Sky's introduction of 'mob' into the lexicon

[Grotug]

When I learned that language is a living, moving thing, it sorta blew my mind. I used to always think of language as this static thing that got invented and then we wrote down the words with their definitions in a book, and that book was the last word on the language; dictionaries were the Bibles of language.

I think I learned that language is a "living", changing thing from a Linguistics class I took in college. It was actually more the way in which languages change that surprised me. It's not some governing body that decides what words mean, it's the general consensus among the people who use the words. Someone starts using a word in a different way than it had been used, and if enough people start using it in that way its meaning changes within the community, and if it is widely enough adopted to the point it is clearly the expected meaning by most people, then someone writes its new meaning down in the dictionary and puts the old meaning as the secondary meaning, and then when that meaning pretty much never applies anymore it gets the archaic tag.

So, to get back to the title of this post, how does it feel, Sky, to be the prognosticator of a new word meaning?

Over on www.Doomworld.com

Rudolph said:
@Astronomical I have learned to punch or chainsaw Pinkies and Spectres in order to save ammo. It is a pretty effective tactic, unless of course you are dealing with a mob. Getting monsters to infight is also a good way to thin their ranks!

When Sky started using 'mob' to mean a shortened form of the word 'monster', I was tempted to call him out for his 'misappropriation' of the word. But something gave me pause... I'm not sure, now, what it was; I think I was curious if people would adopt his re-using of the word or if someone else would call him out on his 'misappropriation' of the word 'mob'. While I've always been a little bit irked by his new use of the word, I had to admit it was kinda cool to witness live, in real time, on a forum no less, a word go through an evolution in meaning.

Just to make myself clear, what I'm trying to say is that 'mob' is normally understood to mean a group of angry people moving as a group (kinda like the mob that stormed the Capitol building). The really interesting part of all of this is that not only has no one protested Sky's new meaning for 'mob', but recently I've been seeing other people using 'mob' on this site in the same way that Sky uses it. Fascinating! I wonder if anyone else has also noticed these changes to 'mob' over the last year on this site?

[Selkie]

Well I'd say protest isn't a transitive verb. Language changes

[Estie]

"Mob" in the meaning of "(large) group of monsters" has been used at least since 1999 in Everquest. It is possible that it originated in that game; if there is any yet older source, it must be Ultima online (which I never played), or possibly D&D where the specific meaning of "monster" comes from.

Is this a new meaning ? At a time when a new phenomenon needed to be named, someone used an existing term describing something similar ("the angry mob") - in the wider sense, any group of hostile individuals.

Now I dont know if Sky picked it up or re-invented it. It doesnt seem so far fetched.

[Grotug]

Originally Posted by Estie

"Mob" in the meaning of "(large) group of monsters" has been used at least since 1999 in Everquest. It is possible that it originated in that game; if there is any yet older source, it must be Ultima online (which I never played), or possibly D&D where the specific meaning of "monster" comes from.

Is this a new meaning ? At a time when a new phenomenon needed to be named, someone used an existing term describing something similar ("the angry mob") - in the wider sense, any group of hostile individuals.

Now I dont know if Sky picked it up or re-invented it. It doesnt seem so far fetched.

I should have clarified: I am also aware of this use of mob as a group of monsters, that's why I referenced the quote from Doomworld, because that was an example of 'mob' being used how I am accustomed to seeing it: as a group of monsters. Sky uses 'mob' for a single monster. And so have other people started doing it on here. I'll try to find examples and quote them.

[Estie]

Thats what I initially thought you had meant...but the quote of Rudolph then suggested you were talking about a group. When you "thin ranks", its a group, no ? What am I missing ?

[Grotug]

Originally Posted by Estie

Thats what I initially thought you had meant...but the quote of Rudolph then suggested you were talking about a group. When you "thin ranks", its a group, no ? What am I missing ?

I didn't make myself clear, I apologize. Yes, I was highlighting Rudolph's example as a use of 'mob' I was accustomed to seeing, to mean a group.

Anyway, it wasn't hard to find examples of 'mob' meaning singular monster:

A simple way to test my hypothesis is to replace the letters 'mob' whenever we come across them with the letters 'monster' and see if the sentences make sense without making any pluralization or tense adjustments to any of the words.

Newest @ got killed by walking into a room with way, way too many dark elf mages + escorts (probably two spawns of the same mob group).

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showpos...14&postcount=3

If Sky meant 'mob' to be a group of monsters, he'd leave out the word group, but this makes it appear that he meant it as the singular word 'monster'.

Originally Posted by Sky

i am on DL38 and i got a LF 4-9, so obviously i decided to pop my one and only !Enlight, and here is the stuff i found.

1. seeker bolts +0, no slay
2. a heavy crossbow +0
3. a "ring of speed" that actually turned out to be a monster.

I just barely got onto the level, so i doubt any mob could have picked up a dungeon book, i have Excellent stealth so everything should be asleep.

How do ring mobs work?
Do item rings have a % of becoming monsters?!?

At this depth a LF 9 i expect it to be a ring of speed +13 *at least*.

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?p=153524 Ring mimics never appear in mobs (ie. groups). I mean: there are no mobs (groups) of ring mimics in Angband. They always appear as a single monster. Given this fact, 'mobs' appears to mean 'monsters' in the general. Let's see how the sentence reads when we replace 'mob' with 'monster': How do ring monsters work? Do item rings have a % of becoming monsters?!?

Originally Posted by Sky

bloody hell, two more paladins dead, one to the same mob: basilisk. And i had detected it, i popped a Spd, fired all my ammo, breathed acid on it, activated a Acid Bolt artifact, and STILL died. [snip]

Surely this one does not need explication? I'm going to stop here because I don't want Sky to feel like I'm attacking him or make him feel uncomfortable analyzing a million of his posts for the sake of my observation. This is actually why I never posted my hypothesis earlier: I didn't want to come across as the language police, but moreover, I didn't want to interrupt a natural, organic process of the meaning of a word being expanded. I just thought it was fascinating how the word 'mob' went from meaning 'a group' to a singular monster (at least on this forum--not sure what the word 'mob' is doing elsewhere in the world). I figured other people had noticed it, too, and just hadn't commented on it either; happy to adopt the new meaning of the word.

I guess it's possible that what I am seeing is merely a consequence of English not being the native tongue of everyone posting on here, in which case it's only natural that some words not be used 100% in their traditional fashion. Maybe that's all that is going on here, but I find it interesting that 'mob' is the only word I'm seeing used differently than how I'm accustomed to seeing it. The vast majority of the posts on this site exemplify a mastery of English, including the ones I'm highlighting here. Anyway, on to the second part of my hypothesis: that other people have started to adopt Sky's use of 'mob' to mean 'monster'.

In the below example PowerWyrm is talking about shapeshifting. The context of his discussion is a single monster (Maia shapeshifting into another single monster). I think we can all agree the context is not a group of monsters shapeshifting into another group of monsters:

Originally Posted by PowerWyrm

This is a neat feature, but currently has two big flaws:

1) High level monsters shapechanging into low level monsters [Again, it seems to me he is using monsters in the general, and does not mean a group of monsters]

Maia of Ulmo, level 65 -> cold vortex, level 21

This sounds like stupid for a guy that will give a hard fight (4700 hps, TERRIFY/PARALYZE/ACID attacks, BA_WATE/BO_MANA/BO_WATE/S_AINU) to change into something that will be oneshot by a level 20 char...

2) Monsters shapechanging into uniques [Again, I think we can agree he doesn't mean a group of monsters shapechanging into multiple uniques? Again, this appears to be using 'monsters' in the general, not a group of monsters.]

Maiar of Oromë -> Huan, Wolfhound of the Valar

Sorry, but this sounds ridiculous...

Unless there is something I don't get...
How's mob death handled? What do monsters get when shapechanging? Seems the code just swaps "race" and doesn't reset the mob completely...

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?p=141533

Let's see how PowerWyrm's sentence reads when swapping all instances of 'mob' for 'monster': How's monster death handled? What do monsters get when shapechanging? Seems the code just swaps "race" and doesn't reset the monster completely...

Below is my final example of 'mob' meaning 'monster':

Originally Posted by NCountr

The wand only works when the mob is awake. If that is a new feature, I'm behind the times. But, it used to work regardless of mob state in 3.x.

In Project-mob.c -

/* Attempt to clone. */
if (multiply_monster(cave, context->mon))
context->hurt_msg = MON_MSG_SPAWN;

--- does not seem to work because, of bool sleep in mon-make.c's code:

* If `sleep` is true, the monster is placed with its default sleep value,
* which is given in monster.txt.
*
... */
bool place_new_monster(struct chunk *c, struct loc grid,
struct monster_race *race, bool sleep, bool group_ok,
struct monster_group_info group_info, byte origin)

In this case, if the mob is already asleep, the wand of clone monster successfully speeds up the mob, but does not clone it because the mob is asleep and generate.c cannot place a "wake", cloned mob asleep in a grid square. So, I believe the line in mon-move.c -

bool multiply_monster(struct chunk *c, const struct monster *mon)

simply returns FALSE without dropping a new mob or a dump file to debug. Good code, possibly faulty logic.

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showpos...9&postcount=54

I would concede that here there is no evidence that NCounter means mob as a singular monster except for the fact that clone monster does not affect an entire group of monsters, it only affects one monster at a time. Given that NCounter seems quite articulate with a mastery of the English language I find it a little hard to believe they mean 'group of monsters' when meaning 'a single monster' would more clearly articulate their point (given the context of using a clone monster wand which affects one monster at a time). To see if what I'm arguing here makes sense, let's try a slightly different test: for this final example let's replace the word 'mob' with the word 'group' and see if it still makes sense:

In this case, if the group is already asleep, the wand of clone monster successfully speeds up the group, but does not clone it because the group is asleep and generate.c cannot place a "wake", cloned group asleep in a grid square.

versus...

In this case, if the monster is already asleep, the wand of clone monster successfully speeds up the monster, but does not clone it because the monster is asleep and generate.c cannot place a "wake", cloned monster asleep in a grid square.

Which sentence makes more sense?

Anyway, in all these examples you can replace the letters 'mob' with the letters 'monster' and they all work seamlessly to mean 'single monster', whereas swapping 'mob' for 'group' does not work seamlessly and often makes no sense at all. (I just hope everyone doesn't hate me for going all Professor on their posts!

[Grotug]

Well, it appears someone over at Doomworld has used 'mob' to mean a single monster as well:

Posted November 11
On 11/10/2021 at 3:18 PM, Faceman2000 said:

They really take over the “Oh frick!” monster slot that the Archvile held in Doom 2 and that, well, nobody has really held since. I enjoy the way one appearing completely changes the dynamic of the fight.

I wish Archie had also been this fun in DE but making him more of a support monster does make sense.

Kute said:

I still find the arch-vile the most dangerous mob in the game

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topi...omment-2412919
Arch-viles very rarely appear in groups.

[Grotug]

Honestly, I find this extremely strange. Another post that is absolutely, unequivocal meaning of a singular thing:

On 6/17/2021 at 11:55 AM, lubba127 said:
doom is good

URROVA said:
yeah this opinion is so controversial...


romero's head is the best mob

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topi...omment=2334647

Is this zeitgeist? How long has the word 'mob' been used to reference something in the singular? :mind blown: I mean, clearly 'mob' means 'monster' in the sentence 'romero's head is the best mob'. (To win Doom II you have to kill Romero's head, which is hidden inside the visage of a giant monster; Romero's head is the final boss).

[Grotug]

https://www.doomworld.com/search/?q=mob

Have a scroll down the search results at the above link. Half of them are clearly the traditional use of the word, a mob of monsters or people; but many are now using mob as shorthand for monster when talking about their monster mod. I guess it's not that strange that the word should make this leap in use given that it's easier to type/say mob vs monster, but I still find it extremely interesting.

[Grotug]

Now the question is, who used 'mob' to mean 'monster' in the singular first? Sky or someone over at Doomworld?