Forums of the Megaverse®

Palladium uses the term "cannibal" in their games (PFRPG and Rifts) to describe creatures, typically humanoids, who devour the flesh of humans.
Online dictionaries seem to be unanimous in the view that the term "cannibal" only applies to creatures that eat their own kind, not to non-humans that eat humans.
One recent example that has come up in conversation in the forums has been Simvan, with the view that a "cannibalistic" Simvan would be one that eats other Simvan- NOT one that eats other humans.
While Palladium makes it clear what they mean when they use the term, the issue here is whether or not their usage is within acceptability- whether or not their usage is in any way correct.

Personally, I believe that it IS correct, in the sense that for decades the term has been commonly used to describe any sort of anthropophagite- anything that devours human beings- and that this term has been used in dictionaries in the past (whether or not this is noted online).
So far, though, I have not found any legitimate sources that carry this definition, which indicates that I may be wrong on this one.

So if anybody has any other views, or any sources of information, that can further shed light on this subject, this is the thread to be in.


(On the other hand, if anybody objects to this discussion from the outset, and feels the need to point out that "this is just a game!", don't bother. Instead, remind yourself that this is just a conversation- there is no need to get worked up about it.)

I always thought it included eating intelligence beings

Well since we only acknowledge one sentient species to exist (humans) we don't have a word for 'one who eats other sentient beings' and only have 'one who eats other humans'. So cannibalism gets stretched in science fiction to cover 'one who eats other sentient beings', and yes sometimes they also end up quibbling over it going 'hey I'm not a cannibal I'd never eat one of my own kind!' while preparing to dine on the character he's correcting who isn't one of his own kind. So without a word for it writers tend to default to cannibalism as a catch-all.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I always thought it included eating intelligence beings

It doesnt but it stands to reason that itd be a lay person term for anyone or anything that eats the flesh of sentient beings.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I always thought it included eating intelligence beings

It doesnt but it stands to reason that itd be a lay person term for anyone or anything that eats the flesh of sentient beings.

I talking in RPGs

A Man Eating Tiger is a Maneater. Not a Cannibal.
That is why the term Maneater exists for animals which prey and eat humans.
A Human who eats another human is a Cannibal, because he is eating his own species.
A Cannibal Tiger, has killed and eaten another Tiger. A Member of its own species.

Palladium needs to use the proper term or Invent a New Term instead of twisting the term Cannibal into something it is not. If a Simvan is a Cannibal it just means he has eaten other Simvan in the past. If he has eaten a Human, that makes him a Maneater too. But they are not one and the same, and should not be used in that manner.

I challange the board to try and come up with a better Terminology for a creature/being that Preys and Eats other Intelligent Beings (Human or Dbees) without using the term Cannibal or Maneater. Though for myself I think the term Maneater fits the bill for the most part better than cannibal does.

TechnoGothic wrote:A Man Eating Tiger is a Maneater. Not a Cannibal.
That is why the term Maneater exists for animals which prey and eat humans.
A Human who eats another human is a Cannibal, because he is eating his own species.
A Cannibal Tiger, has killed and eaten another Tiger. A Member of its own species.

Palladium needs to use the proper term or Invent a New Term instead of twisting the term Cannibal into something it is not. If a Simvan is a Cannibal it just means he has eaten other Simvan in the past. If he has eaten a Human, that makes him a Maneater too. But they are not one and the same, and should not be used in that manner.

I challange the board to try and come up with a better Terminology for a creature/being that Preys and Eats other Intelligent Beings (Human or Dbees) without using the term Cannibal or Maneater. Though for myself I think the term Maneater fits the bill for the most part better than cannibal does.

Peopleeater I win i win

Okay, here is what I've found so far, in the realm of "uses of 'cannibal' to refer to eating humans":
http://carlos.emory.edu/files/u1/Southernseasons.pdf
"From the cannibal cyclops Polyphemus to the winged horse Pegasus..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphemus
"The episode in Odyssey is the oldest testament to cannibalism in ancient Greek literature."

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/566/764/ ... iants.html
(describes Native American tales of a race of 12' tall giants that that ate humans)

http://newenglandfolklore.blogspot.com/ ... thern.html
Describes Wendigos as "cannibal monsters."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestrygonians
"The Laestrygonians (or Laestrygones, Laistrygones, Laistrygonians, Lestrygonians; Greek: Λαιστρυγόνες) are a tribe of giant cannibals from ancient Greek mythology."

http://www.authorsden.com/categories/ar ... 2&id=18794
"In China, it was said, there existed a “Country of the Giants”. These giants were fifty feet tall with feet six feet in length, teeth like saws and fingers resembling hooked claws. Their bodies however did not resemble stone so much as huge bears. Their bodies were covered in long black hair. Chinese legend indicates that these giants lived as long as eighteen thousand years and that they were also cannibalistic—not eating their own kind but any human taken in battle."

http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/ ... er/Giants/
"In To Serve Man, the Kanamit were a race of 9-foot-tall giant cannibals with domed, vaulted skulls. Unusual height, strength, teeth, skull shape, cannibalism, and technological sophistication were all characteristics of the giants"

"CANNIBALISM: Native Americans legends usually described the giants as having been cannibals, though there apparently were some 'good' giants that had given up eating human flesh. As Dieterle explains 'Like other spirits, the Man Eaters can be divided into two tribes: the Good Giants and the Bad Giants.'"

"The villain in the classic tale of Jack and the Beanstalk is in fact a two-headed giant. Not only is it a two-headed giant, it is also a red-headed, vicious cannibal. Coincidence? "

Just because these other people badly translated "Maneater" into "Cannibal" does not change the fact the word Cannibal is meant for who who eats their own species. Yes the people who Translated the original texts and myths did a bad job at translating the actual words.

All I see above, is examples of bad translations, if the intent was meant to tell us about Maneating Monsters, Giants, etc...

People-eater ... That is a Better term for sure.
Now I have that song in my head. One Eyes, One Horned People-eater... LOL.

TechnoGothic wrote:Just because these other people badly translated "Maneater" into "Cannibal" does not change the fact the word Cannibal is meant for who who eats their own species only. Yes the people who Translated the original texts and myths did a bad job at translating the actual words.

All I see above, is examples of bad translations, if the intent was meant to tell us about Maneating Monsters, Giants, etc...

People-eater ... That is a Better term for sure.
Now I have that song in my head. One Eyes, One Horned People-eater... LOL.

The old ones are the best at least it's not that damn " it's a small world" song.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I always thought it included eating intelligence beings

It doesnt but it stands to reason that itd be a lay person term for anyone or anything that eats the flesh of sentient beings.

In Palladium it does.
It's not just eating humans. It's also D-bee eating.

I think that nitpicking the use of the word 'cannibalism' is perhaps a bit too much, particularly when it is clear what is meant in their usage. 'Cannibalism' is the closest term in the English language to 'intelligent things eating other intelligent things', and invokes the correct emotional response as well. Also, a usage that has been commonly seen in other works of fiction involving more than one intelligent species, where the subject comes up.
Hard for a dictionary to list a common usage that only applies in fictional scenarios.

See also: After the Bomb for the detailed listing covering alignments and their opinions on cannibalism.

Generally, I would file this in the same category as '-mancy' and '-punk', whether a couple people might want to get upset about the drift from the origins of the word, everyone else that cares enough to have an opinion on it just accept the popular usage.

Chimps are intelligent, yet are only "cannibals" if they eat other chimps.

"People-eater" is actually a much better term, since other intelligent beings might be considered "People".

Cannibalism is just one simple thing ... Eating Your Own Species, period.

TechnoGothic wrote:Chimps are intelligent, yet are only "cannibals" if they eat other chimps.

"People-eater" is actually a much better term, since other intelligent beings might be considered "People".

Cannibalism is just one simple thing ... Eating Your Own Species, period.

While you may feel that way, it doesn't change that the popular usage in fiction for 'cannibalism' is 'intelligent beings eating other intelligent beings', same as '-mancy' means '-themed magic' instead of divination and '-punk' is '-themed technology' instead of dystopia. Words gain and change in meaning, that's just how language evolves. Just because we know the origins of a word or phrase, it shouldn't mean that we deny or argue with differing common usage.
Sure, we could argue and complain that they should be E-Magazines instead of E-Clips, that the majority of magical specialties in fiction are improperly named, that "ain't" is a double negative that should cancel itself out, or that people that use 'of' in place of 'till' (and not in place of 'after') when telling time are heathens and blasphemers on the English language, but doing so just makes makes us look bad if we try to make a real issue out of it.

The best advice is to just let it go, and bring it up more as a bit of trivia than as a real problem.
Trust me, it is a lot healthier to abide than to fight about it, because no matter how right you are, you can't convince people to change how they talk. Even if the civilized world and definitions are on your side.
(Seriously, how the hell did using 'of' wrong enter into common usage on the east coast?!? *deep breath* Breathe... let it go..)

When I read an "monster" is a cannibal, it does not even come into my mind it eats humans or people.
That monster as a cannibal as I read it, just happens to eat its own kind from time to time.

Cobras are Canniblistic. Using PB methods, i guess, Cobras eat Humans. Oh well.

TechnoGothic wrote:When I read an "monster" is a cannibal, it does not even come into my mind it eats humans or people.
That monster as a cannibal as I read it, just happens to eat its own kind from time to time.

Cobras are Canniblistic. Using PB methods, i guess, Cobras eat Humans. Oh well.

That's not a suitable comparison, just because something eats x doesn't mean it must eat y and z as well. With the definition of cannibalism expanded by science-fiction adjusting it to 'intelligent beings eating other intelligent beings' you don't have to eat at least one of every sentient species in existence before you qualify as a cannibal, you just have to eat one.

TechnoGothic wrote:When I read an "monster" is a cannibal, it does not even come into my mind it eats humans or people.
That monster as a cannibal as I read it, just happens to eat its own kind from time to time.

Cobras are Canniblistic. Using PB methods, i guess, Cobras eat Humans. Oh well.

Would sapiavore work for you? I share your irk at the misuse of cannibal, but as many other gems as Palladium has produced, I'm not going to sweat it.

Technically, 'cannibalism' to describe critters who eat their own is correct, 'maneater' or 'predator' to describe when something else eats humans.
However, language is a flexible thing, and 'cannibal' stirs up a lot more negative connotations than using either 'maneater' or 'predator'...if you're trying to make a creature sound even more horrible than it probably already is, demonizing it as a 'cannibal' goes a lot farther than other terms*.
As one of my favorite scenes in the movie -Swamp Thing- goes:
"He was eaten by an alligator? That's horrible!"
"Why? The alligator was only following its natural instincts."

That alligator sounds a lot worse if it's called a cannibal with regards to human beings, so the term is misused(especially by the sensationalist press).

In Palladium, however, I favor 'cannibalism' to broadly mean 'eating sentient beings'...although that might be nitpickingly expanded to be 'KNOWINGLY eating (obviously) sentient beings(or sentient as the eater can register it)'....An nth dimensional being spread across umpteen levels of reality that just happens to slurp down a random drunk in an alley in Lazlo might slip through a legal loophole on this because the points of commonality with regards to determining intelligence and sentience between Bob the Drunk(who was actually quite good at writing romantic crossword puzzles) and *$47$%# the $%^*$(who plays a mean game of slip-chronetic -yengh-) are virtually nil. On the other hand, Brodkil and humans, who may as well be kissing cousins, compared to *$47$%# the $%^*$, have no such ignorance to excuse them(though the incidence of Brodkil dining on human flesh ala cart are a lot more common than humans supping on minced and boiled Brodkil brains).


*Yet we speak of 'cannibalizing' vehicles to keep others in service all the time, without any negative connotations! Ain't language a stinker?

I wonder where mutant animals like cattle ,steers ,cows ,pigs and such fall into this

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I wonder where mutant animals like cattle ,steers ,cows ,pigs and such fall into this

They fall into barbeque sauce typically.

taalismn wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I wonder where mutant animals like cattle ,steers ,cows ,pigs and such fall into this

They fall into barbeque sauce typically.

So, this long pork really is pork?

I don't know if they are using the term incorrectly or not.
The Palladium Staff may not make the same distinction between humans and DBees that we do - to them they might be different races but they are all people.
If a person goes around eating other people, they are a Cannibal.

I tend to bounce back & forth what the definition is because Palladium does. Most of the time, I assume that Palladium means a mortal, intelligent being eating another mortal, intelligent being. If a CoM or a SNC is mentioned as being cannibalistic, I assume Palladium means that that creature eats members of its own kind.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

taalismn wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I wonder where mutant animals like cattle ,steers ,cows ,pigs and such fall into this

They fall into barbeque sauce typically.

So, this long pork really is pork?

Or Pink Slime Lean Finely Textured Beef.

Here's a question: If not the word cannibal, what would you use?
The English language doesn't have a word to describe one intelligent being eating another intelligent being of a different species because we have never had need of such a word.
Maneater doesn't work unless the DBee's dietary requirements are to eat humans only.
Predator isn't really a strong enough word to convey eating intelligent lifeforms.
Cannibal usually applies to eating one's own species.

We don't have a word for this and I for one wouldn't have liked Palladium making up their own new word and expecting us to know what it means...
Cannibal is as close as it gets.

Giant2005 wrote:Here's a question: If not the word cannibal, what would you use?
The English language doesn't have a word to describe one intelligent being eating another intelligent being of a different species because we have never had need of such a word.
Maneater doesn't work unless the DBee's dietary requirements are to eat humans only.
Predator isn't really a strong enough word to convey eating intelligent lifeforms.
Cannibal usually applies to eating one's own species.

We don't have a word for this and I for one wouldn't have liked Palladium making up their own new word and expecting us to know what it means...
Cannibal is as close as it gets.

Just upthread a touch.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When I read an "monster" is a cannibal, it does not even come into my mind it eats humans or people.
That monster as a cannibal as I read it, just happens to eat its own kind from time to time.

Cobras are Canniblistic. Using PB methods, i guess, Cobras eat Humans. Oh well.

Would sapiavore work for you? I share your irk at the misuse of cannibal, but as many other gems as Palladium has produced, I'm not going to sweat it.

Although maybe sapivore is easier to say, but sentivore might be more accurate as it includes more than homo sapiens (humans) in the list of creatures consumed.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Here's a question: If not the word cannibal, what would you use?
The English language doesn't have a word to describe one intelligent being eating another intelligent being of a different species because we have never had need of such a word.
Maneater doesn't work unless the DBee's dietary requirements are to eat humans only.
Predator isn't really a strong enough word to convey eating intelligent lifeforms.
Cannibal usually applies to eating one's own species.

We don't have a word for this and I for one wouldn't have liked Palladium making up their own new word and expecting us to know what it means...
Cannibal is as close as it gets.

Just upthread a touch.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When I read an "monster" is a cannibal, it does not even come into my mind it eats humans or people.
That monster as a cannibal as I read it, just happens to eat its own kind from time to time.

Cobras are Canniblistic. Using PB methods, i guess, Cobras eat Humans. Oh well.

Would sapiavore work for you? I share your irk at the misuse of cannibal, but as many other gems as Palladium has produced, I'm not going to sweat it.

Although maybe sapivore is easier to say, but sentivore might be more accurate as it includes more than homo sapiens (humans) in the list of creatures consumed.

Sapivore and Sentivore would work perfectly in some cases but the "vore" family or words won't apply generally. "Vore" suggests dietary requirements as in they must eat Sapiens to the exclusion of all other food sources as their only means of survival. There might be some cases like that in Palladium but generally it is more of a cultural thing.
Also, those terms would also have the problem of the average reader not knowing huh??? it means...

homavores
i just invented a new word

doh i missed the sapivores earlier in the thread.
kind of the same idea. i figured all the different evolutionary peoples were homo this or homo that...

so given the above post that states the -vore part expresses a requirement for nutrition rather than a preference, i looked into this alittle more.
another word for cannablism is anthropophagy. looking into the origins of that word is the greek words anthropos meaning human and phagein meaning to eat. so is it safe to conclude one can classify the dietary preferences of a species with the suffix -phagy?
and what could be stuck in front of that to actually create classes of eating habits?
sentient in latin translates to sensibilis. possibly sensibiphagy? doesnt roll off the tongue very well but kind of translates to "eats sentients"
any other thoughts?

for instance, xenophagy: prefers d-bees

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I wonder where mutant animals like cattle ,steers ,cows ,pigs and such fall into this

After the Bomb they actually edited the usually copy-pasted alignment descriptions to cover viewpoints on 'cannibalism' as well. In a world where genes are scrambled and intelligent and non-intelligent can look the same, the lines on 'cannibalism' are even more blurry, but clearly so.

i think im on to something here.
necrophagy is indeed the eating of dead bodies.
xenophagy is already a word, the prefix means foreign.

as far as a general term to describe eating of sentient beings, im not sure!
some help?

here is a link to one of the sites i was reading about this stuff just so you guys dont think im pulling nonsense out my arse.

http://brown.edu/Administration/News_Bu ... 6-014.html

and in the spirit of grossness...
autophagy is self-consumption

wonderdog wrote:sentient in latin

But -phage is Greek, so it takes Greek prefixes.* Anthropophage would also include sufficiently human-like races, but you're probably looking for something like

Sophophage - eater of wise guys.

As for KC's quotes, half of them aren't even wrong since giants are just mucked men. "Maneater" already exists, and d-bees specifically aren't on each other's menus because they're so similar to us and each other.* It's the word they should have used, if they weren't going to coin something.

*Example of the problems you can get into: a homovore would eat men, a homophage would eat species similar to itself.
**Mutant cows who walk on 2 legs are neighbors. Mutant cows who walk on 4 are dinner unless people just really fight that urge. Similar to how no one seems to have any problem at all with eating Xiticix. It's just unlike us.

It might be just me but after seeing all these exotic attempts at coming up with a substitute term for Cannibal, Palladium's use of it doesn't seem so bad...

[quote="llywelyn]Anthropophage[/quote]That's perfect. Thanks.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

llywelyn wrote:Anthropophage

That's perfect. Thanks.

Nah, it's too long. People actually using it would clip it down to something faster, like phag.*

Giant2005 wrote:It might be just me but after seeing all these exotic attempts at coming up with a substitute term for Cannibal, Palladium's use of it doesn't seem so bad...

"Maneater" ain't exotic.

Just some goodolefashion Germanic compoundin' there, Itellyouwhat.


*Or maybe just really point up the "anything" aspect of panphage (PF) or omnivore (omni-V).

Have you seen Palladium's spell list? Cumbersome is is. Anthrophage is easy compared to many spell titles.

Misfit KotLD wrote:Have you seen Palladium's spell list? Cumbersome is is. Anthrophage is easy compared to many spell titles.

Sure about that?

You forgot a -po-.

llywelyn wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:Have you seen Palladium's spell list? Cumbersome is is. Anthrophage is easy compared to many spell titles.

Sure about that?

You forgot a -po-.

So I did, but my point still stands.

Misfit KotLD wrote:So I did, but my point still stands.

Yep.

& remains an improvement on "cannibal", what with that meaning sth else entirely.

If cannibal means an intelligent being that eats other intelligent beings, I am ok with that... people redefine words all the time and that is close enough in meaning to the traditional definition that it still makes sense.

People eater is good, just because I am old enough to remember the song... in fact, my next game will have a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater terrorizing a village ... no, not even I could do that, maybe people eater should be left alone.

When you think about it, there is no term in our society for sentient beings eating other sentient beings, since we consider ourselves to be the only "thinking" race on the planet. Personally I think eating whales is criminal, or slaying elephants for their ivory, but most people seem to be ok with this and so it continues. Therefore "cannibal" is as good a term as any for the practice.

llywelyn wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:So I did, but my point still stands.

Yep.

& remains an improvement on "cannibal", what with that meaning sth else entirely.

Agreed. Anthropophage it is.

Gargoyle; "I'm not a cannibal...I'm a 'Humanitarian'"

wonderdog wrote:so given the above post that states the -vore part expresses a requirement for nutrition rather than a preference, i looked into this alittle more.
another word for cannablism is anthropophagy. looking into the origins of that word is the greek words anthropos meaning human and phagein meaning to eat. so is it safe to conclude one can classify the dietary preferences of a species with the suffix -phagy?
and what could be stuck in front of that to actually create classes of eating habits?
sentient in latin translates to sensibilis. possibly sensibiphagy? doesnt roll off the tongue very well but kind of translates to "eats sentients"
any other thoughts?

for instance, xenophagy: prefers d-bees

MY POST CAME FIRST I DEMAND RECOGNITION!!!! j/k j/k

wonderdog wrote:

wonderdog wrote:so given the above post that states the -vore part expresses a requirement for nutrition rather than a preference, i looked into this alittle more.
another word for cannablism is anthropophagy. looking into the origins of that word is the greek words anthropos meaning human and phagein meaning to eat. so is it safe to conclude one can classify the dietary preferences of a species with the suffix -phagy?
and what could be stuck in front of that to actually create classes of eating habits?
sentient in latin translates to sensibilis. possibly sensibiphagy? doesnt roll off the tongue very well but kind of translates to "eats sentients"
any other thoughts?

for instance, xenophagy: prefers d-bees

MY POST CAME FIRST I DEMAND RECOGNITION!!!! j/k j/k

So llewlyn is guilty of plagiarism!

I like Anthropophage best...

llywelyn wrote:As for KC's quotes, half of them aren't even wrong since giants are just mucked men.

Depends on which ones you're talking about, I suppose.
Some of the quotes about giants I list mention them as being specifically non-human.

It kind of raises the question about how closely related something has to be to its food in order to be a cannibal.
If a modern human ate a cromagnon or a neanderthal, would that be cannibalism?
What about a Paranthropus robustus?
What about a modern chimpanzee?
And each of the above, only vice-versa?

In Palladium, what about if a human eats an Atlantean? Or an ogre? Or a Mechanoid? Or a psi-stalker? Or Auto-G?
What if they eat some of the flesh of a dragon (ir other creature) that's metamporphed into human form?

"Maneater" already exists, and d-bees specifically aren't on each other's menus because they're so similar to us and each other.* It's the word they should have used, if they weren't going to coin something.

I disagree- "Cannibal" conveys the point they're trying to get across, and has been used in the sense that they mean with decent regularity in mythology, fantasy, and science fiction.
I agree that the kind of uses that I found do not necessarily mean that the uses were legitimate, but the patterns of similarity of context and implication certainly indicates that they were a legitimate use that is not addressed in modern online dictionaries.

And the term "maneater" is hardly without problems, since it would technically refer only to eating humans, specifically only to eating male humans.
Sure, common usage varied from that technical meaning over a long enough time that the new definition was recognized as valid... but if we're being technical, let's be technical.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When I read an "monster" is a cannibal, it does not even come into my mind it eats humans or people.
That monster as a cannibal as I read it, just happens to eat its own kind from time to time.

Cobras are Canniblistic. Using PB methods, i guess, Cobras eat Humans. Oh well.

Would sapiavore work for you? I share your irk at the misuse of cannibal, but as many other gems as Palladium has produced, I'm not going to sweat it.

That's a pretty good one, actually.
Since, if we're talking about intelligent beings, we'd be talking about Sapience, not mere sentience or humanity.

Anthropophagy is also pretty good, depending on the Green connotations of "anthro," whether it related strictly to humans and/or strictly to males.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When I read an "monster" is a cannibal, it does not even come into my mind it eats humans or people.
That monster as a cannibal as I read it, just happens to eat its own kind from time to time.

Cobras are Canniblistic. Using PB methods, i guess, Cobras eat Humans. Oh well.

Would sapiavore work for you? I share your irk at the misuse of cannibal, but as many other gems as Palladium has produced, I'm not going to sweat it.

That's a pretty good one, actually.
Since, if we're talking about intelligent beings, we'd be talking about Sapience, not mere sentience or humanity.

Anthropophagy is also pretty good, depending on the Green connotations of "anthro," whether it related strictly to humans and/or strictly to males.

its origins in greek are from the word anthropos which means human being. where i read this mentions nothing of implication toward male or female. perhaps i am simply not educated enough in greek terminology

Killer Cyborg wrote:

llywelyn wrote:As for KC's quotes, half of them aren't even wrong since giants are just mucked men.

Depends on which ones you're talking about, I suppose.
Some of the quotes about giants I list mention them as being specifically non-human.

It kind of raises the question about how closely related something has to be to its food in order to be a cannibal.
If a modern human ate a cromagnon or a neanderthal, would that be cannibalism?
What about a Paranthropus robustus?
What about a modern chimpanzee?
And each of the above, only vice-versa?

In Palladium, what about if a human eats an Atlantean? Or an ogre? Or a Mechanoid? Or a psi-stalker? Or Auto-G?
What if they eat some of the flesh of a dragon (ir other creature) that's metamporphed into human form?

"Maneater" already exists, and d-bees specifically aren't on each other's menus because they're so similar to us and each other.* It's the word they should have used, if they weren't going to coin something.

I disagree- "Cannibal" conveys the point they're trying to get across, and has been used in the sense that they mean with decent regularity in mythology, fantasy, and science fiction.
I agree that the kind of uses that I found do not necessarily mean that the uses were legitimate, but the patterns of similarity of context and implication certainly indicates that they were a legitimate use that is not addressed in modern online dictionaries.

And the term "maneater" is hardly without problems, since it would technically refer only to eating humans, specifically only to eating male humans.
Sure, common usage varied from that technical meaning over a long enough time that the new definition was recognized as valid... but if we're being technical, let's be technical.

so then lets be technical.
doesnt cannibal originate from the caribe tribe with heavy implication toward ritual and ceremony?
simply eating something for sustenance will never, ever be accurately described as cannibalism

also...
Ho·mo   /ˈhoʊmoʊ/ Show Spelled[hoh-moh]
noun
1. ( italics ) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, distinguished by their large brains and a dependence upon tools. Compare archaic Homo.
from dictionary.com

so eating humans and our extinct ancestors would be homophagy, another word that i do not believe exists.

sidenote edit: if you make repeated posts ina topic and person(s) make no apparent response to them even though they address specific statements in their own posts, is it safe to assume i am on that persons foe list and they do not see my posts?

wonderdog wrote:[sidenote edit: if you make repeated posts ina topic and person(s) make no apparent response to them even though they address specific statements in their own posts, is it safe to assume i am on that persons foe list and they do not see my posts?

Do not ascribe to malice what can be more easily attributed to laziness.