me:
> >>It's kind of hard to
>>>imagine this with characters representing sounds
>>or syllables,
>
>It is=C2=B4nt hard for me to imagine. I am studying=20
>Spanish and teaching English now, both of which=20
>use (mostly) the same characters. Yet Spanish=20
>has five vowel sounds, and English has something=20
>like 14 vowel sounds (or was it 26? And to make=20
>it more complex, English and American English=20
>have different vowel sounds even for the same=20
>words).
Sure, but a written sentence in English=20 and Spanish are not mutually understandable=20 (although the attentive can translate very simple=20 sentences either way). My confusion over the=20 script in the West arises from the understanding=20 that everyone can read the _Abiding Book_, but=20 they pronounce what they read differently. (I am=20 sure I read this somewhere, but I cannot produce=20 the passage, so maybe I dreamt it.) Peter=20 Metcalfe says no, and he can usually cite chapter=20 and verse, so perhaps I misunderstood.
So, If the written language of the=20
_Abiding Book_ is universally legible because=20
everyone has preserved the "Classical Western"=20
script in which it was written, even if each=20
culture has shifted the pronunciation somewhat, I=20
have no problem. If, additionally, each Western=20
culture (or most cultures) has a vernacular that=20
has drifted far enough from the common ancestral=20
language to be largely incomprehensible to the=20
others, and those vernaculars are written in=20
scripts devised from that of the _Abiding Book_=20
(or some other source) which make reading a=20
Western language other than one's own more=20
difficult, I still have no issue. Each Western=20
language can be further subdivided into dialects,=20
caste languages, etc making it difficult for a=20
Lord to know what the Farmer Women on his estate=20
are saying (and a good thing, too), and I am all=20
for it, especially if most of these common=20
languages have no scripts (what does a Farmer=20
need to write, anyway?). Surely the suggestion is=20
not that, when a Loskalmi liturgist and a=20
Seshnegi liturgist read the _Abiding Book_ to=20
their congregations, what comes out of their=20
mouths is so different as to constitute two=20
separate languages (assuming of course, they are=20
reading the Book verbatum and not translating the=20
stories into their vernaculars for the benefit of=20
the ignorant masses)?
Is this the case? Or am I missing something?
Peter Larsen
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail