Words

From: Michael Raaterova <cabal_at_algonet.se>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:24:31 +0200


Ok, the two swedes continue bending words:

I said
>>Uh, Nils - the hieratic script IS a cursive form (using standard terminology).
>>If you mean that hieratic precedes the demotic script i'll agree, but
>>neither of these forms precede the hieroglyphic script.

and Nils replied
>Hieratic - hieroglyphic, hmmm, what did you say about dyslectics? Seriously
>though, when I see the word hieratic I don't generally think of a 'simpler'
>form of writing just because th _egyptian_ writing form called hieratic
>is a cursive of the hieroglyphics. I can't say if the word hieratic is
>used for anything else, but the etymologi of the word makes me think of
>a 'high script' not a 'low script' as you obviously meant.

Nils, the 'height' of a script is relative, and egyptian hieratic was definitely not for the great unwashed, but for a small elect group - the Scribes. The difference between hieroglyphics and hieratic is that the glyphs were used for *sacred* writings and the hieratic for other *priestly* writings. The hieratic script is simpler than the 'glyphs in the sense that it was developed for rapid writing - you could produce more text faster, which was essential for the communication between the temples.

I did not *obviously* mean that hieratic was a 'low' script, quite the contrary. I mentioned 'day-to-day-communication' as creating a need for a speedier script. Peter Metcalfe talked about high and low scripts:

"...all scripts have a high form (ie hieroglyphs) to use in public works ('Office of the Imperial Auditor') and a low form which most literai use in day-to-day communication (ie hieratic)."

To smilingly quote Wanda's Otto: "Now, apologize!"

Nils again:
>Also, I don't quite follow why literacy has to be wide-spread for a
>'low script' to develop. You say yourself:
>>That the hieratic form evolved out of hieroglyphics pretty quickly i can
>>also agree with, but that was because of religious restrictions

*Literacy* as such does not have to be wide-spread to create the need for a cursive form. I meant it as a very generalized statement. The development of hieratic in Egypt is a detail that doesn't rhyme with the general statement. I don't want to go into overwhelming detail on theories and examples regarding lettercraft and literacy on an inappropriate forum like the digest.

But if the few elect who write texts are prolific writers and want to communicate over long distances they'll come up with a shorthand, cursive form of the 'high' script, to be able to write more and faster. Especially if there are religious restriction on the 'high script' forbidding its use in non-sacred texts.

And when literacy and lettercraft is de-sacralized (supposing it was once 'sacred') even commoners can learn the art, giving literacy a possibility to become truly widespread. In Egypt this process spawned the demotic script - the 'low script' - which was widely used, even for sacred texts. It was an additional script - the other scripts didn't die out.

> I maintain that LM as lawspeaker doesn't need
>literacy, but the Grey Sages do. Remember teh Jonstown compendium frex.

I've never seen the Jonstown compendium. Why do Grey Sages _need_ literacy?

>>It started with merchants needing to know what they had in storage and what
>>they were shipping in the sealed urns. So they drew little pictures and
>>numeral markings on clay tablets and fastened them to the goods.
>
>Is this universally accepted? When I studied ancient history I read that
>the sumerian writing was developed as the temples grew in power and wealth
>and needed to keep inventories. OTOH I don't how well developed trade was
>in 3500 BC Sumer.

The comment on the origins of writing (in the western world, i forgot to add) was incredibly brief and not meant to be a concise description of all the various permutations. Your remark plays a big part in the process as well. And, no, it's not universally accepted (nothing ever is). A majority of people studying stuff like this accepts it as a highly useful theory though.

>Also, the first chinese writing, which seems to be a separate invention,
>is found on the 'oracular bones', turtle shells used for divination. Which
>of course doesn't rule out that chinese traders used it earlier, but wrote
>on perishable materials, like silk.

I can't comment on chinese writing with any expertise at all, but it can well be a separate invention. The signs found on the shells are pictograms?. Stylization being the development? And then turning into ideograms?

Further discussion on RW details on writ systems, as opposed to gloranthan, should be taken off the Digest. I'll gleefully continue the terminological fencing with you, Nils, in private, if this hasn't cleared things up.

Them's fightin' words...

End of Glorantha Digest V2 #65


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail