daspletosaurus wrote:Having read all the books, I've noticed that a major plot point is how Merlin & Co. are having so much trouble with the fact everything in the Writ matches readily observable reality, giving them no avenues of attack. I'm having some trouble with that notion. In no particular order:
4) Etymology: If you're looking at a neartuna you just caught, you might wonder at some point "What's a tuna, anyway?" Not to mention the fact that English has morphemes from a whole bunch of languages. Basically any word for a concept more sophisticated than "turnip" probably has a Latin or Greek root.DrakBibliophile wrote:On Point 4, names like "neartuna" were given by the Archangels and without knowledge of other languages there's no reason to question the names/words created by the Archangels.
Drak I have to disagree on this. Names like neartuna, nearoak etc, just beg to be questioned. It doesn't require any knowledge of other languages, just knowledge of the word 'near', to see that these are compound names. Words/phrases like 'near-miss', 'near-thing', assuming them still to be in the language, are only going to emphasise the fact. I haven't counted them , but there are a fair few of these names and I too have thought they were one of the places where the Archangels arrogance over-reached and which ought to have caused problems sometime.
As to the Ptolemaic point, don't the appendices state that one of the orders produces the vast majority of Safehold's few astronomers? So they are likely to be under church supervision and more willing to believe that they have got their ideas or observations wrong than to doubt the Writ. It might be thread to pull on, but for the vast majority of Safeholdians you would need to educate them in the implications of the Writ first, before you could show them any problem.