Talk:Mythic creatures

• Talk:Mythic creatures/archive 1

Fauns = Fawns?

Fauns are actually called fauns by some people? I though a faun was some mythical creature? Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct; see wikipedia:Faun and wikipedia:Fawn. --g0urra[T҂C] 08:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt the Warcraft III manual and later sources were referring to the roman god/race.Baggins (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fauns aren't called fawns. They are two entirely different things. --g0urra[T҂C] 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In the english language sure, but in Warcraft III manual and references in other books, they spell it "faun". They probably meant 'fawn', since some sources describe dryads have having the lower body of a "deer" as well.Baggins (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since an official encyclopedia is slightly more credible than the Warcraft III manual and other books, Fawn and Faun are two different things. --g0urra[T҂C] 08:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what language but apparently faun, is sometimes an alternative spelling for "fawn". "faunen" was middle english word (though this apparently applies to the definition to "fawn over someone"). But apparently the two faun, and fawn are commonly switched. This is likely by accident? Merriweather Lewis, of Lewis and Clark expedition fame for example used "faun" in his writings [1] (and no he didn't discover "satyrs" on his journey, :p). Although the word "fauna" (for animals) may have similar etymology. But i'm not a linguist to know anything for sure. This is getting into a linguistics issue, something your average dictionary encyclopedia doesn't go into.

Although even wikipedia connects Fawn to faun; via the disambigation page; [\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faun_(disambiguation)][2] which muddles the issue even further. There must be some kind of linguistic connection.Baggins (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The link to the Fawn disambiguation article is probably because it sounds alike to Faun. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be right, not disputing you there.

However, these name dictionary states [3][4] states that faun is a variant of "fawn" comes from old english (or old french) meaning "young deer". There is apparently some kind of linguistic/etymological connection. Either that or its more "confusion". I still really doubt the blizzard writers were intending to reference the mythological creatures, but instead mixed up the spelling for the young deer, since dryads are also described as having the body of a deer in some sources.Baggins (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Question here to Baggins. Are you sure Blizzard was not referring to the upper body rather than the lower body as being akin to fauns? I am just wondering because I am not sure how Blizzard could really mean fawn when they said faun since this is the 21st century. The disambiguation link is like Gourra said due to the two words sounding alike since they also listed Fun and Fon, which I am pretty sure are not other words for fawn. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the sources all agree the upper body is a night elf female, and lower body are woodland/grey fauns. They obviously weren't saying the lower body was a night elf female, and it would take a huge leap of logic to think that... No sources say night elf females are 'fauns', and Blizzard was very specific when specifying the halves into night elf and faun. So obviously they didn't mean the upper half was a "satyr" like creature, they meant the upper half has the appearance of a night elf female. In addition faun and fawn are one of those commonly switched words [5] even in the 21st century. Accidental sure, but it happens. And a spell checker won't pick up that mistake and it can easily get past the editors. So I definitely say "typo", not Blizzard creating a new creature in the universe.Baggins (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they still could be referring to fauns, as in the mythical creature, because they have used other creatures from myth like dryads, satyrs, nymphs, etc. This would not be the first roman god/race to be heard of in Warcraft. Fauns' lower bodies do look like dryads' lower bodies. Dryads just have 4 legs instead of 2 like fauns. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fauns actually look like satyrs or pan, goat parts actually, not deer.Baggins (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Existence of fauns

I really don't think the authors had intended their reference to "faun" to mean the mythical race, but mixed up the spelling of 'fawn' (young deer), see Talk:Fawn.Baggins (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea obviously, but i somehow doubt were gonna convince the nessesary parties. It's frustrating but i's just gonna wash my hands of the whole thing.Warthok Talk Contribs 13:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is pure speculation based on typos. There is no way anyone is going to be able to cite that faun is a "race" that lives in the woodlands. I don't think there are any other references to fauns except in the paraphrases to the dryad description, and if it was referring to another race, rather than the animal deer, then there should clearly be more references elsewhere. In addition fauns are goat people not deer people. Dryads are clearly described as being night-elf/deer in other sources as far as I know.

I think this could set precedence for creating pages for other mythical creatures "faerie" or ouroboros because of a references to [Faerie Fire], or  [Faerie-Kind Staff] and  [Ouroboros Belt] despite their being no other actual lore citations confirming that said mythical beings exist, or actual physical appearances of said beings as npcs confirming their existance. While this isn't a clearly the same analogy (since faerie & ouroboros are definitely not typos).Baggins (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about creating new pages about them but if the name exists in-game they must have gotten it from somewhere right? From an in-universe perspective I mean. NPCs didn't just say "Hey want to make a belt called maybe Ouroboros for no reason? Okay sure". Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone comes across a citation that fauns actually exist as a physical race, and that its more than a typographic error, then fauns can get its own article. Until then it will be a side note in this article.Baggins (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)