{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1475",
    "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": 1475,
    "subject": "Dead Languages; Literally, \"Apu-Punchau\"? and Glyphs,",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1999-04-02T08:56:58+00:00",
    "last": "1999-04-02T08:56:58+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0024-0134@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Mark Millman",
        "address": "mark_millman at hmco.com"
      },
      "date": "1999-04-02T08:56:58+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) Dead Languages; Literally, \"Apu-Punchau\"? and Glyphs,",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "On Friday 2 April 1999 at 5:47 am GMT, Mitchell A. Bailey wrote:\n[snip]\n\nUntil some points made in the recent \"Thorn\"\ndiscussions, however, it never occured to me\nto question the literal authenticity of the name\n\"Apu-Punchau\". The name is Quechua, the\ntongue of the Incas of Peru, and means roughly\n\"Lord Sun-God\". I'm not a Quechua scholar, but\nI am interested enough to own a book which\nincludes a Quechua glossary.\n\nI'm wondering if the use of Quechua is a sub-\nstitution of the same sort for some future auto-\nchthonous language, or whether Sev actually\ntraveled back in time to live among the pre-\nimperial Inca, c. 1200 AD?\n\n[snip]"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "My guess would be (and from this I'm sure that you can tell I tend\ntoward the conservative in Wolfean criticism) that your first sug-\ngestion (i.e., that Quechua is a stand-in for some post-historic\nlanguage) is the correct explanation.  If the cities of the twentieth\ncentury are vanished into dust, I think it unlikely--though I admit not\nimpossible--that any Incan city would remain to serve at the Stone\nTown.  Furthermore, if there had been an \"unscheduled\" (so to\nspeak) total solar eclipse in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, I'd\nimagine there would be some sort of record of it.  Even if Tzadkiel\nhad managed the Ship so that the eclipse were seen only in the\nWestern Hemisphere, we could expect the Maya to have recog-\nnized it as unusual and to have recorded it, though of course the\nInca or proto-Inca wouldn't have left such a record.  I suppose it's\npossible that the Ship was so located that the eclipse was strictly\nlocal, but I don't think this likely; I'd argue for greater Ship size\nand distance from Urth during the eclipse, as mantis discussed\nyesterday.\n\nIn other news, on Friday 2 April 1999 at 4:35 am GMT, Roy C. Lackey"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "wrote:\nWhile we're at it, these \"glyphs\" from \"The Tale of\nthe Rose and the Nightingale (And What Came of It)\":\n\n\"...a bent object that might be a whip, a human leg\nand a foot, a shallow cup, and a crocodile.\""
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "The story, if I recall correctly, is set in Egypt, so these could actually\nbe classical hieroglyphs and look very much as they're described,\nrather than merely being suggestive of objects, as S, T, and Mr.\nAnsley's letters (which I won't give away) are.\n\nAnd Mr. Lloyd, welcome to the list!  Your explication is an excellent\none, especially for someone like me who, ah, doesn't necessarily\nrecognize Christian themes without a little prompting.  That's not to\nsay that I agree completely (I don't see Kevin Malone as being very\nmuch the willing servant; his attitude smacks more of an assumed,\nand false, humility to me), but then on this list, who does?\n\nMark Millman"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}