"Ruori recognized Bispo Don Carlos Ermosillo, a high priest of that Esu Carito who seemed cognate with the Maurai Lesu Haristi." (p. 16)
A Maurai philosopher:
"'Aye, we draw to an end. Dying hurts. Nonetheless the forefathers were wise who in their myths made Nan coequal with Lesu. A thing which endured forever would become unendurable. Death opens a way, for peoples as well as for people.'"
-Poul Anderson, There Will Be Time (New York, 1973), XI, p. 124.
Shark-toothed Nan is the Destroyer. Bishop Ermosillo's people have retained Christianity whereas the Maurai have created a new mythology.
In Anderson's Time Patrol series, the Exaltationists rebel against a civilization that, to them, has lasted so long as to become unendurable.
(We received financial compensation for the recent loss of internet access.)
6 comments:
Enduring forever is precisely my ambition, individually and collectively... 8-). Anything that exists will change, of course.
When the Normans invaded England in 1066, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle referred to the warring parties as "the English" and the invaders as "the French" -- though the spelling was "Englisc" and "Frensisce".
English and French still around. Not exactly the same, of course!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And even a thousand years and more from now, in Anderson's Terran Empire, we still have that evolved form of English called "Anglic," and mention of planets whose inhabitants spoke Frence and Spanish, or evolved forms of those languages.
As for living or enduring forever, I believe we will, due to my belief in the immortality of the soul. But I have no objection to scientific/medical progress prolonging human life spans.
The "antisenescence" of Anderson's Technic stories enabled people to live in good health till about age 100, somewhat longer for some.
Ad astra! Sean
Note that the English of 1066 would be incomprehensible to a modern English-speaker who hadn't studied it like a second language.
Though it would be relatively easy to learn to speak.
The French of 1066 (or the Romance dialects located in France; it didn't have a standard form then) would likewise be incomprehensible, though not as much so as 1066 English.
Eg., modern French is full of silent or nearly-silent letters that influence the pronunciation of the previous syllable but aren't voiced. In 1066 they all -would- be voiced, often rather emphatically.
But people in 1066 still knew they were French, and that they were speaking French. It mattered to them rather less than being English did to the English, but that was because England was smaller and more tightly united and had been for a long time.
A while back, I wondered whether Greek Orthodox Churches read the New Testament in the untranslated original but of course not! It would be a different language from modern Greek.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not quite that sure. The WRITTEN form of first century AD Greek might not be that different from modern written Greek.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A Greek man told me that they do use a translation.
Paul.
Post a Comment