Since this is the thread for it, I'm going to go ahead and give this clue an exhaustive analytical breakdown:
Let's start with "old foe". Now Old Foe could mean any number of things. It could refer to an aged enemy such as palpatine or snoke as someone pointed out in this thread. It could refer to how long we, the fanbase have known about them, which would make those from the original trilogy the oldest. It could also refer to the timeline in the star wars universe, in which case those from prequels to be considered the oldest. Old foe could also simply mean that the person in question is now friendly when they were once hostile. So there's lots of different possibilities there.
The adjective reveals can be used either symbolically or literally. Symbolically it would refer to a revelation of hidden or unknown knowledge. Literally, it would mean an actual physical showing of something unknown or hidden before.
"their true face", this implies that the person is wearing a mask. Now in the normal world this would be a figurative mask similar to how those in the customer service industry are always smiling at people they'd rather do something much meaner to. In Star Wars wearing a mask is a somewhat regular thing so it could also be quite literal.
Now "reveals their true face" can be taken as one phrase and interpreted as some sort of betrayal.
So if we reword the original sentence with our analysis of what each phrase can represent we end up with this:
A person who is (either an enemy from the OT, the prequels, or a friend that used to be an enemy), has already revealed (that they are a friend, their hidden identity, or their face by taking off their mask), and possibly committed a great betrayal doing so.
Now who all can fit those criteria and how well do they fit?
Well Darth Vader is an enemy in the OT, at the end of the prequels, became a friend at the end of the OT and took off his mask, while revealing his hidden identity in the middle of the OT. He betrayed Emperor Palpatine. He literally satisfies every possibility that that sentence holds.
Lando could fit very well as well. He is in the OT and is initially on the side of the Empire, but betrays them and escapes with our heroes.
Kylo Ren could potentially satisfy that requirement, but the phrase old foe only really fits him in one sense: he destroyed Luke's school a number of years before "The Force Awakens" timeline begins, so technically he's an "old foe" in the movies who revealed his true face figuratively and literally by showing his face, and Han Solo being his dad.
Agent Kallus could fit. Rebels takes place between the Prequels and the OT so he fits an "old foe" because he's a foe from long ago. He also revealed that he is not an enemy but a friend, so he also fits in basically every regard... except that he is never wearing a literal mask.
Snoke doesn't really fit the clue. Although in the hint the word "reveals" is given in the present tense, I guarantee they aren't going to reveal Snoke's identity in the game before the movies. No, even though reveals is present tense, it is going to be a revelation that has already occurred. We're better off thinking of the clue as "It's going to be someone who has revealed their true face" and the instance of them it will be is from around that point in time or after. Either way, to decipher this clue the word reveal should really be thought of as having been said in the past tense, it is only in present tense to reveal that the character will be of the era where they revealed their true face.
Rey's background has yet to be revealed, which is why it won't be her. Again, it must be someone who's revelation has already been made known to us as EA/CG won't be dropping any movie spoilers in this game pre movie release.
I don't think there's really anyone else that's worth even mentioning for this theory. It's almost certain to be one of the first 4 I listed IMO. Of those, Lando only wears a literal mask once, and there wasn't much revelation involved in it, so he is slightly less likely than Vader or Kylo to be it. Vader fits the "Old Foe" part better than Kylo, and there's that Darth Vader comic book coming out so is actually a very relevant character in marketing right now. Kylo Does match all the criteria almost as well as Vader and we are closing in on the new movie... but it is still a few months away.
So after an exhaustive analysis, I believe it will be another Darth Vader over another Kylo Ren, because he not only fits the clues slightly better, he is actually slightly MORE significant from a marketing standpoint than Kylo Ren is right now due to the timeframe differences between the release of the next movie and the release of the darth vader comic book. Not enough has been said or released about the forthcoming Han Solo movie for me to believe that it will be Lando. Kallus is an interesting call as the new season of Rebels has just started/is about to start (I haven't watched any of it yet) so is very relevant from a marketing standpoint. I do think he's slightly less likely than those who are wearing actual masks, but I find him more likely than Lando.
SO here's my list of who I think it could be in order of likelihood:
Vader
Kylo
Kallus
Lando.
Definitely "old" as in phasma has been around since game launch and release of TFA...
Also a "foe" as phasma only serves herself and her M.O. is destroy anyone who gets in her way and erase all existance of them.
Definitely "masked" as literaly the entire phasma novel that just came out has her hiding her face since she was a teenager behind helmets & masks... like obsessed with masks... like OBSESSED! She couldn't wait to put on that stormtrooper helmet, in hindsight she probably started the fight where the imps met her for the first time just so she could scavenge a helmet... If phasma was on the "real housewives of the first order" she would have an entire star destroyer dedicated to masks & helmets...
And lastly with the new novel and the important character reveals it made...
about why she really let the shields down on starkiller base (cardinal escaped her) and her time as the poster child of the first order was at an end, she had to do something... and letting the shields down was the perfect distraction to let her move freely
... i think phasma will be reborn again into a new role, a new masked or helmeted villian, or hero... one that will do what phasma does best... use them up and hang em out to dry.
But i could be wrong...
But after reading the novel i absolutely love her character... and her ability to adapt to anything... she is amazing, terrifying, intelligent and is capable of acting out a role whilst hiding her true self on as grand a scale as sidious did while parading around as chancellor palpatine in front of the jedi council.
Bottom line phasmas story is open ended and could be any new hero or villian in TLJ and we may not know it outright immediately.
“Their” can be used as a singular pronoun meaning “his/her.”
The English language is a continuously evolving thing but the rules change long after the usage does.
I say this because even though for some time common parlance has dictated what you say, according to the written rules of English, Their is actually only a plural possessive, not a unisex singular.
Since this is the thread for it, I'm going to go ahead and give this clue an exhaustive analytical breakdown:
Let's start with "old foe". Now Old Foe could mean any number of things. It could refer to an aged enemy such as palpatine or snoke as someone pointed out in this thread. It could refer to how long we, the fanbase have known about them, which would make those from the original trilogy the oldest. It could also refer to the timeline in the star wars universe, in which case those from prequels to be considered the oldest. Old foe could also simply mean that the person in question is now friendly when they were once hostile. So there's lots of different possibilities there.
The adjective reveals can be used either symbolically or literally. Symbolically it would refer to a revelation of hidden or unknown knowledge. Literally, it would mean an actual physical showing of something unknown or hidden before.
"their true face", this implies that the person is wearing a mask. Now in the normal world this would be a figurative mask similar to how those in the customer service industry are always smiling at people they'd rather do something much meaner to. In Star Wars wearing a mask is a somewhat regular thing so it could also be quite literal.
Now "reveals their true face" can be taken as one phrase and interpreted as some sort of betrayal.
So if we reword the original sentence with our analysis of what each phrase can represent we end up with this:
A person who is (either an enemy from the OT, the prequels, or a friend that used to be an enemy), has already revealed (that they are a friend, their hidden identity, or their face by taking off their mask), and possibly committed a great betrayal doing so.
Now who all can fit those criteria and how well do they fit?
Well Darth Vader is an enemy in the OT, at the end of the prequels, became a friend at the end of the OT and took off his mask, while revealing his hidden identity in the middle of the OT. He betrayed Emperor Palpatine. He literally satisfies every possibility that that sentence holds.
Lando could fit very well as well. He is in the OT and is initially on the side of the Empire, but betrays them and escapes with our heroes.
Kylo Ren could potentially satisfy that requirement, but the phrase old foe only really fits him in one sense: he destroyed Luke's school a number of years before "The Force Awakens" timeline begins, so technically he's an "old foe" in the movies who revealed his true face figuratively and literally by showing his face, and Han Solo being his dad.
Agent Kallus could fit. Rebels takes place between the Prequels and the OT so he fits an "old foe" because he's a foe from long ago. He also revealed that he is not an enemy but a friend, so he also fits in basically every regard... except that he is never wearing a literal mask.
Snoke doesn't really fit the clue. Although in the hint the word "reveals" is given in the present tense, I guarantee they aren't going to reveal Snoke's identity in the game before the movies. No, even though reveals is present tense, it is going to be a revelation that has already occurred. We're better off thinking of the clue as "It's going to be someone who has revealed their true face" and the instance of them it will be is from around that point in time or after. Either way, to decipher this clue the word reveal should really be thought of as having been said in the past tense, it is only in present tense to reveal that the character will be of the era where they revealed their true face.
Rey's background has yet to be revealed, which is why it won't be her. Again, it must be someone who's revelation has already been made known to us as EA/CG won't be dropping any movie spoilers in this game pre movie release.
I don't think there's really anyone else that's worth even mentioning for this theory. It's almost certain to be one of the first 4 I listed IMO. Of those, Lando only wears a literal mask once, and there wasn't much revelation involved in it, so he is slightly less likely than Vader or Kylo to be it. Vader fits the "Old Foe" part better than Kylo, and there's that Darth Vader comic book coming out so is actually a very relevant character in marketing right now. Kylo Does match all the criteria almost as well as Vader and we are closing in on the new movie... but it is still a few months away.
So after an exhaustive analysis, I believe it will be another Darth Vader over another Kylo Ren, because he not only fits the clues slightly better, he is actually slightly MORE significant from a marketing standpoint than Kylo Ren is right now due to the timeframe differences between the release of the next movie and the release of the darth vader comic book. Not enough has been said or released about the forthcoming Han Solo movie for me to believe that it will be Lando. Kallus is an interesting call as the new season of Rebels has just started/is about to start (I haven't watched any of it yet) so is very relevant from a marketing standpoint. I do think he's slightly less likely than those who are wearing actual masks, but I find him more likely than Lando.
SO here's my list of who I think it could be in order of likelihood:
Vader
Kylo
Kallus
Lando.
Since this is the thread for it, I'm going to go ahead and give this clue an exhaustive analytical breakdown:
Let's start with "old foe". Now Old Foe could mean any number of things. It could refer to an aged enemy such as palpatine or snoke as someone pointed out in this thread. It could refer to how long we, the fanbase have known about them, which would make those from the original trilogy the oldest. It could also refer to the timeline in the star wars universe, in which case those from prequels to be considered the oldest. Old foe could also simply mean that the person in question is now friendly when they were once hostile. So there's lots of different possibilities there.
The adjective reveals can be used either symbolically or literally. Symbolically it would refer to a revelation of hidden or unknown knowledge. Literally, it would mean an actual physical showing of something unknown or hidden before.
"their true face", this implies that the person is wearing a mask. Now in the normal world this would be a figurative mask similar to how those in the customer service industry are always smiling at people they'd rather do something much meaner to. In Star Wars wearing a mask is a somewhat regular thing so it could also be quite literal.
Now "reveals their true face" can be taken as one phrase and interpreted as some sort of betrayal.
So if we reword the original sentence with our analysis of what each phrase can represent we end up with this:
A person who is (either an enemy from the OT, the prequels, or a friend that used to be an enemy), has already revealed (that they are a friend, their hidden identity, or their face by taking off their mask), and possibly committed a great betrayal doing so.
Now who all can fit those criteria and how well do they fit?
Well Darth Vader is an enemy in the OT, at the end of the prequels, became a friend at the end of the OT and took off his mask, while revealing his hidden identity in the middle of the OT. He betrayed Emperor Palpatine. He literally satisfies every possibility that that sentence holds.
Lando could fit very well as well. He is in the OT and is initially on the side of the Empire, but betrays them and escapes with our heroes.
Kylo Ren could potentially satisfy that requirement, but the phrase old foe only really fits him in one sense: he destroyed Luke's school a number of years before "The Force Awakens" timeline begins, so technically he's an "old foe" in the movies who revealed his true face figuratively and literally by showing his face, and Han Solo being his dad.
Agent Kallus could fit. Rebels takes place between the Prequels and the OT so he fits an "old foe" because he's a foe from long ago. He also revealed that he is not an enemy but a friend, so he also fits in basically every regard... except that he is never wearing a literal mask.
Snoke doesn't really fit the clue. Although in the hint the word "reveals" is given in the present tense, I guarantee they aren't going to reveal Snoke's identity in the game before the movies. No, even though reveals is present tense, it is going to be a revelation that has already occurred. We're better off thinking of the clue as "It's going to be someone who has revealed their true face" and the instance of them it will be is from around that point in time or after. Either way, to decipher this clue the word reveal should really be thought of as having been said in the past tense, it is only in present tense to reveal that the character will be of the era where they revealed their true face.
Rey's background has yet to be revealed, which is why it won't be her. Again, it must be someone who's revelation has already been made known to us as EA/CG won't be dropping any movie spoilers in this game pre movie release.
I don't think there's really anyone else that's worth even mentioning for this theory. It's almost certain to be one of the first 4 I listed IMO. Of those, Lando only wears a literal mask once, and there wasn't much revelation involved in it, so he is slightly less likely than Vader or Kylo to be it. Vader fits the "Old Foe" part better than Kylo, and there's that Darth Vader comic book coming out so is actually a very relevant character in marketing right now. Kylo Does match all the criteria almost as well as Vader and we are closing in on the new movie... but it is still a few months away.
So after an exhaustive analysis, I believe it will be another Darth Vader over another Kylo Ren, because he not only fits the clues slightly better, he is actually slightly MORE significant from a marketing standpoint than Kylo Ren is right now due to the timeframe differences between the release of the next movie and the release of the darth vader comic book. Not enough has been said or released about the forthcoming Han Solo movie for me to believe that it will be Lando. Kallus is an interesting call as the new season of Rebels has just started/is about to start (I haven't watched any of it yet) so is very relevant from a marketing standpoint. I do think he's slightly less likely than those who are wearing actual masks, but I find him more likely than Lando.
SO here's my list of who I think it could be in order of likelihood:
Vader
Kylo
Kallus
Lando.
Here's who I am certain it won't be: Rey, Snoke.
But what about Revan?
The quote is backwards for Revan. He didn't reveal his true face, he had it revealed to him.
I say this because even though for some time common parlance has dictated what you say, according to the written rules of English, Their is actually only a plural possessive, not a unisex singular.
A person drives their car. The car belongs to the person, so it is theirs.
I say this because even though for some time common parlance has dictated what you say, according to the written rules of English, Their is actually only a plural possessive, not a unisex singular.
A person drives their car. The car belongs to the person, so it is theirs.
Using the word incorrectly more times doesn't make it correct.
I say this because even though for some time common parlance has dictated what you say, according to the written rules of English, Their is actually only a plural possessive, not a unisex singular.
A person drives their car. The car belongs to the person, so it is theirs.
Which is common parlance, but grammatically incorrect.This would be grammatically correct:
A person drives (his or her fits here) car. The car belongs to the person so it is (his or hers).
This would be grammatically correct: Mr and Mrs Smith were happy they finally had a home of their own.
Their(s) is always tied to a plural noun by the rules of English even if loads of people use it as a unisex singular.
There is actually a non sex aligned singular possessive, it is: its (no apostrophe). People object to that term because of the connotation that it addresses the person as an object rather than a living being. This is the argument that was used to justify the co-opting of the word theirs from its only proper use.
Rather than use the proper pronouns: his, hers, its; or simply saying: "that person's" people have co-opted another term with an entirely different meaning. So in 50 years that will probably be grammatically correct because that's when the rules are likely to change to accommodate common parlance but for now, it simply isn't proper grammar.
“Their” can be used as a singular pronoun meaning “his/her.”
The English language is a continuously evolving thing but the rules change long after the usage does.
I say this because even though for some time common parlance has dictated what you say, according to the written rules of English, Their is actually only a plural possessive, not a unisex singular.
What written rules are you referring to? Common style guides accept the use of ‘their’ as a unisex singular replacement for his/her.
“Their” can be used as a singular pronoun meaning “his/her.”
The English language is a continuously evolving thing but the rules change long after the usage does.
I say this because even though for some time common parlance has dictated what you say, according to the written rules of English, Their is actually only a plural possessive, not a unisex singular.
What written rules are you referring to? Common style guides accept the use of ‘their’ as a unisex singular replacement for his/her.
The rules of grammar. That list of rules that explains about subject, predicates, spelling. (We always use the word I in the subject and me in the predicate. i before e except after c or when sounding like A is in neighbor or weigh). Style guides are more like marketing or advertising. They are intended to appeal to the widest swathe of the populace without offending them rather than adhering to written protocol.
To put it another way: style guides are like trying to stick to the spirit of the law whereas the rules of grammar are about the letter of the law.
This is a pretty common divide to encounter when entertaining any system of regulation. Take stop signs. People wish everyone to come to a complete stop and only have 1 vehicle enter the intersection at a time because that's what the letter of the law dictates. However the spirit of the law is to make sure everyone gets safely through the intersection in an organized and timely fashion. If someone drove up to a 4 way stop that you could see miles down each way from half a mile away from the intersection and they chose not to stop seeing no vehicles around but would have stopped had there been, they would still be honoring the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it.
Now which one is more important is a matter of opinion. Personally I prefer to enforce the spirit of laws rather than the letter. But I won't try and say the spirit of the law is the letter of the law either.
If someone runs a stop sign as I've described above, I wouldn't pursue them personally, but I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they got a ticket either.
Now if someone pulled up to the intersection and just sat there without ever going, they wouldn't be breaking the letter of the law even though they would be breaking the spirit of it. Now even though I prefer the spirit of the law over the letter, I wouldn't try and get them to get a ticket for running a stop sign.
So it comes down to this, common lingo is important to use to have your message reach as wide a swathe of the populace as you can to some extent, but that doesn't make it grammatically correct.
It's perfectly acceptable, any argument against is usage is based on personal preference.
Not exactly. To use it doesn't violate the spirit of the laws of grammar, but it does violate the letter of the laws of grammar.
So many people prefer not to care because the intention in doing so is obvious, but it is still incorrect, and that isn't a matter of personal preference.
It's perfectly acceptable, any argument against is usage is based on personal preference.
Not exactly. To use it doesn't violate the spirit of the laws of grammar, but it does violate the letter of the laws of grammar.
So many people prefer not to care because the intention in doing so is obvious, but it is still incorrect, and that isn't a matter of personal preference.
The spirit of the law INCLUDES the letter of the law, thus what you is impossible. You are unable to not violate the spirit if you violate the letter.
It's perfectly acceptable, any argument against is usage is based on personal preference.
Not exactly. To use it doesn't violate the spirit of the laws of grammar, but it does violate the letter of the laws of grammar.
So many people prefer not to care because the intention in doing so is obvious, but it is still incorrect, and that isn't a matter of personal preference.
The spirit of the law INCLUDES the letter of the law, thus what you is impossible. You are unable to not violate the spirit if you violate the letter.
There is no truth to this statement. The spirit and the letter of the law are practically never in sync as there is far too many incidental circumstances that weigh on the spirit of the law to realistically represent in the letter of the law.
My point is that it's grammatically singular, but its meaning is plural. In the same way, 'their' is grammatically plural, but its meaning can be singular.
My point is that it's grammatically singular, but its meaning is plural. In the same way, 'their' is grammatically plural, but its meaning can be singular.
I suppose their and everyone do share a similarity in that they are both substitutions for more specific terminology. Their is a substitution for multiple people, and everyone is a substitution for all people in existence. Replacing them with their specific nouns may alter the conjugation of verbs and such in the sentence, but it would not alter the message conveyed by the original message. However, replacing a singular person with the possessive pronoun their would actually be significantly altering the message the sentence conveys as it would be altering the magnitude of the area of effect of the statement.
In other words: the conjugation of a sentence doesn't determine whether or not a general term is an appropriate substitution for the specific one the sentence addresses as conjugation of verbs depends upon the noun, not vice versa.
It's perfectly acceptable, any argument against is usage is based on personal preference.
Not exactly. To use it doesn't violate the spirit of the laws of grammar, but it does violate the letter of the laws of grammar.
So many people prefer not to care because the intention in doing so is obvious, but it is still incorrect, and that isn't a matter of personal preference.
The spirit of the law INCLUDES the letter of the law, thus what you is impossible. You are unable to not violate the spirit if you violate the letter.
There is no truth to this statement. The spirit and the letter of the law are practically never in sync as there is far too many incidental circumstances that weigh on the spirit of the law to realistically represent in the letter of the law.
Thanks for your explanation, but I'll put my faith in the legitimate authority on the matter.
So you'll be agreeing with the laws of grammar then... the legitimate authority on the matter. The other usage is just a colloquialism.
Is 'everyone' singular or plural?
It is a noun that represents exactly one group: everyone, so it is singular.
Not that the rules for nouns would apply to possessive pronouns anyway, but what is your point?
The spirit of the law DOES include the letter of the law. Just because people violate it does not mean they aren't violating both. The circumstances simply make it easier.
I've also just realized a fallacy in my statement, however. You're able to violate the spirit without violating the letter, though that is simply because the spirit encompasses the letter AND the circumstances and intentions surrounding it.
I've seen threads in game fora (not forums) devolve to a variety of things, but evolving into a grammar contest is a first for me
Pretty sure it's Kylo. I'd be really surprised if we get an unmasked Vader, considering he only had a couple of minutes of screen time and, frankly, isn't all that different from Vader proper.
It's perfectly acceptable, any argument against is usage is based on personal preference.
Not exactly. To use it doesn't violate the spirit of the laws of grammar, but it does violate the letter of the laws of grammar.
So many people prefer not to care because the intention in doing so is obvious, but it is still incorrect, and that isn't a matter of personal preference.
The spirit of the law INCLUDES the letter of the law, thus what you is impossible. You are unable to not violate the spirit if you violate the letter.
There is no truth to this statement. The spirit and the letter of the law are practically never in sync as there is far too many incidental circumstances that weigh on the spirit of the law to realistically represent in the letter of the law.
Thanks for your explanation, but I'll put my faith in the legitimate authority on the matter.
So you'll be agreeing with the laws of grammar then... the legitimate authority on the matter. The other usage is just a colloquialism.
Is 'everyone' singular or plural?
It is a noun that represents exactly one group: everyone, so it is singular.
Not that the rules for nouns would apply to possessive pronouns anyway, but what is your point?
The spirit of the law DOES include the letter of the law. Just because people violate it does not mean they aren't violating both. The circumstances simply make it easier.
I've also just realized a fallacy in my statement, however. You're able to violate the spirit without violating the letter, though that is simply because the spirit encompasses the letter AND the circumstances and intentions surrounding it.
In a perfect world maybe, but laws don't always take such things into account. That's why other laws are later added on, are amended and so on.
Let me give you an example. Assault/Battery/Assault and Battery. It more or less says that if you bring bodily harm to a person you are guilty of assault. But what if they attack you and you put them in a sleeper hold to end the confrontation which results in them having a sore neck? You technically brought bodily harm to that person, but your intentions were to avoid either of you taking any more damage than necessary. You have totally violated the letter of the law, but your intention.. your spirit... was totally in line with the spirit of the law. Now they have added self defense laws to try and have that extenuating circumstance covered, but it is still a perfect example of how the letter of the law is rarely specific enough to accommodate all extenuating circumstances and it is entirely possible to violate the letter while upholding the spirit of a law.
If that example isn't good enough for you, how about vehicular homicide. If you are drunk and run a pedestrian over, you are guilty of violating both the letter and spirit of the law, but what if a suicidal person jumps out in front of your moving car from hiding behind a parked car? Are you really guilty of violating the spirit of that law in that instance? It wasn't your inattention that caused the death, it was their purpose.
No, the best representation of the spirit and the letter of the law is a venn diagram: 2 circles that overlap but not entirely, and neither is encompassed.
I've seen threads in game fora (not forums) devolve to a variety of things, but evolving into a grammar contest is a first for me
Pretty sure it's Kylo. I'd be really surprised if we get an unmasked Vader, considering he only had a couple of minutes of screen time and, frankly, isn't all that different from Vader proper.
There is that Vader comic book that just came out/is coming out so there is more than just the movies to consider with him.
Replies
Since this is the thread for it, I'm going to go ahead and give this clue an exhaustive analytical breakdown:
Let's start with "old foe". Now Old Foe could mean any number of things. It could refer to an aged enemy such as palpatine or snoke as someone pointed out in this thread. It could refer to how long we, the fanbase have known about them, which would make those from the original trilogy the oldest. It could also refer to the timeline in the star wars universe, in which case those from prequels to be considered the oldest. Old foe could also simply mean that the person in question is now friendly when they were once hostile. So there's lots of different possibilities there.
The adjective reveals can be used either symbolically or literally. Symbolically it would refer to a revelation of hidden or unknown knowledge. Literally, it would mean an actual physical showing of something unknown or hidden before.
"their true face", this implies that the person is wearing a mask. Now in the normal world this would be a figurative mask similar to how those in the customer service industry are always smiling at people they'd rather do something much meaner to. In Star Wars wearing a mask is a somewhat regular thing so it could also be quite literal.
Now "reveals their true face" can be taken as one phrase and interpreted as some sort of betrayal.
So if we reword the original sentence with our analysis of what each phrase can represent we end up with this:
A person who is (either an enemy from the OT, the prequels, or a friend that used to be an enemy), has already revealed (that they are a friend, their hidden identity, or their face by taking off their mask), and possibly committed a great betrayal doing so.
Now who all can fit those criteria and how well do they fit?
Well Darth Vader is an enemy in the OT, at the end of the prequels, became a friend at the end of the OT and took off his mask, while revealing his hidden identity in the middle of the OT. He betrayed Emperor Palpatine. He literally satisfies every possibility that that sentence holds.
Lando could fit very well as well. He is in the OT and is initially on the side of the Empire, but betrays them and escapes with our heroes.
Kylo Ren could potentially satisfy that requirement, but the phrase old foe only really fits him in one sense: he destroyed Luke's school a number of years before "The Force Awakens" timeline begins, so technically he's an "old foe" in the movies who revealed his true face figuratively and literally by showing his face, and Han Solo being his dad.
Agent Kallus could fit. Rebels takes place between the Prequels and the OT so he fits an "old foe" because he's a foe from long ago. He also revealed that he is not an enemy but a friend, so he also fits in basically every regard... except that he is never wearing a literal mask.
Snoke doesn't really fit the clue. Although in the hint the word "reveals" is given in the present tense, I guarantee they aren't going to reveal Snoke's identity in the game before the movies. No, even though reveals is present tense, it is going to be a revelation that has already occurred. We're better off thinking of the clue as "It's going to be someone who has revealed their true face" and the instance of them it will be is from around that point in time or after. Either way, to decipher this clue the word reveal should really be thought of as having been said in the past tense, it is only in present tense to reveal that the character will be of the era where they revealed their true face.
Rey's background has yet to be revealed, which is why it won't be her. Again, it must be someone who's revelation has already been made known to us as EA/CG won't be dropping any movie spoilers in this game pre movie release.
I don't think there's really anyone else that's worth even mentioning for this theory. It's almost certain to be one of the first 4 I listed IMO. Of those, Lando only wears a literal mask once, and there wasn't much revelation involved in it, so he is slightly less likely than Vader or Kylo to be it. Vader fits the "Old Foe" part better than Kylo, and there's that Darth Vader comic book coming out so is actually a very relevant character in marketing right now. Kylo Does match all the criteria almost as well as Vader and we are closing in on the new movie... but it is still a few months away.
So after an exhaustive analysis, I believe it will be another Darth Vader over another Kylo Ren, because he not only fits the clues slightly better, he is actually slightly MORE significant from a marketing standpoint than Kylo Ren is right now due to the timeframe differences between the release of the next movie and the release of the darth vader comic book. Not enough has been said or released about the forthcoming Han Solo movie for me to believe that it will be Lando. Kallus is an interesting call as the new season of Rebels has just started/is about to start (I haven't watched any of it yet) so is very relevant from a marketing standpoint. I do think he's slightly less likely than those who are wearing actual masks, but I find him more likely than Lando.
SO here's my list of who I think it could be in order of likelihood:
Vader
Kylo
Kallus
Lando.
Here's who I am certain it won't be: Rey, Snoke.
I think it's Phasma as well.
The English language is a continuously evolving thing but the rules change long after the usage does.
I say this because even though for some time common parlance has dictated what you say, according to the written rules of English, Their is actually only a plural possessive, not a unisex singular.
But what about Revan?
The quote is backwards for Revan. He didn't reveal his true face, he had it revealed to him.
Using the word incorrectly more times doesn't make it correct.
Which is common parlance, but grammatically incorrect.This would be grammatically correct:
A person drives (his or her fits here) car. The car belongs to the person so it is (his or hers).
This would be grammatically correct: Mr and Mrs Smith were happy they finally had a home of their own.
Their(s) is always tied to a plural noun by the rules of English even if loads of people use it as a unisex singular.
There is actually a non sex aligned singular possessive, it is: its (no apostrophe). People object to that term because of the connotation that it addresses the person as an object rather than a living being. This is the argument that was used to justify the co-opting of the word theirs from its only proper use.
Rather than use the proper pronouns: his, hers, its; or simply saying: "that person's" people have co-opted another term with an entirely different meaning. So in 50 years that will probably be grammatically correct because that's when the rules are likely to change to accommodate common parlance but for now, it simply isn't proper grammar.
What written rules are you referring to? Common style guides accept the use of ‘their’ as a unisex singular replacement for his/her.
The rules of grammar. That list of rules that explains about subject, predicates, spelling. (We always use the word I in the subject and me in the predicate. i before e except after c or when sounding like A is in neighbor or weigh). Style guides are more like marketing or advertising. They are intended to appeal to the widest swathe of the populace without offending them rather than adhering to written protocol.
To put it another way: style guides are like trying to stick to the spirit of the law whereas the rules of grammar are about the letter of the law.
This is a pretty common divide to encounter when entertaining any system of regulation. Take stop signs. People wish everyone to come to a complete stop and only have 1 vehicle enter the intersection at a time because that's what the letter of the law dictates. However the spirit of the law is to make sure everyone gets safely through the intersection in an organized and timely fashion. If someone drove up to a 4 way stop that you could see miles down each way from half a mile away from the intersection and they chose not to stop seeing no vehicles around but would have stopped had there been, they would still be honoring the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it.
Now which one is more important is a matter of opinion. Personally I prefer to enforce the spirit of laws rather than the letter. But I won't try and say the spirit of the law is the letter of the law either.
If someone runs a stop sign as I've described above, I wouldn't pursue them personally, but I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they got a ticket either.
Now if someone pulled up to the intersection and just sat there without ever going, they wouldn't be breaking the letter of the law even though they would be breaking the spirit of it. Now even though I prefer the spirit of the law over the letter, I wouldn't try and get them to get a ticket for running a stop sign.
So it comes down to this, common lingo is important to use to have your message reach as wide a swathe of the populace as you can to some extent, but that doesn't make it grammatically correct.
Not exactly. To use it doesn't violate the spirit of the laws of grammar, but it does violate the letter of the laws of grammar.
So many people prefer not to care because the intention in doing so is obvious, but it is still incorrect, and that isn't a matter of personal preference.
So you'll be agreeing with the laws of grammar then... the legitimate authority on the matter. The other usage is just a colloquialism.
The spirit of the law INCLUDES the letter of the law, thus what you is impossible. You are unable to not violate the spirit if you violate the letter.
There is no truth to this statement. The spirit and the letter of the law are practically never in sync as there is far too many incidental circumstances that weigh on the spirit of the law to realistically represent in the letter of the law.
It is a noun that represents exactly one group: everyone, so it is singular.
Not that the rules for nouns would apply to possessive pronouns anyway, but what is your point?
~D
I suppose their and everyone do share a similarity in that they are both substitutions for more specific terminology. Their is a substitution for multiple people, and everyone is a substitution for all people in existence. Replacing them with their specific nouns may alter the conjugation of verbs and such in the sentence, but it would not alter the message conveyed by the original message. However, replacing a singular person with the possessive pronoun their would actually be significantly altering the message the sentence conveys as it would be altering the magnitude of the area of effect of the statement.
In other words: the conjugation of a sentence doesn't determine whether or not a general term is an appropriate substitution for the specific one the sentence addresses as conjugation of verbs depends upon the noun, not vice versa.
The spirit of the law DOES include the letter of the law. Just because people violate it does not mean they aren't violating both. The circumstances simply make it easier.
I've also just realized a fallacy in my statement, however. You're able to violate the spirit without violating the letter, though that is simply because the spirit encompasses the letter AND the circumstances and intentions surrounding it.
Pretty sure it's Kylo. I'd be really surprised if we get an unmasked Vader, considering he only had a couple of minutes of screen time and, frankly, isn't all that different from Vader proper.
In a perfect world maybe, but laws don't always take such things into account. That's why other laws are later added on, are amended and so on.
Let me give you an example. Assault/Battery/Assault and Battery. It more or less says that if you bring bodily harm to a person you are guilty of assault. But what if they attack you and you put them in a sleeper hold to end the confrontation which results in them having a sore neck? You technically brought bodily harm to that person, but your intentions were to avoid either of you taking any more damage than necessary. You have totally violated the letter of the law, but your intention.. your spirit... was totally in line with the spirit of the law. Now they have added self defense laws to try and have that extenuating circumstance covered, but it is still a perfect example of how the letter of the law is rarely specific enough to accommodate all extenuating circumstances and it is entirely possible to violate the letter while upholding the spirit of a law.
If that example isn't good enough for you, how about vehicular homicide. If you are drunk and run a pedestrian over, you are guilty of violating both the letter and spirit of the law, but what if a suicidal person jumps out in front of your moving car from hiding behind a parked car? Are you really guilty of violating the spirit of that law in that instance? It wasn't your inattention that caused the death, it was their purpose.
No, the best representation of the spirit and the letter of the law is a venn diagram: 2 circles that overlap but not entirely, and neither is encompassed.
There is that Vader comic book that just came out/is coming out so there is more than just the movies to consider with him.