Talk:Mox

From MTG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Should the Mox Lotus be mentioned as an additional moxen? The card was made, even if it's a joke that's not legal in any format. --70.190.71.44 06:24, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Pluralization[edit source]

14:09, 25 April 2017‎ Hunterofsalvation (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,782 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Moxen is the term used by Wizards of the Coast. Please use the discussion page for your arguments.) (undo)

This is demonstrably false. Wizards has made exactly one product with the word "Mox" pluralized on it. They were necklace versions of the original Unlimited Moxes. Here is a picture of the box they came in:

Note that they pluralize the word "Mox" as "Moxes". Note that on their site, some people mistakenly use "Moxen", while many other Wizards employees and writers use "Moxes". Relying on one or two employees who have written "Moxen" is not a citation, whereas actual products that use "Moxes" on the packaging is.

Finally, there is only one word that ends with "ox" that gets pluralized with an "en" suffix, and that is the word "ox". All other "ox" ending words are pluralized with an "es".

  • Fox -> Foxes
  • Box -> Boxes
  • Pox -> Poxes
  • Lox -> Loxes
  • Vox -> Voces
  • Cox -> Coxes
  • Ox -> Oxen

The word "Mox" is pluralized "Moxes", not "Moxen". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.72.149 (talkcontribs).

On the other hand: Moxen is used since the beginning of the game. and still on the site http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/alternate-moxen-2010-05-10 http://magic.wizards.com/en/search/site/moxen?f. It is a made up name which doesn't confirm to regular English --Hunter (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Also Mark Rosewater http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/60879447656/why-is-the-plural-of-mox-moxen-rather-than --Hunter (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
While we usually take Maro's responses for Word of God, I think his equivocation in that answer make it a less than compelling reference. --Corveroth (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, the picture you attempted to reference doesn't appear to be present. Can you upload it to an external host, or here via Tools -> Upload file, and reply with a link? I adjusted some formatting in and around your message to help make it clear where your post starts and ends, which I hope you won't mind. With that out of the way, on to the topic of interest!
Like any wiki, we rely on external references as our proxy for truth. Here, typical English orthography (the pluralization you're citing) is in conflict with a number of articles that can be found through the search Hunter provided. As the word in question is an element of fiction owned by Wizards, their usage rules overrule broader convention. One of those articles (just one, for the sake of brevity) is referenced within the article. This debate proves that that reference wasn't effectively supporting the point in question, so I've added an inline citation to that article to address the issue. If nothing else comes of this discussion, you deserve thanks for improving that much of the article, and if you think that citation, or my phrasing, or anything else there can be improved, I invite you to do so.
However, modifying Hunter's search to find articles using your preferred "moxes" instead turns up no good results. There are two pages of hits, but those all appear to be near-matches for "Mox" alone in card names. If you can demonstrate that Wizards does, or has previously, used "moxes" as well, that fact is worth including. Without evidence, no further changes seem necessary. (Additionally, I'd be happy to refer to you by name. Have you considered registering here?) --Corveroth (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Three issues. 1) It is a made up name 2) Has been used since the beginning 3) Actual printed versions
1) all words and names are made up. Regardless of that though, even made up names do conform to regular pluralizations and conjugations. If you make up the word "trozz" to mean "the flick of a finger against a smart phone", you don't get to say "This word is made up, so the verb form is symbolized by a suffix of "tion", so "trozztion" is the verb, and the plural is made with an "ing" for this word, so the plural of "trozz" is actually "trozzing", and finally the past tense is especially interesting, because the past tense of "trozz" is actually "trozz9938fjdldmaddk". Please make sure you spell it correctly.
2) Both "moxes" and "moxen" have been used by various people associated with the game since the beginning. That does not make them official or note. You cited search results on Wizards page "http://magic.wizards.com/en/search/site/moxen?f", if you scroll down, you'll notice there are 14 pages of results. If you had changed it to search for "http://magic.wizards.com/en/search/site/moxes?f" and then scrolled down, you'll notice there are 994 pages of results.
3) WotC has only ever once pluralized the word "mox" in official printed form. The aforementioned, and easily googled "Jewelry Series", in which they use the word "moxes". I have uploaded a picture (File:Moxes.jpg) of the product at Corveroth's request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBock (talkcontribs).
Thank you for responding! Some of your arguments are less than compelling. You assume that "mox" is an English word, but especially in the realm of sci-fi and fantasy, fictitious loanwords are common. The search on the Wizards site disregards common English plural suffixes, so the search for "moxes" actually returns any article containing the singular "mox", as can be seen in a cursory scan of the results. The search for "moxen", however, returns only articles containing exactly that word, because the uncommon "-en" suffix is not stripped from the query. This does not constitute strong evidence for either side of this debate; it merely reflects the usual rules of English grammar.
With that said, you do provide one data point in favor of "moxes", with the caveats that it dates to 2007, and it was produced only for the Italian market. Still, it is unquestionably official. Given that evidence, I went further and found multiple uses of that plural within Volume 2 of The Shadow Mage.
In the end, I support rewriting the relevant sections of this article to state that "moxes" appears to be the official pluralization, while also stating that "moxen" is also commonly used and is supported by Maro. Any objections? --Corveroth (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I was just writing that in the comics they are called moxens. Sounds good to me. (Fun fact: I always thought it was called mox from the latin word mox, meaning now, since with a cost of 0, it could be cast immediately. --Firebead elvenhair (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Which comic did you find using the -en suffix? As for Latin, I do not know of any evidence beyond coincidence, and as an adverb in that language, I doubt it helps much with the current question. --Corveroth (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for my lack of familiarity with this site's formatting.
Corveroth wrote: "You assume that "mox" is an English word". I'm not assuming that. It is. citations? This very article! A) In this very article it says that it was derived from "moxie", a distinctly English word from the early 1900s. B) It was coined by Wizards of the Coast, a US based company.
"https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/whatever-happened-barrys-land-2009-02-09" <--- MaRo only uses "moxes"
"https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/few-words-rd-2005-01-24" <--- MaRo only uses "moxes"
"https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/type-1-take-2-2003-12-15" <--- MaRo only uses "moxes"
This is a bit tongue in cheek, however Corveroth wrote: "The search on the Wizards site disregards common English plural suffixes, so the search for "moxes" actually returns any article containing the singular "mox", as can be seen in a cursory scan of the results. The search for "moxen", however, returns only articles containing exactly that word, because the uncommon "-en" suffix is not stripped from the query." So Wizards very site is coded so that if you search for "moxes" it gives you results for "mox", but if you search for "moxen" it does not return results for "mox"? So their site is coded with this pluralization...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBock (talkcontribs).
I'm going to step back from this argument. Pending any change from Firebead's research, we have sufficient evidence to state that both plural forms have been used in official context. "Moxes" has been used in old comics and the 2007 Jewel Series, and "moxen" has been used in articles with dates ranging from 2000 to 2016 on the Wizards website. It is difficult to judge the actual usage of the plural "moxes" on the official website because the results of a search for that term are adulterated with pages that do not use that word, so no claim can be made on that basis (unless someone actually wants to go check all of those pages in depth and report on it). Maro has used both forms, and stated his preference for the latter. For now, I do not see any evidence for further claims. --Corveroth (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I reread the Shadow Mage and in fact they are called moxes. Disregard my previous comment.--Firebead elvenhair (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Firebead Elvenhair for that correction. So all officially printed versions say "moxes". This seems to be the evidence Corveroth was looking for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBock (talkcontribs).