From: David Cake (dave@difference.com.au)
Date: Mon 10 Jul 2000 - 03:20:07 EEST
>Julian:
>>> it does now appear that Western script *is* idiographic, after all ...
>
>Dave Cake:
>> Its always been the natural interpretation, to my mind, of a
>> mutually intelligible script for mutually unintelligible languages.
>
>Just for the record, "Brithini Latin" still works for me.
Which I still say would be a common language used across
cultures, rather than the one script for multiple languages that we
are told is the case. The runes is just circumstantial evidence.
Brithini Latin is superficially similar, but I think not what was
intended.
Besides, I like the idea of throwing the Chinese analogue
script into the Western world rather than the more predictable Latin
analogue.
>I think if Julian and David saw an alchemist's symbology (but not
>manuscript), they would reasonably have deduced that alchemists used an
>ideographic script. They didn't -- they wrote in Latin (usually), with funny
>alien squiggles to represent unique magical concepts. Just like the Jrusteli
>God Learners (IMO), who codified the Runes.
I don't think the Runes are the same as Western - though if
>It's an old argument, there's much to be said on both sides, it's just my
Western is ideographic, they may be close to a part of the language
than alchemical symbols ever where.
(and I thought you knew about my alchemy obsession - good
choice of example, there should be more alchemy in Malkionism IMO,
which by coincidence Terra mentions in the same digest)
Might as well complete the summary of positions.
Cheers
David
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:57:57 EEST