First of all, great comic, I really enjoy it.

My question is: in the last comic #26 Krunch Bloodrage says empirical, was it intentional or should have he said imperial?

Thank you.

BTW: how this isn't wow?, where else are gnomes engineers that live inside a mountain?

Dragonlance- Dragons of Spring Dawning by Margaret Wise and Tracy Hickman.

The Gnomes of Krynn live in Mt. Nevermind

In additions to any fiction, the Dragonlance D&D setting included the Tinker Gnome.

Tauren, however, are pretty WoW (not conceding an exlusive copyright to "all humanoid cow like beings that aren't quite Minotaurs to Blizz, but I haven't seen them anywhere else). It doesn't change the fact that his setting looks to be drawing from all over.



Honestly, I'm not getting it myself, but I am sure that he purposefully said empirical, both the writer and the character. Krunch looks to be a character of great depth.

Heretical as this may sound, Sohmer has been known to make the odd mistake now and again. I blame the NyQuil.

In my oppinion, wether or not grammatically correct, Empirical sounds cooler than Imperial. Though I think Empirical means solid evidence used in science.

I think that he said "empirical" on purpose. here's the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

Now, as I understand it, "empirical expansion" seems to be some kind of, well, strategic, though-out conquest and/or obtaining land.

Imperial on the other hand would not make sense in my eyes. The land is presumably ruled by a King, not by an Emperor. While The Emperor could be the leader of a different fraction, it just seems unlikely.

Greetz
Serp

Serpit...Wiki is saying that empirical does [i]not[/i refer to imperial conquest. It refers to the scientific method. It's saying that some people do use the word empirical to refer to conquest but that this is an error.

In short, the better word would have been imperial. Mistakes happen. Oh well.

No, sorry, I think you misunderstood me.

Wiki defines Empirical as a scientific concept that includes careful observation and planning. Krunch said "empirical expansion" so that led me to believe that Krunch's father strategically expands his territory and influence. Again, "imperial" would only make sense if there was an Empire ruled by an Emperor.

If I was Sohmer I'd be taking note of such anality to mess with your heads in future comics.

It strikes me as entirely possible that either explaination could be correct. It's not impossible that even a humble tribe leader would refer to themselves as an Emporer, if they thought they could get away with it.

I refer you to the classic, and definitive, 13th Warrior:

"What do you suppose the 'potentate' of this encampent calls himself?"

"Oh, emperor at the very least."

You can't apply the empirical method to war that way. Empirical means supported by evidence. The empirical method does not refer to just any careful observation and planning. It is specific in that it refers to data.

Imperial expansion, on the other hand, refers to a ruler expanding his borders (doesn't have to be an emperor, but any ruler expanding his borders could be said to be creating an empire).

It was probably a mistake. No big deal.

You're right about the use of empirical, but a play on words does have to make the word fit perfectly. In fact it shouldn't. We need to see more of Krunch's dialogue to know. That said.



Yeah. He wouldn't be the first. And if it was a mistake, he wouldn't be the first to be surprised at how people latched on to how it could not be a mistake. IMHO, if it had been a mistake, he could just make minor changes in future comics so it would look like it wasn't a mistake. *shrug* Oh yeah, and speaking of anality...

I don't think that, properly used, imperial expansion and territorial expansion are the same thing. The root of emperor comes from Latin during the Roman empire. Q notable aspect of the Roman empire was that so long as the societies it conquered paid taxes and recognized Rome's authority, they remained independent and maintained there seperate identities. Thus you had a King Herod within the Roman Empire. There can be varying levels of this of course, but generally, an emperor is a ruler of peoples, not just one society.

Technically, anyone who rules over an Empire would be referred to as an Emperor/Empress. In the same way, a kingdom is ruled over by a King or Queen. The title is directly related to the name of the territory controlled. If I wanted to, I suppose I could stake out my back yard as an independent territory and call it an Empire. As long as I could somehow make that stick militarily/politically, then I would be called an Emperor. Seriously, it's more of a stretch to believe it was supposed to be based on empiricism and not imperiallism. Either way, it was one word, and there have got to better things we could be discussing.

Well, calling any ol piece of land an empire is not being technical. Though I do understand your point and appreciate the 'potentate' comment.

But that wasn't why I posted. I was just surprised that the thread got this far without anyone mentioning that Richard is 'Emperor of the Black'.

The root of emperor - and imperial - comes from imperator or imperium. An imperator was a general who had won a decisive victory on the field of battle. Imperium was authority generals and governors (governors would of course be the highest military officials in their provinces) had, supreme administrative power. Both terms existed pre-Empire, during the Republic. Both words come from "imperare," to rule. The root of imperial has nothing to do with an empire except for the fact that an empire is ruled.

In fact, definitions of imperial which have nothing specifically to do with empires exist:



Stoll's expansion could be considered imperial in this case. But if you insist on an actual empire, there's more. Defining an empire is somewhat difficult, but I like wikipedia's general definition:



Going by this definition, a troll warlord conquering a gnome kingdom is building an empire. Thus, "imperial expansion" would fit the context. "Empirical expansion," on the other hand, would need some additional explanation, though it's possible that Krunch's father is trying to expand his knowledge, or that Stoll is (edit: was ) involved in some crazy experiments.

It was probably a mistake. If it wasn't, we've got some backstory coming up. If it was, it's no big deal. I didn't even notice until it was pointed it out on these forums.

I just want to point out that it probably doesn't matter all that much since we are never likely to find out if it was intentional or not. And does it really make any difference if it were?

I was just feeling curious, both terms look quite different to me, BTW I agree with GoodGod. I wanted to know if the one making the mistake was the author or Krunch, after all I've never heard a Minotaur talking, or whatever he is. Krunch may know a lot about life and necessity but have never read a book, do even Minotaurs read or write books? So maybe Krunch confused those two words, as some people seem to do in real life.