Talk:Sylvan (Language): Difference between revisions

From Sourcebook Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
: 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]]
:: 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]]
::: That is an excellent question. I'll have to think on that and come back to it later.
::: (Thanks, Dr. Appier!)

Revision as of 01:55, 17 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
That is an excellent question. I'll have to think on that and come back to it later.
(Thanks, Dr. Appier!)