcement.

I offered you an avenue to express objections previously. That you chose not to in order to keep the "peace" doesn't do much for me, unfortunately. That avenue still exists to you. I'd prefer it be handled there rather than cluttering up this thread.

Moving onto your broad complaint. Yes, you are strictly correct that I could have reprimanded Zoetrophy as well. I chose not to, because I'm not interested in putting down every casual remark I see. I'd rather spend my limited time and effort moderating to focus on posts and posters that stick out as especially disruptive. Perhaps this isn't really a pirate ship at all.

My sad experience, over decades, is that some important things just get ignored or glossed-over if not italicized. So, I can use them less, but the result will be more verbal churning.

Thanks.

last edited at Dec 18, 2021 11:21AM

I just want to add that "Wanna come with?" is like, a thing. It's a set phrase that exists in modern colloquial English, and it's simply a contraction of "Do you want to come with me?"

It may not technically be grammatically correct, but we say grammatically incorrect things all the time in casual speech, a fact that has been reflected here in the translation.

last edited at Feb 8, 2022 1:47AM