>My confusion over the
>script in the West arises from the understanding
>that everyone can read the _Abiding Book_, but
>they pronounce what they read differently.
Why is this a problem? I've already quoted the examples of Latin and Arabic. Even for English, the difference can be nigh incomprehensible - I once was asked by an Irish woman whether I had seen Free Montay yet.
After racking my brains about whether I had visited an Ulster village of Free Montay and if so, what on earth was it famous for - I discovered with the help of a translator that I was being asked whether I had actually seen the film "the Full Monty".
>Surely the suggestion is
>not that, when a Loskalmi liturgist and a
>Seshnegi liturgist read the _Abiding Book_ to
>their congregations, what comes out of their
>mouths is so different as to constitute two
>separate languages (assuming of course, they are
>reading the Book verbatum and not translating the
>stories into their vernaculars for the benefit of
>the ignorant masses)?
It depends on what you mean by language. IMO any languages that have 1/3 comprehension with each other are really heavily accented dialects.
The classic example is the Swede, the Norwegian and the Dane who are able to have a conversation yet come out with completely different ideas about what was actually said. A similar case might be made for the Latin Vulgates.
--Peter Metcalfe
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest
Powered by hypermail