>Now, I think that Gloranthan Western script is Logographic, or perhaps
>rather Logosyllabic, vary much like later cuneiform writing.
However _most_ of the signs in later (and even earlier) cuniform were syllabic. If you concede that signs can have a syllabic value, then the script can also be largely used as an alphabet.
>Written languages seem to have a tendency to start out as pictographic and
>quickly evolve to logographic as you
>add symbols for abstract concepts.
It does not mean that all languages must do so or that Western in particular must do so.
>It has not been reformed.
Then why do we hear of the God Learners fooling around with the thirty core runes then? And even the original myth speaks of Zzabur's codification of their said writings.
>The Western written language was first used by the Tadeniti, who did not
>have a spoken language.
They did have one, via the Kachasti and were forced to use it later on as the world degenerated.
>Without a spoken language, why should their script represent the sounds of
>a spoken language?
Because the Kachasti needed some way of writing down the words of the people they spoke to? How do you propose that was rendered in logograms?
>It does not represent the sound used to speak out the word, which is what
>an alphabetical script would do.
But it _can_ be used in such a way. "A" was originally a rune for Ox yet when I spell out Ox or even its plural, I do not use the letter A.
>I think that the Tadeniti were given the Written Language by God (or one of
>his prophets/saints/whatever).
They invented it using their logical faculties. This myth has been pasted up on glorantha.com and still is available via the GTA site.
>I think this is what makes sorcery possible. You have symbols that
>_accurately_ represents parts of the world, as well as symbols that
>represent transformations. Rather like Runes.
And the argument againt the Malkioni writing down what they know using a script of the thirty core runes is what?
>I do not think that Western is an alphabetic script, and that all literate
>Westerners learn the Western equivalent of Latin ? (Brithini?), as the
>Glorantha Box firmly states that litarate Westerners only can communicate
>by writing.
It says no such thing. It says they _always_ can communicate, not that they _only_ can communicate.
>Had they all learned Brithini they would, like medieval Europeans, been
>able to communicate with each other by speaking it.
And how is this contradicted by the Glorantha Box? Simply say that the Westerners know Church Malkioni for liturgical and diplomatic purposes and all is well. The Glorantha Box is not the be-all and end-all of Gloranthan languages and I do know of at least one important factoid that it does not mention.
>I also Refute the argument that Westerners must use Alphabetical script
>because Medieval Westerners used such a script, or because the Bible, or
>the Koran, is written using (more or less) alphabetical scripts.
And your refutation of the argument that was actually made? To wit, I simply said that the effect you desired for the Westerners could be replicated with an alphabetical script and also pointed out that the very model that you used as an analogy (the Koran) was writen in an alphabet.
Me> > I have pointed out before that the 25%
> > limit on Auld Wyrmish only applies to the spoken form > and to not the
>written form, which is stated to have > been invented by "clever humans".
>Yes, but again, how do you write alphabetically a word which you cannot
>pronounce. A word, which, indeed, does not even have a phonetical
>component?
Let E stand for emote purple, W stand for spread wings and F stand for twitch tail. Write them down and you get EWF which can be used (and even vocalized) for the draconic concept of emote purple, spread wings and twitch tail.
Not that EWF actually stands for such a thing, I hasten to add.
Powered by hypermail