I think it's like 'education'. Even if you study at several different colleges, you cannot get 'educations'. I always felt it was incorrect to pluralise 'animation', but it seems to be widespread and no one seems to mind. Use it if you want to, people will know what you mean. I know it is technically incorrect to start a sentance with 'but' or 'and', but I do that all the time.
If it's a non-count noun then you can't use 'a', the indefinite article, with it. There's a mistake in that quote BTW, enthusiasm is a count noun, but excitement is not.
So you're saying I can't use the article "an" with excitement?
"The child possessed an excitement of pure intensity."
Hey, I am an English scholar, or a language scholar at least.
For an English scholar, you seem to make a lot of language-related mistakes, including your statement that an indefinite article cannot be used with "music."
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
"There is a music for everybody -Eric Salzman"
Unless, and I kid you not this is perfectly possible, animation is the only word in the language that takes the indefinite article but can't be pluralised. Which would be kind of cool.
Animation is a special field. It deserves a special word. :D
However, I've already shown that there are many "unpluralizable" words that can use the indefinite article.
you cannot prove language with a rule because english is so messed up there has to be an exception for every rule
animations is that rule. It really does work. "check out my animations" "put all your animations up"
I hear it often....never really even thought of it as an official word or not, just something you say.
to complain about it is futile.
"who wouldn't want to make stuff for me? I'm awesome." -Bloo
Good question! I try not to use the word "animations" but it tends to slip out occasionally when I'm referring to numerous clips, scenes or sequqences. Since I'm not without fault, I can't really go around criticising people who say and write "animations", considering English isn't even my native tongue.
If some one wants to be a dip head and use "animations" when talking about real animation - so be it.... I just smile and think "numbskull".
Why Harvey wants to drag this topic up again - I don't know.
I tell my folks use "animation" - be taken as a serious animator.
Thanks!
I cringe everytime I hear someone say the word "animations." To me it'll always be animation. If I have several "animations" I say shorts, projects, clips, scenes, shots or a sequence. But that's just me. A lot of people say "ain't" but that doesn't make it right.
Aloha,
the Ape
Larry,
They do say photographs, movies, paintings and films.
... except that "photograph" and "photography" are two different words.
Is it even okay to say "an animation" without a dependent clause or prepositional phrase?
I've used the word "music" before as a comparison. Similar to "animation," "music" can be used to describe many songs, the process, or a single song. You wouldn't say "musics," but you can say "a music" comfortably when "music" is followed by a dependent clause or prepositional phrase. "Rock and Roll is a music for all ages" or "Rock and Roll is a music which I enjoy," but not "That audio recording is a music."
So is it wrong to say "That television special is an animation"?
Should we only use it like this: "That television special is an animation that fills me with joy"?
I would say I am going to watch an animated short or an animated TV special- I know I have never said "an animation".
When some one says "an animation" or "animations" - I, too, cringe and think well this person hasn't been in the business long or is new to the business or just repeats what they hear or read from others.
Like I said, I don't allow those terms in my classes. I want them to use the right terms and be seen as a professional. You can say what you want- those are my thoughts...
Thanks.
In which ever case, if the spelling of animation with the letter "s" added is published in enough articles for a long enough period of time, then it will be recognized as meaning whatever it was used for in all those articles. You could make up a new word and give it any meaning you wont and if you get enought people to use it in their publications, then it will become a real word.
But this is a nitpicky (verb: be overly critical; criticize minor details) issue at best. :D
So is it wrong to say "That television special is an animation"?
I'm no english major, but how about "'That television special is/was animated'"?
Aloha,
the Ape
A music for everyone? That's just plain bad grammar. Self consciously, maybe, but bad grammar anyway. And if you can have a music for everyone, then you must be able to have musics for everyone. The both sound equally daft.
I don't mind people saying that you can't have 'animations' just as long as they don't think you can have 'an animation' either.
If you can have a 'thing' you can always have some 'things' It's just a basic rule of grammar.
I'm no english major, but how about "'That television special is/was animated'"?
Again, "animated" and "animation" are two different words.
I'm looking for the correct usage of "animation."
A music for everyone? That's just plain bad grammar.
Again, "... a music for everybody" is an example given in Webster's Dictionary.
"... And a music of lovers." -Henry C. Kendall, poet
"A music that moved through the mist ..." -Michael Field, poet
"A music in the trembling grass ... " - George William Russell, poet
"Temptation hath a music for all ears." -Willis (Roget's Thesaurus)
I think I'll take their opinion over your made-up rules. ;)
And I acknowledge what others have said: English is possibly the most bastardized and haphazard language on the planet, where each word seems to have its own rules.
If you tried that "if enough articles use sloppy grammar, it's okay" argument in France, you'd be booted out of the country. ;)
And then there are these examples:
3. comput computer-generated graphics:the production of moving images by computer techniques, or the image produced smooth and realistic animations
The first time I read "animations" I was a kid watching those Monty Python imports' credits.
I'm really not trying to be a wishy-washy egalatarian Canadian ( I don't have to try) but this is as silly as arguing any other terminology we don't share.
What's the next poll about? Suitcase vs. Grip?
I found myself using "animations" naturally when many years ago working on 2d sprite based games (as today when there are Flash symbols) there would be files containing portions of an overall animation that would hook-up. "animations" distinguished from the overall animation. I suppose it was easier than saying "those files that contianed pieces of the overall animation". They weren't "scenes" and they weren't entire animation.
So the British say "animations" as plural to indicate Aardman and Gilliam produce alot of stuff and we genrally use "animation" collectively...just like us Canucks use "beer" collectively ("He had three beer").
You say tow-may-tow and I say tow-mah-tow
Let's call the whole thing off.
My point was - the term "animations" comes from the web genre-
No one I know who works in other forms of animation uses "animations" to describe their art form...unless they are misguided teachers (who have never worked in the biz).
Thanks (geez).:rolleyes:
I suppose it was easier than saying "those files that contianed pieces of the overall animation".
"animation files"
Boy, that sure was difficult: a real brain-twister.
So what's your take on it?
It's rare (but not impossible) to find a respected animation historian using the word "animations" in print, so it's probably just a colloquialism that's gradually finding acceptance. You'd think that, if it were a widely acceptable word, that you'd see it everywhere in animation books and journals.
I hate to think that many animators and enthusiasts don't even know how to use their own word.
If farmers didn't know whether it was okay to use the words "wheats" and "corns," would we think "What a bunch of ignorant bumpkins" or would we think "Oh, well. Language evolves"?
That said, Robert Clampett used the word "animations;" John Lasseter uses the word "animations;" Aardman Animations uses the word "animations;" Brad Bird uses the word "animations;" and the Animation World Magazine has used the word "animations." (Was the editor on vacation?) "Animations" is being used by the most influential and respected names in the industry, so we should probably get comfortable with it.
I feel as though I am in a school yard-
Why's that? What's so "school yard" about asking a question based on what you wrote?
No one I know who works in other forms of animation uses "animations" to describe their art form...unless they are misguided teachers (who have never worked in the biz).
Clampett, Bird, Lasseter, and the folks at Aardman are going to be disappointed to hear that...:rolleyes:
Guys, look. If you can have 'an animation' you can have 'animations' as it's a count noun. You can consitently say you can watch 'animation' but not 'an animation' or 'animations'
You can't say, and I think this is what Harvey is saying, that you can say 'I watched an animation' but not 'I watched two animations'
It just comes down to whether you use the word 'animation' to mean 'animated film'. I do, and so do loads of other people.
Harvey, I guess you're right about 'a music' but I bet Webster also has 'musics' like 'musics of different tonalities' or something.
I thought it might be a UK thing, but Gilliam's a Yank, isn't he?
Wow... The same arguements come up over and over and over... And this one... I cannot believe that it is getting as much attention as it is. Who cares really? No, I do not think there is such a thing as an "animation" OR animations. To me, they are referred to as animated films, or animated sequences, or cartoons.
However, there are MANY using a plural version of the word (especially in the game industry), just like many say things like "I seen you yesterday", and I really do not think we will change anything by arguing it in a forum. It is like arguing religion with some.
If you can have 'an animation' you can have 'animations' as it's a count noun. You can consitently say you can watch 'animation' but not 'an animation' or 'animations'
You can't say, and I think this is what Harvey is saying, that you can say 'I watched an animation' but not 'I watched two animations'
...
Harvey, I guess you're right about 'a music' but I bet Webster also has 'musics' like 'musics of different tonalities' or something.
"Musics" was used occasionally in olden times (With musics of all sorts and songs compos'd -Shakespeare) but I don't think it's used in modern English.
One of my recent suppositions (see above) was that "an animation" is only grammatically comfortable when it preceeds a dependent clause or prepositional phrase, but that generally "an animation" isn't strictly correct either.
As noted before, sometimes each English word has its own rules. "Sand" and "oil" are considered to be non-count nouns (also called mass nouns) but most people are probably comfortable putting an "s" on the end of either. ("sands of time;" "I have two oils to choose from: olive oil and sunflower oil.") "Honesty" is also considered to be a non-count noun, although few of us would say "honesties."
(These are just hypotheses, in lieu of an English professor.)
Anyway, it's interesting how the public is divided so far:
66% of people believe that "animations" is not proper English, while 66% believe it's okay to say "animations," whether it's proper or not.
honestly, i DO NOT see anybody "in the biz" or anybody who is a "professional" complaining or disregarding people who use the term "animations"
We are animators. Being weird/silly/excentric is what we get paied for.
It is not like anybody who uses it uses it completely wrong or so weird it is un-natural. "lets look at your animations" sounds fine to me.
I honestly cannot gather from all the attitudes of the industry (reading/watching info about game companies, and Pixar(they ride around on razor scooters and do paper airplane flying contests) that saying animations is going to make you sound less professional.
there are many more important things an animator must do to be professional. retracting an S on the word is not one of them.
"who wouldn't want to make stuff for me? I'm awesome." -Bloo
"Animation" as a slang noun, is short for "Animated Films" where "Animated" is an adjective.
Technically, as an adjective, it wouldn't be pluralized, but when it's being used (improperly) as a noun, then it would be accurate to add an "s" if there were more than one.
I don't go to the movies to see animation, or even animations. I go to see animated films or animated shorts. If I wanted to see animation, I could just look at anything that moved. And if there were a lot of things moving, then I could watch a LOT of animation, but I wouldn't be watching animations.
Wow... The same arguements come up over and over and over... And this one... I cannot believe that it is getting as much attention as it is. Who cares really? No, I do not think there is such a thing as an "animation" OR animations. To me, they are referred to as animated films, or animated sequences, or cartoons.
However, there are MANY using a plural version of the word (especially in the game industry), just like many say things like "I seen you yesterday", and I really do not think we will change anything by arguing it in a forum. It is like arguing religion with some.
I don't see an argument here, just a discussion. And this seems to be an issue worth discussing as much as anything else.
You want an argument, go check out the PS3 fans in the teamxbox forums, lol. The new Xbox 360 comes out in a week, and somebody's going to get killed over it.
Again, "animated" and "animation" are two different words.
I'm looking for the correct usage of "animation."
Again, "... a music for everybody" is an example given in Webster's Dictionary.
"... And a music of lovers." -Henry C. Kendall, poet
"A music that moved through the mist ..." -Michael Field, poet
"A music in the trembling grass ... " - George William Russell, poet
"Temptation hath a music for all ears." -Willis (Roget's Thesaurus)
I think I'll take their opinion over your made-up rules. ;)
And I acknowledge what others have said: English is possibly the most bastardized and haphazard language on the planet, where each word seems to have its own rules.
If you tried that "if enough articles use sloppy grammar, it's okay" argument in France, you'd be booted out of the country. ;)
Harrrrvey!
You're not quoting common usage of the term, you're quoting poets. Poets use and get away with a lot of unusual verbiage that would be laughed at on the street. Nobody talks like that except poets, and they don't even talk like that - they just WRITE like that.
Shakeapeare wrote, "But, soft..." which means hang on, be quiet, wait a second, etc. I've never heard anyone use that phrase unless they were quoting that actual piece. Doesn't make it wrong. Doesn't make it right, either. It makes it obscure, antiquated, even frivolous.
These days, it's, "Yo, hol' up."
Harrrrvey!
You're not quoting common usage of the term, you're quoting poets. Poets use and get away with a lot of unusual verbiage that would be laughed at on the street.
LOL
I was wondering when someone was going to catch that.
Poets speak in colloquialisms which is partly what I've been arguing: that "animations" is more colloquial than proper*.
However, two of the examples appear in Webster's and Roget's, including one from composer Eric Salzman, so I'm going to guess that they're okay. (Although who knows?)
Anyway ...
Does everyone who thinks it's okay to say "animations" feel the same way about "claymation"?
"I think I'll watch some claymations this weekend."
"I've seen 14 different Wallace & Gromit claymations."
___ * And when I say "more colloquial than proper," I mean that you might say the words "wanna" or "gonna" in spoken English, put you wouldn't put them in a grant application.
all we need now is for some poet to use 'animations'.
Anyway, I've never used it, and I thought I didn't mind either way if others did. Well now I do. All you people out there saying 'animations': you're all idiots (and that goes for idiots at Aardman and Pixar too). Learn to talk right.
all we need now is for some poet to use 'animations'.
Anyway, I've never used it, and I thought I didn't mind either way if others did. Well now I do. All you people out there saying 'animations': you're all idiots (and that goes for idiots at Aardman and Pixar too). Learn to talk right.
I'm fifth-generation Californian. I'm lucky I can speak the language at all.
I've never used the phrase "animations" relating to animated films, but now that I think about it, I have used the term when referring to a web page that had animations on it. Basically, it had so many animations on it, it took a month to load the damn thing.
I'll give you animators something to think about. I come from a painterly background in the arts no one who is educated uses the term "purple". And anyone with any training refers to those colour tones as "violets", either red or blue violets. It was sort of a snobbish jargon thing whereby you could distinguish those in the know. The older I get the more ridiculous I see the whole thing. If you know what something means, why pick at how someone is trying to say it? Communication is the most important issue. And critiquing an exchange is just bad form.
And critiquing an exchange is just bad form.
Critiquing someone in front of others might be rude, but education can be healthy.
Personally, if I were repeatedly using the same word incorrectly (whether mispronouncing, misspelling, or misunderstanding the meaning of), I'd want someone to tell me as soon as possible; and I would thank the person who corrected me.
It might sting at first, but it's better than continually looking like an idiot.
I don't see an argument here, just a discussion. And this seems to be an issue worth discussing as much as anything else.
You want an argument, go check out the PS3 fans in the teamxbox forums, lol. The new Xbox 360 comes out in a week, and somebody's going to get killed over it.
I use the term "arguement" in a way that a lawyer might use it, as an lawyer may argue his case. I am not saying that you guys are biting each others' heads off or anything :).
Maybe we could start a new 4 page "discussion" about the term arguement.
Maybe we could start a new 4 page "discussion" about the term arguement.
okay, then:
new topic
Is "arguement" a real word?
I use the term "arguement" in a way that a lawyer might use it, as an lawyer may argue his case. I am not saying that you guys are biting each others' heads off or anything :).
Maybe we could start a new 4 page "discussion" about the term arguement.
We could put that up for debate.
I'll give you animators something to think about. I come from a painterly background in the arts no one who is educated uses the term "purple". And anyone with any training refers to those colour tones as "violets", either red or blue violets. It was sort of a snobbish jargon thing whereby you could distinguish those in the know. The older I get the more ridiculous I see the whole thing. If you know what something means, why pick at how someone is trying to say it? Communication is the most important issue. And critiquing an exchange is just bad form.
I totally agree. It seems very silly indeed to bother arguing over it and it does seem very snobbish. Are people so insecure about their art that it actually bothers them, or, like what I'm getting from Harvey, is it just a matter of hearing poor English that bothers them (like "ain't" and "anyways")?
I had someone call my work cartoons, trying to insult me. He was a little upset that it didn't bother me. Hey, if people are watching my animations, short animated films, or cartoons, and laughing in the right places, they can call them "skid marked purple* underwears" as long as they still enjoy it. It's about entertaining the audience for me.
* Violet if it bothers anyone out there... :D
Does everyone who thinks it's okay to say "animations" feel the same way about "claymation"?
"I think I'll watch some claymations this weekend."
"I've seen 14 different Wallace & Gromit claymations."
Well, since we're being all technical and stuff... ;)
Pluralization aside, the term "claymation" is a trademarked term that refers to the work of the Will Vinton studio. If you want to use that word correctly, it can only be used when referring to the California Raisins, the Domino's Pizza Noid, "Closed Mondays", etc. There is no such thing as a Wallace and Gromit "claymation".
Now, in the real world...:D, the term has come to mean any stop motion animation done using clay characters. It's become the "kleenex" way of referring to clay stop motion.
As to how this information affects the dreaded "animations" discussion I will leave for all of you to decide... ;)
I have seen Harryhausen's work described as claymation. For your own good it's best not to display such a shoddy vocabulary. You will look like a fool.
DSB, don't you know that critiquing me is BAD FORM? :(
er... I mean ... THANK YOU for correcting me! :D
The word "Claymations" doesn't appear on the Vinton website, so I'm going to guess they don't use it.
Also, it looks like the Vinton studio finally got around to changing its name. They are now Laika (?). Oh, thank you, Phil Knight: king of all sweatshops, the Michael Eisner of stop-motion.
They may not use it anymore, but that doesn't affect the trademark (unless they let it lapse). And you're right; Vinton isn't Vinton anymore, as it's owned by the evil Nike overlord.
BTW, just found out the other day that Will Vinton (the guy) is doing an artist-in-residence thing right now at Art Institute Portland. Kinda cool!
Anteater, whoever described Harryhausen's work as claymation certainly doesn't understand either Harryhausen or claymation.
Comments
Man, you know what I think.
Must be a Bristol thing. ;)
I think it's like 'education'. Even if you study at several different colleges, you cannot get 'educations'. I always felt it was incorrect to pluralise 'animation', but it seems to be widespread and no one seems to mind. Use it if you want to, people will know what you mean. I know it is technically incorrect to start a sentance with 'but' or 'and', but I do that all the time.
So you're saying I can't use the article "an" with excitement?
"The child possessed an excitement of pure intensity."
For an English scholar, you seem to make a lot of language-related mistakes, including your statement that an indefinite article cannot be used with "music."
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
"There is a music for everybody -Eric Salzman"
Animation is a special field. It deserves a special word. :D
However, I've already shown that there are many "unpluralizable" words that can use the indefinite article.
you cannot prove language with a rule because english is so messed up there has to be an exception for every rule
animations is that rule. It really does work. "check out my animations" "put all your animations up"
I hear it often....never really even thought of it as an official word or not, just something you say.
to complain about it is futile.
"who wouldn't want to make stuff for me? I'm awesome." -Bloo
Good question! I try not to use the word "animations" but it tends to slip out occasionally when I'm referring to numerous clips, scenes or sequqences. Since I'm not without fault, I can't really go around criticising people who say and write "animations", considering English isn't even my native tongue.
Here we go again!!!
Animation refers to REAL animation.
Animations refers to web animation.
No one says Photographies---right?
If some one wants to be a dip head and use "animations" when talking about real animation - so be it.... I just smile and think "numbskull".
Why Harvey wants to drag this topic up again - I don't know.
I tell my folks use "animation" - be taken as a serious animator.
Thanks!
I cringe everytime I hear someone say the word "animations." To me it'll always be animation. If I have several "animations" I say shorts, projects, clips, scenes, shots or a sequence. But that's just me. A lot of people say "ain't" but that doesn't make it right.
Aloha,
the Ape
Larry,
They do say photographs, movies, paintings and films.
... except that "photograph" and "photography" are two different words.
Is it even okay to say "an animation" without a dependent clause or prepositional phrase?
I've used the word "music" before as a comparison. Similar to "animation," "music" can be used to describe many songs, the process, or a single song. You wouldn't say "musics," but you can say "a music" comfortably when "music" is followed by a dependent clause or prepositional phrase. "Rock and Roll is a music for all ages" or "Rock and Roll is a music which I enjoy," but not "That audio recording is a music."
So is it wrong to say "That television special is an animation"?
Should we only use it like this: "That television special is an animation that fills me with joy"?
Okay Harvey and Ape
Hello.
I agree (I think) in princliple.
I would say I am going to watch an animated short or an animated TV special- I know I have never said "an animation".
When some one says "an animation" or "animations" - I, too, cringe and think well this person hasn't been in the business long or is new to the business or just repeats what they hear or read from others.
Like I said, I don't allow those terms in my classes. I want them to use the right terms and be seen as a professional. You can say what you want- those are my thoughts...
Thanks.
In which ever case, if the spelling of animation with the letter "s" added is published in enough articles for a long enough period of time, then it will be recognized as meaning whatever it was used for in all those articles. You could make up a new word and give it any meaning you wont and if you get enought people to use it in their publications, then it will become a real word.
But this is a nitpicky (verb: be overly critical; criticize minor details) issue at best. :D
I'm no english major, but how about "'That television special is/was animated'"?
Aloha,
the Ape
A music for everyone? That's just plain bad grammar. Self consciously, maybe, but bad grammar anyway. And if you can have a music for everyone, then you must be able to have musics for everyone. The both sound equally daft.
I don't mind people saying that you can't have 'animations' just as long as they don't think you can have 'an animation' either.
If you can have a 'thing' you can always have some 'things' It's just a basic rule of grammar.
Again, "animated" and "animation" are two different words.
I'm looking for the correct usage of "animation."
Again, "... a music for everybody" is an example given in Webster's Dictionary.
"... And a music of lovers." -Henry C. Kendall, poet
"A music that moved through the mist ..." -Michael Field, poet
"A music in the trembling grass ... " - George William Russell, poet
"Temptation hath a music for all ears." -Willis (Roget's Thesaurus)
I think I'll take their opinion over your made-up rules. ;)
And I acknowledge what others have said: English is possibly the most bastardized and haphazard language on the planet, where each word seems to have its own rules.
If you tried that "if enough articles use sloppy grammar, it's okay" argument in France, you'd be booted out of the country. ;)
And then there are these examples:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861585682/animation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animation
I know Wikipedia is often a flawed source, but there it is anyway.
So what's your take on it?
The first time I read "animations" I was a kid watching those Monty Python imports' credits.
I'm really not trying to be a wishy-washy egalatarian Canadian ( I don't have to try) but this is as silly as arguing any other terminology we don't share.
What's the next poll about? Suitcase vs. Grip?
I found myself using "animations" naturally when many years ago working on 2d sprite based games (as today when there are Flash symbols) there would be files containing portions of an overall animation that would hook-up. "animations" distinguished from the overall animation. I suppose it was easier than saying "those files that contianed pieces of the overall animation". They weren't "scenes" and they weren't entire animation.
So the British say "animations" as plural to indicate Aardman and Gilliam produce alot of stuff and we genrally use "animation" collectively...just like us Canucks use "beer" collectively ("He had three beer").
You say tow-may-tow and I say tow-mah-tow
Let's call the whole thing off.
Language evolves.
So web animation isn't real animation?
Real animation
Wow,
I feel as though I am in a school yard-
My point was - the term "animations" comes from the web genre-
No one I know who works in other forms of animation uses "animations" to describe their art form...unless they are misguided teachers (who have never worked in the biz).
Thanks (geez).:rolleyes:
"animation files"
Boy, that sure was difficult: a real brain-twister.
It's rare (but not impossible) to find a respected animation historian using the word "animations" in print, so it's probably just a colloquialism that's gradually finding acceptance. You'd think that, if it were a widely acceptable word, that you'd see it everywhere in animation books and journals.
I hate to think that many animators and enthusiasts don't even know how to use their own word.
If farmers didn't know whether it was okay to use the words "wheats" and "corns," would we think "What a bunch of ignorant bumpkins" or would we think "Oh, well. Language evolves"?
That said, Robert Clampett used the word "animations;" John Lasseter uses the word "animations;" Aardman Animations uses the word "animations;" Brad Bird uses the word "animations;" and the Animation World Magazine has used the word "animations." (Was the editor on vacation?) "Animations" is being used by the most influential and respected names in the industry, so we should probably get comfortable with it.
Why's that? What's so "school yard" about asking a question based on what you wrote?
Clampett, Bird, Lasseter, and the folks at Aardman are going to be disappointed to hear that...:rolleyes:
Guys, look. If you can have 'an animation' you can have 'animations' as it's a count noun. You can consitently say you can watch 'animation' but not 'an animation' or 'animations'
You can't say, and I think this is what Harvey is saying, that you can say 'I watched an animation' but not 'I watched two animations'
It just comes down to whether you use the word 'animation' to mean 'animated film'. I do, and so do loads of other people.
Harvey, I guess you're right about 'a music' but I bet Webster also has 'musics' like 'musics of different tonalities' or something.
I thought it might be a UK thing, but Gilliam's a Yank, isn't he?
Wow... The same arguements come up over and over and over... And this one... I cannot believe that it is getting as much attention as it is. Who cares really? No, I do not think there is such a thing as an "animation" OR animations. To me, they are referred to as animated films, or animated sequences, or cartoons.
However, there are MANY using a plural version of the word (especially in the game industry), just like many say things like "I seen you yesterday", and I really do not think we will change anything by arguing it in a forum. It is like arguing religion with some.
"Musics" was used occasionally in olden times (With musics of all sorts and songs compos'd -Shakespeare) but I don't think it's used in modern English.
One of my recent suppositions (see above) was that "an animation" is only grammatically comfortable when it preceeds a dependent clause or prepositional phrase, but that generally "an animation" isn't strictly correct either.
As noted before, sometimes each English word has its own rules. "Sand" and "oil" are considered to be non-count nouns (also called mass nouns) but most people are probably comfortable putting an "s" on the end of either. ("sands of time;" "I have two oils to choose from: olive oil and sunflower oil.") "Honesty" is also considered to be a non-count noun, although few of us would say "honesties."
(These are just hypotheses, in lieu of an English professor.)
Anyway, it's interesting how the public is divided so far:
66% of people believe that "animations" is not proper English, while 66% believe it's okay to say "animations," whether it's proper or not.
honestly, i DO NOT see anybody "in the biz" or anybody who is a "professional" complaining or disregarding people who use the term "animations"
We are animators. Being weird/silly/excentric is what we get paied for.
It is not like anybody who uses it uses it completely wrong or so weird it is un-natural. "lets look at your animations" sounds fine to me.
I honestly cannot gather from all the attitudes of the industry (reading/watching info about game companies, and Pixar(they ride around on razor scooters and do paper airplane flying contests) that saying animations is going to make you sound less professional.
there are many more important things an animator must do to be professional. retracting an S on the word is not one of them.
"who wouldn't want to make stuff for me? I'm awesome." -Bloo
"Animation" as a slang noun, is short for "Animated Films" where "Animated" is an adjective.
Technically, as an adjective, it wouldn't be pluralized, but when it's being used (improperly) as a noun, then it would be accurate to add an "s" if there were more than one.
I don't go to the movies to see animation, or even animations. I go to see animated films or animated shorts. If I wanted to see animation, I could just look at anything that moved. And if there were a lot of things moving, then I could watch a LOT of animation, but I wouldn't be watching animations.
I don't see an argument here, just a discussion. And this seems to be an issue worth discussing as much as anything else.
You want an argument, go check out the PS3 fans in the teamxbox forums, lol. The new Xbox 360 comes out in a week, and somebody's going to get killed over it.
Harrrrvey!
You're not quoting common usage of the term, you're quoting poets. Poets use and get away with a lot of unusual verbiage that would be laughed at on the street. Nobody talks like that except poets, and they don't even talk like that - they just WRITE like that.
Shakeapeare wrote, "But, soft..." which means hang on, be quiet, wait a second, etc. I've never heard anyone use that phrase unless they were quoting that actual piece. Doesn't make it wrong. Doesn't make it right, either. It makes it obscure, antiquated, even frivolous.
These days, it's, "Yo, hol' up."
LOL
I was wondering when someone was going to catch that.
Poets speak in colloquialisms which is partly what I've been arguing: that "animations" is more colloquial than proper*.
However, two of the examples appear in Webster's and Roget's, including one from composer Eric Salzman, so I'm going to guess that they're okay. (Although who knows?)
Anyway ...
Does everyone who thinks it's okay to say "animations" feel the same way about "claymation"?
"I think I'll watch some claymations this weekend."
"I've seen 14 different Wallace & Gromit claymations."
___
* And when I say "more colloquial than proper," I mean that you might say the words "wanna" or "gonna" in spoken English, put you wouldn't put them in a grant application.
all we need now is for some poet to use 'animations'.
Anyway, I've never used it, and I thought I didn't mind either way if others did. Well now I do. All you people out there saying 'animations': you're all idiots (and that goes for idiots at Aardman and Pixar too). Learn to talk right.
I'm fifth-generation Californian. I'm lucky I can speak the language at all.
I've never used the phrase "animations" relating to animated films, but now that I think about it, I have used the term when referring to a web page that had animations on it. Basically, it had so many animations on it, it took a month to load the damn thing.
I'll give you animators something to think about. I come from a painterly background in the arts no one who is educated uses the term "purple". And anyone with any training refers to those colour tones as "violets", either red or blue violets. It was sort of a snobbish jargon thing whereby you could distinguish those in the know. The older I get the more ridiculous I see the whole thing. If you know what something means, why pick at how someone is trying to say it? Communication is the most important issue. And critiquing an exchange is just bad form.
Critiquing someone in front of others might be rude, but education can be healthy.
Personally, if I were repeatedly using the same word incorrectly (whether mispronouncing, misspelling, or misunderstanding the meaning of), I'd want someone to tell me as soon as possible; and I would thank the person who corrected me.
It might sting at first, but it's better than continually looking like an idiot.
I use the term "arguement" in a way that a lawyer might use it, as an lawyer may argue his case. I am not saying that you guys are biting each others' heads off or anything :).
Maybe we could start a new 4 page "discussion" about the term arguement.
okay, then:
new topic
Is "arguement" a real word?
We could put that up for debate.
I totally agree. It seems very silly indeed to bother arguing over it and it does seem very snobbish. Are people so insecure about their art that it actually bothers them, or, like what I'm getting from Harvey, is it just a matter of hearing poor English that bothers them (like "ain't" and "anyways")?
I had someone call my work cartoons, trying to insult me. He was a little upset that it didn't bother me. Hey, if people are watching my animations, short animated films, or cartoons, and laughing in the right places, they can call them "skid marked purple* underwears" as long as they still enjoy it. It's about entertaining the audience for me.
* Violet if it bothers anyone out there... :D
Well, since we're being all technical and stuff... ;)
Pluralization aside, the term "claymation" is a trademarked term that refers to the work of the Will Vinton studio. If you want to use that word correctly, it can only be used when referring to the California Raisins, the Domino's Pizza Noid, "Closed Mondays", etc. There is no such thing as a Wallace and Gromit "claymation".
Now, in the real world...:D, the term has come to mean any stop motion animation done using clay characters. It's become the "kleenex" way of referring to clay stop motion.
As to how this information affects the dreaded "animations" discussion I will leave for all of you to decide... ;)
I have seen Harryhausen's work described as claymation. For your own good it's best not to display such a shoddy vocabulary. You will look like a fool.
DSB, don't you know that critiquing me is BAD FORM? :(
er... I mean ... THANK YOU for correcting me! :D
The word "Claymations" doesn't appear on the Vinton website, so I'm going to guess they don't use it.
Also, it looks like the Vinton studio finally got around to changing its name. They are now Laika (?). Oh, thank you, Phil Knight: king of all sweatshops, the Michael Eisner of stop-motion.
They may not use it anymore, but that doesn't affect the trademark (unless they let it lapse). And you're right; Vinton isn't Vinton anymore, as it's owned by the evil Nike overlord.
BTW, just found out the other day that Will Vinton (the guy) is doing an artist-in-residence thing right now at Art Institute Portland. Kinda cool!
Anteater, whoever described Harryhausen's work as claymation certainly doesn't understand either Harryhausen or claymation.