> > When you go beyond simple characters (man, eye, tree, etc), the
> > ideographic meaning becomes totally lost.
> Thats why its ideographic not pictographic.
Strictly speaking, it's not even ideographic. Rather, it's logographic. Characters denote "words", not "ideas". I understand that no known writing system is actually ideographic in the strong sense (though I presume this is a hugely uncertain area as far as extinct scripts are concerned).
> Compare Gloranthan runes - it looks like a spiders web - oh, Fate,
> of course.
Gloranthan runes would seem to be ideograms, with in many cases a large side order of pictogram. Definitely not logograms, other than by some local convention to that effect. ("We call that sign "Change"." "Heretic!" *sounds of scuffling, off*)
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail