{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1472",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1472,
    "subject": "Dead Languages; Literally, \"Apu-Punchau\"?",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "1999-04-01T21:47:06+00:00",
    "last": "1999-04-09T22:07:05+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0024-0130@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Mitchell A. Bailey",
        "address": "mab at lindau.net"
      },
      "date": "1999-04-01T21:47:06+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Dead Languages; Literally, \"Apu-Punchau\"?",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I was hip from the first with the fact that Latin was used in BNS as a\nstand-in for some language which to Severian was \"dead\", but from our\nperspective probably has not even come into existence yet.\n\nUntil some points made in the recent \"Thorn\" discussions, however, it\nnever occured to me to question the literal authenticity of the name\n\"Apu-Punchau\". The name is Quechua, the tongue of the Incas of Peru, and\nmeans roughly \"Lord Sun-God\". I'm not a Quechua scholar, but I am\ninterested enough to own a book which includes a Quechua glossary. \n\nI'm wondering if the use of Quechua is a substitution of the same sort\nfor some future autochthonous language, or whether Sev actually traveled\nback in time to live among the pre-imperial Inca, c. 1200 AD?\n\nFor what it's worth, Chatelaine Thea thought English, a dead language\nremembered by a few scholars in her time, was amusingly ambiguous."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0025-0037@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "CRCulver",
        "address": "crculver at aol.com"
      },
      "date": "1999-04-09T22:07:05+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) Dead Languages; Literally, \"Apu-Punchau\"?",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0024-0130@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "In a message dated 4/1/99 8:23:30 PM EST, MAB at lindau.net writes:\n\n<< For what it's worth, Chatelaine Thea thought English, a dead language\n remembered by a few scholars in her time, was amusingly ambiguous. >>\n\nYes, she remarked that she didn't know how a language where \"present\" had two \nmeanings (\"now\" and \"gift\") could endure such confusion.\n\n<<I'm wondering if the use of Quechua is a substitution of the same sort\nfor some future autochthonous language, or whether Sev actually traveled\nback in time to live among the pre-imperial Inca, c. 1200 AD?>>\n\nThe events at the end of _Urth_ mystify me even after I have finished my \nthird reading of the BotNS. However, I thought it was pretty clear that Sev \ndid go to 1200 AD South America, he has spoken on the time being that of the \ndawn of man, so it was certainly pre-20th century. Regarding his eclipse, \nwasn't there an eclipse during the 13th century that was total over much of \nthe world? It rings a bell.\n\n- Christopher R. Culver <crculver at aol.com>"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}