I think this is an unsound inference, though. There is no reason why the common language can't have an alphabetic script, but with a non-phonetic pronunciation. You may object that this defeats the purpose of having an alphabetic script, and I'd agree with you, but there's nowt so queer as folk.
> > > How tightly is this bound up with the system of
> > > Logic that existed before Time?
> > Are you hinting at the Runes?
> You have a habit of reading my mind.
I'm particularly resistant to _this_ idea, as the Runes as they are currently understood seem to be (certainly from a Western PoV) more of a 2nd-age stitch-up than "something that existed before Time" (a concept the West doesn't believe in in any event). We already have one language to blame on the God Learners (disputed by various source- burning revisionist heretics, I know), let's not be sticking another on the poor dears!
> A point I've not seen clearly covered: of what religious traditions was
> Jonat?
Orlanthi, wasn't he? Or at the least, "Orlanthi".
> Languages tend to get partially frozen when 'the rules' get laid
> down and spelling standardised
Though you'll notice that this tends to have much more effect on the written form than the spoken...
> > I think there probably is a common(ish) spoken form, it's just what
> > you hear on the streets. A sort of "Church Western", as it were.
> This is directly contrary to the sources.
It is? Can you quote me such? Or are you objecting merely to the absence of a reference to "Church Western". If this form was only ever used for sacral purposes, then it's not very noteworthy as a _language_, per se...
> All right try written Chinese as a communication between the very different
> dialects of spoken Chinese. Oh, no someone argues with me against that analogy
> a little further on.....
That's a better analogy, but it has the same objection you make about "common forms" of related languages or dialects with alphabetic scripts. The problem is that there's no RW set of languages which are as different as the Western ones are implied to be, which _do_ have a common written form, whether with an ideogramatic or alphabetic script. The nearest thing I know of seems to be the Arabic case, which alas I don't claim to be able to speak knowledgably about.
> About the Yggites I don't have any prejudices but I don't want to invent a
> whole new pantheon for people who may not even impinge on the campaign much.
I think the Orlanthi pantheon, suitably "rebadged", and with the addition of Ygg, would be a pretty good first approximation.
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail