Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sylvan (Language)"
From Sourcebook Wiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Do we have a statement from on high on where Sylvan fits in, so I can add it to the super-list? -[[User:Slitherrr|Slitherrr]] | Do we have a statement from on high on where Sylvan fits in, so I can add it to the super-list? -[[User:Slitherrr|Slitherrr]] | ||
: I'd say it doesn't. I don't think it's a language like we understand it, and I don't think it can impart terribly complex ideas. -gm | : I'd say it doesn't. I don't think it's a language like we understand it, and I don't think it can impart terribly complex ideas. -gm | ||
| + | :: Well, that's still a statement about how it fits in as a language. What role does it play in the world, really? Is it a mystical language universally spoken by everything nature, or is it something more complex than that? -[[User:Slitherrr|Slitherrr]] | ||
Revision as of 20:54, 16 March 2010
Do we have a statement from on high on where Sylvan fits in, so I can add it to the super-list? -Slitherrr
- I'd say it doesn't. I don't think it's a language like we understand it, and I don't think it can impart terribly complex ideas. -gm
- Well, that's still a statement about how it fits in as a language. What role does it play in the world, really? Is it a mystical language universally spoken by everything nature, or is it something more complex than that? -Slitherrr
