Help my English! Combine two things, how to describe the thing that started the combining vs other?

[Starfyre]

Let's say I have two Transformers that can combine with each other to make a 'super transformer'. Let's say Transformer A and Transformer B.
When Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form 'Super Transformer Light'.
When Transformer B combines with Transformer A, they form 'Super Transformer Dark'.
It depends on who initiates the process to combine.
When they decombine, the transformers turn back to normal Transformer A and Transformer B.

Is there a word that would best replace Transformer A and Transformer B to make it sound more generic without using the A and B?

Using a bad example I can think of for the kinds of sentences I want to create and not sound cheesy or wordy about what happens:
- When the initiating robot combines with the robot that is to be combined with, the initiating robot dictates the transformation into 'Super Transformer Light'.
- The robot that was the one that did not initiate the combination does not dictate the transformation.
- The robot that had initiated is the one who dictates what the resulting super combination is.
- The combined robot, when they decombine. The robot that had initiated gets a bonus for initating.
- The combined robot, when they decombine, the robot that was the one who got combined by the initiating robot goes back to being the normal robot it was.

I don't like the "initiating robot"/"robot that had initiated" and "the robot that is to be combined with"/"The robot that was the one that did not initiate the combination". Is there a better word or description I can use to sound less complicated?

 

[mobilehaathi]

When Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form 'Super Transformer Light'.
When Transformer B combines with Transformer A, they form 'Super Transformer Dark'.

Hmmm, is non-abelian grammar ‘a thing’ in human languages?

 

[Gutwrench]

Let's say I have two Transformers that can combine with each other to make a 'super transformer'. Let's say Transformer A and Transformer B.
When Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form 'Super Transformer Light'.
When Transformer B combines with Transformer A, they form 'Super Transformer Dark'.
It depends on who initiates the process to combine.
When they decombine, the transformers turn back to normal Transformer A and Transformer B.

Is there a word that would best replace Transformer A and Transformer B to make it sound more generic without using the A and B?

Using a bad example I can think of for the kinds of sentences I want to create and not sound cheesy or wordy about what happens:
- When the initiating robot combines with the robot that is to be combined with, the initiating robot dictates the transformation into 'Super Transformer Light'.
- The robot that was the one that did not initiate the combination does not dictate the transformation.
- The robot that had initiated is the one who dictates what the resulting super combination is.
- The combined robot, when they decombine. The robot that had initiated gets a bonus for initating.
- The combined robot, when they decombine, the robot that was the one who got combined by the initiating robot goes back to being the normal robot it was.

I don't like the "initiating robot"/"robot that had initiated" and "the robot that is to be combined with"/"The robot that was the one that did not initiate the combination". Is there a better word or description I can use to sound less complicated?

Sounds like dating in the year 3510....if god is coming he ought to make it by then.

Ps - maybe instead of ‘the robot that had initiated’....could be said...’the initiating robot’....of course like people...there’s pitchers and catchers....

 

[willmtaylor]

@Scepticalscribe , this seems like it would be your cup of tea.

 

[A.Goldberg]

I didn't go through all your examples, but maybe this will help a little bit.

- When the initiating robot combines with the robot that is to be combined with, the initiating robot dictates the transformation into 'Super Transformer Light'.

The transformer that initiates the combination/merger is dominant and dictates the characteristics/phenotype/form of the resulting super transformer.

(Perhaps your Transformer names rather than A + B should be Transformer Light and Transformer Dark, respectively.)
When Transformer Light initiates the combination with Transformer Dark, it forms Super Transformer Light.
When Transformer Dark initiates the combination with Transformer Light, it forms Super Transformer Dark.
Whichever Transformer establishes the combination/fusion/merger/integration/association therefore maintains its name but gains the "super" designation.

- The robot that was the one that did not initiate the combination does not dictate the transformation.

The (dominant) robot that establishes the association dictates the transformation.
The robot recruited by the dominant robot does not dictate the transformation.

- The combined robot, when they decombine, the robot that was the one who got combined by the initiating robot goes back to being the normal robot it was.

When the combined robots disassociate, the recruited robot returns to its original/normal/pre-transformative state.
[doublepost=1545204583][/doublepost]

@Scepticalscribe , this seems like it would be your cup of tea.

I agree, @Scepticalscribe is our resident literary genius and immensely knowledgable.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I'll think on it.

However, my first thought is, the verb "dictates" strikes the wrong note, here.

I'd use "determines" instead.

Meanwhile, it is December (poor light, and overcast skies) and I have yet to have a coffee to kick start my brain. Will revert in due course.

 

[jpn]

when one combines with another one

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The "former" and the "latter" are the terms I would recommend using in this context

Let's say I have two Transformers that can combine with each other to make a 'super transformer'. Let's say Transformer A and Transformer B.
When Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form 'Super Transformer Light'.
When Transformer B combines with Transformer A, they form 'Super Transformer Dark'.
It depends on who initiates the process to combine.
When they decombine, the transformers turn back to normal Transformer A and Transformer B.

Is there a word that would best replace Transformer A and Transformer B to make it sound more generic without using the A and B?

Using a bad example I can think of for the kinds of sentences I want to create and not sound cheesy or wordy about what happens:
- When the initiating robot combines with the robot that is to be combined with, the initiating robot dictates the transformation into 'Super Transformer Light'.
- The robot that was the one that did not initiate the combination does not dictate the transformation.
- The robot that had initiated is the one who dictates what the resulting super combination is.
- The combined robot, when they decombine. The robot that had initiated gets a bonus for initating.
- The combined robot, when they decombine, the robot that was the one who got combined by the initiating robot goes back to being the normal robot it was.

I don't like the "initiating robot"/"robot that had initiated" and "the robot that is to be combined with"/"The robot that was the one that did not initiate the combination". Is there a better word or description I can use to sound less complicated?

Your quote as given in your post:


"Let's say I have two Transformers that can combine with each other to make a 'super transformer'. Let's say Transformer A and Transformer B.
When Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form 'Super Transformer Light'.
When Transformer B combines with Transformer A, they form 'Super Transformer Dark'.
It depends on who initiates the process to combine.
When they decombine, the transformers turn back to normal Transformer A and Transformer B."

I would re-write it something along the lines as follows:

"Two individual transformers can combine to make a super transformer, but the form the super transformer takes is determined by the precise sequence in which the combination occurred.

Thus, if Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form a "Super Transformer Light".

However, if the combination occurs in the reverse order, the latter (Transformer B) combining with the former (Transformer A), what is formed is a "Super Transformer Dark".

Thus, the subsequent nature of the super transformer after the merger, (the actual form it takes, Light or Dark) is determined by whether the former or latter of the two transformer initiated the sequence."

 

[chown33]

I'll suggest @A.Goldberg's use of "dominant" and "recruit", combined with @Scepticalscribe's use of "determines", to form Super Suggestion Light.

Either that, or "leader" for initiator, "recruit" for the secondary robot, again with "determines", to form Super Suggestion Charcoal Gray.

 

[A.Goldberg]

I'll think on it.

However, my first thought is, the verb "dictates" strikes the wrong note, here.

I'd use "determines" instead.

Meanwhile, it is December (poor light, and overcast skies) and I have yet to have a coffee to kick start my brain. Will revert in due course.

I agree, “determines” might be a better word choice.

Common SS, it’s high time you fire up that keurig/coffee maker/French press.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I agree, “determines” might be a better word choice.

Common SS, it’s high time you fire up that keurig/coffee maker/French press.

Coffee was consumed this morning, and, as you can see, the offering paragraph attended to, this afternoon, so that the immediate issue has been addressed, I hope, satisfactorily.

 

[Starfyre]

The "former" and the "latter" are the terms I would recommend using in this context



Your quote as given in your post:


"Let's say I have two Transformers that can combine with each other to make a 'super transformer'. Let's say Transformer A and Transformer B.
When Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form 'Super Transformer Light'.
When Transformer B combines with Transformer A, they form 'Super Transformer Dark'.
It depends on who initiates the process to combine.
When they decombine, the transformers turn back to normal Transformer A and Transformer B."

I would re-write it something as follows:

"Two individual transformers can combine to make a super transformer, but the form the super transformer takes is determined by the precise sequence in which the combination occurred.

Thus, if Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form a "Super Transformer Light".

However, if the combination occurs in the reverse order, the latter (Transformer B) combining with the former (Transformer A), what is formed is a "Super Transformer Dark".

Thus, the subsequent nature of the super transformer after the merger, (the actual form it takes, Light or Dark) is determined by whether the former or latter of the two transformer initiated the sequence."

Thanks for the input. I wish there was a word that could refer to the “transformer that initiated” vs “

The "former" and the "latter" are the terms I would recommend using in this context



Your quote as given in your post:


"Let's say I have two Transformers that can combine with each other to make a 'super transformer'. Let's say Transformer A and Transformer B.
When Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form 'Super Transformer Light'.
When Transformer B combines with Transformer A, they form 'Super Transformer Dark'.
It depends on who initiates the process to combine.
When they decombine, the transformers turn back to normal Transformer A and Transformer B."

I would re-write it something along the lines as follows:

"Two individual transformers can combine to make a super transformer, but the form the super transformer takes is determined by the precise sequence in which the combination occurred.

Thus, if Transformer A combines with Transformer B, they form a "Super Transformer Light".

However, if the combination occurs in the reverse order, the latter (Transformer B) combining with the former (Transformer A), what is formed is a "Super Transformer Dark".

Thus, the subsequent nature of the super transformer after the merger, (the actual form it takes, Light or Dark) is determined by whether the former or latter of the two transformer initiated the sequence."

Issue I have is how you identify the robot being combined into va the robot that is the “victim” that is getting combined with that robot that initiated it.

On the other hand when they decombine, could the same words be used to identify between the two?

If there were two words that could easily differentiate abs identify the two robots in the least wordy way, but clear... that is ideal.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thanks for the input. I wish there was a word that could refer to the “transformer that initiated” vs “

Issue I have is how you identify the robot being combined into va the robot that is the “victim” that is getting combined with that robot that initiated it.

On the other hand when they decombine, could the same words be used to identify between the two?

If there were two words that could easily differentiate abs identify the two robots in the least wordy way, but clear... that is ideal.

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are trying to say.

The words that I would use in this context are "Former" and "latter"; this distinguishes between two individuals, or objects, or 'robots' when you refer to both in a sentence but they are doing different things, or one is having an effect on the other., and one precedes the other.

In the first sentence you write, you are supposed to state - using the correct nouns (transformer) what you are talking about, what you are attempting to describe.

Subsequently, when distinguishing or drawing a distinction between two nouns, you use 'former' and 'latter' to distinguish between the first and second of these.

 

[jbarley]

Let's say I have two Transformers that can combine with each other to make a 'super transformer'. Let's say Transformer A and Transformer B.

I'm having a hard time picturing this combining with anything except maybe a stronger pole.

 

[Mousse]

Sounds like someone writing a fanfic or a dojinshi (combining/transforming robots is a staple of anime/manga). Just use the old standby workaround that's been around forever. The combination is based on code words: Formation Alpha/Beta/Gamma and have the resulting robot be named Robot Alpha/Beta/Gamma. Aquarion does this with 3 vessels--Vector Solar (red), Vector Luna (green) and Vector Mars (blue) combining. The resulting robot is named Aquarion + vessel that forms the head/controlling unit: Aquarion Solar (Red), Aquarion Luna (Green) or Aquarion Mars (Blue)

Star Trek does this a lot. I'm not sure the exact sequence of actions for attack pattern delta, because the CGI shots is different every time. If I can figure out the sequence for attack pattern delta, I would own Picard in any battle. He always uses attack pattern delta.

 

[chown33]

Sounds like someone writing a fanfic or a dojinshi (combining/transforming robots is a staple of anime/manga). Just use the old standby workaround that's been around forever. The combination is based on code words: Formation Alpha/Beta/Gamma and have the resulting robot be named Robot Alpha/Beta/Gamma. Aquarion does this with 3 vessels--Vector Solar (red), Vector Luna (green) and Vector Mars (blue) combining. The resulting robot is named Aquarion + vessel that forms the head/controlling unit: Aquarion Solar (Red), Aquarion Luna (Green) or Aquarion Mars (Blue)

Star Trek does this a lot. I'm not sure the exact sequence of actions for attack pattern delta, because the CGI shots is different every time. If I can figure out the sequence for attack pattern delta, I would own Picard in any battle. He always uses attack pattern delta.

"Alpha" is also used to designate the superior (leader, dominant) role in a social hierarchy. Examples: alpha wolf, alpha male chimpanzee, alpha mare, etc.

 

[shinji]

Thanks for the input. I wish there was a word that could refer to the “transformer that initiated” vs “

Issue I have is how you identify the robot being combined into va the robot that is the “victim” that is getting combined with that robot that initiated it.

On the other hand when they decombine, could the same words be used to identify between the two?

If there were two words that could easily differentiate abs identify the two robots in the least wordy way, but clear... that is ideal.

Couldn't you just say initiating and non-initiating?