>I'm not sure what you mean by 'earliest historical times' but in the
>infancy of literacy, writing (or rather notation) was used for trading
>and book-keeping. I don't think the symbols diverse cultures use for
>representing the 'magical runes' are distinct from non-magical scripts.
>It's only when you use script in a magic ritual that the script becomes
>'magical'.
So you don't think that imbuing inanimate objects with ideas, thoughts and information is inherently magical?
>Errm, no. I make a distinction between the runes as powers and the
>symbols used to represent the runes. Just because a culture acknowledges
>a lot of rune-powers doesn't mean it uses symbols to represent them all
>as rune-signs, or even uses the rune-signs as letters or pictograms in a
>system of writing.
Ah, i see the problem. That's a very novell interpretation of the term. Usualy when people mean magical powers, they say magical powers. I don't want to start quoting dictionaries, but a rune to me is quite clearly a physical symbol - in this context one with magical connotations. No wonder I completely misconstrued what you meant.
Yes, magical powers such as 'Lightning bolts' are related to and derived from the runic powers in some way, but IMHO they clearly are not the same thing and should not be confused.
Simon
Powered by hypermail