)
.Oh, sure, there are specialists. An elcar, or a family of elcari, might work as smiths. That isn't considered an organization or institution.So Haleza Grise wrote:But on the subject of elcari, you mentioned that basically they operate co-operatively, rather than in competition, and they usually disband their group after they've finished the task.
This is all fine, but what then is the impetus for developing specialisation? I know that elcari are extrodinarily skilled, but it's still inefficient to have each elcar maintaining a constant skill in everything. Surely there must be some degree of specialisation - some elcari who act (some or most of the time) as jewelsmiths, or weapon smiths, or mine architects, or even as traders. What about liaison officers/interpreters for dealing with dduch?
You can judge from the picture on the biology page-- they may have rather wispy little beards. One serious difference from dwarves.So Haleza Grise wrote:Oh yes, and - no beards on elcari, right?
I don't know yet... all I really know so far is that the writing system is designed primarily for carving in stone; that will affect the letterforms quite a bit. I picture it as somewhat Aztec-like.So Haleza Grise wrote:they have written records going back 15,000 years. Did they invent a featural system entirely on their own, or did the script evolve gradually? Given that they are elcari, it wouldn't surprise me if the script was created pretty much ex nihilo. Maybe Khemthu-Nor taught them that, too.
All of that, plus manuals of craftwork, metallurgy, astronomy, and mathematics, and histories of their cities and wars. Popular literature mostly consists of short songs and poems, riddles, puzzles, and jokes. They're not very much into stories.Secondly, what sort of things do they write? Lots of inscriptions, presumably, lots of craftsmen's signatures, records of transactions, geneological records etc. Is there such a thing as elcarin popular literature? Do they use paper? printing presses?
The earliest records show a language very much like the one we know of today. What, you think someone could improve on Khemthu-N?r's own words?Finally, do they actually possess records of "Old Elcarin" or any sort of different form of the language they speak? (I imagine they don't have much contact with the khataj of the Diqun Bormai - too many shualsannoi and whatnot in the way.
The Aztecs didn't really have a complete writing system, though, did they? I gather they had numerical notation, calendrical glyphs and pictograms which could express some concepts, and names either directly or by rebus, but nothing that corresponded to speech. At least, that's my impression.zompist wrote:I don't know yet... all I really know so far is that the writing system is designed primarily for carving in stone; that will affect the letterforms quite a bit. I picture it as somewhat Aztec-like.So Haleza Grise wrote:they have written records going back 15,000 years. Did they invent a featural system entirely on their own, or did the script evolve gradually? Given that they are elcari, it wouldn't surprise me if the script was created pretty much ex nihilo. Maybe Khemthu-Nor taught them that, too.
Your information is out of date, I'm afraid! It used to be maintained that the Aztec system was limited, but progress in decipherment has been explosive in the last couple of decades. And the Maya decipherment was directly linked to reconstructions of proto-Maya. A good introduction to all this is Michael Coe's Breaking the Maya Code, but even this is not up to date.butsuri wrote:The Aztecs didn't really have a complete writing system, though, did they? I gather they had numerical notation, calendrical glyphs and pictograms which could express some concepts, and names either directly or by rebus, but nothing that corresponded to speech. At least, that's my impression.
No problem; the elcari would consider those to be mere hasty scratches.butsuri wrote:I guess the challenge in designing an elcarin script intended for carving into stone is to avoid looking like Germanic runes, and thus like Tolkien's Cirth.
No, of course not, but, skilled as they are, they are imperfect mortals, so they must have slowly degraded their speech over the millenia since they first learned it. Alas for this imperfect world, etc . . .zompist wrote: The earliest records show a language very much like the one we know of today. What, you think someone could improve on Khemthu-N?r's own words?
I can certainly believe this, given how few documents survive, and how much progress has been made in Mayan. I can't find anything about this online, though. Is there much on the Aztec situation in this Coe book?zompist wrote: Your information is out of date, I'm afraid! It used to be maintained that the Aztec system was limited, but progress in decipherment has been explosive in the last couple of decades. And the Maya decipherment was directly linked to reconstructions of proto-Maya. A good introduction to all this is Michael Coe's Breaking the Maya Code, but even this is not up to date.
You know, I was sloppy here... I assumed that the Aztec script was based on the Maya. I don't have a copy of Coe's book, and the only reference I have, The World's Writing Systems, suggests that Aztec script wasn't true writing. Of course, that's what they said about the Maya script before it was deciphered.butsuri wrote:I can certainly believe this, given how few documents survive, and how much progress has been made in Mayan. I can't find anything about this online, though. Is there much on the Aztec situation in this Coe book?
All too true for humans; but elcarin speech doesn't necessarily work that way. The major engine of sound change amoung humans is the desire to sound like a group one identifies with, and this drive is absent among elcari. (They have their own vices, but indulging the primate hierarchy isn't one of them.)So Haleza Grise wrote:No, of course not, but, skilled as they are, they are imperfect mortals, so they must have slowly degraded their speech over the millenia since they first learned it. Alas for this imperfect world, etc . . .zompist wrote: The earliest records show a language very much like the one we know of today. What, you think someone could improve on Khemthu-N?r's own words?
Well, the basic Verdurian response would be "Dude (zevu), of course, they're a separate species (kest), they're evil!" And this is accurate enough, since kest is a broader concept than biological species. The m?rtani live apart, look different, act different, and in general act like monsters rather than civilized beings. This is quite different from (say) the Dhekhnami, who are pretty obviously human beings, some good, some bad, like themselves.So Haleza Grise wrote:I'm a little confused about the Almeans' views on the origin of the murtani. They are considered to be a separate species, but both the Cuezians and the elcari themselves describe a time when elcari and murtani were the same. What do the Verdurians think of this? Is there much scholarly investigation of the legends?
I've added one, just for you: nupggud, meaning roughly 'forest imp'. (If you conclude that the elcari don't have a real high opinion of them, you'd be right...)What would the elcarin word for "icelan" be? They must have one, since they know of the four Thinking Kinds; but i can't find one anywhere in the lexicon.
Yes-- a bit more so, perhaps, because the elcarin settlement in the Diqun Bormai is actually larger.Thirdly, do the Xurnese, Gurdagons, southerners in general, have much contact with elcari? The Erelaeans must be priveleged that they are on the only continent where it is possible to trade goods and ideas with the elcari.
Yes, bormai is Xurnese for 'mountain range', formed from borma 'mountain' (cognate to Cu?zi ba:ruma and Verdurian parna), plus the augmentative -i.So Haleza Grise wrote:Ok, just one more question . . . and this one doesn't relate directly to Elcari; it's just something i've been wondering since the Historical Atlas came out.
Is "bormai" a Xurnese word?
And what about "Diqun"? Was it borrowed from the northen Elcari, or the southern?
Somebody's math is bad; I hope it's yours.Raphael wrote:What, they invented writing before animal husbandry?
The Atlas says that the elcari domesticated the goat around -22000 ZE (that is, 25500 years ago), and had agriculture by -20000 ZE. Elkar?l written records date back 15000 years, thus, to -11500.According to my encyclopedia CD (which is what I usually whip out when people start asking questions), animal husbandry is the "breeding, feeding, and management of animals, or livestock."Jaaaaaa wrote:what exactly is husbandry?
Looks like this is a case of a general (and originally self-explanatory) word becoming limited to one specific use as time passed.Webster's Collegiate Dictionary wrote: hus-band-ry n (14c) 1 archaic : the care of a household 2 : the control or judicious use of resources : CONSERVATION 3 a : the cultivation or production of plants and animals : AGRICULTURE b : the scientific control and management of a branch of farming and esp. of domestic animals
dh only intervocalically). That was good enough for the medievals, but somebody seems to have felt it wasn't accurate enough, and insisted on k in Verdurian translations of the Adhivro.
