Word meaning “having the power to both create and destroy something”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm looking for a single word, noun or adjective, that conveys the meaning "having the power to both create and destroy" something specific. For example:
The magician seemingly had < insert word here > over rabbits, able to pull them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts, they have < insert word here > over/on/with user accounts.
Some words that I've considered but don't quite fit are
- sovereignty (too specific to politics)
- potency (not quite right)
- omnipotence (implies non specific power)
To clear some things up in response to comments.
- the creation/destruction need not be physical.
- there's no wizardry involved. Regarding the magician, think stage performer not wizard
- the word should not be limited to power over a specific thing, e.g. sovereignty grants per to create and repeal laws, but not the power to create and destroy rabbits
- the word should be modifiable in combination with a subject to indicate a single thing or concept to which the power applies
- the word should not be too general, such as omnipotence meaning power over everything
single-word-requests
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm looking for a single word, noun or adjective, that conveys the meaning "having the power to both create and destroy" something specific. For example:
The magician seemingly had < insert word here > over rabbits, able to pull them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts, they have < insert word here > over/on/with user accounts.
Some words that I've considered but don't quite fit are
- sovereignty (too specific to politics)
- potency (not quite right)
- omnipotence (implies non specific power)
To clear some things up in response to comments.
- the creation/destruction need not be physical.
- there's no wizardry involved. Regarding the magician, think stage performer not wizard
- the word should not be limited to power over a specific thing, e.g. sovereignty grants per to create and repeal laws, but not the power to create and destroy rabbits
- the word should be modifiable in combination with a subject to indicate a single thing or concept to which the power applies
- the word should not be too general, such as omnipotence meaning power over everything
single-word-requests
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
This is quite far from the mark, but refiability (from reify) may be a slight nudge in the right direction. The ability to construct is explicit; to destroy, implicit.
– Lawrence
May 1 '16 at 11:05
For the wizzard, consider "omnipotence" or "overwhelming or full power". For the network administrator, you may use "full authority".
– Graffito
May 1 '16 at 11:24
full power, total control, would fit.
– arrivalin
May 1 '16 at 11:54
In the real, physical world, it is impossible to create or destroy matter. The laws in question are some of the most fundamental humanity currently knows of: the conversation of mass (or, equivalently and more commonly used, the conservation of energy). So the wizard's magic must be precisely in breaking or subverting these laws. So you could riff on the idea of your sorcerers being "conservity-breaking" or "non-conservative", etc. Or, you could invoke Noether's theorem relating conservation laws to symmetries, and say your magi are "time variant" (vs "time invariance").
– Dan Bron
May 1 '16 at 12:49
I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it.
– candied_orange
May 1 '16 at 13:21
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm looking for a single word, noun or adjective, that conveys the meaning "having the power to both create and destroy" something specific. For example:
The magician seemingly had < insert word here > over rabbits, able to pull them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts, they have < insert word here > over/on/with user accounts.
Some words that I've considered but don't quite fit are
- sovereignty (too specific to politics)
- potency (not quite right)
- omnipotence (implies non specific power)
To clear some things up in response to comments.
- the creation/destruction need not be physical.
- there's no wizardry involved. Regarding the magician, think stage performer not wizard
- the word should not be limited to power over a specific thing, e.g. sovereignty grants per to create and repeal laws, but not the power to create and destroy rabbits
- the word should be modifiable in combination with a subject to indicate a single thing or concept to which the power applies
- the word should not be too general, such as omnipotence meaning power over everything
single-word-requests
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
I'm looking for a single word, noun or adjective, that conveys the meaning "having the power to both create and destroy" something specific. For example:
The magician seemingly had < insert word here > over rabbits, able to pull them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts, they have < insert word here > over/on/with user accounts.
Some words that I've considered but don't quite fit are
- sovereignty (too specific to politics)
- potency (not quite right)
- omnipotence (implies non specific power)
To clear some things up in response to comments.
- the creation/destruction need not be physical.
- there's no wizardry involved. Regarding the magician, think stage performer not wizard
- the word should not be limited to power over a specific thing, e.g. sovereignty grants per to create and repeal laws, but not the power to create and destroy rabbits
- the word should be modifiable in combination with a subject to indicate a single thing or concept to which the power applies
- the word should not be too general, such as omnipotence meaning power over everything
single-word-requests
single-word-requests
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
edited May 1 '16 at 13:41
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
asked May 1 '16 at 10:30
sirlark
13016
13016
This is quite far from the mark, but refiability (from reify) may be a slight nudge in the right direction. The ability to construct is explicit; to destroy, implicit.
– Lawrence
May 1 '16 at 11:05
For the wizzard, consider "omnipotence" or "overwhelming or full power". For the network administrator, you may use "full authority".
– Graffito
May 1 '16 at 11:24
full power, total control, would fit.
– arrivalin
May 1 '16 at 11:54
In the real, physical world, it is impossible to create or destroy matter. The laws in question are some of the most fundamental humanity currently knows of: the conversation of mass (or, equivalently and more commonly used, the conservation of energy). So the wizard's magic must be precisely in breaking or subverting these laws. So you could riff on the idea of your sorcerers being "conservity-breaking" or "non-conservative", etc. Or, you could invoke Noether's theorem relating conservation laws to symmetries, and say your magi are "time variant" (vs "time invariance").
– Dan Bron
May 1 '16 at 12:49
I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it.
– candied_orange
May 1 '16 at 13:21
|
show 4 more comments
This is quite far from the mark, but refiability (from reify) may be a slight nudge in the right direction. The ability to construct is explicit; to destroy, implicit.
– Lawrence
May 1 '16 at 11:05
For the wizzard, consider "omnipotence" or "overwhelming or full power". For the network administrator, you may use "full authority".
– Graffito
May 1 '16 at 11:24
full power, total control, would fit.
– arrivalin
May 1 '16 at 11:54
In the real, physical world, it is impossible to create or destroy matter. The laws in question are some of the most fundamental humanity currently knows of: the conversation of mass (or, equivalently and more commonly used, the conservation of energy). So the wizard's magic must be precisely in breaking or subverting these laws. So you could riff on the idea of your sorcerers being "conservity-breaking" or "non-conservative", etc. Or, you could invoke Noether's theorem relating conservation laws to symmetries, and say your magi are "time variant" (vs "time invariance").
– Dan Bron
May 1 '16 at 12:49
I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it.
– candied_orange
May 1 '16 at 13:21
This is quite far from the mark, but refiability (from reify) may be a slight nudge in the right direction. The ability to construct is explicit; to destroy, implicit.
– Lawrence
May 1 '16 at 11:05
This is quite far from the mark, but refiability (from reify) may be a slight nudge in the right direction. The ability to construct is explicit; to destroy, implicit.
– Lawrence
May 1 '16 at 11:05
For the wizzard, consider "omnipotence" or "overwhelming or full power". For the network administrator, you may use "full authority".
– Graffito
May 1 '16 at 11:24
For the wizzard, consider "omnipotence" or "overwhelming or full power". For the network administrator, you may use "full authority".
– Graffito
May 1 '16 at 11:24
full power, total control, would fit.
– arrivalin
May 1 '16 at 11:54
full power, total control, would fit.
– arrivalin
May 1 '16 at 11:54
In the real, physical world, it is impossible to create or destroy matter. The laws in question are some of the most fundamental humanity currently knows of: the conversation of mass (or, equivalently and more commonly used, the conservation of energy). So the wizard's magic must be precisely in breaking or subverting these laws. So you could riff on the idea of your sorcerers being "conservity-breaking" or "non-conservative", etc. Or, you could invoke Noether's theorem relating conservation laws to symmetries, and say your magi are "time variant" (vs "time invariance").
– Dan Bron
May 1 '16 at 12:49
In the real, physical world, it is impossible to create or destroy matter. The laws in question are some of the most fundamental humanity currently knows of: the conversation of mass (or, equivalently and more commonly used, the conservation of energy). So the wizard's magic must be precisely in breaking or subverting these laws. So you could riff on the idea of your sorcerers being "conservity-breaking" or "non-conservative", etc. Or, you could invoke Noether's theorem relating conservation laws to symmetries, and say your magi are "time variant" (vs "time invariance").
– Dan Bron
May 1 '16 at 12:49
I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it.
– candied_orange
May 1 '16 at 13:21
I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it.
– candied_orange
May 1 '16 at 13:21
|
show 4 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As invited:
Consider reifiability (from reify) as a nudge in the right direction:
Reify verb
Make (something abstract) more concrete or real
- ODO
The ability to construct is explicit in the term, and the ability to destroy is implicit.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
There is a legal sense of absolute ownership in dominion that might fit.
"Perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Title to an article of property, which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it..."
There is also an idiomatic use: gain dominion over someone or something: to achieve total authority over someone or something.
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
Nice, but also implies more control than I intend
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 15:51
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I guess you can use omnipotent
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipotent
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
1
Thanks, I considered that, and have updated the question accordingly. I'm looking for something without the connotation of power over everything. Also, the ability to create and/or destroy does not imply the ability to control, which omnipotence does
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 13:31
1
Please explain why you feel this answers the question.
– tchrist♦
May 1 '16 at 14:55
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Reimancy- The overarching magic school of conjuration- the ability to bring something into existance from seemingly nothing, and abjuration- the ability to make something become nothing. This looks like its creating or destroying a thing, but its merely moving it somewhere else in the multiverse.
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
-1: this answer is completely incorrect. Reimancy doesn't exist in English, it's an invented word used by a fantasy roleplaying site. Abjuration is the renunciation of something by oath: your definition is an invention.
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
The magician seemingly had meddle over rabbits, able to pull
them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness.
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts,
they have meddled over/on/with user accounts.
I think the word 'meddle' is what you're looking for simply because it implies an unfinished state of being, somewhere between 'creation' and 'destruction'.
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I've never seen "meddled" as anything but the past tense or past participle of meddle. Is it possible you're thinking of another word?
– user888379
yesterday
meddle means "interfere in something that is not one's concern", which is not the meaning the OP is looking for. Also, it's a verb - it's incorrect to say "had meddle over" (using it as a noun).
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As invited:
Consider reifiability (from reify) as a nudge in the right direction:
Reify verb
Make (something abstract) more concrete or real
- ODO
The ability to construct is explicit in the term, and the ability to destroy is implicit.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As invited:
Consider reifiability (from reify) as a nudge in the right direction:
Reify verb
Make (something abstract) more concrete or real
- ODO
The ability to construct is explicit in the term, and the ability to destroy is implicit.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As invited:
Consider reifiability (from reify) as a nudge in the right direction:
Reify verb
Make (something abstract) more concrete or real
- ODO
The ability to construct is explicit in the term, and the ability to destroy is implicit.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
As invited:
Consider reifiability (from reify) as a nudge in the right direction:
Reify verb
Make (something abstract) more concrete or real
- ODO
The ability to construct is explicit in the term, and the ability to destroy is implicit.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
1
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
answered May 1 '16 at 13:55
Lawrence
30.5k461107
30.5k461107
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
There is a legal sense of absolute ownership in dominion that might fit.
"Perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Title to an article of property, which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it..."
There is also an idiomatic use: gain dominion over someone or something: to achieve total authority over someone or something.
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
Nice, but also implies more control than I intend
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 15:51
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
There is a legal sense of absolute ownership in dominion that might fit.
"Perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Title to an article of property, which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it..."
There is also an idiomatic use: gain dominion over someone or something: to achieve total authority over someone or something.
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
Nice, but also implies more control than I intend
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 15:51
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
There is a legal sense of absolute ownership in dominion that might fit.
"Perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Title to an article of property, which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it..."
There is also an idiomatic use: gain dominion over someone or something: to achieve total authority over someone or something.
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
There is a legal sense of absolute ownership in dominion that might fit.
"Perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Title to an article of property, which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it..."
There is also an idiomatic use: gain dominion over someone or something: to achieve total authority over someone or something.
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
answered May 1 '16 at 14:16
Icy
1,671511
1,671511
Nice, but also implies more control than I intend
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 15:51
add a comment |
Nice, but also implies more control than I intend
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 15:51
Nice, but also implies more control than I intend
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 15:51
Nice, but also implies more control than I intend
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 15:51
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I guess you can use omnipotent
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipotent
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
1
Thanks, I considered that, and have updated the question accordingly. I'm looking for something without the connotation of power over everything. Also, the ability to create and/or destroy does not imply the ability to control, which omnipotence does
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 13:31
1
Please explain why you feel this answers the question.
– tchrist♦
May 1 '16 at 14:55
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I guess you can use omnipotent
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipotent
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
1
Thanks, I considered that, and have updated the question accordingly. I'm looking for something without the connotation of power over everything. Also, the ability to create and/or destroy does not imply the ability to control, which omnipotence does
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 13:31
1
Please explain why you feel this answers the question.
– tchrist♦
May 1 '16 at 14:55
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I guess you can use omnipotent
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipotent
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
I guess you can use omnipotent
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipotent
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
answered May 1 '16 at 11:55
Andrew Symonds
11
11
1
Thanks, I considered that, and have updated the question accordingly. I'm looking for something without the connotation of power over everything. Also, the ability to create and/or destroy does not imply the ability to control, which omnipotence does
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 13:31
1
Please explain why you feel this answers the question.
– tchrist♦
May 1 '16 at 14:55
add a comment |
1
Thanks, I considered that, and have updated the question accordingly. I'm looking for something without the connotation of power over everything. Also, the ability to create and/or destroy does not imply the ability to control, which omnipotence does
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 13:31
1
Please explain why you feel this answers the question.
– tchrist♦
May 1 '16 at 14:55
1
1
Thanks, I considered that, and have updated the question accordingly. I'm looking for something without the connotation of power over everything. Also, the ability to create and/or destroy does not imply the ability to control, which omnipotence does
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 13:31
Thanks, I considered that, and have updated the question accordingly. I'm looking for something without the connotation of power over everything. Also, the ability to create and/or destroy does not imply the ability to control, which omnipotence does
– sirlark
May 1 '16 at 13:31
1
1
Please explain why you feel this answers the question.
– tchrist♦
May 1 '16 at 14:55
Please explain why you feel this answers the question.
– tchrist♦
May 1 '16 at 14:55
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Reimancy- The overarching magic school of conjuration- the ability to bring something into existance from seemingly nothing, and abjuration- the ability to make something become nothing. This looks like its creating or destroying a thing, but its merely moving it somewhere else in the multiverse.
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
-1: this answer is completely incorrect. Reimancy doesn't exist in English, it's an invented word used by a fantasy roleplaying site. Abjuration is the renunciation of something by oath: your definition is an invention.
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Reimancy- The overarching magic school of conjuration- the ability to bring something into existance from seemingly nothing, and abjuration- the ability to make something become nothing. This looks like its creating or destroying a thing, but its merely moving it somewhere else in the multiverse.
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
-1: this answer is completely incorrect. Reimancy doesn't exist in English, it's an invented word used by a fantasy roleplaying site. Abjuration is the renunciation of something by oath: your definition is an invention.
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Reimancy- The overarching magic school of conjuration- the ability to bring something into existance from seemingly nothing, and abjuration- the ability to make something become nothing. This looks like its creating or destroying a thing, but its merely moving it somewhere else in the multiverse.
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
Reimancy- The overarching magic school of conjuration- the ability to bring something into existance from seemingly nothing, and abjuration- the ability to make something become nothing. This looks like its creating or destroying a thing, but its merely moving it somewhere else in the multiverse.
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
answered Jun 15 '17 at 10:16
Malin Miracle
1
1
-1: this answer is completely incorrect. Reimancy doesn't exist in English, it's an invented word used by a fantasy roleplaying site. Abjuration is the renunciation of something by oath: your definition is an invention.
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
-1: this answer is completely incorrect. Reimancy doesn't exist in English, it's an invented word used by a fantasy roleplaying site. Abjuration is the renunciation of something by oath: your definition is an invention.
– Chappo
yesterday
-1: this answer is completely incorrect. Reimancy doesn't exist in English, it's an invented word used by a fantasy roleplaying site. Abjuration is the renunciation of something by oath: your definition is an invention.
– Chappo
yesterday
-1: this answer is completely incorrect. Reimancy doesn't exist in English, it's an invented word used by a fantasy roleplaying site. Abjuration is the renunciation of something by oath: your definition is an invention.
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
The magician seemingly had meddle over rabbits, able to pull
them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness.
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts,
they have meddled over/on/with user accounts.
I think the word 'meddle' is what you're looking for simply because it implies an unfinished state of being, somewhere between 'creation' and 'destruction'.
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I've never seen "meddled" as anything but the past tense or past participle of meddle. Is it possible you're thinking of another word?
– user888379
yesterday
meddle means "interfere in something that is not one's concern", which is not the meaning the OP is looking for. Also, it's a verb - it's incorrect to say "had meddle over" (using it as a noun).
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
The magician seemingly had meddle over rabbits, able to pull
them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness.
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts,
they have meddled over/on/with user accounts.
I think the word 'meddle' is what you're looking for simply because it implies an unfinished state of being, somewhere between 'creation' and 'destruction'.
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I've never seen "meddled" as anything but the past tense or past participle of meddle. Is it possible you're thinking of another word?
– user888379
yesterday
meddle means "interfere in something that is not one's concern", which is not the meaning the OP is looking for. Also, it's a verb - it's incorrect to say "had meddle over" (using it as a noun).
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
The magician seemingly had meddle over rabbits, able to pull
them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness.
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts,
they have meddled over/on/with user accounts.
I think the word 'meddle' is what you're looking for simply because it implies an unfinished state of being, somewhere between 'creation' and 'destruction'.
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The magician seemingly had meddle over rabbits, able to pull
them from thin air, and equally return them to nothingness.
Or
The network administrator can both create and delete user accounts,
they have meddled over/on/with user accounts.
I think the word 'meddle' is what you're looking for simply because it implies an unfinished state of being, somewhere between 'creation' and 'destruction'.
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
edited yesterday
Chappo
2,35431224
2,35431224
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
answered yesterday
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk
11
11
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Matthew Michael Hawrelluk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I've never seen "meddled" as anything but the past tense or past participle of meddle. Is it possible you're thinking of another word?
– user888379
yesterday
meddle means "interfere in something that is not one's concern", which is not the meaning the OP is looking for. Also, it's a verb - it's incorrect to say "had meddle over" (using it as a noun).
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
1
I've never seen "meddled" as anything but the past tense or past participle of meddle. Is it possible you're thinking of another word?
– user888379
yesterday
meddle means "interfere in something that is not one's concern", which is not the meaning the OP is looking for. Also, it's a verb - it's incorrect to say "had meddle over" (using it as a noun).
– Chappo
yesterday
1
1
I've never seen "meddled" as anything but the past tense or past participle of meddle. Is it possible you're thinking of another word?
– user888379
yesterday
I've never seen "meddled" as anything but the past tense or past participle of meddle. Is it possible you're thinking of another word?
– user888379
yesterday
meddle means "interfere in something that is not one's concern", which is not the meaning the OP is looking for. Also, it's a verb - it's incorrect to say "had meddle over" (using it as a noun).
– Chappo
yesterday
meddle means "interfere in something that is not one's concern", which is not the meaning the OP is looking for. Also, it's a verb - it's incorrect to say "had meddle over" (using it as a noun).
– Chappo
yesterday
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f322795%2fword-meaning-having-the-power-to-both-create-and-destroy-something%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This is quite far from the mark, but refiability (from reify) may be a slight nudge in the right direction. The ability to construct is explicit; to destroy, implicit.
– Lawrence
May 1 '16 at 11:05
For the wizzard, consider "omnipotence" or "overwhelming or full power". For the network administrator, you may use "full authority".
– Graffito
May 1 '16 at 11:24
full power, total control, would fit.
– arrivalin
May 1 '16 at 11:54
In the real, physical world, it is impossible to create or destroy matter. The laws in question are some of the most fundamental humanity currently knows of: the conversation of mass (or, equivalently and more commonly used, the conservation of energy). So the wizard's magic must be precisely in breaking or subverting these laws. So you could riff on the idea of your sorcerers being "conservity-breaking" or "non-conservative", etc. Or, you could invoke Noether's theorem relating conservation laws to symmetries, and say your magi are "time variant" (vs "time invariance").
– Dan Bron
May 1 '16 at 12:49
I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it.
– candied_orange
May 1 '16 at 13:21