Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
No, any weapon (or tool usable as a weapon) can break pots.
And I'm not so sure it's the choice of tool that's the problem, if it's only been occurring since 1.2.4. OP, is your friend experiencing this problem in singleplayer, multiplayer, or both?
I meant pickaxes included. I was on the subject of pickaxes so I said they could also break pots.
Well, that wasn't what you said. You said you need a pickaxe to break pots, which is untrue. I could throw away all my pickaxes and still be able to break pots.
It was indeed what I said. You need something to break pots with, and pickaxes can break pots, so pickaxes would be among the tools you would need to break pots with. You do need pickaxes to break pots. You just need other tools as well. Pickaxes just aren't required to break pots.
In short, there may have been a slight semantic mix-up here, but no actual incorrect information. So it is not worth arguing about.
To require = to need. Therefore, if pickaxes aren't required to break pots, then you don't need a pickaxe to break pots. You said
Which is the opposite of that.
There's nothing ambiguous about it, you were just incorrect.
As I said before: semantic mix-up.
I can say I need a sword to defeat an enemy but any weapon will do. I can need a sword. I can also need a spear. And a flail. And a boomerang. I can just say I need a weapon but I didn't feel like doing that. It just fit the situation better to say "pickaxe." That doesn't mean what I said was incorrect.
If you were to suppose that the word "need" was object-exclusive (I.e. it excludes needing anything other than that object) then the statement "I need a pickaxe to break a pot" could mean one thing. But if "need" was taken only literally and wasn't object-exclusive then the same statement doesn't mean the same thing.
So it is more a matter of misinterpreting the semantics of the phrase "I need pickaxe to break a jar" thn nything else. I relly doubt you could find a single dictionary entry that says "to need one thing means that absolutely nothing else is required for that same purpose" or something to that effect.
Well, in that case, then, you don't need a sword. You need a weapon, but it doesn't have to be a sword, ergo you don't need a sword.
What? What are you talking about? Where are you inventing this completely unknown meaning for "need" from? "Need", as a verb with an object, only means one thing: whatever the object of the verb is is required, essential, necessary. That object is needed. It doesn't mean the object is one of several things that could be used, it means that you need that object, nothing else.
There is no alternate interpretation. "You need a pickaxe" is quite clear, and also quite wrong.
From the OED:
"To require (something) essential or very important (rather than merely desirable)."
And from the OED definition for "essential":
"Absolutely necessary, indispensably requisite."
I don't have the time to play any more dictionary tag right now, but "absolutely necessary" should be pretty clear. It means that the object of the verb must be obtained; nothing else will do.
On the other hand, saying you don't need a sword can be interpreted in the same way as saying you are just as well-off without a sword, regardless of whatever else you have. Which is rediculous because a sword is always useful in this game. Fact of the matter is, the phrases "I need a sword" and "I need a weapon" are synonymous with each other. The latter phrase merely conveys more information. It doesn't mean the former was incorrect; it only means the former phrase wasn't specific enough and therefore wasn't as helpful.
I am more than happy to say that my "You also need a pickaxe to break pots" phrase wasn't as helpful as it could have been - I did leave out information - but I dare say it was incorrect because you can use a pickaxe to break a pot.
This is true...
...but this is not. Furthermore, the OED entry you gave me didn't mention anything about this being part of the word's meaning. And if it were, then you wouldn't be able to say things like "I need a shower" (you could also have a bath), "I need a cigarette" (you could smoke a cigar or a pipe - and no, I don't smoke), or "I need a cheeseburger" (any food will suffice). Really, there are tons of examples like this. And whether you really need these things or just want them is irrelevent; they convey the same kind of information as saying "you need a pickaxe" does. It doesn't bar the fact that other tools can also be used. It only means that pickaxes are one of the tools you need to break a pot.
No? If you don't need a sword, then that means a sword is not required and you can perform the subject task without using one. That is the only thing it means, and there is no dual meaning there.
First of all, two phrases cannot be synonymous while conveying different amounts of information. "Synonymous" literally means that the two have the same meaning, ergo they convey the same amount of information.
Second, for that to be true, "sword" and "weapon" would have to mean the same thing. Which they don't.
Yes, you can use a pickaxe to break a pot, but you don't need one to break a pot.
Also, did you just agree you were incorrect? Lol.
There's a difference between saying you just need something and saying you need it in order to complete a certain task. If you say you "need a shower", then yes, you could also have a bath, but you could also go play hockey. No purpose is stated, so it's left vague as to what purpose the shower could fill, therefore there is no contradiction.
If you said "I need a shower in order to get clean", though, that would be wrong, because there are also other ways you could get clean. Just as "You need a pickaxe to break pots" is also wrong, because there are other ways to break a pot.
Please, continue.
By the way, I agree. To "need" means you must have. Unless you don't need.
I need a shower. And a smoke. And entertainment.
Need. You got that?
Yeah, definately, "need" and "want" are used interchangeable way too much. "Want" should only imply preference but then people get into thinking that they need what they want, as though to emphasize how important it is. Try living with absolutely nothing and you'll see what you really need and what you only want. It is a pretty interesting cultural experiment, I find.
But here's the thing: by saying "you don't need a sword," are you saying you are better off without a sword or that aren't the only thing you can use? Of course I know you meant the latter, but you can convey more information by saying "you can use other weapons, too." So there is your duality. So are you saying you are better off without a pickaxe for breaking pots?
As said earlier, I didn't convey information as well or as accurately as I could have when I said you needed a pickaxe to break pots. And I admit that. But technically I wasn't incorrect; you do need pickaxes. You just need other tools, too. I should have said you needed a tool or weapon, or I should have added an "among other things" attaché to my existing sentence. But I didn't. And quite frankly, arguing with me is not going to make me want to do that.
All swords are weapons but not al weapons are swords. Likewise, all pickaxes are tools but not all tools are pickaxes. That was what I meant by synonymous. In the context of Terraria, saying a sword is not a weapon is wrong. So is saying a pickaxe is not a tool. But that is the only way you can justify saying you don't need a pickaxe to break a pot. You need a tool. And a pickaxe is a tool. You ask any grammarian and they'll tell you the same thing. It isn't completely accurate to say "You need a pickaxe to break a jar" but it isn't incorrect, either.
No, actually, I meant to say "wouldn't dare." My bad.
If you say you need a bath then you are saying you need to clean yourself and are choosing to take a bath. If you say you need to eat a cheeseburger then you are saying you need to eat and you are choosing to eat a cheeseburger. and so on. The task is implied. There is no need to confuse cleaning yourself with playing hockey.
This illustrates the crux of the argument pretty well. If you can see something wrong with saying the statement "I need a shower in order to get clean" is incorrect, then you'd agree that I wasn't necessarily incorrect with saying "You need a pickaxe to break a pot." I still say it was all a symantic mix-up and that should be enough to settle it but I'll add something else. There are instances where you do need to take a shower in order to get clean because the shower stall won't come with a bathtub. Likewise, if you somehow find yourself in a predicament where you don't have anything but a pickaxe to break a pot with, then you will need a pickaxe to break the pot. You're not likely to get yourself into such a predicament unless you are an irresponsible player, but it is possible.