Perhaps, but if so it doesn't make much sense to continue to interpret its opposite as meaning "superstitious"/"spiritual", as you elsewhere implied.
[Peter M.]
> > And would a Pelorian spell out the full name of Yelm every time
> > or would he denote it with a Sun Rune? Runes are used for writing,
> Sure, but they're not part of a writing system, any more than when I write
> a triangle to mean "delta" as in "change" or a Mars glyph to mean "male."
> Triangle and Mars aren't letters. (They might be considered ideographs.)
Well, the last time I checked, the "triangle" was the Greek capital letter delta. It's part of several different writing systems, though using it in a context which the reader wasn't Greek, a mathematician, or a serious LaTeX head might be unconducive to understanding. (ASCII isn't a big help either, and I don't think some of the technology out there in net-land would be entirely happy with .dvi files.)
Not dissimilarly, it seems conceivable to me that in parts of Peloria, either before the Dara Happan alphabet become dominant, or more recently, after glyphs became hip again, that some writing mixes Pelandan ideograms together with Dara Happan letters. Compare with say BSL (I think ASL, too), or lots of Tokyo street signs, etc. (Apparently seeing four different sets of characters on a Japanese cereal box is pretty routine.)
> Dara Happan does seem to be an alphabet derived from runes, so I don't want
> Pelandan to be the same.
Pelandan does indeed not have an "alphabet", it has an ideographology, if you'll forgive the term, so they're pretty dashed different right away. But I'm not at all sure what to make of the demand that it not be "derived from runes". In what way is Dara Happan "runic" that Pelandan Must Not be? Do you mean in terms of resemblance to the Canonical rune-set, or the abstact notion of runes?
In 7 bits,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail