Ideographs vs. Latin?

From: Nick Brooke <Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 04:54:28 +0100


Julian:
>> it does now appear that Western script *is* idiographic, after all ...

Dave Cake:
> Its always been the natural interpretation, to my mind, of a
> mutually intelligible script for mutually unintelligible languages.

Just for the record, "Brithini Latin" still works for me.

I think if Julian and David saw an alchemist's symbology (but not manuscript), they would reasonably have deduced that alchemists used an ideographic script. They didn't -- they wrote in Latin (usually), with funny alien squiggles to represent unique magical concepts. Just like the Jrusteli God Learners (IMO), who codified the Runes.

It's an old argument, there's much to be said on both sides, it's just my opinion, etc. But I didn't want to let it go by default.

:::: Email: <mailto:Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com> Nick
:::: Website: <http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/>


Powered by hypermail