Re: Conreligion
| From: | Herman Miller <hmiller@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, November 13, 1998, 3:01 |
|---|
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:56:47 -0700, David Bush <dethyvon@...> wrote:
>Here is another aspect that might explain why some conlangs have
>natreligions. Religion is one thing we have great faith in. We accept
>it as the truth. Since it is the truth, we equate it to normal things,
>like "hammer" or "dictionary." Thus, we miss that it might not be the
>truth to the conculture of your conlang. That is what makes conlanging
>difficult: you can't take anything for granted.
Of course, the conculture doesn't necessarily have hammers or =
dictionaries,
either. Some of my languages are designed for pre-literate cultures (who
wouldn't have dictionaries because they don't have writing). It's a =
little
harder to imagine what a culture without hammers would be like, though.