Eating crow (and Writing)

From: Peter Larsen <plarsen_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:47:16 -0700

Peter Metcalfe corrects me, while wisely avoiding a long discussion of cuneiform (Alex Ferguson makes some similar points):

        I'm surrendering, at least on arguing from ancient languages. As you point out, I just don't know enough. Furthermore, what I do know, I'm explaining poorly. Beyond that, it's pretty obvious that no one agrees with me, so it seems silly to keep arguing the point.... I still think there are some elements to this thread that are interesting, but I'm beaten on this particular aspect of it.

>>The Entekosiad says (or strongly suggests) that Pelandan is syllabic.

        And I screwed this up, too! I'm aware that Pelandan and Dara Happan aren't all that similar. If I'm going to write nonsense, I should stop.

>Old Pelorian is the primeval language that all Pelorians spoke in
>the Green Age. At the end of the Green Age, people became aware of
>their differences and so split up into many peoples. In this
>way, the Pelorians became the Dara Happans, the Pelandans, the
>Darjiinians etc.

        So, Old Pelorian is the root language for all the languages in the area, and New Pelorian is a (partial) ressurection of this "Mother Tongue." How close are, say, New Pelorian, Pelandan, and Dara Happan? As close as French, Italian, and Spanish? As close as German and English?

        In order to try to get something out of this thread, I'd like your opinion. Could the evolution of Dara Happan writing follow this path:

1. Pictographs that quickly became
2. A logographic system with increasingly phonetic elements.
3. Eventually the complex system was simplified into:
4. A limited set (several hundred) of phonetic characters which were further simplified into:
5. Plentonic letters

        If not, is there a path that makes more sense to you?

Peter Larsen

---