> Chinese ... is the only example I can think of of a mutually
> intelligible written form between mutually unintelligible spoken
> languages. Any thoughts, anyone?
The use of written and spoken Latin as the language of intellectual and
clerical discourse in the middle ages, perhaps? This is the parallel I ha=
ve
always used for the survival of the "Ancient Brithini Written Language"
into the modern West. Sorcery is taught in "Brithini Latin"; sorcerers ar=
e
fluent in it (just as Catholic priests, scientists and doctors were in th=
e
Real World); great scientific and theological works are written in it; bu=
t
the population at large speaks derived languages (like French, Spanish,
Italian: the Gloranthan equivalents of Seshnegi, Loskalmi, Safelstran et
al.), and even some of the wise couldn't hold a *conversation* in Brithin=
i,
despite their familiarity with the written and liturgical forms.
NB: writing in "Romance" languages was IIRC rather a late development in the Real World: Dante was (I believe) the first author to write poetry in=
Italian rather than Latin. Before this jump in the mindset, writing the w=
ay
people *actually talked* (rather than the way books had always been writt=
en
since Classical Antiquity) would have been a sign of illiteracy and
laziness, not sheer common sense and evolution over time. If the Westerne=
rs
(a book-bound scriptural religion) had this attitude, too, it's possible
there *is* no politely-useable form of "pig-Brithini" - that all written
works of significance are in "the original Latin" -- that anyone trying t=
o
"invent" an orthography for the way language is actually used would be
treated like a James Joyce, "inventing" unnecessary changes to an already=
beautiful and perfected script.
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail