If Brithini script came into existence during the Golden Age, it is likely to be ideogrammatic, IMO, whereas if it was during the Storm Age, it would likely be based on phonetics. The first seems more likely to me a priori, but I don't see that this would necessarily entail that other western languages would otherwise be genetically unrelated. We know, in fact, that they aren't. An ideogrammatic system which could be used in the West would, then, be unlike Chinese. A more useful parallel might be Ancient Egyptian, as a Golden Age ideogrammatic script. It would strike me as being particularly useful for communicating magical concepts. On the offside, I wouldn't see it as being particularly useful for conveying the Mystery of the Invisible God (what sort of ideogram would one use to represent Invisibility? A magical one, of course, only perceivable by Adepts. It's use would be totally blasphemous, of course. But anyway, the ideogrammatic Invisible God looks like a bit of a non-starter, doesn't it?) One could object that the Brithini are atheists, but their neighbours aren't, and they presumably *do* have some pervasive Mystery of Invisibility in their religious texts, written in Brithini or with the Brithini system.
So, I agree. Brithini script is phonetic. Does this mean that the Brithini language
was a product of the Storm Age?________________________TTrotsky:
> Hsunchen know that animals are just four-legged hsunchen, with exactly the
> same souls as the two-legged sort.
Yup. Absurd from a 20th century POV, but lots of fun, eh?
> << > Or that there was some > point in the evolution of Homo sapiens when all
> instincts suddenly > vanished overnight?
>
> Yes. This happened when the "intelligent/instinctive" dichotomy was
> invented.>>
>
> This is not, AFAIK a general view among those who study human and animal
> behaviour and/or evolution in the RW. Humans *do* have instincts, we just have
> the power to ignore them.
AFAIK argument on this continues, so far unconclusively. The term "innate abilities" is, I think, preferred to the term "instinct" when talking about humans, and even babies. This distinction is made for entirely religious reasons, I believe, and doesn't describe a factual difference in the nature of these non-rational abilities. "Humans have no instincts" is necessary dogma in a humanocentric universe. Animal behaviourologists, and some anthropologists, must necessarily sidestep this in their day-to-day work.
> However, if you're referring specifically to Glorantha, I think you're
> correct. Most cultures seem to have a myth in which humans are either created
> separately from (and usually later than) animals, or else where the two are
> suddenly separated from each other by the invention of fire, weapons or what
> have you.
Exactly. :-)
Powered by hypermail