From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Wed 12 Jul 2000 - 20:35:13 EEST
Me:
> >The point is that for several centuries, the only
> >'written form' of Italian, French, etc, _was_ Latin.
Dave Cake:
> Which means that Italian, French, etc did not have a written
> form. Fair enough, many languages didn't. Their Gloranthan analogues,
> however, do, and its shared.
No, it doesn't mean that at all, by any reasonable definition.
If I can pronouce something in one vernacular language, have it
written down in Latin, and have it read elsewhere in a different
one, then that's a common written form by any reasonable duck
test.
> the West should more than just a transplanted medieval Europe.
And there's some danger if we don't crowbar ideographs in there
on no evidence, it will be? Odd, since you employ rhetoric
to exactly opposite effect later.
> it makes the Rune obsession (and, for that matter, the sheer obsession
> with the written word of HW sorcery) more understandable.
I don't think it does. I can think of several RW cultures more
'obsessed with' symbology and the written word than the Chinese...
For my money, using a 'ideorunic' script for purely quotidian
purposes, and constructing elaborate cosmological theories on
The Runes hardly go hand in hand.
> >Similarly, let's make lots of other jarringly
> >inappropriate inclusions into other cultures. Doraddi saunas and
> >Kralori jousting, anyone?
> Ooh, like a medieval society based on social mobility, or a
> rigid immortal society of atheists with a caste system including a
> noncombatant ruling class? You are right, wouldn't want to pollute
> the West with anything culturally inappropriate for medieval Europe.
No, I just don't accept 'let's include it for the sheer heck of
it' to be a good argument. If there some compelling, actual reason to
do so, then that would be different. There ain't. I'm not espousing
some 'strong analogue' viewpoint, I'm merely disputing the wisdom of
an 'anti-analogue' one.
The last time this popped up, I went into some detail about the
practical difficulties of logographic languages, and why they
were inappropriate for what we know about the Malkioni. I
hestitate to re-hash that in too much detail, but briefly... Consider
why such langauges are rare in the RW. (I know a billion plus
Chinese can't be wrong, but...) Consider the syllabic structure
of Western, based on what Western words and names we know. Consider
the lack of any evidence whatsoever for Western being a monosyllabic
language, in the linguistic sense. Consider the total nightmare
of foreign loan-words if one has such a language (something of a
occupational hazard if one is a lozenge-conquering, cross-cultural
religious-theorising God Learner).
simon_hibbs:
> My personal preference would be for the ancient Malkioni script to be similar
to
> be Hebrew. Why? Because much of Malkionism and western metaphysics reminds me
> of Judaism. After all, European monotheism isn't a native phenomenon but an
> import. Why base Malkioni culture on a second hand copy, when you can use the
> real thing?
I agree, though on the narrow point of whether they have a logographic
or alphabetic (or whatever else) sort of script that's being over-
particularised, one might say. Hebrew is alphabetic, though the
practice of omitting vowel notations could certainly be nicked,
as part explanation why 'different languages' (a bag of worms as a
concept in itself) have a common script. ("We pronounce that
Zubaar in these parts, stranger. Die, heretic.")
Slàn libh,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 22:00:25 EEST